File: Ievan Polka.swf-(8.22 MB, 320x240, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)00:28 No.2263374
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)00:32 No.2263377
>no panty shot
>got a lot of the rhythmic sounds wrong
-100/10
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)01:27 No.2263424
why does the dance choreography always suck so bad on these videos.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)01:40 No.2263433
>>2263424
because neckbeards make them and neckbeards cant dance
>> [_] Cock Mongler 01/20/14(Mon)02:04 No.2263454
Jesus fuck that voice is annoying. Even the Basshunter was better.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)02:44 No.2263487
Which Vocaloid sings Ievan Polka the best?
>> [_] !FRDuoDickY 01/20/14(Mon)02:47 No.2263490
>>2263487
>Implying any other vocaloid but Luka would suit
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)02:49 No.2263493
>>2263490
As a rule of thumb, I only listen to Luka's songs if she's singing with Gumi. Did she stop being
awful at some point in time?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)02:53 No.2263495
why do people have to ruin good songs by making these tone deaf anime shits sing them
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)03:13 No.2263516
>>2263495
Come on, now. Just because the maker of this specific song was a tone-deaf ape doesn't mean that
all Vocaloid songs are bad. A lot are pretty good, in fact.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)03:40 No.2263538
>>2263516
>Vocaloid
>Anything other than shit.
Y'all faggots only like it because some marketing exec decided to slap animu girls onto their
shitty voice synthesizer.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:01 No.2263561
>>2263493
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8KyslRGhXA
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:04 No.2263563
>>2263561
I fucked up and posted a choppy one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QF8ehFw5uA
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:12 No.2263570
>>2263563
Nice try, but no. You can still hear how shit the tone is even through all of the filters.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:14 No.2263572
>>2263570
whatever man, its a song with a good beat
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:17 No.2263574
>>2263572
Yeah. Too bad the shit voice synthesizer and corny 3D animations ruin it.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:17 No.2263575
>>2263574
Corny is not a word I would use to describe animation
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:20 No.2263578
>>2263575
Choppy, overblown animations and poorly tuned toon shaders are pretty corny to me.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:28 No.2263586
>>2263578
you keep using that word wrong anon and it bothers me more than your opinion possibly could
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:31 No.2263589
>>2263586
Synonyms for corny include trite and banal.
You're a moron and stop will the "anon" bullshit. It makes you sound like a leddit faggot.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:33 No.2263590
>>2263589
anon you don't use a word based on synonyms you do it based on definitions
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:34 No.2263593
>>2263589
>>2263590
also you need a better thesaurus
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:36 No.2263594
>>2263586
Okay then. What word would you use to describe a hamfisted attempt at animation that tries to be
hip with 'u dont kno me' text speak callouts, gratuitous cat ears that don't fit the subject
material, stiff animation, and stock shaders that they didn't bother tweaking so most of the
materials look like plastic or silicon?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:36 No.2263595
>>2263590
Corny, definition: trite, banal, or mawkishly sentimental
Stop trying to sound smarter than you are.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:40 No.2263597
>>2263595
archaic : tasting strongly of malt
2
: of or relating to corn
3
: mawkishly old-fashioned : tiresomely simple and sentimental
get a better dictionary even
>>2263594
you're not talking about the animation alone man you are talking about the content of the video
itself, there's the fucking problem.
and corny is still not right as the video does not appeal to sentimentality, like a crappy family
movie would
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:41 No.2263599
>>2263590
>>2263595
Also, learn what a synonym is. It means they have the same or similar definitions.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:42 No.2263601
>>2263599
clearly you don't fucking know the definitions of the words you are using
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:43 No.2263602
>>2263597
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corny
eat your fucking heart out
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:45 No.2263604
>>2263602
yeah huh
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corny
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trite
your dictionary is shit
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:47 No.2263605
>>2263602
>>2263604
whats more you arent even reading your own dictionaries definitions right
you fucking putz
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:55 No.2263608
>>2263597
I'll let you in on a few secrets:
1) Corny does not require sentimentality. You're just picking one half of one definition and
sticking with it.
2) Animation is a blanket term for everything in a series of moving pictures. It's not as
specific as 'the text callouts in this animation', or .the 3D model movement in this animation'
but it's still valid.
3) Arguing semantics because you don't have any other rebuttal isn't going to fool many people.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:57 No.2263609
>>2263563
Back Vocaloid instead of whatever everyone else was talking about. In that song, Luka doesn't
sound as bad as she usually does, but when you have Gumi singing songs like this, it's hard to
even consider listening to Luka. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqeWsLCwFkM
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:59 No.2263610
>>2263608
1 you are as well, and your definition is still wrong
2 you're full of shit throw down your sources
3 being technicly correct is the best kind of correct
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)04:59 No.2263611
>>2263597
But "tiresomely simple and sentimental" is an accurate and valid criticism of that video's
tryhard animation and the song's theme in general. You cannot extend your argument to include use
of defintions because, unless you have forgotten, all you said was that you were bothered by his
usage of the word and considered it to be incorrect on a technical level. Not only is it correct
usage of the word, but this exact definition has me agreeing with the criticism.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:01 No.2263613
>>2263610
>i know you are but what am i
>your dumb!!!!!1!
>valid vs. sound
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:03 No.2263616
i can tell there's a shitstorm whenever something in /f/ gets more than 10-15 replies.
lol everyone's mad
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:03 No.2263617
So, to detract from whatever trite bullshit you guys are talking about, how about posting more
links to Gumi songs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F4Cmu6vF-I
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:04 No.2263618
>>2263609
Okay see, what this song is doing is trying to circumvent the issue that all Voclaoids have shit
tone by never sustaining a note and adding a loud instrumental track. However, this instead shows
off how Vocaloids also have really choppy cut-offs and throws off the dynamic balance.
>>2263610
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a person who thinks that Vocaloids make for good music. I
know this is only one data point, but if you keep looking I'm sure you'll find that it is
representational of a trend.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:05 No.2263619
>>2263616
There's been somebody shitposting all over /f/ claiming he's not impressed and it's "not good
enough." I can only assume this is the same guy, and I'm really getting sick of this uncanny
concentration of faggotry.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:06 No.2263620
>>2263613
ad homonym/10
>>2263611
how does the video attempt to evoke sentimentality? And furthermore the argument is whether or
not the word corny is appropriate to describe animation or at least the animation in that video.
>>2263618
how did you reach that conclusion?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:08 No.2263622
>>2263616
I'm not mad. I'm just an insomniac who wants to talk about Gumi.
>>2263618
Alright, what about this one? I've been told before that it's musically horrid, but IA seems to
have pretty good tone in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p0iGKrLt54
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:09 No.2263623
>>2263620
You don't even know what an argument from ad hominem is, given your nonsensical use of the term.
This is a pseudo-intellectual xkcd reader from Reddit, calling it now.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:10 No.2263625
>>2263623
the lack of any attempt to respond and instead resorting to defamation
thats pretty shit man
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:14 No.2263627
>>2263625
>>2263623
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Abusive
but then we're both reasonably guilty of ad homonym
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:18 No.2263630
>>2263622
This one is mostly bad because of the standard Vocaloid tone issues, plus the voice lines are
flat out glitchy on some of the more complicated phrases. Other than that, the instrumental track
is well done and the animation is definitely done by an amateur, but it relies on minimalism to
make up for it and it works. It is a bit too repetitive, but the lyrics make up for it.
To be honest,
>>2263617
is the best tone I've heard out of a Voicaloid and actually makes it into the OK range. I find
myself wishing that it would do more with some lines. Really let the voice go nuts and be the
star, but I don't think that the synthesizer can handle it.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:22 No.2263631
>>2263625
>>2263627
That isn't anywhere near what it means. Don't infer the meaning based on how other people use it.
An argument from ad hominem is an argument containing a logical fallacy wherein a person
presenting an argument is attacked rather than the argument they had presented. This isn't
logical because it has absolutely no impact on the argument whatsoever. A fallacy is a flaw in
the logic of an argument. It isn't an "incorrect arguing tactic," it's a potential inaccuracy in
whatever line of logic your counter-argument follows.
Your incorrect use of it is all sorts of fallacious, but it is used to discredit any sort of
opposition you perceive as "too harsh" or "not agreeing with you enough." You aren't attacking my
position when you say that. You're attacking me. That's the ad hominem fallacy.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:24 No.2263633
>>2263618
Vocaloid CAN sound good. People have this weird idea in their mind of what Vocaloids are supposed
to sound like, though, and don't bother to try and make them sound human.
>>2263620
>i'm so emo waaaaaaaaaaah
That's the sentiment being presented by the visuals and lyrics. It's very heavy-handed and
obvious. It lacks subtlety and isn't very well delivered. It's corny, even if only to me.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:27 No.2263636
>>2263630
I've already accepted that I have shit taste, but hearing that one of my favourite Gumi songs
isn't bad is kind of reassuring. What about this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S_7KGJfuvY
>>2263633
Completely unrelated to anything you were saying, really. I just felt like sharing another song
and "emo" made me think "depressing," so now have this song. https://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=oIQqGdfdR8Y
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:29 No.2263637
>>2263631
>An argument from ad hominem is an argument containing a logical fallacy wherein a person
presenting an argument is attacked rather than the argument they had presented
>i know you are but what am i
>your dumb!!!!!1!
>valid vs. sound
you dont consider that an attack?
>>2263633
>It's corny, even if only to me.
well shit man, I hardly pay attention to lyrics myself so I didn't really pick that up. but that
aside all you had to do was say something to indicate it was your opinion and I would have
totally ignored it.
Corny really isn't a good word for it though man, cheesy and corny is how you describe a
hallmakrk feel good movie.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:33 No.2263640
>>2263633
Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself there. It sounded OK, but it still pretty obvious that
everything in this song was built around supporting the Vocaloid. I'm talking about matching the
tone and style to make it sound in place, even if it meant screwing up the instrumental track.
But that consideration is what makes it better than all the other vocaloid songs I've heard.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:37 No.2263641
>>2263637
I'm not even the same guy. It was his opinion as well. He stated quite clearly that it was corny.
You got on his shit because you decided that his use of the word was incorrect. You proceeded to
get offended when he and others defended the point. You got defensive and started insulting
rather than presenting any evidence to support your claims. I called you out on this in the form
of greentext, writing out what you seemed to really be saying, as follows:
1 you are as well, and your definition is still wrong
>i know you are but what am i
2 you're full of shit throw down your sources
>your dumb!!!!!1!
3 being technicly correct is the best kind of correct
>valid vs. sound
cont.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:39 No.2263643
>>2263637
I'm assuming you don't know much about logic or argumentation and are new to 4chan, thus don't
really know much about how greentext is used. Otherwise I would think you would pick up on the
clear criticism of your "technically correct logic." As I said, there is a difference between a
valid argument and a sound one. A valid argument is one that is completely true within the
context of the claims made to support it. Dogs are faggots -> faggots smell like burning rubber =
dogs smell like burning rubber. That's valid, or "technically correct." A sound argument is
similar except that the claims made are verifiable and true. It has no holes. It is correct.
cont.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:40 No.2263644
>>2263637
As I said when I corrected you on your use of ad hominem AND when you criticized the other poster
for simply stating his opinion and defending it, you are the one doing the attacking. I tried to
put what you had said in perspective by showing it to you a second time. You reacted very
defensively. This should have told you right away that you'd made a mistake, since I literally
repeated the logic behind your fallacious argument in a reply to it and you couldn't help but
correct me.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:41 No.2263645
>>2263636
This is another case where I can hear how much the artist is trying to cover up the Vocaloid's
tone. They've found the sweet spot where the Vocaloid doesn't sustain a note long enough for the
tone issues to become obvious but it still cuts off alright and to top it off they've made the
instrumental track a little too loud and made sure to have an instrument playing alongside the
synthesizer whenever it does hold a note.
That said, it's also an OK song. But like the other one I just feel like it's a shame that
compensating for a voice synthesizer is holding a talented artist back.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:41 No.2263647
>>2263641
>>2263643
>>2263644
tl;dr
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:45 No.2263648
>>2263647
>i don't have to cite my definitions, just believe me that you're wrong
>you still have to, though
>stop making fun of me you bully, that's ad hominem !!
>god you're so retarded, bully, why can't you come up with a good argument? because your parents
dropped you on your head?
>no stop posting i don't want to argue with anybody!
>i have to get the last word though
>words are hard, i don't want to read, even if i wrote it myself!
Case closed, folks. Move along.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:46 No.2263650
>>2263648
I ain't got time to read a wall of text full op opinions and deconstruct it, got better things to
do
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:48 No.2263651
>>2263650
>opinions
>deconstructing an opinion
Yeah, I'm not your dad. I shouldn't have to teach you what these words actually mean. I guess I
just won't.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:48 No.2263652
>>2263650
Yet you just spent an hour and a half arguing on the internet.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:49 No.2263653
>>2263652
About Vocaloid.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:50 No.2263654
>>2263651
>a wall of text full op opinions
>deconstruct it
get some reading comprehension anon
>>2263652
theres always time for arguments
this is 4chan after all
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:52 No.2263656
>>2263654
>that post containing "opinions" being the foremost error pointed out
Get some reading comprehension, anon.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/20/14(Mon)05:54 No.2263657
>>2263656
>wall of text not the subject
Anon, pelase.
