All you did was repeat yourself as though I hadn't even responded. Your "proper language" was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!" said over and over.No. I've used the proper language. Vast difference from your attempts to bend the meaning of words, my friend.
That may be what you erroneously think I'm talking about, or what you're shifting TO in order to "save" your argument, but that's not at all what I'm referring to.Now here you go trying to change the subject, which is, may I remind you, the outside manipulation of volume for television commercials. But, because you need some schoolin'.....
The text of the bill does not limit "the rule" to "outside manipulation," and I'm referring to the original sound mixes of the commercials themselves, which, if louder than this standard, would have to be mitigated.
Of course, general government mandating of particular volume levels for broadcasters, regardless of what it is, is entirely different issue, to which I also object. I'm perfectly capable of finding the volume control if it annoys me, and I don't need the government's help.
Holy cow -- if you think the volume isn't part of the composition, you don't know a thing about music, and that's a fact . . . darlin'.Sonny Jim, I'm completely cognizant of the piece in question. You pretending otherwise won't change the fact that you're still wrong - the song in question remains the composition in question, regardless of the volume.
In other words, the musicians are playing their individual parts more vigorously and with more force in certain portions of the piece. The final recording is true to the volume increase that was intended by the composer. Changing the volume manually does not change the volume at which each of the instruments were played during the performance/recording. NOR does it change the musical piece in question.Find any recording of Bolero and the volume increases/decreases AS THE INSTRUMENTS ARE PLAYED, without anyone having to manually manipulate the volume of the technology that is reproducing the composition.
Perhaps you're trying to say that you MANUALLY increase the volume as the song plays, because your physical manipulation of the recording will somehow "improve" on the original song.
Or maybe you're trying to tell me that Ravel instructed everyone (in perpetuity) that plays a recording/reproduction of his works should manually increase the volume at bars 36-42 (or whatever)...
Seriously, man. [/QUOTE]
Right, that fits exactly with how I've been describing the analogy, to a T. Precisely. Yeah. Now who's "bending the meaning" of things?
If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up. Or is this simply, like your premature sniggering that I'd "fallen for" the word "volume," another failure of yours to read properly?