Music Appreciation
Scott Lurowist
because it would be too much for me to respond to all the things I
want to respond to without putting it into single thought. If that
makes sense.
But first some perspective....
I'm very left brain. It's why I went to college to become an engineer.
I HAVE to know how things work down to the most minute gory details. I
like to solve technical problems, and get paid well to do just that. I
like how a well written mathematical proof looks on paper, and how the
drama of it unfolds. I consider that "art" as well. Advanced Calculus
books give me a Ninja boner. I consider Steven Hawking's "A Brief
History of Time" or "The Tao of Physics" light but infomative reading.
I could go on and on but you get the point. But I still know how to
party !!! (10 points)
But I do have a bit of a right brain. I LIKE music sometimes, but I
don't love it. Last year I got sick of it. It all sounded the same and
everything I was listening to was soooooooo negative. Whatever
happened to simple boy likes girl tunes ? I think only the Foo
Fighters sing about that stuff nowadays. Then I heard Wooden Smoke...
So music can appeal to me the way Wade describes. The simplicity and
the sound of Wooden Smoke put my mind in a certain space that was
pleasing. I can't really summon the words to describe that state. So I
can appreciate it on that level.
Then I listen to something like "The Black Page" or the end of "Day of
the Cow" and get caught up in the mathematics of the rhythms. Music
can appeal to me on that level as well. Since my left brain is the
bigger part of my brain, this kind of music almost always appealed to
me more than stuff like Wooden Smoke.
Then I listen to something like KISS. IF they were a new band coming
out today, I probably wouldn't give them a second thought. But I still
dig them !!! Why ? Because they were my Beatles (I can hear the hisses
and fists pounding with that one :-) ). Listening to KISS takes me
back to a certain time in my life that I don't mind visiting on
occasion. Sometimes I hear certain 80's tunes that I used to hate, but
they now put a smile on my face.
What is my point ? The common theme with the examples I described
above is that "good music" is any music that inspires and evokes a
desireable response from the listener. Those triggers and those
responses differ from person to person. That's why we can't agree on
certain artists. As one gains more life experience, the pool of those
triggers and responses hopefully get bigger. It's certainly been he
case for me.
So that explains why I can't listen to something like NIN anymore. I
don't like the responses I feel when listening to them. But I totally
dig Trent Reznor on a technical level. Wooden Smoke and Kind of Blue
now act as "negativity sponges" for me. Throwing those albums on suck
the anger and cynicism and negativity out of me, even though I can't
tell you why, and I kind of like it that way. But I can tell you that
I like Bach because I like the way those lines moving around each
other sounds. Something like that appeals to both sides of my brain.
Then someone like Dougie can tell you exactly what Pat Metheny is
doing on a tecnical level. Nothing wrong with that, but most people
don't have that kind of knowledge. I know I don't nor do I have the
time to acquire it. Apparently Wade doesn't either. Perhaps
unbeknownst to Dougie, Pat is appealing to certain aspects of his left
brain ? This point however begs a new question; should an artist dumb
down to his/her artist, or is the responsibility of the audience to
elevate their knowledge ? Or is there a happy level between the two
extremes ?
And to this day, nobody has told me why I HAVE to like music and be as
passionate about it as some of you are. as I previosuly described, my
passions lie mostly in the sciences. And I'm more passionate about
film than I am music. Some people here, and I don't say this
pejoratively, are downright militant about music. "How dare you NOT
like Pat Metheny !?!?!?!" How dare you like Britney Spears !!!" "I'll
send Ninjas to your house if you put that Celine Dion CD on !!!" Some
dude (Dave O ?) got angry with me when I let it be known that I had
lost interest in music last year. Why is music so much more revered
than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
so much more special than those art forms ?
So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in my opinion, there
is no such absolute truth as good music. I like the way a well tuned
Chevy muscle car engine sounds. To me, that's good music. Somebody
might have a 5 year old who is learning to play the piano and is awful
and has no chance for talent. But that music takes on special meaning
for that parent and it's good to them. And Pat Metheny might be doing
the coolest music theory things ever dreamed of, but is it listenable
? But then Mike Keneally makes Wooden Smoke, which I guess is tame by
music theory standards. I don't think we can all agree on a objective
set of criteria by which to judge music. This is art, not product
reliablity. And other than just for the fun of it, I find the idea of
debating what music is good and what isn't silly. All you can do is
try to explain to someone else why you like something or why you
don't.
To quote my favorite news personality, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
Scott Lurowist
Explain to me why we're always so condescending
to our younger selfs. We should be looking back in
awe of who we were. All that passion, all that fire,
all those dreams and then it fades and people say
"Oh well its all part of growing up." I think that's tragic.
-Edward J. Stevens
David Wilcher
"Scott Lurowist" <toryho...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:eaec70d5.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Why is music so much more revered
> than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
> so much more special than those art forms ?
I think it's because music is not physical. Yes, the act of playing music
is physical, but that's not music. A painting or sculpture can be touched.
Dancing comes a little closer - once the performance is over, the art
is gone. But music seems more ethereal. Closer to an emotion.
dave
Tim McCormley
news:eaec70d5.02021...@posting.google.com...
> pejoratively, are downright militant about music. "How dare you NOT
> like Pat Metheny !?!?!?!" How dare you like Britney Spears !!!" "I'll
> send Ninjas to your house if you put that Celine Dion CD on !!!" Some
> dude (Dave O ?) got angry with me when I let it be known that I had
> lost interest in music last year. Why is music so much more revered
> than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
> so much more special than those art forms ?
to the appreciation and love of music. (Well, not exactly. I suppose it's
really dedicated
to the appreciation and love of MK's music, but I think we're beyond that
now...) Should you be surprised that most of the
people here are fanatical about music? (Imagine the response you might get
if you went to an NRA
newsgroup and blandly noted that the amendment protecting the "Right to Bear
Arms" is
overrated.) Anyway, there's no law dictating the "love of music." People
just seem to like it more than
synchronized swimming. Check back in a couple hundred years and it might be
different.
>I don't think we can all agree on a objective
> set of criteria by which to judge music.
Seems reasonable. Of course, that applies to anything that requires
judgement: What's the best car? Who's the greatest baseball player?
What's the best mathematical proof? It doesn't matter (to me, anyway) if we
ever agree on anything, we simply
enjoy the discussion.
>This is art, not product
> reliablity. And other than just for the fun of it, I find the idea of
> debating what music is good and what isn't silly.
Remember the forum you're in. This place is all about music: appreciating
it, debating it, sharing it, etc. I know people
that find religious and/or political debates silly. Whatever floats your
boat.
> To quote my favorite news personality, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
Scott, you're not wrong, but it seems a little strange to me that you would
wonder why everyone
around here is so hung up on music. This is a gathering place for people
who are hung up on music.
Tim
Tom Yost
Lurowist) wrote:
>I decided to make a new thread inspired by the whole Metheny debate,
>because it would be too much for me to respond to all the things I
>want to respond to without putting it into single thought. If that
>makes sense.
>
>But first some perspective....
>
>I'm very left brain. It's why I went to college to become an engineer.
>I HAVE to know how things work down to the most minute gory details...
>
>
>But I do have a bit of a right brain. I LIKE music sometimes,...
>
'Splain why only a half step between B and C, or E and F ?
Tom
(engineer trying to learn music at age 46)
Tom Yost
Good points, well stated Scott.
I'm from Ohio. All I can say is: "I don't know art, but I know what I
like."
Tom
Brian Bernardini
<t...@gSePsApMac.com> wrote:
>
> 'Splain why only a half step between B and C, or E and F ?
It's all math. Check out the book "Temperament", which explains why we
use the tuning we do.
-Brian
http://www.newkings.com
Remove the BUGGEROFF from my address to reply.
MichaelPierry
<< And to this day, nobody has told me why I HAVE to like music and be as
passionate about it as some of you are. as I previosuly described, my
passions lie mostly in the sciences. And I'm more passionate about
film than I am music. Some people here, and I don't say this
pejoratively, are downright militant about music. "How dare you NOT
like Pat Metheny !?!?!?!" How dare you like Britney Spears !!!" "I'll
send Ninjas to your house if you put that Celine Dion CD on !!!" Some
dude (Dave O ?) got angry with me when I let it be known that I had
lost interest in music last year. Why is music so much more revered
than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
so much more special than those art forms ? >>
Must I quote Shakespeare at you?
"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, strategems and spoils
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music."
--The Merchant of Venice, V, i, 83-87
I've got the greatest literary mind in the Western tradition on my side. You
don't fuck with the Bard, mmkay?
I don't think we can find objective criteria for determing the quality of a
piece of music. We can develop certain guidelines, but these are bound to be
extensions of our own personal prejudices and tastes. That being said...
Personally, I'm very prejudiced when it comes to music. I don't consider what
Britney Spears does to be music at all. I consider it a form of advertising.
I think Aristotle would agree with me. Aristotle would classify a thing
according to its final cause (i.e. its ultimate purpose). The final cause of
Britney is to make money, whereas the final cause of music is... something
else, which we can for now call "entertainment." The ultimate purpose of
Britney Spears is NOT to entertain anyone. If you are entertained by Britney
Spears, that's only a means to an end. I'll share an anecdote to help
illustrate my point: the other day, I was talking to a girl in class who
couldn't get a Britney Spears song out of her head. She said that she had
bought Britney's first album because of this same phenomenon, she had one song
stuck in her head. She bought the album and listened to it once and now it
sits on her shelf. It's not that she was enjoying the song that was stuck in
her head, it was just "so catchy" she couldn't stop singing it. I ask you, is
that a form of entertainment or is it musical brainwashing? Well, we can all
decide these things for ourselves. For myself, I think that pop music is
coldly calculated to be as "catchy" as possible, without any thought toward
actual emotion or anything that makes music good. Britney Spears' music is
like all the "natural" and "artificial" "flavors" that chemical engineers
manufacture in New Jersey to put in all our food nowadays. Have you ever been
eating some type of junkfood for a while and you suddenly think, "This isn't
really that good, why the hell can't I stop eating?" I think it's the same
type of thing.
Well, whatever. Poop.
--
Pierry
J. D. Mack
>Britney Spears does to be music at all. I consider it a form of advertising.
>
>I think Aristotle would agree with me. Aristotle would classify a thing
>according to its final cause (i.e. its ultimate purpose). The final cause of
>Britney is to make money, whereas the final cause of music is... something
>else, which we can for now call "entertainment."
These two things are not mutually exclusive. Capitol Records poured a lot of
money into promoting The Beatles' first American album. In fact, everything
surrounding The Beatles in 1964 was "make as much as we can while the gettin's
good." Big Bucks was the sole motivating factor in their rise to fame. And
yet, somehow, some really good music was made. "Meet The Beatles" may not be
my favorite album, but I can still enjoy it (or "With The Beatles) 38 years
later.
I'm no fan of Britney Spears, but it is not impossible that the organization
known as "Britney Spears" will produce some songs of lasting value. They may
have already, but I doubt many of us have taken the time to actually listen to
the album. I was recently forced to listen to the new 'N Sync album
"Celebrity" recently (it's a long story), and while the lyrics and melodies
drove me batty, I was impressed with the production on the backing tracks.
There may be a future with that group as Justin Timberlake reaches adulthood
and starts to take more control over their recordings. The Monkees and Madonna
are two other examples that come to mind of marketing hype machines that
actually cut a few good tunes.
I really should be working right now!
J. D.
Antal Adriaanse
AA
Tim McCormley
news:20020215140012...@mb-cr.aol.com...
>
> I've got the greatest literary mind in the Western tradition on my side.
You
> don't fuck with the Bard, mmkay?
E. Lee, Slayer of Miscreants and
President of the United States: "Music is stupid." (I'm paraphrasing)
My guy would wipe the floor with your wussified, court appointed pencil
pusher.
> Personally, I'm very prejudiced when it comes to music.
Yep.
Tim
Adrian Clark
> I think it's because music is not physical. Yes, the act of playing music
> is physical, but that's not music. A painting or sculpture can be touched.
> Dancing comes a little closer - once the performance is over, the art
> is gone. But music seems more ethereal. Closer to an emotion.
Also, it's unlike (a lot of) painting, sculpture and even dancing in
that it's totally abstract. Although there's abstract painting and
sculpture (especially since the invention of photography as a way of
recording memories) for much of its history, art has been figurative,
*of* something. If you're trying to represent a landscape in music,
there's no "realism", and no varying shades of abstraction - it's all
abstract.
Adrian
--
|| www. | www. | www. ||
|| spaghetti-factory | mp3.com/ | mp3.com/ ||
|| .co.uk | spaghettifactory/ | spaghetti96/ ||
Scott Lurowist
> Don't forget that you happen to be posting these ideas in a forum dedicated
> to the appreciation and love of music. (Well, not exactly. I suppose it's
> really dedicated
> to the appreciation and love of MK's music, but I think we're beyond that
> now...) Should you be surprised that most of the
> people here are fanatical about music?
Not at all. That wasn't my point, nor was I passing any kind of
judgement on anybody, nor was I saying that being fanatical about
music is a bad thing. My bad for not making that clear.
All I was trying to say in a long winded way was that music can be
enjoyed on many levels. Not everybody will enjoy music on the same
level. And for some people music is just wallpaper in their lives. We
are going to like things, or not like things, based on our life
experience. And I tried to give some examples to back that up.
> >I don't think we can all agree on a objective
> > set of criteria by which to judge music.
> Seems reasonable. Of course, that applies to anything that requires
> judgement: What's the best car? Who's the greatest baseball player?
> What's the best mathematical proof? It doesn't matter (to me, anyway) if we
> ever agree on anything, we simply
> enjoy the discussion.
But you can say things like what the safest car is with some degree of
confidence. Yes, there will be disagreement, but I think it's easier
to come up with a set of standards that everyone can agree to.
> Remember the forum you're in. This place is all about music: appreciating
> it, debating it, sharing it, etc. I know people
> that find religious and/or political debates silly. Whatever floats your
> boat.
But I didn't say silly was a bad thing !!! I thing Monty Python is
silly and I love that show to death. I did not say that people should
not debate what is good music. My whole point with that statement was
that at best arguing about music is an exercise in rhetoric. Kind of
like what my post was meant to be. :-)
Yay for silly !!!
>
> > To quote my favorite news personality, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
> Scott, you're not wrong, but it seems a little strange to me that you would
> wonder why everyone
> around here is so hung up on music.
I'm not wondering why everyone here is so hung up on music. I never
said that. What I was trying to say is that people here shouldn't be
hung up on the fact that for some people, music is just wallpaper for
their lifes.
> This is a gathering place for people
> who are hung up on music.
Yay for that.
Scott Lurowist
Scott Lurowist
You understood my post Tom !!!
Scott Lurowist
David Wilcher
"Adrian Clark" <spag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f7nnrz.x8577kacrmx1N%spag...@hotmail.com...
> David Wilcher <dwil...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's because music is not physical. Yes, the act of playing
music
> > is physical, but that's not music. A painting or sculpture can be
touched.
> > Dancing comes a little closer - once the performance is over, the art
> > is gone. But music seems more ethereal. Closer to an emotion.
>
> Also, it's unlike (a lot of) painting, sculpture and even dancing in
> that it's totally abstract. Although there's abstract painting and
> sculpture (especially since the invention of photography as a way of
> recording memories) for much of its history, art has been figurative,
> *of* something. If you're trying to represent a landscape in music,
> there's no "realism", and no varying shades of abstraction - it's all
> abstract.
That's even closer to what I meant to convey.. Well said.
dave
Doug Boucher
> Then someone like Dougie can tell you exactly what Pat Metheny is
> doing on a tecnical level.
No I can't.
> Perhaps
> unbeknownst to Dougie, Pat is appealing to certain aspects of his left
> brain ?
Well, I know it is, but that's not really the point. I don't look at it that
way anyway, because I don't divide shit up like that. Or I try not to,
anyway. If I wanted to divide it up like that, I'd say it was appealing to
"both" sides, whatever that means. I think the whole left brain/ right
brain, intellect/emotion debate is a waste of time because I see all those
things as being one thing. Which I guess is my answer to what me and Wade
were talking about. I think Wade doesn't give his intellect enough credit
when he says there's a "Gone Fishin'" sign on it. Wade's too fucking funny
to not have an interesting mind, even if it's not an "intellectual" thing.
There's a lot of stuff that is supposedly really stupid that I think is
pretty damn intelligent. Watch Spinal Tap lately? Those motherfuckers are
pretty smart to come up with stuff that stupid. Like I said, fuck Plato.
You know what I think half the time when I'm listening to Metheny? "Damn,
this is beautiful." I can go back and contemplate certain aspects of what's
happening, but that's really not why I'm listening to it. It's PART of why
I'm listening to it, but it's all one thing. That alone is a fairly boring
reason to listen to something if that's all there is. Shit, I like AC/DC if
I'm in the mood for that kind of thing. Is that music not at all about
"intellect"? I guess not, but it's also too funny to be merely stupid, so I
like it.
> And to this day, nobody has told me why I HAVE to like music and be as
> passionate about it as some of you are.
You don't.
> Some people here, and I don't say this
> pejoratively, are downright militant about music. "How dare you NOT
> like Pat Metheny !?!?!?!" How dare you like Britney Spears !!!"
Who said that? Why should I care who likes or doesn't like something? Who
the fuck am I to even bother worrying about that? I was responding to a
criticism that I feel is unfair and superficial and addressed that. I
couldn't care less whether anybody *likes* the stuff, because that's none of
my business. I just thought that particular *reason* was highly
questionable. And it seems to me that the vast majority of discussions that
happen here are the same way - people talk about why they do or don't like
something, not about the fact that they do or don't like it. That would be a
boring converstaion, wouldn't it?
"I like this."
"I don't like it."
"Well, I like it, so lick my sphincter."
"I don't like it, and you're ugly and stupid."
"I don't like your hair."
"I like my hair. Your hair sucks."
No logic or reason, just a bunch of stupid shit. Who gives a fuck?
> Why is music so much more revered
> than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
> so much more special than those art forms ?
What makes anything more special than anything else? People like what the
like. Some people like cupcakes better. I, for one, care less for them. Now
if I said "Whoever made these cupcakes was a fucking idiot and didn't use
the right ingredients" then somebody else has every right to say "Bullshit.
The guy who made them did this that and the other thing and mixed these
together that way and let's see you do better you cupcake-fascist bastard."
That would be kinda silly, but it beats "These cupcakes suck." "No they
don't." "Yes they do." I mean, how Monty Python can you get? Well, we had
the crunchy/creamy peanut butter debate, but I thought that was pretty
funny. And anyway, anyone who doesn't like their eggs cooked into an
omelette with cheese and a few hot peppers is a rotten communist asshole.
Nyah!
>All you can do is
> try to explain to someone else why you like something or why you
> don't.
Which is what we're doing here, right? There's something to be said for
debating the reasons why. You learn shit that way. I learn stuff all the
time from you freaks. I like that. The actual "I like this" or "I don't like
that" isn't important, because as you say, that's the subjective shit that's
not worth arguing.
Did that make any sense whatsoever? Probably not. I'm going to go practice
now.
Dougie
Snow Lizard
>And to this day, nobody has told me why I HAVE to like music and be as
>passionate about it as some of you are.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't.
>Why is music so much more revered
>than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
>so much more special than those art forms ?
Actually, the men's sinchronized swimming feature on Saturday Night
Live featuring Martin Short changed my life....
I also belive that it's gotta be somewhat relative to who you're
talking to. Perhaps there are those who dig ballet more than music,
but even those things are connected, unless you're talking about that
*silent ballet* stuff....
>So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in my opinion, there
>is no such absolute truth as good music.
I would indirectly infer from Packard Goose that truth is not music.
Truth is half boolean, whereas western music is largely based on 12
tone patterns through 8 octaves, excluding things like tone, feel,
etc... There's more range involved. Home of the Brave by Laurie
Anderson summed it up quite well.
>Pat Metheny might be doing
>the coolest music theory things ever dreamed of, but is it listenable
>?
To whom?
> But then Mike Keneally makes Wooden Smoke, which I guess is tame by
>music theory standards.
Again, relative to what? Personally, I think Wooden Smoke is
appreciable on many levels. If I concentrate on such things, I find
the album very rewarding on a technical level. At the same time, I'm
sure as heck no benchmark opinionado, and I know no music theory to
speak of. If I don't concentrate on things like "Wow, that was an
amazing flail" or "Gee whizz, this album is a breakthrough in
production quality", it doesn't matter to me, because it all seems to
flow really nice, regardless. I guess what I'm trying to say is I like
it.
>I don't think we can all agree on a objective
>set of criteria by which to judge music. This is art, not product
>reliablity. And other than just for the fun of it, I find the idea of
>debating what music is good and what isn't silly. All you can do is
>try to explain to someone else why you like something or why you
>don't.
Nevertheless, the final opinions of "I like this" or "I don't like
this" are an essential part of what makes me decide what to listen to.
Different people will judge by their own criteria. Some people really
enjoy the act of dancing, and don't have the mathematical aptitude to
dance to T'Mershi Duween or The Black Page or Ionisation or The Brown
Triangles. Perhaps they have an easier time with something like
Britney Spears. I don't hold it against them.
I don't have a problem with any of the products the music industry
creates, for the most part. One of my very biggest pet peeves,
however, (and it really pisses me off) is that anything that seems to
get "The Big Push" within this industry resides in a cripplingly
narrow band of what's available. Art seems to get reduced to
marketing. Every now and then, I'll play something cool for someone
(whether they have a musical background or not - it doesn't matter)
and get the comment "Wow, I never knew that music like that existed".
It just don't seem fair, ya know?
Interesting discussion, though.
SL
Snow Lizard
>"I like this."
>"I don't like it."
>"Well, I like it, so lick my sphincter."
>"I don't like it, and you're ugly and stupid."
>"I don't like your hair."
>"I like my hair. Your hair sucks."
>
>No logic or reason, just a bunch of stupid shit. Who gives a fuck?
>
I think what you're describing here is much of the rest of usenet!
Again, thanks be given for the minds collected in here. :-)
SL
Andrew Jones
> I'm very left brain.
I have no idea about my sides of my brain. Whenever I hear left brain
this, right brain that, I tend to think of Americans in therapy.
(Which, I admit is my problem, not yours)
>Advanced Calculus books give me a Ninja boner.
This is a new phrase to me! But lets not dwell on this.. please, let's
not dwell on this...
> So music can appeal to me the way Wade describes. The simplicity and
> the sound of Wooden Smoke put my mind in a certain space that was
> pleasing. I can't really summon the words to describe that state. So I
> can appreciate it on that level.
What I really appreciate about Wooden Smoke is the openness of emotion
and the complete lack of concern about what is "cool" in terms of
expression. I've just been watching the fine DVD of Ghost World and I
can really relate to the characters sense of dislocation, alienation,
obsession and feelings of superority over others because your taste is
"cooler". But, and its a bit but, this can really limit your growth as
a human being if your detached irony prevents you from enjoying the
immediate here and now for what it is. Or appreciating someone for
what they are, as opposed to what you think they should be.
And my point is? Um.. I'm still working on that- talk to me to me in
twenty years.
> Then I listen to something like KISS. IF they were a new band coming
> out today, I probably wouldn't give them a second thought. But I still
> dig them !!! Why ? Because they were my Beatles (I can hear the hisses
> and fists pounding with that one :-) ). Listening to KISS takes me
> back to a certain time in my life that I don't mind visiting on
> occasion. Sometimes I hear certain 80's tunes that I used to hate, but
> they now put a smile on my face.
Possibly the most profound piece of music criticism I've come across
was taking a lift back in the early nineties by good friend Eve. It
struck me so deeply I can remember where we were in the traffic at the
time. Simply she said, the music industry fails to appreciate how
music can mean to people, by relating it back to points in their
lives. The example she used was "Stay with me til dawn" by Judy Tzuke,
which I suppose reminds many women of virginity loss. Thus music that
might be trivial might trigger off many deep feelings.
>
> . "How dare you NOT
> like Pat Metheny !?!?!?!" How dare you like Britney Spears !!!" "I'll
> send Ninjas to your house if you put that Celine Dion CD on !!!" Some
> dude (Dave O ?) got angry with me when I let it be known that I had
> lost interest in music last year. Why is music so much more revered
> than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
> so much more special than those art forms ?
I'm not going to defend Britney Spears, but.... if you expect music to
be trivial background music, then that's all you going to appreciate,
by the by. And we all "use" for certain things- sometimes agressive
music to try to get deal with the anger we have at that moment in time
(well hopefully, you can also make things worse), other times to music
to relax you- take you elsewhere spiritualy- yet other times music to
get you going. That isn't necessarily appreciating music as "art" but
its a valid form of listening.
Am I making sense? If I'm not making sense, am I communicating the
confusion accurately?
> To quote my favorite news personality, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
"Tell me you love me?"
Andrew
MichaelPierry
>Hah! Let's hear from U.S. Grant, Victor of Vicksburg, >Champion over Robert
>E. Lee, Slayer of Miscreants and
>President of the United States: "Music is stupid." >(I'm paraphrasing)
>My guy would wipe the floor with your wussified, >court appointed pencil
> pusher.
Hmm, let's see... Ulysses Grant, pawn in the struggle between the Industrial
Bigwigs of the North versus the Agrarian Big Wigs of the South...
vs.
Shakespeare... reshaped the entirety of Western culture... invented thousands
of new words... possibly re-invented what it means to be human.
Also, Shakespeare was NOT court-appointed and he wasn't a pencil-pusher. He
was a self-made man. He was an actor and a playwright from a lower-middle
class background (he was a country boy and his dad was a leatherworker). A few
times he received payment for presenting plays to the Queen at court, but he
wasn't appointed by anyone. The theater was dangerous and controversial in
Elizabethan England. Sometimes playwrights were accused of heresy or treason;
sometimes they were tortured or killed. Actors were occasionally murdered by
one another onstage during a death scene.
Anyway, my point is, Shakespeare was, if nothing else, precisely *not* what you
accuse him of being. He was a self-made man, and his works have enjoyed 400
years of continous popularity. A not-unpopular opinion is that he was simply
the greatest writer *ever.* Has anyone held the opinion that your General was
the greatest *anything*?
Sorry, but you are talking to an English major here. I have to defend my man.
Even if you were just trying to mess with my head. ;)
--
Pierry
MichaelPierry
>Simply she said, the music industry fails to >appreciate how
>music can mean to people, by relating it back to >points in their
>lives. The example she used was "Stay with me til >dawn" by Judy Tzuke,
>which I suppose reminds many women of virginity >loss. Thus music that
>might be trivial might trigger off many deep >feelings.
Sure, but so can certain smells, places, people... anything really. If a
certain song reminds you of losing your virginity, I mean, that's your problem.
Doesn't have anything to do with what's inherent in the music itself.
--
Pierry (god I feel like such a poopyhead today! sorry, folks, i can't help
myself!)
Ron Spiegelhalter
>
> Shakespeare... reshaped the entirety of Western culture...
Pretty much.
> invented thousands of new words...
No doubt about that.
> possibly re-invented what it means to be human.
:-|
ron
Tim McCormley
> Also, Shakespeare was NOT court-appointed and he wasn't a pencil-pusher.
He
> was a self-made man. He was an actor and a playwright from a lower-middle
> class background (he was a country boy and his dad was a leatherworker).
A few
> times he received payment for presenting plays to the Queen at court, but
he
> wasn't appointed by anyone.
Uh, I forget...just what was my point?
>Has anyone held the opinion that your General was
> the greatest *anything*?
1) Greatest waster of American lives.
2) Greatest failed businessman.
3) Greatest cigar smoker.
4) Greatest drunken general.
5) Greatest drunken president.
6) Greatest author of surrender terms.
-"Unconditional Surrender" Grant...U.S. Grant...GET IT?!??!?
7) Greatest failed presidency.
The list goes on and on...
> Even if you were just trying to mess with my head. ;)
I don't know about you, but I've been pretty bored lately.
Tim
Tim McCormley
> Pierry (god I feel like such a poopyhead today! sorry, folks, i can't
help
> myself!)
If you can't be a poopyhead around here, just where can you be a poopyhead?
Tim "I can't stop thinking about that Ninja site." McCormley
Claude Kuhnen
news:Pcab8.51697$Hu6.13...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
Well said, may I add that I don't know of any other form of art that
brings people together like music does?
Can you imagine a party where everybody is going crazy about a picture
by Man Ray or a painting by Rene Magritte? Did you ever hear of
alt.arts.picasso? (I have to admit there's alt.arts.ballet and I'm
reading it now.)
But there's more differences, to name a few:
You can't take a painting with you when you're travelling,
you can't take the ballerina home with you to examine her tricks a
little further,
and to me there's no other form of art that can give me the deep
satisfaction as a well-written song or a great solo.
Claude
Andrew Jones
> Sure, but so can certain smells, places, people... anything really. If a
> certain song reminds you of losing your virginity, I mean, that's your problem.
> Doesn't have anything to do with what's inherent in the music itself.
Well, anybody who appreciates art ascribes meanings and depth to work
which the creator didn't intend. And if the creator has a "problem"
with that, then maybe they shouldn't put their work on public show.
After all define "inherency" in art. Seriously. There's rarely
motivating "reason" especially in the amount it time it takes to
finish a piece of work from starting it.
There are two parts to communication through art- the art itself (and
to a certain extent the publicity around that art)and the audience.
Both parties bring preconceptions, and those preconceptions are
important and valid.
Are you telling me you bring nothing to the music you listen to?; the
books you read? the Annie Sprinkle shows you watch?
Of course you do! And is that a problem? Nope.
Andrew
Andrew Jones
> Shakespeare... reshaped the entirety of Western culture... invented thousands
> of new words... possibly re-invented what it means to be human.
Ok, Willie boy is cetainly important in terms of English language
culture, but Western culture is way, way wider than just the English
language. And just because the vast majority of English mother tongue
speakers are ignorent of other western cultures does not excuse this
cultural putsch by Mikey boy here.
>
> Also, Shakespeare was NOT court-appointed and he wasn't a pencil-pusher. He
> was a self-made man. He was an actor and a playwright from a lower-middle
> class background (he was a country boy and his dad was a leatherworker). A few
> times he received payment for presenting plays to the Queen at court, but he
> wasn't appointed by anyone. The theater was dangerous and controversial in
> Elizabethan England. Sometimes playwrights were accused of heresy or treason;
> sometimes they were tortured or killed. Actors were occasionally murdered by
> one another onstage during a death scene.
He also toed the Tudor line in his historical plays and he was anti-
Welsh, so let's not overdo the "it was so dangerous to him" line. And
it is Owain Glyndwr not Owen Glendower, damnit!
> Sorry, but you are talking to an English major here.
Well if we were speaking to an English graduate we'd be saying "large
fries, plain hamburger and medium Coke", wouldn't we?
Andrew
Scott Lurowist
>
> Hmm, let's see... Ulysses Grant, pawn in the struggle between the Industrial
> Bigwigs of the North versus the Agrarian Big Wigs of the South...
>
And helping to end slavery in America is trivial compared to writing plays ?
More ammo for my "Arrogance of the Arts" theory, soon to be published. :-)
> Sorry, but you are talking to an English major here. I have to defend my man.
> Even if you were just trying to mess with my head. ;)
I don't have a beef with Shakespeare. :-)
Scott Lurowist
Explain to me why we're always so condescending
to our younger selfs. We should be looking back in
awe of who we were. All that passion, all that fire,
all those dreams and then it fades and people say
"Oh well its all part of growing up." I think that's tragic.
-Edward J. Stevens
Scott Lurowist
> Scott gets an "F" in music appreciation class:
I give myself an A for content, but B for presentation.
> Must I quote Shakespeare at you?
>
> "The man that hath no music in himself,
> Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
> Is fit for treasons, strategems and spoils
> And his affections dark as Erebus.
> Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music."
> --The Merchant of Venice, V, i, 83-87
Yeah, I've heard this a million times but I don't buy it. But I think
anybody who is passionate about any topic cold rewrite this to say:
"The man that hath no FOO in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of FOO,
Is fit for treasons, strategems and spoils
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the FOO."
Let FOO represent the subject you are passionate about.
> Aristotle would classify a thing
> according to its final cause (i.e. its ultimate purpose). The final cause of
> Britney is to make money, whereas the final cause of music is... something
> else, which we can for now call "entertainment."
Biologically speaking, once we reproduce we are ready for the scrap
heap because we have achieved our ultimate purpose. So yes Dougie,
your work on this planet is finally done. :-)
As for making money, you are still in college. Wait till you finally
have to put food on the table for yourself. :-)
> It's not that she was enjoying the song that was stuck in
> her head, it was just "so catchy" she couldn't stop singing it. I ask you, is
> that a form of entertainment or is it musical brainwashing?
I thought "potato" was catchy. Was Mike brainwashing me ? I find some
XTC tunes to be catchy, but XTC is deemed to have integrity.
> Well, we can all
> decide these things for ourselves. For myself, I think that pop music is
> coldly calculated to be as "catchy" as possible, without any thought toward
> actual emotion or anything that makes music good.
I'm sure everyone here is aware that Mozart and the likes wrote music
for Kings, to satisfy their likes. Zappa himself has said that
"classical music" is perhaps the most commercial music ever written.
And for me, it's also some of the most beautiful.
I'm reminded of that scene in Amadeus when the King comes backstage.
He told Mozart that he liked the music but that there was "too many
notes." TO which Mozart replied "which notes should I take out" or
something like that.
That being said, I will agree that some people write stuff strictly to
sell records.
> Have you ever been
> eating some type of junkfood for a while and you suddenly think, "This isn't
> really that good, why the hell can't I stop eating?"
Because it tastes good ? Isn't that Aristotle's ultimate purpose at
work ?
I'm going to high five myself for that one. ;-)
You did make me chew on your ideas for a night Mike, so I enjoyed your
post.
Scott Lurowist
Explain to me why we're always so condescending
to our younger selfs. We should be looking back in
awe of who we were. All that passion, all that fire,
all those dreams and then it fades and people say
"Oh well its all part of growing up." I think that's tragic.
-Edward J. Stevens
>
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Tom Yost" <t...@gSePsApMac.com> wrote
> 'Splain why only a half step between B and C, or E and F ?
None other than that's the labeling system we use to identify those notes,
the notes themselves simply could not exist any other way, any note between
what we've named "B" & what we've named "C" would be discordant as hell.
ftss
Jon
"Scott Lurowist" <toryho...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:eaec70d5.02021...@posting.google.com...
> anybody who is passionate about any topic cold rewrite this to say:
>
> "The man that hath no FOO in himself,
> Nor is not mov'd with concord of FOO,
> Is fit for treasons, strategems and spoils
> And his affections dark as Erebus.
> Let no such man be trusted. Mark the FOO."
>
> Let FOO represent the subject you are passionate about.
>
Since we are quoting stuff .. let me share on of my favorite quotes about
music .. which sums up one of the reasons I love music so much:
Musick is a tonick to the saddened soul, a Roaring Meg against Melancholy,
to rear and revive the languishing soul, affecting not only the ears, but
the very arteries, the vital and animal spirits; it erects the mind, and
makes it nimble.
- Robert Burton
-jon
fearthesmeenusimmons
Michael Pierry got it all wrong:
> Hmm, let's see... Ulysses Grant, pawn in the struggle between the
Industrial
> Bigwigs of the North versus the Agrarian Big Wigs of the South...
That is so not true...Nothing in World History has ever been more important
than the American Civil War, even the Holocaust is a tie...the basic
principle of both is the protection of human dignity, not that human
degradation were erased by either but at least it doesn't happen by the
support of law...If Grant was a pawn, & it's possible he was, then he was a
pawn of the greater right of humanity, Lincoln himself would also be so.
Grant was not a great man, he wasn't even a great general. But he knew how
to beat Lee, something no-one else had figured out how to do, & is the one
man most responsible for winning the war to abolish slavery. Talk about
re-shaping western culture...
ftss
Jon
news:R2yb8.14853$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
To western ears.
-jon
Doug Boucher
slavery. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was only about slavery got
spoon-fed the wrong shit in history class.
"fearthesmeenusimmons" <fearthesme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nJyb8.14924$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jeremy Fox
They can be expressed by the ratio of the frequencies of any two notes. The
more complex the ratio, the more dissonant the interval. Therefore, the
tritone is the most dissonant interval, followed by the minor second. The
octave, followed by the perfect fifth are the most consonant intervals.
The system of equal temperment, however, is a western invention.
Here's a really good URL that explains a lot on one little page.
http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/~courses/319/Notes/PitchAndTemperment.html
-Jeremy
"Jon" <joy...@SPAM.loop.com> wrote in message
news:u6tem44...@corp.supernews.com...
Hagrinas Mivali
"Scott Lurowist" <toryho...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:eaec70d5.02021...@posting.google.com...
> than something like Ballet or synchronized swimming ? What makes music
> so much more special than those art forms ?
>
me started! If you don't like ballet, you have no soul.
> So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in my opinion, there
> is no such absolute truth as good music.
There is for me. And there is for other people. But you are right. These
are not absolutes and shouldn't be.
Hagrinas Mivali
"Adrian Clark" <spag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f7nnrz.x8577kacrmx1N%spag...@hotmail.com...
>
> > I think it's because music is not physical. Yes, the act of playing
music
> > is physical, but that's not music. A painting or sculpture can be
touched.
> > Dancing comes a little closer - once the performance is over, the art
> > is gone. But music seems more ethereal. Closer to an emotion.
>
> Also, it's unlike (a lot of) painting, sculpture and even dancing in
> that it's totally abstract. Although there's abstract painting and
> sculpture (especially since the invention of photography as a way of
> recording memories) for much of its history, art has been figurative,
> *of* something. If you're trying to represent a landscape in music,
> there's no "realism", and no varying shades of abstraction - it's all
> abstract.
>
Not when you incorporate singing. Music is there until the piece ends. Art
is there until you turn away. They all stimulate the senses and they are
all supposed to get a reaction of some sort. They all have critics. They
can all be abstract or very specific. And there are plenty of tone deaf
people who love paintings.
You can listen to music and have no emotion (except hoping to hell you won't
be on hold much longer) or see a painting and get aroused to the point that
your heart speeds up and things stick out of you. Goosebumps.
I don't think it's fair to say that in general music is different from these
other art forms in those ways. But as far as how it hits any specific
person these things can all be true.
Hagrinas Mivali
"Claude Kuhnen" <cku...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a4l0tm$8h0$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> "David Wilcher" <dwil...@woh.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:Pcab8.51697$Hu6.13...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
>
> by Man Ray or a painting by Rene Magritte?
Yes I can.
> Did you ever hear of
> alt.arts.picasso? (I have to admit there's alt.arts.ballet and I'm
> reading it now.)
I doubt there's a shortage of places to discuss Picasso.
>
> But there's more differences, to name a few:
> You can't take a painting with you when you're travelling,
> you can't take the ballerina home with you to examine her tricks a
> little further,
I can't take the Mike Keneally Band home with me. I can invite them, but
they may not come. I can invite a ballerina home to examine her tricks too.
But she won't come either.
I can take an art book with me when I travel. I can take a tape of
Keneally. I can watch a video of a ballet and step through the frames,
analyzing it in far more detail than I ever could live.
But a tape is not the same as a live concert where I feel the vibe, see the
vibe, and am surrounded by an experience that doesn't turn off with a knob.
The tape is as far removed from reality as my art book that I read on the
train or the video that I watch at home.
>
>
> and to me there's no other form of art that can give me the deep
> satisfaction as a well-written song or a great solo.
>
But the ballerina would not feel the same satisfaction playing a song as she
felt the day she got accepted to a good ballet company and danced the part
of her dreams. She'll still be jumping up and down about it screaming and
crying a week later. Do your solos do that?
Hagrinas Mivali
> "Tim McCormley" <roc...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<uHbb8.9489
> But you can say things like what the safest car is with some degree of
> confidence. Yes, there will be disagreement, but I think it's easier
> to come up with a set of standards that everyone can agree to.
>
As somebody who worked in that industry for years, I can tell you why you
should have no confidence in anybody who says that with a degree of
confidence.
Cars don't kill people. People kill people.
Hagrinas Mivali
"Tom Yost" <t...@gSePsApMac.com> wrote in message
news:3mkq6ugv04uoh4tsq...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Feb 2002 07:16:34 -0800, toryho...@mailandnews.com (Scott
> Lurowist) wrote:
>
> >I decided to make a new thread inspired by the whole Metheny debate,
> >because it would be too much for me to respond to all the things I
> >want to respond to without putting it into single thought. If that
> >makes sense.
> >
> >But first some perspective....
> >
> >I'm very left brain. It's why I went to college to become an engineer.
> >I HAVE to know how things work down to the most minute gory details...
> >
> >
> >But I do have a bit of a right brain. I LIKE music sometimes,...
> >
>
> 'Splain why only a half step between B and C, or E and F ?
>
>
Because there's no black key between them on the piano?
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Doug Boucher" <dNOboucherFRICKIN'@cinci.SPAMrr.com> wrote in message
news:Ckzb8.52932$Hu6.14...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> I know some southerners who would debate this topic. I'm not talking about
> slavery. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was only about slavery got
> spoon-fed the wrong shit in history class.
I am aware that there were other issues that were debated, but the Slavery
issue was the catylist. It had been the point of contention since the
Compromise of 1820, & the simple fact is without the election of Lincoln,
who was viewed as a radical abolitionist in the South but is fact originally
only meant to prevent the further spread of slavery, Secession doesn't occur
in 1861 (although I believe it would have happened eventually). Even Lincoln
declared the war to be about the Union, not slavery. To paraphrase: "If I
could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could
save the Union by freeing *none* of the slaves, I would do it, & If I could
free some of the slaves & not others to save the union, I would also do
that." The South belived it was fighting for "States Rights" & against the
tyranny of the North, but the real issue was slavery.
End history rant, sorry, I'm kind of a buff...Yay music!
ftss
Michael J Ventura
Which is what I'm equipped with (20 Points)
My brother also just made an interesting point - I could really only have
one Western ear - the other would be Eastern, until I moved. But that's
beside the (cardinal) point...
mike v
Wade B.
Scott Lurowist wrote:
> I don't have a beef with Shakespeare. :-)
I had a shake with Beefspeare once.
Hmmmm. "Beefspeare". I think I just found me a new nickname for me parts.
--
Wade B.
Hamfat!
Hagrinas Mivali
>
> Even Lincoln
> declared the war to be about the Union, not slavery. To paraphrase: "If I
> could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could
> save the Union by freeing *none* of the slaves, I would do it, & If I
could
> free some of the slaves & not others to save the union, I would also do
> that." The South belived it was fighting for "States Rights" & against the
> tyranny of the North, but the real issue was slavery.
>
But that's misleading. It was a necessary and very political statement for
Lincoln because he did not want to lose support among certain elements.
Although he said that if he could save the union without freeing slaves, he
would do it, that did not mean that he would not try to free the slaves
later or that he didn't believe in the cause. Despite the lines we heard
about Honest Abe, the man was a politician and a good one. This quote needs
to be studied within the context of everything that Lincoln was doing at the
time and all that was going on.
Antal Adriaanse
> That is so not true...Nothing in World History has ever been more
important
> than the American Civil War, even the Holocaust is a tie...
You are kidding, right?
AA
Bruce Anderson
"Doug Boucher" <dNOboucherFRICKIN'@cinci.SPAMrr.com> wrote:
> Anyone who thinks the Civil War was only about slavery got
> spoon-fed the wrong shit in history class.
It was also about pudding! Sweet, creamy pudding...oh, I how I love thee!
Ah...nevermind.
B.
--
"Ne...norina yo... watashi wa anata no uma"
- The Yellow Money "Love Love Show"
Bruce Anderson
"Hagrinas Mivali" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And there are plenty of tone deaf people who love paintings.
Is there such a thing as "art deaf"?
> You can listen to music and have no emotion (except hoping to hell you won't
> be on hold much longer) or see a painting and get aroused to the point that
> your heart speeds up and things stick out of you. Goosebumps.
I've never seen a painting/objet d'art/whatever and been stimulated.
99.99% of that which people call 'art' I call a waste of time. Am I
defective?
Music...ah, music. A fairly wise guy once said, "music is the best".
Gotta agree with that.
Adrian Clark
> I don't have a problem with any of the products the music industry
> creates, for the most part. One of my very biggest pet peeves,
> however, (and it really pisses me off) is that anything that seems to
> get "The Big Push" within this industry resides in a cripplingly
> narrow band of what's available.
You just summed up what I said in a rambling, unstructured post which I
eventually trashed. If people want to listen to Britney or Hear'Say,
great... but the bad bit is that an ever powerful
entertainment/advertising/marketing industry is telling them that
they've made the correct and *only* choice.
adrian
--
|| www. | www. | www. ||
|| spaghetti-factory | mp3.com/ | mp3.com/ ||
|| .co.uk | spaghettifactory/ | spaghetti96/ ||
Bruce Anderson
"Hagrinas Mivali" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There are actually people who don't like synchronized swimming ? Don't get
> me started! If you don't like ballet, you have no soul.
Call me soulless, then, because I don't. OTOH, a symphony can move me to
tears.
> > So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in my opinion, there
> > is no such absolute truth as good music.
>
> There is for me. And there is for other people. But you are right. These
> are not absolutes and shouldn't be.
Well, I have personal goods and bads. I won't listen to top 40 music,
except under duress. It's all generic garbage and filth. Ask a
14-year-old, though, and she'll tell you how "deep" Third Eye Blind are
and how much she LOVES their stuff. She'd recoil in fear at what I'm
listening to right now - Praxis _Metatron_ "Armed".
It's entirely subjective. I have my absolutes, as do we all.
Doug Boucher
>The South belived it was fighting for "States Rights" & against the
> tyranny of the North, but the real issue was slavery.
It's been a long time since I was into this stuff (I was actually a
History/Political Science major in college until I woke up one day and
realized how utterly dismal my life would be if I actually did anyhting with
that shit) and I won't bother going into detail because I'm sure I'll fuck
it up, but that's quite debatable. Not that slavery wasn't a big issue.
So, uh, Pat Metheny sucks?
Dougie
Adrian Clark
> Not when you incorporate singing.
Hmmm... when I wrote my original post, I wasn't sure whether to mention
singing. Lyrics do indeed add non-abstract elements to music.
> Music is there until the piece ends. Art
> is there until you turn away.
Well, you can leave the concert hall or turn off the CD player.
> You can listen to music and have no emotion (except hoping to hell you won't
> be on hold much longer) or see a painting and get aroused to the point that
> your heart speeds up and things stick out of you. Goosebumps.
I can get those goosebumps from music, too (it's happened frequently).
And on several occasions, I've stared at paintings, only being able to
admire the technique involved, but nothing else.
>
> I don't think it's fair to say that in general music is different from these
> other art forms in those ways. But as far as how it hits any specific
> person these things can all be true.
Yes, they're all variable in terms of abstract/figurative, but I think
visual art has less of a history of abstraction than music (and I'm
talking specifically about the music, not including interpretive dance
or lyrics). What's great, though, is that art forms can so easily be
combined... dance can add visual meaning to music; music can emphasise
the visual meaning of film, etc...
Adrian
Andrew Jones
and their civil war
>winning the war to abolish slavery. Talk about
> re-shaping western culture...
> ftss
Ahem.
Might I remind you that the British Empire had abolished slavery a
good twenty years earlier than the American Civil War? Did that fail
to reshape "Western Culture"?
(Not that I have much respect for British Imperialism you understand)
Andrew
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Antal Adriaanse" <antal...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:a4mnmn$k20$2...@news.hccnet.nl...
I wasn't kidding, but I didn't phrase what I meant very well.
I'm saying that the principle of slavery, it's violation of human dignity,
is a tie. Not necessarily the sheer numbers, or the murderous turn that the
Nazi's attempted enslavement of the "Untermensch" took during the war. But
the dehumanization aspect of 19th century enslavement is equal to the
*principle* of the early policies of the 3d Reich. The holocaust was worse,
of course.
I hope that makes more sense...
ftss
Ron Spiegelhalter
>
> Since we are quoting stuff .. let me share on of my favorite quotes about
> music .. which sums up one of the reasons I love music so much:
>
> Musick is a tonick to the saddened soul, a Roaring Meg against Melancholy,
> to rear and revive the languishing soul, affecting not only the ears, but
> the very arteries, the vital and animal spirits; it erects the mind, and
> makes it nimble.
>
> - Robert Burton
And of course, let us not forget...
"Music...makes the people...come together..."
gag now,
ron
Ron Spiegelhalter
desperate need of an enema?
just checking,
ron
Ron Spiegelhalter
>
> I've never seen a painting/objet d'art/whatever and been stimulated.
> 99.99% of that which people call 'art' I call a waste of time. Am I
> defective?
>
> Music...ah, music. A fairly wise guy once said, "music is the best".
>
> Gotta agree with that.
I hate to tell ya this, but 99.99% of music is a waste of time too.
i know...it's only 0.01% worthwhile, but i like it...
ron
David Wilcher
"Hagrinas Mivali" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c6ec83d$0$17356$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> I can invite a ballerina home to examine her tricks too.
> But she won't come either.
There are books you can read that will help. If that fails,
there are devices you can use.
Good luck,
dave
David Wilcher
"Wade B." <bue...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C6E977A...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Scott Lurowist wrote:
>
> > I don't have a beef with Shakespeare. :-)
>
> I had a shake with Beefspeare once.
>
> Hmmmm. "Beefspeare". I think I just found me a new nickname for me parts.
Captain Beefspeare and his Magic Hamfat band? Pig Snout Replica?
Hamfat and Bulbous?
dave
Jeremy Fox
> I'm saying that the principle of slavery, it's violation of human dignity,
> is a tie. Not necessarily the sheer numbers, or the murderous turn that
the
> Nazi's attempted enslavement of the "Untermensch" took during the war. But
> the dehumanization aspect of 19th century enslavement is equal to the
> *principle* of the early policies of the 3d Reich. The holocaust was
worse,
> of course.
Death camps, experimental operations, and G-d knows what else is not the
same thing as enslavement. Oh, there was enslavement as well. The Jews and
other victims were forced to labor to keep running the very thing that was
killing them. Forget numbers; the Holocaust was not attempted enslavement.
It was attempted genocide.
-Jeremy
Bruce Anderson
"David Wilcher" <dwil...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Pig Snout Replica?
Thank you for the best laugh I've had in a few days. That was just what
I needed!
Whee!
B.
np Simply Red "Holdin' Back the Years"
Bruce Anderson
"Ron Spiegelhalter" <r...@mktrading.orgASM> wrote:
> I hate to tell ya this, but 99.99% of music is a waste of time too.
>
> i know...it's only 0.01% worthwhile, but i like it...
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Still...I'd rather have that .01% of music
that moves me over that .01% of art. I'm sticking with the music.
Bruce Anderson
"Doug Boucher" <dNOboucherFRICKIN'@cinci.SPAMrr.com> wrote:
> So, uh, Pat Metheny sucks?
"Zero Tolerance" was pretty cool, and I REALLY dig "Beyond the Missouri
Sky" but I've never really been able to get into the guy's music. He
seems too much like Kenny G (though I REALISE he's NOTHING like Kenny!
Honest! Put down the soprano sax, Dougie!) for my tastes.
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Jeremy Fox" <yirm....@antispam.tiferet.com> wrote
> Death camps, experimental operations, and G-d knows what else is not the
> same thing as enslavement. Oh, there was enslavement as well. The Jews
and
> other victims were forced to labor to keep running the very thing that was
> killing them. Forget numbers; the Holocaust was not attempted
enslavement.
> It was attempted genocide.
It was intended originally as an enslavement, as stated in Mein Kampf (I
don't even like to type those words), the original sick, twisted idea was
that the "Untermensch" would be the servants of the "master race", the
genocide began to take shape after the Nazis were faced with the
impracticality of enslaving such enormous numbers of people, the Death camps
didn't come into being until about '41, a couple of years into the war & 8
years after Hitler's coming to power. The genocide idea evolved as the war
progressed & Nazis came to believe in their own invincibility.
ftss
TAPKAE
>> Pig Snout Replica?
Careful...you're treading on my territory...
E
-- gettin' piggy wit it
Jeremy Fox
My point is that the Holocaust was not mere enslavement, as you are
obviously aware.
-Jeremy
"fearthesmeenusimmons" <fearthesme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pAGb8.16173$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Jeremy Fox" <yirm....@antispam.tiferet.com>
> And that changes what actually happened and what was attempted in what
way?
> My point is that the Holocaust was not mere enslavement, as you are
> obviously aware.
My original point was that the *principle* of the enslavement of Africans in
the 19th century was equal to the *principle* of the original idea of the
Nazi enslavement of what they described as "Untermensch", the Jews & Slavs
of Europe. The Holocaust obviously went beyond that to a murderous degree.
Ready to drop this part of the thread...
ftss
Jeremy Fox
appreciate your further explanation as it could be misunderstood by others,
myself included.
-Jeremy
"fearthesmeenusimmons" <fearthesme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R5Hb8.16266$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Snow Lizard
>You just summed up what I said in a rambling, unstructured post which I
>eventually trashed. If people want to listen to Britney or Hear'Say,
>great... but the bad bit is that an ever powerful
>entertainment/advertising/marketing industry is telling them that
>they've made the correct and *only* choice.
>
Yeah, that's one point to throw into the pile. Actually, I really had
to think about my answer, and I'm sure I was only able to get a small
piece of it. Scott asks these brain thumper questions once in a while
that make you think. Hopefully the incredibly stupid elements of my
post weren't taken as anything else; there's no dig against Scott, or
TCLMP or anything.
The big picture I get from it is that you can establish criteria to
evaluate stuff. How to run a factory, or buy a home, or sell a VCR, or
whatever. Sometimes, the criteria will change to suit what you want.
Do you need ultra expensive audiophile speakers, or are you pinching
75 bucks out of your paycheque on friday? You can adjust the criteria
to suit the situation easily.
Extend that idea of ordered discipline to music. Is it possible to
establish criteria for determining what music is *good*? To a degree,
yes, but I don't think it could ever match every person, or every
situation. It's gotta be an art for journalists to describe music.
It gets to the point with some people (and there are many such people
in here, I think) that the criteria for why a particular thing is
*good* is going to change from one mood to another, or one artist to
another - one song to another, whatever. Music becomes as
individualistic as what people look like. So again, can you establish
criteria? Sure, why not? But, it's never going to match every
situation. An ISO 9000 Standard for music appreciation is impossible.
I think. (?)
SL
Claude Kuhnen
news:3c6ec83d$0$17356$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> "Claude Kuhnen" <cku...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:a4l0tm$8h0$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "David Wilcher" <dwil...@woh.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pcab8.51697$Hu6.13...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > Can you imagine a party where everybody is going crazy about a
picture
> > by Man Ray or a painting by Rene Magritte?
>
> Yes I can.
>
OK but did you ever experience it? Is there any art form that sets the
vibe for a gathering as much as music?
> > Did you ever hear of
> > alt.arts.picasso? (I have to admit there's alt.arts.ballet and I'm
> > reading it now.)
>
> I doubt there's a shortage of places to discuss Picasso.
There's only a shortage if people want to discuss it and find no forum
for it.
I'd say the fact that watching paintings is not such a mass phenomenon
as listening to music has to do with .
>
> >
> > But there's more differences, to name a few:
> > You can't take a painting with you when you're travelling,
> > you can't take the ballerina home with you to examine her tricks a
> > little further,
>
> I can't take the Mike Keneally Band home with me. I can invite them,
but
> they may not come. I can invite a ballerina home to examine her
tricks too.
> But she won't come either.
Right, but there's CDs - we talk about music in general, not about
concerts.
>
> I can take an art book with me when I travel.
art books are just a documentation of the art itself. While there are
good ones, it is just not the same as going to a museum since
a) the format is limited
b) it is only 2 dimensional
c) there's no college girls in the book - clearly a part of the
experience
d) your shoes don't make that screeching sound
> I can take a tape of
> Keneally. I can watch a video of a ballet and step through the
frames,
> analyzing it in far more detail than I ever could live.
good point.
>
> But a tape is not the same as a live concert where I feel the vibe,
see the
> vibe, and am surrounded by an experience that doesn't turn off with a
knob.
> The tape is as far removed from reality as my art book that I read on
the
> train or the video that I watch at home.
>
as I said I thought about music in general and records are the way most
of the people enjoy it.
>
> >
> >
> > and to me there's no other form of art that can give me the deep
> > satisfaction as a well-written song or a great solo.
> >
>
> But the ballerina would not feel the same satisfaction playing a song
as she
> felt the day she got accepted to a good ballet company and danced the
part
> of her dreams.
which takes the perspective of the performing artist, that's ok but I
looked at it from a more passive situation. If you take the "performers"
part of view, we can include hockey players, politicians and everybody
who is doing stuff in public. Part of my job is designing booths for
fairs and exhibitions. People might like it but they'll never experience
10% of the satisfaction I get when looking at it.
> She'll still be jumping up and down about it screaming and
> crying a week later. Do your solos do that?
>
Solos don't do anything, they're the product. I don't know how it feels
like to play a great solo, I play very, very little guitar but I
remember playing at parties almost 10 years ago and it still gives me
"ninja boners" - not because of the musical qualitiy - I have to add -
but for a dozen other reasons.
I'm just recovering from a party - did I make myselef clear?
Claude
Claude Kuhnen
Newsbeitrag
news:nJyb8.14924$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> That is so not true...Nothing in World History has ever been more
important
> than the American Civil War, even the Holocaust is a tie...
part of me want's to comment this, part of me wants to think for another
day before writing anything.
Fact is, if you'd say that in public in germany you might be in trouble.
To compare the biggest mass killings in the history of mankind with the
civil war would probably destroy your career as a journalist or
politician.
thinking,
Claude
fearthesmeenusimmons
I misspoke, Claude...see the rest of the thread...
ftss
Hagrinas Mivali
"Bruce Anderson" <skullbubb...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:skullbubblesNOSPAM-E...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <3c6ec550$0$17344$45be...@newscene.com>,
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And there are plenty of tone deaf people who love paintings.
>
> Is there such a thing as "art deaf"?
There are people who can't tell a Picasso from a Rembrant no matter how hard
you try to teach them.
The phrase should be "art blind."
Hagrinas Mivali
"Adrian Clark" <spag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f7q3rk.1y751mm4ynv3sN%spag...@hotmail.com...
> Hagrinas Mivali <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, they're all variable in terms of abstract/figurative, but I think
> visual art has less of a history of abstraction than music (and I'm
> talking specifically about the music, not including interpretive dance
> or lyrics). What's great, though, is that art forms can so easily be
> combined... dance can add visual meaning to music; music can emphasise
> the visual meaning of film, etc...
>
>
Visual arts are an abstraction by definition. While it's less true of
sculpture, the very notion of using a two dimensional medium to represent
three dimensional objects is so far beyond the comprehension of almost all
species that the product is unfathomably abstract. It's just that we are
intelligent and we are used to it.
Try showing a political cartoon of George Bush to a housecat. It doesn't
smell like him. It doesn't look like him. He's not flat and made of black
lines. The two are so far apart that there is no possible way to mistake one
for another. It's an abstraction. A painting is much further removed from
a live view of a person than a recording of singing is from a live singer.
But the whole idea of using spoken language in the first place to represent
tangible concepts is an abstraction on par with anything.
Saying that one is more abstract than the other is like comparing apples and
oranges.
Hagrinas Mivali
As Jeremy pointed out, that's not very relevant.
History is not a contest. These are two separate events that had nothing to
do with each other. If we say that the holocaust was worse, that does not
somehow mean that slavery wasn't every bit as bad as it was. But it was a
different event and comparing the two to see which was worse doesn't help
anybody understand either.
The numbers do count, but only in the right context. If somebody you know
dies, one death is enough. Six million is a lot, but that number means
little to students. They are nameless and faceless in most lessons. Early
Americans did not set out to destroy blacks. Still, what they did was
inexcusable and unquestionably an enormity. Hitler did set out to kill
every Jew in the world. Whether it was his original intent or not is
irrelevant. Out of 11 million Jews in Europe, he killed 6 million. That's
a lot closer to Hitler's "success" than most people realize. And as with
slavery, it had nothing to do with the people's actions, views, or anything
else they did, despite what the oppressors may have said. Judaism in
European countries as it existed back then has been destroyed. It will
never recover. In countries like Poland, 91% were killed. When the war
ended, they did not suddenly become welcome. There will never again be a
thriving Jewish community there. Jewish areas and populations in other
European countries dropped as well and have not recovered. Slavery left in
its wake over a century of racism, murders, lynchings, theft of land and
life and other atrocities that have not yet gone away.
These days when we see a cross burned on somebody's lawn or a synagogue
vandalized with spray paint, that's nothing compared to what happened in the
past. The difference is that now both groups will get support from an
outraged community while in the past the community not only did not care but
was indifferent or hostile to their plight. And that's what the events have
in common. They both represented a complete breakdown in human conscience
by large groups of people with respect to another. But they happened in
very different ways.
fearthesmeenusimmons
"Hagrinas Mivali" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote
The difference is that now both groups will get support from an
> outraged community while in the past the community not only did not care
but
> was indifferent or hostile to their plight. And that's what the events
have
> in common. They both represented a complete breakdown in human conscience
> by large groups of people with respect to another
This was the crux of my admittedly botched point.
ftss
Antal Adriaanse
>
> "Antal Adriaanse" wrote ...
> > fearthesmeenusimmons schreef ...
> >
> > > That is so not true...Nothing in World History has ever been more
> > > important than the American Civil War, even the Holocaust is a tie...
> >
> > You are kidding, right?
>
> I wasn't kidding, but I didn't phrase what I meant very well.
>
> I'm saying that the principle of slavery, it's violation of human dignity,
> is a tie. Not necessarily the sheer numbers, or the murderous turn that
the
> Nazi's attempted enslavement of the "Untermensch" took during the war. But
> the dehumanization aspect of 19th century enslavement is equal to the
> *principle* of the early policies of the 3d Reich. The holocaust was
worse,
> of course.
My point wasn't that the Holocaust was more important (although especially
for Europeans it is). I just don't think that the American Civil War was
_that_ important. To Americans maybe, but for example the Chinese couldn't
care less about either the American Civil War or the Holocaust. Same goes
for the people in Rwanda, Kashmir, or Cambodia. By the way, in a country
like
Sudan slavery still exists.
End of thread for me.
--
Antal
______________________
e-mail: an...@cidanka.nl
in 't wild website: http://www.intwild.nl/english
the mk tour chronology: http://www.cidanka.nl/keneally/
Antal Adriaanse
> There are people who can't tell a Picasso from a Rembrant no matter how
hard
> you try to teach them.
Actually, there are people who can't tell one Rembrandt from another.
Bruce Anderson
I DO like, which DOES move me. Art Deco, and to a lesser degree, Art
Nouveau (and in architecture, Arts & Crafts) are what I like. Especially
type from those styles.
Anyone else into Deco?
Hagrinas Mivali
"Antal Adriaanse" <antal...@hotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:a4p3hh$qe8$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> Hagrinas Mivali schreef ...
>
> > There are people who can't tell a Picasso from a Rembrant no matter how
> hard
> > you try to teach them.
>
> Actually, there are people who can't tell one Rembrandt from another.
>
>
those who can't tell his paintings apart? (I spelled Rembrandt right this
time! Yay!)
Or do you mean people like me who say Rikesmuseum and don't know how to
spell it?
A.Adriaanse
> Do you mean people who can't tell Fred Rembrandt from Joe Rembrandt, or
> those who can't tell his paintings apart? (I spelled Rembrandt right this
> time! Yay!)
>
> Or do you mean people like me who say Rikesmuseum and don't know how to
> spell it?
Three times affirmative.
AA
(ps it's Rijksmuseum)
Adrian Clark
> But the whole idea of using spoken language in the first place to represent
> tangible concepts is an abstraction on par with anything.
Indeed - which leads us (on the
>
> Saying that one is more abstract than the other is like comparing apples and
> oranges.
--
|| www. | www. | www. ||
|| spaghetti-factory | mp3.com/ | mp3.com/ ||
|| .co.uk | spaghettifactory/ | spaghetti96/ ||
Adrian Clark
> Extend that idea of ordered discipline to music. Is it possible to
> establish criteria for determining what music is *good*? To a degree,
> yes, but I don't think it could ever match every person, or every
> situation.
And that's where i think the big-money advermarketainment (yup, I just
made that up) businesses disagree with both of us - they seem to see
music as a product, which can be linked with movies, T-shirts,
sportswear brands and (as a catch-all for all of the above) lifestyles.
Design that lifestyle to the *ideal* of a particular demographic group,
and you can design everything that goes with it... the trainers,
t-shirts and body-piercings, obviously, but also the music.
That's a very negative view of the world, I know. But thinking like that
about the "other stuff" seems to make all my favourite music sound even
better!
Adrian
Adrian Clark
> A painting is much further removed from
> a live view of a person than a recording of singing is from a live singer.
> But the whole idea of using spoken language in the first place to represent
> tangible concepts is an abstraction on par with anything.
Mmmm... I think "abstraction" is probably the wrong word for what I'm
trying to say. Maybe "depiction" is better. Rather than saying music is
more abstract than a painting, I'll say it's less a *depiction* of
anything. Sculpture, paintings and dance are often used to depict
something real (a sculpture in 3D, a painting in 2D, a dance in a
stylised imitation of movement). Music (with rare exceptions) is
generally not used in this way.
Adrian Clark
> Hagrinas Mivali <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the whole idea of using spoken language in the first place to represent
> > tangible concepts is an abstraction on par with anything.
>
> Indeed - which leads us (on the
> >
> > Saying that one is more abstract than the other is like comparing apples and
> > oranges.
Ignore that... dunno what happened there!
Adrian
Hagrinas Mivali
> Hagrinas Mivali <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A painting is much further removed from
> > a live view of a person than a recording of singing is from a live
singer.
> > But the whole idea of using spoken language in the first place to
represent
> > tangible concepts is an abstraction on par with anything.
>
> Mmmm... I think "abstraction" is probably the wrong word for what I'm
> trying to say. Maybe "depiction" is better. Rather than saying music is
> more abstract than a painting, I'll say it's less a *depiction* of
> anything. Sculpture, paintings and dance are often used to depict
> something real (a sculpture in 3D, a painting in 2D, a dance in a
> stylised imitation of movement). Music (with rare exceptions) is
> generally not used in this way.
>
>
If you don't count lyrics, it's definitely true compared to something like
sculpture. I think the word depiction might help, although it still might
not be the perfect word. A novel that converts an experience to words on a
flat page is more of an abstraction, but what it depicts may not be so
abstract.
Adrian Clark
> If you don't count lyrics, it's definitely true compared to something like
> sculpture. I think the word depiction might help, although it still might
> not be the perfect word. A novel that converts an experience to words on a
> flat page is more of an abstraction, but what it depicts may not be so
> abstract.
And the moral of the story, I guess, is that music and other arts do
things that just can't adequately be expressed in written (or spoken)
language!
Andrew Jones
> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realise there's some art
> I DO like, which DOES move me. Art Deco, and to a lesser degree, Art
> Nouveau (and in architecture, Arts & Crafts) are what I like. Especially
> type from those styles.
>
> Anyone else into Deco?
Yeah, she's a nice girl
Andrew
Scott Lurowist
> You know, the more I think about it, the more I realise there's some art
> I DO like, which DOES move me. Art Deco, and to a lesser degree, Art
> Nouveau (and in architecture, Arts & Crafts) are what I like. Especially
> type from those styles.
>
> Anyone else into Deco?
>
> B.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what Deco means, but I do lke the way
things looked in the 20's and 30's. Isn't that Deco ? I like the way
buildings looked back then like the Chrysler Building in NYC. I like
how cars from the 50's had those big fins.
Sytling was "bulky" back then, but today it's too sleek and sterile
and economical for my tastes. They just put one of those old fashioned
marquees on the Bardavon 1869 Opera House here in Poughkeepsie, NY.
YAY !!!
Scott Lurowist
Tom Yost
(Scott Lurowist) wrote some interesting stuff
>
>Advanced Calculus books give me a Ninja boner.
>
Does it flip out and kill people?
Tom
Scott Lurowist
They are thick enough that one hit to the head will crush it. :-)
--
Scott Lurowist
Explain to me why we're always so condescending
to our younger selfs. We should be looking back in
awe of who we were. All that passion, all that fire,
all those dreams and then it fades and people say
"Oh well its all part of growing up." I think that's tragic.
-Edward J. Stevens
Tom Yost
wrote:
>>
>> 'Splain why only a half step between B and C, or E and F ?
>>
>
>Because there's no black key between them on the piano?
>
Now it all makes sense!
Tom
Tom Yost
<scottl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Tom Yost wrote:
>
>> (Scott Lurowist) wrote some interesting stuff
>> >
>> >Advanced Calculus books give me a Ninja boner.
>> >
>>
>> Does it flip out and kill people?
>>
>> Tom
>
>They are thick enough that one hit to the head will crush it. :-)
Not the calculus books, the boner.
Tom
Colter McCorkindale
> things that just can't adequately be expressed in written (or spoken)
> language!
Somebody smart said it best somewhere (or maybe I just dreamed it),
that music represents the motions of the soul.
And that's about all that can be said.
I'm amazed that a discussion this deep was generated by a harmless
question about a Keneally gig. Aren't we just some creative,
divergent thinkers?
colter