Van Gogh as an Oil Well Re: Osama Bin Laden
Martijn Benders
>
> > This is the guy that claims Picasso 'only existed to point at Van Gogh'.
>
> Forever trapped in a world full of dependencies, scared to
> wake up to a reality where things exist with no need for
> americans to assign them a raison d'etre... was there ever
> a world before that mighty ship of (fuhru)st(r)ate(zion) ?
A good point. Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American Academics. Sunflowers
must be economically viable, as they produce lots of oil. And we love oil, so we
love Van Gogh.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Why do I once again get the impression that you never got past high
school?
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >> Forever trapped in a world full of dependencies, scared to
> >> wake up to a reality where things exist with no need for
> >> americans to assign them a raison d'etre... was there ever
> >> a world before that mighty ship of (fuhru)st(r)ate(zion) ?
> >
> >A good point. Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American Academics. Sunflowers
> >must be economically viable, as they produce lots of oil. And we love oil, so we
> >love Van Gogh.
>
> Why do I once again get the impression that you never got past high
> school?
Because your mind is built up that way? Because it cannot conceive anything to exist
outside the framework of american school hierarchy?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
In other words, you never got past high school. And in your case,
that's a shame, because given your interests, you would have
benefitted immeasureably from study at the university level.
Josh
Art McNutt
maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/29/02 8:24 AM:
For the record, Marty, I said that the most important thing about Picasso
was that he saw to it Vincent got the spot light he had so long deserved.
You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
continued to rot in obscurity.
Is Mendelssohn better than Bach?--vice versa? Neither; but in the scheme of
music history, Bach is more significant.
You like to use "better" "best" "worst" and the like when speaking of art.
You like these and depend on them so much you hear/read them, when they
aren't there. I think your problem in this regard is that you actually think
they /mean/ something. There is no "better" or "worse" in art. The only
thing I give Duchamp credit for is that he demonstrated this somewhat
convincingly.
This is kindofan Oscar mentality, if you don't mind my saying so; What/who's
the best, who's in the pijt of despaijr and all--it may make Hollywood some
extra millions by making a great show of it all--but it doesn't make Planet
of the Apes better than 2001: A Space Odyssey or vice versa.
Art stands on its own merits, or falls from a lack thereof. Just as do human
beings, and, in the end, truth. Opinion is just so much mud or perfume.
Logic, on the other hand, is a blade. If you want respect, and I can see you
desperately do, then try using your blade, and leave the mud and perfume to
the pedestrians.
And, again, please do us both a favor and killfile me.
---
Art
"They will not listen;
They're not listening now,
Perhaps, they don't know how."
---Don McLean
Martijn Benders
>
> >> Why do I once again get the impression that you never got past high
> >> school?
> >
> >Because your mind is built up that way? Because it cannot conceive anything to exist
> >outside the framework of american school hierarchy?
>
> In other words, you never got past high school.
What exactly does this baseless accusation have to do with why Americans love Van Gogh?
Why do you invoke a school hierachy to validate your arguments?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Because you originally said, "Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American
/Academics/" [emphasis mine], and I don't think you know much about
what academics think, American or otherwise. Or, perhaps more
importantly, /how/ they think. There's a level of intellectual rigor
to which you haven't been exposed, and so you mistake shallow wells
for deep ones.
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> > A good point. Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American Academics. Sunflowers
> > must be economically viable, as they produce lots of oil. And we love oil, so
> > we
> > love Van Gogh.
> >
> > M.H.Benders
> >
> For the record, Marty, I said that the most important thing about Picasso
> was that he saw to it Vincent got the spot light he had so long deserved.
Well, an idiotic remark is an idiotic remark. Where did you manage to pick up this
insane idea?
> You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
> continued to rot in obscurity.
How did _Picasso_make Van Gogh popular? The only reason I can think of was that
Picasso proved paintings can sell big time, so the art industry got some golden
oldies out of their closet. Was there any other reason?
> There is no "better" or "worse" in art. The only
> thing I give Duchamp credit for is that he demonstrated this somewhat
> convincingly.
Duchamp was a very talented artist, and he certainly deserves more credit than
this. As to the 'there is no good or bad' that's just aethetic make up to ensure
everyone is able to still sell everything.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> >What exactly does this baseless accusation have to do with why Americans love Van Gogh?
> >Why do you invoke a school hierachy to validate your arguments?
>
> Because you originally said, "Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American
> /Academics/" [emphasis mine], and I don't think you know much about
> what academics think, American or otherwise.
Why would it be important to know what American academics think in order to demonstrate they
love Van Gogh? It's enough to look at the people who wrote books about Van Gogh: 80 %
Americans:
http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/art/van_gogh.htm
Why do you think that is?
M.H.Benders
Art McNutt
maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/29/02 9:37 AM:
> Art McNutt wrote:
>
>>
>>> A good point. Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American Academics. Sunflowers
>>> must be economically viable, as they produce lots of oil. And we love oil,
>>> so
>>> we
>>> love Van Gogh.
>>>
>>> M.H.Benders
>>>
>> For the record, Marty, I said that the most important thing about Picasso
>> was that he saw to it Vincent got the spot light he had so long deserved.
>
> Well, an idiotic remark is an idiotic remark. Where did you manage to pick up
> this
> insane idea?
>
>> You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
>> continued to rot in obscurity.
>
> How did _Picasso_make Van Gogh popular? The only reason I can think of was
> that
> Picasso proved paintings can sell big time, so the art industry got some
> golden
> oldies out of their closet. Was there any other reason?
Partly through his influence and praise is how Vincent rose from obscurity.
In much the same manner we now know of Bach through Mendelssohn.
>
>> There is no "better" or "worse" in art. The only
>> thing I give Duchamp credit for is that he demonstrated this somewhat
>> convincingly.
>
> Duchamp was a very talented artist, and he certainly deserves more credit than
> this. As to the 'there is no good or bad' that's just aethetic make up to
> ensure
> everyone is able to still sell everything.
Sure: prove my point for me.
Killfile, Marty. Sometimes it's in preferences under "filters." Copy and
paste my name. It's easy of you try.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
>continued to rot in obscurity.
>
>Is Mendelssohn better than Bach?--vice versa? Neither; but in the scheme of
>music history, Bach is more significant.
Bach's music is definitely more interesting but Mendelssohn may be
more significant. Bach wasn't so influential; only as a sort of
mascotte of Greatness. The most significant composers really were
Machaut, Monteverdi, Beethoven and Cage. Perotin doesn't count because
he was invented by the Germans only recently, and I'm inclined to
simply write Palestrina out of the whole story.
>You like to use "better" "best" "worst" and the like when speaking of art.
>You like these and depend on them so much you hear/read them, when they
>aren't there. I think your problem in this regard is that you actually think
>they /mean/ something. There is no "better" or "worse" in art. The only
>thing I give Duchamp credit for is that he demonstrated this somewhat
>convincingly.
I think Duchamp's art is, in fact, 'good' - very much so. What pieces
of his have you been investigating? Don't tell me - you're among the
'Duchamp=urinal' crowd.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr/home.html
You've probably heard many times terms like "cold facts" and "hard logic," but rationality
is neither hard nor cold when it is done by soft warm-blooded animals like ourselves.
- Tom Johnson, Self-Similar Melodies
Het technische antwoord op de ideale schoonzoon
Martijn Benders
>
> > How did _Picasso_make Van Gogh popular? The only reason I can think of was
> > that
> > Picasso proved paintings can sell big time, so the art industry got some
> > golden
> > oldies out of their closet. Was there any other reason?
>
> Partly through his influence and praise is how Vincent rose from obscurity.
Then I suppose you'd have no problems giving me five quotes where Picasso praises
Van Gogh, and you have no problems as well proving that Van Gogh was an unknown
painter in Europe before 1940.
M.H.Benders
Art McNutt
sqv.remo...@xs4all.nl wrote on 7/29/02 10:25 AM:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:24:32 GMT, Art McNutt <amcn...@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
>> continued to rot in obscurity.
>>
>> Is Mendelssohn better than Bach?--vice versa? Neither; but in the scheme of
>> music history, Bach is more significant.
>
> Bach's music is definitely more interesting but Mendelssohn may be
> more significant. Bach wasn't so influential; only as a sort of
> mascotte of Greatness. The most significant composers really were
> Machaut, Monteverdi, Beethoven and Cage. Perotin doesn't count because
> he was invented by the Germans only recently, and I'm inclined to
> simply write Palestrina out of the whole story.
Well, good for you: You've got "opinions." Congratulations. You and Marty
friends?
>
>> You like to use "better" "best" "worst" and the like when speaking of art.
>> You like these and depend on them so much you hear/read them, when they
>> aren't there. I think your problem in this regard is that you actually think
>> they /mean/ something. There is no "better" or "worse" in art. The only
>> thing I give Duchamp credit for is that he demonstrated this somewhat
>> convincingly.
>
> I think Duchamp's art is, in fact, 'good' - very much so. What pieces
> of his have you been investigating? Don't tell me - you're among the
> 'Duchamp=urinal' crowd.
Sam, I see where you are in line for the Golden Throne of Excellence, IIRC,
so I'm not going to give /you/ fodder to sling your mud and perfume. But,
I'd say you are a shoe-in, anyway. I'm starting to learn more about pebbles
every day.
I've got an idea: you and Marty do a Top Ten Artists of all time thread.
It's only electrons, after all. What have we got to loose? I'll just step
over to alt.kasey.kasem.dedications for a breath of fresh air.
---
Art
"I'd like to thank all the little pebbles
for making this possible."
Martijn Benders
>
> I've got an idea: you and Marty do a Top Ten Artists of all time thread.
1. Prince
2. Goya
3. Chagall
4. Duchamp
5. Lafferty
6. Marquez
7. Picasso
8. Vlek
9. Strand
10. Kharms
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Because you chose a small sample on an English-language website and
their are about 290 million English speakers in North America as
opposed to some 87 million English speakers in the UK, Ireland,
Australia, and New Zealand, which comes to 77%. Remind me not to
suggest you take up a career in statistics!
Next . . .
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/art/van_gogh.htm
> >
> >Why do you think that is?
>
> Because you chose a small sample on an English-language website and
> their are about 290 million English speakers in North America as
> opposed to some 87 million English speakers in the UK, Ireland,
> Australia, and New Zealand, which comes to 77%.
Lies. All Europe, Half of Asia and Half of Africa and South America speak english, which makes it
4 billion to 150 (the idea that whole the USA speaks english is ridiculous) million, so only 3
percent of the english speakers are American and yet they managed to write 80 percent of the Van
Gogh manuals.
Now why would that be?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Vriezen) wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:24:32 GMT, Art McNutt <amcn...@insightbb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You know, Felix Mendelssohn brought us Bach. Without Felix, Bach would have
>>continued to rot in obscurity.
>>
>>Is Mendelssohn better than Bach?--vice versa? Neither; but in the scheme of
>>music history, Bach is more significant.
>
>Bach's music is definitely more interesting but Mendelssohn may be
>more significant. Bach wasn't so influential; only as a sort of
>mascotte of Greatness. The most significant composers really were
>Machaut, Monteverdi, Beethoven and Cage. Perotin doesn't count because
>he was invented by the Germans only recently, and I'm inclined to
>simply write Palestrina out of the whole story.
Machaut and Monteverdi, certainly. And Beethoven, probably. But I'm
not so sure about Palestrina. And what about CPE Bach, who effectively
introduced sonata form? Schubert, the first real romantic? Wagner,
who, if nothing else, gave us bad movie music? And, for the modern
era, why Cage, rather than Stravinsky and Schoenberg?
Anyway, it's hard to gauge Bach's influence in absolute terms, given
that most of his music was absent from the scene for 75 years. But on
the other hand, everyone was raised on the Well-Tempered Clavier; he
trained at the Thomasschule a generation of German musicians --
including his own sons, who were enormously influential and spread
elements of their father's style and innovations such as the use of
equal temperament; he had a major influence on the late Mozart; and in
the years after his music was reintroduced by Mendelssohn, many
composers acknowledged a major debt.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Uh, right. Everybody in the world speaks English, and writes their
scholarly works in English. And not only do they do that, people in
India and Africa and Japan are just as likely to write books on Van
Gogh as Americans are.
Martijn, *nobody* could possibly be that dumb.
Josh
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>> Bach's music is definitely more interesting but Mendelssohn may be
>> more significant. Bach wasn't so influential; only as a sort of
>> mascotte of Greatness. The most significant composers really were
>> Machaut, Monteverdi, Beethoven and Cage. Perotin doesn't count because
>> he was invented by the Germans only recently, and I'm inclined to
>> simply write Palestrina out of the whole story.
>
>Well, good for you: You've got "opinions." Congratulations. You and Marty
>friends?
Of course the above are 'opinions' - what else?
Still, they are perfectly good opinions and should be treated with
dignity. I'm even willing to argue my points, but possibly this isn't
the right newsgroup for it. (Though I'll give you one pointer for
Perotin: check out the issue of Musik-Konzepte devoted to him).
>Sam, I see where you are in line for the Golden Throne of Excellence, IIRC,
I am, in fact, immortal - have been so for a couple of hours now. It's
fun! Try it sometime.
>so I'm not going to give /you/ fodder to sling your mud and perfume.
Don't worry - I have completely different weapons. I feel it's better
to outgrace until it hurts.
>But,
>I'd say you are a shoe-in, anyway. I'm starting to learn more about pebbles
>every day.
>
>I've got an idea: you and Marty do a Top Ten Artists of all time thread.
>It's only electrons, after all. What have we got to loose? I'll just step
>over to alt.kasey.kasem.dedications for a breath of fresh air.
I don't like 'top tens', but I do think that as long as there is bad
art, there are going to be artists who are better than other artists.
And some artists are more fundamentally original than other artists.
Or more interesting. Or have better technique. Clearer ideas. Some
people are just plain funnier than others. People who believe
otherwise, in my experience, tend to be people who feel they have to
defend themselves, often against potential accusations of 'bad taste'
or making trivial art.
I would certainly consider Duchamp a great artist; first of all he was
as influential as he remains inimitable, which is a good indicator;
secondly his technique was impeccable; and third his work is simply
very stimulating.
Samuel Vriezen
<josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
>>Bach's music is definitely more interesting but Mendelssohn may be
>>more significant. Bach wasn't so influential; only as a sort of
>>mascotte of Greatness. The most significant composers really were
>>Machaut, Monteverdi, Beethoven and Cage. Perotin doesn't count because
>>he was invented by the Germans only recently, and I'm inclined to
>>simply write Palestrina out of the whole story.
>
>Machaut and Monteverdi, certainly. And Beethoven, probably.
Well, sometimes I feel that Beethoven was really the one by or for who
the whole idea of composition as an art form was invented.
>But I'm
>not so sure about Palestrina. And what about CPE Bach, who effectively
>introduced sonata form?
CPE Bach's real stuff is sort of beyond form.
>Schubert, the first real romantic?
Magnificent composer but not as much of a paradigm shift as Beethoven
caused.
>Wagner,
>who, if nothing else, gave us bad movie music?
Well, Wagner is a candidate too. I'm not so much looking for people
who did neat new things, but who seem to have invented the profession
itself.
>And, for the modern
>era, why Cage, rather than Stravinsky and Schoenberg?
Schoenberg was a great composer, but a conservative, a footnote to
Brahms. Stravinsky was a great composer and possibly much more
original, but I have only little interest and he doesn't seem to me to
be a radical departure. From that generation, Ives, Cowell and Varčse
are in fact the more likely candidates, founding 'experimental music'
but Cage seems to sum it all up and do it in a way that is both more
fundamental and much, much broader in scope, witness his extremely
varied output - it's also extremely beautiful.
>Anyway, it's hard to gauge Bach's influence in absolute terms, given
>that most of his music was absent from the scene for 75 years.
But that's not true. His music was well-known in certain small
circles. I think he functioned for the people he 'influenced' mostly
as an example of how good counterpoint can be, but they really
integrate Bach's inheritance in what they were doing anyway. Bach
didn't change what it is to be a composer at all. He wasn't so
'original' in that way - even his great architectural stuff seems to
be really an anachronism from the high Renaissance.
Mind, Bach is an important example to yours truly, too, but it has to
do only with technical specifics and general excellence and not with
attitude or esthetics.
Joshua P. Hill
That is a somewhat different criterion that the ones I was using
(musical innovation and influence). One might in that case want to add
Handel and Mozart, who were among who composed neither for the church
nor the aristocracy.
>>And, for the modern
>>era, why Cage, rather than Stravinsky and Schoenberg?
>
>Schoenberg was a great composer, but a conservative, a footnote to
>Brahms. Stravinsky was a great composer and possibly much more
>original, but I have only little interest and he doesn't seem to me to
>be a radical departure. From that generation, Ives, Cowell and Varčse
>are in fact the more likely candidates, founding 'experimental music'
>but Cage seems to sum it all up and do it in a way that is both more
>fundamental and much, much broader in scope, witness his extremely
>varied output - it's also extremely beautiful.
Stravinsky sounds tame today, but at the time he was anything but.
Schoenberg doesn't sound tame to me at all.
>>Anyway, it's hard to gauge Bach's influence in absolute terms, given
>>that most of his music was absent from the scene for 75 years.
>
>But that's not true. His music was well-known in certain small
>circles.
Perhaps, but since little of it had been published, they were very
small cricles; despite the fact that Von Swieten had introduced Mozart
to the Art of the Fugue, the latter found the motets a revelation when
he heard them late in life, and they had an immediate effect on his
music, which became more richly contrapuntal. Beethoven and Schubert
would have known only the Well-Tempered Clavier and maybe one or two
other works.
> I think he functioned for the people he 'influenced' mostly
>as an example of how good counterpoint can be, but they really
>integrate Bach's inheritance in what they were doing anyway. Bach
>didn't change what it is to be a composer at all. He wasn't so
>'original' in that way - even his great architectural stuff seems to
>be really an anachronism from the high Renaissance.
>
>Mind, Bach is an important example to yours truly, too, but it has to
>do only with technical specifics and general excellence and not with
>attitude or esthetics.
In fact, it seems that Bach made a study of renaissance polyphony
before writing some of his massive, contrapuntal works. But I think
the modern view of Bach is less of someone who brought what had come
before to fruition, but rather of someone who was very much in touch
with contemporary musical trends and, at the same time as he perfected
traditional forms, was fairly radical in his approach, often to his
practical detriment (cf. the famous comment about the St. Matthew
Passion being an "opera comedy") -- and of someone who in later life
was very much concerned about his musical legacy, and took on some
enormous works for reasons of prestige. In a sense, too, Bach started
the modern tradition of the artist struggling for the sake of art that
we more often associate with Mozart and Beethoven.
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >Machaut and Monteverdi, certainly. And Beethoven, probably.
>
> Well, sometimes I feel that Beethoven was really the one by or for who
> the whole idea of composition as an art form was invented.
And who are the Godfathers of Elevator Music. That's ultimately the function and destination
of all classical music. Josh always stresses that Bach was such a genius, especially as
related to the 'Mass in B Minor' - christmass stuff you hear in expensive shops.
I really can't quite see why Bach would be a better composer than Prince. The whole 'genius'
archetype is nothing but a 'popstar' phenomenon in a different jacket.
M.H.Benders
Samuel Vriezen
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>>
>> >Machaut and Monteverdi, certainly. And Beethoven, probably.
>>
>> Well, sometimes I feel that Beethoven was really the one by or for who
>> the whole idea of composition as an art form was invented.
>
>And who are the Godfathers of Elevator Music. That's ultimately the function and destination
>of all classical music.
If you're in an elevator, but really I think Andreas Vollenweider fits
the bill better.
>Josh always stresses that Bach was such a genius, especially as
>related to the 'Mass in B Minor' - christmass stuff you hear in expensive shops.
>
>I really can't quite see why Bach would be a better composer than Prince. The whole 'genius'
>archetype is nothing but a 'popstar' phenomenon in a different jacket.
I sort of like Prince and I can't see Bach improving on Prince either.
But I pay more attention to the Well Tempered Clavier. Partly because
I can actually play that.
Pim Lemmens
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D468E41...@chello.nl...
> I really can't quite see why Bach would be a better composer than Prince.
The whole 'genius'
> archetype is nothing but a 'popstar' phenomenon in a different jacket.
>
is trouser shop music.
Pim.
Martijn Benders
>
> > I really can't quite see why Bach would be a better composer than Prince.
> The whole 'genius'
> > archetype is nothing but a 'popstar' phenomenon in a different jacket.
> >
> The difference is that where Bach's music is elevator music, Prince's music
> is trouser shop music.
And where would any sane person rather be? In an elevator, or in a trouser
shop?
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
The Godfathers of Elevator Music
Bach: Thirteenth floor, no ears. He is going down.
Elevator runs on oil. Gogh's half the Bach he was,
floor twelve. Beethoven gets in. Beet no Gogh,
has the ears of a dog and brings oil. Elve.
Hair's one the moze. Art is oil, Bach's bad.
Bad! Mossart's wheel the nachtmusak. Ten.
Ten's bad! Goebbels enters, goebbels is sad.
The nine lifes of an instrument are told:
the career of an instrument
the taxed life of the musician
the tone ladder of the heart,
the formal wedding of ears and rings. Himmler,
the pianist and elevator manager, interferes.
'Gentleman, we are going down!'. Sixth floor,
Mozart starts pulling earlobes. Doors swing,
Elvis gets in. All composers get to their knees
and gogh. The fourth one is coming, Elvis
sees numbers bounce off his sunglasses.
'Return to sender, adress unknown
no such number, no such zone'
Three. Two. One. The Oil's gone.
There's enough music to make fire.
Himmler sings 'Bird on a wire'
and when hours later someone
happened to call on the door
The Godfathers of Elevator music were too busy to answer
and rode on their thrones like a beastlong bit of cancer.
M.H.Benders, 30-07-2002
Dale Houstman
"Pim Lemmens" <wsi...@win.tue.nl> wrote in message
news:ai65aq$54d$1...@news.tue.nl...
I wish they played Bach in elevators! As for Prince, he has done a lot of
very good music. The only problem I see is MB's obsessive need (odd in an
anti-canon person) to make these hierarchies at all. I don't see how saying
Prince is better than Bach (or vice versa for that matter) adds anything at
all to the experience of listening. I don't need to know whether Satie is
"superior" to Merle Haggard to enjoy both immensely, and - in evolutionary
terms - they both fill different niches. It is obnoxious of MB to keep
wondering why Bach is canonical and Prince isn't when - in fact - he's the
one who began the act of comparison in the first place. He is really (as his
loopy experiement with the FAQ site reveals) not so much against a canon as
opposed to the idea that his canon isn't the only one. He isn't an
iconoclast (which is an honorable effort) but a person who needs (sadly) to
be the one icon creator. so, he insists not that Prince is an enjoyable
listen, which (at times) rewards repeat experiences (and moves your ass at
the same time), but that Prince is - in some undefinable manner - superior
to Bach, who is also enjoyable and rewards repeat experiences. It's an
incredibly silly and self-serving argument.
dmh
Pim Lemmens
Pim.
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
Er, I take it Prince could improvise a six-part fugue? That's a bit
unfair really, because to the best of my knowledge no one but Bach has
ever been able to do it.
Really, I have nothing against Prince -- you're not the only one who's
called him a genius -- but Bach was to his field what Newton and
Einstein were to theirs: someone who had a combination fo talent,
skill, and dedication that one finds only a few times in recorded
history. And one does not hear that genius, insofar as it is manifest
in his music, without having a fair amount of musical ability oneself,
and being first exposed to a wide range of challenging works,
preferably in childhood, and then listening at length to Bach himself
-- because the idiom in which Bach wrote is much more sophisticated
than the popular idiom, and his own work more complicated still.
So you judge what you cannot hear, what you cannot process, what you
cannot understand, you reduce it to the level of what you *can*
understand -- pop music, which is written to be instantly
comprehensible by all but the least musical listener, to have
immediately identifiable verbal and musical hooks, to sell on the
basis of one or two hearings on the radio. While some fine musicians
in the popular genre do a marvellous job of transcending those
limitiations, most pop music never demands as much of the listener as
the classical forms do -- and you *do not understand that.*
I won't say that work a can't be better than work b -- there are good
and bad songs, just as there are good and bad poems, and I see no
evidence that there's an arbitrary upper limit on how good they are --
but I agree with Dale that one oughtn't obsess over these things. At
the same time, for what it's worth, I've engaged in variants of this
discussion many times over the years, and one thing stands out -- you
will find many people who first enjoyed pop, became familiar with
classical music to the point where they could appreciate it, and said
"oh my god" -- and I have yet to find one who went the other way
around. It's a commonplace experience, and by taking an emotional
attitude to it rather than being open-minded you deprive yourself of
the chance to discover something marvellous; you're the flip side,
really, of those who dismiss popular music out of snobbery.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
(Mercury)
Come now, ye judges, forth!
(Tmolus)
The verdict is not hard for me,
And Truth itself will now declare it,
That Phoebus here the contest's prize hath captured.
Pan singeth for the woods,
The nymphs can he quite well give pleasure;
Indeed, so fair doth Phoebus' voice resound,
That now his(2) flute cannot be treasured.
9. Aria (T1) Tmolus
Phoebus, of thy melody
Was sweet Charm herself the mother.
Who, though, art here comprehends
As thy tune with wonder wends,
Will by it be quite transported.
10. Recit. (B2, T2) Pan, Midas
(Pan)
Come, Midas, now thyself pronounce
How I have done.
(Midas)
Oh Pan! How thou hast giv'n me strength!
Thy song, to me, did sound so lovely,
That I at once did learn it on the spot.
I shall now go here up and down the woodlands
And teach the very trees to sing it.
Yon Phoebus' song is too ornate;
But this thine oh-so-lovely mouth
Unforced did sing and lightly.
11. Aria (T2) Midas
Pan's the master, let him reign!
Phoebus of this game's the loser,
For to each of my two ears Pan
Sang a song quite matchless fine.
12. Recit. (S, A, T1, B1, T2, B2) M
(Momus)
What, Midas, art thou mad?
(Mercury)
What hath from thee thy sense dislodged?
(Tmolus)
Just as I thought, thou art a clumsy boor.
(Phoebus)
Come, what shall I do with thee?
Transform thee to a raven?
Or should I flail or even flay thee?(3)
(Midas)
Ah! Torture me not so severely,
I merely gave
My judgment as I heard it.
(Phoebus)
Behold, thou shalt then ass's ears be given.
(Mercury)
This is the prize
For mad ambition's errant ways.
(Pan)
Ah, wherefore hast thou this great strife
Upon thy feeble shoulders taken?
(Midas)
In truth hath this commission brought
Me to disaster!
13. Aria (A) Mercury
Puffed-up, swollen fervor,
Having little fiber
Gets a jangling miter(4)
On its head at last.
He who sailing doth not know
And dares to the rudder go
Will drown with destruction and scandal at last.
14. Recit. (S) Momus
Good fellow Midas, get thee hence
And lay thyself to rest within thy forest,
But be consoled within thy mind,
That thou hast many more such brothers.
Both ignorance and lack of sense
Would now to wisdom neighbors be,
For judgments are passed ev'ry day,
And those who judge
Belong each one within thy guild.
Pick up, O Phoebus, now
Again thy lyre.
There is nought lovelier than what thou singest.
Renew, O Phoebus, now
Music and singing,
Though rage both Hortens and Orbil against thee!(5)
15. Chorus (S, A, T, B) Tutti
Soothe the heart, ye noble strings now,
Join, both art and charm, the sound.
Suffer censure, suffer insult,
But no less in your sweet music
Even gods have pleasure found.
--Bach and Henrici, Der Streit Zwischen Phoebus und Pan, BWV 201, tr.
Z. P. Ambrose
Josh
rev. juust out
> "Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> >
> > >> Forever trapped in a world full of dependencies, scared to
> > >> wake up to a reality where things exist with no need for
> > >> americans to assign them a raison d'etre... was there ever
> > >> a world before that mighty ship of (fuhru)st(r)ate(zion) ?
> > >
> > >A good point. Van Gogh is the Oilwell of American Academics. Sunflowers
> > >must be economically viable, as they produce lots of oil. And we love
oil, so we
> > >love Van Gogh.
> >
> > school?
>
> Because your mind is built up that way? Because it cannot conceive
anything to exist
> outside the framework of american school hierarchy?
<small b-sides> guy I know makes millions producing oil from
seeds. He did go to university :) maybe he did get the idea after
watching a multimillion dollar Van Gogh painting, stranger things
have been known to inspire people.
> M.H.Benders
>
rev. juust out
news:B96ABD57.8DAA%amcn...@insightbb.com...
> in article 3D454200...@chello.nl, Martijn Benders at
> maan...@chello.nl wrote on 7/29/02 8:24 AM:
>
> > "rev. juust out" wrote:
> This is kindofan Oscar mentality, if you don't mind my saying so;
What/who's
> the best, who's in the pijt of despaijr and all--it may make Hollywood
some
> extra millions by making a great show of it all--but it doesn't make
Planet
> of the Apes better than 2001: A Space Odyssey or vice versa.
>
> Art stands on its own merits, or falls from a lack thereof. Just as do
human
> beings, and, in the end, truth. Opinion is just so much mud or perfume.
> Logic, on the other hand, is a blade.
logic (binah) and understanding (chochma) are the two pillars
of the temple, between which (if balanced) the sign (zayyan,
phoenician for sword, or cut) is made.
at least, that's what the old faery folk always said, like Plato
and som other OldGuysThatDidntDieOnTheStick.
> If you want respect, and I can see you
> desperately do, then try using your blade, and leave the mud and perfume
to
> the pedestrians.
> And, again, please do us both a favor and killfile me.
*flush* - nah, your postings are TrueWorksOfArt(tm).
Samuel Vriezen
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>The Godfathers of Elevator Music
>
I find Campert more spot-on:
laten we beginnen met Brahms
zes noten Brahms
hij woonde in Duitsland
en was een gelovig man
let's begin with Brahms
six notes of Brahms
he lived in Germany
and was a pious man
(from 'Lullaby for a Bebop baby')
What your poem should do, perhaps, is kick out the Nazis and put in
Rupert Murdoch instead. See where that leads.
Martijn Benders
> Really, I have nothing against Prince -- you're not the only one who's
> called him a genius -- but Bach was to his field what Newton and
> Einstein were to theirs: someone who had a combination fo talent,
> skill, and dedication that one finds only a few times in recorded
> history.
Busta Rhymes has all that, and he sounds fresh. He doesn't sound like a shopping bag.
The strange and somewhat obsessive idea that there were only few souls who dominate
a specific field of the arts is quite obselete. You can't name any examples of poets who
are worthy of such a position - the only thing you could possibly point out is that some
played a significant role as an influence. But that's not enough for you, is it?
>
> So you judge what you cannot hear, what you cannot process, what you
> cannot understand, you reduce it to the level of what you *can*
> understand -- pop music, which is written to be instantly
> comprehensible by all but the least musical listener, to have
> immediately identifiable verbal and musical hooks, to sell on the
> basis of one or two hearings on the radio. While some fine musicians
> in the popular genre do a marvellous job of transcending those
> limitiations, most pop music never demands as much of the listener as
> the classical forms do -- and you *do not understand that.*
This is mere pedantery. It tries to suggest that classical forms are more
hard to understand than modern ones, which is just bollocks. I know a lot
of popular music which is much more refined and complex than any of
the 'good old classics' - and besides that, think of 'complex poetry' and
the hideous idea that the reader is at fault for not appreciating overtly
complex abstractions.
> It's a commonplace experience, and by taking an emotional
> attitude to it rather than being open-minded you deprive yourself of
> the chance to discover something marvellous; you're the flip side,
> really, of those who dismiss popular music out of snobbery.
Nope. I've listened to quite a lot of 'classical music' but in my opinion
most of it is on a par with elevator music. Beauty, romance, and
good shopping feelings are all it evokes in me. There are some notable
exceptions, but certain modern standards for musical arts should
be adopted by classic composers if they want to catch my attention.
Such are:
- the music needs to be Funky
- the music needs to have an uplifting beat
- the music needs to have sharp lyrics
- the music needs to sound 'fresh'
- the video needs to have some nudity and voilence in it
If foresaid composers even *tried* to adept to these kind of
modern standards, I would even be willing to download their
music from Kazaa or Audio Planet.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>> Really, I have nothing against Prince -- you're not the only one who's
>> called him a genius -- but Bach was to his field what Newton and
>> Einstein were to theirs: someone who had a combination fo talent,
>> skill, and dedication that one finds only a few times in recorded
>> history.
>
>Busta Rhymes has all that, and he sounds fresh. He doesn't sound like a shopping bag.
Sounds like a shopping bag to me.
>The strange and somewhat obsessive idea that there were only few souls who dominate
>a specific field of the arts is quite obselete. You can't name any examples of poets who
>are worthy of such a position - the only thing you could possibly point out is that some
>played a significant role as an influence. But that's not enough for you, is it?
That all depends on your definition of "dominate." But if you're
talking about people who simply wrote better stuff than others rather
than leather-clad women with whips, of course I can name people who
had such a position, in both music and poetry. Bach. Shakespeare. Some
more names that everyone knows, and some that are known only to the
educated. It's as ludicrous to say that they don't stand out among
their peers as it is to suggest that the Beatles didn't stand out in
the 60's.
>> So you judge what you cannot hear, what you cannot process, what you
>> cannot understand, you reduce it to the level of what you *can*
>> understand -- pop music, which is written to be instantly
>> comprehensible by all but the least musical listener, to have
>> immediately identifiable verbal and musical hooks, to sell on the
>> basis of one or two hearings on the radio. While some fine musicians
>> in the popular genre do a marvellous job of transcending those
>> limitiations, most pop music never demands as much of the listener as
>> the classical forms do -- and you *do not understand that.*
>
>This is mere pedantery. It tries to suggest that classical forms are more
>hard to understand than modern ones, which is just bollocks. I know a lot
>of popular music which is much more refined and complex than any of
>the 'good old classics' - and besides that, think of 'complex poetry' and
>the hideous idea that the reader is at fault for not appreciating overtly
>complex abstractions.
Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
As to whether the reader or listener appreciates complexity, well,
that depends on her talent and her skill, doesn't it? If you want to
believe that art created by those of greater skill and talent for
listeners of greater skills and talent is no better than art that
isn't, well, fine, but then don't go complaining about the works of
Sharon McElroy and Candace Lee.
>> It's a commonplace experience, and by taking an emotional
>> attitude to it rather than being open-minded you deprive yourself of
>> the chance to discover something marvellous; you're the flip side,
>> really, of those who dismiss popular music out of snobbery.
>
>Nope. I've listened to quite a lot of 'classical music' but in my opinion
>most of it is on a par with elevator music. Beauty, romance, and
>good shopping feelings are all it evokes in me. There are some notable
>exceptions, but certain modern standards for musical arts should
>be adopted by classic composers if they want to catch my attention.
>Such are:
Classical music has a much wider emotional range than popular music,
and frequently a much more powerful effect. If what you get from
classical music is beauty, romance, and good shopping feelings, then
you either a) have not been exposed to classical music, as you think
you have or b) are completely without musical ability: because your
description is about as apt as saying that rap doesn't have a beat.
>- the music needs to be Funky
>- the music needs to have an uplifting beat
>- the music needs to have sharp lyrics
>- the music needs to sound 'fresh'
>- the video needs to have some nudity and voilence in it
>
>If foresaid composers even *tried* to adept to these kind of
>modern standards, I would even be willing to download their
>music from Kazaa or Audio Planet.
You sound like a little boy telling his grown-up brother that girls
are icky.
Josh
Dale Houstman
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
news:jhndku8rm5d0hvfun...@4ax.com...
I have, and I need a Darvon after looking at one. Really, this comparison
and contest between popular music and classical music is ridiculous, as they
are equally marvelous productions that just happen to serve different
purposes to a great degree. MB's just making waves in an empty pool.
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
>news:jhndku8rm5d0hvfun...@4ax.com...
>> Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
>> you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
>
>I have, and I need a Darvon after looking at one. Really, this comparison
>and contest between popular music and classical music is ridiculous, as they
>are equally marvelous productions that just happen to serve different
>purposes to a great degree. MB's just making waves in an empty pool.
And to Dale, the Clever Metaphor of the Month Award!
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> That all depends on your definition of "dominate." But if you're
> talking about people who simply wrote better stuff than others rather
> than leather-clad women with whips, of course I can name people who
> had such a position, in both music and poetry. Bach. Shakespeare. Some
> more names that everyone knows, and some that are known only to the
> educated. It's as ludicrous to say that they don't stand out among
> their peers as it is to suggest that the Beatles didn't stand out in
> the 60's.
What 'peers'? As I remember it you always tend to point out Shakespeare as being 'superior'
to modern poets. Are poets nowadays Shakespeare's peers?
> >This is mere pedantery. It tries to suggest that classical forms are more
> >hard to understand than modern ones, which is just bollocks. I know a lot
> >of popular music which is much more refined and complex than any of
> >the 'good old classics' - and besides that, think of 'complex poetry' and
> >the hideous idea that the reader is at fault for not appreciating overtly
> >complex abstractions.
>
> Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
> you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
It's impossible for you not to turn into a pedant every other line. As any clear thinker
would understand scores aren't relevant in this case.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> >I have, and I need a Darvon after looking at one. Really, this comparison
> >and contest between popular music and classical music is ridiculous, as they
> >are equally marvelous productions that just happen to serve different
> >purposes to a great degree. MB's just making waves in an empty pool.
>
> And to Dale, the Clever Metaphor of the Month Award!
Yeah, he's amazing, isn't he. 'Both are good, and serve different purposes'
Quite interesting material to have a discussion over!
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> That all depends on your definition of "dominate." But if you're
>> talking about people who simply wrote better stuff than others rather
>> than leather-clad women with whips, of course I can name people who
>> had such a position, in both music and poetry. Bach. Shakespeare. Some
>> more names that everyone knows, and some that are known only to the
>> educated. It's as ludicrous to say that they don't stand out among
>> their peers as it is to suggest that the Beatles didn't stand out in
>> the 60's.
>
>What 'peers'? As I remember it you always tend to point out Shakespeare as being 'superior'
>to modern poets. Are poets nowadays Shakespeare's peers?
If your question is whether I'm aware of any poets today who seem to
me Shakespeare's *equals,* the answer is no.
>> >This is mere pedantery. It tries to suggest that classical forms are more
>> >hard to understand than modern ones, which is just bollocks. I know a lot
>> >of popular music which is much more refined and complex than any of
>> >the 'good old classics' - and besides that, think of 'complex poetry' and
>> >the hideous idea that the reader is at fault for not appreciating overtly
>> >complex abstractions.
>>
>> Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
>> you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
>
>It's impossible for you not to turn into a pedant every other line. As any clear thinker
>would understand scores aren't relevant in this case.
Oh, I see. And why is that?
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >What 'peers'? As I remember it you always tend to point out Shakespeare as being 'superior'
> >to modern poets. Are poets nowadays Shakespeare's peers?
>
> If your question is whether I'm aware of any poets today who seem to
> me Shakespeare's *equals,* the answer is no.
Then please explain why Strand is a worse poet than Shakespeare?
> >> Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
> >> you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
> >
> >It's impossible for you not to turn into a pedant every other line. As any clear thinker
> >would understand scores aren't relevant in this case.
>
> Oh, I see. And why is that?
Because the score is not the music. Only an imbecile wouldn't understand that.
M.H.Benders
Samuel Vriezen
<josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
>As to whether the reader or listener appreciates complexity, well,
>that depends on her talent and her skill, doesn't it?
Complexity can be simply obscurantism, too; in fact I believe many
forms of elitism in art appreciation are also obscurantist.
>If you want to
>believe that art created by those of greater skill and talent for
>listeners of greater skills and talent is no better than art that
>isn't, well, fine, but then don't go complaining about the works of
>Sharon McElroy and Candace Lee.
The only question I would have for an artist is, 'is the technique up
to what s/he's doing?' - it's no use having incredible skill for
something when you really want to do something else. Thus, being able
to improvise eight-part fugues is only interesting if you have this
fantastic fugue to write.
Joshua P. Hill
I think so.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Vriezen) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:06:31 GMT, Joshua P. Hill
><josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote:
>
>>As to whether the reader or listener appreciates complexity, well,
>>that depends on her talent and her skill, doesn't it?
>
>Complexity can be simply obscurantism, too; in fact I believe many
>forms of elitism in art appreciation are also obscurantist.
Very much so. It's an important distinction, and unfortunately I don't
know of any non-technical terms that make it.
>>If you want to
>>believe that art created by those of greater skill and talent for
>>listeners of greater skills and talent is no better than art that
>>isn't, well, fine, but then don't go complaining about the works of
>>Sharon McElroy and Candace Lee.
>
>The only question I would have for an artist is, 'is the technique up
>to what s/he's doing?' - it's no use having incredible skill for
>something when you really want to do something else. Thus, being able
>to improvise eight-part fugues is only interesting if you have this
>fantastic fugue to write.
In and of itself, true. But I don't think it's an accident that those
who are felt by many to have written the greatest music could
frequently perform the most prodigious feats. There even seems to be a
correlation between virtuosity and compositional ability, e.g., Bach
was the finest and Mozart and Beethoven were among the finest virtuosi
of their days. (The opposites seem less likely to be true.)
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >What 'peers'? As I remember it you always tend to point out Shakespeare as being 'superior'
>> >to modern poets. Are poets nowadays Shakespeare's peers?
>>
>> If your question is whether I'm aware of any poets today who seem to
>> me Shakespeare's *equals,* the answer is no.
>
>Then please explain why Strand is a worse poet than Shakespeare?
Funny, I was -- on more than one occasion -- going to suggest you
explain the opposite.
>> >> Popular music more refined and complex than the classics -- Martijn,
>> >> you are just too much. Have you ever even seen a score?
>> >
>> >It's impossible for you not to turn into a pedant every other line. As any clear thinker
>> >would understand scores aren't relevant in this case.
>>
>> Oh, I see. And why is that?
>
>Because the score is not the music. Only an imbecile wouldn't understand that.
Yeah, and the text is not the poem, and when Googly Goopoo and Goggly
Goppish both cover "You Ain't Nothin' But a Hound Dog" it isn't the
same song.
Only an imbecile would even assume that someone wasn't aware that
performance departs from score, and hadn't taken that into account.
Next . . .
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >> If your question is whether I'm aware of any poets today who seem to
> >> me Shakespeare's *equals,* the answer is no.
> >
> >Then please explain why Strand is a worse poet than Shakespeare?
>
> Funny, I was -- on more than one occasion -- going to suggest you
> explain the opposite.
Why should I? You're the one who keeps suggesting Shakespeare's superior to him. So it's your task
to explain why.
> Only an imbecile would even assume that someone wasn't aware that
> performance departs from score, and hadn't taken that into account.
And only an utter simpleton wouldn't realize that there exists tons of music and musicians who
don't use scores. So it's irrelevant to point to scores as argument
in a discussion about music and form.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
>
> >In Shakespeare's case it's usually the conceptual imbecilities that strike me as crippling.
> >He had a good feeling for sound, but most of his poetry lacks the clarity of thought and
> >concept you could for example see in the much more interesting poet Rumi.
>
> Shakespeare lacks clarity of thought and concept? Surely, you jest.
We've already had this discussion, Josh, as you well know. You didn't have any sane replies when
I analysed what you thought was one of the best parts of Shakey:
> Take Shakespeare's use of "pencil" in the 101st sonnet, which came up
> on a newsgroup the other day:
>
> Truth needs no colour, with his colour fixed;
> Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
>
> Did you know that in Elizabethan times, a "pencil" was a small brush?
> I didn't, but it's fairly important, given that in his primary sense
> Shakespeare is using makeup as a metaphor:
>
> Truth doesn't need makeup to enhance his natural complexion;
> Beauty doesn't need a makeup brush to paint her essence
And I qoute my reply again:
So far those are the typical teenage clichés of idealism passing by. Any real artist would know
that truth needs a lot of makeup. What we see here is a fairly naieve soul who thinks 'truth is
beautiful' and disguises it in some metaphorical make up, which, at best, shows how hypocrite he
himself must be. Shakespeare was a pothead according to modern reaserch. That doesn't surprise
me at all. All his works kind of breathe this sort of 'Rousseau, rousseau, rousseau' and I guess
we can't really blame him for it, being British and all that, but when Blackadder kicked him one
in the balls for ruining public education he had my complete consent.
And i would like to add that anyone who thinks:
> Truth needs no colour, with his colour fixed;
> Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
are amongst the greatest lines ever written hasn't read a lot of poetry. Fact of the matter is
that you only like those lines that much because the words 'truth' 'beauty' and 'pencil' are in
there. Like so many civil servants you'd do anything to excuse your insane ritualistic kantean
bluff.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message
The point here is that MB's idea seems to be "argument for argument's sake."
The fact is there ARE subjects that are not interesting or fruitful to
discuss: "who is the better actor, William Shatner or Gumby?" That might
keep you amused around a campfire, but it isn't the stuff of intelligent
conversation, it's a goof. "Who's the better composer, Prince or Bach?" is
as stupid and - furthermore - unnecessary. "Which one do you enjoy listening
to the most while waiting for your hair to dry?" is a better question, as is
"Which do you think sounds better in an old Viennese church on a Sunday
evening?" even if that's STILL a matter of opinion. But "Who is superior?"
is a faux-intelligent quastion, as any really intelligent person knows the
answer is "it depends on what you want to hear at any given moment." MB's
nth attempt at creating another in an endless series of canonical
distinctions is as lame as any of them, but arises naturally out of his
obvious need to be a bug up everyone's ass. A REAL question with REAL
respect for differing points of view and REAL logic would - unfortunately -
reveal the vapid qualities in our own little performance artist's tiny
backyard mind.
dmh
Martijn Benders
> A REAL question with REAL
> respect for differing points of view and REAL logic would
You're simply insane. You post a hundred dumb 'one-liners' posts a day on AAPC
nobody but yourself think are interesting, and you have the nerve to accuse me
of posting a non-sequitor discussion when I try to adress some of the prejudices
that *do* exist about the difference between so-called 'classical' and 'popular'
music.
When, in the past, I pointed out to you that you could simply trim a post like
everyone else does (to save bandwidth and time for the people reading) you
started to rant inanely about 'your right to do whatever you feel like' - you're
simply an aso and you don't have any real talent for rhetoric, which is why you
like to waste your time with fruitcakes like Heslop and Bishop.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Unfortunately. So I treat the whole thing as an amusement of sorts,
knowing that nothing will actually be accomplished.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >> If your question is whether I'm aware of any poets today who seem to
>> >> me Shakespeare's *equals,* the answer is no.
>> >
>> >Then please explain why Strand is a worse poet than Shakespeare?
>>
>> Funny, I was -- on more than one occasion -- going to suggest you
>> explain the opposite.
>
>Why should I? You're the one who keeps suggesting Shakespeare's superior to him. So it's your task
>to explain why.
Why should I? When I attempted to explain some of the theory, you
acted like you'd been stung by a bee, and started going on about how
boring Kant was, and how Tahiti was really ugly; when I analyzed three
lines -- three lines! -- from a sonnet, you started spouting nonsense
about truth and beauty.
In any case, at best, the critic can point out only a few broad
aspects of a work. While such criticisms may be valid and astute and
useful, there exists no single formula in which they can be inserted
to yield an objective measure of "quality." Fortunately, one need not
be able to analyze to judge, and judgement need not be objective to
have an objective correlative.
Ultimatley, we say Shakespeare is great because that is the way people
react to Shakespeare. Ishtar bad; 2001 good; most (thought not all)
would agree. Now assume a reasonable education, and a certain amount
of brightness, and an open mind and exposure to the works, and by and
large, one will hear Shakespeare is great.
>> Only an imbecile would even assume that someone wasn't aware that
>> performance departs from score, and hadn't taken that into account.
>
>And only an utter simpleton wouldn't realize that there exists tons of music and musicians who
>don't use scores. So it's irrelevant to point to scores as argument
>in a discussion about music and form.
And only a complete anencephalus wouldn't realize that whether any of
the musicians use scores or not makes no difference whatsoever --
someone with a sufficiently good ear can hear the difference, but you
cannot, hence the usefulness of a visual aid to help you understand
the difference in complexity between a 16-bar pop song and the Art of
the Fugue.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >In Shakespeare's case it's usually the conceptual imbecilities that strike me as crippling.
>> >He had a good feeling for sound, but most of his poetry lacks the clarity of thought and
>> >concept you could for example see in the much more interesting poet Rumi.
>>
>> Shakespeare lacks clarity of thought and concept? Surely, you jest.
>
>We've already had this discussion, Josh, as you well know. You didn't have any sane replies when
>I analysed what you thought was one of the best parts of Shakey:
Best parts?!? Martijn, I chose those lines practically at random --
someone is posting all of the sonnets in sequence on the Shakespeare
newsgroup so that people can discuss them, and I had read that one
there a few days before, and so had it handy. And that was part of my
point: virtually all of Shakespeare's vast output contains such depth.
>> Take Shakespeare's use of "pencil" in the 101st sonnet, which came up
>> on a newsgroup the other day:
>>
>> Truth needs no colour, with his colour fixed;
>> Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
>>
>> Did you know that in Elizabethan times, a "pencil" was a small brush?
>> I didn't, but it's fairly important, given that in his primary sense
>> Shakespeare is using makeup as a metaphor:
>>
>> Truth doesn't need makeup to enhance his natural complexion;
>> Beauty doesn't need a makeup brush to paint her essence
>
>And I qoute my reply again:
>
>So far those are the typical teenage clichés of idealism passing by. Any real artist would know
>that truth needs a lot of makeup. What we see here is a fairly naieve soul who thinks 'truth is
>beautiful' and disguises it in some metaphorical make up, which, at best, shows how hypocrite he
>himself must be. Shakespeare was a pothead according to modern reaserch. That doesn't surprise
>me at all. All his works kind of breathe this sort of 'Rousseau, rousseau, rousseau' and I guess
>we can't really blame him for it, being British and all that, but when Blackadder kicked him one
>in the balls for ruining public education he had my complete consent.
>
>And i would like to add that anyone who thinks:
>
>> Truth needs no colour, with his colour fixed;
>> Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
>
>are amongst the greatest lines ever written hasn't read a lot of poetry. Fact of the matter is
>that you only like those lines that much because the words 'truth' 'beauty' and 'pencil' are in
>there. Like so many civil servants you'd do anything to excuse your insane ritualistic kantean
>bluff.
And, to be frank about it, your response was one of the most sheerly
stupid things I've ever read on or off Usenet; it would garner an "F"
in a junior high school literature class. The only thing you've
demonstrated is that a) you aren't familiar with the sonnet, yet made
absolutely no effort to place the lines in the context of
Shakespeare's intent; b) you don't understand the neoplatonic
relationship between truth and beauty any more than a dog understands
a game of chess; and c) you are so literal that you don't understand
that there's a difference between poetry and refrigerator magnets.
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >> Funny, I was -- on more than one occasion -- going to suggest you
> >> explain the opposite.
> >
> >Why should I? You're the one who keeps suggesting Shakespeare's superior to him. So it's your task
> >to explain why.
>
> Why should I? When I attempted to explain some of the theory, you
> acted like you'd been stung by a bee, and started going on about how
> boring Kant was, and how Tahiti was really ugly
Oh yes, that 'Tahiti is beautiful because many people say so' theory of yours.
Cognition indeed. Pity that 'The Spice Girls are beatiful because many people
say so' has about the seem breathtaking depth, but your the only one who doesn't actually realize that.
Of course such insane simplisms would upset anyone who actually has a brain.
> ; when I analyzed three
> lines -- three lines! -- from a sonnet, you started spouting nonsense
> about truth and beauty.
Nonsense? Those lines _are_ about beauty and truth, you blithering idiot.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
> you don't understand the neoplatonic
> relationship between truth and beauty any more than a dog understands
> a game of chess
What's the neoplatonic relation between beauty and truth, Josh? Or is that too hard too explain?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Er, you've rather egregiously misparsed my sentence.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
http://www.musictheoryresources.com/members/MTA_1_2.htm#_ftn10 if you
want some of the historical details which Shakespeare would have used
as his starting point; "that which is beautiful is that which has
subjective purposiveness for cognition," if you want Kant's great
definition; the degree of entropy reduction performed by a neural net,
or the ratio of the size of a perceived set and the size of the set
required to encode it, if you want a more contemporary formulation.
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >What's the neoplatonic relation between beauty and truth, Josh? Or is that too hard too explain?
>
> http://www.musictheoryresources.com/members/MTA_1_2.htm#_ftn10 if you
> want some of the historical details which Shakespeare would have used
> as his starting point; "that which is beautiful is that which has
> subjective purposiveness for cognition,"
So how does Tahiti have subjective purposeness for cognition if neither I nor you have ever been
there?
M.H.Benders
Tom Woolery
> "Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> > Er, you've rather egregiously misparsed my sentence.
>
> 'You don't understand my argument'.
> 'Shakespeare, like Tahiti, is beautiful, because many people say he is'.
> 'We've been to the moon and we've won Nobel Prizes, so you can't
> criticize america'
>
> Do these philosophical gems sum up your entire mental existence? It
> seems so.
>
> M.H.Benders
Limbo anyone?
Tom
<DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK>
> Er, you've rather egregiously misparsed my sentence.
'You don't understand my argument'.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Heh, no, I've already lost.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Only to the sort of simpleton who hears Yeats as a series of cliches,
Shakespeare as teenage love poetry, and Bach as elevator music. You
consistently place such a moronic construction on anything I say, and
do so so aggressively that, whether I am analyzing a poem or
discussing aesthetic philosophy, it becomes manifestly impossible to
treat the topic in even minimal depth; and if I present an argument
that is at all involved, you tell me that you only skimmed it, because
there's too much in it, or otherwise blow it off with the likes of
"Kant is a boring philosopher."
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
The scary thing is that that is genuinely the level of your thought. I
introduced Tahiti, after you proved unable to understand Kant, as an
exemplar of one of several kinds of beauty; had you let me continue
the argument, rather than getting hung up on a beside-the-point
travelogue -- Tahiti isn't beautiful! -- as if anyone gave a flying
fuck -- you would have saved yourself a good deal of trouble later on,
because you would have understood some of the basics of aesthetic
philosophy.
Josh
Martijn Benders
>
> >> http://www.musictheoryresources.com/members/MTA_1_2.htm#_ftn10 if you
> >> want some of the historical details which Shakespeare would have used
> >> as his starting point; "that which is beautiful is that which has
> >> subjective purposiveness for cognition,"
> >
> >So how does Tahiti have subjective purposeness for cognition if neither I nor you have ever been
> >there?
>
> The scary thing is that that is genuinely the level of your thought.
No Josh, that's exactly the level of your thought. You're the one who claimed that Kant's idea's on
beauty are still relevant nowadays. I think that Kant's ideas on beauty, and the whole system he
invented, weren't even relevant in the days he wrote them let alone 300 years later.
You come up with some hideous Kant quote in an art discussion, I point out to you that Kant is not
exactly an authority in this field, and you retort with a simplism which goes unequalled in the history
of AAPC (I will paste the exact quote):
"But -- there's soemthing else you overlook. For all that this is
interesting, art is neither created nor judged according to theory.
The faculties by which it is judged operate according to objectively
discernable procedures, but their operation is itself subjective and
intuitive. When you suggest that Blake or Yeats are not great, you
conflict with the direct perception of others who have read their
poetry. If you told me that Tahiti was ugly and the South Bronx
beautiful, I would tell you that you're nuts -- and no theory would be
involved. If you told me that Question Mark and the Mysterians were
better than the Beatles, the same. Once one has devoted the effort
required to gain insight into a given work, one can see easily how
good it is, and one is apt to conclude that anyone who doesn't see
that quality is of insufficeint wit or education or not sufficiently
familiar with the poem, poet, or poetry in general to make a
judgement, or reacting according to an emotional peculiarity."
-----
The above is of course laughable. It's merely apologism, not philosophy.
'Tahiti is beautiful because the majority of people who have been there say so' -
and *that* must be the basis of an aesthetic philosophy which should define an abstract term like
'beauty'? The Spice Girls are beautiful because the majority of people say so?
When I point this out to you, how do you retort? You retort by setting up a smokescreen by using a very
cheap debating trick. You simply claim that said
passage represents a philosophy far beyond my reach, and thus you try to hide the fact that you don't
have any arguments to defend this horrible simplism.
The same thing happened when you vented another one of your gross idiocies:
you claimed that the USA was 'spreading democracy' throughout the whole world and was therefore
excusable as a superpower. When people pointed out to you how horribly naieve such statements are, how
did you retort? Right, you didn't.
It's quite comical to see such a philosophical altar boy claim that others 'don't understand' the idea's
he represents.
> I
> introduced Tahiti, after you proved unable to understand Kant, as an
> exemplar of one of several kinds of beauty; had you let me continue
> the argument, rather than getting hung up on a beside-the-point
> travelogue -- Tahiti isn't beautiful! -- as if anyone gave a flying
> fuck -- you would have saved yourself a good deal of trouble later on,
> because you would have understood some of the basics of aesthetic
> philosophy.
Basics of _whose_ aesthetic philosophy, o grocerer in generilisations? Could anyone be such a simplist
to suggest that there exists a single basis for such a thing? And what is that basis, Josh? That 'things
are beautiful if the majority says so'?
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>>
>> >> http://www.musictheoryresources.com/members/MTA_1_2.htm#_ftn10 if you
>> >> want some of the historical details which Shakespeare would have used
>> >> as his starting point; "that which is beautiful is that which has
>> >> subjective purposiveness for cognition,"
>> >
>> >So how does Tahiti have subjective purposeness for cognition if neither I nor you have ever been
>> >there?
>>
>> The scary thing is that that is genuinely the level of your thought.
>
>No Josh, that's exactly the level of your thought. You're the one who claimed that Kant's idea's on
>beauty are still relevant nowadays. I think that Kant's ideas on beauty, and the whole system he
>invented, weren't even relevant in the days he wrote them let alone 300 years later.
You are merely expressing your opinion, and it is ill-informed, given
that many aesthetic philosophers continue to embrace and develop the
relationship between beauty and cognition, and accept, as a matter of
course, much (though not all) of what he wrote on matters of practical
judgment. I might add that this was something I came to on my own, as
a teenager; only when I formally studied aesthetics did I realize that
Kant had, in that respect (as in others), anticipated me by 200 years.
I followed common scholarly practice -- and saved myself the trouble
of paraphrasing -- by quoting the original source. But rather than
accepting or rejecting the ideas in play, you attacked Kant. A scholar
(and I've had enjoyable discussons of these matters with more than a
few over the years) would rather have reacted with interest, and made
his own observations.
Except, Martijn, for the minor fact that you're completely wrong. All
philosophies have recourse to the empirical, and I am aware of *no*
philosophy that has been successful in building a consistent and
inviolable system of the sort many German philosophers believed the
had attained. But quite beyond that obvious fact, and the fact that
beauty can in principle and to some extent in practice be analyzed by
Gallilean science, lies the fact that I did *not* explain my aesthetic
philosophy here, but made some valid empirical observations after you
reacted to my quote from Kant by dismissing him as the "world's most
boring philosopher." Martijn, I have *never* more than touched upon my
aesthetic philosophy here, or for that matter any contemporary
aesthetic philosophy; you haven't given me a chance. But I have
referred to Meyer many times as a good jumping-off point.
>The same thing happened when you vented another one of your gross idiocies:
>you claimed that the USA was 'spreading democracy' throughout the whole world and was therefore
>excusable as a superpower. When people pointed out to you how horribly naieve such statements are, how
>did you retort? Right, you didn't.
Er, you're right, I didn't, because Sophie's objection, and Dale's --
I think it was Dale's, weren't directed to me, and because I wasn't
particularly interested in getting into an endless argument about
which democratic regimes the US had overthrown, and whether any given
one was really democratic, and whether it was justified. You see, it
had absolutely nothing to do with my point. Except in a very few
cases, such as Germany and Japan, the United States does not *impose*
democracy; I'm not even sure that that could be done if we wanted to.
The United States does pressure various regimes to democratize, and
has expended a good deal of blood and treasure to protect the rights
of states such as your own to remain democratic. But that wasn't my
point either. The United States spread democracy by being pretty much
the world's only democratic state for 100 years, and after that, being
the largest and most influential one. It spread -- and spreads --
democracy through the example of its success, and its constant
advocacy of it. And the effect has been, and continues to be,
overwhelming.
But -- you chose to read what you wanted into this.
>It's quite comical to see such a philosophical altar boy claim that others 'don't understand' the idea's
>he represents.
>
>
>> I
>> introduced Tahiti, after you proved unable to understand Kant, as an
>> exemplar of one of several kinds of beauty; had you let me continue
>> the argument, rather than getting hung up on a beside-the-point
>> travelogue -- Tahiti isn't beautiful! -- as if anyone gave a flying
>> fuck -- you would have saved yourself a good deal of trouble later on,
>> because you would have understood some of the basics of aesthetic
>> philosophy.
>
>Basics of _whose_ aesthetic philosophy, o grocerer in generilisations? Could anyone be such a simplist
>to suggest that there exists a single basis for such a thing? And what is that basis, Josh? That 'things
>are beautiful if the majority says so'?
Here you go again. On one hand, you get upset when I say that you
don't understand what I'm talking about, and on the other, you suggest
that I believe, or have said, that "things are beautiful if the
majority says so," and that there is a single basis for beauty, even
though I said, specifically, that there are several kinds.
Actually, there's more of a single basis than you think -- or singular
bases, perhaps, when you separate out the various senses of the word
-- but I see no evidence that we will ever get there, given that you
keep putting baby words in my mouth.
Josh
Martijn Benders
> something I came to on my own, as
> a teenager; only when I formally studied aesthetics did I realize that
> Kant had, in that respect (as in others), anticipated me by 200 years.
This is of course true. But it would be quite a task, I'm afraid, to explain you why that's not something to
be proud of.
>
> Except, Martijn, for the minor fact that you're completely wrong. All
> philosophies have recourse to the empirical, and I am aware of *no*
> philosophy that has been successful in building a consistent and
> inviolable system of the sort many German philosophers believed the
> had attained.
Josh has missed Nietzsche, postmodernism, modernism, deconstructionism, absurdism and surrealism. But wait!
Those aren't 'consistent and inviolable systems' so they don't count! The only things that count are his own
ideas about reality being utterly systemizable. Therefore he continues to systemize even an abstract
impossibility as 'beauty' - Shakespeare, Shelley, Keats, Yeats! That is what is beauty, for the 'knowledge'
of our academics has proven this to be true!
> But quite beyond that obvious fact, and the fact that
> beauty can in principle and to some extent in practice be analyzed by
> Gallilean science, lies the fact that I did *not* explain my aesthetic
> philosophy here, but made some valid empirical observations after you
> reacted to my quote from Kant by dismissing him as the "world's most
> boring philosopher." Martijn, I have *never* more than touched upon my
> aesthetic philosophy here, or for that matter any contemporary
> aesthetic philosophy; you haven't given me a chance.
You have that chance every single post you make about the subject. Yet what you come up with is 'Tahiti is
beautiful, because the people who were there say so'. And that is ultimately the conclusion of your
'systemizable reality' which is nothing but an outdated form of teenage romanticism. Everyone knows that
Tahiti is full of obese, rich American tourists and that even a mere hut there costs 500 dollars a night. Is
that beautiful? Or are perhaps the nuclear experiments the french held in the region 'beautiful'?
Josh, if you would claim that the Canary islands were beautiful in a european academy as an example of your
aesthetic fossilism the other students would immediately shoot you.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>> something I came to on my own, as
>> a teenager; only when I formally studied aesthetics did I realize that
>> Kant had, in that respect (as in others), anticipated me by 200 years.
>
>This is of course true. But it would be quite a task, I'm afraid, to explain you why that's not something to
>be proud of.
More yadda yadda. Someday, perhaps, you'll actually address an
argument (in a way that doesn't oversimplify to the point of
ludicrousness).
>>
>> Except, Martijn, for the minor fact that you're completely wrong. All
>> philosophies have recourse to the empirical, and I am aware of *no*
>> philosophy that has been successful in building a consistent and
>> inviolable system of the sort many German philosophers believed the
>> had attained.
>
>Josh has missed Nietzsche, postmodernism, modernism, deconstructionism, absurdism and surrealism. But wait!
>Those aren't 'consistent and inviolable systems' so they don't count! The only things that count are his own
>ideas about reality being utterly systemizable. Therefore he continues to systemize even an abstract
>impossibility as 'beauty' - Shakespeare, Shelley, Keats, Yeats! That is what is beauty, for the 'knowledge'
>of our academics has proven this to be true!
Again, just a lot of words that say absolutely nothing, except that
you can throw around a bunch of names and haven't the foggiest notion
of what I'm getting at
>> But quite beyond that obvious fact, and the fact that
>> beauty can in principle and to some extent in practice be analyzed by
>> Gallilean science, lies the fact that I did *not* explain my aesthetic
>> philosophy here, but made some valid empirical observations after you
>> reacted to my quote from Kant by dismissing him as the "world's most
>> boring philosopher." Martijn, I have *never* more than touched upon my
>> aesthetic philosophy here, or for that matter any contemporary
>> aesthetic philosophy; you haven't given me a chance.
>
>You have that chance every single post you make about the subject. Yet what you come up with is 'Tahiti is
>beautiful, because the people who were there say so'. And that is ultimately the conclusion of your
>'systemizable reality' which is nothing but an outdated form of teenage romanticism. Everyone knows that
>Tahiti is full of obese, rich American tourists and that even a mere hut there costs 500 dollars a night. Is
>that beautiful? Or are perhaps the nuclear experiments the french held in the region 'beautiful'?
>
>Josh, if you would claim that the Canary islands were beautiful in a european academy as an example of your
>aesthetic fossilism the other students would immediately shoot you.
Martijn, all you've done here is to demonstrate once again that you've
never been within a mile of a university.
Josh
Arjan de Groot
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>This is of course true. But it would be quite a task, I'm afraid, to explain you why that's not something to
Je reggellengte zuigt, Martijn.
Arjan
--
9:11 En Gij hebt de zee voor hun aangezicht gekliefd, dat zij in
het midden der zee op het droge zijn doorgegaan; en hun
vervolgers hebt Gij in de diepten geworpen, als een steen in
sterke wateren.
Martijn Benders
> >This is of course true. But it would be quite a task, I'm afraid, to explain you why that's not something to
>
> Je reggellengte zuigt, Martijn.
Was me ook al opgevallen. Maar waar ligt het aan? Ik gebruik N.S. 4.7
voor nieuwgroepen, en die staat ingesteld op 'wrap incoming text around
window width' en 'wrap outgoing, plain text messages at 72 characters' -
dat is toch de standaard instelling, die goed zou moeten zijn? Verder
bewerk ik alles in plain text.....so help me out!
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
> > Je reggellengte zuigt, Martijn.
>
> Was me ook al opgevallen. Maar waar ligt het aan? Ik gebruik N.S. 4.7
> voor nieuwgroepen, en die staat ingesteld op 'wrap incoming text around
> window width' en 'wrap outgoing, plain text messages at 72 characters' -
> dat is toch de standaard instelling, die goed zou moeten zijn? Verder
> bewerk ik alles in plain text.....so help me out!
Hmm, deze deed het wel goed. Ik denk dat de oorzaak in het 'use plain
text editor' zat - soms moet ik html mailtjes maken en dan vergeet ik
wel eens die optie terug te zetten.
M.H.Benders
Martijn Benders
> >This is of course true. But it would be quite a task, I'm afraid, to explain you why that's not something to
> >be proud of.
>
> More yadda yadda.
Do I hear the mating call of an 'American intellectual'?
> >Josh, if you would claim that the Canary islands were beautiful in a european academy as an example of your
> >aesthetic fossilism the other students would immediately shoot you.
>
> Martijn, all you've done here is to demonstrate once again that you've
> never been within a mile of a university.
Why? Let me guess: else it would be perfectly clear to me that the
Canary Islands are beautiful? Josh, please refrain from using platitudes
like 'universities' when it's perfectly obvious European Universities in
now way compare to the mere extensions of the tourist industry you call
'universities' in the States.
M.H.Benders
Joshua P. Hill
Gee, now how predictable was that? And how ludicrously unconvincing.
Speaking of which, from the archives:
Josh: Which I take it is that in your opinion the judging of the
figure skating event reflected cultural superiority on the part of
European over North American judges rather than corruption.
Martijn: This is of course true.
And from today's paper:
An alleged Russian crime boss was arrested in Italy on U.S. charges he
tried to fix the pairs and ice dancing figure skating competitions at
the Salt Lake City Olympics, according to a federal criminal complaint
filed Wednesday. . . . Prosecutors allege that Tokhtakhounov schemed
to get the French judge to vote for the Russian pairs figure skating
team of Elena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze, which won the gold
medal. In exchange, he arranged for the Russian judge to vote for the
French ice dancing team of Marina Anissina and Gwendal Peizerat of
France. They did win.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26504-2002Jul31.html\
Don't worry -- someday you'll be right about *something.*
Josh
Martijn Benders
> Gee, now how predictable was that? And how ludicrously unconvincing.
I thought the 'yadda yadda' was more of an argument, Josh.
> Speaking of which, from the archives:
>
> Josh: Which I take it is that in your opinion the judging of the
> figure skating event reflected cultural superiority on the part of
> European over North American judges rather than corruption.
>
> Martijn: This is of course true.
(snip)
>
> And from today's paper:
Yes, and? Everybody knows that crime is culturally superior to sports.
M.H.Benders
Arjan de Groot
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>Je reggellengte zuigt, Martijn.
>>Was me ook al opgevallen. Maar waar ligt het aan? Ik gebruik N.S. 4.7
>>voor nieuwgroepen, en die staat ingesteld op 'wrap incoming text around
>>window width' en 'wrap outgoing, plain text messages at 72 characters' -
>>dat is toch de standaard instelling, die goed zou moeten zijn? Verder
>>bewerk ik alles in plain text.....so help me out!
Ik gebruik NS al een tijdje niet meer, dus precies weten doe ik
het ook niet. De opmaak doet echter vermoeden dat de uitgaande
tekst op een resolutie van 1024x768 onstaan is en op window-
breedte gewrapt werd. Mijn scherm (800x600) en fixed pitch font
(10pt) is in ieder geval niet in staat de regels in hun geheel
(dwz zonder extra wrap) weer te geven.
>Hmm, deze deed het wel goed. Ik denk dat de oorzaak in het 'use plain
>text editor' zat - soms moet ik html mailtjes maken en dan vergeet ik
>wel eens die optie terug te zetten.
Dat zal het zijn.
Arjan
--
18:5 En de Syriers van Damaskus kwamen, om Hadar-ezer, den koning
van Zoba, te helpen; maar David sloeg van de Syriers twee en
twintig duizend man.
Tom Bishop
--
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Composer.Here.Nu - Poetry Composition Tool!!
http://TomsPoems.Truly.Nu - my meager efforts.
"Martijn Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message news:3D484195...@chello.nl...
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>> Gee, now how predictable was that? And how ludicrously unconvincing.
>
>I thought the 'yadda yadda' was more of an argument, Josh.
That's because we've seen so many "well, that's because American blah
blah blah" arguments from you that no one takes them seriously any
more (if anyone every did).
>> Speaking of which, from the archives:
>>
>> Josh: Which I take it is that in your opinion the judging of the
>> figure skating event reflected cultural superiority on the part of
>> European over North American judges rather than corruption.
>>
>> Martijn: This is of course true.
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>> And from today's paper:
>
>Yes, and? Everybody knows that crime is culturally superior to sports.
He's ludicrously wrong, so he goes into clown mode -- are you aware of
how tediously predictable you've become?
Josh