Rock *vs* (!) "KSP"
Michael Ratner
Hi !
During this (rare) visit to s.c.s I've been pleasantly surprised to
find out that a seemingly even more rare event is taking place:
subject of the current discussion actually has something to do with
the name of the newsgroup... Having just read the portion of the
debate that has not yet been expired by my newsreader, I thought I'd
allow myself to interject a few general comments and observations.
First and foremost, the entire debate strikes me as rather silly. It
resembles disputes that my wife and I have sometimes about whose
favorite cuisine is better: Italian or Japanese. Not only is it a
matter of personal taste but the quality of the food makes a lot of
difference. Admittedly, my wife wouldn't touch sushi and a spoonful of
fettuccine alfredo would still leave a horrible aftertaste in my mouth
even if the meal was commissioned by Duce himself. Neither of us
would claim, however, that either cuisine is inherently bad, or fail
to distinguish between meals prepared by good and bad cooks. But in
general either of us would be hard put to make that distinction for a
meal from the "opposite" cuisine.
Most of the participants of this discussion seem to be falling into
the same trap. They either mistake their distaste for Rock or KSP for
a valid impartial judgement or fail to acknowledge the simple fact
that both Rock and KSP have generated both pretty excellent and pretty
pathetic music and/or lyrics (but of course who cares about valid
impartial judgements when sky is dark and flames are strong ! :) ).
I would personally prefer to have the best of both worlds.
Historically I grew up in "KSP subculture" but it in no way impaires
my ability to appreciate "Alisa" or "JC Superstar" or Naumov's guitar
for that matter (I have a little trouble with his lyrics though :). I
have about as much affection for heavy metal as my wife for sushi but
my (and Igor Pankevich's common) friend assures me that some of it is
superb and I take his word for it. Even certain examples of rap music
are ...well, OK (believe me, this is a very high praise when coming
from someone who grew up on KSP :). I could not possibly comprehend
someone who said he "had to mumble 'Milaya moya, solnyshko lesnoye'",
but I would probably be able to appreciate Rock music pieces that he
thinks are great...
Well, I guess enough banalities :). Maybe I'll intrude again later;
bits are cheap, anyway... :) Good luck to you all,
-- Mike Ratner
--
*****************************************************************************
Michael B. Ratner Associate Programmer, Advanced Network & Services (ANS)
Office: rat...@ans.net (914) 789-5363 100 Clearbrook Rd. Elmsford, NY10523
"The Road goes ever on and on..." - J.R.R. Tolkien
Zak May
>...both Rock and KSP have generated both pretty excellent and pretty
>pathetic music and/or lyrics...
So? We weren't really discussing the creative achievements here (that *might*
be a subjective thing :) We were comparing the movements and the ideologies.
That's a fare comparison, IMHO, because most of us had something to do with one
and/or the other and have had valid experiences to base our judgements on.
The fact that Majakovsky wrote decent pro-communist poetry doesn't justify
communism as ideology. The fact that Okudjava's songs were performed at the
KSP 'sliots' doesn't say *anything* about the 'sliots'.
The question was - whether we can consider the KSP movement 'healthy'.
I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
please do so.
Otherwise - piss off.
___
Zak.
Michael Ratner
>Michael Ratner <rat...@ans.net> wrote:
>>...both Rock and KSP have generated both pretty excellent and pretty
>>pathetic music and/or lyrics...
>
>So? We weren't really discussing the creative achievements here (that *might*
>be a subjective thing :) We were comparing the movements and the ideologies.
..come on now, not all of *you* ...
>That's a fare comparison, IMHO, because most of us had something to do with one
>and/or the other and have had valid experiences to base our judgements on.
I'll let "movements" pass but "ideologies" ? What ideologies ?! As
one whose "valid experiences" were virtually all in KSP I must assure
you that the last thing that united people in "slyots" was ideology.
One of (many) attractions of KSP has always been the fact that it
not only brought together people from different ideologies but made
them leave those ideologies at the door when they entered the world of
KSP. I've always looked at KSP as a sort of safe and calm haven where
people could escape from unpleasant realities of Soviet life. The
best KSP songs are about friendship, love, unity of man with nature,
and other wonderful things. That is why I have so much difficulty
understanding someone's *negative* feelings towards "milaya moya..."
What in the world could be negative about love and warmth ?
>The fact that Majakovsky wrote decent pro-communist poetry doesn't justify
>communism as ideology. The fact that Okudjava's songs were performed at the
>KSP 'sliots' doesn't say *anything* about the 'sliots'.
But it does !
>The question was - whether we can consider the KSP movement
>'healthy'.
Who is "we" ?
>I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
>changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
>names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
>please do so.
Oh, so now "we" need a list of opponents' addresses. Hmm... :)
Seriously, though, as Baal Shem Tov has said: "It is His will that
controls how many times this leaf turns in the dust before being blown
away by the wind." Do you imply that there exists something in which
G-d is not present ?
And also, I have always considered KSP one of the main "vehicles of
survival" of spirituality in Soviet Russia. But that is a totally
different, albeit fascinating subject.
>Otherwise - piss off.
>Zak.
Respectfully :)
Michael Kagalenko
In article <1993Aug17.1...@ans.net> rat...@ans.net (Michael Ratner) writes:
>
>Seriously, though, as Baal Shem Tov has said: "It is His will that
>controls how many times this leaf turns in the dust before being blown
>away by the wind." Do you imply that there exists something in which
>G-d is not present ?
He probably implies that in KSP movement God is present to the same degree
as He is present in the pile of (favourite animal) shit.
>*****************************************************************************
>Michael B. Ratner Associate Programmer, Advanced Network & Services (ANS)
>Office: rat...@ans.net (914) 789-5363 100 Clearbrook Rd. Elmsford, NY10523
>"The Road goes ever on and on..." - J.R.R. Tolkien
^^^^^^^^
Haha, Tolkien fan - I should have figured it out by the preceding article
Igor Belchinskiy
: The fact that Majakovsky wrote decent pro-communist poetry doesn't justify
: communism as ideology.
Really? Which one?
: Zak.
--
Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com Opinions are mine and strong.
Garik
|> I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
|> changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
|> names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
|> please do so.
|>
|> Otherwise - piss off.
|>
Zak,
They say an apple a day will keep a doctor away, but they never mention that
a truck full of apples will land one in a big hospital. Point is that both
movements can be healthy or harmful, depending how seriously you take yourself.
In your case, one can guess that Rock really went to your head. (Sorry, I feel
nutty.)
---Garik.
___________________________________________________________________________
"In our town, there is a barbar. He shaves every man here who does not
shave himself. Yesterday, I passed him on the street, and could not help
but notice that he needed a shave. Poor man, I feel pitty for him."
-one of my _Deep Thoughts_.
___________________________________________________________________________
Greg Kosinovsky
>The question was - whether we can consider the KSP movement 'healthy'.
>I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
>changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
>names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
>please do so.
>Otherwise - piss off.
I was going to stay out of this discussion, but the above is too funny to
ignore. I would hope that no one "found God" as a result of KSP song --
I have a higher regard for KSP fans. I am a religious man who finds many
of the better KSP songs to be spiritually uplifting, but not in a religious
sence. If you know of anyone who "found God" as a result of listening to
Rock (or any other form of music) don't tell me. I might meet these people
and be prejudiced against them from the start.
Greg K.
gennady
> names and addresses
>of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
> please do so.
Gennady.
Zak May
>I was going to stay out of this discussion, but the above is too funny to
>ignore.
I'd rather you stayed out. You can't write for shit.
>I am a religious man who finds many of the better KSP songs to be spiritually
>uplifting, but not in a religious sence.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? :^) 'Spiritual not in a religious
sense'?
(I'm asking him questions. That is quite silly, considering the fact that he
might answer. But then again - I can always drive to Urbana and shoot him :)
___
Zak.
Zak May
So what's the address for that Baal Shem Tov guy? :^)
___
Zak.
Igor Pankevich
>Greg Kosinovsky <kos...@ceg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>I was going to stay out of this discussion, but the above is too funny to
>>ignore.
>
>I'd rather you stayed out. You can't write for shit.
>
>>I am a religious man who finds many of the better KSP songs to be spiritually
>>uplifting, but not in a religious sence.
>
>What the fuck is that supposed to mean? :^) 'Spiritual not in a religious
>sense'?
>
spiritual nature but not in a religious sence. That's what it says,
and I hope you can read. "Spiritually uplifting" means exactly
"uplifting the spirit". Where do you see a reference to a religion? I
hope you believe there are people believing that their spirit is an
entity distinct from their body, but at the same time not believing in
god. If not, ask any Buddist nearby.
>(I'm asking him questions. That is quite silly, considering the fact that he
>might answer. But then again - I can always drive to Urbana and shoot him :)
>
Well, I would guess, ask a rhetoric question - get a rhetoric
answer. Or, as mr. Zhvanetsky once said, "poluchite ischerpyvayuschie
voprosy na vse tupye otvety". Did it ever occur to you that Greg could
shoot you from an ambush? If I were you, I would give a thought to
this possibility _before_ driving to Urbana. (Here we start again a
debate over who is going to shoot whom and with what weapon. Where is
our National Guard to restore peace in scs?)
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Boris A. Veytsman
>I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
>changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
>names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
>please do so.
>
And that is exactly what I don't like in Rock. To learn philosophy
read books. To have spiritual rebirth try to seek spiritual experience.
But have BG as the source of philosophy and/or religion?
It reminds me Krishnaits.You see, Indian philosohy is a
difficult thing. People spend years and years to understand it.
But some humbugs say that you can have it in a easy
way - just say a thousand times some nonsense about Krishna
and his Kharya. There is a good Russian word 'Deshevka'.
BTW, not that I don't like BG. His songs are nice, especially
if you are a little drunk. But my spiritual values are based
on different sources
Good luck
-Boris
Julia V Genyuk
>changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
>names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
>please do so.
>
>
BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
"Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
Julia
Zak May
>To learn philosophy read books. To have spiritual rebirth try to seek
>spiritual experience.
This is gross - I'm not even going to comment (Lord knows I want to :)
>It reminds me Krishnaits.You see, Indian philosohy is a
>difficult thing. People spend years and years to understand it.
To understand what?
>But some humbugs say that you can have it in a easy
>way - just say a thousand times some nonsense about Krishna
>and his Kharya. There is a good Russian word 'Deshevka'.
Krishnaits don't claim that repeating mantras makes you 'understand Indian
philosophy'. And what's wrong with easily-achievable enlightenment? Jesus
said enlightenment was easy. Buddha said it was easy. I say it's easy.
Only the Churches say it's hard. And we all know why. Fine, I'm bored
with the subject. Please let me know if you miss my point, instead of
misinterpreting it and arguing with it.
>BTW, not that I don't like BG. His songs are nice, especially
>if you are a little drunk.
If this is a bait - I really don't care. I seriously think it's stupid to
pass BG by as a source of easily-accessible spirituality.
___
Zak.
Garik
|> Greg Kosinovsky <kos...@ceg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
|> >I was going to stay out of this discussion, but the above is too funny to
|> >ignore.
|>
|> I'd rather you stayed out. You can't write for shit.
|>
Zak, here I go again, but he was not writing for you.
|> >I am a religious man who finds many of the better KSP songs to be spiritually
|> >uplifting, but not in a religious sence.
|>
|> What the fuck is that supposed to mean? :^) 'Spiritual not in a religious
|> sense'?
Which words you did not understand? You give words you have problems with,
we'll try to find their definitions for you. Good?
___________________________________________________________________________
"In our town, there is a barber. He shaves every man here who does not
shave himself. Yesterday, I passed him on the street, and could not help
but notice that he needed a shave. Poor man, I feel pity for him."
Zak May
> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
> regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
> God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
> "Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
Kumir = idol = something made of wood. The meaning of the sentence is close
to this: God is much more than your percepction of him/her, so never try to
substutite God in your life with a model of your perception of him/her.
I don't know of any place in any Sacred Text, that would prohibit choosing
a teacher, trusting a teacher and respecting a teacher. Enough said.
___
Zak.
Greg Landsberg
In fact it was the first AMENDMENT :-)
Greg
Julia V Genyuk
<jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
>> regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
>> God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
>> "Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
>
>Kumir = idol = something made of wood. The meaning of the sentence is close
>to this: God is much more than your percepction of him/her, so never try to
>substutite God in your life with a model of your perception of him/her.
>
>I don't know of any place in any Sacred Text, that would prohibit choosing
>a teacher, trusting a teacher and respecting a teacher. Enough said.
>
>___
>Zak.
>
Let me try to understand.
I guess now that the difference between your (rock people) and mine
(to some extend KSP people) approach to teachers is about the same
as between East and West approach. Namely, the Eastern tradition
is to trust a teacher completely and accept everything he says
as an absolute truth (maybe not exactly so, but that's an idea).
The Western people respect a teacher, but reserve a right to
critisize him if he is wrong, in their opinion, so there is more
equality (at least that's what I was told while taking TA training
class). Am I right? If yes, it's amusing, because rock is supposed
to be something really belonging to Western culture.
Julia
Igor Pankevich
>The very charming Julia V Genyuk <jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
>> regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
>> God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
>> "Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
>
>Kumir = idol = something made of wood. The meaning of the sentence is close
Bullshit. Kumir is an entity which one deems is above him/her, and is
not the G-d. Idol is an image of a god. Your head is something made of wood.
>to this: God is much more than your percepction of him/her, so never try to
God is always _he_. Goddess is _she_.
>substutite God in your life with a model of your perception of him/her.
>
>I don't know of any place in any Sacred Text, that would prohibit choosing
>a teacher, trusting a teacher and respecting a teacher. Enough said.
>
The Levi's tribe (koleno ?) was chosen by G-d to be priests
and therefore, teachers of religion/philosophy to the Jews. They were
specifically told not to learn those from all the non-Jewish tribes.
Of course, if you are referring to the so called "Good Word" by the
name "Sacred Text", I have nothing to say.
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Zak May
> Thaaanx!
You're quite welcome, oh the ever-charming Julia V Genyuk!
> I guess now that the difference between your (rock people) and mine
> (to some extend KSP people) approach to teachers is about the same
> as between East and West approach.
I'd really not generalize on this level. Let's stick to "Zak's point of view"
and "Zak's impression of the average KSP-shnik's point of view".
> ... rock is supposed to be something really belonging to Western culture.
No. Rock is always a clash/combination of cultures. *Always*. That's the
most important thing to consider when making meta-cultural assumptions about
it. I'd say it's the first *peaceful* collision of cultures in history that
I know of. I can't think of a rock artist that wouldn't belong to at least
two ancient cultural traditions at the same time. That's why it always amases
me when people talk about Russian Rock as something "stolen" from America.
If I had to define "Rock music" (which I hope will never happen :) I would
go in the direction of "people reinterpreting other culture's achievements
using their experiences or the experiences of their own culture in general",
or some cockamamie bullshit like that. I do hope you catch my point, because
I feel very uneasy about this whole lecturing thing.
All the best,
___
Zak.
Zak May
easy on him from the start).
Igor Pankevich <ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>Kumir = idol = something made of wood.
>
>Bullshit. Kumir is an entity which one deems is above him/her, and is
>not the G-d. Idol is an image of a god. Your head is something made of wood.
My fist is something made of steel, and that's the only thing that should
matter to you right now, you worthless KSP slime.
>God is always _he_. Goddess is _she_.
How do you know? Did you see his/her dick?
>...<some junk info about Leo's tribe omitted>...
>Of course, if you are referring to the so called "Good Word" by the
>name "Sacred Text", I have nothing to say.
Hey - fuck you and your biblical knowledge! Whatever the "Good Word" has to
do with the Leo's tribe? If you're so eager to quote Genesis to me, you should
spend less time kissing your pal Naumov's ass and more time reading the book
itself (or listening to old Genesis, which is even healthier, IMHO).
Your future buddy,
___
Zak.
Sergei Laiter
Could anyone help me find the e-mail address for IFAV (institut
fiziologichesky activnih veshestv) v Chernogolovke?
Thanks
-Sergei
Dmitri Manin
>Hmm, quite annoying article, but I'll pick on only one remark:
>
>
>In article <1993Aug17.1...@ans.net> rat...@ans.net (Michael Ratner) writes:
>>
>>Seriously, though, as Baal Shem Tov has said: "It is His will that
>>controls how many times this leaf turns in the dust before being blown
>>away by the wind." Do you imply that there exists something in which
>>G-d is not present ?
>
>
>He probably implies that in KSP movement God is present to the same degree
>as He is present in the pile of (favourite animal) shit.
>
Regardless of what is the discussion about, that's exactly so: God
(Tao, Buddha, you name it...) is present in all things. Comparing
degree of presence of God in different things is at least ridiculous.
Thinking that His (Her, Its, ...) presence in shit can be humiliating
is just funny.
That's why your joke misses the target.
Sincerely,
- DM
>
>
>
>>*****************************************************************************
>>Michael B. Ratner Associate Programmer, Advanced Network & Services (ANS)
>>Office: rat...@ans.net (914) 789-5363 100 Clearbrook Rd. Elmsford, NY10523
>>"The Road goes ever on and on..." - J.R.R. Tolkien
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Haha, Tolkien fan - I should have figured it out by the preceding article
>
(PS That's not about me -- I couldn't read Tolkien past the first page
- DM)
Boris A. Veytsman
>
>Boris A. Veytsman <BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>To learn philosophy read books. To have spiritual rebirth try to seek
>>spiritual experience.
>
>This is gross - I'm not even going to comment (Lord knows I want to :)
>
>>It reminds me Krishnaits.You see, Indian philosohy is a
>>difficult thing. People spend years and years to understand it.
>
>To understand what?
>
>>But some humbugs say that you can have it in a easy
>>way - just say a thousand times some nonsense about Krishna
>>and his Kharya. There is a good Russian word 'Deshevka'.
>
>Krishnaits don't claim that repeating mantras makes you 'understand Indian
>philosophy'. And what's wrong with easily-achievable enlightenment? Jesus
>said enlightenment was easy. Buddha said it was easy. I say it's easy.
>
>Only the Churches say it's hard. And we all know why. Fine, I'm bored
>with the subject. Please let me know if you miss my point, instead of
>misinterpreting it and arguing with it.
>
Dear Zak:
You say you are bored of this discussion. May I suppose
it is your Rock bacground that makes serious arguments
boring for you? (;-)
Unfortunately for you I am not bored. In fact I'm glad
our discussion overcame silly comparison (rock/ksp,
ibm/mackintosh, etc) and became really interesting.
You ask what is wrong in easy enlightening (excuse me
Zak, but Rock IS an easy way - 'filosofiya dlya bednykh'),
and why one must read books and seek spiritual experience
for spiritual uplifting instead of just going to the
concert of BG? You see, I taught for 10 years, and I
know that 'easy came, easy go'. It is true about Math,
it is true about spiritual values. I don't beleive in
pre-digested spiritual food or spiritual McDonalds.
One must earn the spiritual rebirth by long work.
Did Christ say that his truth is easy? Don't remember
I'm not a Christian. But what I know for sure that
his truth was not so easy for his followers. To follow
him they ought to forfeit their property, status, completely
change their life (not just buy a new costume or change
the hairdo). In fact Church made these things easier, not
difficultier, as it gradually lifted too strict demands
of the firs Christians.
No, Zak, you cannot cheat God. There are no King's Roads
in Geometry.
Good luck
-Boris
Michael Ratner
>In article <24tr50...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, Zak May <cs42...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>>The very charming Julia V Genyuk <jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
>>> regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
>>> God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
>>> "Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
>>
>>Kumir = idol = something made of wood. The meaning of the sentence is close
>
>Bullshit. Kumir is an entity which one deems is above him/her, and is
>not the G-d. Idol is an image of a god. Your head is something made of wood.
Igor... (sigh)
kakaya muha tebya ukusila ? Why do you have to object (poorly) to
perfectly valid statements only because they were made by a person holding
views occasionally orthogonal to yours ? Why do you attack literal
interpretation of a sentence when the next phrase explains its meaning ?
>>to this: God is much more than your percepction of him/her, so never try to
>
>God is always _he_. Goddess is _she_.
No, god is he and goddess is she. G-d can have different aspects but
has no gender. If you are referring to the fact that in Hebrew they say
"he", we could try and start digging deep here but it's an unrelated
discussion.
>>substutite God in your life with a model of your perception of him/her.
That is my (and as far as I know, classic) interpretation also.
>>I don't know of any place in any Sacred Text, that would prohibit choosing
>>a teacher, trusting a teacher and respecting a teacher. Enough said.
>>
> The Levi's tribe (koleno ?) was chosen by G-d to be priests
>and therefore, teachers of religion/philosophy to the Jews. They were
>specifically told not to learn those from all the non-Jewish tribes.
>Of course, if you are referring to the so called "Good Word" by the
>name "Sacred Text", I have nothing to say.
You've lost me. How does what you say contradict Zak's statement ?
Are you saying that if he is Jewish he is obliged to learn from Levits
only ? Please, clarify...
>>Zak.
>>
>--Igor
>
-- Mike Ratner
--
Michael Kagalenko
>In article <1993Aug17.2...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkag...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug17.1...@ans.net> rat...@ans.net (Michael Ratner) writes:
>>>
>>>Seriously, though, as Baal Shem Tov has said: "It is His will that
>>>controls how many times this leaf turns in the dust before being blown
>>>away by the wind." Do you imply that there exists something in which
>>>G-d is not present ?
>>
>>
>>He probably implies that in KSP movement God is present to the same degree
>>as He is present in the pile of (favourite animal) shit.
>>
>
>Regardless of what is the discussion about, that's exactly so: God
>(Tao, Buddha, you name it...) is present in all things. Comparing
>degree of presence of God in different things is at least ridiculous.
And therefore, the notion of presence of God in something does not
constitute any meaningful message
Zak May
in which he stated that spiritual and empirical knowledge can only be obtained
by hard work, that Rock is a cheap imitation of real philosophies, and that
I am, basically, full of shit.
Duhhh...
> May I suppose it is your Rock bacground that makes serious arguments
> boring for you? (;-)
Very funny. I don't mind serious arguments, I just don't like boring subjects.
> In fact I'm glad our discussion overcame silly comparison (rock/ksp,
> ibm/mackintosh, etc) and became really interesting.
I know - it's easier to suggest conservative views on abstract topics,
than to have your own on something that requires a certain level of knowledge.
> ..excuse me Zak, but Rock IS an easy way - 'filosofiya dlya bednykh'...
Christianity is 'filosofiya dlya bednykh', at least it's being marketed
as such. We market Rock as 'filosofiya protesta' :^)
> You ask why one must read books and seek spiritual experience for spiritual
> uplifting instead of just going to the concert of BG?
Almost. Let's define our terms. A 'book' is ideas written on paper (please
bare with me), a 'song' is ideas sung to music, which itself is made of ideas.
Don't see that much difference. I'm sure you don't suggest that BG's songs are
'shallow' (yes, that *would* disqualify you :), so I won't dwell on that.
'Seeking a spiritual experience' is an oxymoron. No such thing. If somebody
does that - I think they're wrong. Life *is* a spiritual experience, if you
don't spend too much time on useless things.
> You see, I taught <Math> for 10 years, and I know that 'easy came, easy go'.
That's not a clean argument. When a child/youth is being taught something
that he/she does not like, does not need, can not comprehend or appreciate,
by somebody, whom he/she usually does not like and can not choose, - TOUGH!
I never thought there'll come a day when I quote Floyd seriously, but - hey,
leave the kids alone! They don't need your education, and they don't need
your thoughts' control. ("We don't need no lubrication, we don't need no
birth control" is my favorite parody of this particularly pathetic piece of
rock lyricism :)
I know many mathematicians. Some of them - Harvard graduate students. They
*like* studying math. Nobody has to beat them over the head for it. It's
easy for them. And they are the few people that can find use for it :^)
I also know many non-mathematicians. They hate it! And they never use it.
So this is not a good argument for your side.
> I don't beleive in pre-digested spiritual food or spiritual McDonalds.
Then you don't believe in organized religion. Fine with me. Rock music
is no McDonalds. It's very expensive, it takes a lot of consumer's input
and it can screw you up for life (ok, there *is* a parallel with McDonalds :)
> One must earn the spiritual rebirth by long work.
Yeah, but what kind of work? Reading books usually written by people with
little spiritual potential? Studying math? I don't think so. If you're
talking 'meditative' work, then - yeah, but then BG concerts fit in perfectly.
> To follow him <Christ> they <early Christians> ought to forfeit their
> property, status, completely change their life (not just buy a new costume
> or change the hairdo).
Hey, that's nothing! We *all* did the same when we emigrated, didn't we? :^)
It wasn't that tough. Besides, if we're talking about Jesus, he wanted us to
drop those things if we felt we were enslaved by them (I don't want to get too
deep into it though).
> In fact Church made these things easier, not difficultier, as it gradually
> lifted too strict demands of the firs Christians.
Now - this is complete des-information. Most of the famous Christian
limitations were *imposed* by the Church (the Apostles, etc.) They were only
'lifted gradually' for strictly political reasons, and I don't want to dwell
on this either. The fact that you speak favorably of the Church, IMHO, is
closely linked to the fact that you're a teacher. Your institutions have
stayed closely related throughout the Western history and together will pay
dearly when The Time comes. You'll see me there - I'll be in the audience,
cheering when Black Sabbath takes the stage.
> No, Zak, you cannot cheat God.
Oh please... I wasn't even trying to - me and God seem to have a beautiful
working relationship :)
> There are no King's Roads in Geometry.
I think this line got in here by mistake - you must have been checking
somebody's homework when writing your article. Anyway - thanks for the
glimpse of Wisdom.
___
Zak.
Dragon Fly
>
> In <24r6i1...@umbc8.umbc.edu> Zak May (cs42...@umbc.edu) wrote:
>
> : The fact that Majakovsky wrote decent pro-communist poetry doesn't justify
> : communism as ideology.
>
> Really? Which one?
Which what ? Which fact, which pro-communist poetry, which Majakovsky,
or which communism ? :-)
Serega
Boris A. Veytsman
>
>This is supposed to be an answer to Boris Veytsman's article from last night,
>in which he stated that spiritual and empirical knowledge can only be obtained
>by hard work, that Rock is a cheap imitation of real philosophies, and that
>I am, basically, full of shit.
>
I basically agree with first two statements,
but when did I say #3? You may be full of
youth agressiveness and lack some basic
education, but you will probably improve
in next couple of years. It is evident
that your IQ is high, and you have a good
potential.
BV:
>> You ask why one must read books and seek spiritual experience for spiritual
>> uplifting instead of just going to the concert of BG?
>
ZM:
>Almost. Let's define our terms. A 'book' is ideas written on paper (please
>bare with me), a 'song' is ideas sung to music, which itself is made of ideas.
>Don't see that much difference. I'm sure you don't suggest that BG's songs
>are
>'shallow' (yes, that *would* disqualify you :), so I won't dwell on that.
I'm afraid I am disqualified by your criterium.
Of course everything is relative, and BG songs
maybe ocean of wisdom in comparison with somebody,
but... Dear Zak, have you read a real poetry?
I have no doubt that someday you will find it
and understand the place of BG in the Russian
culture and literature.
I will not say that by taking BG poetry seriously
you are disqualified. Nobody was born with
impeccable taste, you know...
>> You see, I taught <Math> for 10 years, and I know that 'easy came, easy go'.
[actually, Physics]
>
>That's not a clean argument. When a child/youth is being taught something
>that he/she does not like, does not need, can not comprehend or appreciate,
>by somebody, whom he/she usually does not like and can not choose, - TOUGH!
>
>I never thought there'll come a day when I quote Floyd seriously, but - hey,
>leave the kids alone! They don't need your education, and they don't need
>your thoughts' control. ("We don't need no lubrication, we don't need no
>birth control" is my favorite parody of this particularly pathetic piece of
>rock lyricism :)
Your thoughts may be interesting for the pro teachers.
But they are not applicable in my case. For 10 years
I delivered special courses at the Odessa University
School and Lyceum. My course was an extra one - I did
it in my spare time, kids did it in their spare
time (up to the last year I was not paid for it, and
even when I was the salary was nominal). It was my
rule that only those attend my lectures who want to.
When I began to teach University students, I used the
same rule. But I did not entertain my kids, I demanded
hard work. Nevertheless I always had about 10 of them
who wanted to be taught. No use to teach anybody else.
>
>> One must earn the spiritual rebirth by long work.
>
>Yeah, but what kind of work? Reading books usually written by people with
>little spiritual potential? Studying math? I don't think so. If you're
>talking 'meditative' work, then - yeah, but then BG concerts fit in perfectly.
Once again, maybe in couple of years you'll understand
what is a spiritual work and what is not.
>
>> To follow him <Christ> they <early Christians> ought to forfeit their
>> property, status, completely change their life (not just buy a new costume
>> or change the hairdo).
>
>Hey, that's nothing! We *all* did the same when we emigrated, didn't we? :^)
I did not emigrated. Are you much poorer then in SU, btw?
>
>> In fact Church made these things easier, not difficultier, as it gradually
>> lifted too strict demands of the firs Christians.
>
>Now - this is complete des-information. Most of the famous Christian
>limitations were *imposed* by the Church (the Apostles, etc.) They were only
>'lifted gradually' for strictly political reasons, and I don't want to dwell
>on this either. The fact that you speak favorably of the Church, IMHO, is
ˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ ??? - BV
>closely linked to the fact that you're a teacher. Your institutions have
>stayed closely related throughout the Western history and together will pay
>dearly when The Time comes. You'll see me there - I'll be in the audience,
>cheering when Black Sabbath takes the stage.
>
May I inquire what are your sources on the history
of Christianity? I hope NOT some cheap Rock songs?
You see, you seems to have some information on Christ
independent on the Apostles' interpretation. As all
our information goes to Apostles (not counting
that paragraph in Flavius' book which is probably
a fake and hardly informative), you may posess
a unvaluable peace of knowledge.
>> There are no King's Roads in Geometry.
>
>I think this line got in here by mistake - you must have been checking
>somebody's homework when writing your article. Anyway - thanks for the
>glimpse of Wisdom.
>
>
Surely. And excuse me if my quotation is too
unrecognizable for you.
Good luck
-Boris
didinsky garry
> Almost. Let's define our terms. A 'book' is ideas written on paper (please
> bare with me), a 'song' is ideas sung to music, which itself is made of ideas.
As great Woody Allen said, it sounds great, but can you dance to it. Ideas
put into few little sentences can worth a cent, if the "deep thought" put into
them does not already exist in the mind of a person recieving those sentences.
A book has a potential to elaborate on the "deep thought", making ideas more
precise for a wider audiance.
I think it is great that you are so receptive of Rock, which supports my
earlier statement that it must be in your head :-)
>Don't see that much difference. I'm sure you don't suggest that BG's songs are
> 'shallow' (yes, that *would* disqualify you :), so I won't dwell on that.
I don't know, would you consider bottom-of-my-foot deep shallow? For me
personally, he carries no meaning, but then again I have to listen to his
songs :-)
>
> 'Seeking a spiritual experience' is an oxymoron. No such thing. If somebody
> does that - I think they're wrong. Life *is* a spiritual experience, if you
> don't spend too much time on useless things.
>
'Masturbation as a mean of a spiritual experience' could be an oxymoron until
you try it. Try them both, compare, do them with a friend, write a book,
sell it, become rich, get bored with all the money, start all over.
|> I never thought there'll come a day when I quote Floyd seriously, but - hey,
|> leave the kids alone! They don't need your education, and they don't need
|> your thoughts' control. ("We don't need no lubrication, we don't need no
|> birth control" is my favorite parody of this particularly pathetic piece of
|> rock lyricism :)
Hey, here is an example of taking a little sentence, which did not come in
a digested wrapping, and having a simpletonian trip with it.
Peace brother and may the BG be with you,
- Garik
Zak May
obsolete, and right when I lost all the interest to it. I do hope this is the
last message in this thread. It's impossible to speak through a generation
gap if the older side isn't listening. I'm eternally grateful I never had this
problem with my parents. I hope my potential children won't have this problem
with me ("No, Vasia, you won't go out and play until you finish listening to
your daily dosage of Morissey solo records!")
I also want to say that when Boris made those hints to my 'lack of education',
he lost most of his credibility with me. It's just childish. Statements like:
> You may be full of youth agressiveness and lack some basic education, but you
> will probably improve in next couple of years. It is evident that your IQ is
> high, and you have a good potential.
make no sense to me, except for "you sound too damn knowledgable for your age."
So I'll ignore them.
>Of course everything is relative, and BG songs
>maybe ocean of wisdom in comparison with somebody,
>but... Dear Zak, have you read a real poetry?
>I have no doubt that someday you will find it
>and understand the place of BG in the Russian
>culture and literature.
Would some kind soul interested in the subject please explain to Boris that
what he calls 'real Russian poetry' has died about 70 years ago and is a little
outdated? Would the same soul explain to Boris the importance of BG in the
contemporary Russian culture? I know there are some young ones out there who
care about it even more than me.
BTW, oh the young ones, Boris represents the people who will be teaching OUR
children. So I think we better educate him first. :^)
> Once again, maybe in couple of years you'll understand what is a spiritual
> work and what is not.
Thanks, Boris, for trying to cheer me up! I don't really know *why* the next
two years are supposed to make me into you. Don't tell me - I don't *want* to
know.
>>> To follow him <Christ> they <early Christians> ought to forfeit their
>>> property, status, completely change their life (not just buy a new costume
>>> or change the hairdo).
>>
>>Hey, that's nothing! We *all* did the same when we emigrated, didn't we? :^)
>
>I did not emigrated. Are you much poorer then in SU, btw?
I certainly *was* the first couple of years. Besides, I have a feeling that if
I stayed then, I would be much 'richer' now. I did leave a perfectly good
career behind, if that's what you're asking.
>You see, you seems to have some information on Christ
>independent on the Apostles' interpretation.
I try to keep my info on Christ independent from the Apostles' interpretations.
I always thought Apostles sucked.
>As all our information goes to Apostles (not counting
>that paragraph in Flavius' book which is probably
>a fake and hardly informative), you may posess
>a unvaluable peace of knowledge.
If you really think that mentioning Flavius gives you a nice well-read image,
let me remind you that it was quoted in Master & Margarita (the most shame-
lessly quoted Russian book ever), which is where you've probably read it.
Please leave me alone and try to get yourself to cope with reality. Your
references make you look *much* older than you are. You're a little out of
touch. Maybe in a couple of years :)
___
Zak.
Michael Ratner
>In article <24uee0...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) says:
>
>>> You see, I taught <Math> for 10 years, and I know that 'easy came, easy go'.
> [actually, Physics]
>>
>>
>>Yeah, but what kind of work? Reading books usually written by people with
>>little spiritual potential? Studying math? I don't think so. If you're
>>talking 'meditative' work, then - yeah, but then BG concerts fit in perfectly.
>
>Once again, maybe in couple of years you'll understand
>what is a spiritual work and what is not.
>
"One the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" -- New Yorker magazine.
Hey, Boris, how do we know that you are what you claim to be ? Maybe
you are a bright 7 year old kid who sneaks upstairs when Daddy is out
to work and feverishly types on Daddy's computer, throwing fearful
glances at the door at any squeaking sound... :)
Zak May
>Hey, Boris, how do we know that you are what you claim to be ? Maybe
>you are a bright 7 year old kid who sneaks upstairs when Daddy is out
>to work and feverishly types on Daddy's computer, throwing fearful
>glances at the door at any squeaking sound... :)
No, Mike, all the bright 7 year old kids are busy listening to their
Stone Temple Pilots albums or dancing to their Moby singles.
Or masturbating in the shower :)
You know, *fun* things. And good for them - we know Boris won't be easy
on them in school tomorrow. He's gonna teach them some real spirituality.
And they're going to sit there and think: "oh man, what does this old fart
know about life? He never even *heard* of Stone Temple Pilots..."
___
Zak.
Zak May
summarizing on the discussion of the last two weeks. Here's my suggestion:
The 'KSP people' cling to the old traditions since they are AFRAID by their
nature. They realize the threat the Russian Rock movement has imposed on them
(real songs with real meanings) and they decide to pretend that it's not
happening. When a conflict arises, the 'KSP people', having no experience in
confrontation since they never went against the grain, start by nullifying
their opponents and make fools of themselves fast (since the 'Rock people'
sharpened their teeth on komsomol boneheads for many years before).
By the time the 'KSP people' realize the arguing potential of their Rock
counterparts, the latter lose interest in the argument and turn to more
exciting things.
And nothing changes.
Now - didn't I say it would be a pointless discussion? :^)
___
Zak.
Boris A. Veytsman
says:
>
>
>Hey, Boris, how do we know that you are what you claim to be ? Maybe
>you are a bright 7 year old kid who sneaks upstairs when Daddy is out
>to work and feverishly types on Daddy's computer, throwing fearful
>glances at the door at any squeaking sound... :)
>
> -- Mike Ratner
Maybe...
Good luck
-Boris
Mikhail Zeleny
rat...@ans.net (Michael Ratner) writes:
>In article <93230.22...@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Boris A. Veytsman <BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <24uee0...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
>>cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) says:
>>>> You see, I taught <Math> for 10 years, and I know that 'easy came, easy go'.
>> [actually, Physics]
>>>
>>>> One must earn the spiritual rebirth by long work.
>>>Yeah, but what kind of work? Reading books usually written by people with
>>>little spiritual potential? Studying math? I don't think so. If you're
>>>talking 'meditative' work, then - yeah, but then BG concerts fit in perfectly.
>>Once again, maybe in couple of years you'll understand
>>what is a spiritual work and what is not.
>"One the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" -- New Yorker magazine.
>
>Hey, Boris, how do we know that you are what you claim to be ? Maybe
>you are a bright
Impossible.
> 7 year old kid who sneaks upstairs when Daddy is out
>to work and feverishly types on Daddy's computer, throwing fearful
>glances at the door at any squeaking sound... :)
>
> -- Mike Ratner
>--
>*****************************************************************************
>Michael B. Ratner Associate Programmer, Advanced Network & Services (ANS)
>Office: rat...@ans.net (914) 789-5363 100 Clearbrook Rd. Elmsford, NY10523
>"The Road goes ever on and on..." - J.R.R. Tolkien
cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Julia V Genyuk
>nature. They realize the threat the Russian Rock movement has imposed on them
>(real songs with real meanings)
So why do you decide that KSP songs don't have real meaning? Or
"solnyshko lesnoe" is enough to judge all other songs? No, probably
you just have some odd for me image of "reality". A lot of people,
especially in sovok, took it so that everything bad (communist power)
is reality, and everything good (love, friendship) is just escape
from reality.
and they decide to pretend that it's not
>happening. When a conflict arises, the 'KSP people', having no experience in
>confrontation since they never went against the grain, start by nullifying
>their opponents and make fools of themselves fast (since the 'Rock people'
>sharpened their teeth on komsomol boneheads for many years before).
>
They sharpened their teeth on komsomol and now are eager to try
their sharpness on everybody else, right? Why such love of confrontation?
>By the time the 'KSP people' realize the arguing potential of their Rock
>counterparts,
The arguing potential can be evaluated only in calm friendly
discussion, where everybody tries to understand the opponent.
Otherwise it's the flaming potential. It doesn't make any sense
either call names or suggesting that the opponent is too young
to understand you. In either case it's better to stop arguing
and not try to leave the last word for yourself.
the latter lose interest in the argument and turn to more
>exciting things.
>
>And nothing changes.
>
>Now - didn't I say it would be a pointless discussion? :^)
>
You helped to make it so from the very beginning.
>___
>Zak.
Now - maybe a bit late - about the point in your discussion
with Boris . I think the question here is not in comparing
fast/slow or easy/hard spiritual enlightment. There are two
well-known types of perceiving truth: rational and mystic.
The former relies mostly on reason, the latter on some
subconscious processes, so that anything, including rock
songs, can struck you in a moment as containing eternal truth.
I say anything because people are so different, who knows
what can touch right strings in one's subconscience. But surely
some things - rock one of them - are more likely to do this.
In Middle Ages sermons did the job.
Now I don't call people idiots if they are of mystic type,
but I prefer reasoning, because it gives you more control.
Of course, some intuition is always involved, but there are
a lot of things worth taking into account. Don't forget that
blind trust to authorities, inner voice, heaven's revelation
is responsible for all religious wars, ideological battles etc.
I'm not against revelation, but I'm against acting based on
revelation, and especially against mass revelation (rock concerts?)
Sorry if I've been too theoretical.
Julia
Alexander Petrushko
>Michael Ratner <rat...@ans.net> wrote:
>>Hey, Boris, how do we know that you are what you claim to be ? Maybe
>>you are a bright 7 year old kid who sneaks upstairs when Daddy is out
>>to work and feverishly types on Daddy's computer, throwing fearful
>>glances at the door at any squeaking sound... :)
C'mon, Mike, he only lost his cool for one article, despite his
inner strength (spirituality within?) :)
...enter Zak:
>No, Mike, all the bright 7 year old kids are busy listening to their
>Stone Temple Pilots albums or dancing to their Moby singles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Or masturbating in the shower :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You know, *fun* things. And good for them - we know Boris won't be easy
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aha! Now I know what Zak considers to be *fun* things -- masturbating
in a shower and listening to some dimwit grunge piece of shit from
worthless dump in urban America. Have *fun*, Zak!
>on them in school tomorrow. He's gonna teach them some real spirituality.
>And they're going to sit there and think: "oh man, what does this old fart
>know about life? He never even *heard* of Stone Temple Pilots..."
>___
>Zak.
I hope he won't waste his time on kids who listen to such
terrible music. Spirituality is another question, and for the sake
of people with weak nerves and long tongues, I will not get involved
here :)
Send all flames, hate and feminist mail to my boss at bo...@666.edu
Shura.
Zak May
the better I write, the less response I get.
I don't mind if your whole culture is 30 years behind because of the stupid
egg- and shit-heads not having the guts or the brains to appreciate rock music.
I don't mind explaining to supposedly mature adults why it's wrong to live in
the past. I don't mind supplying the facts about the way the world culture
decided to go from 1960 on. And I don't mind if my sincere postings are met
with stupidity, ignorance and self-righteousness. Hey - that's life.
I just hate not getting paid for it.
In this particular posting I'm being asked many questions, the answers to which
I either posted before or have considered self-explanatory. For example, if I
talk about my hate towards 'generalizing' in almost every posting of mine, it
does appear to me unnecessary to ask:
> So why do you decide that KSP songs don't have real meaning? Or
> "solnyshko lesnoe" is enough to judge all other songs?
So I won't be answering any of that. But there are some things in Julia's
posting that I don't mind addressing.
After this short commercial break.
___
Zak.
Zak May
Alexander Petrushko <pet...@ux5.lbl.gov> wrote:
> C'mon, Mike, he only lost his cool for one article, despite his
> inner strength (spirituality within?) :)
(As always - no credit for poor underrated Zak, who *made* the invincible
Mr. Veytsman lose his infamous 'cool'...)
>>No, Mike, all the bright 7 year old kids are busy listening to their
>>Stone Temple Pilots albums or dancing to their Moby singles.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Or masturbating in the shower :)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You know, *fun* things. And good for them - we know Boris won't be easy
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Aha! Now I know what Zak considers to be *fun* things -- masturbating
> in a shower and listening to some dimwit grunge piece of shit from
> worthless dump in urban America. Have *fun*, Zak!
It's funny :) No, silly, I consider them fun for 7 year old kids. That's what
they do. They listen to the Pilots and masturbate in the shower. At least,
the ones that I know personally.
I'm a little spooked by your terminology though - what's urban about LA,
what's grunge about the Pilots, and why is it dimwit? I thought it was
a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
___
Zak.
Zak May
Julia V Genyuk <jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>ZM>Now - didn't I say it would be a pointless discussion? :^)
>
> You helped to make it so from the very beginning.
Hmmm... This originated as a Rock discussion. When the KSP people came, and
started their comparison quest, I suggested politely that the discussion could
get pointless. Nevertheless, I kept answering the articles they posted. Now,
when 50 messages later we are having a problem with the credibility of certain
peoples' opinions, Julia accuses me of 'helping to make it so'. I don't get it.
> The arguing potential can be evaluated only in calm friendly
> discussion, where everybody tries to understand the opponent.
I understand the fucking opponent. I've heard all the things the potential
opponent can say about the decibels, the lack of spirituality, the shallowness
of the philosophy, the foreign roots, the narcotic effects, the absence of
traditions, the pre-digested views, etc. - many, many times before.
It's all lies.
And the opponent always uses the same tactics - either I am too young to know
anything about life, or I am not serious and I have the views of a 14 yr old.
It's always the same, no matter who the opponent is, no matter what country
he/she is from, no matter what his/her religious background - no matter what.
And you know why? Because those were the things published in Time magazine
in 1956, in Der Spigel in 1974, in Pravda in 1982, and in s.c.s. in 1993.
I know it's natural when an old culture tries to save it's audience and spreads
des-information about the new one. But I thought it should be different with
Russian immigrants, in particular - those Russian immigrants who can type...
>..it's better to stop arguing and not try to leave the last word for yourself.
Why should I stop arguing if I know what I'm talking about? All the arguments
from the KSP side were either "Ja BG ne slyshal, no skazhu" or "you kids just
don't know much about life". All the arguments from our side had either facts
or sincere opinions in them, except for several technical flames.
Once again - the discussion was not about tastes. The discussion was about
two big parts of the Russian contemporary culture. So there is no such thing
as 'the last word'. We are supposed to reach some kind of agreement, and I'll
be damned if we don't reach it.
> There are two well-known types of perceiving truth: rational and mystic.
OK. I don't have anything against reasoning. I do reasoning often. Like -
now, for example. What I didn't like in Boris's postings, was his suggestion
to substitute reasoning for accepting. He didn't say I should think more.
He said I should read more books. He didn't say kids should experience more.
He said they should work hard. That is a bunch of bull and it has nothing
to do with the difference between Western and Eastern approaches. It is a
control scheme and once my educated friend Misha Verbitsky wakes up, he'll
tell you all about it :)
> Now I don't call people idiots if they are of mystic type,
> but I prefer reasoning, because it gives you more control.
More control over what? I'm losing you.
> I'm not against revelation, but I'm against acting based on
> revelation, and especially against mass revelation (rock concerts?)
Have you ever been to a rock concert? (I can see you blush :)
> Sorry if I've been too theoretical.
Theory is there to explain experiment. As long as you know what you're talking
about - be my guest and build your theories. But please don't build them out
of abstract thoughts based on somebody else's opinions.
___
Zak.
Victor Prupis
>I'd like to know if anybody would be interested in making some culturological
>summarizing on the discussion of the last two weeks. Here's my suggestion:
>
>The 'KSP people' cling to the old traditions since they are AFRAID by their
>nature. They realize the threat the Russian Rock movement has imposed on them
>(real songs with real meanings) and they decide to pretend that it's not
>happening. When a conflict arises, the 'KSP people', having no experience in
>confrontation since they never went against the grain, start by nullifying
>their opponents and make fools of themselves fast (since the 'Rock people'
>sharpened their teeth on komsomol boneheads for many years before).
>
"Rock tak zhe neischerpaem kak i elektron." (Z.M., _Rechi i stat'i_,
tom 1, str 1).
The 'Rock people' are marching over the dead Russian poetry raising
their fists made out of steel, squeezing G-d out of at least two
different cultures by *peacefully* clashing/colliding them. They
realize the threat the reality imposes on them, and they decided to create
their own reality by sharpening their teeth and protesting.
>By the time the 'KSP people' realize the arguing potential of their Rock
>counterparts, the latter lose interest in the argument and turn to more
>exciting things.
By the time the 'Rock people' realize they do not have any more
slogans, they got bored and turn on their virtual *reality* to gain more
(spi)ritual confrontation.
>
>And nothing changes.
But of course!
>
>Now - didn't I say it would be a pointless discussion? :^)
Listen, next time when I say "let's go to some place like Bolivia",
let's go to some place like Bolivia.
>
>___
>Zak.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Victor: prup...@ntmtv.com
Dmitri Manin
writes among other things:
>I know it's natural when an old culture tries to save it's audience and spreads
>des-information about the new one.
Zak, you've previously said that the old culture is dead. I thought it
was a polemic exaggeration. But you stick to it.
Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting. I just
wonder why you're so insistant about the 'old culture'. Is Pushkin's
poetry dead? Is Bach's music dead? What do you mean by that?
<interrupt here>
Yes, nobody writes music like Bach now, because there is no purpose in
doing so. But Bach is being played and listened and enjoyed. Nobody
writes poems like Pushkin, but when I read "Spyascshuyu Tsarevnu" to my
son, I know by sure that it's an immortal masterpiece (no smileys).
The popular culture of all times took a major portion of audience and
was concerned about competition with the 'classics' or 'serious'
music/literature/whatever. Time however filters what survives and what
sinks into Leta. And what I want to emphasize is: 1. masterpieces may
come from any branch of culture, and 2. what's immortal doesn't die (a
nu-ka pospor' :-)
- DM
Igor Belchinskiy
: bil@burka (Igor Belchinskiy) wrote on Tue, 17 Aug 1993 19:26:06 GMT:
But, of course, which decent? :-)
: Serega
--
Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com Opinions are mine and strong.
Igor Belchinskiy
: The ever-charming Julia V Genyuk <jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
: > ... rock is supposed to be something really belonging to Western culture.
: No. Rock is always a clash/combination of cultures. *Always*. That's the
: most important thing to consider when making meta-cultural assumptions about
: it. I'd say it's the first *peaceful* collision of cultures in history that
: I know of.
Then you may look at Romans culture -+-"'\*_ClAsH_\*'"-+- with
the culture of ancient Greece.
: I can't think of a rock artist that wouldn't belong to at least
: two ancient cultural traditions at the same time.
This is very interesting because the reason why I can't stand rock is
as I'm beginning to understand now in light of your profound revelation
that probably I was always too unhappy and so never in my life heard rock
artist/group following cultural tradition not to mention belonging or ancient
never mind at least two.
So, would you be so kind to elaborate a little what is promulgated by formulae
"belong to ancient cultural tradition" according to Mr. Zak as well as
render us some double-traditionally ancient rock examples which aren't
objects of geological or mineralogical studies.
: That's why it always amases
: me when people talk about Russian Rock as something "stolen" from America.
: If I had to define "Rock music" (which I hope will never happen :) I would
: go in the direction of "people reinterpreting other culture's achievements
: using their experiences or the experiences of their own culture in general",
: or some cockamamie bullshit like that. I do hope you catch my point, because
: I feel very uneasy about this whole lecturing thing.
Then you should be able to understand perfectly my uneasiness when listening to
these very rock alike out-of-scale ideas of rock heritage and significance.
: All the best,
and a little more :-)
: ___
: Zak.
Igor Belchinskiy
: In article <24u1u2$1...@shiva.cs.columbia.edu> ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Igor Pankevich) writes:
: >In article <24tr50...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, Zak May <cs42...@umbc.edu> wrote:
Zak:
: >>I don't know of any place in any Sacred Text, that would prohibit choosing
: >>a teacher, trusting a teacher and respecting a teacher. Enough said.
: >>
IP:
: > The Levi's tribe (koleno ?) was chosen by G-d to be priests
: >and therefore, teachers of religion/philosophy to the Jews. They were
: >specifically told not to learn those from all the non-Jewish tribes.
: >Of course, if you are referring to the so called "Good Word" by the
: >name "Sacred Text", I have nothing to say.
MR:
: You've lost me. How does what you say contradict Zak's statement ?
: Are you saying that if he is Jewish he is obliged to learn from Levits
: only ? Please, clarify...
Bible as any other sacred text says a lot about real teachers
and false teachers and prohibits choosing as a teacher or learning from
charismatic charlatans with or without hand organs. 'nuff said.
Boris A. Veytsman
jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Julia V Genyuk) says
about our long discussion with Zak May:
>
>
> Now - maybe a bit late - about the point in your discussion
> with Boris . I think the question here is not in comparing
> fast/slow or easy/hard spiritual enlightment. There are two
> well-known types of perceiving truth: rational and mystic.
> The former relies mostly on reason, the latter on some
> subconscious processes, so that anything, including rock
> songs, can struck you in a moment as containing eternal truth.
> I say anything because people are so different, who knows
> what can touch right strings in one's subconscience. But surely
> some things - rock one of them - are more likely to do this.
> In Middle Ages sermons did the job.
> Now I don't call people idiots if they are of mystic type,
> but I prefer reasoning, because it gives you more control.
> Of course, some intuition is always involved, but there are
> a lot of things worth taking into account. Don't forget that
> blind trust to authorities, inner voice, heaven's revelation
> is responsible for all religious wars, ideological battles etc.
> I'm not against revelation, but I'm against acting based on
> revelation, and especially against mass revelation (rock concerts?)
> Sorry if I've been too theoretical.
>
Dear Julia:
Thanks for nice and wise article. You are right, I
am rather rational. But what I don't like in Zak's
position is not mysticism. There are interesting
and thought-provoking mystics. I don't like the
CHEAPNESS of his mysticism.
You know the difference between Switzerland and
Chinese watches, don't you? The same is with ideas.
There are genuine items - and cheap imitations.
The mass 'revelation' on a rock concert is one of
them.
Unfortunately the discussion with Zak became too
boring to continue. It seems that Zak considers
himself too seriously. Now he speaks about 'new
culture', 'new generation' etc. [-My, molodezh'
(padaet) my, vasha smena (podnimaetsya)...
- Zhvanetsky] with pomposity which is not
even amusing. Fanatics of a religion are
disgusting. Fanatics of an Ersats-Religion
are boring.
Let us hope that in due time Zak will grow
out of his obsession. He seems to be clever
Good luck
-Boris
Zak May
The Finnish debate on t.p.s. has culminated for me with the poor Chinese guy
proclaiming "Hui is not hui!", one of the best sentences this week, IMHO :^)
No - verniomsia k nashim baranam. I read some of my yesterday's writings -
most of them were quite pathetic. Let's not to drive me to that again.
It was fun when it started. Let's try to keep it that way.
Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Zak, you've previously said that the old culture is dead. I thought it
>was a polemic exaggeration. But you stick to it.
Yes, Dmitri. Here's my point - KSP is prolonging life for some outdated formal
traditions leftover from the giants of the past. Usually the only connection
between KSP songs and Russian poetry is in the rhymes like 'rozy/morozy', etc.
There's nothing that KSP authors have in common with Pushkin, among all people,
except for some unhealthy feelings towards the Caucasian Mountains.
Some of the best Russian Rock literature has actually been influenced by many
of the great Russian poets of the past (Balmont, Jesenin and Lebiadkin are the
first ones that spring to mind :)
>Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting.
You'd better not. It's about time you *asked* about rock, BTW.
>..What I want to emphasize is: 1. masterpieces may come from any branch of
>culture
Maria Magdalene is a saint now. That does not justify prostitution as a life
style.
>2. what's immortal doesn't die (a nu-ka pospor' :-)
Well, there's such a thing as rebirth, so I won't share your irony. Rebirth
of the immortal actually involves its temporary death. But that's not too
relevant.
___
Zak.
Igor Pankevich
>Ty zh bo dyvy jaka stsiuka toj Pankevich! (I know, it's my fault - I was too
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>easy on him from the start).
>
Whatever that was...
>Igor Pankevich <ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>Kumir = idol = something made of wood.
>>
>>Bullshit. Kumir is an entity which one deems is above him/her, and is
>>not the G-d. Idol is an image of a god. Your head is something made of wood.
>
>My fist is something made of steel, and that's the only thing that should
>matter to you right now, you worthless KSP slime.
>
Well, I have a brown belt in karate. Come on over :) (1)
How do you know I like KSP? (2)
>>God is always _he_. Goddess is _she_.
>
>How do you know? Did you see his/her dick?
^^^^^^^^^ Whoops...
>
It is just so happens in the languages I speak: I have yet to see a
person referring to a _god_ as _she_.
>
>Hey - fuck you and your biblical knowledge!
Oh, so you are a faggot... (Or why else would you want to fuck me?)
BTW, how do you fuck the knowledge? Just curious...
> Whatever the "Good Word" has to
>do with the Leo's tribe? If you're so eager to quote Genesis to me, you should
^^^^^^^
Are you sure it is Genesis? I think it is Deuteronomy, though I
might be wrong. But I am certain it is not Genesis. "Good Word" has
almost nothing to do with Levi's tribe, I just didn't know what you
meant by Sacred Text. I still don't, BTW.
>spend less time kissing your pal Naumov's ass and more time reading the book
>itself (or listening to old Genesis, which is even healthier, IMHO).
>
I will omit a comment on the kissing part, because Zak is slipping
into his favorite "sam durak" type of argument. And speaking of the
genesis, let me ask you: how do you know how much time I spend reading
it? "Sam durak" again, ah?
>Your future buddy,
>
How is that?
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Igor Pankevich
>
>I'm a little spooked by your terminology though - what's urban about LA,
Now, that's really funny. Really, guys, is LA a city at all? Isn't
it just a huge farm, or better yet, a tent camp?
>what's grunge about the Pilots, and why is it dimwit? I thought it was
>a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see. It is good because so and so many people listen to it. Nice,
logical conclusion.
>
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Igor Pankevich
>This is turning into one of the classic arguments between the young and the
>obsolete, and right when I lost all the interest to it. I do hope this is the
>last message in this thread. It's impossible to speak through a generation
>gap if the older side isn't listening. I'm eternally grateful I never had this>problem with my parents. I hope my potential children won't have this problem
>with me ("No, Vasia, you won't go out and play until you finish listening to
>your daily dosage of Morissey solo records!")
>
deems theirs to be composed entirely of stupid people who are not
worth listening to. I know I didn't do anything to give him that idea.
Now I know who did. Zak, I hold you entirely responsible for my dad's
being so badly misled :)
>I also want to say that when Boris made those hints to my 'lack of education',
>he lost most of his credibility with me. It's just childish. Statements like:>
>> You may be full of youth agressiveness and lack some basic education, but you>> will probably improve in next couple of years. It is evident that your IQ is
>> high, and you have a good potential.
>
>make no sense to me, except for "you sound too damn knowledgable for your age."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^......
>
>Would some kind soul interested in the subject please explain to Boris that
>what he calls 'real Russian poetry' has died about 70 years ago and is a little ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>outdated? Would the same soul explain to Boris the importance of BG in the
>contemporary Russian culture? I know there are some young ones out there who
>care about it even more than me.
>
You are now either saying you never heard/read Brodsky, Pasternak,
Ahmatova, etc., or that they do not represent a part (IMO, a great
part) of real Russian poetry. Well, in either case, you do not sound
knowledgable for your age at all (unless you are younger than 15 years
old, which I doubt).
>BTW, oh the young ones, Boris represents the people who will be teaching OUR
>children. So I think we better educate him first. :^)
>
Now, that sounds childish enough. Maybe you are under 15, after all.
How can you judge on Boris' ability to teach physics without ever
talking to him on the matter? Det-sad, shtany na lyamke: "sam durak"
kind of argument.
>
>>You see, you seems to have some information on Christ
>>independent on the Apostles' interpretation.
>
>I try to keep my info on Christ independent from the Apostles' interpretations.>I always thought Apostles sucked.
>
Where, may I ask, lies (sp? rus. "nahoditsya", not "lzhet" - I
always had trouble with this word..:) the source of knowledge about
Jesus independent from Apostles interpretation? I know he is mentioned
somewhere in talmud, but that information is hardly reachable for me
since I don't read Arahmeic (sp?). I am very interested, though,
really.
>>As all our information goes to Apostles (not counting
>>that paragraph in Flavius' book which is probably
>>a fake and hardly informative), you may posess
>>a unvaluable peace of knowledge.
>
My point exactly.
>If you really think that mentioning Flavius gives you a nice well-read image,
>let me remind you that it was quoted in Master & Margarita (the most shame-
>lessly quoted Russian book ever), which is where you've probably read it.
>
And what was the point, or any relevance to the discussion, of the
above paragraph, may (May?) I ask?
>Please leave me alone and try to get yourself to cope with reality. Your
>references make you look *much* older than you are. You're a little out of
>touch. Maybe in a couple of years :)
>
Well, now you are acting like a turtle: somebody asked you a
question, and you are hiding in your shell and asking to be left alone
instead of giving us poor shmucks an enlightening insight into your
perfectly flawless perception of the world. (and I can hear the whole
of scs chanting "Break down the wall! Break down the wall!").
>___
>Zak.
>
--Igor
Zak May
Boris A. Veytsman <BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>I don't like the CHEAPNESS of his <Zak's> mysticism.
What do you *know* about my mysticism? We never talked about it. You keep
calling the things you know nothing about 'cheap' - from BG's songs to mantras
to my 'mysticism' to whatever. That's a senile point of view. No matter how
radical my views can get at times, I still feel I need to *know* something to
label it. Apparently - you don't. That's sad, considering the fact that you
are a teacher.
>The mass 'revelation' on a rock concert is one of them.
This point keeps re-occurring, and this is just insane. What's the difference
between a Christian Mass and a rock concert? Please try to come up with at
least one... Both are using big-budget production, both are supported by the
followers, both have lights and music and both involve people dancing in funny
costumes. I'd want to see you call Catholic Masses "cheap".
>Unfortunately the discussion with Zak became too boring to continue.
This is actually funny :) After I had stated several times that I was bored
and would not respond to any more articles on "cheapness", Boris declares
*himself* bored...
>It seems that Zak considers himself too seriously.
Wrong. I take r-n-r seriously. I take Russian song-writing seriously. I know
a lot about both. That's all there is. You an amateur in this discussion.
Your arguments look childish. Instead of trying to comprehend my professional
opinion, you declare my views "cheap". That's a good old communist approach.
> Now he speaks about 'new culture', 'new generation' etc.... with pomposity
> which is not even amusing.
First of all, my pomposity *is* amusing :) Second, and I said this before -
you're not listening, even though I'm trying to use your language and your
methods of abstract logic. So (and I said this before too) - please leave me
alone and don't talk to strangers about me behind my back. Your patronizing
tone is nausiating, considering your narrowmindness and rational inertia.
___
Zak.
Zak May
>>I thought it was a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I see. It is good because so and so many people listen to it. Nice,
>logical conclusion.
No, asshole. I wish you learned the fucking language already. In Russian
the above sentence could be translated as "klassnyj al'bom, darom chto takoj
populiarnyj".
And stop with this picking on me. I know how masochistically-exstatic you
must be when reading my flames, but - please be more considerate towards the
people around us. If you want to have a real computer-sex session with the
Master of the genre - do write to me directly. We'll arrange something.
___
Zak.
Zak May
> Well, I have a brown belt in karate.
I doubt that - you're too insecure. Are you sure it's not your straitjacket
belt that used to be white before it got stuck in your tight ass?
> How do you know I like KSP? (2)
I can smell it from here. Besides, you go to Columbia :)
>It is just so happens in the languages I speak: I have yet to see a
>person referring to a _god_ as _she_.
Maybe so. I don't know what "is happens" in the "languages you speak".
I wish English would be one of them - that would minimize our interaction.
>>Ty zh bo dyvy jaka stsiuka toj Pankevich!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Whatever that was...
Apparently, the "languages you speak" do not include Ukrainian.
>>Hey - fuck you and your biblical knowledge!
>
> Oh, so you are a faggot... (Or why else would you want to fuck me?)
You sound too eager... A strong New York karate man should not be that
desperate. Try "Two Potato" on a Saturday night. If that doesn't work -
put on your brown belt and go to "Boots & Saddle". You'll thank me later.
>>with the Leo's tribe? If you're so eager to quote Genesis to me, you should
> ^^^^^^^
>Are you sure it is Genesis? I think it is Deuteronomy, though I might be wrong
I presumed it was Genesis, since the above-mentioned events happened before
the Exodus.
>I just didn't know what you meant by Sacred Text. I still don't, BTW.
By "any Sacred Text" I mean any text that is considered Sacred. Sounds pretty
straightforward to me.
___
Zak.
Michael Ratner
>Boris A. Veytsman <BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>The mass 'revelation' on a rock concert is one of them.
>
>This point keeps re-occurring, and this is just insane. What's the difference
>between a Christian Mass and a rock concert? Please try to come up with at
>least one... Both are using big-budget production, both are supported by the
>followers, both have lights and music and both involve people dancing in funny
>costumes. I'd want to see you call Catholic Masses "cheap".
Zak,
sorry but your analogy is way too artificial. Using your criteria we
could put gatherings of Branch Davidians or even Hitler's meetings in
the same category. Crowd united by common emotions and will of the
leader(s) has always been a necessary component of almost any
significant movement of ANY kind in human history. I hope you will
grant me the point that some of those movements were indeed profaning
real spiritual values. Whether or not rock (or certain directions of
it) is an example of such movement is an open question. Whether or
not meetings of such movements involve lights and music and people
dancing in funny costumes is quite irrelevant.
We could try and speculate about what IS relevant. My personal
opinion is that what defines the movement's character is the feelings
that unite the crowd. I know it is arguable but it's the best I can
come up with. I like to divide feelings into three categories (this
division actually follows some ancient traditions):
-- spiritual (enlightening)
-- emotional
-- physical
An interesing question is where do you fit intellect here but it is
left as an exercise for the reader... as well as conclusions. :)
Igor Pankevich
>Our dislexic friend Igor Pankevich <ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>I thought it was a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I see. It is good because so and so many people listen to it. Nice,
>>logical conclusion.
>
>No, asshole. I wish you learned the fucking language already. In Russian
>the above sentence could be translated as "klassnyj al'bom, darom chto takoj
>populiarnyj".
>
the quoted Russian translates into English with "despite", or
"albeit" instead of "considering". The way you wrote it in the first
place, can stand exactly for what I replied to. So, using your favorite
argument, "sam durak": learn the language yourself.
>And stop with this picking on me.
^^^^
As I said, learn the language.
>I know how masochistically-exstatic you
How exactly do you know that? Are you implying that I have the same
reaction to outside events as you do, or what? Also, I am sorry to
disappoint you, but usually your articles are not flames, but a bunch
of insults and hysteric outcries.
>must be when reading my flames, but - please be more considerate towards the
>people around us. If you want to have a real computer-sex session with the
>Master of the genre - do write to me directly. We'll arrange something.
>
I am wondering, why are you so eager to have sex with me, though it
be a computer one (whatever that is) ? What are you, some kind of
pervert or something? (I heard you can get virus by fucking an
affected computer, so - friendly advice: be carefull and wear a
condom. Always.)
>___
>Zak.
>
All the best,
--Igor
Zak May
>Crowd united by common emotions and will of the leader(s) has always been
>a necessary component of almost any significant movement of ANY kind in
>human history.
Exactly. That's why I don't understand their prejudice against rock concerts.
>I hope you will grant me the point that some of those movements were indeed
>profaning real spiritual values. Whether or not rock (or certain directions
>of it) is an example of such movement is an open question.
You're right. You're going to have a problem with defining "real spirituality"
though. From what I know about rock concerts, the spiritual effect is just
too subjective to formalize, and too strong to ignore. I know people who were
"blown away" (the common rock term for a spiritual experience :) at a Def Lep-
pard concert (a band considered 'commercial', insincere and highly-technical
by the mainstream r-n-r community) as they were at a Led Zeppelin show in 1975
(Led Zep is considered one of the mainstays of spirituality in r-n-r). Some
people see no difference, and still get a strong spiritual charge out of the
shows. I don't know how this works, but - that's how it *is*. I do hope you
agree that the amount of spiritual impact a person or an event has on somebody
strongly depends on the recepient/consumer/whoever.
>I like to divide feelings into three categories (this
>division actually follows some ancient traditions):
>
>-- spiritual (enlightening)
>-- emotional
>-- physical
>
>An interesing question is where do you fit intellect here but it is
>left as an exercise for the reader... as well as conclusions. :)
Well, if you mentioned intellect - that's what song-writing is for (although
I still think you have to be pretty smart to appreciate things like Yes, not
just be emotionally- or spiritually- perceptive).
I don't particularly like your classifications, mostly because they're useless
in our particular discussion. People have *all* those reasons to come to rock
concerts *and* KSP 'sliots', not to mention Pervomajskije Demonstratsii :)
I'd rather look at what people get out of it. Besides the time when I got
vomited on at a Jane's Addiction show, I've always had nothing but positive
experiences at rock concerts. I'd rather talk about that. And then we can
compare that with the KSP survivors' horror stories :)
___
Zak.
Zak May
I'm one cruel rat.
Igor Pankevich <ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>>I thought it was a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the above sentence could be translated as "klassnyj al'bom, darom chto takoj
>>populiarnyj".
>
>..."asshole" was uncalled for.
>
>the quoted Russian translates into English with "despite", or
>"albeit" instead of "considering".
:^)
Igor, this language has certain subtleties that can confuse a new speaker. If
you are unsure about the meaning of a certain phrase - don't flame the author,
ask him what he/she meant first. I did drop the word 'even' from the grammati-
cally correct version of that phrase to make it sound more natural. Still, you
were the only one to have a problem with it so far, so I guess it's your
problem and not mine. By the way, since you have that dictionary there, check
out the entry for "asshole" and see that an "asshole" is a person, who accuses
a fellow netter of commercial approach to r-n-r and disrespect to the Bible in
one week without any apparent reason.
>>And stop with this picking on me.
> ^^^^
> As I said, learn the language.
Oh please, Igor - it's fine. Trust me :)
___
Zak.
Boris A. Veytsman
but the weather is too bad, my lunch
is over, I solved a problem which
troubled me for a couple of months -
why not?
I must apologize to Zak. I said his
articles are not amusing. He proved
I am wrong. His last one IS amusing.
Thanks, Zak. Let us enjoy:
In article <252pnl...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) says:
>
>Lies, lies, silly lies...
>
>Boris A. Veytsman <BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>I don't like the CHEAPNESS of his <Zak's> mysticism.
>
>What do you *know* about my mysticism? We never talked about it. You keep
>calling the things you know nothing about 'cheap' - from BG's songs to mantras
>to my 'mysticism' to whatever. That's a senile point of view. No matter how
>radical my views can get at times, I still feel I need to *know* something to
ˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ
>label it. Apparently - you don't. That's sad, considering the fact that you
>are a teacher.
You are really amazing. In one of the
previous articles you said that the old
culture is dead and you have no need to
read books. Now it seems you acknowledge
this need. Talk about self-consistency...
By the way, Zak's logic is really
surprising. I cannot forget the paragraph
in one of his previous articles.
He quoted me. I said:
1. Easy way is cheap and false
2. Christ's demands were not easy
3. Church subsequently lifted some of
the too strict demands.
Zak's conclusion: "It is not surprising
you speak favorably about Church"
Nice bit of logic, is not it?
>
>
>This point keeps re-occurring, and this is just insane. What's the difference
>between a Christian Mass and a rock concert? Please try to come up with at
>least one... Both are using big-budget production, both are supported by the
>followers, both have lights and music and both involve people dancing in funny
>costumes. I'd want to see you call Catholic Masses "cheap".
>
>>Unfortunately the discussion with Zak became too boring to continue.
>
>This is actually funny :) After I had stated several times that I was bored
>and would not respond to any more articles on "cheapness", Boris declares
>*himself* bored...
>
>>It seems that Zak considers himself too seriously.
>
>Wrong. I take r-n-r seriously. I take Russian song-writing seriously. I
>know
>a lot about both. That's all there is. You an amateur in this discussion.
ˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ[A s Pushkinym Vy, sluchayno, ne na druzheskoy noge? -BV]
>Your arguments look childish. Instead of trying to comprehend my professional
>opinion, you declare my views "cheap". That's a good old communist approach.
>
>> Now he speaks about 'new culture', 'new generation' etc.... with pomposity
>> which is not even amusing.
>
>First of all, my pomposity *is* amusing :) Second, and I said this before -
>you're not listening, even though I'm trying to use your language and your
>methods of abstract logic. So (and I said this before too) - please leave me
>alone and don't talk to strangers about me behind my back. Your patronizing
>tone is nausiating, considering your narrowmindness and rational inertia.
>
Dear Zak:
I ought to disappoint you. Internet is free
and I can discuss anything with anybody. I
may agree that there are good subjects to
discuss with nice female other than your
personality, but let me make my own choice,
OK?
Now about the cheapness. You know, it requires
some effort to explain it. Imagine
a woman in a gaudy dress, with tons of lipstick
and makeup on her, big 'diamonds' and
seducing look. Some virgin youngster may
say "How beatiful!". How will you explain
him she is cheap? The best way would be
to wait until he screws his share and
would be able to make an intelligent
comparison. That is why I recommended you
to read - it gives you better grounds
for comparison. If you read the books,
you'd understand that the combination
of rhytmic incantations, rituals,
mass hypnosis is by no means new.
Any primitive and not-so-primitive
religion knows the (I rather like your
comparison with Mass. I apologize if
I offend any Roman Catholic). There
is a difference however. These religions
are sincere efforts to explain the World
The rock (excluding early Russian one,
but see below) is a commercial venture.
Can you imagine Christ or Mohammed
hiring a lawyer to evade taxes
on the 1,000,000 - wide edition of
his sermons? Or hiring PR men
to create their scenic image?
I have nothing against commerce
or rock, but I want to have
the right scale.
As I can judge (I'm not a pro,
you are right), Russian rock
was more sincere. Still, it
had no strength to leave the
niche of youth sub-culture.
Maybe our time is not good for
a primitive quasi-religion?
And don't talk the nonsense
about 'new generation'. It
is badly digested stuff of
'60s, so you'd better realize
that the 'Generation of Protest' of '60s
is now in their prime age.
Did they burned down the culture
and civilization? Nope, they just
grew from their childish maximalism.
I sincerely hope you'll do the same.
Eventually.
Good luck
-Boris
Michael Ratner
>>I hope you will grant me the point that some of those movements were indeed
>>profaning real spiritual values. Whether or not rock (or certain directions
>>of it) is an example of such movement is an open question.
>
>You're right. You're going to have a problem with defining "real spirituality"
>though. From what I know about rock concerts, the spiritual effect is just
>too subjective to formalize, and too strong to ignore. I know people who were
>"blown away" (the common rock term for a spiritual experience :) at a Def Lep-
>pard concert (a band considered 'commercial', insincere and highly-technical
>by the mainstream r-n-r community) as they were at a Led Zeppelin show in 1975
>(Led Zep is considered one of the mainstays of spirituality in r-n-r). Some
>people see no difference, and still get a strong spiritual charge out of the
>shows. I don't know how this works, but - that's how it *is*. I do hope you
>agree that the amount of spiritual impact a person or an event has on somebody
>strongly depends on the recepient/consumer/whoever.
You are right of course but that is not exactly what I meant. What I
meant rather is something like a common denominator, a single feeling
uniting the crowd. With Hitler it was hate. With erotic shows it's
sexual arousal. As far as spiritual experience is concerned, I agree,
it is very difficult to define. I am afraid I am limited to a
functional definition: anything that helps you advance on your
spiritual path is a spiritual experience. Flame me.
>I don't particularly like your classifications, mostly because they're useless
>in our particular discussion. People have *all* those reasons to come to rock
>concerts *and* KSP 'sliots', not to mention Pervomajskije Demonstratsii :)
>
>I'd rather look at what people get out of it. Besides the time when I got
>vomited on at a Jane's Addiction show, I've always had nothing but positive
>experiences at rock concerts. I'd rather talk about that. And then we can
>compare that with the KSP survivors' horror stories :)
>Zak.
>
Ah, but you see impressions are subjective by definition and so it is
your example and not mine that is applicable to Pervomaiskiye
Demonstratsii. I actually liked demonstrations, I think they did
create this "holiday air" that people needed so much. Kids sure loved
it.
-- Mike Ratner
P.S. I think Zak and I have somehow come to to dominate this
discussion, if only by sheer number of postings. Please, Boris, and
Julia, and everyone else, now that we are talking about more
interesting things, join the fun !
Dmitri Manin
.....
>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Zak, you've previously said that the old culture is dead. I thought it
>>was a polemic exaggeration. But you stick to it.
>
>Yes, Dmitri. Here's my point - KSP is prolonging life for some outdated formal
>traditions leftover from the giants of the past. Usually the only connection
>between KSP songs and Russian poetry is in the rhymes like
'rozy/morozy', etc.
No objections. But I never mentioned KSP. I was concerned with
classics that you seemed to deny in favor of rock.
>There's nothing that KSP authors have in common with Pushkin, among all people,
>except for some unhealthy feelings towards the Caucasian Mountains.
Well said, as usual.
>Some of the best Russian Rock literature has actually been influenced by many
>of the great Russian poets of the past (Balmont, Jesenin and Lebiadkin are the
>first ones that spring to mind :)
So what? Any second-rate poetry is influenced by some classics (yes,
and much of first-rate).
>>Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting.
>
>You'd better not. It's about time you *asked* about rock, BTW.
I'm going to ask yet another question when I have time and
inspiration, OK?
..........
>Maria Magdalene is a saint now. That does not justify prostitution as a life
>style.
"Beatles are classics now. That doesn't justify rock as a life style."
-- Is that what you aimed at?
>>2. what's immortal doesn't die (a nu-ka pospor' :-)
>
>Well, there's such a thing as rebirth, so I won't share your irony. Rebirth
>of the immortal actually involves its temporary death. But that's not too
>relevant.
Agree. Bach, eg, was rediscovered, if I'm not mistaken, in the late
18th century. But that's not too relevant.
>
>___
>Zak.
>
>
ABSTRACT
~~~~~~~~
Seems like by 'death of old culture' Zak did not mean that classic
masterpieces are dead, but that new masterpieces can't come from the
slavish followers of classical tradition. I tend to agree.
On the other hand, it seems like in his eyes NOT following classical
tradition (or 'clashing' different traditions, whatever it is) ensures
high quality. That I tend to disagree with.
- DM
Dmitri Manin
>>The mass 'revelation' on a rock concert is one of them.
>
>This point keeps re-occurring, and this is just insane. What's the difference
>between a Christian Mass and a rock concert? Please try to come up with at
>least one... Both are using big-budget production, both are supported by the
>followers, both have lights and music and both involve people dancing in funny
>costumes. I'd want to see you call Catholic Masses "cheap".
That's a very important point in my opinion! Lot of people need a big
company to feel well. Masses, rock concerts, May Day parades in Moscow
and Gay Parades in New York. Conformism or collectivism - call it what
you want. I agree with Zak in that there's little difference, but I
disagree in that it's good.
- DM
Zak May
Thank you, professor :)
> In one of the previous articles you said that the old culture is dead and
> you have no need to read books. Now it seems you acknowledge this need.
> Talk about self-consistency...
No. I asked why you thought reading books was better than listening to songs.
I personally do sizable amounts of both, mostly to be able to hold discussions
like this one :)
And I wouldn't be telling kids to read books *instead* of listening to BG,
because that's just silly. By establishing the difference between the two
sources of whatever (spirituality, mathematical knowledge, etc) you make them
choose the easiest one. I'm quite self-consistent, thank you very much. And
I hate antagonizing no less than generalizing.
>By the way, Zak's logic is really surprising. I cannot forget the paragraph
>in one of his previous articles. He quoted me. I said:
>
>1. Easy way is cheap and false
>2. Christ's demands were not easy
>3. Church subsequently lifted some of the too strict demands.
>
>Zak's conclusion: "It is not surprising you speak favorably about Church"
>
>Nice bit of logic, is not it?
I'm glad you liked it. I really am. I was quite proud of it myself :)
But I told you - in my argument with you I prefer using your own logic.
I'm glad to see it started working. Hidden irony is much more fun when
at least two people do it :)
>>Wrong. I take r-n-r seriously. I take Russian song-writing seriously. I
>>know a lot about both. That's all there is. You an amateur in this
>>discussion.
>
>A s Pushkinym Vy, sluchayno, ne na druzheskoy noge? -BV]
No. I thought Pushkin died a long time ago.
About the professionalism - I'm being serious. I didn't start discussing
physics with you, listen for two minutes and say "science is cheap - God
is much more important". Why should you behave like that? You don't respect
my profession? Fine. But even preaching to the toilet-washing boy that
"toilet-washing is cheap, God is more important" is still quite immature.
>I ought to disappoint you. Internet is free and I can discuss anything with
>anybody. I may agree that there are good subjects to discuss with nice female
>other than your personality, but let me make my own choice, OK?
I said 'please'. I didn't say I'd call the net.police on you. (Sheesh...)
>Imagine a woman in a gaudy dress, with tons of lipstick and makeup on her,
>big 'diamonds' and seducing look. Some virgin youngster may say "How
>beatiful!". How will you explain him she is cheap? The best way would be
>to wait until he screws his share and would be able to make an intelligent
>comparison.
I do admire your didactical technique. Choosing sex as a topic to explain
something to a 'youngster' is a very effective idea.
But it's not quite applicable to this particular case. To start off, there's
no such thing as 'cheapness' when you talk about women (especially when they're
listening :)
Besides, the example really stinks - it does not prove anything. An American
movie star can look 'cheap' to you and incredibly elegant to an American your
age with a comparable amount of sexual experience.
>you'd understand that the combination of rhytmic incantations, rituals,
>mass hypnosis is by no means new.
Oh please... When I say "new" I mean "today's" as opposed to "yesterday's".
I talked about re-interpreting several times in this thread already. You
should at least listen to what I say, if you want to disagree with it :)
>These religions <christianity, islam, etc.> are sincere efforts to explain
>the World. The rock (excluding early Russian one, but see below) is a
>commercial venture.
Boris. Why do this? Why make such a fool of yourself?
I'm not going to comment on that 'inanity'.
>As I can judge (I'm not a pro, you are right), Russian rock was more sincere.
Than what? Than The Clash? Than Led Zeppelin? Than King Crimson?
Don't judge. Ask.
>Still, it had no strength to leave the niche of youth sub-culture.
Blah-blah-blah.
>Maybe our time is not good for a primitive quasi-religion?
Ati-pati-mati...
>And don't talk the nonsense about 'new generation'. It is badly digested stuff
>of '60s, so you'd better realize that the 'Generation of Protest' of '60s
>is now in their prime age.
Usi-kusi-dusi...
>Did they burned down the culture and civilization? Nope, they just
>grew from their childish maximalism.
Huli-duli-kuli...
>I sincerely hope you'll do the same.
Yeah, sure. First thing on Monday.
>-Boris
___
Zak.
Julia V Genyuk
difference. I mean all discussions are pointless if you don't
respect opinions which are different from yours.
.
>
>> The arguing potential can be evaluated only in calm friendly
>> discussion, where everybody tries to understand the opponent.
>
>I understand the fucking opponent. I've heard all the things the potential
>opponent can say about the decibels, the lack of spirituality, the shallowness
>of the philosophy, the foreign roots, the narcotic effects, the absence of
>traditions, the pre-digested views, etc. - many, many times before.
>
>It's all lies.
>
>And the opponent always uses the same tactics - either I am too young to know
>anything about life, or I am not serious and I have the views of a 14 yr old.
>
>It's always the same, no matter who the opponent is, no matter what country
>he/she is from, no matter what his/her religious background - no matter what.
>
>And you know why? Because those were the things published in Time magazine
>in 1956, in Der Spigel in 1974, in Pravda in 1982, and in s.c.s. in 1993.
s
>Russian immigrants, in particular - those Russian immigrants who can type...
>
>>..it's better to stop arguing and not try to leave the last word for yourself
.
>
>Why should I stop arguing if I know what I'm talking about? All the arguments
>from the KSP side were either "Ja BG ne slyshal, no skazhu" or "you kids just
>don't know much about life". All the arguments from our side had either facts
>or sincere opinions in them, except for several technical flames.
>
opponents are just stupid enough not to realize it? For sharpening
your teeth? I don't think you have this kind of dental problem.
>OK. I don't have anything against reasoning. I do reasoning often. Like -
>now, for example. What I didn't like in Boris's postings, was his suggestion
>to substitute reasoning for accepting. He didn't say I should think more.
>He said I should read more books. He didn't say kids should experience more.
>He said they should work hard.
OK, it's almost my point, now change places of your sentences.
If you think more, you work hard, because thinking *is* working,
though it may be fun at the same time. And if you read more books,
you experience more, because books are the condensed experience
of other people (at least best of them). That doesn't deny other
kinds of experience, of course.
>> Now I don't call people idiots if they are of mystic type,
>> but I prefer reasoning, because it gives you more control.
>
>More control over what? I'm losing you.
Over yourself, your actions and especially consequences of your actions.
>
>> I'm not against revelation, but I'm against acting based on
>> revelation, and especially against mass revelation (rock concerts?)
>
>Have you ever been to a rock concert? (I can see you blush :)
No blushing. I haven't been to it, I only saw some on TV and heard
some people who'd been there (and enjoyed it). Surely it's not the
same, that's why I put a question there. If you say rock concerts
have nothing to do with mass revelation, I take your word for it.
You compared them with Christian mass. I don't argue here which
is cheap and which is not, but I also had Christian church in mind
with all its brainwashing tools. (Don't flame me, I have nothing
against Christianity). Remember children's crusade? This is
the purest example of spirituality or how you call that,
together with the lack of reason.
Julia
Zak May
>That's a very important point in my opinion! Lot of people need a big
>company to feel well. Masses, rock concerts, May Day parades in Moscow
>and Gay Parades in New York. Conformism or collectivism - call it what
>you want. I agree with Zak in that there's little difference, but I
>disagree in that it's good.
I don't think it's a matter of 'needing company' (except for Christian
churches, the idea of which was, as far as I remember, advised by Christ).
I would prefer being alone in the audience. So would tens of thousands of
other people. Other people are almost always an inconvenience at rock concerts
(unless you're into crowd-diving, raving, and all that). But it's not really
technically possible for, say, AC/DC to play for each fan separately.
The energy flow can be really transformed and amplified by a mass of people.
Raves are fun, so are the Dead shows. But these things are only *applications*
of rock music - they are cultures in themselves (and quite deep ones, I'd say).
___
Zak.
Zak May
The charming Julia V Genyuk <jge...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, I probably missed the beginning, but it doesn't make great
> difference.
Exactly. You'll catch up. It was fun though :)
> I mean all discussions are pointless if you don't respect opinions
> which are different from yours.
I don't respect arrogant amateur opinions in a professional discussion.
Tell me if that's wrong.
> Why should you argue if you know you are always right and your
> opponents are just stupid enough not to realize it?
I was right in that particular case for some very obvious reasons.
The opponents weren't "stupid", they just weren't listening.
> OK, it's almost my point, now change places of your sentences.
> If you think more, you work hard, because thinking *is* working,
> though it may be fun at the same time. And if you read more books,
> you experience more, because books are the condensed experience
> of other people (at least best of them). That doesn't deny other
> kinds of experience, of course.
Agreed completely. A very wise statement. But only in that logical order.
> If you say rock concerts have nothing to do with mass revelation,
> I take your word for it.
I'd say mass revelation is not what rock concerts are about. I'd also
say that America has a nicer summer every time the Stones go on tour :)
Thanks,
___
Zak.
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
Ratner) writes:
>In article <24r6i1...@umbc8.umbc.edu> cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) writes:
>>Michael Ratner <rat...@ans.net> wrote:
>>>...both Rock and KSP have generated both pretty excellent and pretty
>>>pathetic music and/or lyrics...
>>That's a fare comparison, IMHO, because most
>>of us had something to do with one
>>and/or the other and have had valid experiences to base our judgements on.
>I'll let "movements" pass but "ideologies" ? What ideologies ?! As
>one whose "valid experiences" were virtually all in KSP I must assure
>you that the last thing that united people in "slyots" was ideology.
The absence of personal ideology is also an ideology.
Only the absence of personal philosophy (ideology, set
of beliefs, whatever) could create the culture like KSP which was
entirely dedicated to the camping, alpinism, love to the nature and
hard living of geologists (and/or) oceanographers. I say
this as a dear fan of KSP movement (I spent a lot of time on
'sliots' while in the high school).
On the other hand, rock music was created as a tool
of confrontation and was throroughly ideologic
even in the prehistoric Tutti-Frutti times.
Of course, the establishment (major labels, etc)
were working on de-ideologization of rock
music and often succeed, but still rock music
(notably punk, industrial, hardcore) remains
hard to subdue. The same went in Russia,
of course: there were pathetic tools of establishment
(philarmonic "metal" rock groups etc)
and radical anti-establishment artists
(Zoopark, GO, etc.).
That's the difference between rock and KSP.
>One of (many) attractions of KSP has always been the fact that it
>not only brought together people from different ideologies but made
>them leave those ideologies at the door when they entered the world of
>KSP. I've always looked at KSP as a sort of safe and calm haven where
>people could escape from unpleasant realities of Soviet life. The
>best KSP songs are about friendship, love, unity of man with nature,
>and other wonderful things. That is why I have so much difficulty
>understanding someone's *negative* feelings towards "milaya moya..."
>What in the world could be negative about love and warmth ?
This is exactly what I try to say. Note that I don't
have anything against KSP - it have had its own
good sides, but the difference between KSP and rock
is crucial.
Misha.
Igor Belchinskiy
: Now I don't call people idiots if they are of mystic type,
I do call completly independent of their type
: but I prefer reasoning, because it gives you more control
precisely because it gives you less power to control.
: Of course, some intuition is always involved, but there are
: a lot of things worth taking into account. Don't forget that
: blind trust to authorities,
which has more in common with sheer stubborness and idiocy then
with any mystycism
: inner voice, heaven's revelation
and other results of mystic experiences of unprepared folks interrupted and
hopelessly misinterpreted by their reasoning
: is responsible for all religious wars, ideological battles etc.
as well as for almost anything else, good or bad, in this world.
: I'm not against revelation,
higher forces surely would thank you
: but I'm against acting based on revelation,
the same way as blind religious fanatics are against "acting based on science"
: and especially against mass revelation (rock concerts?)
which is as false and stupid conception as mass reasoning.
: Sorry if I've been too theoretical.
not at all
: Julia
Igor Belchinskiy
: Good morning!
: Some of the best Russian Rock literature has actually been influenced by many
: of the great Russian poets of the past (Balmont, Jesenin and Lebiadkin are the
: first ones that spring to mind :)
Very revealing list of "great Russian poets of the past". Though Brusov
is missed.
Again _sama sebya vysekla_
: >Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting.
: You'd better not. It's about time you *asked* about rock, BTW.
: >..What I want to emphasize is: 1. masterpieces may come from any branch of
: >culture
: Maria Magdalene is a saint now. That does not justify prostitution as a life
: style.
: >2. what's immortal doesn't die (a nu-ka pospor' :-)
: Well, there's such a thing as rebirth, so I won't share your irony. Rebirth
: of the immortal actually involves its temporary death. But that's not too
: relevant.
BG knows all, BG told you all!
Try to obtain decent bullshit detector.
___
: Zak.
Misha Verbitsky
>>In article <24r6i1...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) says:
>>I know of many examples when people's life/spirituality/well-being was
>>changed/reborn/enhanced by the Russian Rock movement. If you can post
>>names and addresses of the people who found God in Scherbakov's songs -
>>please do so.
>>
>>
>
> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Zak said earlier that rock fans
> regard rock-Creators as deities. If some of them also found
> God in the Rock movement, then what about the first commandment -
> "Ne sotvori sebe kumira"?
>
> Julia
As far as I understand, in the Western culture
rock music and Christianity are strictly opposite.
A popular slogan (by Clint Ruin/Foetus, I think)
was "A good Christian is a dead Christian"
which I totally agree with, btw. There were
pathetic attempts to merge rock and Xtianity
(eg, Jesus Christ Superstar) but none of
the level higher than New Kids On The Block
or Laskovyi Mai. In Russian rock music the
situation is slightly different (and pathetic
JCSuperstar got somehow very popular), but
the basic premises were the same. So you sort of
miss the mark with your Commandment.
Of course, all what I said is equally applicable
to Judaism, though there were devoted followers of Sufi
brand of Islam among the prominent rock musicians
(Cat Stevens comes to mind).
Misha.
Zak May
>: Some of the best Russian Rock literature has actually been influenced by
>: many of the great Russian poets of the past (Balmont, Jesenin and Lebiadkin
>: are the first ones that spring to mind :)
>
>Very revealing list of "great Russian poets of the past". Though Brusov
>is missed. Again _sama sebya vysekla_
Listen, prick, you're getting annoying again. I said "many" and I said
"the first ones that spring to mind". You're gonna get more hot flames up
your ass if you don't get used to the idea, that you are not even qualified
to read my postings, let alone answer them.
___
Zak.
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>>Of course everything is relative, and BG songs
>>maybe ocean of wisdom in comparison with somebody,
>>but... Dear Zak, have you read a real poetry?
>>I have no doubt that someday you will find it
>>and understand the place of BG in the Russian
>>culture and literature.
>
>Would some kind soul interested in the subject please explain to Boris that
>what he calls 'real Russian poetry' has
>died about 70 years ago and is a little
>outdated? Would the same soul explain to Boris the importance of BG in the
>contemporary Russian culture? I know there are some young ones out there who
>care about it even more than me.
I don't care much about BG's place in the Russian
culture, but Boris' attitude is indeed unhealthy.
I have no idea what is his background in literature,
but I heard the arguments like his million times.
His arguments go basically like this: "I don't appreciate
(rock music/modernist poetry/jazz) because it is silly.
I appreciate real (literature/music), the
classical (literature/music). When you start (read classical
literature/listen to classical music) you would lose all
interest in this fashionable modern shit".
The same arguments were used by narodniks against
Symbolist/decadent literature in 1900-ies, against
jazz in 60-ies, against rock and conceptualist
poetry in 80-ies. This is a typical Russian intelligentsia
stance: I know a lot of people who listen to classical
music only and consider everything else too "pop"
and "light music" to their tastes, or read Pushkin
and Akhmatova and staunchly refuse to read anything
left of Mandelshtam. I guess that Boris is sort
of follows this ideology (I bet that he isn't able
to appreciate Lev Rubinshtein or Vvedensky and never
listened Hafler Trio or Charlie Parker or Ganelin).
The narodnik tradition of Russian intelligentsia
(which Boris' posting belongs to) is purist and
doesn't appreciate anything modern/modernist.
There are two reasons. Of course, the majority
of intelligentsia's perception of classical
music was Aram Khachaturyan's Dance with Sabres
and analogous stuff: just a pop music
which assumes importance of classical music.
Most of classical music (Mozart etc) was
initially written as pop, so it is natural.
The same goes for classical literature etc.:
they read Turgenev or Kuprin or Zola melodramas
with the same intent as contemporary American
housewifes read Harlequine "romance" series.
So, the first sort are pompous people
without taste who go for the same bourgeois
pop or melodramas but like to feel that they
are intelligent person with high spiritual
concerns. I can safely say that >90% of
intelligentsia (and 90% of Western bourgeoisy)
who think that they appreciate "art" in fact
appreciate only the pop or melodrama and would
be much happier with the natural pop - eg, the
Russian estrada or Harlequin "romance". Since the
modernist culture is much less pompous than the
classical one and moch more difficult to appreciate,
this sort of people refuse even try to comprehend it.
The second sort are purists like Tolstoy and Chernyshevsky
who refuse to appreciate anything which employs the technic
and ideas unavailable to Pushkin or Glynka. One must remember
how Tolstoy cursed Beethoven for usage of symphonic
orchestra and writing music which appeals to sex
and imagination. Certainly Tolstoy was able to understand
Beethoven, but he hated the principles of his music.
The same goes for many narodniks (Uspensky etc) who hated
modernism, as well as for modern writers like Astafiev
or Belov.
It could be that Boris is actually able to understand
modernist poetry/culture, but refuse himself to do so
(as, I believe, Astafiev and other "derevenshchiki",
who claim that "rock is a cultural AIDS" and hate
even 1900-ies modernism which Boris pretends to
appreciate). One could ponder why it is so.
I guess that this purism (as any purism) is rooted
in narodniks/derevenshchiks etc. being puritan and
very much afraid of sex. Naturally, modernism (and
especially Aquarium performance) is very closely tight
with sexual forces. The narodniks' traditional unability
to appreciate the modernist art, I believe, is based
on their impotence or sexual insecurity (eg, Chernyshevsky
with his wife, or Tolstoy with his ridiculous
celibacy program).
With the passage of time, the taboos decay, and old
modernist culture, which appeals to sex through the
destruction of taboos, becomes more classicist. Therefore the same
narodnik intelligentsia who literally ostracised modernists
in 1900-ies simulates the appreciation of their long-gone
modernism now. The edges of 1900-ies modernism are lost,
taboo which this culture attacked decayed. Still, the same
narodnik intelligentsia is perpetually unable to comprehend
the contemporary modernism.
Misha.
one man's poison is another man's meat
one man's agony another man's treat
artaud lived with his neck placed
properly in the noose
eyes black with pain
limbs in vamps, contorted
the theatre and it's double
the void and the aborted
those indians wank on his bones
_Antonin_Artaud_ by Bauhaus
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting. I just
>wonder why you're so insistant about the 'old culture'. Is Pushkin's
>poetry dead? Is Bach's music dead? What do you mean by that?
One of important tools of the art is that the art
disturbs people. It defies taboos and challenges
established truths. Once taboos are broken and
established truths challenged this piece of art
loses its edge. So, Pushkin's poetry lost its edge -
it doesn't disturb anybody. The same fate awaits any
piece of art - I suppose that after a while de Sade
could be read in grade schools.
><interrupt here>
>Yes, nobody writes music like Bach now, because there is no purpose in
>doing so. But Bach is being played and listened and enjoyed. Nobody
>writes poems like Pushkin, but when I read "Spyascshuyu Tsarevnu" to my
>son, I know by sure that it's an immortal masterpiece (no smileys).
There are no immortal masterpieces - people change
and masterpieces go away. The same process.
>The popular culture of all times took a major portion of audience and
>was concerned about competition with the 'classics' or 'serious'
>music/literature/whatever.
Popular culture ignores 'serious' art completely
as long as not many people are concerned with
the 'serious' art. Usually (outside of Russia)
noone is concerned, so the Western pop culture ignores
'classical' and 'serious' art completely.
>Time however filters what survives and what
>sinks into Leta.
Wrong, too: everything sinks into Leta after sufficient time
passes, and the public evaluation of the piece of
art does rarely have anything to do with the quality
of art piece without regard to the time passed.
>And what I want to emphasize is: 1. masterpieces may
>come from any branch of culture, and 2. what's immortal doesn't die (a
>nu-ka pospor' :-)
The masterpieces die with the evolution of the culture
(language, logic, established truths, collective
subconscious). The evolution goes faster exponentially, so
they die faster and faster. As Andy Warhol said, in the
nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
Sincerely,
Misha.
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
> From what I know about rock concerts, the spiritual effect is just
>too subjective to formalize, and too strong to ignore. I know people who were
>"blown away" (the common rock term for a spiritual experience :) at a Def Lep-
>pard concert (a band considered 'commercial', insincere and highly-technical
>by the mainstream r-n-r community) as they were at a Led Zeppelin show in 1975
>(Led Zep is considered one of the mainstays of spirituality in r-n-r).
This is wrong certainly: LZ is an immensely commercially
successful rock group, but not many people manage to find
much spirituality in their art. They were basically
down-to-earth proletarian rock group, regardless of occult
experimentations of Page and Plant. Well, I would not be
too amazed when someone manages to find spirituality
in New Kids on the Block or birds' shit or whatever.
>Well, if you mentioned intellect - that's what song-writing is for (although
>I still think you have to be pretty smart to appreciate things like Yes, not
>just be emotionally- or spiritually- perceptive).
One must be a complete idiot to miss the fact
that Yes is extremely silly, overblown pompousness
aside. Yes said on interview that one of the best world's rock
group is Russian Authograph (Authograph even opened for Yes
several times). This is sort of true: Authograph's lyrics
(Authograph being probably the most braindead moronic band
in Russia) are virtually indistiguishable from Anderson's.
Misha.
Greg Landsberg
> In article <1993Aug19....@Csli.Stanford.EDU> ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Dmitri Manin) writes:
>
> >Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting. I just
> >wonder why you're so insistant about the 'old culture'. Is Pushkin's
> >poetry dead? Is Bach's music dead? What do you mean by that?
>
> One of important tools of the art is that the art
> disturbs people. It defies taboos and challenges
> established truths. Once taboos are broken and
> established truths challenged this piece of art
> loses its edge. So, Pushkin's poetry lost its edge -
> it doesn't disturb anybody. The same fate awaits any
> piece of art - I suppose that after a while de Sade
> could be read in grade schools.
Misha, if Pushkin's or Kantemir's or Vergil's poetry doesn't disturb you,
it is exclusively YOUR problem, and not the problem of these persons or
world culture. For example, a modernist Brodsky named first two poets as
the exact source of his poetical growth.
> There are no immortal masterpieces - people change
> and masterpieces go away. The same process.
Not the real ones. See above. There where a lot of people who tried to
"throw away from the ship of history" Dostoevsky. Where are those people,
and where is Dostoevsky now?
> Wrong, too: everything sinks into Leta after sufficient time
> passes, and the public evaluation of the piece of
> art does rarely have anything to do with the quality
> of art piece without regard to the time passed.
If you speak about geological periods of time, you are probably right, but
who cares. If you speak about the periods of time comparable with the
lifetime of human civilization, you are wrong, because any time >> then the
period of dominating of any particular generation (i.e., >> 30 years) is in
some sense an eternity. If something survived, say, 150 years (and there
are a lot of such masterpieces) then it'll be valuable forever.
> As Andy Warhol said, in the
> nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
> Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
Misha this your posting will be famous much longer, about 5 days - the
lifetime of the postings in SCS. Should I consider you as a moron after
Warhol? :-)
> Sincerely,
> Misha.
Sincerely,
Greg
Yury M. Mukharsky
< Wrong, too: everything sinks into Leta after sufficient time
< passes, and the public evaluation of the piece of
< art does rarely have anything to do with the quality
< of art piece without regard to the time passed.
And what has anything to do? Verbitsky's evaluation?
<
<
<
< they die faster and faster. As Andy Warhol said, in the
< nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
< Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
Can it be that Warhol is moron? This will decrease the moronity of mankind
from 4,000,000,000 to 2. Sounds like a deal.
Yury M. Mukharsky
>
>who cares. If you speak about the periods of time comparable with the
>lifetime of human civilization, you are wrong, because any time >> then the
>period of dominating of any particular generation (i.e., >> 30 years) is in
>some sense an eternity. If something survived, say, 150 years (and there
>are a lot of such masterpieces) then it'll be valuable forever.
This is sort of other extreme. Apparently there are more masterpeices (whatever
this means) which are 150 years long, then 300 years long. Although it may
be explained by higher productivity of masterpeices in last century, exponential
(your favorite function instead) decay of 'masterpiecity' seems to be more plasible explanation.
Misha Verbitsky
>
>> In article <1993Aug19....@Csli.Stanford.EDU> ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Dmitri Manin) writes:
>>
>> >Look, I aint gonna say nothing about rock in this posting. I just
>> >wonder why you're so insistant about the 'old culture'. Is Pushkin's
>> >poetry dead? Is Bach's music dead? What do you mean by that?
>>
>> One of important tools of the art is that the art
>> disturbs people. It defies taboos and challenges
>> established truths. Once taboos are broken and
>> established truths challenged this piece of art
>> loses its edge. So, Pushkin's poetry lost its edge -
>> it doesn't disturb anybody. The same fate awaits any
>> piece of art - I suppose that after a while de Sade
>> could be read in grade schools.
>
>Misha, if Pushkin's or Kantemir's or Vergil's poetry doesn't disturb you,
>it is exclusively YOUR problem, and not the problem of these persons or
>world culture. For example, a modernist Brodsky named first two poets as
>the exact source of his poetical growth.
First of all, I would ask you to put Harvard back in
your kill file where it belongs rightfully.
And second, if you don't comprehend English,
please consult the dictionary.
athena% webster
Word: disturb
Cross references:
1. discompose
dis.turb \dis-'t*rb\ vb [ME disturben, destourben, fr. OF & L; OF
destourber, fr. L (Xdisturbare, fr. dis- + turbare to throw into disorder -
more at TURBID 1a: to interfere with : INTERRUPT 1b: to alter the position
or arrangement of 1c: to break up or damage (as by shaking or jarring) 2a:
to destroy the tranquillity or composure of 2b: to throw into disorder 2c:
ALARM 2d: to put to inconvenience : to cause disturbance - dis.turb.er n
I wonder why it happens that Pushkin throws you into
disorder or alters your position. Probably you need to do
something about the choice of chemicals. Or just see the
doctor.
Finally, Brodsky's aesthetics is classicist
as he claims repeatedly himself. I see no reason
why you call him modernist. Not everyone writing
original lyrics in XX century is a modernist.
>If you speak about geological periods of time, you are probably right, but
>who cares. If you speak about the periods of time comparable with the
>lifetime of human civilization, you are wrong, because any time >> then the
>period of dominating of any particular generation (i.e., >> 30 years) is in
>some sense an eternity. If something survived, say, 150 years (and there
>are a lot of such masterpieces) then it'll be valuable forever.
Bullshit, naturally: practically nothing, say, from Byzantium
literature survives or is valuable now, despite of several
centuries of survival. Ditto for scaldic poetry and Cicero
rhetoric. I don't want to argue with you because you are
so disgustingly anal.
>> As Andy Warhol said, in the
>> nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
>> Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
>Misha this your posting will be famous much longer, about 5 days - the
>lifetime of the postings in SCS. Should I consider you as a moron after
>Warhol? :-)
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Misha.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Greg
Put me back in your killfile.
Your article is completely pointless. I understand
that you are claiming to be always drunk when posting but
this is no excuse to wasting bandwidth and my attention
with your empty-mindness.
Very sincerely,
Misha.
Dmitry Kleinbock
writes:
>Igor Pankevich <ig...@news.cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>>>I thought it was a nice album, considering it's immense popularity.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>the above sentence could be translated as "klassnyj al'bom, darom chto takoj
>>>populiarnyj".
>>
>>the quoted Russian translates into English with "despite", or
>>"albeit" instead of "considering".
>
>:^)
>
>Igor, this language has certain subtleties that can confuse a new
>speaker. If you are unsure about the meaning of a certain phrase -
>don't flame the author,
>ask him what he/she meant first. I did drop the word 'even' from the
>grammatically correct version of that phrase to make it sound more
>natural. Still, you were the only one to have a problem with it so
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>far, so I guess it's your problem and not mine.
Zak, I guess Igor is the only one who, for some reason, cares about
your word choice. Anybody (except Zak) who's able to figure out at once
that "considering" means "even considering", please correct me.
--
/| |\ /|\
/ | /| \/ |_\ klei...@pascal.math.yale.edu
/_ |/ | | \
` '
Greg Landsberg
> In article <256sem$d...@fnnews.fnal.gov> LAND...@d0gs05.fnal.gov (Greg Landsberg) writes:
> >In <1993Aug21.2...@husc14.harvard.edu> ver...@brauer.harvard.edu writes:
> >
> >> One of important tools of the art is that the art
> >> disturbs people. It defies taboos and challenges
> ~~~~~~~~
> >> established truths.
> >
> >Misha, if Pushkin's or Kantemir's or Vergil's poetry doesn't disturb you,
> >it is exclusively YOUR problem, and not the problem of these persons or
> >world culture. For example, a modernist Brodsky named first two poets as
> >the exact source of his poetical growth.
>
> First of all, I would ask you to put Harvard back in
> your kill file where it belongs rightfully.
> And second, if you don't comprehend English,
> please consult the dictionary.
Misha, first of all I'm awfully sorry, but my killfile doesn't stand all
the Harvard assholes... And I don't want to put Mr. Zeleny in my killfile
just because you belong to the same alumni. Got it now?
And second, dear friend, I used EXACTLY your English (see above), just to
make it easier for you to comprehend. I'm glad that you got a Webster and
even know hoe to use it, but I'd appreciate in future if you'd use a priori
and not poste priori. By "priori" I mean the posting of your articles.
> I wonder why it happens that Pushkin throws you into
> disorder or alters your position. Probably you need to do
> something about the choice of chemicals. Or just see the
> doctor.
I didn't say anything about myself, did I? If you wonder, however, why
Pushkin disturbs people, better put down your habit to write and try to
read. It might help, though your particular case is almost patalogical...
As to your loutishness, I got used to it and just ignore it, so don't waste
your valuable ammo... Get a break...
> Finally, Brodsky's aesthetics is classicist
> as he claims repeatedly himself. I see no reason
> why you call him modernist. Not everyone writing
> original lyrics in XX century is a modernist.
Read his "Marbor" - is it a work of classicist? Or his neat rhymes? "Kust
gust kak tesno nabrannoe 'Zh'". They are completely modern, and if you
thing that anybody who use a classic metre is a classicist... Well, just
open any literature textbook and try to read it. BTW, being a "classicist
in XX century in some sense means to be a modernist.
> >If you speak about geological periods of time, you are probably right, but
> >who cares. If you speak about the periods of time comparable with the
> >lifetime of human civilization, you are wrong, because any time >> then the
> >period of dominating of any particular generation (i.e., >> 30 years) is in
> >some sense an eternity. If something survived, say, 150 years (and there
> >are a lot of such masterpieces) then it'll be valuable forever.
>
> Bullshit, naturally: practically nothing, say, from Byzantium
> literature survives or is valuable now, despite of several
> centuries of survival. Ditto for scaldic poetry and Cicero
How about "Kniga mertvyh" from Egyptians; how about all the Celtic poetry
which produced Kits, Yets, Joyce... Ever head those names, boy?
> rhetoric. I don't want to argue with you because you are
> so disgustingly anal.
See above about loutishness.
> >> As Andy Warhol said, in the
> >> nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
> >> Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
>
> >Misha this your posting will be famous much longer, about 5 days - the
> >lifetime of the postings in SCS. Should I consider you as a moron after
> >Warhol? :-)
> >
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Misha.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Greg
> Put me back in your killfile.
> Your article is completely pointless. I understand
> that you are claiming to be always drunk when posting but
> this is no excuse to wasting bandwidth and my attention
> with your empty-mindness.
1. Misha, I'd definitely put you in my killfile, if not the fact that I'm
interested in your moral degradation. After all, Temma teached you, and
I always wanted to give her evidences, that she is a lousy teacher...
2. If you see no point, it doesn't mean anything... Sorry...
3. I claimed to be either drunk or bored, or pissed off. Thanks for
attention to my postings, anyway. That time I was just pissed off. Now
I'm both drunk and bored...
>
> Very sincerely,
> Misha.
Absolutely sincerely,
Grisha
Greg Landsberg
Well, Yuri, that is what I meant - if something survived 150 years it would
survive much more. 150 years is eternity by a human scale. As to the
decaying of masterpieces, sorry, but they are not 137 Cs or whatever. They
are not ruled by a simple mechanicism.
Cheers,
Greg
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>Misha, first of all I'm awfully sorry, but my killfile doesn't stand all
>the Harvard assholes... And I don't want to put Mr. Zeleny in my killfile
>just because you belong to the same alumni. Got it now?
You just claimed several months ago that all Harvard
is in your kill-file, didn't you? I must missed
the point when you retract your words.
Misha.
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
>By "priori" I mean the posting of your articles.
<?>
>Well, just open any literature textbook and try
>to read it. BTW, being a classicist
>in XX century in some sense means to be a modernist.
It's fine that you don't follow your advices
( "being a classicist in XX century means to be a modernist."
is a pearl of wisdom that no-one who ever tried to
read a literature book could ever utter).
>> Bullshit, naturally: practically nothing, say, from Byzantium
>> literature survives or is valuable now, despite of several
>> centuries of survival. Ditto for skaldic poetry
>
>How about "Kniga mertvyh" from Egyptians; how about all the Celtic poetry
>which produced Kits, Yets, Joyce... Ever head those names, boy?
Why all this rage and language mutilation? Keats,
Yeats, and if you ever read them in original (I am
sure that you did not) you would not misspell them -
this is not as difficult as, say, Baudelaire.
You are a pompous ass with "high art" pretensions
which are ridiculous taking in regard your complete
illiteracy in humanities.
Moreso, apparently you believe that Scaldic peotry
has to do something with Celts. This is one
more reason for me to post a computer generated
swears instead of half-decent argumentation. What
kind of discussion could be held with morons
like you who can't tell Celts from Scandinavians
(or like braindead Mukharsky who still believes
that varyags came from Dania after megabytes
of computer-generated bandwidth I spent on
discussions with the idiot).
>3. I claimed to be either drunk or bored, or pissed off. Thanks for
> attention to my postings, anyway. That time I was just pissed off. Now
> I'm both drunk and bored...
AI-generated flames await you and bandwidth till you shut
the hole up and stop behaving like a moron you are.
Misha.
And now for something completely different...
----
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Mikhail S. Verbitsky Phone: (554) 103-7640 *
* Email: verbit@brauer FAX: (361) 772-5940 *
* *
* /> *
* /< *
* [\\\\\\(O):::<=====================- *
* \< *
* \> *
* *
* "You mean now I can SHOOT YOU in the back and further BLUR *
* th' distinction between FANTASY and REALITY?" *
* --Zippy *
* *
* "You sick perverted cretin!" *
* --Me *
* *
*******************************************************************************
----
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Mikhail S. Verbitsky Phone: (554) 103-7640 *
* Email: verbit@brauer FAX: (361) 772-5940 *
Boris A. Veytsman
Misha Verbitsky's article changed my mind.
In article <1993Aug21.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
Dear Misha, I'm afraid you misjudge my position.
Where did I say that I don't like rock? What I
don't like is the attitude of people like Zak.
What they say is basically the following:
1. Rock is the ultimate truth, spiritous revelation,
sort of religion;
2. Rock is the ultimate art which negates and
makes obsolete everything before it;
3. All 'old' culture is dead and not actual today.
As to (1), it is, imho, silly. I cannot judge
somebody else's religion, and if Zak adresses his
morning prayer to Boris Grebenshchikov, it's his
private business. But, as I said in other posting,
deities don't take money. Tastes differ, but I
cannot respect commercialized religion.
If rock is art style rather than the religion,
money are ok. "ne prodaetsya vdokhnoven'ye, no
mozhno rukopis' prodat'", - said one of the first
Russian professional authors. Don't tell me that
rock = art style + lifestyle: many other (most?)
art schools demanded a certain lifestyle from its adepts.
So let's say that rock is art style and ask the simple
question: is it the ultimate style? Well, art
exists tens of thousands years. There were hundreds
schools and styles. Many of them proclaimed themselves
the ULTIMATE TRUTH, END OF ART HISTORY, whatever.
Results were unvariable: several best representative
became classics, majority of others came to oblivion,
and the art style itself was rejected by the new
school (however it influenced it).
Well, knowing this I can safely use empirical induction,
and predict the same future for rock with probability
close to 99.99999...%. There is my advice to Zak:
cool off, read books, think - and don't be fanatic.
Now the third question. Is the 'old' art obsolete?
In your other posting you say that nobody is disturbed by
Pushkin anymore. Well, this is not true. For me (and I
know a number of people like me) Pushkin, and, say
BG are contemporary pieces of art. Do you remember
baron Munchgausen's discourses with Solon, Shakepeare
and Newton in Mark Zakharov's movie? They were
contemporary writers for him. Yes, art develops, but
in the long run it does not negate previous masterpieces.
Moreover, it gives them new interpretation. Have you
read Arnol'd's papers about Newton? You see, calculus
has big progress since Newton, but Newton is not obsolete,
it is more interesting now BECOUSE of the progress.
We don't discard canvasses by Old Masters after, say,
Impressionism era. We just understand them better
BECOUSE of the impressionism.
> It could be that Boris is actually able to understand
> modernist poetry/culture, but refuse himself to do so
> (as, I believe, Astafiev and other "derevenshchiki",
> who claim that "rock is a cultural AIDS" and hate
> even 1900-ies modernism which Boris pretends to
> appreciate). One could ponder why it is so.
>
> I guess that this purism (as any purism) is rooted
> in narodniks/derevenshchiks etc. being puritan and
> very much afraid of sex. Naturally, modernism (and
> especially Aquarium performance) is very closely tight
> with sexual forces. The narodniks' traditional unability
> to appreciate the modernist art, I believe, is based
> on their impotence or sexual insecurity (eg, Chernyshevsky
> with his wife, or Tolstoy with his ridiculous
> celibacy program).
>
What I like the most in posting to scs is
that one gets to knew a lot of new facts
about oneself.
I'm afraid I must disappoint our friend
Dr. Freud-Verbitsky. In fact my small
experience shows the negative correlation.
I was fan of the 'new art' when I was a virgin.
The better my sexual life was, the less I was interested
in a it.
This tendency I have observed in ALL my friends of
both sexes: the more sexual experience, the less interest in
rock.
Of course this tendency is of the same sort as the
reported correlation between length of foot and
quality of handwriting in schoolboys. In fact both
factors are positively correlated with the age.
Good luck
-Boris
Yury M. Mukharsky
<
< (or like braindead Mukharsky who still believes
< that varyags came from Dania after megabytes
< of computer-generated bandwidth I spent on
< discussions with the idiot).
Oh, our great Gomerus (sp?) of Internet, You, who can not read but can type
fast, please read my post you refer to, if you can still find after all this
year(s) at some god-forgotten ftp site, and check what I wrote. Maybe you can
find some guide, who will read it aloud ten times and ten times ten times.
After that, when you will compehend, that I never claimed that they _came_
from Dania, only that Dania is one of states, founded and ruled by them, wrote
a new poem on the subject.
And, of course, I never claimed that Varijags were preceded by megabytes.
and finaly, in unopened envelope comes:
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
<BA...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Dear Misha, I'm afraid you misjudge my position.
>Where did I say that I don't like rock? What I
>don't like is the attitude of people like Zak.
>What they say is basically the following:
What I wrote was partially a deliberate provocation.
I am usually very pleased to read your articles,
so I devised a way to make you certainly answer.
>1. Rock is the ultimate truth, spiritous revelation,
>sort of religion;
A culture is the ultimate truth, spiritual revelation,
sort of religion - this is what almost every Russian
``intelligent'' agree. Zak applies this thesis
to rock, which, at least in Russia, plays the role
of truth, spiritual revelation, sort of religion
for multitude of very literate people (cf Vadim
Pelevin's brilliant Amon Ra with the remarkable
Pink Floyd sequence) - what is wrong with that?
>2. Rock is the ultimate art which negates and
>makes obsolete everything before it;
Practically any new movement of art negates and
makes obsolete everything before it, or at
least claims to do so. Cf, symbolism, futurism,
acmeism, konstructivism, narodnik writings of 1860-ies,
Pushkin's peer circle in Russia; and outside of Russia
Bauhaus, French symbolism, impressionism,
cubism, fauvism, surrealism, Grand Guignol, etc etc.
>3. All 'old' culture is dead and not actual today.
This is point 2 rephrased
>As to (1), it is, imho, silly. I cannot judge
>somebody else's religion, and if Zak adresses his
>morning prayer to Boris Grebenshchikov, it's his
>private business. But, as I said in other posting,
>deities don't take money. Tastes differ, but I
>cannot respect commercialized religion.
Aquarium was not commercialized at all
while it was significant (A. was actually
banned big time). The same goes for
practically any good band, especially
in (x)SU. In Western culture, rock
music is certainly more commercialized,
but as long as the music remains openly
confrontational (taboo-defying, socially
intolerable) it does not make much money.
Of course, in rock only (or mostly)
taboo-defying and socially intolerable bands
are of any interest (this is MHO).
>If rock is art style rather than the religion,
>money are ok.
> "ne prodaetsya vdokhnoven'ye, no
>mozhno rukopis' prodat'", - said one of the first
>Russian professional authors.
Art (nee magick, spritual enlightement) is
a religion of most people whom I respect. Please
don't offend my sensibilities.
>Results were unvariable: several best representative
>became classics, majority of others came to oblivion,
>and the art style itself was rejected by the new
>school (however it influenced it).
>Well, knowing this I can safely use empirical induction,
>and predict the same future for rock with probability
>close to 99.99999...%. There is my advice to Zak:
>cool off, read books, think - and don't be fanatic.
Well, I believe that after necessarily
time passes everything will sink into oblivion.
This is true often by mundane reasons: say,
Pushkin's poetry does not have good translations
(and possibly will never have) so when Russian
language becomes extinct (and any language dies
after sufficient time passes) Pushkin's poems
will die with it.
There is an important reason why no art is time-defying
besides mundane ones (languages, burning libraries, etc).
Notably, the art is good as much as much it reveals
of the collective subconscious (in Carl Jung's terminology).
The collective conscious changes (languages, logic,
motivations change), so the art of bygone eras
is incomprehencible on the rational level.
Many people believe that the collective subconscious
does not change so on pre-rational level one could
comprehend the art created long ago. Anyway, the modern
researchers showed that even the collective subconscious
changes, albeit more slowly. In the future, when most people
would have brain connected to various AI programs and will
use mind-enhancing drugs now unimaginable, the collective
subconsciuos would change drastically and very fast.
So, even two generations divided by 10-20 years would
not be able to comprehend each others' art and motivations.
In some sense it happens even now.
This is what Andy Warhol meant when he said about
how in the future everybody would be famous no
longer than 15 minutes.
>Now the third question. Is the 'old' art obsolete?
>In your other posting you say that nobody is disturbed by
>Pushkin anymore.
I meant that Pushkin's poetry does not offend anyone,
while my mother was offended by rock music quite
often. Mayakovsky's line "Ya lyublyu smotret'
kak umirayut deti" still offends (me, it does,
though I like it too).
>Well, this is not true. For me (and I
>know a number of people like me) Pushkin, and, say
>BG are contemporary pieces of art.
You read me as if I am against Pushkin's poetry.
Why this moronic need to trivialize everything? In fact,
I still reread my Pushkin (along with Tyutchev, Fet,
Derzhavin, etc. etc.) very often. Pushkin is harmonious
and so he does not disturb. He disturbed/offended
the taste of his contemporaries constantly,
though (read Belinsky's heated polemics on
why Pushkin is better/worse than Zhukovsky).
>Do you remember
>baron Munchgausen's discourses with Solon, Shakepeare
>and Newton in Mark Zakharov's movie? They were
>contemporary writers for him.
Yes, this movie is excellent - one more piece
of underrated art which will surely die
unrecognized by critics. Ditto for Mitta's
_Skazka_Stransvii_. There is no apparent reason
why some good (and not-so-good) pieces of art
survive and some don't.
>Yes, art develops, but
>in the long run it does not negate previous masterpieces.
Sure, the previuos masterpieces die regardless
of appearing of new ones :)
>Moreover, it gives them new interpretation. Have you
>read Arnol'd's papers about Newton?
I even transcribed parts of his book from the tape
for publication.
> You see, calculus
>has big progress since Newton, but Newton is not obsolete,
>it is more interesting now BECOUSE of the progress.
Newton is cool, but his (as well as Leibnitz's)
papers are not useful/readable - trust me, I read
some of them. His ideas are important, of
course. Still, no-one would read Newton now
except for personal amusement. In fact, most of
mathematical results usually come rediscovered
over and over because noone takes the trouble
of reading old journals (which are 99.99% junk,
so there is no apparent reason to read these
journals: the result is easier to rediscover
than to find it while sifting the junk).
Misha.
Michael Kagalenko
Postmodernism ! hot' im'a diko,
No nam laskaet sluh ono
I wonder, from whom I stole that ?
Sincerely,
Michael
Mikhail S. Verbitsky
Mukharsky) writes:
>Oh, our great Gomerus (sp?) of Internet, You, who can not read but can type
>fast, please read my post you refer to, if you can still find after all this
>year(s) at some god-forgotten ftp site, and check what I wrote. Maybe you can
>find some guide, who will read it aloud ten times and ten times ten times.
>
>After that, when you will compehend, that I never claimed that they _came_
>from Dania, only that Dania is one of states, founded and ruled by them, wrote
>a new poem on the subject.
>
>And, of course, I never claimed that Varijags were preceded by megabytes.
My apologies. There was a flamewar a year ago
when you corrected me after I said that
Varyags were from Norway. On several
occasions (months after this flamewar)
you picked on my postings saying that I don't
know the grade school history which says
that varyags were Danish. This was irritating.
In fact, Dania was an outpost/pirate
base for vikings, along with Normandia
etc, so you can as happily say that
varyags were French.
Anyway, I publicly admit that I was a tid-bit
heavyhanded with this "braindead moron"
slander. Landsberg with his "boy, you
don't know who's Kits and Yets do you"
was too much for my nerves. Sorry.
Misha.
PETER VOROBIEFF
>In article <252m0q...@umbc8.umbc.edu> cs42...@umbc.edu (Zak May) writes:
>.....
>>Dmitri Manin <ma...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Agree. Bach, eg, was rediscovered, if I'm not mistaken, in the late
>18th century. But that's not too relevant.
You are. It isn't.
>Seems like by 'death of old culture' Zak did not mean that classic
>masterpieces are dead, but that new masterpieces can't come from the
>slavish followers of classical tradition. I tend to agree.
Dunno if Zak agrees, but to me your abstract seems OK.
>On the other hand, it seems like in his eyes NOT following classical
>tradition (or 'clashing' different traditions, whatever it is) ensures
>high quality. That I tend to disagree with.
Not ensures, but sometimes helps to obtain.
--
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Vile, Slayer of the Seven Pigs of the North.
DISCLAIMER:
This article doesn't represent anybody's views. In fact, it doesn't
represent any views at all.
Greg Landsberg
OK, starting with now I'll notify you about any changes in my killfile
affecting Harvard. Right now there is only Mr. Nikolaev.
Grisha
Greg Landsberg
> In article <259703$h...@fnnews.fnal.gov> LAND...@d0gs05.fnal.gov (Greg Landsberg) writes:
>
> >Well, just open any literature textbook and try
> >to read it. BTW, being a classicist
> >in XX century in some sense means to be a modernist.
>
> It's fine that you don't follow your advices
> ( "being a classicist in XX century means to be a modernist."
> is a pearl of wisdom that no-one who ever tried to
> read a literature book could ever utter).
Still try to open it and read about neoclassicism.
> >> Bullshit, naturally: practically nothing, say, from Byzantium
> >> literature survives or is valuable now, despite of several
> >> centuries of survival. Ditto for skaldic poetry
> >
> >How about "Kniga mertvyh" from Egyptians; how about all the Celtic poetry
> >which produced Kits, Yets, Joyce... Ever head those names, boy?
>
> Why all this rage and language mutilation? Keats,
> Yeats, and if you ever read them in original (I am
> sure that you did not) you would not misspell them -
> this is not as difficult as, say, Baudelaire.
No, I did not read Yeats and Keats in original, first of all because their
language is very difficult. You didn't either. Ditto for Baudelaire.
However, I read Joyce in original, but it doesn't matter now. It's funny
that you noticed that Celtic poetry (i.e., ancient Irish poetry) has
nothing to do with Skaldic one (i.e., ancient Scandinavian one), but never
noticed that Egypt has nothing to do with Bizantium. If you were able to
think and not only check spelling of my postings, you would have probably
understand that these two examples were just mentioned to argue your
generic bullshit about invaluability of ancient masterpieces. I don't know
much about Skaldic poetry (nor do you), so I use examples which I know,
which is exactly opposite to what you usually do.
> You are a pompous ass with "high art" pretensions
> which are ridiculous taking in regard your complete
> illiteracy in humanities.
See my previous posting about your loutishness. Well, it doesn't surprise
anyone in this group.
> Moreso, apparently you believe that Scaldic peotry
> has to do something with Celts.
What a new idea - to assign your own bullshit to someone else and then to
prove brilliantly that it is a bullshit. Misha, did you subscribe
"Pionerskaya pravda" being younger and (presumably) clever, or what?
> This is one
> more reason for me to post a computer generated
> swears instead of half-decent argumentation.
Misha, your computer generated stuff is so much alike the rest of your
postings that I bet nobody in this group can tell the difference.
> What
> kind of discussion could be held with morons
> like you who can't tell Celts from Scandinavians
> (or like braindead Mukharsky who still believes
> that varyags came from Dania after megabytes
> of computer-generated bandwidth I spent on
> discussions with the idiot).
You are spending your time on discussion with an idiot every morning when
you decide what to do first - to take a breakfast or get a shower.
Have fun,
Greg
Greg Landsberg
> Anyway, I publicly admit that I was a tid-bit
> heavyhanded with this "braindead moron"
> slander. Landsberg with his "boy, you
> don't know who's Kits and Yets do you"
> was too much for my nerves. Sorry.
>
> Misha.
1. If you set something in quotes, then cite it right.
2. Lousy nerves are a subject of discussions with a psychiatrist and not
with several dozen netters. You are a man after all, aren't you? And men
don't talk about their nerves.
Get a pill,
Greg
Boris A. Veytsman
In article <1993Aug23.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
> I am usually very pleased to read your articles,
> so I devised a way to make you certainly answer.
>
Thanks.
>
>
>
> A culture is the ultimate truth, spiritual revelation,
> sort of religion - this is what almost every Russian
> ``intelligent'' agree. Zak applies this thesis
> to rock, which, at least in Russia, plays the role
> of truth, spiritual revelation, sort of religion
> for multitude of very literate people (cf Vadim
> Pelevin's brilliant Amon Ra with the remarkable
> Pink Floyd sequence) - what is wrong with that?
>
You see, I think this is one of the biggest errors
of the Russian intelligentsia. There are objects of
culture which are not phylosophy, religion, -
and don't want to be. Is there spiritual revelation
in books by A. Dumas? Or Batman comics? Culture is
more than religion.
Religion, phylosophy, politics was under strict
supervision and censorship in Russia. Therefore
unrealized potential went to art and changed its
attitude. As somebody said, literature is our politics,
religion, etc... From the other hand, medieval
mentality which is very prominent in Russia tends
to consider all texts as sacral. In Medieval Ages
there was no wordly literature or art - all literature
(INCLUDING schwanks and fablios) was religious.
>
>
> Practically any new movement of art negates and
> makes obsolete everything before it, or at
> least claims to do so. Cf, symbolism, futurism,
> acmeism, konstructivism, narodnik writings of 1860-ies,
> Pushkin's peer circle in Russia; and outside of Russia
> Bauhaus, French symbolism, impressionism,
> cubism, fauvism, surrealism, Grand Guignol, etc etc.
>
You are right if you speak about their words. But I
meant their DEEDS.
Imagine a great river with many meanders. At each turn
you may think you found a new direction, completely
different from all the previous. However on a longer scale
the picture is different: you don't negate the previous
progress, you continue it.
>
>
> I meant that Pushkin's poetry does not offend anyone,
> while my mother was offended by rock music quite
> often. Mayakovsky's line "Ya lyublyu smotret'
> kak umirayut deti" still offends (me, it does,
> though I like it too).
>
Well, I know some people offended by Gavriliada or
Klevetnikam Rossii. I am offended... maybe offended
is not the right word... disturbed by Dostoyevsky.
He had unhealthy mentality, I became literally sick
when I re-read him. You are right, school education
often hampers fresh understanding of classics. But
try to read them as for the first time (maybe using Borjes'
trick in Modern Don Quixote) - and your attitude may
change
>
>
> I even transcribed parts of his book from the tape
> for publication.
>
It's very interesting. Can you tell more?
>> You see, calculus
>>has big progress since Newton, but Newton is not obsolete,
>>it is more interesting now BECOUSE of the progress.
>
>
> Newton is cool, but his (as well as Leibnitz's)
> papers are not useful/readable - trust me, I read
> some of them. His ideas are important, of
> course. Still, no-one would read Newton now
> except for personal amusement. In fact, most of
> mathematical results usually come rediscovered
> over and over because noone takes the trouble
> of reading old journals (which are 99.99% junk,
> so there is no apparent reason to read these
> journals: the result is easier to rediscover
> than to find it while sifting the junk).
>
This is, I think, a matter of language. The language of
science changed since Newton, and average scientist cannot
read him without translation (or learning the language
first, as Arnol'd did). I mean language of science, not
the language of the papers. Say, Einstein wrote modern language,
and I sometimes re-read him both for scientific and
aesthetic purposes. The same thing is in literature: I
don't read, say, Kantemir - his Russian is too foreign for me.
By the way, it is why Shakespeare is more popular
in Russia than in Britain/North America: we have
good translations (they respect him, but it is mine
impression they seldom read him).
Good luck
-Boris
Zak May
Mikhail S. Verbitsky <ver...@brauer.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Z>Well, if you mentioned intellect - that's what song-writing is for (although
>Z>I still think you have to be pretty smart to appreciate things like Yes, not
>Z>just be emotionally- or spiritually- perceptive).
>MV> One must be a complete idiot to miss the fact
>MV> that Yes is extremely silly, overblown pompousness
>MV> aside.
Hey - there's no contradiction, from what I remember of logic, the following
is correct:
"One has to be smart to appreciate Yes" + "One has to be an idiot not to
know that Yes is silly" = "One has to be extremely smart to appreciate the
sillyness of Yes".
:^)
Actually, I think there *is* a minimalist side to Yes ("Long Distance
Runaround" and "Into the Lens" are the obvious examples), but you do need
lots of spare time to make yourself enjoy it :)
___
Zak.
Vadim A. Moiseyev
Do 1987 ta dumal, chto u nas (in Russia) est' Rock. V 1987 ya byl
na kontserte Uriah Heep i ponyal - Rocka (kak i seksa) u nas net.
V 1989, posle conserta Pink Floyd ia ukrepilsia v etom ubegdenii.
Chto zhe bylo v Rossii esli ne rock ? Otvechaiu - KSP. I BG, i Tsoi
i Brigada C, i etot... iz DDT... zabyl, nu da ladno, vsio eto KSP.
Pochemy ? Da potomy, chto u nashih muzykantov prosto ne hvatalo
ispolnitel'skogo i, skazhem tak, stsenicheskogo masterstva. Nedostatok
etot vospolnialsia tekstami. Imenno im, a ne muzyke udelialos'
glavnoe vnimanie. No lubuiu kompozitsiu, gde stihi podavliaut muzyky
ia rassmatrivaiu kak KSP. V etom vsio delo, otsiuda BG v printsipe ne
otlichaetsia ot BO i Zak May naprasno tak goriachitsia.
Uspokoisia, Zak.
Tem bolee chto v Rossii net seichas ni rock ni KSP, est' top'ko
Natasha Koroliova s hit'om:
"Ia lubliu tebia za to,
Chto u tebia est' koe-chto
Ved' u tebia est' palochka
Vyruchalochka !"
(Pravda, sudia po eio vidu palochkoi delo tut ne opboidetsia. Nuzhen
po krainei mere telgrafnyi stolb.)
Vot takaia krutaia muzika. A vy govorite rock ! KSP !
That's all, folks.
Vadim
Julia V Genyuk
The art is good as far as it tells something to the changed
(sub)conscious. Surely Mandelshtam didn't understand Homer
exactly as the ancient Greeks did, when he wrote "Bessonnitsa,
Gomer, tugie parusa...". Most probably I don't understand Homer
as Mandelshtam did, but I enjoy him, really. What's wrong with it?
After all, people are people, so there is something that doesn't
change, right? And the collective subconscious of the ancient
Greeks may be worth trying to understand, too; that would,
of course, change your attutude towards Homer, though you
don't know in what direction. Isn't it fun?
Pushkin's poems will not die when Russian language dies
(hopefully not too soon), in the sense that any reasonably
good translation preserve a part of their meaning and spirit.
Of course, people who will read the translation won't
feel the same as we do now reading Pushkin. But we don't
feel the same as his contemporaries did, so the part of their
meaning is already gone. Actually, they acquired a lot of new
meanings, being the part of ever-changing Russian cultural
landscape. That's how the cultural traditions work.
>
>
>
>>Do you remember
>>baron Munchgausen's discourses with Solon, Shakepeare
>>and Newton in Mark Zakharov's movie? They were
>>contemporary writers for him.
>
> Yes, this movie is excellent - one more piece
> of underrated art which will surely die
> unrecognized by critics.
Misha, you definitely rose in my opinion.
Anybody who likes this movie can't be that bad.
Julia
Garik
who have seen the movie, do you remember part where Alan Alda character says
"If it bends its funny, if it breaks its not funny." and "Humor is history
plus time."? Even if you don't let's go into "art" according to Misha.
In article <1993Aug21.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>, ver...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
">"
">" One of important tools of the art is that the art
">" disturbs people. It defies taboos and challenges
">" established truths. Once taboos are broken and
">" established truths challenged this piece of art
">" loses its edge. So, Pushkin's poetry lost its edge -
">" it doesn't disturb anybody. The same fate awaits any
">" piece of art - I suppose that after a while de Sade
">" could be read in grade schools.
">"
According to you, pile of sh*t all over sidewalk is art. It disturbs
people, it defies taboos and challenges established truths. Moreover,
it attracts a lot of flies, for whom it is an everyday thing, and hence,
they don't consider it art.
In my opinion, art should not aim at disturbing its admimer, but rather
try to help him/her achieve a new level of understanding or affirm it.
Disturbance by itself is a senseless objective.
In my sense of art, Pushkin's poetry, taking your example, would never
lose its edge, because his poetry is an important step for some in their
development.
">"
">" There are no immortal masterpieces - people change
">" and masterpieces go away. The same process.
But a masterpiece is a masterpiece, even if it is forgotten. Being
math-person (if I remember right), how can you deny greatness to some
philosophies of ancient Greeks, even if they were shown to be false
by later philosophers? They were important and profound contributions
of their time.
">">And what I want to emphasize is: 1. masterpieces may
">">come from any branch of culture, and 2. what's immortal doesn't die (a
">">nu-ka pospor' :-)
">"
">"
">" The masterpieces die with the evolution of the culture
">" (language, logic, established truths, collective
">" subconscious). The evolution goes faster exponentially, so
">" they die faster and faster. As Andy Warhol said, in the
">" nearest future nobody would be famous more than 15 minutes.
">" Anyone who does not understand this is a moron.
">"
">" Sincerely,
">" Misha.
Again, I disagree with you about death of "masterpieces", unless, of
course, we mean two completely different things :-)
I see a possible paradox here, you might be saying either that Warhol
is a moron or that you yourself is one, hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm.
--Garik.
___________________________________________________________________________
"In our town, there is a barber. He shaves every man here who does not
shave himself. Yesterday, I passed him on the street, and could not help
but notice that he needed a shave. Poor man, I feel pity for him."
-one of my _Deep Thoughts_.
___________________________________________________________________________
Igor Pankevich
Igor Belchinskiy <bil@burka> wrote:
>: relevant.
>
>BG knows all, BG told you all!
>Try to obtain decent bullshit detector.
Yeah, yeah... "Dja dast nam vse, u nas bol'she net problem" /BG/
>--
>Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com Opinions are mine and strong.
--Igor
Igor Pankevich
Greg Landsberg <LAND...@d0gs05.fnal.gov> wrote:
>In <1993Aug22.0...@galois.mit.edu> ver...@cauchy.mit.edu writes:
>
>> Finally, Brodsky's aesthetics is classicist
>> as he claims repeatedly himself. I see no reason
>> why you call him modernist. Not everyone writing
>> original lyrics in XX century is a modernist.
>
>Read his "Marbor" - is it a work of classicist? Or his neat rhymes? "Kust
>gust kak tesno nabrannoe 'Zh'". They are completely modern, and if you
>thing that anybody who use a classic metre is a classicist... Well, just
>open any literature textbook and try to read it. BTW, being a "classicist
>in XX century in some sense means to be a modernist.
>
Hey, wait a minute, isn't it where it all started? Somebody quoted
Naumov's "Bozhe, kak trudno byt' non-conformistom, osobenno esli eto
vyhodit is mody". Coming back to the basics, ah?:)
>>
>> Very sincerely,
>> Misha.
>
>Absolutely sincerely,
>
>Grisha
Have a nice day you two,
--Igor
Greg Landsberg
> The art is good as far as it tells something to the changed
> (sub)conscious. Surely Mandelshtam didn't understand Homer
> exactly as the ancient Greeks did, when he wrote "Bessonnitsa,
> Gomer, tugie parusa...".
It's not a flame. Just FYI. When Mandelstam wrote his famous "Bessonitsa,
Gomer..." he didn't mean Homer's "Iliad" - it was just an allusion. The
real meaning of that combination: "bessonitsa" - "spisok korablej" is that
being an educated person, Mandelstam used to recall the names of all ships
in Greek fleet headed py Paris which was sent to Troy. Nowadays people
usually struggle with sleeplessness by counting sheeps and not ships...
What a regress!
> Most probably I don't understand Homer
> as Mandelshtam did, but I enjoy him, really. What's wrong with it?
Oh, nothing! Just enjoy it and don't listen Misha Verbitsky whose education
is like a film of oil in a puddle - broad but monomolecular in depth.
> > Yes, this movie is excellent - one more piece
> > of underrated art which will surely die
> > unrecognized by critics.
>
> Misha, you definitely rose in my opinion.
> Anybody who likes this movie can't be that bad.
Misha is not "that bad" - he just like to stay a couple staircases higher
than the stair he deserved is. Funny in fact - he is jumping, falling down
and trying to climb it again completely ignoring the existence of cultural
gravitation laws. Well, it's up to him.
> Julia
Cheers,
Greg