OT: Coltrane's A love supreme
Bill Godwin
"get " it. I love lots of Coltrane's earlier stuff. any suggestions how to
listen to this differently somehow?
tia
Bill Godwin
Jeremey Poparad
form or changes or anything. It's more of a groove or jam kind of thing in
my mind.
"Bill Godwin" <billg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GrO0c.432841$I06.4900556@attbi_s01...
Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Jurupari
>"get " it. I love lots of Coltrane's earlier stuff. any suggestions how to
>listen to this differently somehow?
...how well do you remember the sixties?
8-P
Kevin Van Sant
<billg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<GrO0c.432841$I06.4900556@attbi_s01> :
>I just listened to this for the first time last nite. I felt like I didn't
>"get " it. I love lots of Coltrane's earlier stuff. any suggestions how to
>listen to this differently somehow?
>
If you like a good wine or beer then sit down in front of the stereo
with a glass or two of your favorite sometime when you've got no other
distractions and just allow yourself to lose yourself to the music.
Don't try to analyze, just listen and feel.
It may just not be for you, which is fine. No point in forcing it.
Personally, I'm almost incapacitated listening to it sometimes I find
it so powerful.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
HotchkissTrio
full and complete attention to it. I find it memserizing. I think it is
perhaps THE best recording I've ever heard.
-Paul H.
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:mrj740d6f2j10fo31...@4ax.com...
Patrick L.
I first listened to it in 1966. I was 15. Didn't get it. I heard it is
again, some months later, and man, it really communicated.
It's like a good shot of scots whiskey. Some can taste it, some can't, but
either way, it is an acquired taste.
Give it a chance, it might grow on you. If you don't find the mood it
exudes, you will never hear it.
Patrick
Max Smith
> You don't have to "get it". You either *like it* or you don't.
>
It bugs when people say of a style of music (or any form of art) that I
don't like - "well, if you understood it, you'd like it" - how insulting
- you can understand something completely and *hate* it!
That reminds me of something my ex-wife use to say when I'd tell her I
didn't like the taste of liver - "well, you would if it were prepared
right" - ugh.
Max S.
--
Peter: "Oh my god. Brian, there's a message in my AlphaBits. It says
'oooooooooo.' "
Brian: "Peter, those are Cheerios."
- "Family Guy"
Adam Gottschalk
"Bill Godwin" <billg...@comcast.net> wrote:
To my eyes, the most important part of your statements came first: one
night is definitely not enough time for your mind and heart to digest
music of the complexity and caliber of A Love Supreme. I don't count
myself as a Coltrane fanatic. I greatly prefer his quieter incarnation,
like on Johnny Hartmann John Coltrane. I'd say ALS is worth just
"forcing" yourself to listen to it to the point where it gets in your
blood a bit, the point where you find yourself humming along in parts. I
found I had to do that with Monk before I "got it". Contrary to some
feelings expressed, I believe strongly that complex, higher-order art
often takes time, consideration, reflection, immersion for it to take on
personal vitality. Another example I think of is "modern art" (as
awfully general a statement as that is)--many many, including myself,
look at Paul Klee or Matisse when we first see them and think WTF? After
a little deconstruction, such work takes on a life not possibly
perceptible before to the green.
By the way, I only recently, in the last month, got a copy of Love
Supreme. I did so because I got a recent recording from a singer Kurt
Elling whose work I generally like and he does a fantabulous original
vocalese to the tune and originally recorded solo on Resolution.
Awesome! Well that was my entry into Love Supreme. I am finding it now
one of the more truly "spiritual" listening experiences I've had with
jazz, right up there with seeing Mclaughlin play.
Joey Goldstein
Same here. When I was a kid, roughly around 1968 I guess, a very hip
friend of mine had me listen to it and I thought it was all bullshit.
All I wanted to know about back then was Hendrix, Beck, Page and
Clapton. I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
thing) so I still see quite a bit of jive in what Trane was into around
that time, but the music is beautiful to me now.
Charlie Robinson
>thing) so I still see quite a bit of jive in what Trane was into around
>that time, but the music is beautiful to me now.
>
>--
>Joey Goldstein
I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
spiritual aspects of their music.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or http://www.soundclick.com/bands/rmmgj_music.htm
tomw
says...
recordings he made in the latter part of his middle period:Crescent,
Live at Birdland, Dear Old Stockholm. Are you familiar with that stuff?
If not -- check it out. Without the spiritual mumbo-jumbo the music
might go down easier. Then, when you're totally in love with it, you
can go back to "Love Supreme" and appreciate it in its fullness.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Gary Beck
Holy books, "It is only for those who have ears to hear"
"Bill Godwin" <billg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GrO0c.432841$I06.4900556@attbi_s01...
Joey Goldstein
Charlie Robinson wrote:
>
> >I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> >thing) so I still see quite a bit of jive in what Trane was into around
> >that time, but the music is beautiful to me now.
> >
> >--
> >Joey Goldstein
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
> spiritual aspects of their music.
I realize this and was not trying to suggest that Trane was in any way insincere.
It's just that one man's spiritualism is another man's hogwash.
lbrt...@aol.com
> I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
> spiritual aspects of their music.
One may be 100% sincere about anything, even for all their life, and
be wrong about it. The sad facts of 'Trane's life reveal the
emptiness of his spirit. Is it not the highly-articulated cry of this
longing we hear? Like Joey, I thought it was all bullshit in '68, and
maybe there was a good reason why, but I'm glad I recorded it so I
don't have to buy it now that I appreciate its *muscicality*. Beyond
that, it's dark, self-absorbed, painful stuff of a lost person.
Bill Godwin
"Jeremey Poparad" <jjp14(at)uakron.edu> wrote in message
news:68717de9126310bb...@news.teranews.com...
Bill Godwin
with some miles stuff
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4043BE9D...@nowhere.net...
Bill Godwin
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040301183123...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Bill Godwin
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:mrj740d6f2j10fo31...@4ax.com...
Bill Godwin
seems important not to miss it
"HotchkissTrio" <paul.c.h...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:c20k9p$cb0$1...@news01.intel.com...
Bill Godwin
the phrase alove supreme a love supreme and it didn't work for me. funny I
used to kinda of only hear "the words" and now I tend to only hear the
music..
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message
news:tNT0c.17249$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bill Godwin
this is a great group
Bill G ( no relation to Kenny)
> >
>
>
Johann Daugh
news:205ef942.04030...@posting.google.com:
This is among the **most** unvarnished nonsense I've ever heard.
If your statement were liquid nonsense, it would fill a swimming
pool. And it would be so toxic as to become an EPA superfund site.
It would be correct to say Coltrane's early life was troubled. His
biographies indicate that he had found much of what he was seeking,
spiritually, towards the end of his life. He was more troubled
medically than spiritually.
One can express longing without being "lost". One can express deep
intense spiritual feelings without being in pain.
And to say he was "wrong about it"????? How do you know he was
wrong??? And "self-absorbed" - maybe you've confused the Coltrane
picture on the CD for the image you see in a mirror.
Oh, perhaps you're an avatar of your own deity, and the voices in
your head tell you you're right. I understand now, you left your
tin foil hat off, and the voices are speaking up again.
With that in mind, I'm eagerly awaiting **your** great work, the
composition that will show us all what it means to be right, to not
be a "lost person".
As Bugs Bunny said, "What a maroon."
Joey Goldstein
Hmmm. I don't hear that at all.
I hear joy and intense love.
But it's an intense love for something that I don't believe in.
Jurupari
>often takes time, consideration, reflection, immersion for it to take on
>personal vitality.
This is undeniably true to me, but others disagree for a multitude of reasons.
Often it takes a great deal of time, and the artist who isn't regarded in his
own lifetime is more of a rule than an exception.
On the other hand, some amazingly heated arguments can arise for seemingly
purely subjective perceptions about a player's work.
I was reminded of a line from a movie about Jackson Pollock that was on a
couple of nights ago and I sorta watched -
he says to a reporter about a painting, why do you expect me to interpret it
for you? Why must there be a deeper meaning to a garden of flowers that are
arranged beautifully?
Music hits me that way a lot. I was listening to Jack's My romance and his
Jazzica, and it struck me more than anything that it was good jazz, and was
what he had to say at that moment.
It made sense, there were neat surprises, and it was an excellent statement
good listening, and worth about anyone's attention.
Doing a post mortem on it seemed kind of pointless since it was done and done
well, and criticism really couldn't have been constructive, just reconstructive
to suit the critic.
Clif
Richard
> I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> thing)
It would be a more compelling argument if you could spell the things
you aren't much for.
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
MBR
> The sad facts of 'Trane's life reveal the
> emptiness of his spirit. Is it not the highly-articulated cry of this
> longing we hear? Like Joey, I thought it was all bullshit in '68, and
> maybe there was a good reason why, but I'm glad I recorded it so I
> don't have to buy it now that I appreciate its *muscicality*. Beyond
> that, it's dark, self-absorbed, painful stuff of a lost person.
=============================
How do you mean? On what information, precisely, do you base this
opinion? I don't know much about the "sad facts and empty spirit" of
Coltrane, so perhaps you can back up your assertions.
-Mark R
lhg
(Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck) at the time of his epiphany that
Coltrane was into "psuedo spiritualism". Hendrix, if ever there was
one, was one of the most confused souls when it came to sprituality.
Jimmy Page, well, this is a guy who followed Aleister Crowley, one of
the true crackpots of all-time. The question, IMO, is not whether you
think someone is engaged in pseudo spiritualism, it's are they saying
something musically that speaks to you as the listener? I believe if
one were to put on A Love Supreme without knowing the name of the
album or reading press and/or liner notes, they would be hard pressed
to know exactly what part spirituality plays in the music, except that
it sounds like nothing else ever recorded before it, then or now.
Regarding Joey's influences, all of those guitar players were great
contributors to rock, definitely had something to say, but none could
hold a torch to Coltrane for his level of committment to his art,
ability to transcend popular music industry pressures, mastery of his
instrument. Of course, IMHO.
Lance
"Bill Godwin" <billg...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<6921c.163954$jk2.606781@attbi_s53>...
lhg
on Joey. I see now that he mentioned he was 15. I wish I was exposed
to Trane at 15. Probably just jealous. Glad to hear Joey that you
awakened to the beauty of Trane and A Love Supreme.
"Bill Godwin" <billg...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<6921c.163954$jk2.606781@attbi_s53>...
Adam Gottschalk
Johann Daugh <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > One may be 100% sincere about anything, even for all their life, and
> > be wrong about it. The sad facts of 'Trane's life reveal the
> > emptiness of his spirit. Is it not the highly-articulated cry of this
> > longing we hear? Like Joey, I thought it was all bullshit in '68, and
> > maybe there was a good reason why, but I'm glad I recorded it so I
> > don't have to buy it now that I appreciate its *muscicality*. Beyond
> > that, it's dark, self-absorbed, painful stuff of a lost person.
>
>
> This is among the **most** unvarnished nonsense I've ever heard.
> If your statement were liquid nonsense, it would fill a swimming
> pool. And it would be so toxic as to become an EPA superfund site.
Methinks the post to which you responded (which brought on the same
sense of disgust in me as it did in you) comes from a place of blind
faith that Christianity (or at least on of the Abrahamic
institutionalized religions) is the only correct "spiritualism" there is.
Joey Goldstein
Which post was that? I think I missed that.
Joey Goldstein
Richard wrote:
>
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
>
> > I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> > thing)
>
> It would be a more compelling argument if you could spell the things
> you aren't much for.
I'm not making any argument. I'm stating my own personal feelings about
something. My feelings are non debatable as far as I can see.
And using spelling mistakes as a way to make a point in a usenet debate
(especially when there is no debate going on) is a sure sign of someone
with nothing to say. Maybe you're just trying to be funny. Hah.
lbrt...@aol.com
> Hmmm. I don't hear that at all.
> I hear joy and intense love.
> But it's an intense love for something that I don't believe in.
I could agree with this based upon the fact that not all define love
that same way. I think OM reinforces this. Beyond that, I see no
profit to anyone of adding more fuel to what has become an
emotionalized brushfire.
Joey Goldstein
Well if you're talking about the potential of this thread to turn into a
big flame war then I guess I agree.
I think that you might somehow imagine that you and I are in some sort
of an alliance of opinion here and are somehow fighting this war
together and, in my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. I
think that anybody who actually reads what I said, and not what they
think I said, wiuld have a hard time finding anything worth fighting
with me about on this topic, or at least I hope so. But the stuff you
said about Trane was not only factually incorrect but seemed to be just
plain mean spirited (not that I believe in spirits either <g>) to me.
Jack Zucker
themselves in music they do not understand so if they are seeing anger and
frustration, so be it.
--
Web: www.jazguitar.net
Book: www.sheetsofsound.net
Endorsements: www.jackzucker.com/JazGuitar/endorsements.htm
Soundclips: www.soundclick.com/2/jackzuckermusic.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4045318D...@nowhere.net...
Richard
>
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
> >
> > > I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> > > thing)
> >
> > It would be a more compelling argument if you could spell the things
> > you aren't much for.
>
> I'm not making any argument. I'm stating my own personal feelings about
> something. My feelings are non debatable as far as I can see.
Then why would a person express them in a public forum, I wonder?
> And using spelling mistakes as a way to make a point in a usenet debate
> (especially when there is no debate going on) is a sure sign of someone
> with nothing to say.
Well, actually, that would depend on the context, wouldn't it?
> Maybe you're just trying to be funny. Hah.
Yeah. Well, a rationalist who can't spell *is* pretty funny.
Joey Goldstein
Richard wrote:
>
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > > nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
> > >
> > > > I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> > > > thing)
> > >
> > > It would be a more compelling argument if you could spell the things
> > > you aren't much for.
> >
> > I'm not making any argument. I'm stating my own personal feelings about
> > something. My feelings are non debatable as far as I can see.
>
> Then why would a person express them in a public forum, I wonder?
Same reason Coltrane played what he played, to express himself.
> > And using spelling mistakes as a way to make a point in a usenet debate
> > (especially when there is no debate going on) is a sure sign of someone
> > with nothing to say.
>
> Well, actually, that would depend on the context, wouldn't it?
And in this context you still have nothing to say evidently, about the
topic that is. You just want to talk about me instead. Well go ahead if
it turns your crank. What are you wearing? Are you hot for me Richie?
Whip out your big wit and give it all to me baby.
> > Maybe you're just trying to be funny. Hah.
>
> Yeah. Well, a rationalist who can't spell *is* pretty funny.
Well you're not.
Richard
> Are you hot for me Richie?
A question like that tells me more about Joey's World than I really
needed to know, pal.
Regarding ALS, I heard it when I 19 and it completely blew me away.
Still does.
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Charlie Robinson wrote:
> >
> > >I'm still not much for psuedo spititualism (or even the real
> > >thing) so I still see quite a bit of jive in what Trane was into around
> > >that time, but the music is beautiful to me now.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Joey Goldstein
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
> > spiritual aspects of their music.
>
> I realize this and was not trying to suggest that Trane was in any way insincere.
> It's just that one man's spiritualism is another man's hogwash.
Before this get's out of hand I want to make it perfectly clear that I
do not think that Coltrane's spirituality is all "hogwash". He is one of
my favorite musicians and as such any thing that I can ever glean about
what has ever gone on in his mind about anything is of valuable
consideration to me in my own musical endeavours. I have the highest
respect for him for doing the music he did in this period of his life.
To his credit, the religious vibe he was giving off at this time was not
really rooted in any single organized religion, although I suppose there
were strong shades of Buddhism involved. Still, God worship is God
worship, and if you don't buy into *any* religion's concept of God then
listening to someone go on about God in a religious way on a recording
is bound to get annoying in some way.
I recognize that many of the greatest musicians of all time, most I
would say, from Bach to Beethoven to Stravinsky to Trane have been
totally wrapped up in their worship of God. Since I find the whole
concept of God rather silly I find this aspect of their music
unfathomable. This is probably a failing of mine. Still I am what I am
and that's all what I am. (Popeye...circa 1958.) Contrary to what some
of you folks think around here I'm not really all that bright. <g> I'm a
little bit slow actually. There are lots of things that I "just don't
get". God is one of them. I'm either too stupid or too smart to be able
to grasp either the concrete or the abstract virtues of the way God has
been depicted in *any* religious belief system.
I have enormous respect for people with strong belief systems. I wish I
had one. But I often have more fear of these people than respect. Strong
belief necessarily means you have to suspend rationality. That's a
dangerous mix in my experience. In case you're wondering, my not
believing in God is not a very strong belief. <g>
William C.
> Since I find the whole
> concept of God rather silly I find this aspect of their music
> unfathomable. This is probably a failing of mine. Still I am what I am
> and that's all what I am. (Popeye...circa 1958.)
Mom knew how to get me to eat spinach... that, "letter," from Popeye
himself.....
>Contrary to what some
> of you folks think around here I'm not really all that bright. <g> I'm a
> little bit slow actually. There are lots of things that I "just don't
> get". God is one of them. I'm either too stupid or too smart to be able
> to grasp either the concrete or the abstract virtues of the way God has
> been depicted in *any* religious belief system.
Well, I can see how that, "letter," from Popeye could have a certain
resonance here....
It's been in the cards for me to be an, "experiencer." I don't have,
"faith," that God exists. I can take no credit, was built to specs, and
simply followed inclinations.
That being said, I can communicate. Never know when something will happen in
life, when thresholds are reached/crossed, and surprise(s) that were in
store all along, have their time/unfoldment.
My very best to you Joey,
Bill
Joey Goldstein
Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
eye and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe. I just hope I
never go around describing these experiences as some lame
personification of human society which is how I view most of the
Judeo-Christian based personifications of God. God is a being with a
personality? God is a King? He needs me to worship him? Gimme a break.
If I absolutely had to have a religion I suppose I'd be a Zen Buddist
but it looks like you need a lot of discipline for that. I have a hard
enough time being sufficiently disciplined to be a musician.
William C.
> Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
> eye
Can sure be a wild funhouse ride, complete with house of mirrors.
> and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe.
Star Eyes... a favorite tune.
> I just hope I
> never go around describing these experiences as some lame
> personification of human society
The ancient Greeks are a hard act to follow.
> which is how I view most of the
> Judeo-Christian based personifications of God. God is a being with a
> personality? God is a King? He needs me to worship him? Gimme a break.
> If I absolutely had to have a religion I suppose I'd be a Zen Buddist
> but it looks like you need a lot of discipline for that. I have a hard
> enough time being sufficiently disciplined to be a musician.
There have been times when I've confused musician/magician.
Adam Gottschalk
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
> eye and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe.
Though apparently you believe them to be naive in some way, I find your
statements regarding theism are right on point and resonate with my
experiences verily and therefore also with my "beliefs". It's just a big
circular fun house of semantics, this task of discussing God, the
infinite, that which cannot be described and is greater than that which
can be conceived, etc. ad nauseum. There is a philosopher named Daniel
Maguire who co-wrote a _great_ academic book called Ethics for a Small
Planet. His essay in that book argues for our referring to that sense of
awe we all experience, the sense of wonder which is in fact at the heart
of all religions, as Wow, not God or any other anthropomorphized
moniker. He considers the figurative point at which all religions and
belief systems meet, that primal sense of awe and amazement and fear,
and chooses to refer to this point as Point Wow. So important is this
post-modern notion to me that I have, with Maguire's permission, bought
the domains pointwow.com and pointwow.net with the intentiion of doing
something useful with them or other. Input?
Greger Hoel
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>To his credit, the religious vibe he was giving off at this time was not
>really rooted in any single organized religion, although I suppose there
>were strong shades of Buddhism involved. Still, God worship is God
>worship, and if you don't buy into *any* religion's concept of God then
>listening to someone go on about God in a religious way on a recording
>is bound to get annoying in some way.
AFAIK, there is no 'God' in Buddhism. However, at times there seems to
be just as many ways of practicing buddhism as there are Buddhists..
G
--
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
To email me, replace everything after @ with softhome.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lbrt...@aol.com
> I want to clarify that my previous comments were in now way an attack
> on Joey. I see now that he mentioned he was 15. I wish I was exposed
> to Trane at 15. Probably just jealous. Glad to hear Joey that you
> awakened to the beauty of Trane and A Love Supreme.
It is only I who am responsible for sowing division or strife by my
controversial post in questionable taste, and I take it aboard even
though no one has said so. Whatever disagreements I occasionally find
w/Joey's posts, his insight is often valuable to me, and it was not my
hope to alienate half the NG, as spiritual matters are not its primary
concern (for better or worse).
William C.
"Adam Gottschalk" <ad...@adamgottschalk.net> wrote in message
news:adam-7EB9F4.0...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> Input?
The first thing I did when I got a computer, got on the internet, was...
write magnum opus.
Based on experience.
Anything more is the same as anything less, a moth fluttering about the
flame, without paying the cost to go into it.
Very Pricey.
I feigned ignorance on some matters, and took people too far in others...
It has been dissolved, as should be.
Richard
> Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
> eye and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe. I just hope I
> never go around describing these experiences as some lame
> personification of human society which is how I view most of the
> Judeo-Christian based personifications of God. God is a being with a
> personality? God is a King? He needs me to worship him? Gimme a break.
> If I absolutely had to have a religion I suppose I'd be a Zen Buddist
> but it looks like you need a lot of discipline for that. I have a hard
> enough time being sufficiently disciplined to be a musician.
Well, I sure had you all wrong, and I regret taking shots at you a
few times recently.
I'd read you as one of those brain-dead objectivist atheists I found
so irksome in college, and instead you turn out to be agnostic.
My apologies for all the BS, Joey, for whatever it's worth.
--
"I can't imagine a God that would give us reason, but then require
that we not use it." - Thomas Huxley
MBR
No, me knows this poster has a history of spewing vitriol about
"abrahamic" based religion. Now which reeds does he use again?
MBR
> robins...@aol.comremove (Charlie Robinson) wrote in message news:<20040302065332...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
>
> > spiritual aspects of their music.
>
> be wrong about it. The sad facts of 'Trane's life reveal the
> emptiness of his spirit. Is it not the highly-articulated cry of this
> longing we hear? Like Joey, I thought it was all bullshit in '68, and
> maybe there was a good reason why, but I'm glad I recorded it so I
> don't have to buy it now that I appreciate its *muscicality*. Beyond
> that, it's dark, self-absorbed, painful stuff of a lost person.
So what is it about Coltrane that made his lost life such an empty and
spiritual failure? Maybe it was all those recordings he made each one
improving, exploring and moving beyond the last. Or perhaps it was
some of those compositions like Giant Steps that really makes him
stand out as loser. Of course there's his ballad playing which is the
perfect embodiment of a man devoid of spirit. Or maybe it's the
generations of musicians he has influenced and inspired that show what
a self absorbed lost soul he was. Of course he kicked drugs and found
love and spirituality so I guess that clenches it: the guy really was
useless.
Joey Goldstein
Richard wrote:
>
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
>
> > Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
> > eye and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe. I just hope I
> > never go around describing these experiences as some lame
> > personification of human society which is how I view most of the
> > Judeo-Christian based personifications of God. God is a being with a
> > personality? God is a King? He needs me to worship him? Gimme a break.
> > If I absolutely had to have a religion I suppose I'd be a Zen Buddist
> > but it looks like you need a lot of discipline for that. I have a hard
> > enough time being sufficiently disciplined to be a musician.
>
> Well, I sure had you all wrong, and I regret taking shots at you a
> few times recently.
>
> I'd read you as one of those brain-dead objectivist atheists I found
> so irksome in college, and instead you turn out to be agnostic.
I am?
My own take on me is that I'm a belief-a-phobe. I'm too scared to
believe in anything, let alone objectivism.
> My apologies for all the BS, Joey, for whatever it's worth.
Rihcard (Huddler, right?), you and I have had out little tussles in the
past too. we seem to have a little oil and water thing goin' on. Don't
sweat it.
Richard
>
>
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > nos...@nowhere.net wrote...
> >
> > > Well I do believe that there is more to heaven and earth than meets the
> > > eye and I am open to the experience of wonder and of awe. I just hope I
> > > never go around describing these experiences as some lame
> > > personification of human society which is how I view most of the
> > > Judeo-Christian based personifications of God. God is a being with a
> > > personality? God is a King? He needs me to worship him? Gimme a break.
> > > If I absolutely had to have a religion I suppose I'd be a Zen Buddist
> > > but it looks like you need a lot of discipline for that. I have a hard
> > > enough time being sufficiently disciplined to be a musician.
> >
> > Well, I sure had you all wrong, and I regret taking shots at you a
> > few times recently.
> >
> > I'd read you as one of those brain-dead objectivist atheists I found
> > so irksome in college, and instead you turn out to be agnostic.
>
> I am?
> My own take on me is that I'm a belief-a-phobe. I'm too scared to
> believe in anything, let alone objectivism.
That's a good working description of agnostisicm. :)
> > My apologies for all the BS, Joey, for whatever it's worth.
>
> Rihcard (Huddler, right?), you and I have had out little tussles in the
> past too. we seem to have a little oil and water thing goin' on. Don't
> sweat it.
It's true, we don't seem to mix that well. For my part, I'll catch
myself better in the future, though. No need to stink up the place.
Tom Lippincott
>> My own take on me is that I'm a belief-a-phobe. I'm too scared to
>> believe in anything, let alone objectivism.
>
>That's a good working description of agnostisicm. :)
>
it's my understanding that atheism means "without theism" and that theism is a
religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS an
atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
>> > My apologies for all the BS, Joey, for whatever it's worth.
>>
>> Rihcard (Huddler, right?), you and I have had out little tussles in the
>> past too. we seem to have a little oil and water thing goin' on. Don't
>> sweat it.
>
>It's true, we don't seem to mix that well. For my part, I'll catch
>myself better in the future, though. No need to stink up the place.
>
>--
>"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
>
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
bob r
tomli...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/3/04 11:12 PM:
> it's my understanding that atheism means "without theism" and that theism is a
> religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS an
> atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
I think that's a slightly misunderstood translation. "Atheism" comes from
the Greek word "atheos", which means "without God".
(a = without; theos = god)
It has come to mean "disbelief in God" or even "a doctrine that God does not
exist".
"Agnosticism" is also of Greek derivation, although the word was invented by
Thomas Huxley in the 19th century; it means "without knowledge of spiritual
matters". A true agnostic doesn't deny that God exists; he just believes
that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not God exists.
Huxley believed that only material objects could be truly "known".
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Jurupari
>that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not God exists.
I think the original Gnostics believed in a dual nature of God, as being both
good and evil, hence unknowable.
I think God exists, but he's really busy right now trying to build a rock so
heavy he can't lift it.
Clif
bob r
juru...@aol.com wrote on 3/4/04 12:07 AM:
> I think the original Gnostics believed in a dual nature of God, as being both
> good and evil, hence unknowable.
"Gnostic" originally referred to a special sort of direct spiritual
knowledge or insight. That's why Huxley chose the word when he coined
"agnostic" (without spiritual knowledge). He believed that spiritual things
were unknowable and that only material phenomena could be truly known.
Joey Goldstein
bob r wrote:
>
> in article 20040303231230...@mb-m24.aol.com, Tom Lippincott at
> tomli...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/3/04 11:12 PM:
>
> > it's my understanding that atheism means "without theism" and that theism is a
> > religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS an
> > atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
>
> I think that's a slightly misunderstood translation. "Atheism" comes from
> the Greek word "atheos", which means "without God".
> (a = without; theos = god)
> It has come to mean "disbelief in God" or even "a doctrine that God does not
> exist".
>
> "Agnosticism" is also of Greek derivation, although the word was invented by
> Thomas Huxley in the 19th century; it means "without knowledge of spiritual
> matters". A true agnostic doesn't deny that God exists; he just believes
> that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not God exists.
> Huxley believed that only material objects could be truly "known".
I don't believe (can not believe) that there is a "being" with likes and
dislikes and needs that created this Universe and who intercedes in
Man's affairs based on any type of a reward system.
I do believe that there are all sorts of things that ARE possible in
this Universe, very strange things...but not that.
What does that make me?
Richard
> >> I am?
> >> My own take on me is that I'm a belief-a-phobe. I'm too scared to
> >> believe in anything, let alone objectivism.
> >
> >That's a good working description of agnostisicm. :)
>
> it's my understanding that atheism means "without theism" and that theism is a
> religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS an
> atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
There are subtle differences between them, although some agnostics
(including Thomas Huxley, who coined the term) basically say what you
just did: That, for all practical purposes, they are atheists in the
sense you mean (without theism). The "for all practical purposes" is
important, though. Agnosticism, as intended, is basically a method
for keeping you from proclaiming as certain what is uncertain, when
it comes to intellectual matters.
Religious faith and experience aren't wholly intellectual matters,
though, so agnosticism, as intended, isn't applied to theism. Huxley
talked freely of God (although to his great credit I don't recall
that he ever tried to describe what he meant by the word. Doing that
is when the trouble starts.). It's entirely possible for an agnostic
to experience that "It" we're calling God in one aspect of his or her
being, while imposing an intellectual distance on that experience
that can prevent an awful lot of the evil and foolishness that people
do when they try to apply or translate religious experience to the
rational, workaday world.
One of the rib-splitting funniest, and most intellectually honest,
essays on the whole subject of Judeo-Christian belief is now on line.
Twain's "Letters from the Earth" is a brilliant illustration of
agnosticism: In the context of a spiritual cosmology, he just
completely destroys all the intellectual lies and contradictions of
the average Believer.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
You might need to read up through a couple of "letters" to get the
full flavor of Twain's genius on this one. They're quick reads,
though.
(BTW, Tom, I'm a great admirer of your playing.)
William C.
> I don't believe (can not believe) that there is a "being" with likes and
> dislikes and needs that created this Universe and who intercedes in
> Man's affairs based on any type of a reward system.
>
> I do believe that there are all sorts of things that ARE possible in
> this Universe, very strange things...but not that.
>
> What does that make me?
Ripe for the picking. Pun intended.
Jurupari
>were unknowable and that only material phenomena could be truly known.
well, the less he knew about quantum mechanics the better.
The gnostics were a religious bunch around the same time as the manachaeans, I
believe. I'm too lazy to google it.
Anyway, the good god as opposed to good/bad god barely won out. A lot of the
early christian movers and shakers were originally manachaeans iirc.
A good thing too - it woulda really messed with the meter of James Brown's
lyric.
Clif
Myth
"Richard" <rh...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1ab08a5d5...@news.verizon.net...
Thanks for posting that link Richard. It fully confirms my conviction that
Mark Twain is one of the greatest American writers ever, duh ;-)
Written in 1909 the unified theory (the automatic law/law of nature/law of
God) foreshadows Einsteins later work, not to mention his poetic description
of the Big Bang. It fits two of my main "truth-criterias", beauty and humor
to a T
Time for a re-read of Twain, got a lot of it :-)
Take care,
Tom
tomw
tomli...@aol.comnospam says...
> it's my understanding that atheism means "without theism" and that theism is a
> religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS an
> atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
>
That would be the Unitarians. :)
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
tomw
juru...@aol.com says...
> >He believed that spiritual things
> >were unknowable and that only material phenomena could be truly known.
>
> well, the less he knew about quantum mechanics the better.
>
> The gnostics were a religious bunch around the same time as the manachaeans, I
> believe. I'm too lazy to google it.
>
The term "gnostics" is applied to a wide range of early Christian
groups.
tomw
>
> I don't believe (can not believe) that there is a "being" with likes and
> dislikes and needs that created this Universe and who intercedes in
> Man's affairs based on any type of a reward system.
>
> I do believe that there are all sorts of things that ARE possible in
> this Universe, very strange things...but not that.
>
> What does that make me?
>
>
Very specific. :)
Jurupari
>groups.
>--
>Tom Walls
>the guy at the Temple of Zeus
That sounds more informed than me - considering your address, guess I shouldn't
be too surprised. :o)
Clif
Charlie Robinson
were mine are:
> I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
>> > spiritual aspects of their music.
For me it only matters that Trane and the others believed that strongly about
what they were doing.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or http://www.soundclick.com/bands/rmmgj_music.htm
Max Leggett
Robinson) wrote:
>Just so there is no misunderstanding the only words in the last message that
>were mine are:
>
>> I know for sure after talking to Elvin that Trane was 100% sincere about the
>>> > spiritual aspects of their music.
>
>For me it only matters that Trane and the others believed that strongly about
>what they were doing.
Reet, and you can hear that sinceritry in their playing. It's not some
rock band in the 70s picking up on the latest fad [Oh, Baba Gumbo, you
are Love and Insight, yeah] you can hear the depth of Trane's feeling.
And it's a great recording, just great. I can't think how to say that
anything by Trane isn't jazz, but ALS is more like a Gregorian chant
than it is like Blues By Five. And he's not preaching, either, just
describing. I get the sense from ALS that Trane must have been a
humble man, understanding.
The original post talked about not getting it - just let it play in
the background and absorb it through osmosis. There's nothing to get.
['owzat for a Buddhist take on it?]
Greger Hoel
wrote:
IIRC, they were also a distinct group at some time.
I think this is the right time to mention one of the best books I've
ever read: From the Holy Mountain, by William Dalrymple. In the late
sixth century, two monks travel through the byzantine empire, from
greece to egypt. In 1994, Dalrymple retraces their steps, and presents
a fascinating view of things by comparing modern day with sixth
century conditions.
http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Books.html
Tom Lippincott
>is a
>> religious system of beliefs and practices. So, technically, an agnostic IS
>an
>> atheist (unless there's a "church of agnosticism" that I don't know about).
>>
>
>That would be the Unitarians. :)
>--
>Tom Walls
heh!
Greger Hoel
<gre...@spamblock.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:28:59 -0500, tomw <tw25R...@cornell.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <20040304010530...@mb-m26.aol.com>,
>>juru...@aol.com says...
>>> >He believed that spiritual things
>>> >were unknowable and that only material phenomena could be truly known.
>>>
>>> well, the less he knew about quantum mechanics the better.
>>>
>>> The gnostics were a religious bunch around the same time as the manachaeans, I
>>> believe. I'm too lazy to google it.
>>>
>>
>>The term "gnostics" is applied to a wide range of early Christian
>>groups.
>
>IIRC, they were also a distinct group at some time.
>
>I think this is the right time to mention one of the best books I've
>ever read: From the Holy Mountain, by William Dalrymple. In the late
>sixth century, two monks travel through the byzantine empire, from
>greece to egypt. In 1994, Dalrymple retraces their steps, and presents
>a fascinating view of things by comparing modern day with sixth
>century conditions.
>
>http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Books.html
And the book's name is From the Holy Mountain..
Greger Hoelschos
Tom Lippincott
>There are subtle differences between them, although some agnostics
>(including Thomas Huxley, who coined the term) basically say what you
>just did: That, for all practical purposes, they are atheists in the
>sense you mean (without theism). The "for all practical purposes" is
>important, though. Agnosticism, as intended, is basically a method
>for keeping you from proclaiming as certain what is uncertain, when
>it comes to intellectual matters.
I have a friend who is an avid atheist (of the "I believe there is no God"
variety) who lent me a book of essays by prominent atheist thinkers; if I'm not
mistaken there was an essay by Huxley in it, and I think even that my idea that
agnosticism is a form of atheism may indeed be from his writing.
I will concede that in common practice usage in modern day culture, the term
"atheist" does seem to have come to mean "someone who believes there is
definitely not a God."
>
>Religious faith and experience aren't wholly intellectual matters,
>though, so agnosticism, as intended, isn't applied to theism. Huxley
>talked freely of God (although to his great credit I don't recall
>that he ever tried to describe what he meant by the word. Doing that
>is when the trouble starts.). It's entirely possible for an agnostic
>to experience that "It" we're calling God in one aspect of his or her
>being, while imposing an intellectual distance on that experience
>that can prevent an awful lot of the evil and foolishness that people
>do when they try to apply or translate religious experience to the
>rational, workaday world.
>
>One of the rib-splitting funniest, and most intellectually honest,
>essays on the whole subject of Judeo-Christian belief is now on line.
>Twain's "Letters from the Earth" is a brilliant illustration of
>agnosticism: In the context of a spiritual cosmology, he just
>completely destroys all the intellectual lies and contradictions of
>the average Believer.
>
>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
>
>You might need to read up through a couple of "letters" to get the
>full flavor of Twain's genius on this one. They're quick reads,
>though.
>
>(BTW, Tom, I'm a great admirer of your playing.)
>
>--
>"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
>
thanks! and thanks for the Twain link; that looks interesting.
Adam Gottschalk
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I don't believe (can not believe) that there is a "being" with likes and
> dislikes and needs that created this Universe and who intercedes in
> Man's affairs based on any type of a reward system.
>
> I do believe that there are all sorts of things that ARE possible in
> this Universe, very strange things...but not that.
>
> What does that make me?
An Athiest.
Atheism has as clear a definition as Theism. Theism is the faith or
belief that there is a designer/creator/overseer to the cosmos, a
_deity_. Atheism is simply the lack of such a faith.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all theistic religions. Buddhism is
a atheistic religion--there is no notion of an omnipotent God to
buddhists or taoists (in their respective purer forms).
In common use, atheism has come to mean the lack of any religious or
spiritual belief at all. Technically speaking, that's capitalism. In
fact, Joey, I, and many others apparently have our own beliefs and
faiths about the transcendant, our own moral code derived from the world
and experience and multiple great texts, our own conception of "that
than which nothing greater can be conceived", and I, for example, hold
my own specific beliefs, cosmology, very very dearly; yet we are not
theists. I have to choke back laughter about the preposterous notion of
an omnipotent designer/creator. I am a devout atheist with very sincere
and strongly-held faiths that the greater forces in the universe arc in
the direction of peace and justice.
Richard
> In common use, atheism has come to mean the lack of any religious or
> spiritual belief at all. Technically speaking, that's capitalism.
You mean materialism, don't you? There are lots of people who'd
describe themselves as capitalists in church every Sunday.
> I am a devout atheist with very sincere
> and strongly-held faiths that the greater forces in the universe arc in
> the direction of peace and justice.
I don't have the first idea of how I'd describe what I "am," but I do
generally believe this is true: "The universe is not only stranger
than we imagine, it is stranger than we _can_ imagine." (J. Haldane)
I think that "imagination gap" is narrowing, though. Research at the
cutting edges of philosophy, theory of computation, and physics all
imply a very, very strange universe by current ideas of reality.
Tone
> >
> >
> Very specific. :)
lol
As verification, see the thread with notes of a 2 octave scale
analyzed for sympathetic vibrations in other strings. Actually I
appreciate this level of detail because it short circuits a lot of
confusion. Good technical writing is pretty uncommon.
Adam Gottschalk
Richard <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gottschalk wrote:
>> Technically speaking, that's capitalism.
>
> You mean materialism, don't you?
Probably nihilism is more like it. My statement was tongue-in-cheek and
unwarranted.
Richard
<Whoosh!> Right over my head. Actually, now that you explain it I
think it's pretty funny. And not completely unwarranted.
lbrt...@aol.com
4117A4.112...@news.fu-berlin.de>...
> > What does that make me?
> An Athiest.
> Atheism has as clear a definition as Theism. Theism is the faith or
> belief that there is a designer/creator/overseer to the cosmos, a
> _deity_. Atheism is simply the lack of such a faith.
There is only one small problem with atheism: it defies the rules of
logic and of science/mathematics, and by applying them, it yields a
reductio de absurdum. This may be more concisely defined (but with no
insult to one's personality) as ignorance.
In a very real sense, one who has claimed an atheist position, has
made themself their own god. For to do so, one must claim both
omnipotence over the great weight of the evidence, and omnipresence to
know the entire universe at once. This may be more concisely defined
(but with no insult to one's personality) as pride.
Pride married with ignorance presents a rather stiffnecked foe to
truth - not to mention peace and harmony.
Cheers,
Frank
Greger Hoel
>There is only one small problem with atheism: it defies the rules of
>logic and of science/mathematics, and by applying them, it yields a
>reductio de absurdum. This may be more concisely defined (but with no
>insult to one's personality) as ignorance.
Yeah, religion is a lot more plausible because of it's strong
foundation in logic and scientific fact..
>In a very real sense, one who has claimed an atheist position, has
>made themself their own god. For to do so, one must claim both
>omnipotence over the great weight of the evidence, and omnipresence to
>know the entire universe at once. This may be more concisely defined
>(but with no insult to one's personality) as pride.
This is beyond absurd.
Look at the people in the world today, with a serious god complex.
'Cept for Kim Jung-Il, they're religious fanatics, the whole lot of
them.
>Pride married with ignorance presents a rather stiffnecked foe to
>truth - not to mention peace and harmony.
Definitely.
--
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Goldstein
Adam Gottschalk wrote:
>
> In common use, atheism has come to mean the lack of any religious or
> spiritual belief at all. Technically speaking, that's capitalism.
lol