Principia Discordia

Original OP moved to a better neighborhood.

 :eek:

Nicely done, Roger. I think you're on the money with the horrible noise at the end.

Great rant!  LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH!





I also have a prediction, but I'm going to hold off for a bit.

Love it.

Badass rant!

I'll admit that I have the musical awareness of a turnip, and I choose what I listen to based purely on what I like filling my sound-holes. The cultural context of music isn't really something I'm usually cognizant of. It's pretty interesting to see it summarized like this.

This is FUCKIN A RIGHT - permission to share with attribution?

Quote from: stelz on October 08, 2013, 11:35:47 PM
This is FUCKIN A RIGHT - permission to share with attribution?

Go ahead, but there's a lot more coming.  That was just the intro.

Even BETTER. Thanks!

I have the feeling as soon as I take a class on music history I am going to end up citing this rant.

Oh yes. FUCK yes!

I like where this is going.

I love this. One of the things I love about hip-hop is that anybody with a laptop can make music and spread it around as much as they want. It's truly more punk than punk ever was, in spite of the highly visible completely co-opted mainstream element of the culture.

Yep, yep. Good shit.

Though, I disagree with one bit (though, it may be just me) but the function of music (at least some music. The good stuff, anyway) is not to distract us from the thunk at the end of the conveyor, rather it is an act of defiance. It's not ignoring the thunk, it's looking it straight in its stupid fucking ass-face and saying "Oh yeah, motherfucker? Well Come get me, you stinking piece of shit-puke."

You may get me, you stupid thunk, but I'll see to it that it's worse off for you than it was for me.

But, yeah. Thinking about it, I see how some people would be inclined to see it the way you described, as well as the possibility that blatantly ignoring the thunk is an act of defiance in itself...

Either way, cheers, man.

Quote from: Cuddlefish on October 09, 2013, 03:02:59 AM
Yep, yep. Good shit.

Though, I disagree with one bit (though, it may be just me) but the function of music (at least some music. The good stuff, anyway) is not to distract us from the thunk at the end of the conveyor, rather it is an act of defiance. It's not ignoring the thunk, it's looking it straight in its stupid fucking ass-face and saying "Oh yeah, motherfucker? Well Come get me, you stinking piece of shit-puke."

You may get me, you stupid thunk, but I'll see to it that it's worse off for you than it was for me.

But, yeah. Thinking about it, I see how some people would be inclined to see it the way you described, as well as the possibility that blatantly ignoring the thunk is an act of defiance in itself...

Either way, cheers, man.

The best music does that, yeah.

Quote from: Cuddlefish on October 09, 2013, 03:02:59 AM
Yep, yep. Good shit.

Though, I disagree with one bit (though, it may be just me) but the function of music (at least some music. The good stuff, anyway) is not to distract us from the thunk at the end of the conveyor, rather it is an act of defiance. It's not ignoring the thunk, it's looking it straight in its stupid fucking ass-face and saying "Oh yeah, motherfucker? Well Come get me, you stinking piece of shit-puke."

You may get me, you stupid thunk, but I'll see to it that it's worse off for you than it was for me.

But, yeah. Thinking about it, I see how some people would be inclined to see it the way you described, as well as the possibility that blatantly ignoring the thunk is an act of defiance in itself...

Either way, cheers, man.

I agree with that message... and the OP is great. I would also like to add a respectful minor niggle: isn't the relationship between jazz and blues more like sister to sister than mother to daughter? Emergence at roughly the same time and continuous cross-fertilization...

Redacted.

Is it okay to comment or should I wait until the multi-part OP is over?

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:10:20 PM
Is it okay to comment or should I wait until the multi-part OP is over?

Do whatchalike.

For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.

IE, music that Those People, those lesser people, enjoy.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 09, 2013, 07:40:53 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

Would you consider a mass produced plastic vase "authentic" in the same way you would a piece of handmade pottery?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 07:41:41 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Artists must live in a vacuum, and starve for their art.

Or it isn't art.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 09, 2013, 07:40:53 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

Would you consider a mass produced plastic vase "authentic" in the same way you would a piece of handmade pottery?

Is it a vase?

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonsorrow

Released an album.  Bogus.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 09, 2013, 07:40:53 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

Would you consider a mass produced plastic vase "authentic" in the same way you would a piece of handmade pottery?

Mass-produced vases are authentic vases. Mass-produced art is authentic art.

EDIT to clarify: I understand that something not being mass-produced can be a selling point just like some people prefer to eat "organic" food. This preference however is only a preference. Preferences are always "authentic".

Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 07:32:52 PM
I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:51:14 PM
Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

Where are YOU?  In some hipster coffee & wine bar, apparently.

There's nothing wrong with a perfectly functional vase, as opposed to some shit made by some hippie that's not cured all the way through and has a big thumb print in it to look "authentic".

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 07:32:52 PM
I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:59:01 PM
What I was after is that the motivation is the music.

I'm not seeing it.  The motivation is irrelevant, it's whether or not the band is making music that its fans appreciate.

Back shortly.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:01:00 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 07:51:14 PM
Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

Where are YOU?  In some hipster coffee & wine bar, apparently.

There's nothing wrong with a perfectly functional vase, as opposed to some shit made by some hippie that's not cured all the way through and has a big thumb print in it to look "authentic".

shit like glassware with bubbles and inclusions to prove was made by hand.
shit like a "cup" that will neither hold water nor allow you to properly drink from it if it did.
shit like poorly thrown mugs that are too heavy with terrible crazing in the glaze and obvious runoff.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

UH...people who would rather be doing music than anything else AS A CAREER, who get a HUGE HIGH from rocking the house down, also suffer from THE GRIND. Because most of touring is being cooped up with your shitty coworkers 24/7, eating bad food and putting up with shit.

They're doing it so they can pay their property taxes and go to Amsterdam or whatever when it's over. Same reason anybody else works. For money.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

As for examples, of course, I can give you tons. For me, first and foremost, Tom Waits. But also Ween (just stopped, a shame), Cake, OK Go, Money Mark, Paolo Nutini, Sparklehorse (God rest his soul), Radiohead (purely from the sound of it, a recently acquired taste), Robben Ford, Lisa Hannigan, The Streets, Jaco Pastorius (my hero, died on my birthday all those years ago), Bobby McFerrin, Victor Wooten, Tinariwen, Dr. Lonnie Smith, Fatboy Slim, Gorillaz, Frank Zappa, James Brown, Kathryn Williams, Kid Koala, Ladysmith Black Mambaso, Regina Spector, Manu Chao, Zaz, The Tiger Lillies, The Lounge Lizards, Taj Mahal,  Mercury Rev, PJ Harvey, Lou Reed, Fela Kuti ... and the list goes on, I hope it's sufficiently diverse...

Actually, the prime example of someone who is far from authentic, in fact a totally fucked individual that somehow contains an inhuman, VALIS-type piece of musical talent is Prince. And I like him (about a third of the time).

Or an interesting example, the duo Pomplamoose. I had a few months of infatuation, because the woman is extremely cute (from my angle, anyway). But then I somehow weaned myself off it: precisely because I began to have a sense that for her, somehow the whole music thing was just a vehicle despite the very clever and even emotional songs. But Jack Conte: he's a music nut. I now prefer his solo stuff.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 07:41:41 PM
Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:14:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 07:41:41 PM
Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

it seems you are constructing a definition of music that allows you either feel better about your music by including yourself in this definition or by excluding those that are vastly mire successful than yourself.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 07:32:52 PM
I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

That's not what I said.

I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself. We've all seen it so many times: a certain degree of raw talent and a strong motivation to 'make it' produce one or two decent records. If it stays that way, it's over. If music becomes the primary motivation (while making a living is still a very respectable secondary one), there's a chance of that talent becoming more aware, conscious and realising its full potential. Tom Waits contra I don't know... Van Morrison. Sad sight he is nowadays.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:19:35 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 07:32:52 PM
I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

That's not what I said.

I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself. We've all seen it so many times: a certain degree of raw talent and a strong motivation to 'make it' produce one or two decent records. If it stays that way, it's over. If music becomes the primary motivation (while making a living is still a very respectable secondary one), there's a chance of that talent becoming more aware, conscious and realising its full potential. Tom Waits contra I don't know... Van Morrison. Sad sight he is nowadays.

I apologize if that is the case.  However,  you predicating the authenticity of a cultural work on its continual popularity.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:18:10 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:14:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 07:41:41 PM
Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

it seems you are constructing a definition of music that allows you either feel better about your music by including yourself in this definition or by excluding those that are vastly mire successful than yourself.

That could be a fairly acute, if malicious reading of what I was saying. But if you check my list, you'll see there are plenty of vastly successful musicians on there (and also not so successful ones). Also, I am not constructing a definition of music at all, anything that at least one person calls music is music. I am trying to construct, if anything, a definition of authenticity. And I see it as an overarching passion for making the stuff you make, be it music or whatever else. If that's not there, you can be extremely highly skilled (Al Di Meola, and I could name other guitarists), atrociously talented and successful (Michael Jackson, Prince) but what you make is going to lack conviction. Sheer ambition (as in the case of Jackson and Prince) is probably the best substitute for the seriousness about creativity that art is a pretty good word for, but it still falls short.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

As for examples, of course, I can give you tons. For me, first and foremost, Tom Waits. But also Ween (just stopped, a shame), Cake, OK Go, Money Mark, Paolo Nutini, Sparklehorse (God rest his soul), Radiohead (purely from the sound of it, a recently acquired taste), Robben Ford, Lisa Hannigan, The Streets, Jaco Pastorius (my hero, died on my birthday all those years ago), Bobby McFerrin, Victor Wooten, Tinariwen, Dr. Lonnie Smith, Fatboy Slim, Gorillaz, Frank Zappa, James Brown, Kathryn Williams, Kid Koala, Ladysmith Black Mambaso, Regina Spector, Manu Chao, Zaz, The Tiger Lillies, The Lounge Lizards, Taj Mahal,  Mercury Rev, PJ Harvey, Lou Reed, Fela Kuti ... and the list goes on, I hope it's sufficiently diverse...

Actually, the prime example of someone who is far from authentic, in fact a totally fucked individual that somehow contains an inhuman, VALIS-type piece of musical talent is Prince. And I like him (about a third of the time).

Or an interesting example, the duo Pomplamoose. I had a few months of infatuation, because the woman is extremely cute (from my angle, anyway). But then I somehow weaned myself off it: precisely because I began to have a sense that for her, somehow the whole music thing was just a vehicle despite the very clever and even emotional songs. But Jack Conte: he's a music nut. I now prefer his solo stuff.

I'm trying to see where you think James Brown wasn't primarily in it for the money.  Or Tom Waits.

And being into a group because the singer is cute and then quitting the group because it's a vehicle?

I'm thinking most of those people chose their career with financial success in mind.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself.

I still see no evidence of this. 

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:26:19 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:19:35 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 07:32:52 PM
I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

That's not what I said.

I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself. We've all seen it so many times: a certain degree of raw talent and a strong motivation to 'make it' produce one or two decent records. If it stays that way, it's over. If music becomes the primary motivation (while making a living is still a very respectable secondary one), there's a chance of that talent becoming more aware, conscious and realising its full potential. Tom Waits contra I don't know... Van Morrison. Sad sight he is nowadays.

I apologize if that is the case.  However,  you predicating the authenticity of a cultural work on its continual popularity.

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

And there is a lot of nuance to work out still. Because I believe there is also a third dimension: some musicians elect to work in a tradition (they can do this authentically or inauthentically, and I may or may not like them), while others strive to make their own tradition (some practically from scratch, some from bits and pieces of the entire existing repertoire), so to speak. One end of that scale, say the great contemporary manouche guitar players, such as Trio Rosenberg or Biréli Lagréne (or jazz would also furnish many great examples), while on the other, PJ Harvey or Ween or, of course, once again, Mr Waits.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more artists I recognize that treat it as a business first.

Let me put it another way.  Nigel - this board's Nigel - is a long-term working artist.  IE, she pays the mortgage with art.  In her case, glass. 

Is her art less authentic because she puts financial gain first?

Likewise, an art gallery operates on some pretty thin margins.  Everything they do revolves around maximizing those margins, just to survive.  Does this mean that the art created for those openings isn't authentic?

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:38:43 PM

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I was just about to say the same thing.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
In fact, the more I think about it, the more artists I recognize that treat it as a business first.

Let me put it another way.  Nigel - this board's Nigel - is a long-term working artist.  IE, she pays the mortgage with art.  In her case, glass. 

Is her art less authentic because she puts financial gain first?

Likewise, an art gallery operates on some pretty thin margins.  Everything they do revolves around maximizing those margins, just to survive.  Does this mean that the art created for those openings isn't authentic?

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, those would apparently be authentic.

Whereas a properly prepared group would not be.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:31:55 PM
And being into a group because the singer is cute and then quitting the group because it's a vehicle?

In addition to the singer being cute, the music is intricate, inventive, funny in an ironic sort of way... also, they made it without the industry, entirely on their own via youtube, and encourage everyone else to do the same, which still makes them role-models for me, but still...
do you know them? Pomplamoose?

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Babies love banging pots and pans. Doesn't make it "authentic".

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:38:43 PM

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly :)

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:45:10 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, those would apparently be authentic.

Whereas a properly prepared group would not be.

I was responding to the bolded.
You know, the part where holist contradicts himself.  :lol:

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:53:21 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:38:43 PM

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly :)

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

No, my toes are untrod.  I fucking HATE Fleetwood Mac.  But to say they weren't a massive influence on music for more than 30 years is nothing short of ridiculous.

And pretentious?  Are we talking about the same band?  They turned into low-grade drek at the end.

Also, let's take a look at Metallica.  Their "golden years" were when they were doing things strictly commercially.  When they decided that they'd made their pile and began to experiment, they blew enormous chunks.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM
Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

You realize how condescending that is, right?

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:51:19 PM
Babies love banging pots and pans. Doesn't make it "authentic".

Actually, I think it does. No easy listening, mind you! But authentic.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:55:25 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

It's basically taking the arguments over what works should included in the canons completely assbackwards by running completely away ftom amd rejecting amy works that are canon as being true representative works of that field.  denying their validity because the "canon" excludes the works you enjoy.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

HE did not! I've been to his house and the rather large museum next door. I would wager the majority of the stuff he worked on was never sold.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 09:00:18 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:55:25 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:51:27 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:44:25 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:11:52 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

It's basically taking the arguments over what works should included in the canons completely assbackwards by running completely away ftom amd rejecting amy works that are canon as being true representative works of that field.  denying their validity because the "canon" excludes the works you enjoy.

In the end, it's basically just making up a completely bogus and irrelevant qualifier for art/music that is only important to people who worry about other peoples' impressions of their own musical taste.

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 08:53:42 PM
You know, the part where holist contradicts himself.  :lol:

Okay, okay!  :lulz: I contradicted myself! It's not a such big deal (how does that Walt Whitman quite go?)

I'm trying to articulate a position that is not entirely definite and which I have certainly not had to articulate in such a demanding environment before. Self-contradiction is just an indication that better articulation or correction is required. Thanks for helping me with that, by the way.

totally ignoring that most if not all his well known works were for financial gain. or throughout history great works of art were produced on a commission by people who were professionally trained to produce tgat type of work. That there were guilds built around many of the arts.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 09:04:40 PM
totally ignoring that most if not all his well known works were for financial gain. or throughout history great works of art were produced on a commission by people who were professionally trained to produce tgat type of work. That there were guilds built around many of the arts.

It's were the term "patronage" comes from, after all.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:05:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Starting to think my original assessment "authenticity is meaningless" is completely accurate.

Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

I'm out because I think I am being willfully misinterpreted, and that may be a fine hobby, but I can't be bothered.

Roger keeps insisting that I claim that anything successful can't be authentic, which is something I never said.

Coyote claims I am making up an ideology to bolster my ego against the insecurity generated by the simple fact that I tend to like off-beat stuff.

I'm going to take a rest.

It's not others' impression of my taste in music I worry about, it's my own. And I enjoy worrying about it, so I won't stop. :)

Laters!

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

I'm out because I think I am being willfully misinterpreted, and that may be a fine hobby, but I can't be bothered.

Roger keeps insisting that I claim that anything successful can't be authentic, which is something I never said.

Coyote claims I am making up an ideology to bolster my ego against the insecurity generated by the simple fact that I tend to like off-beat stuff.

I'm going to take a rest.

It's not others' impression of my taste in music I worry about, it's my own. And I enjoy worrying about it, so I won't stop. :)

Laters!

Um, okay.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:07:43 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:05:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Starting to think my original assessment "authenticity is meaningless" is completely accurate.

I agree,  but then again I think "art" is meaningless with regards to classifying cultural artifacts.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 09:15:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:07:43 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:05:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Starting to think my original assessment "authenticity is meaningless" is completely accurate.

I agree,  but then again I think "art" is meaningless with regards to classifying cultural artifacts.

I don't.

Art is something that people create or obtain, at least in part, to make life more than a set of work equations.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

I'm out because I think I am being willfully misinterpreted, and that may be a fine hobby, but I can't be bothered.

Roger keeps insisting that I claim that anything successful can't be authentic, which is something I never said.

Coyote claims I am making up an ideology to bolster my ego against the insecurity generated by the simple fact that I tend to like off-beat stuff.

I'm going to take a rest.

It's not others' impression of my taste in music I worry about, it's my own. And I enjoy worrying about it, so I won't stop. :)

Laters!

well fuxk. I did have a post all about how I was going to more carefully reread your posts but it got ate and then the conversation drifted far enough that it felt it would unnecessary to repost,  but well go get fucked if that is your attitude about my and Roger 's opinions.

And I think now would be the correct time for you to go to the end of this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33593.30.html) and take the piss out of me/my band (The Dream Ferry (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Dream-Ferry-Band/126079237551627?fref=ts))for a change.


pls

also: Coyote: What attitude? That I think I am being wilfully misinterpreted? I could be wrong. HEnce I decided to step back. I'd be grateful if you would look at it again and tell me what you think. TOmorrow (because my today is over anyway, tomorrow is a schoolday, I get up in about 7 and a half hours, and I've got some reading to do before slumbertimes).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single. 

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single. 

So what's the % of milk fat before something is cheese (Nirvana) , and something is a cheese product (Smooth Jazz)?

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

Then I'd say that authenticity is worthless, if that's the standard.  I've known many bands that do it strictly for the love of it, because they can't find anyone to pay for their crap.

And the cheese thing?   :lulz:  Kraft singles have their place, unless you want "artisan cheese" on your grilled cheese sandwich.

Artisan cheese.  Is there really even such a thing?  :lol:

You're such an elitist.  Cracks my shit up.

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:29:45 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

Then I'd say that authenticity is worthless, if that's the standard.  I've known many bands that do it strictly for the love of it, because they can't find anyone to pay for their crap.

And the cheese thing?   :lulz:  Kraft singles have their place, unless you want "artisan cheese" on your grilled cheese sandwich.

Artisan cheese.  Is there really even such a thing?  :lol:

You're such an elitist.  Cracks my shit up.

Hush Roger he can identify over 27 different kinds of cheese.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

So the unit of measurement is you make one "hit" you're not making really real music?

Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on October 09, 2013, 09:31:45 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:29:45 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

Then I'd say that authenticity is worthless, if that's the standard.  I've known many bands that do it strictly for the love of it, because they can't find anyone to pay for their crap.

And the cheese thing?   :lulz:  Kraft singles have their place, unless you want "artisan cheese" on your grilled cheese sandwich.

Artisan cheese.  Is there really even such a thing?  :lol:

You're such an elitist.  Cracks my shit up.

Hush Roger he can identify over 27 different kinds of cheese.

You know, I can believe that.

Dour,
Just EATS the shit.  FFS.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:32:51 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

She's a woman Roger she doesn't count.

Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on October 09, 2013, 09:33:57 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:32:51 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

She's a woman Roger she doesn't count.

I think it would be TOTALLY AWESOME to take the title of what was arguably the best American work of the middle 19th century and turn it into some hillbilly-ass murder story on an album.

:lol:

I can imagine the blowback as I sit here.

TEN NEW REPLIES, POSTING ANYWAY, NOT EVEN GONNA READ FIRST.


holist, I think you're arguing a point that is indefensible. Your premise is that some art is Really Real^TM and other art is FAKE AND BULLSHIT. You then try to assert yourself as an authority that can differentiate between Really Real and FAKE BULLSHIT art. No one is arguing that some stuff generally sounds/looks/feels better than other stuff. No one is arguing that the world would be a better place with less variety and more massaging the rough edges off everything. The argument is that saying "this art is REAL" is meaningless.

If you'll bear with me as I relate this back to an old book written by stoners with too much time and mimeograph access, you're choosing to look at a chaotic system (ART) through a certain grid (Holist's Really Real Art Appreciation Grid). I look at art through my own grid (Q G's Official Fuck You I Like What I Like grid). While we can compare our grids and maybe come up with one that we can both agree on, that wouldn't be any more real or accurate than the grids we started out with. I won't give you any shit for liking what you like, no matter what the reason is you like it. If you really like things only based on your perception of the artists' motivations, that's no skin off my nose. If you go around saying other things aren't art because they don't fit in your grid, then there will be cries of bullshit.

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 09, 2013, 09:36:21 PM
TEN NEW REPLIES, POSTING ANYWAY, NOT EVEN GONNA READ FIRST.


holist, I think you're arguing a point that is indefensible. Your premise is that some art is Really Real^TM and other art is FAKE AND BULLSHIT. You then try to assert yourself as an authority that can differentiate between Really Real and FAKE BULLSHIT art. No one is arguing that some stuff generally sounds/looks/feels better than other stuff. No one is arguing that the world would be a better place with less variety and more massaging the rough edges off everything. The argument is that saying "this art is REAL" is meaningless.

If you'll bear with me as I relate this back to an old book written by stoners with too much time and mimeograph access, you're choosing to look at a chaotic system (ART) through a certain grid (Holist's Really Real Art Appreciation Grid). I look at art through my own grid (Q G's Official Fuck You I Like What I Like grid). While we can compare our grids and maybe come up with one that we can both agree on, that wouldn't be any more real or accurate than the grids we started out with. I won't give you any shit for liking what you like, no matter what the reason is you like it. If you really like things only based on your perception of the artists' motivations, that's no skin off my nose. If you go around saying other things aren't art because they don't fit in your grid, then there will be cries of bullshit.

Well, could be worse.  He was saying certain music was inauthentic.

RWHN flat out said that artists only have value if they're starving to death for his enjoyment.  Because he can't enjoy it if they get paid.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:32:51 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was the author, Harriet Tubman was the one that got shit done on the Underground Railroad.

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 09, 2013, 09:42:56 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:32:51 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:31:11 PM
I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was the author, Harriet Tubman was the one that got shit done on the Underground Railroad.

I stand corrected.  My point, however, remains the same.

(I always get those two mixed up.)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:58:16 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

Not only N'Sync, but the people who get rejected on the season opener of American Idol.  :lulz:

Quote from: stelz on October 09, 2013, 10:24:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:58:16 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

Not only N'Sync, but the people who get rejected on the season opener of American Idol.  :lulz:

They're not starving.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

I've known a lot of good musicians and a lot of good artists, and there are a couple of realities to consider, here.

One is that musicians are complex people who very often love performing for the feeling of being on the stage and adored. That takes a certain type of personality. Artists love being loved, even when they do their work for the art itself.

The other is that people who are in it for the money don't go into music, or art. There become stock traders, or some other such career where they are actually likely to make a lot of money.

Now, another consideration is the level of skill it takes to be even just a decent artist. No matter how produced you are, unless you're Milli Vanilli, it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of practice just to get past mediocre. People can put that amount of work in and never get past mediocre, too.

No matter how produced someone is, those factors still remain. They are still complex, whole people, they still put a lot of work into making music or art or what have you. So, what gives you the right to declare anyone's level of "authenticity"?

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

:lol:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 10:38:28 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

:lol:

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:45:46 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 10:38:28 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

:lol:

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

Well, I would agree with you here, but two experts on this very board have postulated that it's not really "art" since you have in fact managed to make it commercial to some degree.

See, I dick around with writing.  I don't get paid for it, and I do it whenever the mood takes me.  This qualifies me as an artist.  You do it on a schedule, to meet deadlines, and to make money on it.  You may still be an artist, but you're not as authentic as I am, because, well, YOU PUT TOO MUCH WORK INTO IT. 

Whereas I, with my dabbling and my dilletante behavior, am an ARTISTE, and I got authenticity dropping out of EVERY ORIFICE.

You know, it made me feel icky writing the above, even as a satire.  And it occurs to me that the sort of person who would say such a thing SERIOUSLY are the sort of people who sneer at successful artists because THEY CAN'T DO ART, and it bothers them that other people CAN, and to make it WORSE, some people actually make MONEY at it, which implies they're REALLY GOOD AT IT, which makes them feel even WORSE about the whole thing.

The "starving" angle is bunk.  Obviously artists can make significant money, especially when their vision resonates with so many.  That's what happened to Nirvana.  It was ugly and jagged but it had a heart that grabbed a lot of people.  By that same token, something can generate big bucks but be completely soulless. 

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 10:52:39 PM
The "starving" angle is bunk.  Obviously artists can make significant money, especially when their vision resonates with so many.  That's what happened to Nirvana.  It was ugly and jagged but it had a heart that grabbed a lot of people.  By that same token, something can generate big bucks but be completely soulless.

And the difference is defined as "whomever RHWN likes, but certainly can't be left up to the general public, much less kids or anything.  Damn kids.  Damn them and their hooligan music."

People can like whatever they want to like, obviously.  That isn't up for debate. 

I mean, my daughter was a Miley Cyrus fan, still has a poster on her door.  I would never begrudge her of that.  But I'm also not going to sit here and call her music 'art'.  Not everyone has to be into art when it comes to music.  There will always be an audience for mindless party music.

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

So once again, Tinpan Alley and Motown are inauthentic.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:16:50 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 09, 2013, 09:15:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 09:07:43 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:05:47 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Starting to think my original assessment "authenticity is meaningless" is completely accurate.

I agree,  but then again I think "art" is meaningless with regards to classifying cultural artifacts.

I don't.

Art is something that people create or obtain, at least in part, to make life more than a set of work equations.

I don't disagree with you but at same time I in a way do. which sounds really shitty and pretentious. I'm going to respond to this more fully when I get home

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2013, 11:16:55 PM

Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on October 09, 2013, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

So once again, Tinpan Alley and Motown are inauthentic.

That's a far too broad statement so I'm going to say no, broadly.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 10:50:56 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:45:46 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 10:38:28 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 10:35:30 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:46:24 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:44:50 PM

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

:lol:

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

Well, I would agree with you here, but two experts on this very board have postulated that it's not really "art" since you have in fact managed to make it commercial to some degree.

See, I dick around with writing.  I don't get paid for it, and I do it whenever the mood takes me.  This qualifies me as an artist.  You do it on a schedule, to meet deadlines, and to make money on it.  You may still be an artist, but you're not as authentic as I am, because, well, YOU PUT TOO MUCH WORK INTO IT. 

Whereas I, with my dabbling and my dilletante behavior, am an ARTISTE, and I got authenticity dropping out of EVERY ORIFICE.

You know, it made me feel icky writing the above, even as a satire.  And it occurs to me that the sort of person who would say such a thing SERIOUSLY are the sort of people who sneer at successful artists because THEY CAN'T DO ART, and it bothers them that other people CAN, and to make it WORSE, some people actually make MONEY at it, which implies they're REALLY GOOD AT IT, which makes them feel even WORSE about the whole thing.

Oh hey, here now I think you've hit upon something that explains almost everything about people who strive to tell other people what really is and what really isn't art.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 11:25:43 PM
Oh hey, here now I think you've hit upon something that explains almost everything about people who strive to tell other people what really is and what really isn't art.

It also has to do with just shitting on people as a dominance thing, I think.

Sometimes it doesn't pay to look too closely.

Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

Quote from: holist on October 10, 2013, 06:53:04 AM
Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

So essentially, you have no cogent counterpoint? Because I have seen people nail Roger with a cogent counterpoint.

well fuck me.

I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again. Art is not a creative act. Art is an exchange. A painting isn't art in and of itself. It only becomes art when I see it. Art is as much my reaction to Beethoven's 5th as much as it was the deaf guy writing it or the London Philharmonic recording it. It isn't art until the the whole cycle is complete, from the first chip of the sculptors chisel, to the tourist snapping a photo of it.

Good or bad, authentic, derivative, garbage... these are all subjective judgements. Perfectly valid but only in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from: holist on October 10, 2013, 06:53:04 AM
Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

You noticed that too eh?

Quote from: holist on October 10, 2013, 06:53:04 AM
Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I think I see the disconnect.

QuoteI put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

I am the cancer that is killing PD.

QuoteI realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

Well, that didn't last long.  Too bad.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 10:32:08 AM

Quote from: holist on October 10, 2013, 06:53:04 AM
Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

You noticed that too eh?

:lulz:

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 07:00:25 AM

Quote from: holist on October 10, 2013, 06:53:04 AM
Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

So essentially, you have no cogent counterpoint? Because I have seen people nail Roger with a cogent counterpoint.

Can't you see that he's trying to save you all from my insidious evil?

If you are making a subjective-value judgement, why use a word like "authentic". Aunthentic has a very clear definition, and it's definitely an objective-value judgement.

His complaint about being willfully misinterpreted merits consideration, I think, because this forum isn't well-known for interpreting mis-communicated thoughts in a charitable way.

This isn't Roger's problem, though. Everybody does that, and that's why it's important to express ourselves clearly, and inmediately change our approach when a particular word or phrase isn't working.

Lord Cataplanga, you do make an excellent point; the burden of communication is on the sender, and if your method isn't working, change the method.

But that's not really the point, here.  Holist fooled me, I guess.  But he couldn't hold the ancient, rancid butthurt in any longer.

Disappointing, really.  I mean in myself.  It's not like this is the first time he's done this.

Flouncing off, crying "it's not the way I communicate, it's all of you people".

I seem to recall a couple of other people have had that problem, as well, but learned to modify their methods of communication for greater effectiveness. Ie. things like "I guess authenticity isn't the right word, let me think about this and restate it".

Actually, people here do it all the time, it's one of the things I like about this board. It's a rare environment where when people levy countering viewpoints that are solid and well-thought-out, others are likely  to actually think about them, take them under consideration, acknowledge their validity, and possibly even change their minds.

Interesting point: When people do that, it tends not to be remembered, because it's a non-event to just reconsider and concede a point or reformulate their perspective. It turns out that people don't actually take away your cool points for doing so, they just, y'know, respect you as a reasonable person.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:08:15 PM
Flouncing off, crying "it's not the way I communicate, it's all of you people".

I just feel stupid because this is, what, the third time I've given him an honest chance?

But it always comes back to the same fucking thing.  I'm a Goddamn idiot for thinking anything else was even fucking possible.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
I seem to recall a couple of other people have had that problem, as well, but learned to modify their methods of communication for greater effectiveness. Ie. things like "I guess authenticity isn't the right word, let me think about this and restate it".

Actually, people here do it all the time, it's one of the things I like about this board. It's a rare environment where when people levy countering viewpoints that are solid and well-thought-out, others are likely  to actually think about them, take them under consideration, acknowledge their validity, and possibly even change their minds.

Bolded for exactly what my first two years on PD were all about.

Redacted.

Well put. Can't wait to hear your riff on the Beach Boys.

And it WAS a shame what happened to Cindi. Turns out she was a better friend of The Gays than Madonna, as well.

I know, right?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 04:18:08 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:08:15 PM
Flouncing off, crying "it's not the way I communicate, it's all of you people".

I just feel stupid because this is, what, the third time I've given him an honest chance?

But it always comes back to the same fucking thing.  I'm a Goddamn idiot for thinking anything else was even fucking possible.

Some people simply cannot separate their egos from their arguments.

 :spittake:

Cyndi Lauper went on to make ten more albums (her second album, "True Colors", was actually more popular than the one with "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun) and write music for Hollywood and Broadway, she's fabulously successful, just not in top-40 pop. Your point still works using her as an example of someone who didn't care about using shock and faded from the tabloid pages, but I thought you'd want to know that her career didn't exactly fizzle.

Also, Madonna has a pretty good voice.  Don't get me wrong, Cindi Lauper is amazing as well, but vocally, I think they were pretty evenly matched.

By certain logic, Cyndi Lauper is more "authentic" than Madonna.

Whatever the fuck that means.

redacted

Nah, they both seemed to be pretty in control of their image and art.  One was just a lot better at marketing herself, and set the example and template for many who would follow, but never quite measure up.

There should be 3 pictures in that.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:58:01 PM
Cyndi Lauper went on to make ten more albums (her second album, "True Colors", was actually more popular than the one with "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun) and write music for Hollywood and Broadway, she's fabulously successful, just not in top-40 pop. Your point still works using her as an example of someone who didn't care about using shock and faded from the tabloid pages, but I thought you'd want to know that her career didn't exactly fizzle.

Well, that's good to hear.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

I can't see 'em.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:02:47 PM
I can't see 'em.

Changed them to links.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:00:36 PM

Part 4
The Scum Also Rises

The Beach Boys formed in 1961, to sing to people in 1951.  They WERE the 50s.  Wholesomely dressed young men singing wholesome songs, and getting insanely fucked up when nobody was looking.  Their music was stale, the only song they ever sang that meant anything (Sloop John B) was an unattributed blatant rip off of a West Indies traditional song. 

They sang about hot rods, surfing, and women...Nice and safe "rebellions".  Absolutely sterile.  They were as fucking vanilla as it gets, and catered to their audience's PARENTS, who were, after all, the ones buying the records for the little darlings.  And the parents were glad to do so, because THIS:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Sullivan_Beach_Boys.jpg

...Wasn't dangerous.  It was SAFE.  The alternative, THIS:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Chuck_Berry_1971.JPG/497px-Chuck_Berry_1971.JPG

...Didn't look quite so wholesome, so SAFE.

In fact, it is my argument that The Beach Boys and all the other Jan & Dean rip-offs were what directly led to the acid rock movement.  Society had narrowed it's value of "acceptable" til it became fashionable to be a reject.  Also, the Boomers had figured out that it was easier to get girls into bed with them if they were on quaaludes instead of a beach blanket.

The really SAD thing is that The Beach Boys have dragged on, zombie-like, to this very day, even after the only member of the band that could actually surf drowned.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/The_Beach_Boys%2C_May_29%2C_2012.jpg/800px-The_Beach_Boys%2C_May_29%2C_2012.jpg

Make it stop.  For the love of God, make it stop.

To be continued

Christ, they're awful.

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

I just want to repeat, for emphasis, that you don't just pick up an instrument/start training your voice and become proficient overnight because you decided you wanted to be famous. People who aren't into it for music don't GO into music. It's preposterous to even think that... it's like the people who go to art shows and look at complex pieces that took vision, hours of labor and decades of acquired skills to make, and dismiss them with "I could make that for cheaper".

No, you couldn't.

And that's sort of the "sour grapes" element I see with people who want to dismiss musicians they don't like as "inauthentic" and "sellouts". Even if they are sellouts, even if they've given up following their own inner vision and are writing songs they think will sell (and a good artist can make custom work and art they think will sell, that's part of being an artist) they still got into music in the first place because they were into music, and even a mediocre guitar player put thousands of hours of practice in to be able to play. Going into music is not like becoming a dentist for the money; kids may dream of fame, and bands may dream of being signed (does it make my ex-husband more "authentic", I wonder, that he left the band the night they signed, because he didn't want to tour?) but art and music are not things you spend the hours it takes to get good at if they don't call to you. That INCLUDES  bands you hate. Justin Bieber is STILL A BETTER MUSICIAN THAN YOU (and I am talking to no one in particular here), and that chaps your fucking hide, so you dismiss him as a product, a nonperson, because it makes you feel better.

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:06:18 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:00:36 PM

Part 4
The Scum Also Rises

The Beach Boys formed in 1961, to sing to people in 1951.  They WERE the 50s.  Wholesomely dressed young men singing wholesome songs, and getting insanely fucked up when nobody was looking.  Their music was stale, the only song they ever sang that meant anything (Sloop John B) was an unattributed blatant rip off of a West Indies traditional song. 

They sang about hot rods, surfing, and women...Nice and safe "rebellions".  Absolutely sterile.  They were as fucking vanilla as it gets, and catered to their audience's PARENTS, who were, after all, the ones buying the records for the little darlings.  And the parents were glad to do so, because THIS:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Sullivan_Beach_Boys.jpg

...Wasn't dangerous.  It was SAFE.  The alternative, THIS:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Chuck_Berry_1971.JPG/497px-Chuck_Berry_1971.JPG

...Didn't look quite so wholesome, so SAFE.

In fact, it is my argument that The Beach Boys and all the other Jan & Dean rip-offs were what directly led to the acid rock movement.  Society had narrowed it's value of "acceptable" til it became fashionable to be a reject.  Also, the Boomers had figured out that it was easier to get girls into bed with them if they were on quaaludes instead of a beach blanket.

The really SAD thing is that The Beach Boys have dragged on, zombie-like, to this very day, even after the only member of the band that could actually surf drowned.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/The_Beach_Boys%2C_May_29%2C_2012.jpg/800px-The_Beach_Boys%2C_May_29%2C_2012.jpg

Make it stop.  For the love of God, make it stop.

To be continued

Christ, they're awful.

They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

redacted.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

My argument isn't that they were not good vocalists and musicians (they were), but that they were culturally sterile.  They were a museum piece for the previous decade.

Two words:  Pet Sounds


Which, incidentally, was an influence on The Beatles when they were making Sgt. Pepper.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:25:22 PM
Two words:  Pet Sounds


Which, incidentally, was an influence on The Beatles when they were making Sgt. Pepper.

So, one boy band influenced another.  Not precisely a shock.

And again, Sloop John B was the most blatant rip off of a people's heritage since Elvis crapped all over Black folks.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

My argument isn't that they were not good vocalists and musicians (they were), but that they were culturally sterile.  They were a museum piece for the previous decade.

True; my point is separate from your point.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:32:51 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

My argument isn't that they were not good vocalists and musicians (they were), but that they were culturally sterile.  They were a museum piece for the previous decade.

True; my point is separate from your point.

And valid.  I freely admit that I have the musical talent of a lichen.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:33:46 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:32:51 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

My argument isn't that they were not good vocalists and musicians (they were), but that they were culturally sterile.  They were a museum piece for the previous decade.

True; my point is separate from your point.

And valid.  I freely admit that I have the musical talent of a lichen.

I can carry a tune, that's about it. But that kind of thing is sheer torture for amateur musicians. I see it in the glass world, too, the bitter bitter jealousy when someone is wildly successful and some of the part-timers, the hobbyists, are whispering to each other behind his back "But his work isn't even that good" and "Your beads are nicer than that".

And sometimes, I look at the work of the successful artist, and I can see that they are churning out different versions of the same thing, sometimes not even an especially complicated thing, and commanding top dollar for it... but I can also see that they have ten years of practice under their belt, and that they spend 20 hours a week behind the torch (this is a lot of time to spend torching, each hour of torching generates about 2 hours of non-torch work), so that they have the precision and skill to produce exactly what they want to produce every time. Do they lose their vision, doing what is essentially production work? Sometimes. Usually they gradually evolve, trying new things, finding a few things that sell well and working on those until they get burnt out on them and then shifting to something else. But, even when what they're making lacks vision, when it's just the same damn thing rehashed over and over and over again, they're still more technically skilled than the hobbyists who are sniping at them from the sidelines, and that's what drives the hobbyists crazy.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:06:33 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:33:46 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:32:51 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
They are awful. But you know what? They probably love music and love to play, and furthermore, they're probably still better at it than anyone here.

My argument isn't that they were not good vocalists and musicians (they were), but that they were culturally sterile.  They were a museum piece for the previous decade.

True; my point is separate from your point.

And valid.  I freely admit that I have the musical talent of a lichen.

I can carry a tune, that's about it. But that kind of thing is sheer torture for amateur musicians. I see it in the glass world, too, the bitter bitter jealousy when someone is wildly successful and some of the part-timers, the hobbyists, are whispering to each other behind his back "But his work isn't even that good" and "Your beads are nicer than that".

And sometimes, I look at the work of the successful artist, and I can see that they are churning out different versions of the same thing, sometimes not even an especially complicated thing, and commanding top dollar for it... but I can also see that they have ten years of practice under their belt, and that they spend 20 hours a week behind the torch, so that they have the precision and skill to produce exactly what they want to produce every time. Do they lose their vision, doing what is essentially production work? Sometimes. Usually they gradually evolve, trying new things, finding a few things that sell well and working on those until they get burnt out on them and then shifting to something else. But, even when what they're making lacks vision, when it's just the same damn thing rehashed over and over and over again, they're still more technically skilled than the hobbyists who are sniping at them from the sidelines, and that's what drives the hobbyists crazy.

Same thing, PRECISELY.  The amateur musician hates the successful musician, and calls him/her a sellout.

Also, part & parcel of many forms of art is the ability to do things consistently.  In my brief stint in the comics biz, I noticed that the very hardest part for the artist is doing the same face the same way every panel.  It stands out like a sore thumb when a character's chin is different in every panel.

And how do you gain the ability to do that?  Part of it is talent...But the majority is sitting there, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, DRAWING.  It's bone-grinding WORK.

And the sheer number of hobbyists who can't understand why they aren't working for DC or Marvel or Image because Mommy and their friends told them they're "really good at this" is staggering.  I have a buddy over at Dark Horse who is responsible for the hatemail bag.  99% of what he gets is people complaining about the artwork, self-described "part-timers" who "would do a better job if the industry wasn't sewn up".  He occasionally calls them on their bluffs.  They almost never respond, and when they do, it's universally crap.

Remember when P3NT was all excited about being able to do the "eskimo roll" on BOTH SIDES?

At first I was like..."Okaaay".  Then I realized I was saying it in a warm, dry chair, and not in the fucking North Sea in a teeny little boat.

And that's where the "only in it for the money and not the love of music" claim falls apart. People go into dentistry or get an MBA for the paycheck. They don't spend ten or twenty or thirty years practicing diligently for hours every day to learn to be skilled at something difficult that almost nobody ever actually gets paid for, on the off chance that they'll make it big. That may be part of the dream -- hell, I always dreamed of someday making beads for a living, and people thought I was crazy, they actually laughed at me -- but it's ridiculous to imagine it's the primary motivator.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:17:06 PM
Remember when P3NT was all excited about being able to do the "eskimo roll" on BOTH SIDES?

At first I was like..."Okaaay".  Then I realized I was saying it in a warm, dry chair, and not in the fucking North Sea in a teeny little boat.

See, that's love.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
And that's where the "only in it for the money and not the love of music" claim falls apart. People go into dentistry or get an MBA for the paycheck. They don't spend ten or twenty or thirty years practicing diligently for hours every day to learn to be skilled at something difficult that almost nobody ever actually gets paid for, on the off chance that they'll make it big. That may be part of the dream -- hell, I always dreamed of someday making beads for a living, and people thought I was crazy, they actually laughed at me -- but it's ridiculous to imagine it's the primary motivator.

I think the primary motivator is the spotlight¹ and the ability to be heard. 




¹ Except for drummers who are born, live, and die in the back, in the dark.  Like Morlocks.

:crankey:

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
And that's where the "only in it for the money and not the love of music" claim falls apart. People go into dentistry or get an MBA for the paycheck. They don't spend ten or twenty or thirty years practicing diligently for hours every day to learn to be skilled at something difficult that almost nobody ever actually gets paid for, on the off chance that they'll make it big. That may be part of the dream -- hell, I always dreamed of someday making beads for a living, and people thought I was crazy, they actually laughed at me -- but it's ridiculous to imagine it's the primary motivator.

Of course everyone who goes into music does so because they enjoy performing or creating music.  That isn't argued at all.  However, with corporate rock, or pop, mainstream, whatever you want to call it, a machine comes along and plunks 4 or 5 of those wide-eyed dreamers and outs them on an assembly lone and tells them exactly what to do, what buttons to push to make this stale, sterile, pre-packaged music.


It's like taking the person who had a dream of being a famous potter renowned for their pottery prowess, and then sitting them in front of a machine to pull a lever that produces assembly-line, plastic vases. 


Fuck that shit!  I'd rather encourage that person to shun The Machine and make their own stuff.


That's one reason I hate corporate music. 

I'm kinda ashamed to admit it but the beach boys are a guilty pleasure of mine but, that said, I totally agree with part 4

That's a lot like why when I was into pottery I spent so much time on the wheel trying to make identical pieces. There were students in that ckass that didn't get it, but Professor Dick understood.  Granted I fucking suck,  more so in that I haven't done any pottery for close to 10 years.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 04:38:33 PM

Part 3

Thing about being around artists of any kind is, you're going to meet some interesting people.  Back in 1985 or so, there was a joint in Chicago called The Cabaret Metro.  It was an awful little shithole of a place, but I saw Lou Reed there, and Black Flag, and a bunch of other great acts.  The only constant there was Jerry the Skinhead.

Jerry was this skinny little guy who bounced for the place.  Bald, Doc Martins, stripey pants, suspenders, white tee shirt.  And his smile.  He spent the entire evening on a folding chair, watching the crowd with this horrid little smile that said "I'll be wearing this smile when I beat you to death.  It won't change a bit."  He scared the living blue Jesus out of all of us.  There were never any fights, and that was a rough fucking crowd, even for the 80s.

The Metro wouldn't have been the same experience without him, which only goes to show that in the world of art, it's the personalities that really make the difference, even if that personality is a 2mm deep smear of glee and homicidal mania.

And it's usually personality that determines who the next big thing is.  Example:  Madonna vs Cindi Lauper.  That contest (which wasn't bitter or even recognized, I think, at the time) determined music's direction for about 5 years or so.  Cindi Lauper had a better voice, this amazing range, but she fell down flat when she allowed herself to be defined by Girls Just Wanna Have Fun...While Madonna moved from teeny bopper to one "shock" after another.  When she made the video for Like a Prayer, her career was sealed, because EVERYONE had an opinion on her at that point.  Not only the burning crosses thing, but she made suckface with Thank You Black Jesus.  And everyone was like "HEY!  JESUS WASN'T BLACK!  AND WHY'S THAT THERE WHITE WOMAN MAKIN' KISSY FACE WITH HIM?"  Pissed EVERYONE off, usually for multiple reasons.  Cindi Lauper was never heard from again.  Which is kind of a shame.  She seemed so nice.

It's hard to remember how disturbing that video was when it came out, given that by today's standards, it was pretty small potatoes.  But at the time it gave people the screaming jimjams, and that's what most people want in their art.  They WANT to hate it, to get really, really fucking angry.  They WANT to be upset...Just so they can remember what an honest emotion FEELS like.  And they weren't going to get that shit from The Beach Boys, that's for fucking sure.  There's a band that came out of the gate stale.  Wait, they get a chapter all to themselves, because they were so fucking awful.  So, yeah, that's next.

To be continued

Cyndi tried. IIRC, Chuck Berry was the only person before her to have a song in the top 40 about masturbation (My Ding A Ling), and he was a man. A bad, bad swarthy man who did armed robberies before he started making money. CYNDI HAD A TOP 40 SONG ABOUT A WOMAN JACKING OFF. But I think a lot of people MISSED that point (or possibly didn't give a fuck, which is uncharacteristic for americans...maybe they were too busy worrying about satanic messages in Judas Priest lyrics or something) the same way they're missing the fact that Miley Cyrus did A NAKED VIDEO WITH SNOT, while they're screeching about her twerking and making a self-depreciating remark about "tiny strokes". Miley covers a LOT more bases, though. Cyndi should've been more Miley. :lol:

Also: LOLZ, resident bop bag thinks that Madonna is "evenly matched" vocally with a woman who has a four or five octave range.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
And that's where the "only in it for the money and not the love of music" claim falls apart. People go into dentistry or get an MBA for the paycheck. They don't spend ten or twenty or thirty years practicing diligently for hours every day to learn to be skilled at something difficult that almost nobody ever actually gets paid for, on the off chance that they'll make it big. That may be part of the dream -- hell, I always dreamed of someday making beads for a living, and people thought I was crazy, they actually laughed at me -- but it's ridiculous to imagine it's the primary motivator.

I think the primary motivator is the spotlight¹ and the ability to be heard. 




¹ Except for drummers who are born, live, and die in the back, in the dark.  Like Morlocks.

I know a lot of musicians. A lot, a lot of musicians. And while many of them love the spotlight, people who are motivated by attention become speakers or activists or politicians or comedians. Musicians become musicians because they love music. Nobody spends years and years and years practicing in the basement if they are motivated by the spotlight, because there's no reinforcement.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:37:58 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
And that's where the "only in it for the money and not the love of music" claim falls apart. People go into dentistry or get an MBA for the paycheck. They don't spend ten or twenty or thirty years practicing diligently for hours every day to learn to be skilled at something difficult that almost nobody ever actually gets paid for, on the off chance that they'll make it big. That may be part of the dream -- hell, I always dreamed of someday making beads for a living, and people thought I was crazy, they actually laughed at me -- but it's ridiculous to imagine it's the primary motivator.

I think the primary motivator is the spotlight¹ and the ability to be heard. 




¹ Except for drummers who are born, live, and die in the back, in the dark.  Like Morlocks.

I know a lot of musicians. A lot, a lot of musicians. And while many of them love the spotlight, people who are motivated by attention become speakers or activists or politicians or comedians. Musicians become musicians because they love music. Nobody spends years and years and years practicing in the basement if they are motivated by the spotlight, because there's no reinforcement.

An excellent point.

Quote from: stelz on October 10, 2013, 06:33:02 PM

Also: LOLZ, resident bop bag thinks that Madonna is "evenly matched" vocally with a woman who has a four or five octave range.

WOW, did he actually say that? :lulz: That's amazing! Madonna didn't even learn to sing properly until the 90's, and after that, while her voice was much stronger, she still lacks the strength and range of Cyndi Lauper.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
:crankey:

What part was inaccurate?   :lulz:

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:42:21 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 10, 2013, 06:33:02 PM

Also: LOLZ, resident bop bag thinks that Madonna is "evenly matched" vocally with a woman who has a four or five octave range.

WOW, did he actually say that? :lulz: That's amazing! Madonna didn't even learn to sing properly until the 90's, and after that, while her voice was much stronger, she still lacks the strength and range of Cyndi Lauper.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 04:58:23 PM
Also, Madonna has a pretty good voice.  Don't get me wrong, Cindi Lauper is amazing as well, but vocally, I think they were pretty evenly matched.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:42:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
:crankey:

What part was inaccurate?   :lulz:

ME COUNT FOUR.  ONE, TWO, MANY, LOTS.
          /
:mullet:

Quote from: stelz on October 10, 2013, 06:44:42 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:42:21 PM

Quote from: stelz on October 10, 2013, 06:33:02 PM

Also: LOLZ, resident bop bag thinks that Madonna is "evenly matched" vocally with a woman who has a four or five octave range.

WOW, did he actually say that? :lulz: That's amazing! Madonna didn't even learn to sing properly until the 90's, and after that, while her voice was much stronger, she still lacks the strength and range of Cyndi Lauper.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 04:58:23 PM
Also, Madonna has a pretty good voice.  Don't get me wrong, Cindi Lauper is amazing as well, but vocally, I think they were pretty evenly matched.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

:spittake:

OK, this guy knows zero about vocals and has wooden ears.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2013, 06:45:06 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:42:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
:crankey:

What part was inaccurate?   :lulz:

ME COUNT FOUR.  ONE, TWO, MANY, LOTS.
          /
:mullet:

Yes.

Thinking about it rationally, you are in The Club, as described in the first rant.   :lulz:

 :argh!:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2013, 06:54:54 PM
:argh!:

"And what do you do, sir?"

"I hit things with sticks.  Repeatedly."

"Oh, erm, well thank you for..."

"They make me sit in the back, you know."

"Yes, well, we're out of time and..."

"They never turn the lights on.  I have moss on my eyelids."

"Yes, well..."

"I hear the crowd, but I can never see them."

"We have to take a commercial break now, and..."

"I JUST WANT TO SEE THE SUN!"

etc.

Well, my monitor needed washing, anyway.



LMNO
-glad it wasn't coffee.

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:53:21 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:38:43 PM

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly :)

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

Regardless of the rest of this increasingly idiotic thread, this is spot-on. Fleetwood Mac was, for the most part, utterly fucking awful.

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 10, 2013, 07:35:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:53:21 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 08:38:43 PM

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly :)

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

Regardless of the rest of this increasingly idiotic thread, this is spot-on. Fleetwood Mac was, for the most part, utterly fucking awful.

I would say for the ALL part.  Tell Me Lies makes me want to throw kittens off the overpass.

But that's pretty damn subjective.

A couple of their tunes were okay(ish) but my "infinite number of Beatles songs" theory kinda covers that

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 07:45:06 PM
A couple of their tunes were okay(ish) but my "infinite number of Beatles songs" theory kinda covers that

Missed that theory.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

Yeah, god knows other popular niche metal bands have never done anything like that. For example, Wolves in the Throne Room or Sunn O))) would NEVER have done anything like that. The music you like is just SO ORIGINAL and that makes you SO SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT. Maybe it's not the authenticity of the musicians you like that you're really worried about. Maybe it's your own authenticity you're seeking to bolster.

Speaking just for myself here, if I had to listen to a 30 minute song, I'd go fucking mental.  If I had to listen to TWO, I'd be up a fucking watertower.

It's as bad as those UNENDING guitar solos in the 80s.

Also, "not lending to mass consumption" is a virtue...How, exactly?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:00:37 PM
Also, "not lending to mass consumption" is a virtue...How, exactly?

Special Snowflakism.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

RWHN proves he's a gazillion years old. Releasing 30 minute songs hasn't been controversial, or even detrimental to sales in extreme metal since perhaps '94.

Also, quick question, old fart. Children of Bodom, artists Y/N?

-

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.  1968.  And, what?

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

RWHN proves he's a gazillion years old. Releasing 30 minute songs hasn't been controversial, or even detrimental to sales in extreme metal since perhaps '94.

Also, quick question, old fart. Children of Bodom, artists Y/N?

Sure, though I personally find them rather dull and boring.

Luckily for all of us, the purposes of this thread do not require anyone to give a shit about your subjective opinion. In fact, that's kind of the point.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 08:33:51 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

RWHN proves he's a gazillion years old. Releasing 30 minute songs hasn't been controversial, or even detrimental to sales in extreme metal since perhaps '94.

Also, quick question, old fart. Children of Bodom, artists Y/N?

Sure, though I personally find them rather dull and boring.

Assembled by Spinefarm to cash in on the melodic extreme metal trend.
Metal boyband.

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 10, 2013, 08:42:55 PM
Luckily for all of us, the purposes of this thread do not require anyone to give a shit about your subjective opinion. In fact, that's kind of the point.

Well, Waffle asked, so I answered. 

Of course, Moonsorrow is objectively the best metal band ever. 

True story.

Authentic Trve Metal!

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 07:47:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 07:45:06 PM
A couple of their tunes were okay(ish) but my "infinite number of Beatles songs" theory kinda covers that

Missed that theory.

"The beatles did a couple of okay tracks" people use that in defence of the beatles all the time IRL. Someone will go "Ooh the Beatles" and I'll go "the beatles were shit" and someone else will name a couple of okay tunes.

The infinite number of beatles songs - theory is a simple bastardisation of the monkeys one. If the beatles record an infinite number of tunes (lets face it, their back catalogue is as close to infinite as you can get without developing your own solar systems) the theory posits that a couple of them will be okayi(ish)

This seems familiar for some reason...
(http://zii.ma3comic.com/comics/mat20131008.png)
(http://zii.ma3comic.com/comics/mat20131010.png)

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 10, 2013, 10:38:23 PM
This seems familiar for some reason...

HAR!  Until about 2008, I was a complete literary snob.  Then someone showed me Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis.

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 08:45:48 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 08:33:51 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 10, 2013, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Waffleman on October 10, 2013, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 09, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

Moonsorrow

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Moonsorrow, but boy do they enjoy their moneys.
According to your definitions,they're not artists.

According to my actual definitions (as opposed to the strawman TGRR created) they are. 


For chrissakes they released an album that was two, 30-minute long songs.  Even by metal standards that is insane and not exactly lending itself to mass consumption.

RWHN proves he's a gazillion years old. Releasing 30 minute songs hasn't been controversial, or even detrimental to sales in extreme metal since perhaps '94.

Also, quick question, old fart. Children of Bodom, artists Y/N?

Sure, though I personally find them rather dull and boring.

Assembled by Spinefarm to cash in on the melodic extreme metal trend.
Metal boyband.

Uhh...

QuoteChildren of Bodom was formed in 1993 by guitarist Alexi "Wildchild" Laiho and drummer Jaska Raatikainen under the name of Inearthed. Both musicians had known each other since early childhood and had shared an interest in heavy metal, especially death metal groups, such as Dissection, Entombed, and Obituary. Bassist Samuli Miettinen completed the initial line-up of the band. Inearthed recorded its first demo, Implosion of Heaven, during August of the same year.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 11:38:20 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 10, 2013, 10:38:23 PM
This seems familiar for some reason...

HAR!  Until about 2008, I was a complete literary snob.  Then someone showed me Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis.

:eek:

Wow! I'd just kinda assumed you were always into comics

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 11, 2013, 11:11:00 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 11:38:20 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 10, 2013, 10:38:23 PM
This seems familiar for some reason...

HAR!  Until about 2008, I was a complete literary snob.  Then someone showed me Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis.

:eek:

Wow! I'd just kinda assumed you were always into comics

Nope.  Hated 'em.  I was operating under the impression that they were all about big perverts in spandex, wrasslin' in the street.

-

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:33:12 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 07:47:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 07:45:06 PM
A couple of their tunes were okay(ish) but my "infinite number of Beatles songs" theory kinda covers that

Missed that theory.

"The beatles did a couple of okay tracks" people use that in defence of the beatles all the time IRL. Someone will go "Ooh the Beatles" and I'll go "the beatles were shit" and someone else will name a couple of okay tunes.

The infinite number of beatles songs - theory is a simple bastardisation of the monkeys one. If the beatles record an infinite number of tunes (lets face it, their back catalogue is as close to infinite as you can get without developing your own solar systems) the theory posits that a couple of them will be okayi(ish)

I have, over the course of my long and vile life, listened to the entire Beatles discography.  Everything they wrote sucks.  EVERYTHING.

Part 6 at some point today.

Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

(http://blog.holist.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Esoke_feeding.gif)

I'm finally evil enough to get mentioned in a flounce!

:awesome:

QuoteSo I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

Difficult, subtle work. And nobody even pays you for it.
It's the most authentic form of art.

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 05:52:36 PM
I'm finally evil enough to get mentioned in a flounce!

:awesome:

no one ever mentions me.

further proof I'm not real.  :argh!:

Quote from: holist on October 11, 2013, 05:47:54 PM
Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

(http://blog.holist.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Esoke_feeding.gif)

I am your king.

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 11, 2013, 06:15:53 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

In any case, he's flounced, so thread is no longer all about Holist.

Part 6 in two hours fifteen minutes.

Quote from: holist on October 11, 2013, 05:47:54 PM
Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

(http://blog.holist.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Esoke_feeding.gif)

(http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/deliverycaptain.jpg)

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:18:13 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 11, 2013, 06:15:53 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:18:13 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 11, 2013, 06:15:53 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

And identifying as the argument is the end of learning a damn thing.

Holist and RWHN are some how related? I see distant married cousins in the family tree?

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Maybe RWHN needs to "gamble a stamp".

(https://raisethehammer.org/static/images/valens_03.jpg)

Quote from: stelz on October 13, 2013, 04:30:28 AM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Maybe RWHN needs to "gamble a stamp".

(https://raisethehammer.org/static/images/valens_03.jpg)

<3

Quote from: stelz on October 12, 2013, 03:00:30 AM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:18:13 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 11, 2013, 06:15:53 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:08:14 PM
Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

And identifying as the argument is the end of learning a damn thing.

Uh...  That was frigging brilliant :tldr2:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM
Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

I read this as follows: "holist, if you stay here and talk to other people while avoiding me, you'll just admit defeat and prove that you need me in your sorry little life". Which is a subtle and passive agressive way of telling me to fuck off."

While you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly free to call me paranoid or whatever else you wish on account of the above interpretation, I simply wish to mention that, luckily, I am not obliged to share your opinion, and I most emphatically don't. Keep having fun!

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 11, 2013, 06:18:13 PM
Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Ha bloody ha.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.  :lulz:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:18:54 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM
Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

I read this as follows: "holist, if you stay here and talk to other people while avoiding me, you'll just admit defeat and prove that you need me in your sorry little life". Which is a subtle and passive agressive way of telling me to fuck off."

While you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly free to call me paranoid or whatever else you wish on account of the above interpretation, I simply wish to mention that, luckily, I am not obliged to share your opinion, and I most emphatically don't. Keep having fun!

Your reading comprehension is fucked.

:sad:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:21:15 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.  :lulz:

Should we? Be waiting for the real thing, I mean.
I'm very interested in what you and Roger have to say. Too bad it seems like you can't say those things to each other, though.

I think Roger is upset that we have been discussing for several pages something that in his opinion shouldn't have taken more space than a footnote.

Maybe you can explain in a new thread your ideas about authenticity in art, and how it relates to legitimacy in governments or whatever (I'm reminded of Sabina's ideas in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, is that what you meant?).

Feel free to explain using examples from history, or anecdotes from your own experiences. That should make it easier to understand what you are talking about even if we don't agree on the definition of "authentic".

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

OKAY. SO! What I am going to do here is advance a tentative description of my Discordia, a.k.a the world according to holist. As expressing one's general attitude to life and surrounding areas is notoriously difficult and fraught with misunderstanding, I would like it to be handled as such.

I think that some cultures are better than others. Having trained in philosophy, I have acquired the nasty habit of preferring a certain degree of consistency among my beliefs... while I have long realised that striving for a completely consistent world-view is about as futile as trying to keep my desk and its vicinity tidy all the time, every now and then I get the urge to reduce the chaos somewhat, at least to a workable level, in both realms.

Now if I want to be able to say that some cultures are superior to others (for instance: cultures that condone painful and crippling ritual mutilation are worse than those that don't; cultures that engage in compulsory and coercive indoctrination of the young - usually, but incorrectly termed 'education' - are worse than those that don't; cultures that display a curious, imaginative and creative attitude towards novelty are better than those that approach the unknown with a suspicious, defensive and trigger-happy attitude; cultures with approximate gender equality are better than those with massive gender inequality, etc.), I would prefer to be able to say at least something untrivial about why (trivial would be, to maintain the parallel with the concept of authenticity in the context of music, saying that they are better because I prefer them, or that they are better because many people prefer them). And I have this desire to be able to justify my preference because I don't want to be left in the position of having to nod and move on when the female circumscriber, the opressively authoritarian, the hostile and defensive or the sexist says: "well you may prefer those things, but I prefer these, and there's no arguing about preferences".

So I do this (justify my choices, that is) by stating my creed: I believe that there are certain types of action, certain values, certain attitudes that are positive from the perspective of the individual, no matter what the culture (and they remain the truly positive human attitudes, even if there are people who are passionately opposed to them, or to make an even more radical philosophical claim: they would remain the truly positive human attitudes even if nobody believed them any more. Which, in my book, would be humanity taking a massive turn for the worse).

Among these types of action, values, attitudes, there are self-knowledge, authenticity, autonomy, curiosity, conviviality, creativity, engagement, emotional self-reliance and self-regulation, and the list, of course, goes on.

Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles (except in creative and free play,which is fine).

Cultures that value authenticity and encourage their inhabitants to improve in that department are preferable (better places to live) to those that punish authenticity and encourage their inhabitants to surrender control of their lives to forces outside themselves.

If I give up the concept of authenticity as meaningless because people fail to agree about it (as if they ever agreed about anything!) - all of this line is lost. Not to mention the line between the drossest crap produced by corporations for profit or deluded individuals because they are completely wrong about the nature of their musical talent - and decent music.

End Of Message

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 13, 2013, 07:35:45 PM
Should we? Be waiting for the real thing, I mean.
I'm very interested in what you and Roger have to say. Too bad it seems like you can't say those things to each other, though.

I'd be perfectly happy with a split.

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:31:44 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

When you actually want someone who might be predisposed to disregard your point of view it helps to excise your condescension of them.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 09:04:23 PM

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:31:44 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

When you actually want someone who might be predisposed to disregard your point of view it helps to excise your condescension of them.

I agree.

But.

Firstly, I am able to separate ego from argument (losing arguments is a skill I studied full-time for four years, and after initial difficulties I did quite well), but I think my argument (my point, really) hasn't even been given a fair hearing. It was distorted, simplified and then that strawman was shot down and set on fire. It's all fine exhorting me to express myself better, but the setup is rigged and you know, if someone is hell bent on taking you for a moron, there's little you can do. Incidentally, I didn't write that with a condescending tone at all. It's a pity, as in I am sorry to see it happen, but it happens, and I am powerless to stop it. Which is fine. But a pity.

Secondly, I would like to know how you handle this sort of situation. Or what evidence you have to offer that this is not one of those situations.

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 09:11:39 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 09:04:23 PM

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:31:44 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

When you actually want someone who might be predisposed to disregard your point of view it helps to excise your condescension of them.

I agree.

But.

Firstly, I am able to separate ego from argument (losing arguments is a skill I studied full-time for four years, and after initial difficulties I did quite well), but I think my argument (my point, really) hasn't even been given a fair hearing. It was distorted, simplified and then that strawman was shot down and set on fire. It's all fine exhorting me to express myself better, but the setup is rigged and you know, if someone is hell bent on taking you for a moron, there's little you can do. Incidentally, I didn't write that with a condescending tone at all. It's a pity, as in I am sorry to see it happen, but it happens, and I am powerless to stop it. Which is fine. But a pity.

Secondly, I would like to know how you handle this sort of situation. Or what evidence you have to offer that this is not one of those situations.

Just FYI (for your information) you just did it again with the condescension.
More to point, I've found myself less inclined to engage you in discussion because you seem to be firmly entrenched in this idea that certain people here, for example Roger, are predisposed to just shit all over you in anyway they can.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 09:53:27 PM
Just FYI (for your information) you just did it again with the condescension.

Now that's a bit rich.  :lulz:

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 09:53:27 PM
More to point, I've found myself less inclined to engage you in discussion because you seem to be firmly entrenched in this idea that certain people here, for example Roger, are predisposed to just shit all over you in anyway they can.

You know, I would change the wording a bit, replace 'for example' by 'primarily', but apart from that, that is indeed what I think. The "firmly entrenched' may be a clever way of implying but not actually saying I am wrong (then again, it may not be, that's what clever about it), but I am not wrong. And if that stops you from talking to me, well, I'll live.

Tone is a difficult thing to convey in text... but, I don't have a horse in this race, and really, Holist, you are coming across as very condescending. It might not be deliberate, but trust me, its there.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 13, 2013, 10:13:35 PM
Tone is a difficult thing to convey in text... but, I don't have a horse in this race, and really, Holist, you are coming across as very condescending. It might not be deliberate, but trust me, its there.

Well I don't know. Maybe to some extent it is there. Maybe, to some extent, it should be there, I thought it was okay to lose your rag around here, and the kind of hostility I keep falling victim to seems repetitive and just, I don't know, puerile. But I think I probably come off more condescending than I want to be, or my attempts at sarcasm are read as being condescending, as a result of speaking English as a second language. Try imagining me with an earnest Wilhelm Reichian glint of madness and that accent, as in this priceless clip: "http://blog.holist.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Wilhelm_Reich_at_Orgonon_April_3rd_1952.mp3" And actually, he came off really condescending when he was just being earnest. Not that I wish to compare myself to the incomparable professor.

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 10:20:59 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 13, 2013, 10:13:35 PM
Tone is a difficult thing to convey in text... but, I don't have a horse in this race, and really, Holist, you are coming across as very condescending. It might not be deliberate, but trust me, its there.

Well I don't know. Maybe to some extent it is there. Maybe, to some extent, it should be there, I thought it was okay to lose your rag around here, and the kind of hostility I keep falling victim to seems repetitive and just, I don't know, puerile. But I think I probably come off more condescending than I want to be, or my attempts at sarcasm are read as being condescending, as a result of speaking English as a second language. Try imagining me with an earnest Wilhelm Reichian glint of madness and that accent, as in this priceless clip: "http://blog.holist.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Wilhelm_Reich_at_Orgonon_April_3rd_1952.mp3" And actually, he came off really condescending when he was just being earnest. Not that I wish to compare myself to the incomparable professor.

Yo dude, if a person who is a native speaker and reader of the language with which you are communicating in has pointed out that you are being condescending in your communications then there is a very real chance that you are in fact being condescending, which by the way are still persisting in being.  As it is I was at one point long ago willing to give you the benefit of the doubt due some language barrier, however, I find myself far less likely to believe that you are unaware of the fact that you are being condescending because people are not agreeing with your stance. But just in-case that there is in fact some language barrier present, despite the indications that you are fluent enough in English and intelligent enough to have some grasp on the intent behind your words, I shall make it as clear as I possibly can to you that when you throw in "It's a pity" with your statements, you are implying that you feel sorry that the person(s) you are addressing are just not quite smart enough to see your point of view in the proper light, that if only they were as enlightened, studied or intelligent enough that your carefully worded arguments in support of the truth that there is some music that is "authentic" and others that is not, and that you are especially qualified to point out which is which, they would immediately come to your side of the argument. That in there lies the particular instance of your condescension with regards to this discussion.  Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic, when had you just literately walked away for a breather instead of sharing that you were going to

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

thus making it quite apparent that you have some kind of butthurt because we were disagreeing with you. I had infact intended to more carefully re-read your points but was prevented because, well fuck me, I had to devote my attentions to actually learning about how art and literature are and have been critiqued throughout history with regards to the western literary and artistic traditions. I still do not see any merit in going over your original points because it seems to me that you are just nursing the butthurt because people are disagreeing with you and have put forth reasons that you may be choosing to create a definition of what is "real music" that arbitrarily favors the kind of music you prefer to listen to.

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

:lulz: Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

:lulz: Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Well I mean a man that likes other men is basically a woman. Right?

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:21:15 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.  :lulz:

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:25:15 PM

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:21:15 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.  :lulz:

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

Don't you get it?
Condescension is a part of the board culture. He is just trying to fit in by implying no-one else is as smart as he is.
We really should go easier on him. English is such a nuanced language. It must hard to properly insult people the way he actually wants to.

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:31:44 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 11, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

I don't think it's much of one, honestly, at least not for me. Apart from your difficulty with the English language, you're just another philosophy major. It's not like I'm missing out on anything.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:23:46 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

:lulz: Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Well I mean a man that likes other men is basically a woman. Right?

OHHHHH now it makes sense.  :lol:

All I really have to say about Holist's rant about authenticity is that he seems to be conflating authenticity with individualism. He also seems to be lacking in understanding of how integral tradition is to culture, and the connection both have to authenticity. I don't even want to touch his issues of cultural absolutism.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 13, 2013, 11:27:40 PM
The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:18:54 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:12:08 PM
Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

I read this as follows: "holist, if you stay here and talk to other people while avoiding me, you'll just admit defeat and prove that you need me in your sorry little life". Which is a subtle and passive agressive way of telling me to fuck off."

While you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly free to call me paranoid or whatever else you wish on account of the above interpretation, I simply wish to mention that, luckily, I am not obliged to share your opinion, and I most emphatically don't. Keep having fun!

We are back where we were last year.

"To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion."
- Triple Zero

Did I miss anything of value in that wall of text a couple pages back?  :tldr:

The funny thing about authenticity in culture is that it can always ellude objective observation by those it most transparently engages - like a fishes epistemological approach to water.  What if reality TV and such was just a foil for what was actually going on?  That which it (the degenerate) indicates is the total unacceptance of what we should already know to be false (wait, I think I just blew my socks off...) :hitlerbanjo:

I think that "authentic" is about as useful a cultural signifier as "hipster".

Which, now that I think about it, is probably why hipsters are so obsessed with authenticity.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 02:19:07 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 13, 2013, 11:27:40 PM
The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

Authenticity can be a useful concept, but it requires a context to be useful within.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 08:02:37 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 02:19:07 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 13, 2013, 11:27:40 PM
The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

Authenticity can be a useful concept, but it requires a context to be useful within.

I music, I can only think "Hey, that guy does BB King as well as BB King" or "This other guy hasn't paid his dues".

-

Ok, a couple of things:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord   (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authenticity)

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all.  I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

He's also cherrypicking root word definitions to suit his made-up definition, because "autos" is most often used to denote "self" in the recursive sense. "Authentic" means, essentially, that it is what it presents itself to be. It is itself. Not that it "is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles" which is just some made-up wankery.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 05:16:23 PM
He's also cherrypicking root word definitions to suit his made-up definition, because "autos" is most often used to denote "self" in the recursive sense. "Authentic" means, essentially, that it is what it presents itself to be. It is itself. Not that it "is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles" which is just some made-up wankery.

Sometimes, I just sit back and watch Holist - and all the others like him, over the years - dig their heels in deep in the poop, and spin like a Goddamn ballerina to prove that they're REALLY RIGHT.  Never mind that they have to do contortions like a circus freak to do so.

They should have just bought DOUR™.  It would have saved SO much trouble.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 13, 2013, 07:35:45 PM

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 07:21:15 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 11, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 06:18:24 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.  :lulz:

Should we? Be waiting for the real thing, I mean.
I'm very interested in what you and Roger have to say. Too bad it seems like you can't say those things to each other, though.

What the FUCK?   :lulz:

Thanks, LC.  I'll just take a minute and not ever give a fuck what you have to say, ever again.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 13, 2013, 07:40:27 PM
I think Roger is upset that we have been discussing for several pages something that in his opinion shouldn't have taken more space than a footnote.

Nope.  Roger doesn't care.  When I'm ready to write the next bit, I'll write it regardless of how long Holist has been screeching his hatred to an uncaring universe.

Then, when I'm done, I'll wad them all up and put them in Richter's thread.

Another quick question -- does the artist in question really have to agree with Jungian psychology, or is it that holist needs to see what he believes to be an acceptance of the shadow in the work?  And if it's the latter, doesn't that make the application of authentic¹ up to holist, and therefore... subjective?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 05:26:08 PM
Another quick question -- does the artist in question really have to agree with Jungian psychology, or is it that holist needs to see what he believes to be an acceptance of the shadow in the work?  And if it's the latter, doesn't that make the application of authentic¹ up to holist, and therefore... subjective?

Dunno.  I'm still trying to understand why I haven't explained my point if I explained my point and then ignored 10 pages of Holist being furious about my point.

Oh, wait.  I get it.

If I make my point and it isn't actually refuted, then I have only made my point as long as nobody gets mad that someone else tried to be right.  Therefore, when Holist gets an enflamed ass because I made a statement, I have only stated my point if I answer EACH AND EVERY FUCKING POST MADE BY DUMBSHIT for A DOZEN PAGES AFTERWARD.

Am I on the money here, Cataplanga?  Is that what the fuck you were looking for?  Or was that just a chance for a fucking cheap shot?

:lulz:

Heh.  Yeah, that last was a rhetorical question.  You've never said anything to me that WASN'T a cheap shot.

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 04:58:15 PM
Ok, a couple of things:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord   (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authenticity)

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all. I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

Maybe he's been talking to this guy? http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/38188-have-hypothesis-needs-equation-help-me-plz.html

This guy is convinced that sounds that come from "real" musicians are physically different from sounds that come from non-"real" musicians.

DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

Can't see that.  Nigel, can you ex-post?

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 05:43:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 04:58:15 PM
Ok, a couple of things:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord   (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authenticity)

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all. I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

Maybe he's been talking to this guy? http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/38188-have-hypothesis-needs-equation-help-me-plz.html

This guy is convinced that sounds that come from "real" musicians are physically different from sounds that come from non-"real" musicians.

I... wha...


...




(http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/226/b/2/facedesk_motivational_by_aximili1-d46kyhx.jpg)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

More like:

DOUR:  Here's my point.
holist:  HOW DARE YOU MAKE A POINT?  Here's <all the shit LMNO brought up, plus some bile>
LC:  Dour and holist are clearly both equally at fault for this mess.

Fuck LC in his earhole.  I didn't help trash my own thread, so I am equally at fault.

:lulz:

I mean, this thread is basically just a scratch pad for me.  I dropped out of the actual conversation once the thread became a LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE holist production/wholly-owned subsidiary.

The one good thing about all this is that I'll never need a new butthole, like what happened to ECH.

I mean, I just have to post an opinion, and I get a half a dozen new assholes.

 :lol:

Just add DOUR™!

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 05:49:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

More like:

DOUR:  Here's my point.
holist:  HOW DARE YOU MAKE A POINT?  Here's <all the shit LMNO brought up, plus some bile>
LC:  Dour and holist are clearly both equally at fault for this mess.

Fuck LC in his earhole.  I didn't help trash my own thread, so I am equally at fault.

:lulz:

I mean, this thread is basically just a scratch pad for me.  I dropped out of the actual conversation once the thread became a LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE holist production/wholly-owned subsidiary.

I didn't read it that way at all, but I'm not really aware of the history you seem to have with him.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 05:45:42 PM
Can't see that.  Nigel, can you ex-post?

QuoteOK...you have sound..wich travels at the speed of..sound. Then you have musical sound..not an imitation, but the real thing. The sound that fills up stadiums, keeps you listening to that subway musician in awe..ect. 'something' is obv. happening. I think the biggest misunderstanding about musical experience is that we think that we are being moved by the emotions the artist is feeling while he is playing, while in fact we are being moved by direct transferrence of these emotions through waves of lightspeed that only a person with an innate ability to do this can produce. How, no idea...that's the mystery! I guess a description could be that it attracts larger groups of people other then friends and family who are willing to put their hands together for your effort whilst being conciously or unconsiously embarrased for you. One is an imitation, the other is the real thing. We all can (try to) sing or strum a guitar, or push down a piano key. Few, however produce musical sound. They are the 'gifted ones'. It is well know this gift runs in the family and cannot really be learned, although the brightest of minds in the musical field cannot grasp and discard this concept, because they can only see the house ( see below). I do not think they are that bright btw, most of them are probably sweet though.

I believe, the magic of real musical sound is that it travels at the speed of light, It reaches us instantly and it cannot be interferred by thought. Think of musical sound as the bricks of wich the house is made up....a tone, wave, note, not the entire house in all it's forms and colours. Be it a classical house, a rock and roll house, or a death metal house...or a reaggea house...wich would obv be red green and yellow. The 'bricks' of ALL music are the same in 'fabric'. Of course one can add timbre, vibration, ect. But one must have the ability/gift to produce a brick. Most of us can only produce 'turds' in the shape of bricks. We simply cannot make bricks...just like a pig cannot fly (on it's own). Real musicians can make bricks...they simply have to produce a soundwave and it's automatically a brick...It is truly a gift/ability that cannot be learned.

So, I mean true musical sound is a soundwave that travels at the speed of light. The speed of light transfers the soundwave in music...so in a form it is indeed the sound of the speed of light. Wow, make any sense?

The medium of a soundwave...well, i guess I just mean a wave that presents itself and partially behaves as a soundwave. I think it's a EM wave and soundwave interlocked of some sorts. It goes trough air obv..but there's more going on underneath. much more!

Hope I clarified a bit....remember this is intuition. We can measure the speed of light right ? And also the speed of sound. I wonder if we can find 'elements' of the speed of light in real musical sound and if they are currently ways of researching this.

Quotesays you good fellow...now put on your favourite record and wonder why it makes you feel good, and sometimes insanely good. you're travelling at the speed of light, while sitting in a chair. It is not the singer, it's the song. The song is the mystery....the sound of it, the difference to other sound. The singer is simply the medium. Although some of them think they invented it by themselves. Wich leads to the most dangerous drug for these people..Fame, and how to deal with it. If you see yourself as a medium you'll probably be allright, if not, trouble..( godsyndrome, heroin, spitting in peoples faces wich seems to be justin beebers new hobby, ect.)

QuoteHello Professor Clarke,

My name is Steven Crow from the Netherlands. I am looking for someone to share my findings with. Someone who has the means and resources to investigate the following.

I have made, what I think is , a remarkable 'discovery' as to where musical sound differs from 'other' sound. I am talking about musical sound, for example 1 note or tone.
Not how these musical sounds (notes/tones...even timbre) are constructed together to make what we perceive as music. So, I am not talking about the house in all it's different shapes and colours..but rather the brick. This alone has proven to be a very difficult concept to get across to some of the brightest people in music and science research. Hence, I stopped looking to get my finding across or understood if you will.

Still, I feel a strong urge to share because it fascinates me to no end.

Why is that you may ask. Because I believe musical sound and it's origin (not historically but factually) is still one of man's great mystery's. I feel it doesn't have to be quite so much, if one is willing to ask the right questions and do the testing that follow these. To be clear, I am not steering to a 'spiritual' viewpoint but quite easy questions and equally testings that are well in the realm of today's science. The outcome of this bit of research will, in my opinion, undoubtedly give way to a whole new set of questions as to what 'fabric' musical sound actually consists of and comes from, rather than the consensus that it is some sort of soundwave that evokes great emotions to people in general, and may or not be teachable or learnable as opposed to an innate abilty that one is, well, born with. This in fact, I believe, is of relevance for all artforms but my interest is music. It is in my opinion the most direct, emotive and mysterious one of the 'bunch'. Therefore, dare I say..the most interesting.

Well,..It is so hard to put in words what it is I mean (as you may have noticed)..But, I assure you, it is relatively easy to investigate. I have done this on my own, with some simple software and the help of several professional musicians (let's call them group A) as well as 'amateur' musicians and non musicians as the control group (group B). I constructed some tests where both groups were asked to produce a sound via an instrument without actually physically touching it. The sound was the same note/tone in both groups. I have done this on guitar, piano and clavicimbel. There are lots of ways to do this with a bit of creative thinking. One test involved a heatfan to wich I applied a little metal string ( the ones one uses to tie a garbage bag together ) onto one of its fans. If the fan was put in motion, simply by turning it on, the string would start to rotate and touch the lower E string of the acoustic guitar wich I placed beside it. This then would produce the sound of the E string without the person actually touching the instrument. All that was in fact done was turning on the heatfan via the on and off switch. Both groups did just that..turn on the fan. By no means a musical deed as far as I know. The results proved different..

After recording the sounds..I started to slow them down. I found that both groups produced a totally different sound to each other, that is especially noticeable for the untrained ear if the recording is slowed down. However, the sound quality's or properties are the same for both groups alike. I proceeded to filter out lower E notes from all kinds of musical recordings as well as different musical genres and artists and discovered that they too, had the same quality and properties as I found in my recordings of group A. They are very distinguishable and alike. The same was true for group B. The two, however, when compared are totally different. In the slowing down process, I discovered the sound of group A would go up a whole octave after x ratio of slowing down. The sound of group B did not.

There are very many other remarkable differences which are easily hearable and testable. Especially the initial onset of the sound, when slowed down, is particularly different. In the case of group A one could describe it as the swelling and crashing of a wave, an interlocking of some sort that, in it's own, sounds...heavenly (I have no other word for it even though I am an atheist). If you wil allow me an anecdote, Eric Clapton was asked once in an interview what he thought music was actually made of..he answered that it was made of the purest form of crystals.

The sound of group B is quite the opposite. There is no wave, no interlocking, just a violent sound of matter bouncing off each other. I could only describe it as unpleasant noise. This is of course all subjective, but I seriously doubt that one person in the world would disagree with me.


I think this finding raises some obvious and very interesting questions regarding music and musicality as a whole and it's connection with some people, and disconnection, if you will, with others in regards to the actual ability of producing it. The ratio of these groups is a tough and probably impossible one to put a figure on. I think the group of five that attract a stadium full of listeners would not be far of.


I know my tests were not done in a scientific way and environment..but am very confident they will give the same results if done so. Again. I do not have the means and resources to proceed but it is one of my great wishes that someone would in fact do so. Then again..maybe there are some things men doesn't want to investigate, why analyze the mysterious, especially if it's something that bring so much joy to mankind. One answer might be that there may be even greater ones behind this one and it is in our very nature to do so.

I would be very happy to communicate with you over the matter may you find this interesting and I hope I got across what it was I wanted to. I believe there are 'scientific facts' to be found out about musical sound and its origins that will turn out to be by no means subjective. I believe it was Einstein who said; "The secret of the universe lies in music".

Another character , Ron Wood, of the Rolling Stones was quoted ; "There's a basic rule which runs through all kinds of music, kind of an unwritten rule. I don't know what it is. But I've got it."

Sorry, Roger. Didn't mean to say that it was your fault.
I just wanted to read what holist wanted to say, if possible in a different thread, so it wouldn't get in the way of what you have to say, which I find very interesting.
Sorry for contributing to derailing your thread.

Oh yeah, and:

Quotethe only possibility? are you serious. That is a ludicrous remark. Can you at least entertain the thought that the sound might have been the same for the two groups since there was no direct contact with the instrument? You are now way more unlogical in your thinking then you claim I am. 5 musicians produced a dinstictive different sound under exactly the same circumstances as 5 non-musicians by pushing the on switch of a heating fan. They were NOT in contact with the instrument.

Something transferred that is remarkable...if you or any of you cannot see that, i don't know what will...hence close minded. I mean..do i have to draw it out for you. Nothing moved, not the mike, not the setup. nothing! just the people.

Not everyone can be an artist, produce music. What is it they have that's different. Is it measurable, is it transferrable...could it be it's not so mysterious after all..what in the off chance this is researched , not by me , as you keep rehashing..but via a similar setup in a lab. It changes the way people think about innate abillaty vs learnabilty, it changes the way people look at musical sound vs other sound. These are questions being asked in the field TODAY! There are no answers of yet just theories. What if the results are the same wich they most probably will be. If you shoot a man in a lab he will die..if you shoot a man in your backyard he will..die.

I'm trying to get my results valid, that's the whole point. I do not live in a labarotorium with hightech equipment, my bad.

If not one of you thinks this is interesting then I stand by my point that to hard a concept to grasp. Science is here to help prove something..not debunk it because it hasn't been done yet. 1. You have a valid clue...usually not thought of or tested in a labaratorium. 2. It raises curiousity. 3. you test it the best you can scientifically, as in , with the best resources available. Science should move things forward and investigate, not rehash.

Especcially if you have results for motivation. What reasons do I have my results are valid? I recorded the shit..then analysed it. My god, a child could spot the difference. What if we all could make musical sound in the future. Read your post again...think logically...realize where you are wrong in your response.

you are the only one who is open for at least some thought about the subject. The rest is stuck in what they know...they do not or will not even try to understand what i'm talking about. That my friend, is sheepish. But 1 in a 100 is still a lot in the grand scheme, don't get me wrong.

It's about proving shit..not discarding an idea with words. Do the work, do the test! (i did) ... science works bitches!

I know it's hard work and I am in no way taking that lightly. But it's also an adventure..go where no man has gone before, all that. If you hear the soundclips you might think otherwise. Ok, since being rude is the 'science' way of communicating....Suck a fat one you guys, i'm going to bed.

Oh, a scandinavian music researcher said this could lead to big things when I contacted him 6 years ago. He analysed the sound samples in his lab and found interesting new stuff . Helas, it endend because the analyzing methods of the day had it's limits...unlike the human ear and brain. He urged me to go on. But, no money in it...man got to pay the rent. But man, did he get it.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the thread is batshittery all the way up and then again down the backside.

Oh my god.  Shoot me in the face.  Please.

redacted.

Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 14, 2013, 06:13:56 PM
Sorry, Roger. Didn't mean to say that it was your fault.
I just wanted to read what holist wanted to say, if possible in a different thread, so it wouldn't get in the way of what you have to say, which I find very interesting.
Sorry for contributing to derailing your thread.

Life goes on.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 06:13:56 PM
This is just the tip of the iceberg, the thread is batshittery all the way up and then again down the backside.

WOW.   :lulz:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 06:20:31 PM

Part 6

Art critics are basically the carbuncles of the art world.  This isn't because they are bad people (though every one I've ever met has been a shitbag of enormous proportions), but rather because - like art - art criticism is market-driven.  No critic ever made a name by stating the obvious (though in some cases, they don't have much choice...For example, the last 3 Star Wars flicks made).

No, they have to basically be contrarian to sell their columns, or else they have to take something everyone already KNOWS is shit, and grind the artist's face in their own poop long after doing so has stopped being useful (yes, we knew the Nickleback album was gonna suck.  We knew this.  Thank you for wasting our time.).

The first thing to remember about critics is that critics are failed artists.  Either they tried and failed, or they didn't have the guts or the work ethic to do art...Though usually they still play at it, or talk about their latest "ongoing work" (that never actually gets completed) at parties, to people desperately trying to escape.  As a result, they hate artists, and will spend hours or days trying to find a reason why any given successful artist is crapulous.  As we've seen, this will include made up definitions for standard terms, accusations of inauthenticity, and casual dismissal of anyone making money as "corporate whores", etc.

Everyone has seen the above (except for the critics themselves, of course) in action.  The real question is, if I am forced to talk to an art critic - at a party, for example - what do I do?  My advice at this point would be to roll up a newspaper and beat the critic to death with it.  Yes, killing a man with a rolled-up newspaper takes real effort, but you and I both know the motivation to do so will overcome any considerations of time and effort.  You have to be firm about this sort of thing.  You have to say "NO" and then follow through, so the other critics understand, otherwise they'll be on your doorstep at 2 AM, with a stupid smile on their face and their pants around their ankles.

So, you know, if you want to know if a piece of art is GOOD, my suggestion is that you LOOK at it or LISTEN to it YOURSELF, and FORM YOUR OWN OPINION.  If there is significant risk involved, you can send me a copy of the art and $300, and I'll let you know.  This allows you to protect your family from pictures of poker-playing dogs, Puddle of Mud videos, etc.  Safety first.

I'm printing this one out.

I'm going to take that weirdo's posts, give them the treatment, and then send them to that whackjob who has been emailing me.

I used to be a reviewer and music editor at a local 'zine here.


Everything you say is true, and there's the additional aspect of "free stuff" and "ad money".

If the record companies can't bribe you by sending you to shows and giving you free swag, then they extort you by trading ad space for good reviews.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 06:34:18 PM
I used to be a reviewer and music editor at a local 'zine here.


Everything you say is true, and there's the additional aspect of "free stuff" and "ad money".

If the record companies can't bribe you by sending you to shows and giving you free swag, then they extort you by trading ad space for good reviews.

I hadn't included the for-hire geeks in this rant, as they're not actually critics.  They're basically advertizing consultants.

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 12, 2013, 04:48:55 AM
Holist and RWHN are some how related? I see distant married cousins in the family tree?

It's more of a parallel evolution thing, ya know, like dolphins and sharks, or the thylacine and the wolf...

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
(...) I shall make it as clear as I possibly can to you that when you throw in "It's a pity" with your statements, you are implying that you feel sorry that the person(s) you are addressing are just not quite smart enough to see your point of view in the proper light, that if only they were as enlightened, studied or intelligent enough that your carefully worded arguments in support of the truth that there is some music that is "authentic" and others that is not, and that you are especially qualified to point out which is which, they would immediately come to your side of the argument.
That in there lies the particular instance of your condescension with regards to this discussion. 

Hey, hey, let's just stop there for a second (the bold in the above is mine). I am best qualified to assess what I am implying (I was there, subjectively experiencing the intentions and the emotions that surrounded the writing of that message) and I tell you quite categorically that I implied no such thing. I agree that I could be read as implying that (malicious intent is extremely easy to read into even the plainest, most concrete communication, that is why paranoid people have such an easy time of it), but actually, I did not imply it, nothing was further from my mind. As I have already explained (and sorry, once more, I happen to be the number one authority as to my opinions - my gut reactions still carry a slight, largely xenophobic bias, but I am aware of that and looking out for it), all I meant was, I was powerless to stop the breakdown of communication with Nigel, I'm not even quite sure I understand why it is happening (I have seen plenty of evidence that Nigel is easily capable of being highly nuanced), and I was sorry to see it happen. Apart from the german accent thing, I have no idea why you attribute condescension to me, but it's you doing the attributing.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic, when had you just literately walked away for a breather instead of sharing that you were going to

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

thus making it quite apparent that you have some kind of butthurt because we were disagreeing with you. I had infact intended to more carefully re-read your points but was prevented because, well fuck me, I had to devote my attentions to actually learning about how art and literature are and have been critiqued throughout history with regards to the western literary and artistic traditions. I still do not see any merit in going over your original points because it seems to me that you are just nursing the butthurt because people are disagreeing with you and have put forth reasons that you may be choosing to create a definition of what is "real music" that arbitrarily favors the kind of music you prefer to listen to.

I understand and disagree with your position. Simple counterexample: even in my first formulation, I took pains to say I wanted a conceptual toolkit that allowed me to distinguish music that is "the result of earnest, genuine creative effort", yet music I don't like and don't listen to. If I simply wished to define "real music" to ensure that it accorded with my taste in music, I would not have bothered, don't you think?

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:25:15 PM
Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 07:33:51 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:25:15 PM
Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

I think holist should print out this post he's made on a little piece of paper and meditate on it for a few weeks.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 07:33:51 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:25:15 PM
Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

Sounds like holist is all hopped up on DOUR™ again.

And also:

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic (...)

Well actually, fuck, are you telling me that being pissed off because people are shitting on you for no good reason (and, you know, let's bracket the issue of whether that is a correct assessment of what was happening, and just accept that it was certainly my interpretation of the situation at the time) and not keeping it all nobly bottled up (which, apparently, would have been okay, so the law you are laying down is like "it's okay to have butthurt as long as you don't tell anyone about it") is tantamount to "tossing a wobbler"?

And are you, furthermore, completely failing to address the fact that if a person reacts badly to being unfairly treated, the question of whether he was or was not unfairly treated is fairly relevant to the assessment of that response?

Is it your opinion that being unhappy and frustrated by being unfairly treated and expressing that unhappyness and frustration indicates unbreakable attachment of ego from position? Well that seems excessively repressive to me, repressive, really, to an unhealthy degree.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 07:49:07 PM
Sounds like holist is all hopped up on DOUR™ again.

NOT EVEN ONCE, KIDS.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:27:50 PM
Don't you get it?
Condescension is a part of the board culture. He is just trying to fit in by implying no-one else is as smart as he is.
We really should go easier on him. English is such a nuanced language. It must hard to properly insult people the way he actually wants to.

:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 14, 2013, 07:48:54 PM
It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

Well, we started out with the language.  He had to LEARN it, so he knows it far better.   :lulz:

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 01:12:30 AM
I don't think it's much of one, honestly, at least not for me. Apart from your difficulty with the English language, you're just another philosophy major. It's not like I'm missing out on anything.

Nice to be properly classified, ma'am. Thank you.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:50:47 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 14, 2013, 07:48:54 PM
It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

Well, we started out with the language.  He had to LEARN it, so he knows it far better.   :lulz:

Metaphor for fedora wearing hipster assholes everywhere.

Also, it's a pain in the ass when Holist flounces, because he leaves for about 12 hours, then insists on answering EVERY post when he gets back, meaning we all have to go back in time for 6 pages.

Speaking of which, all 6 parts written so far comprise 5% of this thread.  Posts by holist and about holist comprise 70% of this thread.

So it actually IS all about holist.  Again.

I moved the actual posts into Richter's thread, though any discussion of them should still occur here, around the edges of holist's holist complex.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 04:58:15 PM
Ok, a couple of things:

Quote from: holist on October 13, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord   (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authenticity)

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all.  I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

First of all, let me say, dear LMNO, that this was a veritable tour-de-force of condescension. I wonder if you have the gall to deny it?? :)

Secondly: I did not "pretty much create my definition": I used, by and large, the sense of "authentic" developed in psychology, particularly the humanistic branches, in particular the person-centered approach and also the sense of presence in the here and now from Gestalt therapy. This application has a history of several decades and has in fact permeated the pop-psychological literature to a considerable degree and I would say at least in the humanities it is common terminology.

Consequently, your condescending question alluding to the contradiction between striving for consistency and using haphazard definitions of concepts is a non-question.

You are acting like a monty python character. Of course I didn't mean that composers need to know or agree with Jungian theory in order to write authentic music! But I did mean to suggest that a robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality is the mark of the mature artist, and if the music (or any work of art) springs from such a personality, or at least from someone who recognises (explicitly or indeed implicitly,without possibly ever wondering consciously about questions of authenticity at all!) that this sort of self-actualisation is a good thing and who aims to produce art because the production of it helps them with that endeavour, then the resulting art (even if it is not pleasing, indeed, possibly quite difficult to endure) can be rightly called authentic.

So there.

I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

:lord:

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Done, as an endorsement.

Oh, and I'd be happy to see a citation that defines "authenticity¹" in the manner you claim. 

If you have one, and I'm wrong, then I'll cop to it.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

Well, that's why you're here.  To save everyone from me and my cronies.   :lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Balls.  Amy Winehouse was the very model of self-actualization.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Oh, and I'd be happy to see a citation that defines "authenticity¹" in the manner you claim. 

If you have one, and I'm wrong, then I'll cop to it.

Oh, this should be good.

Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:13:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Balls.  Amy Winehouse was the very model of self-actualization.

:thumb:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:52:49 PM
So it actually IS all about holist.  Again.

Hot damn! I'm sorry!  :)

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

And then you say shit like this. Nobody here is anybody else's crony and intimating that is no way to go about winning hearts and minds. And, frankly, if you really don't care that nobody here likes you then why are you here?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:17:17 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:13:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Balls.  Amy Winehouse was the very model of self-actualization.

:thumb:

She's been drug free for 27 months now, and I think that's great.

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:18:08 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

And then you say shit like this. Nobody here is anybody else's crony and intimating that is no way to go about winning hearts and minds. And, frankly, if you really don't care that nobody here likes you then why are you here?

To save you alll from me, of course.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Valid point. I would prefer to say "normative example". BEing reasonably mature and flexible and emotionally robust is not an indispensable requirement, but it certainly helps (without it, it often all ends in tears).

I do think that psychologically fucked up people almost always tend to make authentic music when their music is about their psychological imperfections. Which implies that, while they may be a long way away from becoming a robust and mature human being, and indeed some may never make it, the music tends to be authentic when it aids self-knowledge.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:12:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Done, as an endorsement.

Fame! At last!

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
I do think that psychologically fucked up people almost always tend to make authentic music when their music is about their psychological imperfections. Which implies that, while they may be a long way away from becoming a robust and mature human being, and indeed some may never make it, the music tends to be authentic when it aids self-knowledge.

What the fuck does that even MEAN?

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:57 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:12:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Done, as an endorsement.

Fame! At last!

Yeah.  You, Ssanf, and Babylon Horuv.   :lulz:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:13:02 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

Well, that's why you're here.  To save everyone from me and my cronies.   :lulz:

Well nope, Uncle Roger, that's not really why holist is here at all!

I am here because the situation is intriguing and hence a laugh. And because there is good signal here. Some of it due to, some of it despite your best efforts. :)

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:25:18 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:13:02 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

But that's the thing, my good man! It's just you, and a few of your cronies, and nobody else.

Well, that's why you're here.  To save everyone from me and my cronies.   :lulz:

Well nope, Uncle Roger, that's not really why holist is here at all!

I am here because the situation is intriguing and hence a laugh. And because there is good signal here. Some of it due to, some of it despite your best efforts. :)

I see.  So you're one of those people who view other people solely as a form of entertainment.

I am shocked.  Shocked, I tell you!

22 pages of holist.

If we get another 98 pages, holist will achieve his dream of topping the drug threads.

Because it's all about holist.  All the time.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:13:00 PM
Oh, and I'd be happy to see a citation that defines "authenticity¹" in the manner you claim. 

If you have one, and I'm wrong, then I'll cop to it.

You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_in_art

Cop to it, then!

I could be a dick and ask for a thread split, but Cain doesn't deserve THAT.   :lulz:

Instead, I'm just done with the OP's subject.

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! :D ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! :D ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
BEing reasonably mature and flexible and emotionally robust is not an indispensable requirement, but it certainly helps

Um. You've just said that authentic¹ music doesn't have to be authentic¹.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 14, 2013, 08:33:05 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! :D ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

He isn't attempting to communicate.  This was never about the exchange of ideas.

He's attention-whoring. 

Successfully.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:23:12 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
I do think that psychologically fucked up people almost always tend to make authentic music when their music is about their psychological imperfections. Which implies that, while they may be a long way away from becoming a robust and mature human being, and indeed some may never make it, the music tends to be authentic when it aids self-knowledge.

What the fuck does that even MEAN?

I'll break it down for you.

Psychologically fucked up (neurotic, self-harming, suicidal or just plain ill-adjusted) people can make authentic music. There are in fact many examples among my very favourites.

It is my observation that when this happens (psychologically fucked up people making authentic, genuine music) their music tends to be mostly about their psychological problems.

So in a way, while not mature or robust or flexible and well-adjusted, they are in many or even most cases using the creative activity (the making of the music) to articulate their feelings, to express their inner experience. Which is the same thing as increasing self-knowledge, a component of personal authenticity.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
Psychologically fucked up (neurotic, self-harming, suicidal or just plain ill-adjusted) people can make authentic music.

You just did it again.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
I see.  So you're one of those people who view other people solely as a form of entertainment.

Oh no, by no means solely! Here, though, largely. :)

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:26:23 PM
I am shocked.  Shocked, I tell you!

It's good for the digestion, you see, and keeps you awake without coffee expenditure!

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:27:38 PM
22 pages of holist.

If we get another 98 pages, holist will achieve his dream of topping the drug threads.

Because it's all about holist.  All the time.

You are one lame fuck. This is still partially about authenticity in art (and now in psychology), although someone does keep making it about me.

It's not me.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:38:51 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:27:38 PM
22 pages of holist.

If we get another 98 pages, holist will achieve his dream of topping the drug threads.

Because it's all about holist.  All the time.

You are one lame fuck. This is still partially about authenticity in art (and now in psychology), although someone does keep making it about me.

It's not me.

Fuck you, hipster.  :lol:

You took a thread about music and turned it into a thread about your favorite subject (ie, "holist").  Everything you touch turns to shit.  Get cancer.

:lulz:

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:36:04 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:23:12 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
I do think that psychologically fucked up people almost always tend to make authentic music when their music is about their psychological imperfections. Which implies that, while they may be a long way away from becoming a robust and mature human being, and indeed some may never make it, the music tends to be authentic when it aids self-knowledge.

What the fuck does that even MEAN?

I'll break it down for you.

Psychologically fucked up (neurotic, self-harming, suicidal or just plain ill-adjusted) people can make authentic music. There are in fact many examples among my very favourites.

It is my observation that when this happens (psychologically fucked up people making authentic, genuine music) their music tends to be mostly about their psychological problems.

So in a way, while not mature or robust or flexible and well-adjusted, they are in many or even most cases using the creative activity (the making of the music) to articulate their feelings, to express their inner experience. Which is the same thing as increasing self-knowledge, a component of personal authenticity.

:tldr:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:34:31 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
BEing reasonably mature and flexible and emotionally robust is not an indispensable requirement, but it certainly helps

Um. You've just said that authentic¹ music doesn't have to be authentic¹.

Well let's just introduce Authentic^1a and Authentic^1b, shall we?

I think it's plenty clear enough, of course also plenty imprecise enough for anyone into splitting hairs.

There is a process by which human beings become better at being human beings, call it the intelligent processing of experience, or self-actualisation, or the development of autonomy or authenticity. The somewhat idealised end result of that process is that reasonably mature, flexible and emotionally robust human who is, to use a lyrical description, ready to die at any moment.

Art (including music) that is created as a part of that process, to the extent it is created as part of that process, is authentic, to roughly the same extent.

 :tldr2:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:34:36 PM
He isn't attempting to communicate. 

Wrong.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:34:36 PM
This was never about the exchange of ideas.

Wrong again. It was, in fact it still is, though you are making a hell of a noise.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:34:36 PM
He's attention-whoring. 

Wrong again.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:34:36 PM
Successfully.

I know I shouldn't say it this but I have to: you sound jealous.

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 14, 2013, 08:33:05 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! :D ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

I am so sorry but I think you will find that communication requires a minimum of two at least minimally willing participants who are willing and able to do the minimum required in order to allow communication to take place at all.

 :joshua:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

:winner:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:47:11 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 14, 2013, 08:33:05 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! :D ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

I am so sorry but I think you will find that communication requires a minimum of two at least minimally willing participants who are willing and able to do the minimum required in order to allow communication to take place at all.

:crybaby:

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:youmad:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Ahahahah, fantastic.  :lulz:

:potd:

Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 14, 2013, 08:55:12 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Ahahahah, fantastic.  :lulz:

:potd:

Holist is a Philosopher™.

:lulz:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 06:32:23 PM
I'm going to take that weirdo's posts, give them the treatment, and then send them to that whackjob who has been emailing me.

That's brilliant!  :lulz:

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 07:33:51 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:25:15 PM
Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist...  :roll:

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

I already figured that out; it's because everyone else is wrong and Holist is a special misunderstood snowflake, like RWHN.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:lulz: No response to someone pointing out that you talked yourself into a circle, eh?

Holist, you're not particularly intelligent, you're predisposed to be a dick, and you're terrible at communicating. Those things in combination really make your posts not worth reading. Bye.

P.S. "Context". Learn what it means.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 09:43:33 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:lulz: No response to someone pointing out that you talked yourself into a circle, eh?

Holist, you're not particularly intelligent, you're predisposed to be a dick, and you're terrible at communicating. Those things in combination really make your posts not worth reading. Bye.

P.S. "Context". Learn what it means.

Fairly certain it's deliberate, or at least partially so.  This is why he announces his departure, then comes back a day or so later and answers EVERYTHING aimed his way, ensuring that any new conversations that have developed are buried under a pile of his butthurt assnuggets.

He's unable to socialize in any meaningful way at all, apparently.  He can only deal in terms of conflict.

I am subscribing the the descriptions of holist's inability to communicate detailed above. Because Roger made me do it

Quote from: Pæs on October 14, 2013, 09:59:59 PM
I am subscribing the the descriptions of holist's inability to communicate detailed above. Because Roger made me do it

DOUR™:  A Name You Can Trust.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:27:38 PM
22 pages of holist.

If we get another 98 pages, holist will achieve his dream of topping the drug threads.

Because it's all about holist.  All the time.

I bought the PPV Holist and RWHN rolling around in terribles suits in a pool of holy water.

Quote from: Jet City Hustle on October 14, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Holist is reminiscent of " I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant", isn't he?  :lol:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:23:39 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:22:57 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:12:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:08:35 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.

Done, as an endorsement.

Fame! At last!

Yeah.  You, Ssanf, and Babylon Horuv.   :lulz:

:spittake:

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Silence for the first 10 seconds or so, but then the powerful, thunderous farts start.  The volume of these rat-a-tat farts is incredible, along the lines of elk antlers clashing or a large tree cracking as it is felled.  There are rumors (unconfirmed) that local police have recorded these airbeefs at 103db.  Of course splattering sounds accompany these inhuman shit/air rumblings, and occasional a large volume of water/shit is heard to be splashed out on the floor.  The end of the BM is usually about a 45-second high pitch whiner fart, followed by 4 or 5 successive powershit deposits.  If you could put shit in those T-shirt cannons they use at sports arenas, and then shoot the shit into water at close range, then you could reproduce these splash sounds.  BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.  You actually feel bad for the toilet after this.  All the while ECH sings Opera in response to exceptionally disgusting discharges.  The end of the experience is a muffled rubbing sound as ECH wipes with bath towels, and the occasional slapping sound as he swats the soiled towels against the bathroom wall, creating messes that populate Washington lore regarding nightmare club experiences.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 15, 2013, 01:51:49 AM
Silence for the first 10 seconds or so, but then the powerful, thunderous farts start.  The volume of these rat-a-tat farts is incredible, along the lines of elk antlers clashing or a large tree cracking as it is felled.  There are rumors (unconfirmed) that local police have recorded these airbeefs at 103db.  Of course splattering sounds accompany these inhuman shit/air rumblings, and occasional a large volume of water/shit is heard to be splashed out on the floor.  The end of the BM is usually about a 45-second high pitch whiner fart, followed by 4 or 5 successive powershit deposits.  If you could put shit in those T-shirt cannons they use at sports arenas, and then shoot the shit into water at close range, then you could reproduce these splash sounds.  BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.  You actually feel bad for the toilet after this.  All the while ECH sings Opera in response to exceptionally disgusting discharges.  The end of the experience is a muffled rubbing sound as ECH wipes with bath towels, and the occasional slapping sound as he swats the soiled towels against the bathroom wall, creating messes that populate Washington lore regarding nightmare club experiences.

THREAD. REDEEMED.  :lulz:

Yo, the bullshit is redeeming
Authenticity left screaming
Farts knocked 'n fan factories
Losing youz just a breeze
Split like to a bottomless pit
Torn and juicy, filthy rich
Devoured babies smoothly rot
As warm banana blood-clot
Chocolate turtles on the run
From that concert cannon gun

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:40:16 PM
Fuck you, hipster.  :lol:

You took a thread about music and turned it into a thread about your favorite subject (ie, "holist").  Everything you touch turns to shit.  Get cancer.

:lulz:

You sound kind of adolescent. Have you tried swearing like a grownup, and didn't it work, or has it simply not occurred to you as yet, dear?

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:16:31 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:40:16 PM
Fuck you, hipster.  :lol:

You took a thread about music and turned it into a thread about your favorite subject (ie, "holist").  Everything you touch turns to shit.  Get cancer.

:lulz:

You sound kind of adolescent. Have you tried swearing like a grownup, and didn't it work, or has it simply not occurred to you as yet, dear?

:lord:

 :argh!:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:44:03 PM
:tldr2:

Now that's more like kindergarten.  :lulz:

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:17:50 PM
:argh!:

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 08:44:03 PM
:tldr2:

Now that's more like kindergarten.  :lulz:

:kojak:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Sit down. That's enough.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:49:52 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:youmad:

Only a little. And not primarily at you.  :)

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:19:25 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:49:52 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:youmad:

Only a little. And not primarily at you.  :)

:lord:

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 09:35:32 PM
I already figured that out; it's because everyone else is wrong and Holist is a special misunderstood snowflake, like RWHN.

Actually, you got two out of three. I am special (so are you, by the way, and so is an unusually high percentage of people on this board), I am misunderstood (wilfully by some, out of habit by others, out of lack of requisite intelligence by yet others), but I am no snowflake. Au contraire!!!

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 09:43:33 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

:lulz: No response to someone pointing out that you talked yourself into a circle, eh?

Holist, you're not particularly intelligent, you're predisposed to be a dick, and you're terrible at communicating. Those things in combination really make your posts not worth reading. Bye.

P.S. "Context". Learn what it means.

So this is a parting of ways. Sob-sob-sob, snivel. Fat teardrop on end of nose, or is it snot? Hard to tell.

Funny thing: I came to pretty much the same conclusion about you. Didn't stop me wanting to talk to you! Some of your posts are kind of boring and predictable, but some of them show promise, so I'll keep an eye out for ya! Cheers for now!

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 09:43:33 PM
:lulz: No response to someone pointing out that you talked yourself into a circle, eh?

Shit, almost forgot: I did respond to him, clearly and straightforwardly. Look it up.

His devolution to RWHN status is nearly complete.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 09:52:03 PM
He's unable to socialize in any meaningful way at all, apparently.  He can only deal in terms of conflict.

Uh-oh, who's the cheeky little psychologist now? How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot, ha?

Roger, if you just stopped being so bloody territorial about this board... never mind.

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:27:48 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 09:52:03 PM
He's unable to socialize in any meaningful way at all, apparently.  He can only deal in terms of conflict.

Uh-oh, who's the cheeky little psychologist now? How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot, ha?

Roger, if you just stopped being so bloody territorial about this board... never mind.

:crybaby:

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:27:48 PM

Roger, if you just stopped being so bloody territorial about this board... never mind.

MOAR

Quote from: Delcon on October 15, 2013, 08:45:30 PM

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:27:48 PM

Roger, if you just stopped being so bloody territorial about this board... never mind.

MOAR

Oh, this should be good.

:popcorn:

Quote from: holist on October 15, 2013, 05:27:48 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 14, 2013, 09:52:03 PM
He's unable to socialize in any meaningful way at all, apparently.  He can only deal in terms of conflict.

Uh-oh, who's the cheeky little psychologist now? How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot, ha?

Roger, if you just stopped being so bloody territorial about this board... never mind.

(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y137/Stella01904/smilies/dogfuck.gif)

Can't stop fapping to this thread. RWHN and Holist have the same father. I take it he fucked a mop and a bucket of water somewhere in a Denny's storage room.

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 16, 2013, 05:47:58 AM
Can't stop fapping to this thread.

Slap some butter on, so it don't break.

That is just disgusting.

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 16, 2013, 05:47:58 AM
Can't stop fapping to this thread. RWHN and Holist have the same father. I take it he fucked a mop and a bucket of water somewhere in a Denny's storage room.

I think the mop and the bucket of water fucked him.

Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 16, 2013, 04:53:52 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 16, 2013, 05:47:58 AM
Can't stop fapping to this thread. RWHN and Holist have the same father. I take it he fucked a mop and a bucket of water somewhere in a Denny's storage room.

I think the mop and the bucket of water fucked him.

Is my old father you slander! Apologise!

Quote from: holist on October 16, 2013, 05:48:39 PM

Apologise!

An ominous sign. It always makes me cringe. Sheer terror is likely to ensue.

Anyone that "S"s their apologize or "U"s their color cannot be trusted. Let it be known that we will NOT negotiate with terrorists.

Best post you've made here, son.

His avatar.   :lulz:

Fucking win, right there.

Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on October 16, 2013, 04:53:52 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 16, 2013, 05:47:58 AM
Can't stop fapping to this thread. RWHN and Holist have the same father. I take it he fucked a mop and a bucket of water somewhere in a Denny's storage room.

I think the mop and the bucket of water fucked him.

Llamas?

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

:lulz: Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Rwhn does not understand what a man crush is. Its a bromance that may or may not be requited. We dont know yet. The drunken youre my awesome friend moment may or may not happen. I used to have a man crush on waffles. Now its a bromance but due to atlantic ocean we have yet to go on a mandate. Even if single would not bonk. Thats not the nature of it. Besides im hypocritically antisexually attracted to facial hair. Looks cool but i dont dig it.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 07:30:59 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
(...) I shall make it as clear as I possibly can to you that when you throw in "It's a pity" with your statements, you are implying that you feel sorry that the person(s) you are addressing are just not quite smart enough to see your point of view in the proper light, that if only they were as enlightened, studied or intelligent enough that your carefully worded arguments in support of the truth that there is some music that is "authentic" and others that is not, and that you are especially qualified to point out which is which, they would immediately come to your side of the argument.
That in there lies the particular instance of your condescension with regards to this discussion. 

Hey, hey, let's just stop there for a second (the bold in the above is mine). I am best qualified to assess what I am implying (I was there, subjectively experiencing the intentions and the emotions that surrounded the writing of that message) and I tell you quite categorically that I implied no such thing. I agree that I could be read as implying that (malicious intent is extremely easy to read into even the plainest, most concrete communication, that is why paranoid people have such an easy time of it), but actually, I did not imply it, nothing was further from my mind. As I have already explained (and sorry, once more, I happen to be the number one authority as to my opinions - my gut reactions still carry a slight, largely xenophobic bias, but I am aware of that and looking out for it), all I meant was, I was powerless to stop the breakdown of communication with Nigel, I'm not even quite sure I understand why it is happening (I have seen plenty of evidence that Nigel is easily capable of being highly nuanced), and I was sorry to see it happen. Apart from the german accent thing, I have no idea why you attribute condescension to me, but it's you doing the attributing.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic, when had you just literately walked away for a breather instead of sharing that you were going to

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

thus making it quite apparent that you have some kind of butthurt because we were disagreeing with you. I had infact intended to more carefully re-read your points but was prevented because, well fuck me, I had to devote my attentions to actually learning about how art and literature are and have been critiqued throughout history with regards to the western literary and artistic traditions. I still do not see any merit in going over your original points because it seems to me that you are just nursing the butthurt because people are disagreeing with you and have put forth reasons that you may be choosing to create a definition of what is "real music" that arbitrarily favors the kind of music you prefer to listen to.

I understand and disagree with your position. Simple counterexample: even in my first formulation, I took pains to say I wanted a conceptual toolkit that allowed me to distinguish music that is "the result of earnest, genuine creative effort", yet music I don't like and don't listen to. If I simply wished to define "real music" to ensure that it accorded with my taste in music, I would not have bothered, don't you think?

Well of course you know what youre actually implying. We dont apparently. Thats not our failure its yours. And it has nothing to do with xenophobia. Weve had plenty of posters past present and im sure future who arent native anglophones (and remember there are no native born americans or brits running this forum.) and they get along just fine. I wouldnt agree that you sound condescending. The appropriate word is pretentious. Im still willing to give you a fair shake so as a friendly heads up you do sound like an assbag right now and a selfimportant one at that.

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 14, 2013, 08:46:52 PM
So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

Polar bear pissing on a mooses tree to tell a grey wolf to get off its lawn itt.

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 14, 2013, 01:18:01 AM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:23:46 PM

Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 13, 2013, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Mr. Bear on October 13, 2013, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Not Your Average Mean on October 12, 2013, 01:46:25 PM
Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

:lulz: Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Well I mean a man that likes other men is basically a woman. Right?

OHHHHH now it makes sense.  :lol:

If I did like men I would at least want them to fill a suit properly, or afford someone who can tailor them one.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 17, 2013, 07:14:08 PM

Quote from: holist on October 14, 2013, 07:30:59 PM

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
(...) I shall make it as clear as I possibly can to you that when you throw in "It's a pity" with your statements, you are implying that you feel sorry that the person(s) you are addressing are just not quite smart enough to see your point of view in the proper light, that if only they were as enlightened, studied or intelligent enough that your carefully worded arguments in support of the truth that there is some music that is "authentic" and others that is not, and that you are especially qualified to point out which is which, they would immediately come to your side of the argument.
That in there lies the particular instance of your condescension with regards to this discussion. 

Hey, hey, let's just stop there for a second (the bold in the above is mine). I am best qualified to assess what I am implying (I was there, subjectively experiencing the intentions and the emotions that surrounded the writing of that message) and I tell you quite categorically that I implied no such thing. I agree that I could be read as implying that (malicious intent is extremely easy to read into even the plainest, most concrete communication, that is why paranoid people have such an easy time of it), but actually, I did not imply it, nothing was further from my mind. As I have already explained (and sorry, once more, I happen to be the number one authority as to my opinions - my gut reactions still carry a slight, largely xenophobic bias, but I am aware of that and looking out for it), all I meant was, I was powerless to stop the breakdown of communication with Nigel, I'm not even quite sure I understand why it is happening (I have seen plenty of evidence that Nigel is easily capable of being highly nuanced), and I was sorry to see it happen. Apart from the german accent thing, I have no idea why you attribute condescension to me, but it's you doing the attributing.

Quote from: Don Coyote on October 13, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic, when had you just literately walked away for a breather instead of sharing that you were going to

Quote from: holist on October 09, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

thus making it quite apparent that you have some kind of butthurt because we were disagreeing with you. I had infact intended to more carefully re-read your points but was prevented because, well fuck me, I had to devote my attentions to actually learning about how art and literature are and have been critiqued throughout history with regards to the western literary and artistic traditions. I still do not see any merit in going over your original points because it seems to me that you are just nursing the butthurt because people are disagreeing with you and have put forth reasons that you may be choosing to create a definition of what is "real music" that arbitrarily favors the kind of music you prefer to listen to.

I understand and disagree with your position. Simple counterexample: even in my first formulation, I took pains to say I wanted a conceptual toolkit that allowed me to distinguish music that is "the result of earnest, genuine creative effort", yet music I don't like and don't listen to. If I simply wished to define "real music" to ensure that it accorded with my taste in music, I would not have bothered, don't you think?

Well of course you know what youre actually implying. We dont apparently. Thats not our failure its yours. And it has nothing to do with xenophobia. Weve had plenty of posters past present and im sure future who arent native anglophones (and remember there are no native born americans or brits running this forum.) and they get along just fine. I wouldnt agree that you sound condescending. The appropriate word is pretentious. Im still willing to give you a fair shake so as a friendly heads up you do sound like an assbag right now and a selfimportant one at that.

Problem solved: authentic pretentiousness scatters before the revelation of itself.

Quote from: Delcon on October 16, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
Anyone that "S"s their apologize or "U"s their color cannot be trusted. Let it be known that we will NOT negotiate with terrorists.

You are aware we are eurotrash here right? Where do you think the server is hosted?

Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:41:12 PM

Quote from: Delcon on October 16, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
Anyone that "S"s their apologize or "U"s their color cannot be trusted. Let it be known that we will NOT negotiate with terrorists.

You are aware we are eurotrash here right? Where do you think the server is hosted?

Um, you are talking to Delcon.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:41:43 PM

Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:41:12 PM

Quote from: Delcon on October 16, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
Anyone that "S"s their apologize or "U"s their color cannot be trusted. Let it be known that we will NOT negotiate with terrorists.

You are aware we are eurotrash here right? Where do you think the server is hosted?

Um, you are talking to Delcon.

Who's Delcon, Declan's bizzarro world alternate?

Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:44:09 PM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:41:43 PM

Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2013, 09:41:12 PM

Quote from: Delcon on October 16, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
Anyone that "S"s their apologize or "U"s their color cannot be trusted. Let it be known that we will NOT negotiate with terrorists.

You are aware we are eurotrash here right? Where do you think the server is hosted?

Um, you are talking to Delcon.

Who's Delcon, Declan's bizzarro world alternate?

Imagine Poptard with slightly less OCD behavior.

Awesome, I've missed DEC15 ever since he decided to spam gore pics.