While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[spryllino]

I'm not a fan of atonality, but I think minimalism is a step backwards even from that. Atonality is, generally speaking, a horrific sonic mess, but at least it's interesting if you can steel yourself to listen to it, whereas minimalism, in my experience, tends to be just as messy in different ways - in terms of absense of interesting or easily perceptible structure, or tonality, or melody, which are the things that hold most decent music together - but much more boring, if that makes any sense. Anyway, that's my view, for what it's worth.

Also, why can't everybody be remotely nice, and try and act, in good faith, reasonably? I mean, some of you surely cannot genuinely think that you actually behave in a reasonable fashion when you make the sorts of remarks that many of you do.

 

[Terrance888]

......






*snip*

I am supremely confident that stating my own opinions, conclusions and observations with only the intention of telling others what said opinions, conclusions and observations are does NOT construct an argument. It would if I used logic to format these said opinions, conclusions and observations in the attempt to prove that my vision is more correct or valid than yours; which I have tried to avoid there.

It's OK, it happens to me a lot in real life. I say "I don't want to argue, but just for your info the way I see it is X" and I try to make it as short and blunt as possible, explaining the circumstances of those views without backing them or trying use them. Unfortunately, I usually get cut off in the middle by a real argument.

Example. I go to school A which is rather wealthy and there is a transfer student form school b which was not. We are talking about the views school A students have of school B.

"From what I can see- and I admit I usually only talk with rather smart students- is that we have every respect for our competitors in school B. They can usually match everything we throw at them, and throw more back besides. They are more committed to practice and to polish, and personally I believe the only reason us School A students stand a chance is because of talent, seeing as we don't practice nearly as much as they do."

He replies.

"We don't see the same way at all. I am not affiliated with any group of classes- I have both AP and Comp classes, and from what I can tell is that most people see School B as a negro grotto in da hood where nothing good ever comes out."

"I'm sorry that people see that way, but although I never seen such opinions, I don't doubt that they are true."

"Shut up, we disagree and there is no way to convince me. So this argument is over and I won."<-wut.

We took our samples from wildly different segments of the population. I saw that and said it. he didn't and felt it was a matter of honor now to contest me in trying to tell him; no, School A'ers don't ALL think School B'ers are negro hoodies. I know people who don't. I don't. He closed his mind, made it a matter of HIS honor as a transfer from school B against an entitled school A student, and cut off anything we could share each other.

Of course, if there is a way I said it wrong and how I can make such statements without confrontation, I would like advice. TLK simply pointed out a major flaw of mine and perhaps I can get it fixed this time.

 

[North King]

I'm not a fan of atonality, but I think minimalism is a step backwards even from that. Atonality is, generally speaking, a horrific sonic mess, but at least it's interesting if you can steel yourself to listen to it, whereas minimalism, in my experience, tends to be just as messy in different ways - in terms of absense of interesting or easily perceptible structure, or tonality, or melody, which are the things that hold most decent music together - but much more boring, if that makes any sense. Anyway, that's my view, for what it's worth.

It's a different way of experiencing music, for sure, and in that sense it's hardly Western at all. That is to say, minimalism -- to me, I'm actually not well read on the historical background of the movement -- really has its roots in drone music and stuff like that, traditions which primarily exist in non-European regions, like Indian classical music, or Central Asian chants, and so on. Thus, it certainly doesn't have a sense of progression or purpose when you look at it from a tonal perspective, where everything's literally "supposed" to be going somewhere.

[Incidentally, I wrote a paper (which was horribly written at the last second, so I'm not going to share it here) which argued that minimalism is the child of atonality, because we needed atonality to shake us out of this nonsense that required all music to progress to a cadence in order to feel "complete".]

So I can totally see where you're coming from, but IMHO it's a matter of perspective.

 

[Crezth]

So I guess labeling several members of the community as "certifiable idiots" who should "expect to be laughed at" is perfectly acceptable?

You are being totally unreasonable. The sentence you extract that quote from is a hypothetical and in no way an explicit reference to members of this community.

 

[Eltain]

Talk and Magnification are my favorite albums by Yes.

Check out A.C.T if you get a chance and enjoy Jethro Tull and Yes. They have a good sound and have a good variety of music.

Edit: A.C.T - Last Epic

 

[Angst]

I like Apocalyptica, Nightwish and a Within Temptation.

Oh, that's symphonic rock. Then I don't listen to it very much, no.

Dream Theater is not my cup of tea either.

And does this count as minimalism?

It borrows heavily from it, at least. Minimalism has influenced a lot. "True" minimalism is a compositional concept and usually utilized in modern orchestras and pianos.

EDIT: Woah, the 5 minute mark surprised me. I think it qualifies at minimalism really. It's excellent.

 

[North King]

EDIT: Woah, the 5 minute mark surprised me. I think it qualifies at minimalism really. It's excellent.

Yeah, that song is actually pretty deceptively complex. Thanks for posting it, Iggy.

 

[TheLizardKing]

EDIT: After posting this, I realized the full extent of how much I don't care, and I don't wish to keep propagating it. So it has disappeared, in a flash. Also, I'd rather spend my team eating club sandwiches and yelling at walls then attempting to really involve myself in "community" business.

I will leave-

I don't care enough about any of this to really have an opinion or feeling on the argument that keeps popping up. I guess I just find that the condescending 'holier than thou posts' which have always been prevalent here (but have seen a recent increase in activity) are highly frustrating.

 

[Starlife]

You are being totally unreasonable. The sentence you extract that quote from is a hypothetical and in no way an explicit reference to members of this community.

As I'm not being remunerated here, I don't see why the hell I should be expected to spend hours dealing with the economic equivalent of YECs here. If you want to debate economics at least crack open a textbook or attend at least attend Economics 101. Otherwise expect to be laughed at.

Just as my post is a hypothetical about Masada's teaching quality. I didn't say, "I've seen Masada teach, and my gawd, it's awful!" I said, "it's questionable" he can teach well "based on his comments", just as Masada is assuming that teaching members of the community about economics can be likened to teaching YECs, based on those members' comments. That's the entire point of the comparison.

So basically, Masada is saying that teaching members of the community is like teaching YECs, which are filled with certifiable idiots who should expect to be laughed at (which is where I get some of my fodder for criticizing his teaching methods in a justifiable manner, or at least, as justifiable as it is for him to deride people here [which is not justifiable at all]), yet then he distances himself from those particular comments because they don't apply to members here? Do you not see the double standard? "So many dumb people in YECs, omg." / "Trying to teach people who NES is like trying to teach a YEC, omg." / "Expect to be laughed at, suckas!"

I'm ready to let this fizzle, so I'll no longer reply to anything about it.

It's a different way of experiencing music, for sure, and in that sense it's hardly Western at all. That is to say, minimalism -- to me, I'm actually not well read on the historical background of the movement -- really has its roots in drone music and stuff like that, traditions which primarily exist in non-European regions, like Indian classical music, or Central Asian chants, and so on. Thus, it certainly doesn't have a sense of progression or purpose when you look at it from a tonal perspective, where everything's literally "supposed" to be going somewhere.

[Incidentally, I wrote a paper (which was horribly written at the last second, so I'm not going to share it here) which argued that minimalism is the child of atonality, because we needed atonality to shake us out of this nonsense that required all music to progress to a cadence in order to feel "complete".]

But a lot of minimalism has a progression and purpose beyond a tonal perspective, and so do the musical traditions you reference. I think that's why I find it so appealing. It doesn't have to be exceptionally magnificent or exceptionally obtuse. It may be annoying that I always liken music to art when I talk to you, but there really are clear analogies in my mind.

That Homeworld credits song is great. I had no idea about that.

 

[North King]

But a lot of minimalism has a progression and purpose beyond a tonal perspective, and so do the musical traditions you reference. I think that's why I find it so appealing. It doesn't have to be exceptionally magnificent or exceptionally obtuse. It may be annoying that I always liken music to art when I talk to you, but there really are clear analogies in my mind.

Nah, I actually appreciate it a lot, since a lot of the other arts are impenetrable to me where music makes sense. It's a nice two-way street.

And yeah, it totally has a real purpose to it, it's just indecipherable in the tonal tradition... which is exactly the point. Western classical music pre-1900 -- even pre-1970 -- was a ridiculously narrow category. The main good thing about the latter half of the twentieth century is that it's brought in a much less monolithic perspective on music (and art in general), allowing us to access a whole world of traditions without prejudice; the first half of the twentieth century mostly focused on studying those traditions in a very removed, anthropological and frankly racist sense.

/snooty artist

 

[Angst]

I can understand where spryllino is coming from though, however, I'd phrase minimalism's problems of entry differently; I do think there is often a recognizable structure, specifically in the fundamental pattern the songs evolve from, however, it is often about this fundamental pattern which is often quite obscure and it doesn't "resolve" very much, there is often little tension, which is in the genre replaced by slow evolution of the pattern, which is why there is a difficulty of entry. You often don't "get" what's going on because it doesn't often distinguish itself.

I don't think it's particularly messy, it's just not particularly clear-cut, either. Personally, I could like more variations in dynamics or some kind of melodic structure which it often lacks - something I know that North King incorporates and something I try to do myself even while embracing the boredom of repetition.

I like North King's way of putting it, that atonality destroyed the silly cadence dogma and that minimalism is the product of that. I don't know enough about it, still learning about cadences; things that are beautiful, but not things I attempt to aim for myself.

Something minimalism usually lacks is, for example, if you have heard Phrygian Gates, when the harmonies and dynamics suddenly go powerful and very low key with a bass motive - that's pretty cool because it creates so much contrast to the rest of the piece. Phrygian Gates is one of the pieces I really like.

Now that Iggy posted something, I'd like to share this beautiful thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwQeZh6rP0

Imo they incorporate all the right elements of structual tension and simple recognizable melodies and actually do repetition quite well. Them, and Tortoise, were the two bands that I know borrow heavily from minimalism, which is why I checked out the compositional minimalist to begin with. It's actually their use of repetetive elements I attempt to incorporate in my piano pieces. Example: The Joy of Victory is Waving Wildly and Inspirited/stupidly (English title)

I have a shorter piece by Godspeed than that of course. They have a more rocky, raw sound on their newest album. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXdF9uhVrI0

 

[Starlife]

I like North King's way of putting it, that atonality destroyed the silly cadence dogma and that minimalism is the product of that. I don't know enough about it, still learning about cadences; things that are beautiful, but not things I attempt to aim for myself.

That's a good way to put it. I like the middle ground, personally.

Plus, that 20 minute Godspeed song is currently playing.

 

[Angst]

I am very happy to approve. I think that's the band today that gets closest to the Beethovian-romantizing ideal of the sublime. Although that's just a personal opinion. Very personal.

 

[Starlife]

Nah, I actually appreciate it a lot, since a lot of the other arts are impenetrable to me where music makes sense. It's a nice two-way street.

And yeah, it totally has a real purpose to it, it's just indecipherable in the tonal tradition... which is exactly the point. Western classical music pre-1900 -- even pre-1970 -- was a ridiculously narrow category. The main good thing about the latter half of the twentieth century is that it's brought in a much less monolithic perspective on music (and art in general), allowing us to access a whole world of traditions without prejudice; the first half of the twentieth century mostly focused on studying those traditions in a very removed, anthropological and frankly racist sense.

/snooty artist

I agree wholeheartedly. The early twentieth century saw a fascination with native cultures in "primitivism" (an extremely offensive word nowadays) which expanded into a whole mess later on. Nowadays, at least in visual arts, influences and subject matter are incredibly eclectic and not always self-aware.

Kinda unrelated, but the problem I see in the current academic art world is one we've talked about before: attaching meaning to what might work better as meaningless, or at least the unrelenting need to describe every influence and detail of a work, eventually rendering it sterile and incapable of being experienced for what it is. In addition to that, is the so-called "specialist syndrome", in that an artist is successful for a single "type" of image, and reproduces essentially the same image in a hundred different ways. Eclectic influences does not always create an eclectic body of work. I'm prejudiced in what I prefer, though... absolutely. I think having a style and purpose is completely acceptable, but I try to encourage students to exhaust possibilities before locking themselves into a single aesthetic (one that, with another instructor, they might go on to describe in a wordy, meaningless artist statement). It can be a good thing to be known as "that guy who does screenprints of sea creatures," but it can also be a terrible form of suffocation, for both viewer and artist alike (especially when you discover that a dozen printmakers are essentially doing the same thing, and just in one state). Might be better to be known as "that guy who creates an entire sea in the gallery space" -- if one can get the viewer to experience the work so all-inclusively, and not see works as a checklist, then I applaud.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It began here on Nov 8th.

worst discussion of economics evar.

Seriously, Symphony, just shut up. You're one of the most disgusting people in this community.

And continued for several pages. I stepped in with:

Moderator Action: Hey guys, these ^^^ and more that followed are over the line and just breed more of the same. Please stop. Let's not open old wounds.

We had a bit of a rest then things picked up once more

Hey now. That's not fair at all.

I wasn't particularly offended, but it was basically a post jumping in to say x or y was dumb while not really adding to it. That's why I made my own "lowercase nonsrs reply", I got Masada wasn't particularly serious. I didn't want to point it out further, but now you ask: No, I was not offended. Yes, I was annoyed. It was condescending while not attempting to give us a hand.

I don't like the behavior that has sometimes been promoted in here. It often makes me feel unwelcome if dense enough. That's not healthy for the community I think.

That said, honestly, I do not think Masada's comment was symptomatic of this behavior. It was, to me, a debate problem, and not a community problem. Not this time.

Wait, did I just drag myself into this, again!? Nooooo

Yes you did...

The Life Cycle of Internet Conversations.

Controversial Topic
Back and Forth
Troll Attacks
Anti-Trolls
Trolololol
Moderator Alpha Strike
Take a deep breath.
Controversial Topic.

I was hoping that at this point the personal snipping would stop and the other more interesting topics would continue: NESing and music. It was not to be so. Masada made his position clear, but did so without getting personal. This of course revived interest in the topic.

I'm not a free substitute for Economics 101.

EDIT: I'll elaborate further. Most people have long held opinions on economic questions. Yet the vast majority of those people haven't even the decency to develop the least bit of understanding of economics. The result is frustration. I likened it to Iggy teaching YECs about biology. One can do it, but one has to have the patience of a (secular) Saint and a willingness to deal with certifiable idiots. I have enough issues dealing with undergrads when I'm being paid. As I'm not being remunerated here, I don't see why the hell I should be expected to spend hours dealing with the economic equivalent of YECs here. If you want to debate economics at least crack open a textbook or attend at least attend Economics 101. Otherwise expect to be laughed at.

Sym D added his analysis, again without any inflammatory language.

Here's a question I have: why does Masada need to teach you anything? This isn't 1500 or 1850 where you need an expert around to instruct you. It's not even 1980 where you need to go out and buy a book on the subject. It's 2012. We have the internet. There's a lot of free stuff on it. You know what's a pretty cool aspect of learning? Personal initiative to learn a subject that interests you.

Let's spend two minutes on Google looking for free educational resources. This seems like a pretty solid intro on macroeconomics from Simon Fraser University and it's basically a free textbook.
There's Coursera for more esoteric topics. About.com has a simple but decently equipped set of introductory articles. Boom, done.

Why are we here arguing that a professional should spend a huge amount of time teaching us intro level stuff again?

Not to leave the last word with others, LJ turns up the emotional level a couple of notches with this and carries the conversation back to its origins (bolded).

Why should I look it up?

I didn't partake in the discussion before he showed up, did I? At least I don't recall doing it. I presented nothing of economics that he would criticize; even Symphony's help is misdirected. I attempted to act as nothing but an observer.

And, well, in an argument, Masada showing up saying "lol wrong" just doesn't sustain itself. I can look anything up, but even if I did, it was not Masada giving me a solution. It was Symphony. Masada's first post was pointless. Symphony D's following posts weren't. Yours weren't. Masada's second post weren't. Much of what you've said afterwards is plenty helpful. I still do stand by my original statement, to Masada's original post.

For I didn't think Masada's post was to Ron Paul specifically as the discussion didn't just touch upon him, it honestly just seemed like more more broad swoop at everyone in the discussion; that they were all unfit to discuss that topic and that they should feel bad. Again, that's most probably true. But just jumping in like that does not showcase that. It just makes everyone's time a little worse.

EDIT: Nah, screw this. I'll stay out of topic. Won't reply on this again. I'll probably get called an attention whore again in a minute.

so

What's much more interesting: Do any of you like musical minimalism? I've been exploring it for some time now, and I think it is an alloy of emotions ready for mining; especially for the composers.

Your valiant attempt to undo the first part of your post did not go unnoticed though.

So three days after its start, Starlife jumps back in and ups the ante with

No one ever asked Masada to teach anything; I believe Iggy simply said he could have had a different approach to discourse than the (some would say justified; others unjustified) asinine one he took.

Besides, having vast knowledge on a subject does not necessarily make you good at illuminating others. Given Masada's comments, it's questionable that he's even capable of teaching the subject in any memorable, meaningful, or useful way. So lj, others: instead of pressing him or blaming him or keeping this going, just be thankful you aren't the undergrads who have to put up with him every week.

That said, while I don't know much about economics, several posts above this one have extremely questionable views of education in the 21st century. But, I don't have the time to explain it, and I personally won't get anything out of it, so I'll just leave you with this.

Your post turned back the clock on what I had hoped was a dead discussion that had been turning ugly. You added the mean spiritedness back into the thread. Hence:

I don't have a problem with this conversation until/unless it gets mean and personal. Disagreements are to be expected, but there is no reason to be mean, spiteful or to engage in name calling. If you don't like another member of our community, join a game they are playing an stomp them there.

And now this:

So I guess labeling several members of the community as "certifiable idiots" who should "expect to be laughed at" is perfectly acceptable?

Note that I said "questionable" and "based on his comments", and was not stating a fact. I was actually attempting to be conciliatory, and trying to steer the conversation away (like, "Hey guys, maybe he isn't even a good teacher, so stop worrying about it.") While I respectfully apologize for offending you, Birdjaguar, I hope it is known that what I said is no more mean-spirited than Masada labeling forum members as stupid. He has a degree in economics, which gives him a license to deride; I have a degree in education, so were I to adopt similar conduct, I would likewise have a license to deride (based on such comments as this, which displays a lack of knowledge of appropriate and effective teaching methods and basic pedagogy). That's not my style, though, so I was more making a point.

Whatever you were trying to do, it didn't work. It did nothing keep the discussion amicable. Your goal seems to be "Hey, he said something bad, why can't I? You didn't call him out, why me?"

Well, my goal is different. I don try to identify every instance of bad posting and infract for it. I try to steer the larger conversation to be civil without calling out each and every post. As this topic of conversation ebbed flowed over the past few days, I was hoping we were past the animosity. Your post was pushing it back, so I drew attention to it to keep it from getting personal again. Were you infracted? Banned? No, just used as an example of what to stop doing. But you persist:

Just as my post is a hypothetical about Masada's teaching quality. I didn't say, "I've seen Masada teach, and my gawd, it's awful!" I said, "it's questionable" he can teach well "based on his comments", just as Masada is assuming that teaching members of the community about economics can be likened to teaching YECs, based on those members' comments. That's the entire point of the comparison.

So basically, Masada is saying that teaching members of the community is like teaching YECs, which are filled with certifiable idiots who should expect to be laughed at (which is where I get some of my fodder for criticizing his teaching methods in a justifiable manner, or at least, as justifiable as it is for him to deride people here [which is not justifiable at all]), yet then he distances himself from those particular comments because they don't apply to members here? Do you not see the double standard? "So many dumb people in YECs, omg." / "Trying to teach people who NES is like trying to teach a YEC, omg." / "Expect to be laughed at, suckas!"

I'm ready to let this fizzle, so I'll no longer reply to anything about it.

Moderator Action: Good. Do not reply unless you want to discuss it via pm with me. You want to see a double standard because you think it supports your antagonism. There is only one standard for me: Be thoughtful, have fun and be nice. If that is too difficult a standard for you, or anyone else, then we will have issues.

Moderator Action: This topic is officially closed. Thanks for your cooperation.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

EDIT: By topic I mean the discussion that originated back on Nov 8 regarding economics. The thread is not being locked.

 

[Terrance888]

So about music. I don't really like or dislike anything, although I do have a clear hatred for vocals that make no sense whatsoever (which hence, drives me away from about 90% of pop music)- however, if it is FOREIGN vocals and is decently done I don't care at all about them.

On the Minimalist/Atonal debate, I would say from an examination of what they are and categorizing of several tracks which I am more familiar with/have listened to before, I would probably be more the former. However, my speakers are current out of commission so therefore would be unable to listen to your well provided examples.

 

[Starlife]

So about music. I don't really like or dislike anything, although I do have a clear hatred for vocals that make no sense whatsoever (which hence, drives me away from about 90% of pop music)- however, if it is FOREIGN vocals and is decently done I don't care at all about them.

I enjoy pop music that uses vocals sort of like another instrument (so basically taking influence from African music and Buddhist chants, though not always overtly). Paul Simon's Graceland comes to mind, but there are hundreds of examples. In some of these instances, I don't really care if the lyrics don't make complete sense, because the execution is done well (unless the lyrics are on par with "Friday" or something, then I have problems ).

 

[Terrance888]

I agree. Vocals as an instrument usually falls within the 10% I find decent when well done. Something I enjoy is "Baba Yetu" of Christopher Tinn fame. I always play that song when I update my NES, as well as "Calling All Dawns".

 

[Daftpanzer]

-> Just want to say I really appreciate the conversation here recently, skipping the personal attacks, very interesting ^^

 

[~Darkening~]

Link to video.


....Sorry.