"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:49:59 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:
Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)


not if the test removes the sightinig.
Then, the test does not confirm anything about what one hears when
sighted.

Who said we cannot manipulate what the subject sees independant of
what he hears?

You definitely can do that. That's how "facilitated communication with the
autistic" was proved to be fake. The reaction of those who promoted this
idea was also fascinating, just like the reaction of audiophiles when they
flunk a blind test.

Norm Strong

(Chevdo) said:

Why would you need an MRI? A microphone will capture the audio with or without
shakti stones applied, and an analysis can be made of the recordings to see if
there is any difference. If there is no difference in what you're listening
to, why would you think there would be a difference in your head, depicted by
an MRI? The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
to his stereo. And if that's the case, why assume the magical force would show
up on an MRI, when MRIs are not known to depict the influence of magical
forces?


Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying it"
restricted to audible stimuli only?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal said:

The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
to his stereo.

Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying it"
restricted to audible stimuli only?

Welcome to 'borg reality, where staying awake is pure pain.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying
it" restricted to audible stimuli only?

Depends how you define "listening to music".

If you're saying that many people who call themselves music
lovers are actually gear sluts, well then... ;-)

"Arny Krueger" said:


Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying
it" restricted to audible stimuli only?

Depends how you define "listening to music".


Listening while at the same time feeling good about your speakers,
amps, whatever......

I like looking at the tube's glow while listening, it enhances the
enjoyment for me.


If you're saying that many people who call themselves music
lovers are actually gear sluts, well then... ;-)


*Me* a gear slut? C'mon now! You never saw one of my amplifiers then!

I just revel in knowing that my newly built hybrids will provide 20
Veff into 8 to 0.5 ohms without sweating :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire
airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill) is performing "high"
art,
while Nathan Milstein playing Brahms' "Violin Concerto in D Major, op.
77."
is "lower" art because there are numerous violinists capable of playing
it?


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.

wrote in message
...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:49:59 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:
Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)


not if the test removes the sightinig.
Then, the test does not confirm anything about what one hears when
sighted.

Who said we cannot manipulate what the subject sees independant of
what he hears?

You definitely can do that. That's how "facilitated communication with
the autistic" was proved to be fake. The reaction of those who promoted
this idea was also fascinating, just like the reaction of audiophiles when
they flunk a blind test.


There is nothing to flunk.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying
it" restricted to audible stimuli only?

Depends how you define "listening to music".

If you're saying that many people who call themselves music lovers are
actually gear sluts, well then... ;-)


Well, maybe they can meet up with their
proverbial 'anti-matter', i.e., test sluts
and they can both annihilate themselves.

wrote:

In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.


No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux spiritual piece of
dreck that thing is.

Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

Those are the distinctions only
the elitist make.

Said the politically correct, me-too, wannabe...

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.

ScottW

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:ub0Ye.180284$wr.178976@clgrps12...
: In article ,
: says...
:
:
: "Chevdo" wrote in message
: news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90...
: : In article , says...
: :
: : It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
: : are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.
: :
: :
: : but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. If
: : shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it
: : ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone
: : believers? Or are there any shakti stone believers? Maybe just ones that
: : believe on weekends?
: :
:
: ..that still doesn't give us any indication of what 'work' entails.
: So, does the great Randy accept 'proof' in the form of NMR scans
: - with / without Shakti stones being present -
: of brain activity being markedly different in say the cortex area :-) ??
: (listening to the same fragment of music)
:
: Randi and the applicant work out a protocol for testing that is agreeable to
: both parties before testing commences.
:
...leaving him ample opportunity to cop out of a potentially costly affair:
all he has to do is say there was no agreement on the testing protocol.
...wonder if he would allow a third party to work out a protocol ??

: Too bad i haven't got an MRI in the shack, always some use for a cool million
:
: Why would you need an MRI? A microphone will capture the audio with or without
: shakti stones applied, and an analysis can be made of the recordings to see if
: there is any difference. If there is no difference in what you're listening
: to, why would you think there would be a difference in your head, depicted by
: an MRI? The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
: force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
: to his stereo. And if that's the case, why assume the magical force would show
: up on an MRI, when MRIs are not known to depict the influence of magical
: forces?

...and this is where you are wrong. simple example: play a piece first listening
in your usual way, then with your fingers stuck in your ears - same microphone
response, eh ;-)
..presumably not the same experience.
ok, that may be a lame example, it _does_ make the point that the microphone is
not in fact recording the experience of the listener.

unless it is broken, if it is 38.3 Celsius your thermometer will indicate so ..
each
and every time. same with all well functioning measurement equipment.
this, however, is not the case for experience, so _same_ sense input does _not_
equate to same conscious perception, not for different persons, not (necessarily)
for the same person on different occasions.
your mental 'equipment analogy' does not hold !

so by establishing something in the sense input department you do not at all
proof something about the experience at the end of a long chain of processes.
the reason i put in some smilies the the same problem arises when using
MRI scans, it is a step in the direction of objectivating the inherently
subjective
conscious experience, but you can not 'prove' a one-to-one mapping of some
of the patterns established there on certain conscious states.

does adding Shakti stones to your setup change the output from your setup ?
extremely unlikely, nothing known in physics could even begin to model in
what way this could be the case - and measurement could establish that the
output from the speakers was, in fact unaltered. can we therefore conclude
the listeners experience cannot be changed by the presence of said stones?
Nope. The listener could be conditioned by expectation effects, by having
been effected aestetically by the visual aspect, etc.
So could it have an effect when the listener is unaware of the presence of
the Shakti stones ? This is a more problematic position, because it implies
there is some mechanism that makes Ss influence consciousness or at least
some of the processes that result in the conscious music experience.

The short answer would be: no, because we assume consciousness is the
result of some biochemical and electrical state of various parts of the brain
(and to some extend of other parts of the body) and there is no known
physical process by which this could be influenced by Ss.
The long answer would be: scientific paradigms being provisional, it is
always possible that in the future such a process could be discovered.
A true sceptic might say that the very foundation of science, the materialistic
worldview, is a belief, unprovable and therefore possibly erronous

njoy,
Rudy

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.

Bob


Condescending! Arrogant! Evident sociopathic mental illness! A pretty
accurate self-portrait of you.

In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.

No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux
spiritual piece of dreck that thing is.

Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.

That's rather an extreme view. But I found it, at the very least, "obvious"
and intellectually pretentious. (And no wisecracks, please.)

William Sommerwerck said:

That's rather an extreme view. But I found it, at the very least, "obvious"
and intellectually pretentious. (And no wisecracks, please.)

Don't tell us Pirzig fired you too!

On 9/21/05 3:56 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote:


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.


Kids... Fun's fun but hey, let's get this off the broadcast farting in
elevators crosspost thing...
Thanks

(sittin' back and wait'n for it...)

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 3:56 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote:


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.


Kids... Fun's fun but hey, let's get this off the broadcast farting in
elevators crosspost thing...
Thanks

(sittin' back and wait'n for it...)


SPLAT!!

Gary Sokolich wrote:

[a typically repugnant missive]

"" is acutally Gary Sokolich. Gary obsessively stalks me in
all the groups where I participate. Please ignore both him
and this marker of his stalking.

Sorry for the noise. Back to your regularly scheduled
programming.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:
In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.


No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux
spiritual piece of dreck that thing is.


Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.


That's rather an extreme view.

Yes, I was _extremely_ repulsed by his treatment of his son.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:37:51 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



said:

One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
tinear scale they fall?

Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic.

Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up
in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid
point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag
where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an
absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no
component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is
determined by its synergy with the other components in the system?
Taken logically, a group test of amplifiers, say, is undermined by the
inevitability of some of the amps better matching the speakers being
used, or the speakers providing an easier load for certain amps. Given
that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with
other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with
any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being
that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every
detail, the review is invalid.

That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a
bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a
component is exceptional, it probably is--which however doesn't change
what I've said above. Even the best gear must be used with
sympathetic equipment, and I strongly suspect that over the years I've
sold a lot of good equipment I should have kept and tried to match
better. This is where an experienced dealer is probably of more use
than a reviewer.

Incidentally, one other area where reviews have their limitations is
in their failure to tell you how reliable something is likely to be.
In the end, this is vastly more important than minute differences in
sound quality.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:31:55 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Given
that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with
other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with
any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being
that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every
detail, the review is invalid.

Using those criteria for judgment, ALL reviews are invalid, since even
if you build the exact same system, you won't have the same room or
the same set of ears and biases.

The best you can hope for is a calibration with the reviewer. If you
find that reviewer fairly consonant with your viewpoints about audio,
or you somehow understand the descriptive language that they are
using, or you are simply entertained by their narrative, and you find
out that you are in agreement with their judgments after actually
using a piece of gear that they have reviewed, then the reviewer is
useful.

One should never take a review as anything but a rough guideline, or
possibly a way to narrow the field.

In article ,
pH wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 13:58:43 GMT, wrote:

In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill)

A rare feat, perhaps, but... "skill"? If you say so...

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn
museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint
and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and
that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid
$250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said
that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.

I even see parallels to what passes for "music" these days.
Gotta agree with your father. :-)

paul packer said:

Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up
in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid
point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag
where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an
absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no
component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is
determined by its synergy with the other components in the system?

Did you get paid by the word? ;-)

I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation
between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only
a rough guideline.

"I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation
between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only
a rough guideline."

This helps not at all. If a reviewer says he likes a hot top end etc. and
you concur, any gear in his current review still has no meaning to you
because you haven't the duplicate system etc. by which he reports his
perceptions. The mags often take the dodge suggested, find a reviewer you
like because you agree and follow him. Which of course has all manner of
inherent non audio mine fields and really lends nothing about really
knowing about the reality of perceptions reported.

Most likely the room is the source of hot high end perceptions if he
reports it as a particular item in his reviews, it is about dispersion
patterns and interactions with the room and the speakers

Any amp, for example, said to have one type of high end or another is
really a report of what that room interaction is. Reviews are almost
useless for any relevant information except what one might deduce from
specifications and how they are known to potentially relate to sound, such
as would be evident with the radiation pattern of a speaker.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.


That's not art. That's fart.

DAve

On 9/22/05 3:03 PM, in article teDYe.22433$zG1.10749@trnddc05, "DaveW"
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.


That's not art. That's fart.

DAve

Fine Art...
F'art...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:22 GMT, "
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)

Kal

Yes, through a DBT protocol.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
you require proof. ]

So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
of anything?


How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no
audible effect.

Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.



They are not formulating any theories, they
are reading a book, and beleiving what it says.

Believing in God has no audible or other effect.

Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones.

They have to pay to won them, though, just
as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe.

I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up
all over the place by the grace of God, are they?

You don't have to belong to a church to believe in God.




nor do you have to own Shakti Stones to believe that
somebody, somewhere might percieve a difference when using them.
Note, I am an Agnostic.

Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect they
have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


duh-Mikey grunted:

Tne Bug Eater desperately tries to get some of the stink off the
Krooborg.

How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you were lying about being an atheist.
LOt"S!

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the **** is going on if the
discussion rises above the level of name calling.

Take responsibility for your own goof, Mickey. Say what you meant instead
of
relying on Normals to read your murky mire of a mind.

Nowhere did I say I am now a theist. I was simply pointing out that there
is a basis, albeit a flawed one) for positing the existence of a Supreme
Being.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


PD said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own ability to make
rational judgements to such a degree that you require proof.

One of Krooger's many problems is that he assumes all tweaks are phoney
and
their proponents are all lying.

That's a lie. Tweaks are testable and many of them are simply fraudulent on
their face.


If the scientific establishment were run by
'borgs, no investigations of perceived phenomena would be permitted
because
"proof" would be required before data can be collected.


Another lie, it is perceptions that give rise to the investigation into
phenomena.

wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
because they are the most important part of any system.

The implication here is that spending more on speakers will make your
system sound better.

Are you disputing that better speakers will make a system sound better?

"As much as they can afford" suggests that there is no
practical limit to the improvement you can make in this fashion; that the
sound quality of your system ultimately depends on how much money you
spend on your speakers.


It was not my intention to imply that, most people involved in audio IME,
have some idea of where the law of diminishing returns takes hold.

I don't believe either of these things. I've not noticed any correlation
between the price of speakers and their sound quality.

I don't know what speakers you've listened to, but IME better speakers tend
to be more expensive than lesser ones.

Try listening to a set of Merlin VSM's and compare them to anything else at
a lesser price. I predict you'll likely be hard pressed to find very many
that equal their sound, and they will likely be from Dynaudio or someone
using Dynaudio or Scan-Speak drivers.

This is not to say that it ismpossible to build a great sounding speaker for
a low price, only that the technology of driver design and speaker building
comes at a price.

In article uK3Ye.120911$Ep.61696@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to
the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the
wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile
type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away
bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to
anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which
I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to
computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people
across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche
the
mag filled.

If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20
people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

In the same way that I would ask young people to be "forced" to learn
Hemmingway and Shakespeare, and Renoir, yes.

If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

I would include them as well!

The problem is not in what is included... the problem arises with the
exclusions.

I suppose so. If you carry your argument to it's logical end though, it
seems that you're advocating for not learning anything that happened
previous to today!


Exactly what is cultural literacy?

In my view, CL is the "shared canon"... that which we should all know
and/or experience in order to have a society that is not just broad, but
also deep;

If we all knew the same things and shared the same experiences...
how broad and deep a society would that be?

I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating for a common cultural base-line
knowledge... not a "maximum". You're free to learn whatever you want to
learn, after all.

knowledge that leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves
and others. Students need to know Shakespeare, Basie, and Bernstein.

I prefer Heinlein, Fripp, and Weber.


Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

Good question!

If everyone studied only the so called masterpieces of our culture would
they remain masterpieces?

Yes, but that's not what I'm advocating, of course.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote:
" Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO.
You seem to be asking that young people be forced to
understand and appreciate art forms that aren't part of
their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that
why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite)
bands of the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? "

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art
of mathmatics and history and philosophy.

I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure
science.

There are in all of them and more those examples
which set standards and the multitude which are throw
aways, so too in music.

I've no problem with people interested in voluntarily
pursuing study of music... but I do have a problem with
it being deemed necessary in an effort to preserve
culture. To preserve culture is to kill it and make it
stagnant.

Music has always been part of the Western educational
tradition, back to the Liberal Arts of the Middle Ages.


Stephen, do you seriously think that this is a relevant
response to Scott's declaration?

It looks like a platitude to me.

Also it is impossible to understand music today absent
it's roots
in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion
of classical forms and other traditions. So yes, just
hearing the current crop of music is then gruel when
comppared to the feast of music spread in time and
place.

While I tend to subjectively agree with your assessment
of the current crop I resist anyone imposing their
perception of feast or gruel on anyone else.
Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the
control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from
ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's
about very specific music. Is it really art if people have
to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises
before they act like they like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains
several!

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the
control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's
about very specific music. Is it really art if people
have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming
exercises before they act like they like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the
control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's
about very specific music. Is it really art if people
have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming
exercises before they act like they like it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?
2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?
3. ACT like they like it?

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they like
it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises didn't
like the music they were being "educated" to like before
they were "educated".

IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn
museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.


I believe the piece is called Breakfast at Arny's.

Cheers,

Margaret

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond
the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding
from ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general.
It's about very specific music. Is it really art if
people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they like
it?

Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last
sentence contains several!

If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em

1. Forced?

possibly a synonym for "educated" above.

Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose.

2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises?

again see "education"

Ditto my last comment.

3. ACT like they like it?

Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises didn't
like the music they were being "educated" to like before
they were "educated".

In what way is that obvious?

IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same
music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important now than it was
50 years ago?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pH wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 13:58:43 GMT, wrote:

In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill
/
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire
airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill)

A rare feat, perhaps, but... "skill"? If you say so...

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn
museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.
--scott


Arny might be interested in a modeling job.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
you require proof. ]

So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
of anything?


How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no
audible effect.

Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.



They are not formulating any theories, they
are reading a book, and beleiving what it says.

Believing in God has no audible or other effect.

Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones.

They have to pay to won them, though, just
as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe.

I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up
all over the place by the grace of God, are they?

You don't have to belong to a church to believe in God.




nor do you have to own Shakti Stones to believe that
somebody, somewhere might percieve a difference when using them.
Note, I am an Agnostic.

Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect
they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.