randy said:

How do we define "proof"? Some would say that "God" has been
proved-others not. Some would say evolution has been "proved", others
would say it takes God to create. "Proof" seems to be in the eye of
the beholder especially when it comes to all things religion, politics,
and maybe audio

I feel the same way. What kind of ninny demands "proof" of something as
banal as how a stereo sounds? ;-)

In article ,
George Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

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

Have you been watching "Over There"? They just had a poignant episode with a
similar theme. An Ugly American (a caricature, but the episode played like a
fable) acted the tinpot dictator and got a **** sandwich for his efforts.
Ignorance comes in all forms, even dressed in good intentions.

My cable plan doesn't extend to Fx, but that's a good story idea.

Not that I believe Scottie has good intentions. The more things are forced to
be the same, the better he likes it. Culturecide for Scottie.

I've been taping a bunch of Fox shows lately.

Stephen

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?

Yes, it responds directly to a statement about music education.

It looks like a platitude to me.

You mean, 'truism.'

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?

"Re" programming? What specific music do you think he means?

Stephen

In article ,
says...

Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.



shakti stones don't do anything to my mind. They don't do anything at all. I
have made my mind sharp, and you have left yours dull.

MINe 109 said:

Not that I believe Scottie has good intentions. The more things are forced to
be the same, the better he likes it. Culturecide for Scottie.

I've been taping a bunch of Fox shows lately.

They have some good shows this year. Head Cases is tolerable and Kitchen
Conf. is wicked-funny. Reunion is dreadful and Bones is revolting. What
have you been getting, or were you just adding to the Scottiness?

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Chevdo said:

It makes me laugh

You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the
purple color of your pimply face.

Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule

You are soooo angry. Have you met Little ****? He's RAO's nerve center for
unrequited anger.


I think attempting to portray your advesary as being unrational due to anger
might work if the person is actually displaying that kind of behavior.
Otherwise, it appears as the cheap device it is.


Shakti Stones don't work.

Then why did you buy them?

I didn't. Why do you think I did? Could it be because you are stupid?


Look out, you just popped another zit.


Are you hoping to sell me some magic stones for treating acne?


Do your mommy and daddy know you're whacking off in front of your 'puter
instead of doing your chores?



see above, you being stupid

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.



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?

Chevdo said:

Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

shakti stones don't do anything to my mind. They don't do anything at all. I
have made my mind sharp, and you have left yours dull.

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said:

Not that I believe Scottie has good intentions. The more things are
forced to
be the same, the better he likes it. Culturecide for Scottie.

I've been taping a bunch of Fox shows lately.

They have some good shows this year. Head Cases is tolerable and Kitchen
Conf. is wicked-funny. Reunion is dreadful and Bones is revolting. What
have you been getting, or were you just adding to the Scottiness?

Pluses for KC. It even had a "Chef" moment when Bourdain started a rant
on the importance of presentation. I'll give Bones a chance because it's
fun to see Boreanaz in daylight and it's easier to program to get House,
but I'm not prepared to defend its quality based on the pilot. I
couldn't help thinking some of my favorite shows would have made good
use of that budget.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
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.

You mean when medicine included the art of bleeding people?


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.

As if culture was a sentient being capable of making a decision.
It's not.

ScottW

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW 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.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

Define "high art" and "well-constructed".

Both of these are in a constant state of flux,

Would they be if you constrained culture to appreciate and continue to
admire the currently recognized pinnacles of the arts.

I think culture must go through cycles of pinnacles of achievement and
periods of decadent accomplishment to maintain this state of flux.

Not all change is positive, but nonetheless, change is inevitable.

ScottW

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
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.

You mean when medicine included the art of bleeding people?

I guess you didn't take any Classics.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201...urriculum.html

And this, from Wales to you:

http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/

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.

As if culture was a sentient being capable of making a decision.
It's not.

Then why did you say "it will ultimately decide what is worth preserving
and what is not"?

Stephen

wrote:
"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)."

Indeed, and it is the elders who pass on that which culture has selected,
just as in math and history and art and many more things that go into an
education and continuation between generations of that which culture has
selected.

Big difference between math or history and art. Math and history are
based on facts. As long as research doesn't change our understanding of
the facts.. the math and the history don't change. Arts and their
appreciation are based on perception. Tastes change and some arts
which were once perceived as beautiful and desired by all, no longer
are. Arts will change and evolve with the whims of the people whose
preferences change every generation.
Science only changes with research and the expansion of knowledge.

People can like rap music over Beethoven if they want, but they can't
decide 2+2 isn't 4.


Education imposes and content is not left to the recievers of
the content of culture. Just as 99 percent of math is 200 years or older
as taught in 1-12, it is not left to the current generation to pick and
choose among tha history of the art of math what floats their boat because
it is the "in thing" just now in their peer group.

True... but it is left to the current generation what kind of music
they want to listen to. You may not like their choice... but do you
really think people should have the right to try and change it through
"education"?

If that was allowed... all the early rockers would have been sent to
internment camps.

ScottW

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
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.

You mean when medicine included the art of bleeding people?

I guess you didn't take any Classics.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201...urriculum.html

"liberal arts education "frees" individuals from the chaos of
irrationality."


And this, from Wales to you:

http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/

You trying to equate reconstructive and plastic surgery to the ancient

practice of bleeding?


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.

As if culture was a sentient being capable of making a decision.
It's not.

Then why did you say "it will ultimately decide what is worth preserving
and what is not"?

You're right... I should have said culture will utimately dictate what
is worth preserving....

Culture won't make a choice... it will just do what it does...change.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

People can like rap music over Beethoven if they want, but they can't
decide 2+2 isn't 4.

Music appreciation is about learning to explain why you like rap music
over Beethoven, if you do.

Funny thing, though, when you learn to take music apart and understand how
it goes together, you start to like Beethoven a lot more. (You might also
like rap music more too, though, which is fine.)

True... but it is left to the current generation what kind of music
they want to listen to. You may not like their choice... but do you
really think people should have the right to try and change it through
"education"?

Education is never a bad thing. Learning about art music can make you
appreciate other music that much more, as well.

If that was allowed... all the early rockers would have been sent to
internment camps.

Most of those early rockers had real musical educations in school.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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!

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

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

Good question!

MINe 109 said:

They have some good shows this year. Head Cases is tolerable and Kitchen
Conf. is wicked-funny. Reunion is dreadful and Bones is revolting. What
have you been getting, or were you just adding to the Scottiness?

Pluses for KC. It even had a "Chef" moment when Bourdain started a rant
on the importance of presentation. I'll give Bones a chance because it's
fun to see Boreanaz in daylight and it's easier to program to get House,
but I'm not prepared to defend its quality based on the pilot. I
couldn't help thinking some of my favorite shows would have made good
use of that budget.

Fox has earned their share of boos for canceling good shows, but at least
they kept Arrested going. Lots of creepy-scary shows this year. Threshold
(CBS?) is intriguing, although it's brought down somewhat by hokiness and
standard Hollywood pandering.

I think it's time 24 dumps Bauer for a new hero.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said:

They have some good shows this year. Head Cases is tolerable and Kitchen
Conf. is wicked-funny. Reunion is dreadful and Bones is revolting. What
have you been getting, or were you just adding to the Scottiness?

Pluses for KC. It even had a "Chef" moment when Bourdain started a rant
on the importance of presentation. I'll give Bones a chance because it's
fun to see Boreanaz in daylight and it's easier to program to get House,
but I'm not prepared to defend its quality based on the pilot. I
couldn't help thinking some of my favorite shows would have made good
use of that budget.

Fox has earned their share of boos for canceling good shows, but at least
they kept Arrested going. Lots of creepy-scary shows this year. Threshold
(CBS?) is intriguing, although it's brought down somewhat by hokiness and
standard Hollywood pandering.

I think it's time 24 dumps Bauer for a new hero.

Easy to do: give him a day off!

Stephen

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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

Good question!

Ed Hirsch! or Richard Bennett.

Well, maybe not.

Stephen

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

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.

You mean when medicine included the art of bleeding people?

I guess you didn't take any Classics.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201...urriculum.html

"liberal arts education "frees" individuals from the chaos of
irrationality."

Sounds Enlightening.

And this, from Wales to you:

http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/

You trying to equate reconstructive and plastic surgery to the ancient
practice of bleeding?

Leeches is leeches. People still bleed.

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.

As if culture was a sentient being capable of making a decision.
It's not.

Then why did you say "it will ultimately decide what is worth preserving
and what is not"?

You're right... I should have said culture will utimately dictate what
is worth preserving....

Culture won't make a choice... it will just do what it does...change.

Odd creature, culture, that can dictate but can't make choice.

Stephen

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
[snip]
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.

Are you into Pink Noise too? Pink Noise really rocks, man!
I also like the group Equalize.



Maybe Tommy will take you for a ride in his Corvette.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very
specific music.

such as two second snippets of castanets.

Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate
reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it?



See www.pbabx.com

" 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.

"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. ;-)


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

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?

Kal

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Chevdo said:

Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

shakti stones don't do anything to my mind. They don't do anything at
all. I
have made my mind sharp, and you have left yours dull.

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.


How much does a mind go for on eBay these days?
We can all put in a collectioon for duh...Mikey.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

People can like rap music over Beethoven if they want, but they can't
decide 2+2 isn't 4.

Music appreciation is about learning to explain why you like rap music
over Beethoven, if you do.

Funny thing, though, when you learn to take music apart and understand how
it goes together, you start to like Beethoven a lot more. (You might also
like rap music more too, though, which is fine.)

True... but it is left to the current generation what kind of music
they want to listen to. You may not like their choice... but do you
really think people should have the right to try and change it through
"education"?

Education is never a bad thing. Learning about art music can make you
appreciate other music that much more, as well.

If that was allowed... all the early rockers would have been sent to
internment camps.

Most of those early rockers had real musical educations in school.

Really... you mean guys like Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Fats Domino
or Elvis Presley?

http://www.history-of-rock.com/elvis_presley.htm

AFAICT... the early rockers learned more of their music in Church than in
school.

ScottW

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW 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.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist?

What is hight art? What is low art? Those are the distinctions only
the elitist make.

Well, then count me as an elitist. If standing up for quality is
considered elitism, then I am all for it.

Nothing wrong with declaring what you think is best.
But that is far different than declaring what is best.

ScottW

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Chevdo said:

Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

shakti stones don't do anything to my mind. They don't do anything at all.
I
have made my mind sharp, and you have left yours dull.

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

If I had ever been stupid enough to buy shakti stones I would not turn around
and rip someone else off by selling them to recoup my money. Your suggestion
to do that is further evidence that you are a slimeball, though no further
evidence was required.

"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.


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?

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?

ScottW

"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?

Kal

"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?


Who says the subject hmself can't do that when listening for pleasure?

"surf" wrote in message
...
Brian McCarty wrote

bla, bla, bla...........


How does it feel to be the most despised person in RAO history?

I have come to the conclusion he actually wants to be destroyed.
His actual message is, "Go ahead and hit me, because I want to suffer."
Sadism and masochism go hand-in-hand.
First, "worldjazz" was destroyed. Then "coralseas" crumbled.
Brian, would you like to hold onto your Baskin-Robbins franchise?
Think it can't be taken away from you?
Think again.

Chevdoborg said:

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

If I had ever had enough money to buy shakti stones I would certainly be
enough of a slimeball to turn around and rip someone else off by selling
them to recoup my money.

Aside from comma-deprivation, you've completed the 3rd step nicely.

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Chevdoborg said:

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

If I had ever had enough money to buy shakti stones I would certainly be
enough of a slimeball to turn around and rip someone else off by selling
them to recoup my money.

Aside from comma-deprivation, you've completed the 3rd step nicely.



I see now you've taken to the juvenile act of editing my text to misquote and
libel me. Pathetic. You think I've never seen trolls do this hundreds of
times already? Maybe if I hadn't it could make me 'angry' and allow you to
play the taunting fool you so desperately want to.

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?


--
Aaron

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW 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.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

Define "high art" and "well-constructed".

Both of these are in a constant state of flux, but I commend you to
Ernst Gombrich's essay on the subject.

I'll look at it..

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.

--
Aaron

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:23:36 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"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?


Who says the subject hmself can't do that when listening for pleasure?

Sure. Do it all the time. To do otherwise lies madness.

Kal

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" said:

What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told
readers
what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to
hear.
The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.


At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this
happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music
reproduction reached as far back as the eighties.
(I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my
amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it
still sounds good).

After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department,
there's little to write about.

Notice, Sander, that you haven't been flamed.
It's true.
Except, I think, for DACs.
I have Musical Fidelity A3 DAC that makes unlistenable CD's listenable.
Digital enhancement is an area that could still grow, overtaking the
"vacuuous" approach .

"Robert Morein" said:

What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told
readers
what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to
hear.
The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.


At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this
happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music
reproduction reached as far back as the eighties.
(I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my
amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it
still sounds good).

After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department,
there's little to write about.


Notice, Sander, that you haven't been flamed.


What's even more, I got not a single response.

The silent majority.....? :-)


It's true.
Except, I think, for DACs.
I have Musical Fidelity A3 DAC that makes unlistenable CD's listenable.
Digital enhancement is an area that could still grow, overtaking the
"vacuuous" approach .


With DACs I found that if differences exist, they can be traced back
to the (decoupling of) power supplies and the design of the analog
output stage, with the filter section as probably the most important.

--

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