Brian McCarty wrote

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


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

In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote:

"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!

Nah, I don't care for that, er, them.

I also like the group Equalize.

I'm not really into them either. I also don't care for the famous duo
of Wow and Flutter. My fav is Timbre.

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!

On 9/19/05 11:57 AM, in article ,
"Signal" wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" emitted :

I believe the forged postings under Johnny's name appear to come from
one of the RAO regulars.

OK, that's plausible.

Plausable, eminently probable and simply factual.
Once it was clear where it came from I haven't been chatting on this
thread anywhere but RAO. Indeed that was all it was about anyway, less
un-needed splatter.
Call me Giddes

On 9/19/05 11:58 AM, in article ,
"Lionel" wrote:

Scott Dorsey a écrit :
In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:


"SSJVCmag"

Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT
spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact,
spam to RAO for the vast majority of us?


I believe the forged postings under Johnny's name appear to come from
one of the RAO regulars. So in fact it is an RAO guy who is spamming
the rest of _us_.
--scott

IMHO it's George M. Middius. ;-)

Quelle Surprise...

On 9/19/05 9:16 PM, in article ,
"dizzy" wrote:

On 18 Sep 2005 03:56:01 -0700, wrote:

You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole

STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

Stop crossposting youself!!!!!

How does one crosspost oneself?
Is that like mastur... Never mind
....
Seriously though...
Sigh...
Look, some dork over here thought it Big Fun to suddenly splatter this
Atkinson thread out of RAO into a bunch of other NG's...
THEN,
Either everybody here is incapable of looking at their headers and wiping
the non-RAO NG's off the outgoing address line like Decent Regular Folk,
or
all of them are enjoying this hugely. Either way, the onus is hardly
elsewhere to fix it. Nobody else CAN fix it. Up to you. Nobody's
crossposting but you guys. Go fig.

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

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. 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?

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

ScottW

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.

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 don't think I would complain about that. But the real issue is to learn
to listen to the music, to understand how the music is put together, and
what the techniques used are. I think once you learn to listen properly,
you can apply this to any sort of music.

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

For the most part, it is a matter of the culture itself that decides this.
Beethoven is worthy of cultural maintenance for the same reason that the
Beatles are, and obscure 18th century composers have become deservedly
obscure for the same reason that Toto has.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

writes:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences

I think you're right-on there, outsor. I loved my 20-year subscription
to the magazine and was really disappointed when I learned they were
turning off their printers.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"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. 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.

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.

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).

ScottW

Scott Dorsey said to the Terrierborg:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist?

Terrierborg has a major case of class envy. He still can't believe he gets to
work in an office with educated people.

Terrierborg yapped:

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.

You're insensate. Go dig a hole and bury something.

"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.

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.

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.

Stephen

"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.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


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.

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

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.

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.

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 don't think I would complain about that. But the real issue is to learn
to listen to the music, to understand how the music is put together, and
what the techniques used are. I think once you learn to listen properly,
you can apply this to any sort of music.

Will it increase or diminish one's ability to derive pleasure from
music?
I've seen musicians lose sight of the resulting sound while
overemphasising the mechanics of creation. Like guys who only want to
show off their chops on guitar but can't create a melody to save their
ass.

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

For the most part, it is a matter of the culture itself that decides this.

Exactly... and efforts of man to redirect or influence culture are
doomed to failure IMO.

Beethoven is worthy of cultural maintenance for the same reason that the
Beatles are, and obscure 18th century composers have become deservedly
obscure for the same reason that Toto has.

I think the Beatles are slowly tending toward obscurity as well. In
the scope of cultural history.. they remain a relatively recent
phenom... compared to Beethoven anyway.

ScottW

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.
--scott


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

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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".

--
Aaron

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
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

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

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. In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 20 Sep 2005 13:30:08 -0700, "randy"
wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:
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

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

My first response was a play on the tautology that evoked it.

I intentionally did not use the word proof in that second statement.
However, certain areas of inquiry are testable by controlled
experiment and objective observation. Whether the results constitute
proof depends on the standards one applies. Other areas are simply
not testable, so the term doesn't apply.

Kal

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 ,
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