OT Propelled inline skating

Michael Press wrote:

Â*Chalo wrote:

Tθm Shermαn wrote:

"Everyone loves J.S. Bach except cretins and those with undeveloped or
improperly developed minds." - Tom Sherman

Music has moved at least as far beyond J.S. Bach as J.S. Bach had
moved beyond monophonic Dark Ages tunes. Â*It's very hard to make a
case for pre-blue, pre-swing, pre-syncopation, pre-groove sounds now
that we have been programmed with the good stuff. Â*Listening to what
passed for dance music in Western culture before the 20th century,
it's baffling that anyone could dance to it. Â*But music is a living
thing, and after it has died, even the most skillful taxidermist can't
give back what once was there.

You continue to blackguard that which does not appeal to you,
just as you do with bicycles. Shall I tell you about the
things I do not like? With all my reasons? I've got a little list.

Whatever you like.

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

Chalo

On May 8, 11:15*pm, Chalo wrote:

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

Last night, my wife and I were once again watching videos of travel in
Europe. At one point, she mentioned how beautiful the houses in some
little village were. They were probably built in the 1600s.

Similarly, about a week ago we were walking through the older
neighborhoods of a Western Reserve town in Ohio, with homes built in
the mid-1800s. Charming! Each house was different, each had it's own
comfortable character. A director wanting to portray "contentment"
and "home" could choose it for a movie set.

Compare with the typical modern American suburban house. Many are
built on the theme "Garage with house attached." The garage door is
by far the most prominent architectural element, and in some cases the
entire garage protrudes out the front, the boring house receding
behind it.

Similarly, you can compare architecture of government buildings,
churches, libraries, museums, businesses - in every case, what's most
modern is least beautiful to my eyes, and I think to the eyes of most
people.

You can compare the design of neighborhoods or commercial areas
between modern suburbia and "old towns." Modern construction lacks
character, complexity and care. It's dominated by a desire to knock
things out quickly and cheaply. It's intended to accommodate people
in cars or people with short attention spans - and that's probably a
redundancy.

(_Visions for a New American Dream_ by Nelessen is an interesting book
on those topics.)

This just goes to show that change isn't necessarily progress. I
think the same is true for music.

- Frank Krygowski

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

ÂÂ*Chalo wrote:


Music has moved at least as far beyond J.S. Bach as J.S. Bach had
moved beyond monophonic Dark Ages tunes. ÂÂ*It's very hard to make a
case for pre-blue, pre-swing, pre-syncopation, pre-groove sounds now
that we have been programmed with the good stuff. ÂÂ*Listening to what
passed for dance music in Western culture before the 20th century,
it's baffling that anyone could dance to it. ÂÂ*But music is a living
thing, and after it has died, even the most skillful taxidermist can't
give back what once was there.

You continue to blackguard that which does not appeal to you,
just as you do with bicycles. Shall I tell you about the
things I do not like? With all my reasons? I've got a little list.

Whatever you like.

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

You are the object of fun here; and don't talk
as if I said something that I did not say. Is putting
words in my mouth your best answer? Weak.

--
Michael Press

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Chalo wrote:

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

Last night, my wife and I were once again watching videos of travel in
Europe. *At one point, she mentioned how beautiful the houses in some
little village were. *They were probably built in the 1600s.

Similarly, about a week ago we were walking through *the older
neighborhoods of a Western Reserve town in Ohio, with homes built in
the mid-1800s. *Charming! *Each house was different, each had it's own
comfortable character. *A director wanting to portray "contentment"
and "home" could choose it for a movie set.

Compare with the typical modern American suburban house. *Many are
built on the theme "Garage with house attached." *The garage door is
by far the most prominent architectural element, and in some cases the
entire garage protrudes out the front, the boring house receding
behind it.

I don't think you'd find the 1600s equivalent of a cheap suburban
tract house appealing enough to live in. Maybe quaint in a fairy tale
sort of way, if it wasn't for all the **** and garbage festering
around it.

The buildings of the 21st century that people bother to maintain and
preserve for 350 years will probably have some virtues, though, if
there are any.

Similarly, *you can compare architecture of government buildings,
churches, libraries, museums, businesses - in every case, what's most
modern is least beautiful to my eyes, and I think to the eyes of most
people.

Short-sighted budget constraints, the industrial disposability ethic,
government unaccountability, and the corporate profit motive have
conspired to get us here. But there are still a few exceptions, like
Seattle's public library building. And there are still ugly,
graceless old buildings, though most of them have already gone away.

Marble statuary isn't what it used to be, either. The demand for it.
like the demand for houses that cost multi-generational life savings
to build, has diminished. But the demand for music has been
uninterrupted.

This just goes to show that change isn't necessarily progress. *I
think the same is true for music.

There is a lot of prefab "music" for nincompoops out there-- Tom's
objection to one example got this conversation started-- but I suggest
this has always been the case. Most bikes out there are horrible when
new and only get worse. They aren't the bikes that matter.

What I am saying is that Bach had Palestrina to draw upon, but not the
other way around. And Chopin had Bach to draw upon, but not the other
way around. Duke Ellington had all of those guys and much more to
draw upon (and it shows). Today's able composer has Duke Ellington,
and Chopin, and Bach, and Palestrina, all at his fingertips, along
with many others those guys were or weren't aware of, such that he can
build beyond what they have done. Not every example of music, or
architecture, or bicycles, constitutes progress. But the current is a
forward-moving one. Good music today can be much better than in
Bach's day, and now it doesn't take a unique talent like Bach's to do
better than he did. Just like it doesn't take a modern-day James
Starley to design and build a much better bike than Starley's.

Chalo

Michael Press wrote:

*Chalo wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Â*Chalo wrote:

Music has moved at least as far beyond J.S. Bach as J.S. Bach had
moved beyond monophonic Dark Ages tunes. Â*It's very hard to make a
case for pre-blue, pre-swing, pre-syncopation, pre-groove sounds now
that we have been programmed with the good stuff. Â*Listening to what
passed for dance music in Western culture before the 20th century,
it's baffling that anyone could dance to it. Â*But music is a living
thing, and after it has died, even the most skillful taxidermist can't
give back what once was there.

You continue to blackguard that which does not appeal to you,
just as you do with bicycles. Shall I tell you about the
things I do not like? With all my reasons? I've got a little list.

Whatever you like.

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

You are the object of fun here; and don't talk
as if I said something that I did not say. Is putting
words in my mouth your best answer? Weak.

Tom Sherman said that, explicitly. I'm probably not done making fun
of him. You I'll have to make fun of for other reasons (which aren't
generally as entertaining).

I notice you usually don't make your own points per se, but rather
just comment on other peoples'.

Chalo

On May 9, 3:12*pm, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Chalo wrote:

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

Last night, my wife and I were once again watching videos of travel in
Europe. *At one point, she mentioned how beautiful the houses in some
little village were. *They were probably built in the 1600s.

Similarly, about a week ago we were walking through *the older
neighborhoods of a Western Reserve town in Ohio, with homes built in
the mid-1800s. *Charming! *Each house was different, each had it's own
comfortable character. *A director wanting to portray "contentment"
and "home" could choose it for a movie set.

Compare with the typical modern American suburban house. *Many are
built on the theme "Garage with house attached." *The garage door is
by far the most prominent architectural element, and in some cases the
entire garage protrudes out the front, the boring house receding
behind it.

I don't think you'd find the 1600s equivalent of a cheap suburban
tract house appealing enough to live in. *Maybe quaint in a fairy tale
sort of way, if it wasn't for all the **** and garbage festering
around it.

The buildings of the 21st century that people bother to maintain and
preserve for 350 years will probably have some virtues, though, if
there are any.

Similarly, *you can compare architecture of government buildings,
churches, libraries, museums, businesses - in every case, what's most
modern is least beautiful to my eyes, and I think to the eyes of most
people.

Short-sighted budget constraints, the industrial disposability ethic,
government unaccountability, and the corporate profit motive have
conspired to get us here. *But there are still a few exceptions, like
Seattle's public library building. *And there are still ugly,
graceless old buildings, though most of them have already gone away.

Marble statuary isn't what it used to be, either. *The demand for it.
like the demand for houses that cost multi-generational life savings
to build, has diminished. *But the demand for music has been
uninterrupted.

This just goes to show that change isn't necessarily progress. *I
think the same is true for music.

There is a lot of prefab "music" for nincompoops out there-- Tom's
objection to one example got this conversation started-- but I suggest
this has always been the case. *Most bikes out there are horrible when
new and only get worse. *They aren't the bikes that matter.

What I am saying is that Bach had Palestrina to draw upon, but not the
other way around. *And Chopin had Bach to draw upon, but not the other
way around. *Duke Ellington had all of those guys and much more to
draw upon (and it shows). *Today's able composer has Duke Ellington,
and Chopin, and Bach, and Palestrina, all at his fingertips, along
with many others those guys were or weren't aware of, such that he can
build beyond what they have done. *Not every example of music, or
architecture, or bicycles, constitutes progress. *But the current is a
forward-moving one. *Good music today can be much better than in
Bach's day, and now it doesn't take a unique talent like Bach's to do
better than he did. *Just like it doesn't take a modern-day James
Starley to design and build a much better bike than Starley's.

"Progress" is not a concept that really fits here. Frank is making a
qualitative distinction: Bach is better than Ellington. "Sheep may
Safely Graze" is better than "Sophisticated Lady." What I say is that
some people like ladies, and some people like sheep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk So be it. -- Jay
Beattie.

On May 9, 6:12*pm, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

This just goes to show that change isn't necessarily progress. *I
think the same is true for music.

There is a lot of prefab "music" for nincompoops out there-- Tom's
objection to one example got this conversation started-- but I suggest
this has always been the case. *Most bikes out there are horrible when
new and only get worse. *They aren't the bikes that matter.

What I am saying is that Bach had Palestrina to draw upon, but not the
other way around. *And Chopin had Bach to draw upon, but not the other
way around. *Duke Ellington had all of those guys and much more to
draw upon (and it shows). *Today's able composer has Duke Ellington,
and Chopin, and Bach, and Palestrina, all at his fingertips, along
with many others those guys were or weren't aware of, such that he can
build beyond what they have done. *Not every example of music, or
architecture, or bicycles, constitutes progress. *But the current is a
forward-moving one. *Good music today can be much better than in
Bach's day, and now it doesn't take a unique talent like Bach's to do
better than he did.

Your point about disposable music is good. And the idea that there's
been selection, so that we don't hear the bad stuff of yesteryear,
also has some (imperfect) validity.

I say imperfect validity, because much good music was lost just
because there were no mass media or recordings. I've known a musical
scholar who spent months in European libraries resurrecting beautiful
medieval and renaissance pieces, translating them to modern notation
and leading an ensemble that performed them.

But yes, there is selection. Perhaps the problem is that it's too
easy to get widely heard these days. Maybe we just need more
filtering, so the bad stuff goes away before it gets widely heard -
and "appreciated."

But have you heard much modern "serious" music? Most "classical"
recitals these days (like the last few classical guitar recitals I
heard) seems to proceed chronologically. They tend to start with
something from the renaissance or thereabouts, move through the
baroque, classical, and into modern music. And the modern music is
invariably dissonant, abstract and weird.

This is the output of the "serious" composers, the ones who hope to be
the next Mozarts. They can't generate anything sufficiently
"innovative" with musical logic, so they violate all logic and try for
randomness or musical hypnosis. (Last guitar recital featured
hypnotic pieces like "The Crystal River" and "Moonbeams") I just
don't think much of it is very good.

- Frank Krygowski

Chalo chalo.colina gmail.com wrote:

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three
centuries is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food,
or medicine.

Mozart did music brilliantly, before the pleasant sounding
instruments were invented.


--










You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun
of you.

Chalo

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Â*Chalo wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

ÂÂ*Chalo wrote:

Music has moved at least as far beyond J.S. Bach as J.S. Bach had
moved beyond monophonic Dark Ages tunes. ÂÂ*It's very hard to make a
case for pre-blue, pre-swing, pre-syncopation, pre-groove sounds now
that we have been programmed with the good stuff. ÂÂ*Listening to what
passed for dance music in Western culture before the 20th century,
it's baffling that anyone could dance to it. ÂÂ*But music is a living
thing, and after it has died, even the most skillful taxidermist can't
give back what once was there.

You continue to blackguard that which does not appeal to you,
just as you do with bicycles. Shall I tell you about the
things I do not like? With all my reasons? I've got a little list.

Whatever you like.

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

You are the object of fun here; and don't talk
as if I said something that I did not say. Is putting
words in my mouth your best answer? Weak.

Tom Sherman said that, explicitly.

I did not say that implicitly or explicitly.
It's no use talking to me as if I said something that
I did not say.

I'm probably not done making fun
of him. You I'll have to make fun of for other reasons (which aren't
generally as entertaining).

I notice you usually don't make your own points per se, but rather
just comment on other peoples'.

So what? I make myself clear. It is still making a point.
You must have noticed that mostly they are ignored too,
so it all works out.

--
Michael Press

On 5/8/2011 10:15 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Tθm Shermαn wrote:

"Everyone loves J.S. Bach except cretins and those with undeveloped or
improperly developed minds." - Tom Sherman

Music has moved at least as far beyond J.S. Bach as J.S. Bach had
moved beyond monophonic Dark Ages tunes. It's very hard to make a
case for pre-blue, pre-swing, pre-syncopation, pre-groove sounds now
that we have been programmed with the good stuff. Listening to what
passed for dance music in Western culture before the 20th century,
it's baffling that anyone could dance to it. But music is a living
thing, and after it has died, even the most skillful taxidermist can't
give back what once was there.

You continue to blackguard that which does not appeal to you,
just as you do with bicycles. Shall I tell you about the
things I do not like? With all my reasons? I've got a little list.

Whatever you like.

But claiming or implying that music hasn't improved in three centuries
is like claiming the same for wheeled vehicles, food, or medicine.
You can say it, but I'll disagree with you and I might make fun of
you.

To continue the analogy, most modern music, particularly the most
popular varieties, is cheap junk food, while J.S. Bach is like the best
wild fruit [1] and game.

[1] Eating wild raspberries or strawberries make the domesticated
varieties taste like a concoction of cardboard and artificial flavoring.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.