Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 70

Thread: Striated and Smooth Space.

  1. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    (All replies "sanitized" for the protection of victims of labelling)

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    I'm opposed to the irrational and the pretentious wherever I find it.
    "Irrational" ideas such as "scales are indexes of notes, and the order in which they are presented has no musical significance?" That's a difference in thought-styles, not like the true-or-false academic axioms you are so fond of.

    That's the opinion of someone who might think like you, and that person would have the right to express it.

    If you catch me labeling you with terms of "convenience" I expect you to point it out.
    I've seen a person such as yourself doing the same thing, especially over in Area 51.

    It doesn't matter what you think, but it does matter what you write. That's what we do here. Write.
    Essentially the same thing. Express thoughts. But someone similar to you might say we can't act as if our replies, or anyone else's, are representative of the people expressing them. I never agreed with that nonsensical notion.

    Well that's quite the rambling bit of nonsense.
    You see? You're doing it too. That was my statement you are referring to. You are insulting me by invalidating my reply with insults.

    I guess all of us who disagree about stuff are busy invalidating each other's persons. After six years on the forum I must be invalidated to the point where there's nothing left of me. I'd better go look in the mirror to see if I even have a reflection.
    I don't think sarcasm is useful here, and doesn't translate well. Stuff? No, the replies and postings here are the expressions of real people, and if you disagree, you should be much more polite than this.

    You just said it out loud twice and it isn't any more reasonable the second time.
    Your replies to others here are clever implications resembling ad hominems indirectly, but very closely. I've seen you doing what looks like someone attacking others.

    They would fit right into to your own constructed reality. Meanwhile there's objective reality.
    Your ideas and replies strike me as those of an academic thinker. How's that? Better?

    No. So stop making excuses for doing it.
    I'll keep doing what I do, and you can keep invalidating it or deeming it 'verboten.'
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-21-2020 at 20:50.

  2. #47
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Maybe you need a philosophy course.)
    I despise these soap-operatic postings . Yes , you need a philosophy forum .
    I appreciate a Philosophy of Relationalism .

  3. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikoo Tuba View Post
    I despise these soap-operatic postings. Yes, you need a philosophy forum.
    I appreciate a Philosophy of Relationalism.
    So who's side are you on, Tikoo?

    Wow, that's confusing, replying to a reply to someone else. Who are you replying to, the original replier, or the replier to the replier?

  4. #49
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Gad Zooks ! The zound of it is everything .

  5. #50
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    "Irrational" ideas such as "scales are indexes of notes, and the order in which they are presented has no musical significance?" That's a difference in thought-styles, not like the true-or-false academic axioms you are so fond of.
    What the heck is a "thought-style"?

    Axioms? I've never stated any axioms. An axiom (or postulate) is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. An argument is not an axiom.

    I've seen a person such as yourself doing the same thing, especially over in Area 51.
    There are no persons such as myself. Not even myself. (If that isn't clear, it may be because you don't understand my "thought-style.")

    someone similar to you might say we can't act as if our replies, or anyone else's, are representative of the people expressing them. I never agreed with that nonsensical notion.
    What do you mean "representative"? And how can someone else's replies be representative of...um...another someone's replies?

    My statements don't represent me. They represent ideas I have in my head. Both may change, and I am still me. No one and nothing can represent me, and I cannot be "invalidated."

    If there's anyone similar to me, I want to make it clear to him right now that he is an impostor.

    You see? You're doing it too. That was my statement you are referring to. You are insulting me by invalidating my reply with insults.
    It wasn't an insult if your statement really WAS a rambling bit of nonsense. The whole notion that intellectual debate amounts to personal invalidation (whatever THAT is) is nonsense, and your repeated efforts to sledge-hammer that idea until it seems sensible are certainly rambling.

    I don't think sarcasm is useful here, and doesn't translate well.
    Translate into what? There comes a point where a dispute becomes absurd to the point of surreality. Only crazy humor will do, and no translation should be needed.

    Stuff? No, the replies and postings here are the expressions of real people, and if you disagree, you should be much more polite than this.
    More polite than what? Than ragging on people's "rationalism" and "academicism" and "conventional thinking" and god knows what other phony categorical pigeonholes you think you have a right to stuff them (specifically, me) into?

    Your replies to others here are clever implications resembling ad hominems indirectly, but very closely. I've seen you doing what looks like someone attacking others.
    Defensive people think every disagreement is an attack.

    Your ideas and replies strike me as those of an academic thinker. How's that? Better?
    He's off again...

    I'll keep doing what I do, and you can keep invalidating it or deeming it 'verboten.'
    Yes, I can.
    Last edited by Woodduck; Mar-22-2020 at 06:12.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikoo Tuba View Post
    Striated space beings fear the power of a smooth space Zook
    may cause them to appear foolish to one another .
    Two of my friends appear foolish to one another . Only one need wisely to surrender . Blessings
    of the Zook to the One .

  7. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikoo Tuba View Post
    Two of my friends appear foolish to one another . Only one need wisely to surrender . Blessings
    of the Zook to the One .
    Yes, I think we see what you're saying, tikoo.

  8. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    What the heck is a "thought-style"?
    A way of thinking, such as 'academic' vs. outside the box, that's what the heck it is, by golly.

    Axioms? I've never stated any axioms. An axiom (or postulate) is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. An argument is not an axiom.
    You act like everything you say is an axiom.

    There are no persons such as myself. Not even myself. (If that isn't clear, it may be because you don't understand my "thought-style.")
    I hope not. I was cleverly protecting grounds for an ad hominem.

    What do you mean "representative"? And how can someone else's replies be representative of...um...another someone's replies?
    As above, same answer.

    My statements don't represent me. They represent ideas I have in my head. Both may change, and I am still me. No one and nothing can represent me, and I cannot be "invalidated."
    Wow, I feel just the opposite.

    If there's anyone similar to me, I want to make it clear to him right now that he is an impostor.
    I think my circumlocution eluded you. You have a great sense of humor, though.

    It wasn't an insult if your statement really WAS a rambling bit of nonsense. The whole notion that intellectual debate amounts to personal invalidation (whatever THAT is) is nonsense, and your repeated efforts to sledge-hammer that idea until it seems sensible are certainly rambling.
    I think you're wrong, and being disingenuous.

    Translate into what? There comes a point where a dispute becomes absurd to the point of surreality. Only crazy humor will do, and no translation should be needed.
    I'm not sure what you're responding to without going back and looking. Please make your replies include more context about what it is you're responding to.

    More polite than what? Than ragging on people's "rationalism" and "academicism" and "conventional thinking" and god knows what other phony categorical pigeonholes you think you have a right to stuff them (specifically, me) into?
    Again, as above, not enough context without going back to the old post. That really gets tedious when your reply is already on a new page.

    Defensive people think every disagreement is an attack.
    I think you are attacking. I think your posts do represent you as a person.

    He's off again...
    ...not enough context without going back to the old post.

    Yes, I can.
    You're off again...
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-22-2020 at 22:38.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    A way of thinking, such as 'academic' vs. outside the box, that's what the heck it is, by golly.



    You act like everything you say is an axiom.



    I hope not. I was cleverly protecting grounds for an ad hominem.



    As above, same answer.



    Wow, I feel just the opposite.



    I think my circumlocution eluded you. You have a great sense of humor, though.



    I think you're wrong, and being disingenuous.



    I'm not sure what you're responding to without going back and looking. Please make your replies include more context about what it is you're responding to.



    Again, as above, not enough context without going back to the old post. That really gets tedious when your reply is already on a new page.



    I think you are attacking. I think your posts do represent you as a person.



    ...not enough context without going back to the old post.



    You're off again...
    Whatever. Are we done? Just say yes or no...please.

  10. #55
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Yes, I think we see what you're saying, tikoo.
    The understanding is all yours . Anyway , I had a little dream about this string - it was a post addressed to me from its Idea . It's personal .

  11. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Whatever. Are we done? Just say yes or no...please.
    That's up to you as well; I've found that out the hard way.
    My suggestion is that you stop trying to be "the idea police."

  12. #57
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    That's up to you as well; I've found that out the hard way.
    My suggestion is that you stop trying to be "the idea police."
    I volunteered to end this stupid conversation. I asked you if you'd agree to that. I'm not interested in your "suggestions." Can you say "yes" or "no"? It's a simple question. Just answer it, for chrissakes, and we're done.

  13. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    I volunteered to end this stupid conversation. I asked you if you'd agree to that. I'm not interested in your "suggestions." Can you say "yes" or "no"? It's a simple question. Just answer it, for chrissakes, and we're done.
    You have the freedom to engage or ignore any post. It's not up to me.
    My whole outlook is different; I post thread ideas as a pro-active form of involvement, and this naturally gives me incentive to engage and defend those ideas, or clarify them if need be. The overall intention is not simply to provoke, which they might, but to open up an idea and "probe" for meaning, explode myths, think outside the box, and be creative.
    I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-23-2020 at 17:30.

  14. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    While searching for this CD, I ran across a review of it from scarecrow, our old compadre on Ama-whatzit. It's public, so I thought I'd paste it here for Mandryka, mainly, and others to enjoy. It's about Barraque, and is marginally relevant to the subject being discussed here about French aesthetics of "irrationalism." I thought al;so that it would be good to see what an intelligent composer had to say in a positive light about this, to de-tox some of the negative comments seen here.

    Review by scarecrow:
    Insensibility, as the theatre of cruelty of Antonin Artaud and the literature of Samuel Beckett, the rationalism of the irrational. I don't quite agree that the Barraque Sonata is a masterwork of this century, or the last one, but within the context of the set of aesthetic trajectories nurtured by European creativity at that time, Barraque was in the conceptual pit, slugging away. Andre Hodier's old book on French contemporary music is the first and really the only discussion of Barraque. What is significant of this 'Sonata' for its times was the retrogressive perspective,and its length. Beethoven was Barraque's creative icon, as opposed to the Schoenberg School for Boulez and the post war avant-garde. Barraque seemed to think that the rigours of serial music needed to contain this sense of durationally large architectural forms. The 'Sonata' works, its length and gestures, because it is primarily rhythmically charged. Always the intuitive ends is what saves what can be pedantic creative agendas. The work is in two large movements one fast, the other slow, but there are necessarily gradations within each movement of speeding up or slowing down. Barraque as well came to serialism with his own sense, forgetting about the tyranny of the interval, where only dissonance was to be exploited. Here we hear open fifths, and relatively wonderfullly pleasant sounding timbres. Hearing/Encountering/Appraising then the Boulez 'Third Sonata', is like having a bucket of ice water thrown over your head. For the 'Third' accelerates the challenge although even today it is a difficult work to encounter. It is not as lyrically directional or on its surface gesturally predictable as the 'First' or 'Second' Sonatas. Boulez here clearly wanted to mark/succomb and conquer new structural territories. The buzz of "Indeterminacy" was in the air, of open forms, the mobiles of Alexander Calder and with the freshness of John Cage coming to Europe in the early Fifties to loosen up the sometimes (most of the times) tyrannical mindsets of these post- war post- serialists as Stockhausen and Boulez harbored was quite important. Theodor Adorno always thought they were too serious, too much concerned with the surface of their art without looking out creating some worldview to be utilized in their music, too much concerned pure technique rather than philosophic/social substance. The Third Sonata which Boulez explains in his position paper included in "Orientations", "Sonata, What do you want from me?", "Sonate, que me veux-tu?", pages 143-54, is good start if you want to understand the excitement of these newly found structural departures. And also Boulez's lifelong affinity and inspiration he searched for from Mallarme, the concept of the book, that every part of a book should be enriched by its preceeding encounters, concepts you can quite literally devote ones life to. Here Chen plays wonderfully sensitive to Boulez's deep musicianship and structural vision, the elegance, and rarefied refinement, almost surreal, but also the open brutality, and the vigorously new approach toward exploiting the resonant physical features of the piano, as piano harmonics, that's where you depress tones silently then striking violently others thereby enleashing the sympathetic overtone vibrations. Also the utilizations of all the piano pedals to alter the timbral resonance, is here incorporated into Boulez structures.Tristan Murail, the younger generation French IRCAM composer has further developed these resonant piano techniques; see his piano solo 'Terratoires De l'Oubli'. The structure of the Boulez work itself has metamorphosized into varying states in incompletion since the time it was first written in the late Fifties. But the original plan was five movements, or Boulez calls them formatives, (formants in French), and were 1. Antiphonie; 2 Trope; 3. Constellation; 4.Strophe; 5 Sequence;, Constellation being the longest in duration here. Each piece of formant, or movement allows the possibilities of choice, like being given a map to direct your own destinations. The first complete performance of this work was some ten hears later by Boulez himself at Darmstadt in September, 1967. Here Chen adopts, fashions the 'Trope' movement which is the second movement (formative) (formant) which comprises four sections, 'Texte', 'Parenthese', 'Commentaire', and 'Glose'. The only other order, is reversing 'Glose' with 'Constellation' which you'll find in the Charles Rosen and Claude Helffer earlier recordings. 'Miroir' then follows this. Claude Helffer also includes formant #3,which is about 11 and a half minutes and consists of other materials, 'Points, Blocs, Points 2, Blocs 2'. The titles are extracted from medeival sensibility of discourse and duration, and each movement of the movement (Formatives) here has self-contained like features. 'Texte' is more one-dimensional monodic, with a serial like cantus firmus, 'Parenthese', is a slow tempo but is interrupted by parenthesis of fragments of music Boulez writes in boxes within the music line or system. 'Glose' as well is slow but undergoes frequent gradations of accelerations. This has been the Boulez approach of the dialectic between relatively fixed musical structures, and interruptions of those via complex means and techniques. His 'Repons', and his conducting of Mahler retains/contains similar approaches to form, interpretation and approach. The 'Third Sonata' also retains a musical sense of elegance structurally and interms of its extended pallette of timbres. It is still difficult listening. one of the three biographies on Michel Foucault, he relates a tale of Boulez, Barraque and Foucault all meeting in some castle for a concert where their music was to be played.Barraque and Foucault remained friends and shared intellectual and aesthetic pursuits until Barraque untimely death.. Barraque as this 'Sonata' admirably reflects was interested in extremes of expression, and the current buzz in France in the Fifties was this.
    The earlier student 'Notations' has numerous recordings, Stephan McCallum is one I prefer, but Chen is right on the money here as well exposing the space threadbare piano lines of the young visionary composer. 'Notations' has above all documentary value, in the realizations of the odyssey of the Boulez's creative lifeworld. As the agricultural seeds known to be buried with Egyptian priests, when some centuries later when they discovered the seeds they still brought something to the surface, as similarly the orchestral realizations of Notations by Boulez are far more a greater conception.

    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-26-2020 at 15:12.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Barbebleu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    (not so)Great Britain
    Posts
    5,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    I do not passively wait in the shadows for something to jump on, which I can expose as "fraud" or as deficient.
    A massive understatement methinks
    "...it is said that first your heart sings, then you play. I think if it is not like that, then it is only just combination of notes, isn't it? " - Pandit Nikhil Banerjee, Master of the Sitar.

    ‘When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!‘

    ‘It will be alright in the end. If it’s not alright, it’s not the end!’

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •