On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote:
loads of text
So basicly your answer is yes then. But its ok because your taste is super awesome. Then you list a bunch of famous people who also shared your taste. Cmon man.
You know that I was exaggerating with the initial statement, right? Nothing is lower than animal cruelty, or cruelty in general. But this is next in my book.
The real question is, why are you and others trying to mock me for reacting so strongly to this? Don't you know by now how I feel about this? That I hold romantic values? What do you expect? You want to mock me because I think there is more to life than being on autopilot and not being able to stop to listen to great music? Or do you want to mock me because I cannot scientifically demonstrate the superiority of Bach's talent to the one of DJ Tiesto? Is that really what people want to argue with me, that it's all subjective and some people like different stuff and I need to accept it? Like I somehow don't accept this already? lol
None of these famous people shared my tastes, except I do understand why they were great admirers of Bach, Mozart, etc and I am as well. I didn't use them to demonstrate that I have greater taste (other than the first Thoreau quote); I used them to make a point about music, about its power, about its necessity for life.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 10 2012 09:28 Funktion wrote:
Good luck telling the wife you lost your job because you listened to some music in the subway and now can't feed the kids.
For some people music no matter how good is such a low priority...and it doesn't matter. Just as much as if Shakespeare came back from the dead and was reading one of his plays or Tom Brady was doing tricks with a football. Accept that some people have different priorities, values and responsibilities. Not that hard.
No, I agree, it's only logical that a person wouldn't stop if they were going to lose their job. I just know I would. I don't have a bad opinion of the people who would rush to their job consciously. And that is the key thing here, making the conscious decision, rather than it being automatic.
I accept it, but your criticism is way too narrow. You're working under the assumption that everyone who wouldn't stop isn't stopping because it threatens the quality of their life and the one of their family, whereas I'm looking at it under a very different light: most people are too caught up in bullshit to "smell the roses". I know that it is a fact that most people wouldn't stop for it even if they were coming back from work, with some plans to do whatever, whether it is watching tv or jackoff or play games. There would have to be more who stop, to be sure, but the truth of it is impossible to ignore: receptivity is destroyed by automatism, and most people are caught within it.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote:
loads of text
So basicly your answer is yes then. But its ok because your taste is super awesome. Then you list a bunch of famous people who also shared your taste. Cmon man.
standard loco. always preaching how his taste in music, and his views on life are so much more superior than the common man (the "philistine"!). then he goes on listing quotes from famous philosophers relating to his present opinion, trying so desperately to convince you that he's right
Yeah, it's like that guy Nietzsche, right? Nothing good came out of his eccentricity! All he ever did was preach about his superiority to the common man and desperately tried to convince others that he was right! Damn those intelligent people with their strong opinions on things, let's make sure to point them with our finger and laugh at them as much as possible.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
palak United States. Feb 10 2012 16:09. Posts 4601
No we (at least I) criticize u b/c ur posts (perhaps read w/ the wrong inflection) reek of a smug arrogance that u look down on ppl who do not appreciate the same things u do based solely on a youtube clip. When the ppl may not love Bach as much as u do perhaps they find art or beauty in things that u (i am assuming) dislike.
E.g. I doubt u find any of these as awe inspiring or beautiful. But many hardcore bball fans do
Plus the assumption that what they r missing is actually of any higher quality then of something like a josh bell flac recording. When infact it is lower quality due to the setting. Say someone rushes through there while listening to a flac audio bach recording on an mp3 player through something like shure se530 headphones, or rushes through to go home and listen to a Bach bluray through a home theater system. Do u criticize them for not listening to a live performance due to them already listening to or about to listen to a higher quality?
Finally yes morally I dont think anyone should spend extra money on something that has no genuine demonstratable value. Most expert violinists cant even tell the difference while playing them. But its also a critique of the fact that ppl r willing to spend so much on something to sit in a museum like the german collector was going to instead of giving that money to those less furtunate.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
palak United States. Feb 10 2012 16:25. Posts 4601
Another example...my friend prefers lady gaga to Bach but got chocked up watching this
Ur posts imply ud look down on them for not listening to a music u like but instead finding beauty in something almost no one cares about
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Feb 10 2012 16:26. Posts 8648
On February 10 2012 12:39 Mariuslol wrote:
Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, it doesn't really matter
for real though, Bach is head and shoulders above those other guys =[
way above
-.-
I used to live with someone who could play the most difficult works of Liszt, and several of Bach, Chopin so forth. Also won an award for best performance of La Campanella in an audition for the hardest music school in Norway.
did he play more than 1 instrument? i ask because La Campanella is the 3rd movement of Paganini's 2nd violin concerto so i assume he plays violin, but Liszt and Chopin are mostly associated with piano (and rarely violin). i know Liszt has some repertoire for violin including a concerto but it's hardly ever played.
as far as i know the only piece Chopin ever wrote for violin was one of his Nocturnes which is beautiful but not especially technically demanding, especially compared to La Campanella.
On February 10 2012 15:09 palak wrote:
No we (at least I) criticize u b/c ur posts (perhaps read w/ the wrong inflection) reek of a smug arrogance that u look down on ppl who do not appreciate the same things u do based solely on a youtube clip. When the ppl may not love Bach as much as u do perhaps they find art or beauty in things that u (i am assuming) dislike.
E.g. I doubt u find any of these as awe inspiring or beautiful. But many hardcore bball fans do
Plus the assumption that what they r missing is actually of any higher quality then of something like a josh bell flac recording. When infact it is lower quality due to the setting. Say someone rushes through there while listening to a flac audio bach recording on an mp3 player through something like shure se530 headphones, or rushes through to go home and listen to a Bach bluray through a home theater system. Do u criticize them for not listening to a live performance due to them already listening to or about to listen to a higher quality?
Finally yes morally I dont think anyone should spend extra money on something that has no genuine demonstratable value. Most expert violinists cant even tell the difference while playing them. But its also a critique of the fact that ppl r willing to spend so much on something to sit in a museum like the german collector was going to instead of giving that money to those less furtunate.
"based solely on a youtube clip". It's not based solely on a yt clip. It's a whole critique of society and the consumer-capitalist mentality.
I don't know what you're trying to argue. That many basketball fans are idiots apparently, and that it makes sense to compare apples and oranges. Next thing you know you're going to attempt to argue with me that Limp Bizkit could have more artistic merit than Bach and in fact be much more beautiful and I'm stupid for not realizing it since it's all subjective. Do you not get how stupid your argument is here? You just really don't get it... no one who argues in this way does. The point is that only ignorance coming from an undeveloped individual can prefer one to the other, period.
"no genuine demonstratable value" You mean everything except, arguably I suppose, Noumenal/Platonic ideas and forms? You gonna do some science to demonstrate why something you value has a genuine value in itself? lol. It has relative value, and your claim that the instrument isn't worth its price or worth acquiring for a musician of Bell's caliber is based on your personal opinion. It's no different than you saying that a Van Gogh painting shouldn't be worth more than what covers the material costs it took for it to be produced. It makes no sense at all, and it's really laughable that you act so moralistic on a poker forum. Why don't you bother some of the rich people on here while you're at it? How about those awe-inspiring, beauty-creating rich basketball players you posted? Why don't we have a look at how they live and what they own?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 10 2012 12:39 Mariuslol wrote:
Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, it doesn't really matter
for real though, Bach is head and shoulders above those other guys =[
way above
-.-
I used to live with someone who could play the most difficult works of Liszt, and several of Bach, Chopin so forth. Also won an award for best performance of La Campanella in an audition for the hardest music school in Norway.
did he play more than 1 instrument? i ask because La Campanella is the 3rd movement of Paganini's 2nd violin concerto so i assume he plays violin, but Liszt and Chopin are mostly associated with piano (and rarely violin). i know Liszt has some repertoire for violin including a concerto but it's hardly ever played.
as far as i know the only piece Chopin ever wrote for violin was one of his Nocturnes which is beautiful but not especially technically demanding, especially compared to La Campanella.
Impossible to tolerate Liszt after Bach. Putting Bach on equal grounds with anyone is just silly, the closest I can think of can be no other than Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and Beethoven.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 10/02/2012 19:04
1
HeRoS)eNGagE Canada. Feb 10 2012 19:32. Posts 10896
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Feb 10 2012 20:11. Posts 8648
On February 10 2012 12:39 Mariuslol wrote:
Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, it doesn't really matter
for real though, Bach is head and shoulders above those other guys =[
way above
-.-
I used to live with someone who could play the most difficult works of Liszt, and several of Bach, Chopin so forth. Also won an award for best performance of La Campanella in an audition for the hardest music school in Norway.
did he play more than 1 instrument? i ask because La Campanella is the 3rd movement of Paganini's 2nd violin concerto so i assume he plays violin, but Liszt and Chopin are mostly associated with piano (and rarely violin). i know Liszt has some repertoire for violin including a concerto but it's hardly ever played.
as far as i know the only piece Chopin ever wrote for violin was one of his Nocturnes which is beautiful but not especially technically demanding, especially compared to La Campanella.
Impossible to tolerate Liszt after Bach. Putting Bach on equal grounds with anyone is just silly, the closest I can think of can be no other than Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and Beethoven.
yeah agreed Beethoven is #2 on my list his later quartets are some of his best writing imo, and the symphonies are of course amazing. Solo Bach just feels like a different experience playing (and listening to) than anything else to me, i've never meditated but it's sort of what i would imagine meditation is supposed to feel like.
Truck-Crash Life
1
palak United States. Feb 10 2012 20:17. Posts 4601
You gonna do some science to demonstrate why something you value has a genuine value in itself? lol. It has relative value, and your claim that the instrument isn't worth its price or worth acquiring for a musician of Bell's caliber is based on your personal opinion.
Heres what I mean by demonstrable value: Does it produce better music then many other, cheaper violins? No. Does a person playing it actually prefer it over other violins? Not when put in an objective environment. Does it hold some unique aspect of history to it? Not really.
Again that's not a critique of just Bell paying for it, its of the whole classical community throwing money at things due to an illusionary quality. 99% of classical music snobs (for lack of a better word off the top of my head right now) will tell someone that a Stradivari produces better quality music and anyone who disagrees just "doesn't understand music" or "isn't truly listening" or some crap like that. When in reality there isn't a fuckin difference, they are just pompous asses. It's the same with audiophiles claiming that they can tell the difference between cable quality and go out and buy shit like ( http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AudioQues....p?id=1218324437192&skuId=2383276 ) when in reality no test has concluded that ppl can tell the fuckin difference http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths , engadget even did monster cables vs a fucking coat hanger and no one could tell. That is what bothers me, ppl being pompous about crap they are making up.
The point is that only ignorance coming from an undeveloped individual can prefer one to the other, period.
My point is this. Music is art. There are thousands of different things that fall under that category of art that someone can appreciate. Missing out on appreciating one realm of one art form should not be construed as being a less developed human. If u had ur ideal romanticized person, what do they do for a living, how are they tangibly helping humanity? Is a scientist who takes the first photographs of an electron undeveloped person if she were to not pay attention to Bach being played at a subway?
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN
Haha Monster cables the cause of numerous eye rolls over the years. "The sales guy even threw in an HDMI cable worth $200" or "the sales guy threw in the cable for only $90".
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Feb 11 2012 01:16. Posts 8648
On February 10 2012 19:17 palak wrote:
Heres what I mean by demonstrable value: Does it produce better music then many other, cheaper violins? No. Does a person playing it actually prefer it over other violins? Not when put in an objective environment. Does it hold some unique aspect of history to it? Not really.
Again that's not a critique of just Bell paying for it, its of the whole classical community throwing money at things due to an illusionary quality. 99% of classical music snobs (for lack of a better word off the top of my head right now) will tell someone that a Stradivari produces better quality music and anyone who disagrees just "doesn't understand music" or "isn't truly listening" or some crap like that. When in reality there isn't a fuckin difference, they are just pompous asses.
palak i think you're taking a lot of those sound test experiments out of context. a strad absolutely produces a superior sound to most (arguably all) other violins and there is nothing "illusionary" about it. for that matter, if you took a reasonably good violinist (him being good is only important for the sake of producing a reliably consistent tone) and put him in a room with decent accoustics, most people who listen to violin music even semi-regularly would be able to very clearly tell the differences between a $1k violin and a $10k violin, as well as the difference between a $10k violin and a strad. i say people who listen to violin music not to be a snob or exclusionary but because it helps to be acclimated to the sound. it would not surprise me if many non-classical listeners could tell the same differences, but there would probably be more variance.
regarding the sound tests, first of all you need to understand that virtually every modern handmade violin is modeled after one of the old masters (Stradivari, Guarneri, Amati, etc.) with varying degrees of craftsmanship. the difference between a $700 and a $2k strad copy is very noticable, as is $2k to $7k and so on. however, when you get to the very best modern violins, the makers copy the model extremely well. i haven't been in the market to buy a violin for a long time, but i think $25-30k is roughly the price range for these instruments.
it is widely accepted that there is very little if any difference in sound quality between the best modern copies of strads and the originals themselves. i don't know anything about the "1976 british violin" or the swiss violin maker whose instruments were used in the two tests from your wikipedia article, but it seems likely that they were very high quality instruments, and i would assume that both of them were modeled after a strad since that is what they were being compared (and confused) with. i've heard a strad before in person (and got to play one for about 15 minutes) and it would not be hard to differentiate it from 99% of violins. i've never specifically heard a strad followed by a top-quality copy, but if Zukerman and Stern can't tell the difference i'm sure i couldn't either.
one more important point is that they don't mention anything about the location of the test other than that the violinist was "behind a screen". specifically, if the violinist is in a very large performance hall, a lot of good strad copies will sound just about as good as a strad up to the first 3-5 rows, then the sound will start to drop off somewhat. with a strad you can be standing in the very back of the hall when the violinist is on stage and it will sound the same as if you're standing 3 feet away from him.
ok just one last thing :S noting the difference in sound is not always simply a case of better or worse. for example i might not be able to tell the difference between a $30k strad copy and an $x million strad. but i can definitely tell the difference between $x million strad and $x million guarneri. the guarneri has a brighter and more vibrant sound while the strad has more of a restrained (but still penetrating) sound. different players have different preferences, some players prefer to use a strad for certain pieces and a guarneri for others, etc.
his later quartets are some of his best writing imo, and the symphonies are of course amazing. Solo Bach just feels like a different experience playing (and listening to) than anything else to me, i've never meditated but it's sort of what i would imagine meditation is supposed to feel like.
