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.
He got born on a small island, and his parents gave him instruments as a very yong child, and he did that whole play from kid to young adult and around 22 he stopped almost everything, changed profession, since it didn't "move" him anymore.
I have to be honest, I didn't really pay attention all that much to the actual words when he spoke, but he spoke a lot about it, I payed more attention to the enthusiasm, body language etc.
He did bring up Bach but had a much bigger fascination for the other componists. I guess it's like, if Bach is Flash, a lot of people don't give a fuck, and they still rather want to bang Bisu, or JAedong, or one of them others.
My old mates didn't get how the fuck I could keep picking this castle as a kid (all the noobs kept picking easy ones). But it was mainly because of the music in this one lol.
On November 25 2010 07:06 wobbly_au wrote:
lol@ choosing a violin. its so out dated. if they got a good rapper he woulda gotten people's appreciation however fast they were moving.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Omg!! This might make you roll in your grave! But that dood who writes the music/compose tracks for the top/most popular Anime's, I feel he's on another level than all them old composer guys from the past lol.
On November 25 2010 07:06 wobbly_au wrote:
lol@ choosing a violin. its so out dated. if they got a good rapper he woulda gotten people's appreciation however fast they were moving.
LOL I remember this haha
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
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?
About the strad, listen to bigredhoss. He knows indefinitely more on the topic than you (and I as well) do. It's just really ignorant to think that it's just some big ego trip to buy a strad, seriously.
I agree with you on the audiophile part, I think most are just deceiving themselves. It just sells products that people don't really need to appreciate their music/films. But the quality of an instrument is not the same as that.
There really isn't anything to argue here. If you think Limp Bizkit is more beautiful than Bach, there is no way around it, you are an undeveloped person with an undeveloped intellect. You don't find great minds appreciating that kind of crap for a reason. Not all art is equal simply because it is subjective. People who argue like that about art are complete fools.
How are they tangibly helping humanity?
"Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact." - William S. Burroughs
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
- Albert Einstein
"Whence came I, whither go I? Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears.
Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity – the One of Parmenides – of which we all somehow form part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God – with a capital ‘G’.
Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."
- Erwin Schrödinger
How are your favorite basketball players helping humanity? What about all the money going into making all those games possible? Shouldn't they all be ashamed, stop and feed the poor instead?
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 11 2012 00:16 bigredhoss wrote:
...a strad absolutely produces a superior sound to most (arguably all) other violins and there is nothing "illusionary" about it.
...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.
Herp derp.
Anyway I watched a documentary (on the ABC for any Aus. people) a few years ago where part of it followed a female violinist who was trying to purchase an approximately $1m strad. In another part of the doco they set up a panel of 3 experts and played a strad along with I think it was 5 or so other violins that were modern but top of the range to see if the strad could be picked. No one picked the strad but 2 I think picked the same violin. When the experts were told the results they just laughed it off and/or said it was a testament to modern makers. This sort of test has been done to death and the results are always the same.
I am the only one who think that the masters of this day in age is far, far above any of the old masters?
We're just a lot uhm, smarter now than then. I think. (Intentional brainfart inserted).
1
palak United States. Feb 11 2012 11:22. Posts 4601
Science cannot tell us a word about why music delights us, of why and how an old song can move us to tears.
It can now, just wasn't advanced enough in his day
But the quality of an instrument is not the same as that.
Every objective study attempted has come the the conclusion that it is the same, they are both overpaying for an object they are fooling themselves into believing produces a higher quality.
There really isn't anything to argue here. If you think Limp Bizkit is more beautiful than Bach, there is no way around it, you are an undeveloped person with an undeveloped intellect. You don't find great minds appreciating that kind of crap for a reason. Not all art is equal simply because it is subjective. People who argue like that about art are complete fools.
Bach's objectively the best composer of all time, there's no denying that (every survey or list i've ever seen from musicians listing composers always has Bach #1. At that kind of unanimity it becomes objective). Ignoring other aspects of a person and saying they have an undeveloped intellect for not appreciating Bach is narrow minded.
How are your favorite basketball players helping humanity? What about all the money going into making all those games possible? Shouldn't they all be ashamed, stop and feed the poor instead?
Besides the hundreds of hours of community service they are basically required to do under the "NBA cares" banner. They provide more enjoyment for ppl watching due to their skill level. Yes they are horrifically overpaid and many millions of those dollars should be going to better causes.
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
I've literally never heard a music lover say that. Its nice to hear. I've always just heard them go on and on about strads being way better then any other violin. U nailed the price on the swiss violin they used. Price is $30k.
Sure some people can tell a difference between a $10k and a strad. I sure as hell can't since i have horrific hearing. But if ppl can no longer tell the difference between a $30k violin and a strad then the strad isn't worth the damn 3.6mil. Even if you grant that the older violins at the time revolutionized the music, we have gotten to the point that we can reproduce the quality of music they produce at 1/10000 the price.(obv exaggeration since its only 1/120th the price)
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Last edit: 11/02/2012 14:41
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Feb 11 2012 13:30. Posts 8648
On February 11 2012 00:16 bigredhoss wrote:
...a strad absolutely produces a superior sound to most (arguably all) other violins and there is nothing "illusionary" about it.
...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.
Herp derp.
i know you probably think these statements contradict each other but read carefully -.-
There really isn't anything to argue here. If you think Limp Bizkit is more beautiful than Bach, there is no way around it, you are an undeveloped person with an undeveloped intellect. You don't find great minds appreciating that kind of crap for a reason. Not all art is equal simply because it is subjective. People who argue like that about art are complete fools.
Bach's objectively the best composer of all time, there's no denying that (every survey or list i've ever seen from musicians listing composers always has Bach #1. At that kind of unanimity it becomes objective). Ignoring other aspects of a person and saying they have an undeveloped intellect for not appreciating Bach is narrow minded.
I've never ever said that. I think you've said something was implied in one of my posts but it wasn't and I just didn't want to bother correcting it. All I've said is that the argument for the subjectivity of value/beauty does not take away from the superiority of an artist over another. My example is the equivalent of my saying that Nietzsche's writings are superior and more insightful than d_smart's posts on liquidpoker. No one will be willing to dispute that, even though it's subjective, but when it comes to music people are just all too eager to call you a snob if you make the same argument because you know that Bach is superior to whatever artist.
It is a fact that you are an undeveloped individual and your ability to perceive beauty is very limited if you prefer something shallow to something of immense depth. That's all I was saying. The people who read this here and who don't appreciate Bach particularly may see this as a personal jab/prejudice of mine against them but it really isn't. There are different degrees of depth in different kinds of music, just because someone listens to something that has depth but doesn't listen to Bach does not mean that he lacks intellect. If anything he lacks culture or has been very unfortunate not to have had the opportunity to listen to Bach. He is not to be compared with the person who can only appreciate the shallow stuff. And it's completely irrelevant to the discussion if the shallow person has developed some other skills in life. Yeah, there might be some guy who is extremely more efficient at scrubbing bathroom toilets or packing groceries, or making money at poker, but the argument is that it doesn't give him the same ability to perceive what is inherently beautiful if what appeals to him is only what is shallow.
Anyway, this has gone far enough and I'm done with this topic. Cheers.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
It's a popular meme. Am I supposed to feel insulted? That's a pretty snarky comment to make, and duplicitous considering you were asking for my attention in this thread. Why ask me my opinion on whatever and freak out when I ignore it if you are so intelligent yourself as to be able to categorize me accurately as a pseudo-intellectual?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
LOL, you're crazy xD, I love it, and you, even though I disagree with almost everything you have written lately, in this post and in all your crazy attacks towards Wobbly lol.
My whole agenda lol, but interesting and cute seeing how you perceived/responded to it xD + Show Spoiler +
Anyway, this has gone far enough and I'm done with this topic. Cheers.
AND I WAS ANGRY YOU CHOOSE TO ONLY REPLY TO PEOPLE YOU'RE ARGUING WITH, AND NOT A LONG SERIOUS REPLY TO SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY READ YOUR POSTS 2-3 TIMES AND DID SOME THINKING BEFORE REPLYING
*Gaaaasps for breath*
Hmmm... Now I'm wondering if I should remove the "cute", my spider senses are telling me you might find it patronizing....
I had to look up two words, because I wasn't quite sure what they ment, this is the first one:
pseudo-intellectual:
- Can probably be found with a thesaurus in hand, while in a chat room, looking up new insults that are synonymous with "stupid" in order to boost his or her own undeserved ego.
- Should the victim of the verbal onslaught happen to have a differing opinion, the pseudo-intellectual will revert to his or her thesaurus and insult the opposition with words he or she never knew existed, and probably cannot even pronounce.
And I looked up
duplicitous (although I kinda know what this one is, since on my nightstand I have NO MORE DUPLICITY)
But the way I had that arranged was, don't talk shit about people, don't say negative things about people behind their backs, and don't ever go around talking shit about people online. Nothing takes away integrity more than that. I used to feel justified talking shit about people if they met certain parameters I've constructed in my head lol.
Real translation of duplicitious:
marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another;
Interesting how the ego works, I notice I have 3 small subtle jabs at you in my last 2 posts, very very subtle, as if "it doesn't count when it's all covered up and shrouded all like thiz"
!! I AM STRONGER THAN THIZ
I think my reasoning is (pffth, he has crazy huge ones all over the place, I'm sure I can get away with a few small ones).
Tsh tsh, glad I caught that, now I can go to bed feeling good <3
A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.
Adjective - Any language that contains quips or comments containing sarcastic or satirical witticisms intended as blunt irony. Usually delivered in a manner that is somewhat abrupt and out of context and intended to stun and amuse
