Interesting read *old*

Hey Guys

probably most of you have read this story already since its quiet old, however i still believe its worth sharing and that it tells a lot about our society, enjoy

---------------

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist.

Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the top musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written,with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station

was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty?

Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

interdasting

LP =/= Facebook.

Thanks for sharing. I have read this story before but enjoyed reading it again.

When people are on their way to work, I'm sure they are focused on arriving there in time. If the same guy were playing in a park where people were having some leisure time there would probably be a large crowd around him. I've appreciated some street artists' works and thought that what they were doing is awesome, I just couldn't stay around.

Hmm, You know there is a video of this and its NOT exactly like what you described?? There was even a person who did recognize him and there were SEVERAL people who stoped and listened to him for some moments and it was even an edited video.

Edit watch the video I posted

Thanks for sharing capaneo

lol you got capaneowned

On February 07 2012 09:46 uiCk wrote: LP =/= Facebook.

This. It's not 9gag either

This was posted here a while ago and I remember the thread turned to shit... can't find the thread somehow tho. I vaguely remember some ridiculous opinions about it. That video is one of the saddest things I've seen up to this day.

On February 07 2012 10:08 capaneo wrote: Hmm, You know there is a video of this and its NOT exactly like what you described?? There was even a person who did recognize him and there were SEVERAL people who stoped and listened to him for some moments and it was even an edited video. Edit watch the video I posted

several = ~ 10 over 10k people?

On February 07 2012 09:46 uiCk wrote: LP =/= Facebook.

+2

I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it.

On February 07 2012 13:04 c4rnage wrote: I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it.

It's about as enjoyable to watch as watching animal cruelty. It's a tragic video to watch for a music lover.

On February 07 2012 13:11 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2012 13:04 c4rnage wrote: I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it. It's about as enjoyable to watch as watching animal cruelty. It's a tragic video to watch for a music lover.

well yes... maybe i should had said "just listen" instead of watch it.

Cool story. 4.5 stars. Would read again.

to all the whiny faggots about LP =/= social media: fuck you

On February 07 2012 13:14 c4rnage wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2012 13:11 Loco wrote:   On February 07 2012 13:04 c4rnage wrote: I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it. It's about as enjoyable to watch as watching animal cruelty. It's a tragic video to watch for a music lover. well yes... maybe i should had said "just listen" instead of watch it.

Yes, I could presume that was probably what you meant. Agreed.

"Bach's music is the only argument proving the creation of the Universe cannot be regarded a complete failure" - E.M. Cioran

A Czech magazine once did the opposite - a guy who never played any instrument had a 2 hour crash course in Sax and then went on playing publicly :D

He made above average hourly

Iirc byrnesam shared this?

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the top musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written,with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.



Not true, I recall one person recognizing him at the end.

Yea I've heard this story a very long time ago. Very interesting. I used to play the violin seriously myself so I MIGHT turn around and look at him for a second but I doubt i'd sit there and listen for a long time ;(. But who knows...hearing leet stuff like that live is pretty amazing.

wtf does =/= even mean?

why no u use != ?

Of course people in a subway have places to go...... why would they stop, what idiocy. Try it in a park.

talking about violinist...





<3

i don't have anything insightful to say about the article but i feel like replying since the Chaconne is my favorite piece of music ever and i played it at a competition a couple years ago. if anyone wants to listen to the entire piece without the fast-forward shit i'd highly recommend: (all videos seem to be split into 2 parts for some reason)

Grumiaux (my personal favorite)




Heifetz (because everything he plays is pretty much perfect including this)




for semi-recent recordings (which might be more palatable to some ears b/c of recording quality), i'd recommend -
Hahn




& Perlman




are both excellent. i don't know if anyone is going to watch any of these but i hope they do Also Nathan Milstein and Yehudi Menuhin have what are considered to be classic recordings of the Chaconne, I don't like them as much as these though. There's quite a contrast between the different interpretations.

it's not very surprising. the city is a loud place, filled with sounds, ads, and crazy people. most people put up filters and also have places to go.

Also some people don't resonate well with that kind of music, had a friend once who'd play classical music, he was a pianist, and he'd teach me a few things, but I was just being good friend, not my kind of music. So I'd go past just as easily, but if it was Wobbly and eri in a ring about to have a kickboxing match, I would have stopped, or a catshow or something like that!!

^^

It's also "annoying" to meet street musicians since it's implied you have to give money if you stop and listen, I bet that puts up extra filters. And in cities people are trying to "take" your money nonstop.

Just a couple of points to make. I actually think the video was VERY VERY encouraging for music fans.

- Why no one is pointing out that the guy can make hourly wage of $42.6/hour?? That is about 80-90k/year?? That is some REALLY good wages for a person who plays music for 8hours/day 5 days a week and two week vacation every year! Again, that is some REALLY REALLY great standard of living for a musician. The fact that a great music player and pull this off and does what he loves and have a really nice life I think its win on so many ways.

- I am myself a classical music fan and I like to have this kind of music around. But lets keep it real for sec, I have to admit that this type of music is a dying trend. I don't like that but thats the way it is. If you expect that people today recognize Chopin or Korsakov you are delusional. Now considering that one person not only recognize the music she recognize this player as well. Many ppl enjoyed the music and many many stopped by and listened.


I think this experience actually was a big win for music fans [specially classical music fans].

On February 07 2012 21:47 capaneo wrote: - Why no one is pointing out that the guy can make hourly wage of $42.6/hour?? That is about 80-90k/year?? That is some REALLY good wages for a person who plays music for 8hours/day 5 days a week and two week vacation every year! Again, that is some REALLY REALLY great standard of living for a musician. The fact that a great music player and pull this off and does what he loves and have a really nice life I think its win on so many ways.

well, violin soloists who are good enough to tour internationally, in full-time demand, get paid very well. to put it in perspective, i know several years ago Perlman was charging $75k per engagement (by "engagement" i mean he goes to x city for 3-4 days and plays 2 or 3 or 4 different concerts with that orchestra, and gets $75k total). Hahn was charging $50k, i'm not sure about Bell but it was probably about the same as Hahn. 100 concerts/year = $$$. probably only like 15-20ish people in the world who fall in this category though and most of them aren't as famous as the above 3 and don't make as much, but still make a lot (i'm not sure what the least of them would make but i remember hearing like $10-15k per engagement, not sure if that's accurate or not though).

the next "level down" i suppose would be playing violin in a major symphony, which starts at 6 figures per year even if you're the "last" violin in the 2nd section or whatever (assuming this figure hasn't changed from a few years ago, although with the financial trouble they seem to be facing i guess it's possible it has). and once you're in, you're in for life, you never have to re-audition to keep your spot. unfortunately symphonies have been going bankrupt left and right over the past few years in the US, and it's brutally difficult to get in (any time a seat opens up for a major symphony there's several hundred auditions for it from a bunch of musicians who have all been practicing 5 hrs/day since they were like 3).

This one time, when I was in Scotland, this big fat dude and his fat wife/or sister was standing in the middle of some stone buildings in a square blowing them sackpipes, all the buildings in the cities over there are made of really solid stone, all the same height, so gave this really powerful echo, so loud just stick, then I ran over and put some money in an open suitcase, but had to leg it afterwards, too loud lol.

On February 07 2012 21:47 capaneo wrote: Just a couple of points to make. I actually think the video was VERY VERY encouraging for music fans. - Why no one is pointing out that the guy can make hourly wage of $42.6/hour?? That is about 80-90k/year?? That is some REALLY good wages for a person who plays music for 8hours/day 5 days a week and two week vacation every year! Again, that is some REALLY REALLY great standard of living for a musician. The fact that a great music player and pull this off and does what he loves and have a really nice life I think its win on so many ways. - I am myself a classical music fan and I like to have this kind of music around. But lets keep it real for sec, I have to admit that this type of music is a dying trend. I don't like that but thats the way it is. If you expect that people today recognize Chopin or Korsakov you are delusional. Now considering that one person not only recognize the music she recognize this player as well. Many ppl enjoyed the music and many many stopped by and listened. I think this experience actually was a big win for music fans [specially classical music fans].

well wouldn't there be a lot of variance on a day to day basis?

i could be wrong but it seems like if he always played in the same location, eventually the same people that would tip him would stop and sometimes there just wouldn't be a lot of people tip on certain days. maybe if he moved to different locations and had a different routine of where to play throughout the week or something

Thanks for posting, bigredhoss. And capaneo, I'm sorry but that is such nonsense. The guy made a ridiculous amount of money, remember that he's one of the best violinist in the world? "big win for classical music fans"? Because the guy made $40? It's not. Yes, it pays well sometimes, no matter your talent, because there are a lot of generous people or people who'd just feel guilty not donating to some homeless guy playing music when they pass by, but that's not encouraging. And it's not like every musician can do it, there aren't tons of spaces for it, remember that you need a certain distance from another performer so that the two pieces don't overlap. Plus, when over 95-99% of the people ignore what you consider to be the most beautiful thing in the world, and what took you so long to practice, do you think you're going to enjoy yourself doing it for the money alone and put in 8 hours a day every day of the year? Be realistic. It's a bit like if a poet had people give him money every time he wrote a poem but most wouldn't bother reading it: he would hate his life and he'd much rather have people around with no money but who can appreciate his art.

Also, according to wiki, this is the real data: 1,097 people who passed by, only seven stopped to listen to him. For his nearly 45-minute performance, Bell collected $32.17 from 27 passersby (excluding $20 from the passerby who recognized him).

stoping to listen is retarded when you are late to work or might be late to work
if you think listening to him worth losing your job you should go live somewhere else than in a city
+ classical music is good for the ear... listening to classic in ur car or watching someone play it.... its the same

+ its a question of taste... i hate how violons sounds, make my ears bleed

On February 07 2012 13:11 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2012 13:04 c4rnage wrote: I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it. It's about as enjoyable to watch as watching animal cruelty. It's a tragic video to watch for a music lover.

You think its cruel having to witness people with taste diffrent from your own?

On February 07 2012 21:47 capaneo wrote: - I am myself a classical music fan and I like to have this kind of music around. But lets keep it real for sec, I have to admit that this type of music is a dying trend. I don't like that but thats the way it is.

Capaneo pulled the good old "i'm in the minority and it makes me cool" trick.

I can't even comprehend what Engage wrote, he must've been drunk.

On February 08 2012 08:46 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2012 13:11 Loco wrote:   On February 07 2012 13:04 c4rnage wrote: I remember the story but was kinda different, people started arguing about it was not FB or 9gag to talk about those things instead of watching the video and enjoy it. It's about as enjoyable to watch as watching animal cruelty. It's a tragic video to watch for a music lover. You think its cruel having to witness people with taste diffrent from your own?

You think it is funny to play inception?

I think that if you are what Loco describes as music lover you are able to take notice of someone playing an instument at a very high level. If you can not then you don't fall under the category of music lover.

Really enjoyed the article, here's the link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

update: fixed quote thing

im just frnech canadian cariadon
;P

cariadon no Im not in minority. im not even a "fan" to be honest. But i do enjoy this type of music more than average American.

@loco and all the non-belivers . I see your point. But dude this is midday during working hours and everyone has to goto work. Newyork downtown metro station is not exactly an art forum. Lets think about it this way. Keep in mind this is classical music and not U2 and classical music is a dying trend, how would you hope that the ideal situation would be? Again the dude made a VERY VERY healthy sum of money. Got one actual recognition. and people did stop for some min to listen to him.

I havent ever played on the road or been to the metro station in NY but do you guys think that if he was just an average musician he would make the same amount of money?

What Im saying if someone is an unknown musician and loves his music. in USA he can quit his job. grab his instrument. goto NY subway station and makes a REALLY decent money and on top he will get recognition of his talent at least once every hour. All the luck aside the worth case with that money he can live comfortably and improve and audition and then get into real stages like a symphony or something.

If that is not a win I dont know what is.

When im on my way to work in the morning i don't have time to stop and watch some guy play a fkin violin, even if he is really good at it.

This isnt a tragedy for music or anything of the sort. Cool little experiment though.

maybe its gona help some of you feel better

The main idea of this is exactly to show what people's counter arguments are.

When im on my way to work in the morning i don't have time to stop and watch some guy play a fkin violin, even if he is really good at it.

Indeed, thats the problem with today's world. We r so busy with ourselves [insert speech from Fight Club] that we dont appreciate the little things - its the sad truth. Im not saying you are wrong. Im just stating the obvious facts. Its uncool that so many of you fail to recognize that thought ...

On February 07 2012 13:24 gawdawaful wrote: to all the whiny faggots about LP =/= social media: fuck you

Oh the irony

SakiSaki, pretty much what cariadon says. I have no problem with people not enjoying what I enjoy in most cases. I couldn't care less if people ignored my favorite modern artists. But ignoring someone playing Bach, we're talking about BACH here, on a stradivarius worth a few million dollars at such a high level is something else, something that you can't possibly comprehend unless you are a music lover, an aesthete. Not someone who simply says: "I love music!" To which I would quote Thoreau: "Men profess to be lovers of music, but for the most part they give no evidence in their opinions and lives that they have heard it." So yes, it hurts me as an aesthete, I see a great tragedy there.

What I am repulsed by are Philistines who are completely out of touch with the essence of life and are more interested in pursuing illusory, useless things like the acquisition of material goods and social status and comfort than what has real value, like the experience of listening to Bach played so wonderfully. One of Thoreau's most famous lines is that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." And why is that? I believe that an honest look at this story/video is the answer.


http://international-journal-of-axiology.net/articole/nr5/art05.pdf

"The moments of separating of the delusions world are for the human being
moments in which the entire existence feels like a melody and all of the
being’s sufferings assemble and melt into “a convergence of sounds, into a
musical enthusiasm and into a warm and resonant universal community”,
into a “sweet and rhythmic immateriality”. "

"Music is the second casting of the world." and "We have art in order not to die of the truth."
- Nietzsche

"Music is a revelation beyond any wisdom and philosophy."
- Beethoven

"Singing saves the being"
- Malarmé

“I will come back to the music in which worlds are talking to me, the other worlds – to the musical mystery that lies in me
and sends its reflexes in mysterious undulations, which tear me apart and reduce my
matter to pure communion.” - Cioran

Reminded me of this (previously posted on here) and probably the most relevant video on the topic:

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.

Damn iphone fuck up

on a stradivarius worth a few million dollars

yea bach played on a violin that is so over valued ppl would rather spend 3.6 mil to have the ego boner to say "i bought a stradivarius" instead of donating that money to charity or something..."fuck the poor that r starving i'd rather own this old ass violin" putting that much value and prestige into a material good that doesnt produce any higher quality sound then violins that cost $30k. Which is still insane. Plus if u r going to talk music quality, listening in a crowded subway with shitty acoustics is hardly going to sound as good as a high quality recording through good speakers or a concert. Also no its not just me being ignorant of sound quality from that instrument ranting.

+ Show Spoiler + Above all, these instruments are famous for the quality of sound they produce. However, the many blind tests from 1817[8][9] to the present (as of 2012[10] ) have never found any difference in sound between Stradivari's violins and high-quality violins in comparable style of other makers and periods, nor has acoustic analysis.[11][12] In a particularly famous test on a BBC Radio 3 program in 1977, the violinists Isaac Stern and Pinchas Zukerman and the violin expert and dealer Charles Beare tried to distinguish between the "Chaconne" Stradivarius, a 1739 Guarneri del Gesú, an 1846 Vuillaume, and a 1976 British violin played behind a screen by a professional soloist. The two violinists were allowed to play all the instruments first. None of the listeners identified more than two of the four instruments. Two of the listeners identified the 20th-century violin as the Stradivarius.[13] Violinists and others have criticized these tests on various grounds such as that they are not double-blind (in most cases), the judges are often not experts, and the sounds of violins are hard to evaluate objectively and reproducibly.[12] In a test in 2009, the British violinist Matthew Trusler played his 1711 Stradivarius, said to be worth two million U.S. dollars, and four modern violins made by the Swiss violin-maker Michael Rhonheimer. One of Rhonheimer's violins, made with wood that the Empa researcher Francis Schwarze had treated with fungi, received 90 of the 180 votes for the best tone, while the Stradivarius came in second with just 39 votes. The majority (113) of the listeners misidentified the winning violin as the Stradivarius.[14][15][16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius

On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote: a stradivarius worth a few million dollars

On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote: What I am repulsed by are Philistines who are completely out of touch with the essence of life and are more interested in pursuing illusory, useless things like the acquisition of material goods

On February 09 2012 16:59 Spitfiree wrote: The main idea of this is exactly to show what people's counter arguments are. Show nested quote + When im on my way to work in the morning i don't have time to stop and watch some guy play a fkin violin, even if he is really good at it. Indeed, thats the problem with today's world. We r so busy with ourselves [insert speech from Fight Club] that we dont appreciate the little things - its the sad truth. Im not saying you are wrong. Im just stating the obvious facts. Its uncool that so many of you fail to recognize that thought ...

You're way of and over generalizing, it's been awhile since a lot of people realized "we're slaves" to our emotions, blabla, reactionary, passive. But this is a very bad example.

When I'm out I'd ignore something like this, but if one person was walking really slow, I'd find that fascinating, or if a little girl took her finger out, then did a clap, and then a satisfied nod like she was pleased with the sound of her clap, then walk more proudly in her next few steps, I'd feel a slight tingle.

Meh, I just get easily peeved when I feel like I get put in a booth, especially by something that's trivial through my lenses, but then again, I shouldn't really be focusing on external things now should I xD

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.

pretty sure this exact topic was discussed here about a year ago

pretty sure if adriana lima was standing there in a garbage bag, overcoat and beanie with dirt all over her begging for change id still say "man that druggy homeless chick is fucking hot"

On February 10 2012 11:48 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + 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

On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote: SakiSaki, pretty much what cariadon says. I have no problem with people not enjoying what I enjoy in most cases. I couldn't care less if people ignored my favorite modern artists. But ignoring someone playing Bach, we're talking about BACH here, on a stradivarius worth a few million dollars at such a high level is something else, something that you can't possibly comprehend unless you are a music lover, an aesthete. Not someone who simply says: "I love music!" To which I would quote Thoreau: "Men profess to be lovers of music, but for the most part they give no evidence in their opinions and lives that they have heard it." So yes, it hurts me as an aesthete, I see a great tragedy there. What I am repulsed by are Philistines who are completely out of touch with the essence of life and are more interested in pursuing illusory, useless things like the acquisition of material goods and social status and comfort than what has real value, like the experience of listening to Bach played so wonderfully. One of Thoreau's most famous lines is that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." And why is that? I believe that an honest look at this story/video is the answer. http://international-journal-of-axiology.net/articole/nr5/art05.pdf "The moments of separating of the delusions world are for the human being moments in which the entire existence feels like a melody and all of the being’s sufferings assemble and melt into “a convergence of sounds, into a musical enthusiasm and into a warm and resonant universal community”, into a “sweet and rhythmic immateriality”. " "Music is the second casting of the world." and "We have art in order not to die of the truth." - Nietzsche "Music is a revelation beyond any wisdom and philosophy." - Beethoven "Singing saves the being" - Malarmé “I will come back to the music in which worlds are talking to me, the other worlds – to the musical mystery that lies in me and sends its reflexes in mysterious undulations, which tear me apart and reduce my matter to pure communion.” - Cioran Reminded me of this (previously posted on here) and probably the most relevant video on the topic:

Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Grieg, it doesn't really matter, might come as a shock, and your sense of belief makes you shrug and feel "they don't get it".

I've always "felt" I love music, and I almost always get put into that (what I see as) "bad" category when talking to people about music, and each time on the inside I am lolling thinking they are retards, but to be friendly I just do small stings and jokes on them externally.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am very confident you are right, but if you and me were to have a dialogue on this topic, I would almost only say thing contradicting what you're saying, but I wouldn't be wrong.

I would be right too.

Music is beauty, it's breath-taking and awesome, at least to me. But what kind of music gives you goose buns doesn't mean it gives me.

You might say I don't get it, you might call me out on my music skills, but I'd have ammo to shut every argument down. 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.

I've sat for hours having him talk about why it's beautiful, awesome, thrilling cool and whatnot. I used to have it at like a solid 2 on a scale from 1 - 10, but after that I add like 5% classical into my music, but it's just not my type of music.


I feel this Tedtalk clip is relevant, it's about beauty. To summarize, what gives you chills, doesn't need to be what gives someone else a chill. (The good type of chills lol).
+ Show Spoiler +

What has real value? Keep zooming in or out and you'll see that it change, is it to feel good, happiness? Take care next of kin? Is that real value? Is it subjective or objectively.

I think different things make different people happy, and if that is true, what's really valuable to one isn't the same to someone else.


And the quotes are awesome and cool, but when you do anything that's cool, or you feel is important or awesome, just slap a quote that's awesome as well, and it'll look more wise and profound.

I think I have 400 good quotes saved in total on my Pc, some are from music, some from people who's struggled, some people who've survived difficult hardships, former presidents, inventor's, mathematicians, musicians so forth, you get the picture.


A small sample of random Quotes
+ Show Spoiler +

I love the remix of Alan Watts "high" points, and one of the many clips I've heard of him, in fact he's one of my idols, people whom I look up to and admire, who I aspire to be more alike, who I strive to have similar principle's and values akin too.

I've listened to all the clips I could find of him on Youtube, some as many as 10 + times, I like to put them on when relaxing and just have it in the background.

If you're more interested, that clip there is taken from a speech, and this one is cut down in 2 minutes.

I feel as if I'm getting a warm wind under me, almost as if I can fly when listening to him, I have also on several occasions gotten so emotional listening to him that I involuntarily have had tears coming down my cheeks. (It's so liberating and awesome having someone put in words what I have been thinking, feeling and awkwardly tried to tell people around me most of my life).

I went on a little rant here deliberately, his ending, you're suppose to dance along the way is the "key", highlight for me. Not the "musical" part.

Not really sure I had a purpose to all this, just showing my side a bit more, and as respectfully as I can, don't want to "win" or be right, or put you down or ridicule your opinion, rather acknowledge it, and say "Yo mate, that there iz pretty cool, here's my view"

xD

Now I'm trying to find the songs I had to show my Classical genius friend, since I spent ages learning a few basic songs on the piano, playing some chords, and listen to him for so much, he had to repay the favor and start listening more to songs I liked.

Loco gonna Loco.

Stop! Dimentica - Tiziano Ferro

http://open.spotify.com/track/4Z6n3bDAzcu2n2K4zQu51L



In this song you need to fast forward to 1 minute 55, it's weird, why would they hide such an awesome middle piece, and put crap at the start and end lol.
+ Show Spoiler +

A lot of people don't listen to this genre, and toss it away before giving it a shot, I've given this song to lots of mates, and usually the response is bad at first, then after awhile they come with a smile and change their mind, but I think that is because I make them feel guilty and force them to listen to it at least a few times.
+ Show Spoiler +

This one is amazing gaming to, makes you go faster and faster and more and more micro lol

Suliman - Infected Mushroom

http://open.spotify.com/track/3w5lH18VTgWpVpXd5im236


All Along The Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix

http://open.spotify.com/track/0GuQcX8wTe8bUZ72ZncR7m


Map Of The Problematique - Muse

http://open.spotify.com/track/5YXr4AGfUQpLSxtFSsKUh6


A small sample of songs I find beautiful, I picked them since they are really different in genre's, I feel a lot of people seem to pick one and stick by it religiously, usually because people around them, friends, or it was simply first "cool" things they saw/heard on TV, and they don't even know why they "love" it (thinking it was an intellectual choice, and not an emotional one), maybe had it affirmed to many times. (Going with their sense of certainty).

One of the reasons why I try to think extra about making choices, decisions etc, find out if " Is this what I really think...??"

On February 10 2012 11:37 k4ir0s wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote: a stradivarius worth a few million dollars   On February 10 2012 05:53 Loco wrote: What I am repulsed by are Philistines who are completely out of touch with the essence of life and are more interested in pursuing illusory, useless things like the acquisition of material goods

Why are you trying to strawman me?

"Bell came across the violin again and discovered it was about to be sold to a German industrialist to become part of a collection. According to the Joshua Bell website, Bell "was practically in tears."

Yeah, real Philistine. No difference between him wanting to acquire this item and the new iPhone to replace his old one.

On February 10 2012 11:13 palak wrote: Show nested quote + on a stradivarius worth a few million dollars yea bach played on a violin that is so over valued ppl would rather spend 3.6 mil to have the ego boner to say "i bought a stradivarius" instead of donating that money to charity or something..."fuck the poor that r starving i'd rather own this old ass violin" putting that much value and prestige into a material good that doesnt produce any higher quality sound then violins that cost $30k. Which is still insane. Plus if u r going to talk music quality, listening in a crowded subway with shitty acoustics is hardly going to sound as good as a high quality recording through good speakers or a concert. Also no its not just me being ignorant of sound quality from that instrument ranting.   + Show Spoiler + Above all, these instruments are famous for the quality of sound they produce. However, the many blind tests from 1817[8][9] to the present (as of 2012[10] ) have never found any difference in sound between Stradivari's violins and high-quality violins in comparable style of other makers and periods, nor has acoustic analysis.[11][12] In a particularly famous test on a BBC Radio 3 program in 1977, the violinists Isaac Stern and Pinchas Zukerman and the violin expert and dealer Charles Beare tried to distinguish between the "Chaconne" Stradivarius, a 1739 Guarneri del Gesú, an 1846 Vuillaume, and a 1976 British violin played behind a screen by a professional soloist. The two violinists were allowed to play all the instruments first. None of the listeners identified more than two of the four instruments. Two of the listeners identified the 20th-century violin as the Stradivarius.[13] Violinists and others have criticized these tests on various grounds such as that they are not double-blind (in most cases), the judges are often not experts, and the sounds of violins are hard to evaluate objectively and reproducibly.[12] In a test in 2009, the British violinist Matthew Trusler played his 1711 Stradivarius, said to be worth two million U.S. dollars, and four modern violins made by the Swiss violin-maker Michael Rhonheimer. One of Rhonheimer's violins, made with wood that the Empa researcher Francis Schwarze had treated with fungi, received 90 of the 180 votes for the best tone, while the Stradivarius came in second with just 39 votes. The majority (113) of the listeners misidentified the winning violin as the Stradivarius.[14][15][16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius

Why do you assume that this is an "ego-boner" purchase? You're not a musician of his caliber, you have no idea what it means for him to own a stradivarius. You can pull out a research on it but there's no way in hell you can even know how he feels playing it. So this is just a moralistic argument that no one should ever spend a lot of money on anything because they should feed the poor.

On February 10 2012 11:48 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

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.

On February 10 2012 12:39 k4ir0s wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2012 11:48 SakiSaki wrote:   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.

WHAT IS THIS!!!

I PUT SO MUCH EFFORT INTO MY REPLY, AND YOU ONLY REPLIED TO THE SHORT ONES!!

I'm so going to bed right now!!!

Moodier than a cat who's got her whiskers dipped in cowdung.

Stupid Loco

Ok, I take that back, but I'm still pretty upset.

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.

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

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 14:46 Mariuslol wrote: Ok, I take that back, but I'm still pretty upset.

Sorry, I had to go out, yours had too much stuff to reply to. I'll see if I can respond later... don't feel like it now.

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?

On February 10 2012 15:26 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On February 10 2012 18:01 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2012 15:26 bigredhoss wrote:   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.

Hm reason no one could find the thread this was posted in before is b/c it was in the ROFL thread. (sites:liquidpoker.net bach violin)
http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-foru...amp;quot;ROFL_amp;quot;_in_title.html

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?

cool thread.. not much to add

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".

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.

On February 10 2012 15:26 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Fast forward to 44 seconds if you're restless.

Oh, he played multiple, but his main was Piano

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.

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.

Stuff like this

Fast forward to 1 minute if you're restless
+ Show Spoiler +

Sad shit
+ Show Spoiler +

Put this shit on before training, awhh yeah!!
+ Show Spoiler +

On February 11 2012 02:41 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + 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

On February 10 2012 19:17 palak wrote: Hm reason no one could find the thread this was posted in before is b/c it was in the ROFL thread. (sites:liquidpoker.net bach violin) http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-foru...amp;quot;ROFL_amp;quot;_in_title.html Show nested quote + 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?

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 guess it's the placebo effect for music.

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).

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)

On February 11 2012 06:12 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + 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 -.-

On February 11 2012 06:59 Mariuslol wrote: 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).

no

On February 11 2012 10:22 palak wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

On February 11 2012 18:09 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 11 2012 06:59 Mariuslol wrote: 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). no

I take that as you agreeing with me.

Have you ever read longple's signature??

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?

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 +

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....

Fuck it, I'll risk it xD

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

Unless..... ^ Is one as well... "#¤"#¤ %% This is hard =[

Snarky =

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


Weee, thank you xD

Mariuslol...r u high or drunk?
only way to explain chain posts like that

I've got something weird, like both of them, hypersomnia and sometimes insomnia. The replies are seperated because I discover something new, change my mind, or didn't really mean what I said lol.

On February 11 2012 10:22 palak wrote: Show nested quote + 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)

woops didn't see this post. just want to point out that it's still possible that a strad still sounds noticeably better than a $30k copy in the situation i mentioned before, comparing how their sound carries to the back of a large performance hall (i don't know where the sound test experiments were done). it's not uncommon for other violins that otherwise sound similar to each other to be "set apart" this way. like i said i've never specfically heard a strad and a high-end copy next to each other in this situation so i can't say if they would be different, but it's a pretty important litmus test for judging any violin. i'm honestly not trying to argue for the strad here, just pointing out the very real possibility that for all we know it can still be accurately distinguished from a high-end copy. i know it won't convince you that a strad is worth 100x the price, but it's important to take into account before declaring that there's no difference.

about your encounters with musicians...i don't know how the conversations have gone of course, but it's important to keep in mind that "good" is a relative term. a violin that's worth $3-4k based on the merits of its sound and not other things is a very good instrument, much better than most. i don't know the exact price-% breakdowns but it's very safe to say that 99% of violins are worth <$3k. and a $10k violin is a significant improvement on that, and a $30k violin is yet another step up. if someone asked me if i could tell the difference between a strad and a really good modern violin and i was forced to give a one-word answer, "yes" would be more accurate than "no" because i can tell the difference between a strad and nearly all really good modern violins.

if you take someone who's listened to a thousand hours of classical music, it's guaranteed that they will have heard a strad at some point because a lot of famous violinists like joshua bell play a strad or have made recordings using a strad (and the ones that don't usually use another old very expensive instrument such as a Guarneri or Guadagnini or Amati because they prefer the sound over the strad for whatever reason). assuming the person didn't spend the entire thousand hours listening to just the elite 20 or so violinists in the world, they will also have heard many other instruments. like if they went to a Julliard or Eastmann graduate recital there's a good chance they would hear a $7-15k violin for example. but it's very possible that they would never hear a $30k-ish strad copy. they're not going to hear it from someone with prominent recordings like Bell because they would just use a strad. there's probably some people sitting in the middle of the new york philharmonic, chicago symphony, etc. who have one but you don't hear them individually. and for conservatory students and really good amateurs/"semi-pros" it's just hard to justify spending the extra $20k or whatever.

anyway i probably could have put that more succinctly but my point is that the above hypothetical person has listened to a lot of violin music, they have listened to a strad and many other good violins that aren't a strad. out of what they've listened to, they can identify what is a strad and what isn't. it doesn't seem so unreasonable that they would believe they can tell the difference between a strad and any other violin, even if that's not quite the case.

with all that said, i do admit that part of the classical music community does tend to come off as snobbish. for what it's worth none of Loco's posts seemed snobbish to me and i hope mine don't either. i will say that of all the people i've known, musicians on the whole seem to be the kindest and least pretentious people overall, but there is a portion of people who get into classical music for the wrong reasons and give it a bad name.

Kinda a like 2pac and dre gave rap a bad name

On February 12 2012 15:09 Mariuslol wrote: 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 + Show nested quote + 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.... Fuck it, I'll risk it xD

I didn't reply because it was mostly just completely incoherent and filled with opinions (quite strange ones, I might add) that don't give me anything to respond to. It's easy to respond to an argument, but when someone just unloads all the things he's been thinking about in the past hour almost in a stream-of-consciousness way resulting in a big incoherent mush it's not easy, and it probably suits a personal journal better than a public forum.

So you wanted to get my attention and make me post because I said I was done (I meant done discussing the particular topic argument btw), and that was the sole purpose of you making a snarky insulting comment... brilliant.

Thanks

(Wasn't ment insulting, your own lenses to blame for that xD)


Word of the day, mush:

- A thick porridge or pudding of cornmeal boiled in water or milk.
- Something thick, soft, and pulpy.
- Informal Mawkish sentimentality, affection, or amorousness.

You asked me out of the blue if I ever saw this:

+ Show Spoiler +

What else could you mean other than you thinking it applies to me? I'm pretty sure if I made a poll everyone would agree that there's no other meaning to get from it. Maybe you just don't understand the point of this meme at all. It applies to a bunch of self-absorbed adolescents, generally hipsters, who get into arguments on the internet all the time to prop up their own egos. They don't actually know much of anything, but just like to think they do. Basically, a large percentage of people on tumblr and 4chan.

Don't be such a negative nancy, you're giving it around 98% more attention than it deserves and the effect it was ment to have lol. Try and scaling it down, pretend you're hovering above it, zoom out. I only wrote it because I was updating poker hands from longple in the other window and I saw it whilst pondering why you seem to be so gloomy/serious all the time, cracked a smile and thought, hey... Wait a minute, this kinda in a way fits lol. And I hurried and wrote it down without giving it much more thought than that lol.

Okay!! Not a loco poll, since I feel you'd cheat a little bit, so I made one without tempering with the original question xD



Poll: What do you think was Mariuslol's meaning with the comment ? ?
(Vote): He was probably still moody Loco kept ignoring him only replying to insults/arguments
(Vote): He feels Loco is a peseudo-intellectual and feels the actual meme represents Loco 100%
(Vote): He probably didn't even know it was a meme and it was written in the moment without much thought
(Vote): LOL, WHO GIVES A FUCK
(Vote): I'm pretty sure Mariuslol is hung like a Rhinocerus
(Vote): I'm pretty sure Loco would beat Wobbly in a fistfight

If anyone still checks this shitty thread I'm predicting "LOL, who gives a fuck" by a landslide.

Yeah, that gets my vote. I can make polls too.


Poll: How would you describe mariuslol here?
(Vote): He's spastic. Most likely suffers from information overload; can't piece ideas together coherently.
(Vote): He's a freak and a very weird dude.
(Vote): He's immature and gets upset easily when not paid attention to.

I still have my hopes up pretty high for #5

Mariuslol gtfo with your anime links (that proabably was a good 3 minutes worth of youtubing). Whatever you say after posting such garbage doesn't matter because that shit doesn't belong here and can not be unseen. Your arguments are invalid. Also learn to pick your opponents. For me it appears Loco is well spoken and you are just trying hard to make sense to yourself and others.

On February 13 2012 14:39 cariadon wrote: Mariuslol gtfo with your anime links (that proabably was a good 3 minutes worth of youtubing). Whatever you say after posting such garbage doesn't matter because that shit doesn't belong here and can not be unseen. Your arguments are invalid. Also learn to pick your opponents. For me it appears Loco is well spoken and you are just trying hard to make sense to yourself and others.

I spent 2 hours listening to everything I could find on Bach, 3 minutes...

Hate all you want, I don't see it as garbage, I feel it do belong here and my arguments are valid. And it wasn't an "oponent" I chose, I wanted to have a dialouge, not an argument, I didn't want to win or lose, I wanted to find a new answer and this isn't me trying hard, it'z free-flowing <3


3 minutes... lol

And that anime music is godlike, FYI (not 100% sure what fyi means but I feel it fits here).

Ps, Loco... That's low, at least add a few more options that'll make me look better (like I did for you).

T_T

What is it you are trying to say or prove here Mariuslol ?

On February 13 2012 18:51 cariadon wrote: What is it you are trying to say or prove here Mariuslol ?

I'm not trying to say anything, I've writing stuff, and I've already said it + I've also already said/shared my view on the topic in this thread on page 3, close to the bottom. And what am I trying to prove...
That awesome, inspirational music, like Bach, might just hit a 4 on a scale from 1 - 10 in someone's ear, and another form of music might hit a 9. What's beatiful and awe inspiring to some doesn't have to be it to someone else. And what's "deep" and not deep depends on the ear of the beholder.

To an idle bystander, some of the things Flash does might seem trivial, non-important and retarded, but to someone who's studied the game, followed the scene for 10 years and seen as hand speed just kept increasing, strategy, meta game, blablabla, a move he makes at a critical juncture in an important game might be as breath taking as watching someone swim upstream a steep river, uncomprehensible. But most of that beauty is lost, to a noob. (Not sure how this last analog is relevant, but I feel it's semi-relevant).