Rubbish.pencilrocket wrote:True. But in classical snobbery world, as you described, you are not allowed to make mistake. All needed are skill and perfection in real time playing. If you don't have them, you are judged the man who has no ability in 'music' (not player), even if this judging method is NOT scientific.
I missed this before. If you are referring to a 'classical musician' as one who has taken the time to do an exam course that uses historical compositions ie, early, classical or romantic periods, and modern music composed in the style of, then they will easily be able to reference several scales and apply some compositional techniques, at least in the style they are familiar with, and produce something, even if it is at a super basic level (equivalent to 1st couple of grades). Of course, if you have a different meaning for a 'classical musician' that is 'great,' please clarify.Machinesworking wrote: Plenty of great classical musicians who cannot write, not even simple compositions.
I knew. Classical music still stands out even though there is full of snobbery rubbish in its world. Not to mention, I can't find any rubbish in its pure artistic side.gjm wrote:Rubbish.pencilrocket wrote:True. But in classical snobbery world, as you described, you are not allowed to make mistake. All needed are skill and perfection in real time playing. If you don't have them, you are judged the man who has no ability in 'music' (not player), even if this judging method is NOT scientific.
), and a big part of it is getting classical concert musicians to learn how to improvise. I was saying there's extremes in every way, in terms of what we think of as a musician. Tone Defts fireside jams would be torture for these people, and these are the best of the best at playing their instrument in terms of technical skill. I wonder what instrument these classical concert musicians play, would be interesting to know, I mean are the Oboe players or pianists and what ages they maybe and where they were taught? Anyway, another feature of of the Trinity College exam system is Improvisation. Its not not an in depth exploration by any means, the type that may be associated with a jazz guitarist, but its definitely encouraged and is an exam option. It means that teachers have to think of how to broach the subject with students and introduce them to the concepts. Honestly, its not chosen very often and its actually a very hard subject to work with students (mine are mainly children and teenagers) who live lives of routine and regularity. Encouraging musical spontaneity can be a chore! I try on a regular basis to get students to jam scales over scale tone chords using SW like garageband, just to introduce improve and illustrate the relevance of their 'technical' training. Biggest excuse for not doing it is lack of time.Machinesworking wrote:@GJM no, sorry I should have more context for that statement. I have a friend who does "music therapy" (I'm not kidding!
I didn't mean the composers, and people trained in composition etc.
although there is snobbery involved..pencilrocket wrote:True. But in classical snobbery world, as you described, you are not allowed to make mistake. All needed are skill and perfection in real time playing. If you don't have them, you are judged the man who has no ability in 'music' (not player), even if this judging method is NOT scientific.
Machinesworking wrote:Not what I said. I said Eugenics is the "science" of trying to determine a genetic component to intelligence, and we all know where that went last time mankind went there, sterilizations, and genocide. So yes I am saying you're proposing a viewpoint that the fascists held, that simply cannot be denied.
There is great amounts of evidence that genetics plays a role in susceptibility to disease, muscle development, all kinds of things like that, but there has never been any real evidence that any strain of mankind is particularly gifted. In fact that's one thing that Eugenics more or less set out to prove, then pretty much disproved.
Your talking about and espousing science that hasn't proven anything that its tried to yet, but it has been used by racists and monsters.
Again, there is mountains of evidence that nurture is vastly important to the development of intellectual and creative people, and literally nothing of substance to prove a genetic component in regular healthy babies. Here's the clincher though, there is absolutely no way to separate nature from nurture to get any meaningful results favoring nature, but it's obvious that nurture plays a role. I do not think it's even close to being a luddite to point out the simple fact that these studies have very little real ground to stand on. They can't even do basic studies on a test group, because nurture can be very different in the same family unit and forcing a baby from a healthy high functioning family into a horrible life to prove this is beyond sick.
That's a pretty dark point of view, although it may well be culturally based if you are in the USA, I can't claim to know how the disabled are treated there although it's pretty obvious the sick are treated like shit if they have no money. I like to think the severely disabled are looked after (to a degree) by the state because we live in an advanced, somewhat enlightened, modern society where we value people as individuals.I worked with the developmentally disabled as well, and you should know that they simply do not have the same rights as you or me. I'm very happy there's no euthanasia lobby for sure, but they aren't allowed the kind of freedom we have. Maybe the mildly mentally handicapped, but the more handicapped the more caged. You know that. Yes it's more or less the right thing to do, but to a large degree I think the severely handicapped are housed and taken care of because we don't want to end up monsters, again.
Again, you're making stuff up. How is the type of genetic research I mentioned (have you even looked at it?) pseudo-science? You're trying to equate what I said to the early 20th century ideas on eugenics again, lame (and boring now). Nobody is trying to separate nature and nurture especially not those I mentioned in my previous post, you'd know that if you'd bothered to look at it instead of going off on massive tirades about eugenics, racial profiling and the evils of extremism. Nowhere am I ignoring history or believing in utopias, stop being so damn condescending.Again, having a problem with pseudo science like trying to separate nature from nurture isn't burying your head in the sand, ignoring history in favor of your own wishes and desires for a utopian future is.
It's important for a lot of reasons, not least because, right now, we don't know. You can claim all the surety you like that genetics is of no importance to intelligence but you're not basing that on anything other than faith. A better understanding of how our brains work could lead to massive benefits both medically and in the field of education and learning. Putting the stoppers on research because you are afraid of possible consequences that are entirely hypothetical is extremely short sighted. Instead of that, perhaps be more concerned with the social and legal mechanisms that exist in order to protect the rights of the individual, that would be far more logical.The question I have for you and all those who give nature a role in genius etc. is why you think it's an important area to study? or even has relevance. Knowing what we do about nurture and the absolute inability for science to separate out that component, even slightly, why are we still attached to the idea that we can isolate the smart gene?
It's pretty funny seeing you post about snobbery given your rants here and on other forums about the use of sample packs etc and various producers being worthless 'noobs' because they don't do things in a way which you deem correct.pencilrocket wrote:I knew. Classical music still stands out even though there is full of snobbery rubbish in its world. Not to mention, I can't find any rubbish in its pure artistic side.
why not ?acidpenguin wrote:That's dualism which really doesn't have any evidence to support it and leads on to religion, not gonna go there.3dot... wrote:soul = mind
mind != brain
it's not.. there's "evidence to support it" (and has nothing to do with religion?)acidpenguin wrote:That's an area of some debatefunny thing about humans is... they can work against their own nature if they WANT!
Sure, dualism is 'out there', I agree. Nature and nurture is a dualistic system if you like. When I said there's no evidence for dualism I meant the idea that the mind, or 'self', is separate from the brain. Our brains are, after all, one of our physical tools not distinct from them. I think it's reasonable to ask whether that physical tool is affected by similar physical things to the rest of our bodies.3dot... wrote:the 2 systems obviously have an bidirectional relation...
it's been proven that a mental state affects a persons' physical state...
and vice-versa
(after all ..all your physical "tools" are hooked up to your brain)
I talk about dualism because it's out there... almost everywhere you look..
If you mean why am I not going to get onto religion, well, I've basically been called a fascist for suggesting that genetics is interesting and plays a part in who we are (mentally).. hate to think what a discussion of religion would result in.why not ?
Well, free will (and whether it actually exists or not) is still a mater of plenty of debate among philosophers (religious and secular) and scientists alike. It goes into all sorts of areas including genetics and quantum physics. Sure, people can transcend 'situations' such as addiction but that's perhaps a slightly different matter (an addict is always an addict even if they stop using, for example). But again, not sure it's worth opening a whole new tin of worms.it's not.. there's "evidence to support it" (and has nothing to do with religion?)
the brain is an organ..acidpenguin wrote: Sure, dualism is 'out there', I agree. Nature and nurture is a dualistic system if you like. When I said there's no evidence for dualism I meant the idea that the mind, or 'self', is separate from the brain.
..yes..an addict is a great example of someone acquired a "2nd nature"...acidpenguin wrote:Sure, dualism is 'out there', I agree. Nature and nurture is a dualistic system if you like. When I said there's no evidence for dualism I meant the idea that the mind, or 'self', is separate from the brain. Our brains are, after all, one of our physical tools not distinct from them. I think it's reasonable to ask whether that physical tool is affected by similar physical things to the rest of our bodies.3dot... wrote:the 2 systems obviously have an bidirectional relation...
it's been proven that a mental state affects a persons' physical state...
and vice-versa
(after all ..all your physical "tools" are hooked up to your brain)
I talk about dualism because it's out there... almost everywhere you look..
If you mean why am I not going to get onto religion, well, I've basically been called a fascist for suggesting that genetics is interesting and plays a part in who we are (mentally).. hate to think what a discussion of religion would result in.why not ?
Well, free will (and whether it actually exists or not) is still a mater of plenty of debate among philosophers (religious and secular) and scientists alike. It goes into all sorts of areas including genetics and quantum physics. Sure, people can transcend 'situations' such as addiction but that's perhaps a slightly different matter (an addict is always an addict even if they stop using, for example). But again, not sure it's worth opening a whole new tin of worms.it's not.. there's "evidence to support it" (and has nothing to do with religion?)