Mar 21, 2003 07:51 am Sounds like he's a guy with too much time on his hands to me!
Something to think about...or debate!
Posted on Mar 20, 2003 12:09 pm
Mat
Music Enthusiast
Member Since: Jan 24, 2003
I'm writing my final paper for my 'History of Sound Recording' class on multitracking and I came upon the following paragraph while researching things about Glenn Gould. I thought you guys might find it interesting:
"According to Gould, artists have a moral mission and art has an unrealized potential for the betterment of humankind. Human improvement can occur only as the result of modification in our attitudes as solitary, private individuals, and not as some kind of collective modification of our species, voluntary or not. Each person must accept the challenge of contemplatively creating his own "divinity". "Divinity" here refers to the better part of individual human nature, which for Gould is the introspectively and ecstatically contemplative part; the worse part is that which abandons itself to herd impulse, as in the mindless, hysterical responses of crowds to spectacles and of populations to propaganda."
I think I agree with that...
[ Back to Top ]
Mar 21, 2003 07:51 am Sounds like he's a guy with too much time on his hands to me!
Mar 21, 2003 04:33 pm That kind of sounds like Buddhist meditation to me. AKA bringing yourself to a higher spiritual plane through some action, whether it be making unique music or self meditation. I tend to believe that music has a healing power, and that music has the power to change the world when harnassed properly. Though I am still looking for the harness, and no my name is not Bill nor Ted, and no I'm not on an excellent adventure.
Mar 21, 2003 04:38 pm Sounds like Gould had one to many nights on the bong in the 60's...
Mar 21, 2003 07:59 pm Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too dB :)
Mar 22, 2003 06:53 am lol...look what happened to the beatles
i am the eggman, goo goo ga choob!
Mar 22, 2003 07:15 am "Elementary penguins, singing Hari Krishna, man, you should have seen then kicking Edgar Alan Poe"
gotta love the Beatles.
Mar 23, 2003 12:56 am Your buddy Gould has an interesting point. He obvoiusly understands the trapings of instinctual behavior and the abandon of independant thought. I don't particularly agree with singling out the artist and putting the burdon of carying the torch on the artist. It's very egotistical. He obviously did not have a grasp on the benifits of denying ego, yet another instinctual behavior. Much of art is simply documentation. An expression of experience beyond words. To be used by man as he will. For an artist to assume such a moral responsibility would be very limiting and probably in many cases counter productive to the betterment of mankind. I see what he is saying but every human could practice those principals and do well. Odd his writings should be so highlighted.
Mar 23, 2003 03:27 pm I think I'm gonna stick to asking questions about recording...The disscussion didn't turn out the way I thought it might. Oh well. Maybe it's just me. Whoever wants to delete this thread can.
Mar 23, 2003 03:45 pm OK, first, just because the thread doesn't go along with the direction you planned for it, is no reason for deletion, as many threads on many forums end up veering off-course, or with an unexpected result.
This leads me to wonder what exceptations you had with posting something like that?
I personally love making music, regardless of the role I play in it's making. However, I do not subscribe to the self-important train of thought that many artists do in thinking that music is somehow bigger than life itself and can have profound impact on the course of humankind.
Music is just an art, like any other, given to humankind by humankind for each other to appreciate and enjoy. It can invoke emotion, good or bad, and can inspire or depress people. It is a beautiful thing.
While I do find the quote you gave interesting, it's not uncommon. Everybody, no matter what their job is, like to believe they are playing an important role in the betterment (or destruction of) society at large, which is very self-absorbed. I do believe we all play a role, but not as individuals, but as individual threads in an intricate and beautiful tapestry that is humankind. The artist is no more a factor than is the garbage collector, the mailman, the stock broker, the policeman or anyone else. Without the other we would all be doomed.
Mar 23, 2003 05:21 pm I was sat on the train the other day watch lots of houses and cars speed past on my way into Reading when I thought to myself...
"The only thing that lives on is a memory - but even if we do something amazing, only a very select few will be remembered for ever. And most of them were serial killers!"
made me think.
Mar 23, 2003 05:26 pm I was with ya up until the last line ;-)
The truest artists are never famous until they are dead. And today, as far as basic pop music and pop culture goes, there are no true artists...not that will stand the test of time...not longer than a few generations anyway.
I look at many of my influences as artists that are amazing, and have had major impact on me, but the reality is that almost none of them (maybe none at all) will be remembered in the next century.
Mar 23, 2003 08:56 pm Alright, well first off I agree with much of what you say dB. My take on music is very similar: because I like doing it...art for art.
Gould has been known to be a bit egotistical but people with some over-confidence have also been known to say some valuable things to consider. Gould is an important, although controversial, figure in the sound recording history. I don't agree with all his stuff. I just thought there was some good stuff to think about in there, and also thought it was relevent because Gould is linked to sound recording. Maybe it's the opening statement that's hard to digest. I agree that a moral mission doesn't fall on artists just because artist X says so and that artists are not more important than other people. I like philosophy and I really care about what different people think. I guess that's what I was aiming at with this: a more serious discussion? I don't know. Maybe here is not the place to satisfy my philosophy craving?
Maybe you guys don't care about this kinda thing? Just tell me so.
Mar 23, 2003 09:41 pm Mat, I like the term tapestry used by Db. You are right in noting that most phylisophical discussions are less popular than more technical Q&A exchanges on average, although I have seen some go long and strong. I guess if you find it frustrating to be part of a slower thread than maybe it is not worth it? Personally, I enjoy phylosophy at times. And that depends on where my head is at, that's all. I have to be cautious with shareing phylosophy as I agree with Gould in his perception of the majority of people. Moving from one obsession to another. The preverbial heard rambling aimlessly through the desert. Little going on beyond the "thing" they want next and the fear that someone will get it first. That different perception of life often leads to the temptation to babble a great length and loose site of what I am wanting to accomplish. Debate has it's limitations. I like to listen to others opionions, but I don't care for debating a point. If a connection is not made it is usually futile to attempt forcing a connection both in terms of agreeing or getting another to agree.
Mar 23, 2003 10:04 pm No offense, but you may find your questions better answere on a philosophy and ethics board :)
jues.
Mar 23, 2003 11:05 pm Yeah Walt, debate is a strong word to use because I myself don't like debates much. Misstep from my part there...
True Jues but I just like you guys better!
Mar 23, 2003 11:10 pm Thank you Mat! I like us guys better too! I can do phylosophy related to music much better than phylosophy for the sake of phylosophy.
Mar 24, 2003 04:57 am Actually, Mat, as a whole I love a good philosophical discussion, most of us do. The history of this forum should show that pretty strongly. However, with your statement in particular, or, should I say the point that Gould is making, is really tired for me personally. I have heard it so often I just quite talking about it for the reasons I have listed above.
Take no offense, please, but the topic of "music changing the world" and stuff really just bores me now.
I am always hip for a serious, insightful discussion, but it needs to have a serious, insightful topic. Know what I mean?
Mar 24, 2003 04:22 pm Yeah, I hear ya dB. I totally understand. I guess you've been around the recording and music scene longer than I have (well I assume that) so you must see things repeat themselves quite often...
I guess I'm just enthusiastic about certain things I dig up cuz they're all new to me.
Cheers!
Mar 24, 2003 05:13 pm I can appreciate that, I really don't want you to feel you can't post certain things, just because you don't get a given response.
If you always get the response you are hoping for, that would make life kinda boring.
Mar 24, 2003 07:47 pm Back to your original post, in my opinion, Gould's statement does not pertain only to musicians, but to everybody. If you read the passsage you quoted carefully, whatever academic wrote that passage needs to spend more time in writing class. First off, the prose is difficult to understand, but when you break it down, they don't make the connection between musicians and people in general who need to search for their individual divinity. Basically, since human improvement can only happen at the individual level (according to the writer), and musicians are individuals, then the writer's statement applies to musicians. But it also applies to every other individual in society, much like db or someone previously said. I guess my point is the writer could have left out the whole musician part and the statement would retain the same meaning. Of course then, there would be no reason to point out Goulds statement. I guess, I'm just criticizing the writer of the passage here. Sorry for the long boring rant, but I really get annoyed with academic writing. Those authors always think they are smarter than you, because they're poor writing confuses people, but they're not.
Mar 24, 2003 10:45 pm Here, here, Coolo! The paradyme of all knowledge being contained within the confines of acedemia is El-Torro-Poo-Poo!
Mar 25, 2003 06:57 am Artist, non-artist, bullshit!
All human beings are artists. We are creative creatures by nature. I don't like the compartmentalisation of some who are 'artistic' and most aren't.
Some people just don't get the chance to be creative because they are busy driving the buses, baking the bread, searching for food, and fighting wars.
But in an ideal world....
Mar 25, 2003 11:17 am Please Note Sarcasm:
Oh glynb, don't be mad just because I'm artistic and you're not.
Mar 26, 2003 10:04 am Coolo, re:
" I guess, I'm just criticizing the writer of the passage here. Sorry for the long boring rant, but I really get annoyed with academic writing. Those authors always think they are smarter than you, because they're poor writing confuses people, but they're not."
Spot on mate. These people are no cleverer than the average guy/gals, what they do have is a fancy way of expressing themselves, which is exclusive, to join their club you have to learn it. Like lawyers nad doctors, they have a code which is their own and excludes ordinary people. Their product is a new fancy way of saying something, a snazzy term, then they can write a whole book explaining it. When you have these concepts expalined to you in layman's terms (which can always be done - so why the fancy vacabulary?) the concepts are not beyond the grasp of the ordinary 'working' person, like what I am.
GlynB
(BA Hons) LOL
Mar 26, 2003 10:12 am Everybody has a vocab for their areas of interest, we speak in balanced, unbalanced, normalled, routing, signal paths, bit rates, sample rates and many other terms that are very foriegn to many people. So it's not just doctors and lawyers, it's everybody. At work I talk of load balancing, firewalls, TNS, redundancy, vector, streaming, and such.
I would rather say "sample rate" than have to use the explination every time I talk about it. It's often not a thing of arrogance, but a thing of convenience, since anyone in the business (whatever that business may be) knows what it means and we can communicate faster.
When someone gets "in the business" it is really in their best interest to learn these things so they can communicate on a common level.
Mar 26, 2003 05:37 pm db,
What you say is true. For example I think it is easier for doctors to communicate with each other by saying uvula, rather than the little punching bag thingy in the back of your throat.
But mostly what I'm talking about are academics who write in bizzare ways so that it makes it very difficult to understand what they are saying, even when they are trying to express simple points. As if I'm going to think they are somehow smarter because I can't fathom what they're talking about. I spent 4 years at a pretty highly thought of public university, ridiculing professors and grad students whose seemingly only purpose in writing was to confuse the reader. Unfortunately after a while, you learn to break it down so you can comprehend their ramblings. But haysu creesto, would it be so bad to write in normal prose. Perhaps if they did more people would take the time to read their ideas, and more people would benefit from their knowledge. Oh well, que sera, sera...
Mar 26, 2003 05:58 pm I think a reason why many scholars' works are confusing has to do with length restrictions, or rather length specifications. Too many times I roll my eyes over how many pages a paper has to be. I'm a big fan of quality over quantity. And I value good point form documents. Quantity should be justified in my opinion. I once read something that I thought made a lot of sense: "If I would have more time, I would've written the same thing shorter." Shorter usually means more concise. Maybe less detailed but the trick is to know which details to keep or not.
So my personal view on these things is that a bunch of them are just rambling, and then they get used to it so that's how they write.
Mar 27, 2003 10:13 am Now this thread has become interesting to me for sure! Human nature stuff!
I am no doctor or lawyer for sure. My education is for the most part outside of acedemia. Having said that as a preface, I have had to opportunity to be at a "peer" level with many doctors. One instance was in an R&D environment and the other is in performing music. Here are my findings: Those who leave acedemia at some point to practice their knowledge have far less tendency to project a demenior of condesending and self richous. I think this is because they have the opportunity to get out of their own little worlds and get their butts kicked a little and gain an appreciation for the knowledge that other people have from learning outside of the classroom.
Bottom line HMO; Aerogence, self centeredness, etc. are character defectes. They have little to do with education as education will not address them. There are still many, many, needed abilities that acedemia alone can not address. There are many abilities that can be learned in or out of acedeima as well. Life, however is the educator when it comes to character. Those who choose to only participate in aspects of life where they have control are choosing not to develop their character. The arogent professor is only one example of such a person. A very frustrating example however!
Mar 27, 2003 10:41 am Most of the most arrogant people I know are also the least educated, and they are arrogant, or at the very least cocky, because they never leave their circle of friends, and they are considered briliant people by that groups standards. it's sort of a "big fish in a little pond" theory.
I have had the pleasure of watching many of these people get absolutely humiliated when trying to be a big shot among a more enlightened group of people. Fearing that is generally why many fear to tread outside their comfort zone.
It is my belief that arrogance does not have it's roots in how educated a person is, but quite opposite, I believe it comes from ignorance, fear and the effort to conceal both.
On the other hand, arrogance is also a subjective term. Many people mistake it for confidence. My mother and sister think I am the most arrogant person in the world just because they are scared of their own shadows in life (I digress from expanding on the disfunctional relationship I have going there), and I on the other hand operate in an aggresive "just do it" manner, though I don't consider myself arrogant, I am confident. For the wise man confidence works hand in hand with also knowing your limits...
So, like everything, it's all subject to interpretation.
Mar 27, 2003 12:07 pm Quote:
dB: It is my belief that arrogance does not have it's roots in how educated a person is, but quite opposite, I believe it comes from ignorance, fear and the effort to conceal both.
i agree almost complete with this. it's true that arrogance stems from ignorance. i think it's important to point out that the arrogant person is not concealing the inorance from others so much as they're hiding it from themselves. It's nothing more than an ego trip, a negative way to achieve temportary happiness at the expense of others. once the individual can accept that they are neither above or below anyone, they can be comfortable with who they are, begin behaving in a mature manner, and start *learning* filling in those gaps in their knowledge that made them fear they were ignorant in the first place. the arrogant individual has stopped learning!
but i havn't been keeping up with this thread, so i'll stay out of it ;O) -j
Mar 28, 2003 08:28 am Very good point Jamie! And at the expense of themselves! As you pointed out they have chosen to stop learning. Funny isn't it, our friend Gould touches on this with the "instinct" notation. It is a relitively instinctual response to defend being "right" and having a desire to be "better" or finding oneself in the middle of a "one upmanship" conversation and the like. And yet as evident in this thread he is precieved by many as being egotistical. Is this ego or just an inability to communicate well? Or does it matter?
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.