C
Whatmysay
New member
ART DOES NOT EVOLVE THATS THE MOST RETARDED THING IVE EVER HEARD. FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!! Who the fuck is so retarded that they dont understand this concept? Its a biological fact. Evolution is when something changes for the better due to selective pressures. Art doesnt improve or evolve because art is judged as something that human emotions respond to. You get sad over a sad song. You get angry over an angry song. And on and on. ART IS HUMAN RESPONSE TO EPITOMIZED EMOTIONS. Love, fear, jealousy, hatred, etc. Someone paints a picture that feels sad and you feel sad looking at it because the artist has found his way of depicting sadness and you feel sad. So by that logic, there is no "evolution" to art.
Your point would be correct if your science was. Evolution is not the process by which something is made better – this is a classic example of a superficial reading of Evolutionary theory. This is the sort of evolutionary perversion that leads to the belief of ethnic superiority and a master race.
Evolution is a process in which variation (typically genetic) occurs and as those who have the variation gain some survival advantage if environmental conditions change in the future. It is random variation and it is only over deep time that the appearance of complexity occurs. - Daniel C Dennett (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea)
Use Richard Dawkins’ (Blind Watchmaker) concept of meme (a packet of information instead of a gene) trying to survive within a culture – you can apply evolutionary thinking to contemporary society – but by Dawkins own admission and many other biologist’s opinion (which you place in such high esteem) it is a stretch to apply such biological theory to culture.
Therefore variation can come from any source; the Beatles’ ‘cut and paste’ start to Strawberry Fields, Beach Boys use of Theremin or a 19 year old (who by your standards hasn’t done his ‘song writing’ chops). The important part is how the environment responds to it and if that variation will give what is created any greater chance of survival.
You claim superiority through your scientific approach to criticism, then scream at the world for sustaining music that you do not like. You can not have your cake and eat it; Good Friend you either accept the objectivity of a scientist or do not evoke it. Be just like the rest of us mortals and let your opinions be just that, opinions – not quasi-science!
Sorry buddy. There is no new "love". There is no new "hate". There is no new nothing. You are no better than the people who lived in caves. The human brain HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE CAVEMAN DAYS. Same emotions. Same capacity for memory and affection. Same capacity for wonder, greed, etc.
Now this is biologically proven by fucking scientists. Do you know what "biology" is? Biologists study what is real, not what might be real. They look inside and build off of proven facts. Biology is ever correcting itself, taking only what has been proven through extensive controlled studies for as far back as science has existed. Biology is not concerned with fake evidence or delusional self centered approach to discovery.
Could you please quote the studies you are referring to that prove that the human brain has not changed since caveman days? Since you use such a colloquial phrase as ‘caveman days’ convinces me that your actual scientific knowledge is nil. Which particular ancestor of modern humans (homo-sapiens) were you referring to?
The concept of early man living in cave is a misconception generated by Neolithic cave paintings first found in Spain and France. Paintings in these caves were completed by our Cro Magnon ancestors (not homo-sapiens) and they were actually nomadic hunters who dwelled in caves only in the depth of an ice age winter. ‘Caveman days’ comes more from Hollywood depictions than it does from real biology.
Just because you use uppercase does not make it any more correct - you are wrong, wrong, wrong! The human brain is constantly changing and has a huge degree of plasticity and adaptability. That is a scientific fact proven by neurobiologists using brain-scanning technology such as fMRI, through classic clinical observation and longitudinal studies. Watch the BBCs series ‘Child of our Time’ or the classic ‘7 Up’ to watch how the brain evolves and response to environmental change.
Modern humans (and I emphasis 1/3 of the worlds population that live in a so called modern civilisation) live in an infinitely more complex world than even early homo sapiens. We mange a greater number of relationships with less clear reasons as to the benefit of such relationships than an early hunter/gather tribal groups.
While the work of Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape) and Levi-Strauss suggest that underlying cultural transaction are unchanged it is naive of you to assume that love, hate and greed exist in the same context as previous times and therefore remain the same.
10 years ago no-one discovered their lovers betrayal by finding ‘text’ massages to another lover – the emotions may be similar to previous times but the new contexts makes the experience infinitely different.
Your idea of science is prepubescent, even in your limited capacity to evoke it you betray your absolute ignorance of what science has taught us. You think that in someway it bring about some sort of predictability and you believe yourself superior because you supposedly posses that knowledge.
As I’ve said before get your science right and try and be a human occasionally, then you may actually be a Good Friend
Your point would be correct if your science was. Evolution is not the process by which something is made better – this is a classic example of a superficial reading of Evolutionary theory. This is the sort of evolutionary perversion that leads to the belief of ethnic superiority and a master race.
Evolution is a process in which variation (typically genetic) occurs and as those who have the variation gain some survival advantage if environmental conditions change in the future. It is random variation and it is only over deep time that the appearance of complexity occurs. - Daniel C Dennett (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea)
Use Richard Dawkins’ (Blind Watchmaker) concept of meme (a packet of information instead of a gene) trying to survive within a culture – you can apply evolutionary thinking to contemporary society – but by Dawkins own admission and many other biologist’s opinion (which you place in such high esteem) it is a stretch to apply such biological theory to culture.
Therefore variation can come from any source; the Beatles’ ‘cut and paste’ start to Strawberry Fields, Beach Boys use of Theremin or a 19 year old (who by your standards hasn’t done his ‘song writing’ chops). The important part is how the environment responds to it and if that variation will give what is created any greater chance of survival.
You claim superiority through your scientific approach to criticism, then scream at the world for sustaining music that you do not like. You can not have your cake and eat it; Good Friend you either accept the objectivity of a scientist or do not evoke it. Be just like the rest of us mortals and let your opinions be just that, opinions – not quasi-science!
Sorry buddy. There is no new "love". There is no new "hate". There is no new nothing. You are no better than the people who lived in caves. The human brain HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE CAVEMAN DAYS. Same emotions. Same capacity for memory and affection. Same capacity for wonder, greed, etc.
Now this is biologically proven by fucking scientists. Do you know what "biology" is? Biologists study what is real, not what might be real. They look inside and build off of proven facts. Biology is ever correcting itself, taking only what has been proven through extensive controlled studies for as far back as science has existed. Biology is not concerned with fake evidence or delusional self centered approach to discovery.
Could you please quote the studies you are referring to that prove that the human brain has not changed since caveman days? Since you use such a colloquial phrase as ‘caveman days’ convinces me that your actual scientific knowledge is nil. Which particular ancestor of modern humans (homo-sapiens) were you referring to?
The concept of early man living in cave is a misconception generated by Neolithic cave paintings first found in Spain and France. Paintings in these caves were completed by our Cro Magnon ancestors (not homo-sapiens) and they were actually nomadic hunters who dwelled in caves only in the depth of an ice age winter. ‘Caveman days’ comes more from Hollywood depictions than it does from real biology.
Just because you use uppercase does not make it any more correct - you are wrong, wrong, wrong! The human brain is constantly changing and has a huge degree of plasticity and adaptability. That is a scientific fact proven by neurobiologists using brain-scanning technology such as fMRI, through classic clinical observation and longitudinal studies. Watch the BBCs series ‘Child of our Time’ or the classic ‘7 Up’ to watch how the brain evolves and response to environmental change.
Modern humans (and I emphasis 1/3 of the worlds population that live in a so called modern civilisation) live in an infinitely more complex world than even early homo sapiens. We mange a greater number of relationships with less clear reasons as to the benefit of such relationships than an early hunter/gather tribal groups.
While the work of Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape) and Levi-Strauss suggest that underlying cultural transaction are unchanged it is naive of you to assume that love, hate and greed exist in the same context as previous times and therefore remain the same.
10 years ago no-one discovered their lovers betrayal by finding ‘text’ massages to another lover – the emotions may be similar to previous times but the new contexts makes the experience infinitely different.
Your idea of science is prepubescent, even in your limited capacity to evoke it you betray your absolute ignorance of what science has taught us. You think that in someway it bring about some sort of predictability and you believe yourself superior because you supposedly posses that knowledge.
As I’ve said before get your science right and try and be a human occasionally, then you may actually be a Good Friend
Last edited:
F
Freddy
New member
I could use one of those!!
Whatmysay
New member
Good call Freddy - Good call. I was wearing my Freudian slip when I wrote it!
V
valuehorse
productions
Evolution is synonymous with 'change over time'.
Emotions do not determine evolution. And music certainly does become more advanced over time, just like science does. The invention of the electric guitar had a major impact on the evolution of music, as well as the electric bass. In fact, before electricity there was no electronic music synthesis or editing. I'm sure you would disagree with this, though, because you think your flawed common sense overrules fact.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I really don't even know what got Good Friend in such a tizzy.
The funny thing is ... nowhere in Valuehorse's original post did he claim superiority or that he thinks "experimental" music is BETTER than "normal" music.
There was also nothing to suggest that he hadn't written any "normal" songs either.
And even if he hasn't written any "normal" songs, who the hell cares? How is it affecting Good Friend? If he wants to write symphonies of sampled bird calls and door slams, what's the big deal? If it brings him joy and doesn't hurt anyone else, what's the harm?
Maybe Good Friend will understand it more if I use all caps:
HE DIDN'T ONCE CLAIM THAT EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC IS BETTER THAN "NORMAL" MUSIC AT ALL. HE JUST SAID HE LIKED IT AND WANTED TO KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WAS.
Good Friend's caught up in this stupid pedantic interpretation of the words "evolve" and "experimental," and it's gotten really silly.
The funny thing is ... nowhere in Valuehorse's original post did he claim superiority or that he thinks "experimental" music is BETTER than "normal" music.
There was also nothing to suggest that he hadn't written any "normal" songs either.
And even if he hasn't written any "normal" songs, who the hell cares? How is it affecting Good Friend? If he wants to write symphonies of sampled bird calls and door slams, what's the big deal? If it brings him joy and doesn't hurt anyone else, what's the harm?
Maybe Good Friend will understand it more if I use all caps:
HE DIDN'T ONCE CLAIM THAT EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC IS BETTER THAN "NORMAL" MUSIC AT ALL. HE JUST SAID HE LIKED IT AND WANTED TO KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WAS.
Good Friend's caught up in this stupid pedantic interpretation of the words "evolve" and "experimental," and it's gotten really silly.
Somnium7
Noise Criminal
What the fuck are "good traditional songs"? For He's A Jolly Good Fellow? Auld Lang Syne? Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer?
If I asked my mom what a good traditional song was she might respond with one of those. Or she might say Sto lat since she is Polish. If I went to my high school music teacher with that question he would probably say Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. For me a good traditional song would be Down In The Park by Gary Numan. So that leaves us with a problem of individual perspective. Music is an extension of individuality.
Gershwin was highly influenced by French composers such as Maurice Ravel and Claude Debussy but the music Gershwin wrote was imprinted with his own individuality. However, if Ravel and Debussy had not experimented with impressionism then Rhapsody in Blue may have never been written and my high school music teacher would have some other favorite "good traditional song".
It takes inspiration and individuality to write original music. If somebody feels inspired by obscure and experimental forms of music then what's the problem with it? Can anyone say what the potential of any person really is? If we doubt the potential of our own children how will that effect their development? It would be sick and perverse to do such a thing.
It makes me sick when somebody tries to appear to be superior by doubting the potential of others like Good Friend has been doing to Valuehorse since he began this thread. Valuehorse may have alot of potential. It's entirely possible he may be a latent prodigy and may actually invent something new and that invention may inspire others for years to come. His inventions may inspire new "good traditional songs" like impressionism did with Gershwin and Rhapsody In Blue.
At my ripe old age of 36
and being the father of two children let me say this... There are people yet older than myself who are far wiser than me and I believe those people will say that doubting a person's potential is always wrong. Whether you do it to children or young people inspired by experimental music it is WRONG.And being an opinionated, condescending creep in a public forum is just plain obnoxious. I believe that's pretty obvious to *most* of us here.
Last edited:
C
chazba
terminally hip
Just spotted this thread today. It's been an interesting read, some of it anyway. If a guy REALLY wants to catch up on experimental music, he can just google "experimental music" and find a feast of sites jammed full of names and mp3's from people who inhabit the fringes of musical composition. Some are very interesting.
To answer the original question posed on the original post, there are no writers on this BBS who are into experimental music.
chazba
To answer the original question posed on the original post, there are no writers on this BBS who are into experimental music.
chazba
B
bulldozr
New member
I've been thinking about this thread all week. Interesting ideas. Unfortunately, this conversation has been approached in an uncivilized manner.
K
KaveKong
Banned
I don't think it's a bad idea to be crazy once in a while when playing, but coming up with something really new is very difficult.
It does happen, though. There are lots of bands that did it and were leaders in their genre, like Sabbath, Metallica (in the early days), Nirvana, the Carpenters (yeah, strange), Steely Dan, etc.
Rap was a novelty once, and now look how much it's grown.
It does happen, though. There are lots of bands that did it and were leaders in their genre, like Sabbath, Metallica (in the early days), Nirvana, the Carpenters (yeah, strange), Steely Dan, etc.
Rap was a novelty once, and now look how much it's grown.
B
bulldozr
New member
Yeah, rap has grown and even branched out to well-defined sub genres, such as glitch hop for example. Who knew clicks and cuts had it's place in music?
X
XLR
______
Interesting thread.
A common attitude all through the history of music. I don't buy it though.
S
sonicpsyops
Culture Of Convenience
.
Although the lyrics to "Down In The Park" were extraordinary, I think "Praying To Aliens" was my favorite cut from the Replicas album and would be my idea of a traditioanl song. Wow! talk about experimental music. Have you been listening to Gary's new stuff? Or maybe I'm getting off on another thread here?
S
Squirps
New member
I love avant-garde! It's my favorite genre! I write a lot of avant-garde too. If you like avant-garde, listen to music by John Cage and Mr. Bungle!