Philly the Kid wrote:I'm not writing any ore super long posts on BSG even here on something where I'm very qualified. But you mis understood me on a couple things -- I'm not saying that mass exposure of all cultures via global communication tools is a bad thing. I'm just saying that it has had an effect, and thus far that effect is not to naturally push regional local art forms forward on their own progression but more toward diluting them with outside input or making poutpourri. Not every instance is like that, but many are.

I'm not invested in any institution or way things have been before. What I said and firmly believe, is that arts has hit a wall. Their is new work. Some of it clever, some of it cathartic or political - and thus relevant to time and place, and some of it well well crafted or executed. But there is nothing in music, film, art, poetry, writing, dance -- that is moving the art-form forwards right now. We've hit a wall.

You can see continuums of how one thing lead to the next to the next. In music, you can look at approaches to harmony or rhythm or intrsumentation, technology -- there isn't a single thing being made that is the "next step" for any genre.

You can't have Miles and Coltrane without Parker or Ellington. There is no analog to that right now. The last thing that happened was the advent of digital audio, and sampling. And new art-forms emerged musically. But that was not fertile enough to allow for more than about 2 decades.

I have a lot more I can say on this topic but this isn't the forum for it. And long P-t-K posts are frowned upon at BSG.

you may be on to something, Kid, but I dunno, "new" and "next" are such....well, linear concepts; kinda surprised at you.

Geezus C***st -- you guys are somethin...

I didn't say that art was dead. I said that right now, there is nothing new pushing the art-forms forward. I believe that certain things have been exhausted and due to the accelerated nature of life in the 20th now 21st century that things happen faster and expire or devour more quickly. The way it comes up for me, is that I monitor all the art venues, from Burning Man to some obscure basement in some weird 'hood to East Berlin too anywhere. And right now, there is no place I can identify that is the nexus or hub or a fomenting of pushing art-forms as we've labeled identified and consumer them -- forwards.

Not that it won't happen again some day. It might. But as some of you have intimated, things we can't conceive of because life will change in ways we can't conceive.

In music, I have speculated for a long time that micro-tuning may be fertile. Up til now, its been mostly used as an effect or affect. But 12 tone equal temperament (the tuning system of the piano, and orchestras) has been very fertile for a while now and has been completely exhausted. Continuum music, exhausted. Conceptual Cage like stuff. Been there done it. 4'33" is not a new conceptual operation.

I'm not standing at the SF Dump with a Flag - on the hill side where art-makers have been curating and composing out of refuse for 20 years, that "Art is Dead". It's very much alive. Moreso than ever because of the population, education, tools, lack of specialization and elitisism to get involved. But its not progressing right now. It's re-mixing, its post-modern re-contextualizing, re-appropriating, blending, melding, repeating -- and being of a moment, message, time and place -- but there has been an obvious lack of a new revelation for me in any art-form for a while now. Be it film, music, museum art, spoken word, prose -- whatever.

I'm not wrong.

Now, to TV"s point, that it may not be possible to see or sniff or sense where its percolating in a new cauldron somewhere to be recognized in retrospect in a few years? Maybe. How could I or anyone really know. But I have a broader sense of this crisis we've reached. It has to do with the over-exposure and the fact that there aren't many new paradigms about living on this planet in play right now. We're still operating mostly off old ideas and people holding on.

I consumed art like fuel to a furnace for most of my teen and adult life and I'm quite clear now that I can get "Rush" off something, that is familiar, a form, a technique, a sound, a texture -- and still dig it -- but it is utterly clear to me now that I CAN NOT get the feeling of "oh sh**, that's some new stuff... wow, that's the scene now..." There is no hi low or medium brow format venue, scene or circumstance offering me a truly new experience.

short answer: sod off

it stands to reason that the more of something you consume, the more infrequently you're going to experience that "rush". that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff out there knocking people's socks off, ya dig?

also, re-read your recent posts and realize how arrogant and condescending you sound.

Woody wrote:it stands to reason

You lost him.

Woody wrote:it stands to reason that the more of something you consume, the more infrequently you're going to experience that "rush". that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff out there knocking people's socks off, ya dig?

also, re-read your recent posts and realize how arrogant and condescending you sound.

I didn't say that people aren't having their socks knocked off. I didn't say anything about anyone's personal enjoyment. I don't even think most of you know what I'm even talking about. But that's not unusual. And given the heightened over-zealous knee-jerk reaction by so many of you (about 4-5 of you that don't even normally post in this thread, came rushing in just to call me out) - I can't really take many of you seriously, because you are just pre-disposed to attack anything I assert.

You want to call me condescending, and yet, there are so many around here who flaunt arrogance all the time.

And once again, you didn't actually respond to anything I actually said. Instead, you characterized it or me in some usual branding exercise.

Nothing I said was an attack on anyone here, or anyone's views. Only TV actually attempted to take the topic on a little.

I'm sure everyone here has an opinion on what wine they like or dislike. Everyone is entitled to their subjective tastes. That doesn't mean everyone here is qualified to speak about wine, like some master vintner or wine tasting specialist. Or even just an avid wine buff who has been studying it, and trying wines for 30 years compared to someone who just started exploring it 3 years ago. Doesn't make them arrogant or condescending.

I'm not a statistician, nor do I have an advanced knowledge of running SABR or SABR like equations. I don't feel condescended to when Matt S or someone else who is experienced and expert in that realm asserts a strong opinion or pushes back on someone who isn't really quite qualified to contest something. Or doesn't quite grasp some part of an analysis.

I feel pretty safe knowing that Woody hasn't remotely approached my exposure to and study of the arts. And thus can't really take me on, on topic because he's not qualified. So instead, he calls me names like "condescender". Why do you care Woody? Why did you even enter this thread?

You're pretty much a one-trick pony aren't you Woody? Funny man, wise-guy, sarcasm to cover lack of substance and anything provocative to offer. To ever get out on a limb on a topic that could expose you. Easier to crack wise -- and try to show how clever you are -- which one of us is really condescending? cynical? and a di**?

Whatever I have demonstrated on BSG, lack of research here, a little hyper-bolic there, out of step with format and proportion -- one thing is pretty clear -- which is that I'm actually pretty sincere. You may not agree with me, or think I'm wasting space or off-base, but I'm not out trying to show anyone up.

And I think in many instances, I've been provocative. Even if in being that way - riled some folks up.

In this instance, I spoke about something I actually know quite a bit about and have been contemplating for a long time. And clearly by some of the reactions here, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. And reacted to something else. If I had gone in to the Bruce thread and said, "I think all Bruce is crap" (which I do), then that would be arrogant and condescending.

If you actually cared about an esoteric topic like this one, you could engage me and actually have an opportunity to learn something. Ask a sincere question, "what do you mean exactly here P-t-K?" - but you don't really care about anything I said, just that I said it and the tone or style struck you in some fashion.

I am flattered though that haters actually care what I'm saying in one of the more obscure threads on the OT board. Usually its just me and Smooth talking Lee Morgan or something.

I only listen to track 2 on "out to lunch"

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:it stands to reason that the more of something you consume, the more infrequently you're going to experience that "rush". that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff out there knocking people's socks off, ya dig?

also, re-read your recent posts and realize how arrogant and condescending you sound.

You're pretty much a one-trick pony aren't you Woody? Funny man, wise-guy, sarcasm to cover lack of substance and anything provocative to offer. To ever get out on a limb on a topic that could expose you. Easier to crack wise -- and try to show how clever you are -- which one of us is really condescending? cynical? and a di**?

I'm not in this jazz thread to learn from you. I hate jazz. I'm in this thread to point out what a condescending elitist you sound like when you preach. You also totally ignored my actual point which is that if you're such an un-ending consumer of all-things jazz, then of course you're going to find less and less innovative things. Creativity builds on the ideas of others, so it's not surprising that you if you've literally seen and heard every thing out there, that anything new will feel less and less new to you as the years go on. Maybe it's time to start listening something else if you're all bummed out about it. And yes, I'm a cynical dick. Thank you.

Whatever I have demonstrated on BSG, lack of research here, a little hyper-bolic there, out of step with format and proportion -- one thing is pretty clear -- which is that I'm actually pretty sincere. You may not agree with me, or think I'm wasting space or off-base, but I'm not out trying to show anyone up.

A sincere bag of self-important hot air. That's what you are. Or at least how most here perceive you. Whether you disagree or not, it's the truth. And you're not trying to show anyone up because you can't. You're not clever enough. <-- sorry, that last part was just me being a cynical dick.

And I think in many instances, I've been provocative. Even if in being that way - riled some folks up.

So I guess you're a one-trick pony, too! Yay, high five! Only difference being more people tend to like me.

In this instance, I spoke about something I actually know quite a bit about and have been contemplating for a long time. And clearly by some of the reactions here, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. And reacted to something else. If I had gone in to the Bruce thread and said, "I think all Bruce is crap" (which I do), then that would be arrogant and condescending.

This is vintage PTK. If someone reacts negatively to some condescending crap you spew from your elitist, organically fed brain, it's their fault because they just don't understand, mannnnn. No, you're not condescending. Not at all!

If you actually cared about an esoteric topic like this one, you could engage me and actually have an opportunity to learn something. Ask a sincere question, "what do you mean exactly here P-t-K?" - but you don't really care about anything I said, just that I said it and the tone or style struck you in some fashion.

I don't care about anything in this thread other than pointing out the flaw in your idiotic statements and your condescending attitude. I've tried to engage you on actual sports topics before with sincerity, and it goes in one side of your giant head and out the other.

Replies above in red!!

Philly the Kid wrote:Geezus C***st -- you guys are somethin...

I didn't say that art was dead. I said that right now, there is nothing new pushing the art-forms forward. I believe that certain things have been exhausted and due to the accelerated nature of life in the 20th now 21st century that things happen faster and expire or devour more quickly. The way it comes up for me, is that I monitor all the art venues, from Burning Man to some obscure basement in some weird 'hood to East Berlin too anywhere. And right now, there is no place I can identify that is the nexus or hub or a fomenting of pushing art-forms as we've labeled identified and consumer them -- forwards.

Not that it won't happen again some day. It might. But as some of you have intimated, things we can't conceive of because life will change in ways we can't conceive.

In music, I have speculated for a long time that micro-tuning may be fertile. Up til now, its been mostly used as an effect or affect. But 12 tone equal temperament (the tuning system of the piano, and orchestras) has been very fertile for a while now and has been completely exhausted. Continuum music, exhausted. Conceptual Cage like stuff. Been there done it. 4'33" is not a new conceptual operation.

I'm not standing at the SF Dump with a Flag - on the hill side where art-makers have been curating and composing out of refuse for 20 years, that "Art is Dead". It's very much alive. Moreso than ever because of the population, education, tools, lack of specialization and elitisism to get involved. But its not progressing right now. It's re-mixing, its post-modern re-contextualizing, re-appropriating, blending, melding, repeating -- and being of a moment, message, time and place -- but there has been an obvious lack of a new revelation for me in any art-form for a while now. Be it film, music, museum art, spoken word, prose -- whatever.

I'm not wrong.

Now, to TV"s point, that it may not be possible to see or sniff or sense where its percolating in a new cauldron somewhere to be recognized in retrospect in a few years? Maybe. How could I or anyone really know. But I have a broader sense of this crisis we've reached. It has to do with the over-exposure and the fact that there aren't many new paradigms about living on this planet in play right now. We're still operating mostly off old ideas and people holding on.

I consumed art like fuel to a furnace for most of my teen and adult life and I'm quite clear now that I can get "Rush" off something, that is familiar, a form, a technique, a sound, a texture -- and still dig it -- but it is utterly clear to me now that I CAN NOT get the feeling of "oh sh**, that's some new stuff... wow, that's the scene now..." There is no hi low or medium brow format venue, scene or circumstance offering me a truly new experience.

you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything

should we be disappointed that that's not 'new'?

Kid, you have to - HAVE to - address why 'new' means anything in this context if you're to be persuasive. I doubt that players like Zorn or Jason Moran or others would listen to you on these topics and agree with you, or even agree that 'newness' was something they should be concerned about. Lovely that it's important to you; unclear why it's important to music.

It's great, I'm knackered so answering this should actually give me some vim to do some proper work. I realise this a futile excercise given your epic levels of un-selfawareness and the fact it's an internet argument, but I feel like getting stuck in.

Philly the Kid wrote:You want to call me condescending, and yet, there are so many around here who flaunt arrogance all the time.

the second part of this sentence is entirely unrelated to the objections to your position. Why even include it? I find you condescending and arrogant, which frustrates when combined with an inability to communicating your reasoning effectively. this sentence is a classic an example of you put your viewpoint forth. It gives the sense of someone who assumes an audience will listen to them just because of who they are. It is possible that when talking with you, I would not get this sense. It might just be your inability (or perhaps worse, your unwillingness) to argue clearly when using the written word make you seem arrogant.

Philly the Kid wrote:That doesn't mean everyone here is qualified to speak about wine, like some master vintner or wine tasting specialist. Or even just an avid wine buff who has been studying it, and trying wines for 30 years compared to someone who just started exploring it 3 years ago. Doesn't make them arrogant or condescending.

That is true, but where you differ from someone like MattS, is that you assert without putting forth reasoning. And you assume everyone else is supremely ignorant. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've worked in and around writers and publishing for over 10 years now. I'm a fairly considered reader of cultural critiques, and all too familiar with authors, publishers and editors declaring that the novel is dead and is no longer moving forward. I'm also aware at the sheer depth of material that there is in my own sphere, and the sheer impossibility of keeping on top of it. For these two reasons, I remain sceptical when anyone holds forth the idea that in the world of the arts in general, there is no longer any innovation.

Given the arrogance I discern in your tone, I move from skepticism to annoyance and anger when I read the following line:

Philly the Kid wrote:I consumed art like fuel to a furnace for most of my teen and adult life and I'm quite clear now that I can get "Rush" off something, that is familiar, a form, a technique, a sound, a texture -- and still dig it -- but it is utterly clear to me now that I CAN NOT get the feeling of "oh sh**, that's some new stuff... wow, that's the scene now..." There is no hi low or medium brow format venue, scene or circumstance offering me a truly new experience.

Personal interpretation and critical theory are linked but not the same thing. But you assert that having studied an immense amount of work (the world over, in fact, less we doubt your cosmopolitan nature), nothing moves you any more. Most people I talk to about art and culture will happily admit that there are pieces, books, films where they can discern a fierce intelligence which is developing ideas, but it does not move them. A considered critic may choose to acknowledge the work, but say it leaves them unmoved, or attempt to articulate why the work fails to move them and critique the piece on that basis.

You, on the other hand, blithely assert that nothing has moved you now and therefore nothing is new.

you then go on to say that you're sincere, so that makes up for the blithe assertions that the world of arts has globally stagnated and in crisis. Sincerity counts for bupkiss. A great many dislikeable people have been very sincere about the very bad things they've done. It just means that you firmly believe in your point of view and are serious in conveying how important it is. There are other posters here seem to adopt a similar attitude. I find their sincerity just as aggravating as yours.

Once again, it has little to do with your essential point, which is that because you feel nothing new has moved you sufficiently, there is now no new innovation in the world of the arts, and that furthermore, no one else is equipped to argue with you. You offer no particular examples or reasoning behind them. It makes it impossible to argue with you. your point of view is not well-argued.

Philly the Kid wrote:In this instance, I spoke about something I actually know quite a bit about and have been contemplating for a long time.

That may be the case. But nothing in your ramblings suggests that your contemplation has led you to a point of view which can be clearly articulated. Instead you just say that you know more about it than anyone, so you must be right. It is this manner, for all your asserted cosmopolitan tastes (a love of film in subtitles, say), which leads me to the conclusion that you are no better than a knowledgeable boorish american of the 21st century, or indeed a knowledgeable boorish english person of the 19th century. Your essential point of view is that all cultures have much to interest people, but only if those people are well educated, and your comprehension of those cultures is in fact the definitive take on said cultures. It's a point of view born of immense entitlement which can come with being a citizen of a very powerful country with a massive global reach and effect. to some measure or another, a large number of people on this board have it.

It's a point of view that instinctively makes me punch people. sure, it's probably potato fields on my shoulders, and a product of growing up in a country which is the complete antithesis of empire, but none the less it's how I feel, and when you spout your shit about things I know about like it's divine shit that I shouldn't question, I really, really get angry. I do however find it amusing that american leftists can be as toweringly massive arrogant pricks as those of the right, for exactly the same reason.

Hell, maybe I'd like you in person. but in print online, you are not likeable, for the reasons mentioned here.

You know who I like to hear talking about art on this board? Housh. Were I in a bar with him, I would happily ask him questions and listen to him talk about why he liked, say, Alice Neel and why he thinks she's so important to art. Sure, he's younger than I and he's still feeling his way in terms of his critical positions, but his enthusiasm and complete lack of preachiness more than make up for it.

drsmooth wrote:Kid, you have to - HAVE to - address why 'new' means anything in this context if you're to be persuasive.

Jesus, man, that is above and beyond. I bet you can't walk past prone drunks without making sure they're still breathing.

drsmooth wrote: I doubt that players like Zorn or Jason Moran or others would listen to you on these topics and agree with you, or even agree that 'newness' was something they should be concerned about. Lovely that it's important to you; unclear why it's important to music.

It's an interesting thought, doc. Me, I tend to think this stuff goes in cycles, with occasional jumps when new forms of expression finally emerge (I was about to say that you could think of it as a cylinder with a fixed base but an ever widening diameter as it moves upwards, but that assumes a fixed beginning point, and I don't know enough about the myiad beginnings of music to assume that actually happened. Instead of us just perceiving it as so). But the guys doing the creating (of music, in this case), aren't always interested in creating something new. Maybe they just like to play and explore. Especially in jazz.

I realise I'm straying into horribly vague opinion here, and I know fuck all about the actual process of creation (because, well, I don't except the way we all do), but I generally assume that a fierce level of critical self-awareness combined with a massive knowledge and a preparedness to experiment and discard is what consistently begets the new. If you look to your craft, the newness happens. In fact, now that I think of it, it's kind of what alan moore was saying in one of his talks a bit back. And, unlike the kid, I tend to trust what he says on face value because of who he is.

Wizlah wrote:(I was about to say that you could think of it as a cylinder with a fixed base but an ever widening diameter as it moves upwards, but that assumes a fixed beginning point,

I never thought I would see Jazz likened to a truncated cone.

Here's something interesting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-PJw2lqW7c[/youtube]

Now, here's the "original" version.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMMhkPNuxNg&feature=related[/youtube]

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Wizlah wrote:(I was about to say that you could think of it as a cylinder with a fixed base but an ever widening diameter as it moves upwards, but that assumes a fixed beginning point,

I never thought I would see Jazz likened to a truncated cone.

Inverted, pal. INVERTED truncated cone. (Or is that upended? Oh fuck, now you've got me thinking).

Wizlah wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Kid, you have to - HAVE to - address why 'new' means anything in this context if you're to be persuasive.

Jesus, man, that is above and beyond. I bet you can't walk past prone drunks without making sure they're still breathing.

my friends call me "saintly drsmooth"

I'm with you PtK, I hate Bruce too.

TenuredVulture wrote:Here's something interesting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-PJw2lqW7c[/youtube]

Now, here's the "original" version.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMMhkPNuxNg&feature=related[/youtube]

Now THAT was interesting. Thanks for finding/sharing that! Milton Babbit was one of the more academic composers of recent generations. I've met him and been in a seminar with him speaking about 20 years ago. I doubt he could have conceived of that... not sure if he would have dug it or not but I did.

Woody wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:it stands to reason that the more of something you consume, the more infrequently you're going to experience that "rush". that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff out there knocking people's socks off, ya dig?

also, re-read your recent posts and realize how arrogant and condescending you sound.

You're pretty much a one-trick pony aren't you Woody? Funny man, wise-guy, sarcasm to cover lack of substance and anything provocative to offer. To ever get out on a limb on a topic that could expose you. Easier to crack wise -- and try to show how clever you are -- which one of us is really condescending? cynical? and a di**?

I'm not in this jazz thread to learn from you. I hate jazz. I'm in this thread to point out what a condescending elitist you sound like when you preach. You also totally ignored my actual point which is that if you're such an un-ending consumer of all-things jazz, then of course you're going to find less and less innovative things. Creativity builds on the ideas of others, so it's not surprising that you if you've literally seen and heard every thing out there, that anything new will feel less and less new to you as the years go on. Maybe it's time to start listening something else if you're all bummed out about it. And yes, I'm a cynical dick. Thank you.

Whatever I have demonstrated on BSG, lack of research here, a little hyper-bolic there, out of step with format and proportion -- one thing is pretty clear -- which is that I'm actually pretty sincere. You may not agree with me, or think I'm wasting space or off-base, but I'm not out trying to show anyone up.

A sincere bag of self-important hot air. That's what you are. Or at least how most here perceive you. Whether you disagree or not, it's the truth. And you're not trying to show anyone up because you can't. You're not clever enough. <-- sorry, that last part was just me being a cynical dick.

And I think in many instances, I've been provocative. Even if in being that way - riled some folks up.

So I guess you're a one-trick pony, too! Yay, high five! Only difference being more people tend to like me.

In this instance, I spoke about something I actually know quite a bit about and have been contemplating for a long time. And clearly by some of the reactions here, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. And reacted to something else. If I had gone in to the Bruce thread and said, "I think all Bruce is crap" (which I do), then that would be arrogant and condescending.

This is vintage PTK. If someone reacts negatively to some condescending crap you spew from your elitist, organically fed brain, it's their fault because they just don't understand, mannnnn. No, you're not condescending. Not at all!

If you actually cared about an esoteric topic like this one, you could engage me and actually have an opportunity to learn something. Ask a sincere question, "what do you mean exactly here P-t-K?" - but you don't really care about anything I said, just that I said it and the tone or style struck you in some fashion.

I don't care about anything in this thread other than pointing out the flaw in your idiotic statements and your condescending attitude. I've tried to engage you on actual sports topics before with sincerity, and it goes in one side of your giant head and out the other.

Replies above in red!!

Blah blah. I can't hear anything you say because its so personal and you openly admit your bias, and true nature.

Slowhand wrote:I'm with you PtK, I hate Bruce too.

a man of considered tastes...