Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Topic: Prog and Intellect Posted: May 30 2010 at 08:09 |
Dean wrote:
^ yes you should
@Paravion: please don't quote whole lyrics - there are copyright issues involved - just snippets will be fine. |
Indeed, I got burned for that once, it was not a pleasant experience... And now Exposure: Exposure, exposure, exposure....
Edited by Slartibartfast - May 30 2010 at 08:11
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17965
|
Posted: May 29 2010 at 13:05 |
In case you are not aware, where Philosophy meets the Science, for years and years has been considered "mysticism". And that is something that most do not wish to discuss since the only example they have is one book that is badly translated all around and has been horribly distorted over the years!
But on to "art" and "music" ...
What is hard to do in this place is discuss things in a deeper tone and concept and area. For example: One of the interviews with Robert Fripp, he talks about Gurgieff a little. Almost everyone here kinda drops the conversation on the spot. ... and then ... check this out ... at the same time Peter Brook was experimenting with Gurgieff exercises for his actors at the Royal Shakespeare Company. Eventually he made a movie (Meetings with Remarkable Men) about it ... and make sure you check out the ending ... it places music and art and dance ... in another realm ... and guess what Robert is alluding to ... and wanting to setup his experiments and exercises to find that space. And this is much more visible in his solo albums than it is in KC, where he has to let go the depth inside to be able to communicate with the people around him, some of whom, probably can't get into his inner thing anyway! With the exception of some of his work with Brian Eno -- who obviously also understands that depth ... to a great extent.
The exercises and concepts are listed in different words as how Peter Brook used them in at least 2 books. These can be extended to other forms of communication and Peter Brook DID by doing a massive production with actors from 10 different countries and some of them could not speak to one another, but it worked and you can see the video/dvd ... it's called The Mahabharatta. This has been done in music and the experimentations by CAN (cut and paste) show a desire to find something new ... that we do not like to discuss because it is un-predictable to our didatic minds that only want something that we know and can follow.
Many of these people are highly intelligent and exploring other waves and forms of expression. Sometimes they can talk abot it and sometimes they don't. Robert does without mentioning ... but him describing and discussing his philosophical take on it ... is scary for many here ... why? ... we would not try it and much more important we do not have an artistic outlet to try it on ... only your wife, kids and job ... and you can't take a chance on those like you can within an artistic expression.
It's a tough area all around. And very easy for too many folks to get caught in the semantics of it all and not discuss the point. In some cases, this is exploratory. In some cases, I do not think that it is as exploratory and sometimes the situations are "forced" to get a result ... and I really think that some of KC's work is defined by this process ... and I'm not sure that many folks here are capable or willing to discuss their inner selves and art that far ... many think it's their secret! In the end, there is no secret ... there is only one thing ... how open and clear you are with yourself ... and for that you can not have "secrets" ... goodbye intellect and welcome reality! And that reality IS your ART!
Edited by moshkito - May 29 2010 at 13:22
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 29 2010 at 09:31 |
sparter???
THIS IS MADNESSSSSS!
|
What?
|
|
squirting
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 55
|
Posted: May 29 2010 at 04:42 |
pfft i listen to avarnt guard clearly i'm sparter than all of youse
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 23:40 |
Not really......with that glaring fact you will not find yourself on my payroll that is for sure.... nor would you want to be. Passion beats large foreheads anyday
Edited by Chris S - May 28 2010 at 23:42
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
valravennz
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 20 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2546
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 23:35 |
LOL - Though I would have rated ELO a little higher on the scale!
|
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65521
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 23:15 |
Easy Money wrote:
Prog in relation to other genres:
Total serialisation (Milton Babbit) - 172
Afro-Cuban jazz (Eddie Palmieri) - 165
20th century bi-tonality (Milhaud) - 161
Classical music of India (Ragas etc) - 157
post-romantic extended chromaticism (Prokofiev) - 153
King Crimson - 150
Artsy poetic rappers (Ludicrus) - 137
latter day Pink Floyd - 112
Michael Jackson - 109
ELO - 87 |
|
|
valravennz
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 20 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2546
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 22:59 |
moshkito wrote:
Dean wrote:
... just because that this how it was formed does not mean that it wouldn't have been developed by another less philosophical route. Since it is possible to explain calculus without getting into philosophical thought processes then it is logical (pah! another philosophical concept purloined by us practical scientists) that the mathematics of it would have arisen by pure empirical methods. ...
|
(Well said, btw!) |
Agreed
Whew!! Where Philosophy and Science meet so comes the heady discussion/debate. Though I am tempted to wade in I will refrain. None-the-less some very interesting arguments on both sides. However, I don't think we have to go to such great lengths to prove our intellectual prowess. I believe as a prog music lover, that myself and other prog fans, do have above average intellectual capabilities. But there are many fans who are average in intellect and contribute to prog just as much if not more, to our understanding of prog rock on PA or at any point of discussion.
|
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17965
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 14:29 |
Dean wrote:
... just because that this how it was formed does not mean that it wouldn't have been developed by another less philosophical route. Since it is possible to explain calculus without getting into philosophical thought processes then it is logical (pah! another philosophical concept purloined by us practical scientists) that the mathematics of it would have arisen by pure empirical methods. ...
|
(Well said, btw!)
Edited by moshkito - May 28 2010 at 14:30
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Nightshine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 13:19 |
shockedjazz wrote:
Infinitessimal calculus is based and grounded in a whole new conception of the infinite, that could only be really understood by paying attention to philosophical and historical evolution of the concept in the Baroque, its so easy to say that calculus launched science, rockets or whatever without knowing the genesis of it, it just didnt appear from the void. And its implied that something could not be in anyway as we find it in present state of evolution if the genetic cause was not there.
What you find incomprensible is that: Each sciencie studies a kind of objects or range of phenomena, it starts analizing what may be called with precaution given data and then syhnthesize those elements into a theory that is aplicable to every of those phenomenon ( tendencie to universalization)....but this synthesis is not given in the data, not even the more hard of the positivist could argue reasonably that, every scientific great discovery is a theoric revolution and also a theoric jump-because you cannot be sure that generalization is valid as long as you dont hve all the objects your refering for testing it, this are the limits of induction, probability....... Also because experience have only a vicary role in fact ...Copernico couldnt match the mathematical results with the Ptolemaic ones, but he was convinced that the heliocentric hipothesis was truth, so he keep on trying altering paremeters and also the theory itself of course...in anyway he didnt offer a really great advance for calculus he just said: the trayectories of the planets call be calculed as well by mine sistem of calculus than by Ptolemaic but my theory is much simplier". And that was a platonic scientific ideal.
So is not all about mathematics, mathematics are the formal lenguaje and logic in wich theoric intuitions are finally shaped for practical use and theorical clarity and necessity.
We been talking just of one sciencie...but what about the synthesis not of this given phenomena, but of all phenomena? Is it truly offered by sciencies? Or certain methaphisical hipotesis is just given for political reasons with a scientifical excuse, with a recurse to a suspicious absolut faith of modern man in sciencies?
By the way and in relation with that i want to clarify ( i hope) something:
When i say ateism is negative religion, i think evrybody thought that im a kind of teological geek trying to return to religion good old days or something........nothing is further from truth.
Im spanish i know what Catholic church is, as well as im aware of protestantism excesses ( calvinism, etc)..but first af all what we may call laic institutions are founded structuraly in religious ones...and thats my point that can be seen very clearly in the fact that a ateist dogmatism ( a religion in the worst sesnse) is making exactly the same things Pro Status Quo that religions made ( and reproducting the same piramid of power)
Is a political piramid based on a biased and manipulative use of the authority of natural sciencies.
So its again a matter of false options: Old religions vs atheism, democrats vs republicans ( or psoe and pp in my country), Faith against science, Darwinsm vs inteligent design bla, bla, bla.
What about the voices in the middle that are constantly trying to make us aware that all this options are just injustificable reductions? that with the excuse of some truth in it falseness is delivered?
What of the ones that with all the reason that could be gathered are thinking by themselves and not accepting the prederminate fake options?
So thats my stand and thats why i love philosophy- because from these middle point, wich is thinking, always comes the incomfortable truth- Old monetheism wanted philosophy to be a vicary of theology, Modern atheism a vicary of natural sciencies....at the end is free thinking, a thought that in some points of its developement could have only very important ( and reasonable) doubts, what the power and identity structure is represing.
if not evrything is decided in theorical and political matters ( and in reality) is very difficult to have absolute authority and to decide for ever what is what- but thats precisely what the most pwerfull basement for political dogmatism is...and nowadays is being based on these use of natural sciencies, is not really important for the cunning of political interests as long as these estructrural reproduction keeps on.
For the fable, i was just saying that as long as you turned it upside down you misss that the fabule implies that the nature of the same question you were possing ( in the terms of the fabule) implies the fakeness of the will that is posing it, but as it was a joke.......then i suposse your phrase didnt have the specific content i thought.
And yes i been a litlle been harsh ( lets say vehement) and i apologize...specialy because i dont think your not able to understand them, what i really think is that your not really familarized with them. Philosophy a contraire of what people normally thinks cannot be aprhended by the sketchy generalizations that normally are displayed as philosophy- " the useless and out of time rancid academical discipline" wich of course i understand you hate....but and again the analogy: would you like a prog class made up by punks?...I would say: I know what you think is prog but not being totally alien to what your thinking, prog is much more than that, is not only( and thats the key word) that stupid cliche"
And for ending with a pure anti intelectual note ...i think it goes all down to love...because i dont think at all that love makes you dim...it makes you open to the whole reality of the beloved...and that could be really a test! ( of course not only from the positive side)!!
So yes i love philosophy and i love prog...so at least we have a very important love in comun, so that kind of make of us at least a problematic comunity.
And after all im glad because it seems were having a philosophical discussion, and thats great!!!!
|
tl;dr
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 13:12 |
shockedjazz wrote:
Infinitessimal calculus is based and grounded in a whole new conception of the infinite, that could only be really understood by paying attention to philosophical and historical evolution of the concept in the Baroque, its so easy to say that calculus launched science, rockets or whatever without knowing the genesis of it, it just didnt appear from the void. And its implied that something could not be in anyway as we find it in present state of evolution if the genetic cause was not there. |
just because that this how it was formed does not mean that it wouldn't have been developed by another less philosophical route. Since it is possible to explain calculus without getting into philosophical thought processes then it is logical (pah! another philosophical concept purloined by us practical scientists) that the mathematics of it would have arisen by pure empirical methods.
shockedjazz wrote:
What you find incomprensible is that: Each sciencie studies a kind of objects or range of phenomena, it starts analizing what may be called with precaution given data and then syhnthesize those elements into a theory that is aplicable to every of those phenomenon ( tendencie to universalization)....but this synthesis is not given in the data, not even the more hard of the positivist could argue reasonably that, every scientific great discovery is a theoric revolution and also a theoric jump-because you cannot be sure that generalization is valid as long as you dont hve all the objects your refering for testing it, this are the limits of induction, probability....... Also because experience have only a vicary role in fact ...Copernico couldnt match the mathematical results with the Ptolemaic ones, but he was convinced that the heliocentric hipothesis was truth, so he keep on trying altering paremeters and also the theory itself of course...in anyway he didnt offer a really great advance for calculus he just said: the trayectories of the planets call be calculed as well by mine sistem of calculus than by Ptolemaic but my theory is much simplier". And that was a platonic scientific ideal.
So is not all about mathematics, mathematics are the formal lenguaje and logic in wich theoric intuitions are finally shaped for practical use and theorical clarity and necessity. |
The Ptolemaic system didn't explain the trajectories of the planets (and neither did Copernicus) - both gave an acceptable approximation (for their time). Observation and measurement showed them to be wrong, Galileo's observations suggested that Copernicus was more "right" than Ptolomy. Kepler corrected the circular orbits into eliptical orbits by trial and error (not by hypothesis or theory), Newton's inverse-square law of gravity (a practical application of calculus) explained those orbits and Einstein's general relativity corrected the minor imperfections in the orbits calculated using Newton's mathematics. Pardon me for being dim, but I don't see that pure philosophy added much to that science, but if anything was a hinderance.
shockedjazz wrote:
We been talking just of one sciencie...but what about the synthesis not of this given phenomena, but of all phenomena? Is it truly offered by sciencies? Or certain methaphisical hipotesis is just given for political reasons with a scientifical excuse, with a recurse to a suspicious absolut faith of modern man in sciencies? |
Isn't that just "philosophers" using science as a weapon/excuse?
shockedjazz wrote:
By the way and in relation with that i want to clarify ( i hope) something:
When i say ateism is negative religion, i think evrybody thought that im a kind of teological geek trying to return to religion good old days or something........nothing is further from truth.
Im spanish i know what Catholic church is, as well as im aware of protestantism excesses ( calvinism, etc)..but first af all what we may call laic institutions are founded structuraly in religious ones...and thats my point that can be seen very clearly in the fact that a ateist dogmatism ( a religion in the worst sesnse) is making exactly the same things Pro Status Quo that religions made ( and reproducting the same piramid of power) Is a political piramid based on a biased and manipulative use of the authority of natural sciencies.
So its again a matter of false options: Old religions vs atheism, democrats vs republicans ( or psoe and pp in my country), Faith against science, Darwinsm vs inteligent design bla, bla, bla.
What about the voices in the middle that are constantly trying to make us aware that all this options are just injustificable reductions? that with the excuse of some truth in it falseness is delivered?
What of the ones that with all the reason that could be gathered are thinking by themselves and not accepting the prederminate fake options?
|
I didn't think that you were "a kind of theological geek trying to return to religion good old days or something". As I said - I'm not getting into this argument again because people have a nasty habit of misusing words like "proof" "belief" "theory" and "truth". (and now "dogmatism").
shockedjazz wrote:
So thats my stand and thats why i love philosophy- because from these middle point, wich is thinking, always comes the incomfortable truth- Old monetheism wanted philosophy to be a vicary of theology, Modern atheism a vicary of natural sciencies....at the end is free thinking, a thought that in some points of its developement could have only very important ( and reasonable) doubts, what the power and identity structure is represing.
if not evrything is decided in theorical and political matters ( and in reality) is very difficult to have absolute authority and to decide for ever what is what- but thats precisely what the most pwerfull basement for political dogmatism is...and nowadays is being based on these use of natural sciencies, is not really important for the cunning of political interests as long as these estructrural reproduction keeps on. |
no comment.
shockedjazz wrote:
For the fable, i was just saying that as long as you turned it upside down you misss that the fabule implies that the nature of the same question you were possing ( in the terms of the fabule) implies the fakeness of the will that is posing it, but as it was a joke.......then i suposse your phrase didnt have the specific content i thought. |
I have said many times in debates on this forum that analogies only work on the level that they are used - once you delve too deeply into the analogy (or deviate from it) it fails to be an analogy. I'm not stupid, I don't need fables and simplistic analogies to understand something - this, for me, is a falacy of intellect - to assume that by simplifying something into an analogous form you make it easier to understand is belittling your audience and setting yourself up for an epic fail. I take a perverse pleasure in twisting and breaking analogies by extrapolating them beyond their usefulness.
shockedjazz wrote:
And yes i been a litlle been harsh ( lets say vehement) and i apologize...specialy because i dont think your not able to understand them, what i really think is that your not really familarized with them. Philosophy a contraire of what people normally thinks cannot be aprhended by the sketchy generalizations that normally are displayed as philosophy- " the useless and out of time rancid academical discipline" wich of course i understand you hate....but and again the analogy: would you like a prog class made up by punks?...I would say: I know what you think is prog but not being totally alien to what your thinking, prog is much more than that, is not only( and thats the key word) that stupid cliche" |
You don't know me very well do you?
shockedjazz wrote:
And for ending with a pure anti intelectual note ...i think it goes all down to love...because i dont think at all that love makes you dim...it makes you open to the whole reality of the beloved...and that could be really a test! ( of course not only from the positive side)!!
So yes i love philosophy and i love prog...so at least we have a very important love in comun, so that kind of make of us at least a problematic comunity.
And after all im glad because it seems were having a philosophical discussion, and thats great!!!!
|
|
What?
|
|
shockedjazz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 12:07 |
Infinitessimal calculus is based and grounded in a whole new conception of the infinite, that could only be really understood by paying attention to philosophical and historical evolution of the concept in the Baroque, its so easy to say that calculus launched science, rockets or whatever without knowing the genesis of it, it just didnt appear from the void. And its implied that something could not be in anyway as we find it in present state of evolution if the genetic cause was not there.
What you find incomprensible is that: Each sciencie studies a kind of objects or range of phenomena, it starts analizing what may be called with precaution given data and then syhnthesize those elements into a theory that is aplicable to every of those phenomenon ( tendencie to universalization)....but this synthesis is not given in the data, not even the more hard of the positivist could argue reasonably that, every scientific great discovery is a theoric revolution and also a theoric jump-because you cannot be sure that generalization is valid as long as you dont hve all the objects your refering for testing it, this are the limits of induction, probability....... Also because experience have only a vicary role in fact ...Copernico couldnt match the mathematical results with the Ptolemaic ones, but he was convinced that the heliocentric hipothesis was truth, so he keep on trying altering paremeters and also the theory itself of course...in anyway he didnt offer a really great advance for calculus he just said: the trayectories of the planets call be calculed as well by mine sistem of calculus than by Ptolemaic but my theory is much simplier". And that was a platonic scientific ideal.
So is not all about mathematics, mathematics are the formal lenguaje and logic in wich theoric intuitions are finally shaped for practical use and theorical clarity and necessity.
We been talking just of one sciencie...but what about the synthesis not of this given phenomena, but of all phenomena? Is it truly offered by sciencies? Or certain methaphisical hipotesis is just given for political reasons with a scientifical excuse, with a recurse to a suspicious absolut faith of modern man in sciencies?
By the way and in relation with that i want to clarify ( i hope) something:
When i say ateism is negative religion, i think evrybody thought that im a kind of teological geek trying to return to religion good old days or something........nothing is further from truth.
Im spanish i know what Catholic church is, as well as im aware of protestantism excesses ( calvinism, etc)..but first af all what we may call laic institutions are founded structuraly in religious ones...and thats my point that can be seen very clearly in the fact that a ateist dogmatism ( a religion in the worst sesnse) is making exactly the same things Pro Status Quo that religions made ( and reproducting the same piramid of power)
Is a political piramid based on a biased and manipulative use of the authority of natural sciencies.
So its again a matter of false options: Old religions vs atheism, democrats vs republicans ( or psoe and pp in my country), Faith against science, Darwinsm vs inteligent design bla, bla, bla.
What about the voices in the middle that are constantly trying to make us aware that all this options are just injustificable reductions? that with the excuse of some truth in it falseness is delivered?
What of the ones that with all the reason that could be gathered are thinking by themselves and not accepting the prederminate fake options?
So thats my stand and thats why i love philosophy- because from these middle point, wich is thinking, always comes the incomfortable truth- Old monetheism wanted philosophy to be a vicary of theology, Modern atheism a vicary of natural sciencies....at the end is free thinking, a thought that in some points of its developement could have only very important ( and reasonable) doubts, what the power and identity structure is represing.
if not evrything is decided in theorical and political matters ( and in reality) is very difficult to have absolute authority and to decide for ever what is what- but thats precisely what the most pwerfull basement for political dogmatism is...and nowadays is being based on these use of natural sciencies, is not really important for the cunning of political interests as long as these estructrural reproduction keeps on.
For the fable, i was just saying that as long as you turned it upside down you misss that the fabule implies that the nature of the same question you were possing ( in the terms of the fabule) implies the fakeness of the will that is posing it, but as it was a joke.......then i suposse your phrase didnt have the specific content i thought.
And yes i been a litlle been harsh ( lets say vehement) and i apologize...specialy because i dont think your not able to understand them, what i really think is that your not really familarized with them. Philosophy a contraire of what people normally thinks cannot be aprhended by the sketchy generalizations that normally are displayed as philosophy- " the useless and out of time rancid academical discipline" wich of course i understand you hate....but and again the analogy: would you like a prog class made up by punks?...I would say: I know what you think is prog but not being totally alien to what your thinking, prog is much more than that, is not only( and thats the key word) that stupid cliche"
And for ending with a pure anti intelectual note ...i think it goes all down to love...because i dont think at all that love makes you dim...it makes you open to the whole reality of the beloved...and that could be really a test! ( of course not only from the positive side)!!
So yes i love philosophy and i love prog...so at least we have a very important love in comun, so that kind of make of us at least a problematic comunity.
And after all im glad because it seems were having a philosophical discussion, and thats great!!!!
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 11:42 |
One better:
Albert never walked around saying "im a genius" Albert never walked around saying "I'm intellectual" Albert just DID things that were pure genius While others brag of their IQs, ineffectual
Terrible of course. But you get the point.
|
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 05:03 |
Dean wrote:
^ yes you should
@Paravion: please don't quote whole lyrics - there are copyright issues involved - just snippets will be fine. |
I'll remember..
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 05:02 |
If you are into second hand vinyl, this one is quite easy to find and usually doesn't cost much. It's a masterpiece and contains some the most clever and witty lyrics I've ever encountered Kimono my house (1974)
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 04:59 |
^ yes you should
@Paravion: please don't quote whole lyrics - there are copyright issues involved - just snippets will be fine.
Edited by Dean - May 28 2010 at 04:59
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 04:55 |
^ Yep, I really should listen to some Sparks!
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 04:40 |
^
Albert is smart, he's a genius Watch Albert putter, an obvious genius Someday he will reassess the world And he'll still have time for lots of girls
When he grows up he'll remember us When he grows up we are sure that he'll remember us
We made sure that Albert wore his mac We kept all the strangers off his back
(Go away) Everything's relative (Go away Albert's mother say to me) We are his relatives and he don't need any non- relatives
Talent is an asset You've got to understand that Talent is an asset And little Albert has it Talent is an asset And Albert surely has it
:: admin snip ::
(Sparks - Talent is an asset - Kimono My House 1974)
Edited by Dean - May 28 2010 at 05:09
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: May 28 2010 at 04:23 |
Einstein was not a handsome fellow
Nobody ever called him Al
He had a long moustache to pull on, it was yellow
I don't believe he ever had a girl
One thing he missed out in his theory
Of time, space and relativity
Is something that makes it very clear
He was never gonna score like you and me
(Robert Calvert)
Just my lame attempt at introducing some levity... most of this discussion is going way over my head! Plus... I'm still trying to get over the shock that Dean uses Wikipedia like us mere mortals
|
|
UndercoverBoy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
|
Posted: May 27 2010 at 15:57 |
moshkito wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
MuteArchitects wrote:
My momma says I'm special |
You are because you listen to Prog. The most enlightened and complex music in the entire universe. |
Undercover ... we're gonna punish you with Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky and some of the modern composers for a while ... first! We'll figure out a feather punishment after that! Most of prog is just rock music and nothing but rock/pop music! AND you don't even have to be a musician anymore ... just a geek armed with a DAW these days! |
Ahem, I was parodying some of the opinions here. I actually agree with you completely.
|
|