4/29/08

Rare Artur Schnabel Sex Tape Discovered!












This is an absolute must see for any musician with a healthy libido! But not this.

Enjoy! And comment!
-

15 comments:

Sator Arepo said...

Do what now? Confuse genres? Be angry about genre conflation? Wonder about Jimi's jimmy?

Speculate about Schnabel's...?

Empiricus said...

Come on. Figure it out. Read the f-ing article. What else do we do, other than play meme games?

Sator Arepo said...

No, no, I already did. I was being snarky. Or...was I?

Empiricus said...

Snarky implied. Let me start this with a question or two.

Does anyone have the right to define genre boundaries?

I think good is good. Bad is bad. Fair is fair. Dumb is stupid.

Second, why do we care so much about Jimi's jimmie? Is it our indecisiveness? Our searching for better dialogue?

Or penis? Or lack of interest-piquing debate/ conversation, etc.?

Hello?

AnthonyS said...

C'mon, SA, whip out your critical theory stick on this one.

Pun intended...

Gustav said...

Does anyone have the right to define genre boundaries?

Yes, we all do. It's the very purpose of language, to have agreed upon definitions. Debate will always ensue, and definitions will always change with the times, but we (the collective we) have the right to define genres.

"I think good is good. Bad is bad. Fair is fair. Dumb is stupid."

True enough, but are those not boundaries themselves? Why must a show confine themselves only to good music? That's very elitist.

Second, why do we care so much about Jimi's jimmie? Is it our indecisiveness? Our searching for better dialogue?

We don't care. [Whenever I start writing sentences that use "we" I'm always reminded of Mark Twain's quote, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we."]

Or penis? Or lack of interest-piquing debate/ conversation, etc.?

I care. About my penis and about this debate...Schumann Lieder has no place on a classical music radio show--as a valuable judgement

Hello?

Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me.

-- --

In any case, I'm with the chorus chick (Wanda Temko) on this one. Post-modern eclecticism is wonderful in terms of critical thought and the freedom it yields artists, but it is not the great equalizer that some pretend it is. Just because something is popular/new/Uzbekistani/directed by Quinton Tarantino/(insert your own defining term here) does not make it good.

Not that I care what some classical music radio/NPR station does or says on the subject--they all sold their soul a long time ago.

Sator Arepo said...

On one hand, I'm for postmodern eclecticism. New things. New audiences. Fantastic.

However, barring my own record collection, if I WANT to hear a particular type of music on the radio, how will I know which station to choose? I know: we'll segregate them by genre!

Empiricus said...

Don't the boundaries promote unnecessary segregation, qua false (or if not false, then contrived) stereotypes, meanings, intents? It's like choosing which philosophical sense to follow--the "Hegelian" sense of being versus or the "Heideggerian" sense of being--when it all could be part of the same conversation.

Gustav said...

Segregating objects is called classification. Segregating human philosophical sense of being is an entirely different thing. That's an apples/oranges comparison.

Philosophical sense of being is not quantifiable in a emperical manner. Just like good and bad are not absolutes, they are opinions.

You're right, however, about the creation of false meanings or stereoptypes, but that is hardly the fault of the classification. It is the fault of either the definition or of the person interpreting that definition.

And if I remember correctly, fundamental to Hegel's conception of knowledge, it is our recognition of what makes things different that will yield meaningful understanding.

Empiricus said...

Well said, sir.

Though I've always had a problem with the objectification of an ephemeral entity, like music, which depends nearly entirely on memory--shoddy recollections are par for the course in the biological-reactions-are-all-I-am world. For me, this makes it difficult to classify music into genres and, worse, sub-genres.

My problem, I guess.

Sator Arepo said...

It's a thorny one. Do you have all your CDs alphabetized together, or sorted by style/genre?

I wrestle with this a lot.

Empiricus said...

Alphabetized by century.

Gustav said...

Arranged in order of their relation to Schoenberg plotted on a graph in which a given composer (or piece) is assigned a number between 1 and sum of all of the notes in a given piece (adjusted for inflation) and either added to height of the composer (or in the case of Brahms substracted from their girth). That number is then generalized by a Fourier series to at least 13 decimal places. The goal here is minimize the maximum value of P(x) - f(x), where P(x) is the number of completions of the 12-pitch chromatic set, and f(x) is a fictional number of my choosing (often directly related to the Bush-McCain Eye-Roll Factor). The result of that equation is then divided by the number of back-handed comments from Bernard Holland or Mark Swed about their music...and like I mentioned, placed on a 4 dimensionally graph with Schoenberg at its theoretical center. Strangely enough the first CD turns out to be Parliament Funkadelic's Hardcore Jollies with the soundtrack to The Chipmunk's Great Adventure a close second.

Empiricus said...

That was a lot of effort. A simple I-Ching would have sufficed.

Murderface said...

Wow, nice Hardcore Jollies reference. You gotta dig way back in the crates for that one.

That's the first one in my collection too, oddly enough. However, we have different sorting techniques. I arrange mine alphabetically by the second letter of the band and album.