Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
Will I ever be as good as the old masters?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
I belong to the fraction who usually prefers traditional compositions for their melodious and patently conclusive characteristics.
Regarding a parallel to the strip above, one´s got to confirm though:
The more advanced a state of civilization the more awareness there is about shortcoming and potential failure. Vice versa, the more backwarded, the more careless conviction you´ll see.
Watching the habits in an underdeveloped country, it is incredible to see how people under estimate the factual extend of single subjects. Hardly aware of basics, fancying to already be mastering the whole thing.
Starting with craftsmen who routingly cause damages, over physicians who produce professional blunder / victims of arrogance on a regular basis, ending with vain administrations who waste hundreds of billions of bucks e.g. on failing homegrown prestige objects like nuclear plants, despite of obvious alternatives readily available like solar concepts, etc.
From there; while drawing caveman might have been entitled to his opinion, a heritage of his perspective better bore no warshipping today.
Just my 2cents on another note.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 12 2016 11:23:26
 |
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Didn't think it would spark such an in-depth reflexion! Thanks though.
Just to throw in my own 2 cents:
To me the joke is just showing how absurd the concept of it "being better before" is, by taking it back as far they can. We all tend to be biased toward what we grow up
with and disregard what is new. For instance, prescriptive grammarians across every language have been condemning for centuries any kind of new usage or neologism,
saying that if language goes south, so will civilization. You can go back one generation of grammarians at a time, and find the people saying it's going
downhill. So theoretically, by going back that way, you should find a time and place where English was at its best, almost perfect, since we've only been going downhill
since. Except that time and place simply never existed. It's basically the myth of the Garden of Eden at work. So it's not so much about the caveman being entitled to his opinion.
It's about the caveman not having existed at all!
While I do get what you're saying about the difference between more developed countries and less developed ones, I'm not sure that's really the point. It's about how much
access to information you have on a specific thing. The more information you have on this specific thing, the more prone to doubt you'll be, no matter how "developed"
your society is or isn't. But throw in something new, where you only have limited knowledge, then it's easy to think you've mastered it since you're doing everything right
based on the little information you have (I'm sure in the few hunter-gatherer societies that still exist, there are lively debates about the right way of making a spear or
god knows what, ask them to learn Western construction working, there'd be much less debate since it's not a field of expertise they're familiar with).
To complicate things even more, what you said makes sense only inasmuch as we know what the purpose of the thing we're trying to do is. The craftsmen causing damage,
the physician and his professional blunders. We know what the end of these activities are, what they were supposed to do and so we can make statements as to whether someone is doing it right or not.
But since we really don't know what the purpose of any form of art is (I've yet to hear anything convincing on this), we simply can't make any statement as to how to succeed or fail at it.
Though it sucks (because I really want to bash some forms of art... I really do. For some reason Justin Bieber comes to mind  ), it seems we're condemned to not be able to make any kind of
definitive judgment about art as long as we haven't clearly defined what its purpose is. In the meantime, we've gutted the joke by talking so seriously about it 
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 12 2016 16:37:35
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
For instance, prescriptive grammarians across every language have been condemning for centuries any kind of new usage or neologism, saying that if language goes south, so will
civilization. You can go back one generation of grammarians at a time, and find the people saying it's going downhill.
You are correct up to a point, but only up to a point. Language can become so degraded that it becomes unintelligible. Rules of grammar are established as "traffic signals" that clarify meaning that might otherwise be confusing. It is fashionable among some to suggest that correct grammar is unnecessary as long as the idea being conveyed is "understood." But the
point of correct grammar is to ensure that the idea being conveyed is understood.
Allow me to point out an example where punctuation makes all the difference in the meaning of a sentence. Take the sentence below:
"Woman without her man is nothing."
I'm sure you probably think you understand the meaning being conveyed.
Let me add two elements of punctuation, and they will establish the actual meaning I wish to convey with the sentence:
"Woman: without her, man is nothing."
The colon and comma completely change the meaning of the sentence.
So while language (and art) may change and evolve, not all change and evolution of language and art is necessarily for the better. That includes music as well.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 12 2016 17:02:26
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
It reminds me of the bestselling book "Eats, shoots and leaves", which was based precisely on that premise.
The joke being this:
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit.
The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves" )
Interestingly enough though, you can find examples in the works of some of the most reknown writers in the English language that wouldn't stand the scrutiny of today's grammarians.
Jane Austen is known to have at times separated subject from verb, or verb from object, with a comma. Other grammar rules are often flouted precisely to ensure clarity or greater effect
("to go boldy where no man has gone before" just doesn't have that much effect, or the famous example attributed to Churchill that shows how unclear a sentence can be if we stick to the rule all of the time:
: "ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put"). Another funny example is when President Obama had to retake his oath in 2009 because Chief Justice Roberts couldn't stand the split infinitive and made him say "to execute faithfully" so as
to not reproduce the "mistake" in the official oath "to execute faithfully the office of the President".
When it is true to say that rules of grammar "are established" for my own mother tongue (French, which is and has always been an artificial language imposed by law on others, as opposed
to a "natural" language), this is much harder to defend in the case of languages that are not created by legislative bodies. In fact, current theories are more along the lines that grammar is
to a certain extent innate, a product of human evolution (there is a very interesting case study on Mexican Sign Language, showing that deaf children (for whom sign language is a mother tongue)
create a grammar far more complex in that language than their non-deaf parents and teachers (for whom sign language is a "second language")).
All of this being said, my point was only that we can't assert whether changes are good or bad unless we know what the aim is.
If the aim of language is clear communication, then yes, we can very easily say that there are better and worse ways of achieving that result (depending on who your audience is).
In the case of poetry, where the aim of language extends beyond mere communication, it gets more complicated.
And no one seems to know what the aim of music (or any art form for that matter) is, hence we cannot make any statements on what is better or worse to achieve that aim. We can only judge
against man-made standards that don't necessarily match what the natural purpose of music may be (if there is a purpose to it at all...it may just be an evolutionary by-product of something else).
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 12 2016 18:07:41
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
And I´m not of the impression as if if any language could currently be developing towards higher accuracy.
I'd suggest that "impression" is the keyword here. Mainly because I understand that impression having had to battle it in myself.
I used to be a linguist by trade, and though I can't disprove that languages are getting less and less accurate, suffice it to say
that I've never read a study providing any evidence that they are.
Languages have a life cycle that moves towards more and more simplicity, that isn't to say towards less and less accuracy. As
far as sheer understanding is concerned, English is no less precise without thee, thou, ye and whom than it was with them.
Say to a child "Who did you give to?" and he doesn't for a second doubt what that "who" means. To be fair, I can't speak to the developments
of German. Ich weiss nicht .
As to the purpose you give to art, it seems like it could apply just as much to computer programming and as such doesn't really satisfy...
But people have been debating this for years and there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet. At least, not that I can tell.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 12 2016 18:47:25
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Linguists might be too busy already with tracking down all the languages and dialects that are vanishing.
In the time I spent in that field, I was astonished at how few people seem to give any thought to the fact that our very subject matter is dissappearing.
Languages seem to follow the same "survival of the fittest" rules as biological species. And yet again the powerful are weeding out the weak. To be fair though, languages are also being born, we tend to forget about that.
quote:
and viewing general educational clues
There is also such a thing as the Flynn effect, which suggests that average IQ has been rising at a rate of 3 points per decade since that standardized test was invented (they have to regularly "re-standardize" the IQ test points to set it back to the base value of 100).
So basically we're saying we have more intelligent people than before but more muddled in their communication skills?
quote:
In respect of art I don´t see how a parallel to other subjects would render original characteristics invalid.
It doesn't render them invalid. I'm just saying the definition doesn't go far enough to be of any use. If your definition can't make the difference between two very different things, what's the point of even having it?
Defining a car as a "device on wheels used for transportation" does present some of the attributes of a car but it doesn't help much since that same definition could apply to planes, bicycles, etc. etc. In the same way, when people try to provide a definition for sports or religion, they usually fall utterly short of anything that manages to cover all of them. Thai boxing and badminton have almost nothing in common apart from breathing. Jainism and the Abrahamic religions seem to have even less in common than that!
Basically put, at this point in time, we don't know how to define any of these things in a satisfactory fashion, which is all the more fun! It means there's still a lot to be discovered on that front.
quote:
Even painting apes couldn´t defy that
Lest anyone forget that we are and will always be just a bunch of talking monkeys after all!
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 13 2016 10:40:12
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
In the time I spent in that field, I was astonished at how few people seem to give any thought to the fact that our very subject matter is dissappearing.
Languages seem to follow the same "survival of the fittest" rules as biological species. And yet again the powerful are weeding out the weak. To be fair though, languages are also being born, we tend to forget about that.
I was of the believe that languages would mostly vanish because of indirectly related ethnological and cultural circumstances. But I could be wrong, regarding possibly many cases not aware of.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
There is also such a thing as the Flynn effect, which suggests that average IQ has been rising at a rate of 3 points per decade since that standardized test was invented (they have to regularly "re-standardize" the IQ test points to set it back to the base value of 100).
So basically we're saying we have more intelligent people than before but more muddled in their communication skills?
I suspect aspects like speed and multitasking to be responsible for a measured rise of IQ. These won´t necessarily effect general cognitive abilities however. The more as associative, empathetical skills as well as those for detection of coherence and causality clearly appear to be on decline.
What we are having is basically enhancement of specialized / discrete conduct at the loss of wholy and philosophical qualification.
Intelligence anyway is a matter just as complex as interesting. And we are yet at the very beginning of even just noting that there can be manifold forms (like in the animal world that isn´t at all as dumb as science used to deem, but of different orientation), let aside realizing elements and relevance of single aspects for actually cognitive tasking.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
It doesn't render them invalid. I'm just saying the definition doesn't go far enough to be of any use. If your definition can't make the difference between two very different things, what's the point of even having it?
Defining a car as a "device on wheels used for transportation" does present some of the attributes of a car but it doesn't help much since that same definition could apply to planes, bicycles, etc. etc. In the same way, when people try to provide a definition for sports or religion, they usually fall utterly short of anything that manages to cover all of them. Thai boxing and badminton have almost nothing in common apart from breathing. Jainism and the Abrahamic religions seem to have even less in common than that!
Basically put, at this point in time, we don't know how to define any of these things in a satisfactory fashion, which is all the more fun! It means there's still a lot to be discovered on that front.
We have to agree to disagree about this.
To me it seems as if you are being biased towards conserving arts as mystic, hence willing to give up on congruency for that.
As I see it, if arts was so spheric as Cold War policies, traders and clumsy players made it appear, it would have no name. Like with American Natives´ cultures where it justifiedly has none, as commonly everyone freely developes their talent / hence art needing no special term.
In our cultures however many individuals don´t have the upbringing conditions to unfold their skills, which led to "art" as a term for a special proficiency.
Not everything, least even clumsy make is art. And if it shall be special still, the term "art" won´t be of sense anymore.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
Lest anyone forget that we are and will always be just a bunch of talking monkeys after all!
Way too much indeed, seeing the mutation for reasoning.
With diverging potential and status quo the past millennia have pushed us back quite some.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 13 2016 11:57:53
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
I was of the believe that languages would mostly vanish because of indirectly related ethnological and cultural circumstances. But I could be wrong, regarding possibly many cases not aware of.
No, I think you're right on the whole. The survival of a language depends on its speakers. When I said the powerful were weeding out the weak, I meant that the language of more powerful societies prevail over the language of the weaker societies.
Languages die out because another one is imposed (like French imposed over Breton at the beginning of the 19th century), because another language presents better economic opportunities (case of forest dwellers where the language dies out when the younger generation goes off to the city on the hunt for jobs), because the ruling cast dictates that some language are "shameful" (case of most regional dialects), etc. etc.
What we have today is similar to what happened in Europe under the Roman Empire. Many languages dissappeared or were assimilated into Latin. But newer languages emerged from the mix of Latin and other local languages (as even modern English is very much a mix of Old English and the French that was spoken for centuries by the ruling cast). Today's standard English (whatever the hell that means) has been assimilated by many communities who have made it their own and adapted it. These types of créole or pidgin will continue diversifying until they become a whole different language in their own right.
How closely related they remain is a factor of time (Romance languages are fairly similar, since they come from the Latin of roughly 2000 years ago), but all European languages are very different, even though they share the same root (but much further in the past) of Indo-European.
And it's fair to assume that if the cultural integration that is happening with globalization continues, then languages will continue to converge until the "Empire" reaches its limits.
quote:
To me it seems as if you are being biased towards conserving arts as mystic, hence willing to give up on congruency for that.
Far from it. I'm just saying that current definitions fail to capture the essence of what art is, so we need to keep on trying to find a correct definition, which will only be done with new information from many different fields of science.
I should say however, that I do very much believe in some "mystical" or dare I say it "spiritual" experiences that can occur, among others through music. But here it seems we've left the religious and new-age quacks control the field. Instead of better defining what these subjective experiences may mean, how they may work, the scientific field has on the whole denied the possibility of their existence and let the lunatics run wild with it. We're living in an incredible time for cognitive sciences, and many forays are being made into the nature of consciousness (maybe at some point they'll stop thinking that only an animal who is vain enough to look at himself in a mirror is "conscious" ). My hope is that if these discoveries continue we may come to a better understanding of these elusive parts of the human experience. Cause I'm quite fed up of hearing non evidence-based claims on these issues (with, obviously, religions on top of my target list)
Let's just say that I don't think defining music has to be this minimalist approach that strips it from its most interesting features. But on the other hand, I'm equally fed up of hearing people tell me that, for instance, flamenco or duende or whatever simply can't be defined, as if its not being explained were an inherent attribute, as if explaining it would somehow strip if from its potency.
All of this thinking calls for a beer. Cheers from Lucero!
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 13 2016 15:17:24
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
On the whole, many more languages are disappearing, and at a fairly rapid rate. There are an estimated 6,000 languages in existence today (including about 300 spoken in the various isolated communities in New Guinea alone), and linguists predict that fully half of them will disappear within the next 50 years.
For those interested, I highly recommend a book entitled "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World," by Nicholas Ostler. It is a history of the rise and fall of languages. Ostler is a linguist who knows his business, and he has written a very enlightening and interesting book.
One of the more interesting sections of Ostler's book is the chapter on Sanskrit. Sanskrit has always interested me because I have spent a good part of my professional career in Maritime Southeast Asia--Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the area formerly known as the "Malay World." I learned Malay very well and was impressed from the very beginning by how much of Malay vocabulary was borrowed from Sanskrit. Sanskrit is what I would call a "hot house" language, i.e., it is self-referential in that the very term means "refined," consecrated," or "sanctified." It spread via trade and empire to the Indianized courts of the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian Archipelago. Today, much of the Malay language owes its vocabulary and syntax to Sanskrit.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 13 2016 15:44:41
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
There are some 300 languages in New guinea that are considered to be "holding their own" at this point. The 800 figure includes many languages spoken by small groups that are very rapidly losing out. For example, a 2011 study found that Bo had 85 speakers, Ak 75 speakers, Karaw 63 speakers, ad infinitum. Taking it down to the minutest level, Gweda had 26 speakers, Gorovu 15, Kawacha 12, Guramalum 3, and Lawa had just one.
One can quibble over exact numbers and how viable each language is, in New Guinea and elsewhere. But that there are some 6,000 languages, and that fully half of them will disappear within the next 50 years, is accepted by the vast majority of professional linguists, and it represents a huge cultural loss for mankind.
There is another way of looking at the problem of language loss, though. We (including myself) get upset at the extinction of species here on Earth. Yet, we know that since life first appeared on Earth, 90 percent of species have become extinct. It seems to be a natural evolution of the cycle of life forms. Perhaps we shouldn't get wrapped around the axle because languages are becoming extinct. In the end, what does it matter that Meso-American Indians who once spoke Quechua and Nahuatl now speak Spanish? (Actually Quechua and Nahuatle are still spoken, along with Spanish.) Or that Papuan language speakers on New Guinea are speaking Indonesian on the Indonesian side of the island? Cultures rise and cultures fall. Thus it is with languages.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 13 2016 16:24:13
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
According to a number of reports and writings from engaged scientists as well as to all the bits from past years till today, it is a fallacy to relate long term numbers of world history species extinctions with current ongoings. The current extinction, rates, proportions, concerned bio diversity and lasting effects are not comparable to foregone occurances.
Agreed, Ruphus. No doubt the current man-made contribution to global warming, poaching, and loss of habitat have accelerated the decline and extinction of species. My point was that it is generally accepted that 90 percent of species have become extinct since the beginning of life on Earth, so devastating as it may seem to us (and I know you and I feel the same about this), loss of species may be a part of the natural cycle, even if accelerating at a greater rate.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 14 2016 20:11:13
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
But I have a hard time resisting a good conversation, especially when it relates to a field I spent so many years working in. I'm still passionate about it, after all these years And an interesting conversation is has been too!
Piwin,
If you don't mind my asking, what was your professional activity in the field of linguistics? Although not a professional linguist by a long shot, I have always been interested in languages. I was a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service and very much enjoyed being assigned at various times to learn a language at the Foreign Service Institute prior to being assigned to the country in which the language was spoken. Although I would not have traded diplomacy for any other professional career, I have often thought that being a professional linguist would have been a very interesting career as well.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 14 2016 20:20:33
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
... so devastating as it may seem to us (and I know you and I feel the same about this), loss of species may be a part of the natural cycle, even if accelerating at a greater rate.
Cheers,
Bill
There is the point where our view differs, however.
The destuction we are causing is of another fatal category than foregone natural examples and with its careless and irrational background completely needless on top.
Your French colleague Jean-Claude Tribolet on the co² affair for instance has realized it and has been juting out with that in the international establishment, truly trying to generate an understanding about the urgency of ecological threat and devastation.
Unfortunately, though the inherited trivial human characteristic of ignorance and downplaying of disheartening scenarios, whether among consciously vandalizing profiteers or among common fellow men, keeps men at refusing to realize the actual dimensions and degree of destruction; leaving the situation and understanding to the point of no return.
Seems hence, we will all be desperately regretting. Vainly.
Ruphus
Once again Ruphus, you fail to see that WE are natural after all born from Mother Nature and behaving as we will, destined to thrive or not as any other creature from history. What we cause or prevent is part of it all.
Back to topic, evolution shows historically that the dynamic is looooong periods of relative stasis, punctuated by sudden bursts of innovation. So no, you won't ever be as good as old masters, so long as it is the INNOVATORS you keep pointing at. Unless YOU are the new innovator, but you probably won't notice because the evolution (future) hasn't happened yet...so how could you know? It is this reason many folks of sound mind today have trouble grasping the concept of Darwin's theory. Because it is happening all around us now as the Earth spins and zooms around the sun and system races bobbing up and down around the galaxy that draws ever closer to Andromeda as the cluster expands ever faster away from the expanding voids....
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 15 2016 6:06:00
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Will I ever be as good as the ol... (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
No need to end the thread, Piwin. The "Off Topic" category is meant for just such conversations as this one. Sometimes they evolve from one subject to another. For examples, you might look up "Black Hole Eats sun," "Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music, Literature, Art?," and "The Tao of Physics."
Members of the Foro are a very diverse group with many interests. The one thread that binds everyone is a love of flamenco, but we have some great conversations and threads having nothing to do with flamenco as well.
If anyone doesn't care for the subject under discussion, no one is forcing him to read the thread. He is free to ignore it.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 16 2016 16:14:10
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
