Did I say it was so – no – and above I clarified that point... re other 'schools'... later I added its also a place of teaching... critical review etc.
Seems so – I was referring to the OP's title...pazuzu wrote:
But that's beside the point. I don't know where, under which circumstances or even if your cited 'essay' was published (did I overlook it on here?), but to count as an academic essay it should've been put forth within the respective circulation, i.e. a journal or at least referenced someplace like academia.edu or researchgate.com. Maybe that's beside the point, too.
If the OP's post was of the nature of an unacademic – not “(argument using reason and facts)” but more a child's free form i'd not see the need to argue with any of the points being made. I kind of assumed it was intended to make some case re 'noise' & academia – so responded so. Or did I object, I pointed out to take the essay seriously was to see it as using “(argument using reason and facts)” which I would say is academic, though not it the strict sense of being referenced or published. So an essay can become academic once referenced? And if it fails to be published is not academic. Yet "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" was published and certainly was not a bona fide paper.pazuzu wrote: However, to refute your objection it should suffice to point out that even children write essays in school and are regarded to as such since it is the freest form of writing with - theoretically - very little rules. Quite unacademic.
He chose the form he chose. I previously had used the [rant] [/rant] tags...pazuzu wrote:
To spit out your thoughts for others the understand you have to give it some form. Call it a rant post on some message board or, to elevate it's value above that, call it an essay. Or how do you think he could've done so more appropriately?
(To say: Don't make it a subject of discussion at all is different page.)
Insert 'wat' scene from pulp fiction...pazuzu wrote: Wat.
cf. the 'Wat' scene in Pulp fiction and you get a cap in your shoulder...pazuzu wrote:I still don't get if your scenario is counterfactual (cf. the Wat above.
I see no contradiction, i'm arguing that culture is preserved and passed on in a developmental process in academic institutions.. without these or institutions doing the same western culture would be very different. The OP is arguing that academics are parasitical on noise, i'm arguing that its more symbiotic.pazuzu wrote: You're contradicting yourself in the very next sentence),
Not in every case, but to study music I think you need something called music? Which is what your last sentence states, though strictly there is at least one exception. (As far as I can follow your point)pazuzu wrote:
but it sounds like it's not. And if so: bullshit. You make it sound like the institutions dedicated to an object, subject or state of affairs constitute their very existence. That's nonsensical. There has to be a subject matter in order to for an academic discipline to make it it's subject matter,
So the first sentence seems odd. Surly 'music' constitutes musicology? To an extent, a foundation.
Show me a case where developments like those in western civilization in the science and arts took place without academic institutions, or similar. But that of course wouldn't refute that the development of western music, art, science, political thought was thoroughly involved in and with academia. Without institutions for recording, teaching, questioning... the developments – no developments could take place. Other than being lost with each generation. Surly the enfranchisement of education created an audience and practitioners which before education simply did not exist.pazuzu wrote: notwithstanding the refinement of the methods and instruments of a discipline disclosing new, formerly overlooked areas of investigation. The technical possibilities also play a role here. In your defence, I agree that there would be no such thing as history of science, literary studies, musicology, etc. that, in complicating and abstracting from the originally investigated subject matter, can have an retroactive effect on the subject matter as such. See dodecaphonic music for example. But to assume that without academic intervention there would be no use of techniques or development of techniques is a gross exaggeration, dogmatically onesided. We would still do things practise techniques and further develop techniques without science and most definitely without academia. Maybe you've got hung up in some chicken-egg strawman shit here.
I think Plato is associated with developing the idea of idea... but maybe not originating it...
I'm not sure just what you are driving at here, but Vomir is I think still releasing stuff, as well a more 'acoustic work' under the name Roro Perrot – shit folk. Who the fuck cares, well me.pazuzu wrote:I'm tempted to agree. "Quality of work" is not - or seldom - a ground for judgement about noise. But as you put it, the makers are being judged. So, in order to be regarded as hot shit in noise, you need to be hyped and persistent (Is Vomir still spitting out release after release?)jliat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 amAgain - nonsense, firstly unsupported, do we judge your essay so? And 'quality' what does that mean? You once said - fuck quality, just use popularity.melkobukva wrote: The makers are judged by other makers and the consumers based on the quality of their work.
But who the fuck cares? Dragging such an expectation into noise in the first place equals carrying over a rotten seed. If you need approval, find a group of peers, get intoxicated and play sets for one another.
“For the sake of simplicity, the popular opinion constitutes the 'objective judgement' of a subject matter in its time and it stands true for its time, “pazuzu wrote:
There never is. Or rather, there always is (sic!) - see how I go all academia about this shit?
Especially concerning social matters. For the sake of simplicity, the popular opinion constitutes the 'objective judgement' of a subject matter in its time and it stands true for its time, but falls short for another. The examples you've given yourself support that. But mind, the excerpt you're quoting regards the judgement of noisicians by noisicians and noiseheads, not vox populi. I'm sure Pollock was not ridiculed univocally.
Well I hope you've got a mass of popular opinion supporting this claim. But no, its not true. If it was then the popular opinion in the USA is that global warming isnt happening, and will remain true for its time.. as well as the existence of a god who created the world on a thursday some 4,000 years ago..
And the genre of noise is and was never popular. And i've offered those who claim to judge a pepsi challenge to spot the differences in HNW, and HN. No takers.