[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by noumenal

...while listening to a cover band mangle Smells Like Teen Spirit. Good times...

Wow, they must've been awful to bungle that song being that the guitar part is comprised of a simple one-trick pony barre progression, the little deal during the verses, and a two-string solo. A band shouldn't even be doing that song in public anyways, but to butcher it as well should earn them a heckling, no, make that a pelting.

[noumenal]

" ^^ see how he refers to himself in the 3rd person? wankery, wankery, wankery"

LOL, ok. But that 3rd person thing is pretty unavoidable at times--and I always just find it funny. I mean, I have a hard time imagining that anyone does that without acknowledging how silly it is. And the first-person plural softens the effect, doesn't it?

[noumenal]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Wow, they must've been awful to bungle that song being that the guitar part is comprised of a simple one-trick pony barre progression, the little deal during the verses, and a two-string solo. A band shouldn't even be doing that song in public anyways, but to butcher it as well should earn them a heckling, no, make that a pelting.

Immediately following the Nirvana the band did a cover of Billie Jean. They brought a girl up from the bar to sing but she couldn't remember the words, so the drummer sang it.

[demonrail666]

Students are increasingly told to substitute the word 'I' for 'one', which is the most stupid idea imaginable. "For this essay one will be looking at..." Daft I call it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by noumenal

" ^^ see how he refers to himself in the 3rd person? wankery, wankery, wankery"

LOL, ok. But that 3rd person thing is pretty unavoidable at times--and I always just find it funny. I mean, I have a hard time imagining that anyone does that without acknowledging how silly it is. And the first-person plural softens the effect, doesn't it?

ha. he still comes off as a cunt. problem with the humanities is, when people don't understand something they just nod in agreement rather than demand a rational explanation.

anyway, you didn't manage the ottobar? i warned you that the harbor was an atrocious tourist trap.

next time, visit pigtown

holy shit, that article is worthy of the neighborhood. listen: "From 1980 to 1990 the population increased 3% from 6,503 to 6,705 people, strengthening Pigtown racial and socioeconomic diversity even more." wow! EVEN MORE!

another tourist destination is hampden, home of pecker & the honfest

 

holy shit,

[!@#$%!]

ps- also, please tell me you ate scrapple

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

visit pigtown

The fact that a place exists called Pigtown has made my day. Sheer brilliance, for which I salute the the state of Maryland.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Students are increasingly told to substitute the word 'I' for 'one', which is the most stupid idea imaginable. "For this essay one will be looking at..." Daft I call it.

One is universal. "I" is personal and not applicable to proper writing.

[noumenal]

Well, I'm hardly nodding in agreement, just focusing on my own thing. That "philosophy interest group" doesn't represent a mainstream section of music theory anyway and it's a section that I'm not hugely interested in right now. Not that I'm not interested in philosophy, but I have a lot of other things to focus on - soon I'll get around to investigating those ideas, but it would be out of line for me to criticize until I have.

But music theory isn't analogous to lit crit or art history; it's a sub-discipline of musicology that (for better or worse) tends to focus on practical matters (pedagogy, etc.) and analysis/theory (which tends to be obsessed with the "music itself" rather than other outside topics and doesn't have a proper analog in the other arts). So, to get to my point, most theorists don't pay much attention to philosophy (trendy or otherwise) beacuse it isn't in any way central to the discipline as it stands(whether it should be or not is another question). They aren't ignorantly nodding in agreement, they're just attending a different session. In a lot of ways, theorists just do their own thing and form into camps--you can see this in the program.

No, I didn't go to the Ottobar, I was constrained because the meeting hotel was in the inner harbor and driving was an issue. I was also usually in large groups that were just looking for a place to sit down.

I know who John Rahn is -- I was in the same room as him often, but I didn't meet him. I know several people who are on familiar terms with him though I suppose, and he seems like a very nice man. I could theorize about why you're being so hostile, but I won't. I do feel, however, that your constant antipathy towards all academia (not that is doesn't deserve tons of criticism) is annoying. I really have to bail out of this thread now.

[Rob Instigator]

academia rules. who else is gonna teach us anything? the drop-outs? LAUGHABLE!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by noumenal

I know who John Rahn is -- I was in the same room as him often, but I didn't meet him. I know several people who are on familiar terms with him though I suppose, and he seems like a very nice man. I could theorize about why you're being so hostile, but I won't. I do feel, however, that your constant antipathy towards all academia (not that is doesn't deserve tons of criticism) is annoying. I really have to bail out of this thread now.

damn, i'm a phd dropout, and while i'm not anti-academic in the strictest sense, i do feel strongly about what academia has become in the hands of the mla and the conference circuit. in this sense i am pro-academia, pro-research, in favor of the advancement of knowlege, and for this reason i am against the coopting of academia by corrupt practices and institutions that DESTROY what is best in academia. people behave like in that scene in "metropolitan' where the guy argues that he has no need to read jane austen because he can read what the critics said about her books. people try to "apply" "theories" to as many "texts" as possible, as if this was the apex of understanding.

i have no qualms with music theory, musicology, etc. i think it's a great thing-- i do have serious problems with the "critical theory" camp, however. they are my mortal enemy. i would have been happy if they did not control my field of studies. i was not ready to compromise my principles in order to get a job, so i quit. the articles that people are forced to publish in order to keep their jobs are so much crap, it is ridiculous. it operates as a form of censorship and groupthink. i'm speaking here of literary critics, not other fields, though the same "toolbox" is "applied" to film, art, and other cultural productions and institutions.

i hope that offers a satisfactory explanation-- please don't take this as a personal attack against you or some other such shit. maybe my sniping is coming across as carpet bombing-- but anyway... feel free to be annoyed. it's a free country, etc.

[demonrail666]

I have a real love-hate relationship with academia in that, A. it pays my bills and B. It allows me to do things I wouldn't be able to do out there in the 'real' world. I value its existence above almost everything else within society but become increasingly frustrated when I see it being exploited and undermined by careerists. My own interest in figures such as Guattari and Foucault has nothing to do with how their ideas work within a strictly theoretical context, but how they can be used practically. As I said in an earlier post, the problem with that attitude is that the very university departments that hold their work in such high esteem would be terrified to actually apply them to their own structures - for fear of the consequences to their own position.

I once saw a video of a lecture given by Lacan at the Sorbonne in the sixties. It was great because he had the guts to apply his ideas to the whole method of his teaching. At one point a student stood up and called Lacan a 'prick' while others trold the student to 'shut the fuck up'. It was evident that Lacan was deliberately putting his own position of authority into question. This is in direct contrast with so many lecturers today, who talk about dissolving 'structures of power' without ever seeming to question their own right to wield it. Lacan, Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, etc are probably turning in their graves at the way in which they're being used so cosily.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I have a real love-hate relationship with academia in that, A. it pays my bills and B. It allows me to do things I wouldn't be able to do out there in the 'real' world. I value its existence above almost everything else within society but become increasingly frustrated when I see it being exploited and undermined by careerists. My own interest in figures such as Guattari and Foucault has nothing to do with how their ideas work within a strictly theoretical context, but how they can be used practically. As I said in an earlier post, the problem with that attitude is that the very university departments that hold their work in such high esteem would be terrified to actually apply them to their own structures. Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, etc are probably turning in their graves at the way in which they're being used so cosily.

I value its existence above almost everything else within society but become increasingly frustrated when I see it being exploited and undermined by careerists.

i don't know how it works in england, but here in the states it's already happened in most parts. fortunately the sciences remain as rigorous as ever-- they have to actually prove their claims.

My own interest in figures such as Guattari and Foucault has nothing to do with how their ideas work within a strictly theoretical context, but how they can be used practically

that is cool-- and yes, some of these people are very interesting writers, worth studying-- but most people read only photocopied excerpts in a hurry and proceed to quote them the next day. that's what i have a problem with.

the very university departments that hold their work in such high esteem would be terrified to actually apply them to their own structures

ha ha ha ha. academic departments function like a fucking council of medieval bishops.

Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, etc are probably turning in their graves at the way in which they're being used so cosily.

and carelessly.

it used to be that theory arose from observation, that it emerged from the object in question after the testing of hypotheses. sure that is the scientific method, but still, it is a reasonable approach study of anything. nowadays though, due to fashion and career pressures, people just take a "theory" and "apply" it to whatever is at hand in order to fulfill the prerequisite number of published articles for advancement.

i don't know if this will make sense to anybody who reads this, but i had some professor of "indigenous culture" tell me once she was going to write a paper about cesar vallejo and indigenism because in the 20s indigenism was "fashionable" and vallejo did had caught on. when i said that this didn't match my knowledge of vallejo's work or biography, nor did i see a correspondence between his work and that of indigenist writers, and asked what poems she was referring to, she couldn't answer and gave me some bullshit distraction about what was going on in the 20s. anyway, it was all balls.

this same person is also a frequent recipient of grants, awards, and fellowships.

disgusting.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it used to be that theory arose from observation, that it emerged from the object in question after the testing of hypotheses. sure that is the scientific method, but still, it is a reasonable approach study of anything. nowadays though, due to fashion and career pressures, people just take a "theory" and "apply" it to whatever is at hand in order to fulfill the prerequisite number of published articles for advancement.

I take it you're referring to Karl Popper's 'testability' thesis. This is an interesting issue. I've come to the conclusion that modern humanities is built on the foundations of a holy trinity made up of Hegel, Marx and Freud, in the form of the 'zeitgeist', 'ideology' and the 'unconscious', respectively - all of which attempt to say much the same thing without being able to be validated 'scientifically'. Although I think there are significant problems with Popper's position it does raise the question as to the humanities' function within modern society beyond that of therapeutic self-expression.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

I had some professor of "indigenous culture" tell me once she was going to write a paper about cesar vallejo and indigenism because in the 20s indigenism was "fashionable" and vallejo did had caught on. when i said that this didn't match my knowledge of vallejo's work or biography, nor did i see a correspondence between his work and that of indigenist writers, and asked what poems she was referring to, she couldn't answer and gave me some bullshit distraction about what was going on in the 20s. anyway, it was all balls.

this same person is also a frequent recipient of grants, awards, and fellowships.

disgusting.

I teach in a department filled with people who have become recognised experts in topics they know absolutely nothing about, cleverly disguising their ignorance through a veil of theoretical double-speak.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I teach in a department filled with people who have become recognised experts in topics they know absolutely nothing about, cleverly disguising their ignorance through a veil of theoretical double-speak.

that does not bode well for your career prospects. they'll vote for "one" (and each other) when it comes time to elect people for posts that pay good money. in any case, enjoy the freedom you can get from wherever you are.

by the way, have you read don de lillo's "white noise"? a brilliant book, thought some of it might come across as a bit dated. the main character however is as current as ever -- a professor of hitler studies who can't read german.

[demonrail666]

Yes, lol, White Noise is fantastic. The professor of superheroes just about sums things up. It's ages since I read that. Think I might reread it over the weekend. The only thing I don't like about De Lillo is his dialogue, which always comes across as just a series of quotes. A brilliant writer besides that. Mao II is one of my all-time favourite novels.

I really want ot read some Phillip Roth. So many people I know rate him really highly. Have you read him? Any thoughts?

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

MILLE PLATEAUX, YOU TARZAN: A MUSICOLOGY OF
(AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF (AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF A THOUSAND PLATEAUS))
John Rahn
University of Washington
First we critique the philosophy and practice of and around the book A Thousand Plateaus (TP)
by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. We show how its program of dissed organization, nonhierarchy,
transformation, and escape from boundaries at every moment resonates in harmony with some of its
modes of presentation and mentation, but dissonates with others. The Anthropological Gaze which
forms in the name of observation, and re-forms Us as it forms Them, is one of the nodes of TP’s
thought: the erotic, climax-free plateaus of some Batesonesque Balinese orgy. Even the structuralism of
Claude Levi-Strauss permeates TP in the form of a paradigmatic procedure of polar opposites (e.g. raw
vs. cooked in Levi-Strauss, territorialization vs deterritorialization etc. in TP). Is such a Gaze performed
by TP on us, or merely referred to by it? What is the nature of TP’s practice upon us?
Taking off from a series of articles by John Rahn and others, we will then further explore the
nature of this Platonically anti-Platonic practice by TP upon us as it affects the practice of music and
thinking about music.

love the title... but is this guy seriously arguing that levi-strauss and deleuze+guattari share a "paradigmatic procedure of polar opposites?" ...beacause, while i dig excessive alliteration as much as the next academic, i'm pretty sure that

a) you could open a history of philosophy textbook to a random page, close your eyes and point, and you'd hit a set of polar opposites...

and secondly, i'm almost certain that rhizomes are the polar opposite of polar oppositions...

[demonrail666]

What I'd like for Christmas is for someone to explain to me once and for all exactly what a rhizome actually is.

[m1rr0r dash]