Post an entry
Oh yeah, and...
:: Posted by Bakullama on March 19, 2015
The song that best exemplifies my above theory is of course, Disneys "Once upon a dream".
My best guess...
:: Posted by Bakullama on March 19, 2015
Although it would take an entire volumes and a team of philosophers and scientists who agree with this theory to even explain it... In a nutshell.
All living things die, fertilize the earth, so that more life may grow and continue on in the many forms present on earth... So there is a continuum in that sense. In itself then a transference of matter and energy.
Our souls remain constant and are present in our progeny, and their progeny, and on and on... in the DNA passed on from generation to generation. Memories are stored in our DNA. Just like eye color, mannerisms, facial features.... So too our essence and memories. Many children have been known to remember past lives in great detail.
Built in survival instincts are passed on from generation to generation. hopes, Fears, abilities, consciousness, etc. You live on in your son who asked you this question, he is you, Like father like son. Mother too. A soul ever growing, for better or for worse. The luck of the draw. Easier to explain than reincarnation I suppose.
My own mother passed away in 1967, I have two daughters born in 1999 and 2002. The things they say sometimes, Their mannerisms, attitudes, looks, and loving gazes have convinced me that she lives on. So we live on.
Too many words?
:: Posted by davidly on March 19, 2015
The very act of defining something results to some degree in misnaming it. For every thing that has a word, we have created a description more or less apt. This doesn’t mean we cannot strive for greater precision of understanding, but the current nature of diversity of life as we know, with its many opinions and ideologies, precludes unity of terminology.
As an atheist, I have no problem entertaining Mr. Singleton’s suggestion that biological forms might return to some universal life force upon death. Another atheist might scoff at this, calling it "woo". I would too, were it not for the distinction that this ubiquitous energy, as it were, is infinite in both time and space, not some localized paradise with an authority figure on a throne. Furthermore, I would posit that the hard sciences are infinitely incapable of doing anything other than what philosophy has done vis a vis giving meaning this thing we call "life". Sure, science defines life just fine, but one constant that remains is the ironical wall we hit when our consciousness tries to grasp the infinite.
Interestingly, you hear more and more these days from scientists and pseudoscientists alike that time is a construct, an illusion. "And so is space" is increasingly common. Far from confirming anything other than what we are not, such ideas do manage to add to the evidence that all this existence will ever be to those of us experiencing it is a search for a better analogy.
We got all these words that prove inadequate to the task, and symbols that are no better as soon as we find ourselves using words to describe their profundity, so we use the science of geometry for our edification. Take, for example, the use of quadrants to contextualize the extent to which things are this and/or that. At least those are, from a visual perspective, multi-dimensional. A source of great folly, in my opinion, as it relates to our understanding of the sociopolitical spectrum of left and right is its one-dimensional nature. Pun intended.
Metaphors. It’s all we got, and I would argue, all we will ever have. The best and brightest humans of science and philosophy have shown people how to get a glimpse of what is beyond, but as anyone who has engaged in daily glimpsing can tell you, the struggle to understand, to apply universal meaning, will always be an exercise in the creation of better analogies in order to spread the good news.
To wit: the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Upanishads (these are all words with a "the" this time): Fables. And built in to them are a warning to the wise: that the "words" will be misused for the sake of power. Some might call those weasel words, that is, a built-in excuse by the authors. Maybe. But the point remains that they are allegorical teachings that, when you factor in ethno-lingual misinterpretations, have the potential to render the lessons too clustered to prevent their universal study from becoming primarily an indoctrination into the absurd. They remain great tools for power and control, however.
How is it that technically superior musicians can make crappy records while their inferior colleagues create discs of the sublime? Less is sometimes more. But not always. The technical master is prepared to deliver the right notes, but is he or she able to ignore the wrong ones, not to cluster their creations with all the things they cannot unsee, all the things they cannot unlearn? Balance. There are plenty of "musicians" of no particular talent or learning who also happen to make shitty records. Regarding the number of notes, I’d say that the most profound music will by default be the kind that knows when it suffices. Relatively speaking, less is always more.
Often when my students are struggling with the semantics of their verbal creations, I advise them to mess with the syntax. The most common answer to a "What is…" question is "It is…" Even at its most vague or indirect. "Life is what you make it", for example, or "Life is what you think it is."
Shuffling things around a bit, we might come up with "Living is dying of the disease called ’life’." In other words, we are always living, we are always dying, we are always becoming that which we are, and headed to the place where we are not. Eternal recurrence is not just a river in South Dakota. Life is a metaphor.
:: Posted by PPmINTY on March 19, 2015
"...’Good singing’ can be defined as connecting with an audience, might be only a few people, might be a million. It’s in the ear of the beholder….”
I absolutely agree, Andyfromozz. I did say that it was a personal thing. It’s a mysterious, magical process lost to the ancients - Why does one person consider a particular piece of music to be sublime, yet another will be be sent screaming from the room at the very first bunch of notes? Theodor Adorno and Oliver Sacks have written weighty treatises on the subject.
As I said, for me it’s all about the timbre. I personally react badly to the Careys and the Dions. But just for the record, I also can’t stand Janis Joplin, Billy Holliday and most so called ’jazz’ singers (love Cassandra Wilson and Nina Simone though), the vast majority of ’folk’ singers (but I do like some)… can’t listen to gospel, but adore qaawali… I could go on (and, something tells me, I probably will!)
“...I think it’s one thing to not care for vocal gymnastics personally, but quite another to impune the vocalist and their audience for having ’tin ears’...”
I admit I was being a little facetious when I wrote that. I’d had a bad day.
“...I like to think I grew out of my musical snobbery when I hit my 20’s, when I opened my mind and ears and discovered a world of musical variety and inspiration...”
I don’t necessarily think that it’s ’musical snobbery’. I do admit I am a bit ’old and set in my ways’ and maybe less open to what might be considered ’new’ things. If someone draws my attention to a particular artist or work, suggesting that it might be the kind of thing I’d like, I will always seek it out. But let’s face it, there a lot of music out there and you can’t listen to it all! By the time I was in my twenties, I had already established a pretty good idea of what kinds of music would push my buttons. I instinctively knew that, for me, it wasn’t to be found in the top twenty charts, so I kind of tuned out of that whole musical world. Perhaps, as a consequence, I missed out on a few things that I might have liked over the years. We shall never know. I like to think I have extremely broad musical tastes without having a need to make them all-inclusive. There are only so many hours in a day.
“...Vision Of Love is a fantastic song, sung brilliantly. A Lou Reed styled monotone delivery of that song might not have had quite the same impact don’t you think? (not knocking Lou at all mind you)...”
Wait… What? “Lou Reed Sings Mariah Carey”? Yikes! that’s an opportunity someone missed :-D
Having established that, stubbornly set in my ways as I am, I wouldn’t have sought it out, sorry, I’m not familiar with the song you mention. ’Sung brilliantly’? Okay. I’ll take your word for it. I draw your attention to the comments I made earlier, m’lud. I wholeheartedly agree that Lou Reed wouldn’t have added much to anyone’s enjoyment of the song. I’m no big fan of Mr Reed either. Now if you’d have suggested “Nico Sings Mariah Carey”, for that I’d pay good money...
“...Funny how singers get slammed for noodling, yet go tell Robert he’s playing too many notes why don’t you?...”
For me, it’s all about timbre and context, not the number of notes. And taste. I like the sound of Robert’s guitar. I don’t like the sound of Mariah’s voice. If I thought that Robert played ’too many notes’ and they weren’t the right ones for the music, I’d notice and I’d probably say so. But he has taste. He is not prone to grandstanding.
who do YOU trust?
:: Posted by andyfromozz on March 18, 2015
I trust the music
:: Posted by kingcrimson7 on March 18, 2015
Today I had a dream, Frank Zappa played with Robert Fripp, looked like it was true, it felt like reality,
beautiful dream, Fripp with Zappa, awesome dream.
Jesus I trust in you.
:: Posted by andyfromozz on March 18, 2015
"Good singing" can be defined as connecting with an audience, might be only a few people, might be a million.
It’s in the ear of the beholder.
I think it’s one thing to not care for vocal gymnastics personally, but quite another to impune the vocalist and their audience for having "tin ears"...
I like to think I grew out of my musical snobbery when I hit my 20’s, when I opened my mind and ears and discovered a world of musical variety and inspiration. A world in which King Crimson could blow my mind and also Mariah Carey...oh yes...Vision Of Love is a fantastic song, sung brilliantly.
A Lou Reed styled monotone delivery of that song might not have had quite the same impact don’t you think? (not knocking Lou at all mind you)
Funny how singers get slammed for noodling, yet go tell Robert he’s playing too many notes why don’t you?
andy from oz
KC UK Dates
:: Posted by gasmrv on March 17, 2015
12 KC dates (so far) in the UK in 2015? Not sure yet I’ve seen this in the News section of the site or in one of RF’s ’night adventures’ sometimes mentioned in his online diary.
Here’s hoping that, if these ’hot’ dates are not a dream, some true new music materialises — as much as I’d love to witness a new take on some of the ’classics’ not played in several decades (LTIA Pt I, Fracture, Starless, [Talking Drum]...), as well as a new approach on some of the more recent ones (LTIA Pt IV, FraKctured, [Level Five]...), I wish to hear new real music produced by the band.
...day of Happiness..
:: Posted by AndrewJohn on March 17, 2015
..I have just wrote a stream of conciousness...it looked fine to me...then it was lost!
So in brief....perhaps fortunately for us all..... it’s a thank you for another date in Salford. A double dose of KC perhaps. Sometimes the mountain does move. Enthusiasm and energy must be abounding.
....this Friday will be very special...
:: Posted by drz400 on March 17, 2015
Does King Crimson plan on returning to the US anytime soon? Saw them at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia in October 2014. Always looking forward to aseeing them play. Thank you.
There are no US tour dates currently planned for 2015
<< Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next >>
Back to top | Post an entry