[besson3c]

Why is this country against us?

Why are the smart kids at school held back more often than they should be? Why, when we point out the error or ignorance of somebody, are we accused of being elitist, as if this is a bad thing? Why should we dumb down the way we think and communicate to be more like everybody else?

The thing is, it is hard being smart. Society caters towards the average and below average: stuff that is on TV/entertainment, consumer goods, services, trends, pop culture, etc. Smart kids are usually marginalized, particularly in high school, and have a harder time finding a companion (especially so in high school). Unless you manage to blend in with the middle of the pack in high school, chances are life is harder for you. These difficulties reach far beyond high school as well... It can be very difficult having a satisfying conversation, finding friends you enjoy being around that are your intellectual equals, enduring the ignorance of others particularly when they are put in a position of power (often times leadership positions are rewarded to those who are more outspoken than truly intelligent), etc.

I know that some of you are probably thinking that I'm a big jerk with a big ego for even bringing this up. I'm humble. I realize that I'm not the smartest person that ever lived, but I also feel quite comfortable in knowing that I'm smarter than average, just like I know most of us in here are as well. People are not all created equal, and there is nothing wrong in pointing out that somebody is smarter, despite intelligence being very tricky to measure. Some people are tall, some people are fat, some people are smart and have an easier time learning new things and solving problems - it's as simple as that. There is nothing wrong with knowing that you are smart (as long as you are simultaneously humble about it), and again, I don't think enough people actually have an appreciation of the fact that it can be truly hard being smarter than average. Again, life is easiest when you are of average intelligence and are satisfied with blending in with pop culture.

Has anybody ever felt any of these sentiments themselves?

[turtle777]

I is more smartest than you all evar.

-t

[BasketofPuppies]

Sometimes I think that I have more complaints about smart people than dumb people.

I have met too many people who think that because they know a lot of things, they know what's best for everyone and how to solve the world's problems.

It doesn't work that way. Not everything is black or white. Many things are subjective. What is best for one person is not always best for everyone.

But they don't listen. Their opinions are the only "correct" opinions. Anyone with an opposing viewpoint is dismissed without giving any thought as to what they have to say.

In short, there's good elitism and bad elitism.

[Chuckit]

The problem is that "smart" is almost useless as a descriptive term. Nobody is tall if you look at him from one angle and short from another. But a lot of people are clever at some things and hopeless at others. I bet there are a lot of areas where I could intellectually smear your average university math professor, but I don't think that necessarily means mathematicians are stupid.

[Uncle Doof]

Your social problems ain't because you're smart, Bess. They're because you listen to jazz.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is this country against us?

Why are the smart kids at school held back more often than they should be? Why, when we point out the error or ignorance of somebody, are we accused of being elitist, as if this is a bad thing? Why should we dumb down the way we think and communicate to be more like everybody else?

The thing is, it is hard being smart. Society caters towards the average and below average: stuff that is on TV/entertainment, consumer goods, services, trends, pop culture, etc. Smart kids are usually marginalized, particularly in high school, and have a harder time finding a companion (especially so in high school). Unless you manage to blend in with the middle of the pack in high school, chances are life is harder for you. These difficulties reach far beyond high school as well... It can be very difficult having a satisfying conversation, finding friends you enjoy being around that are your intellectual equals, enduring the ignorance of others particularly when they are put in a position of power (often times leadership positions are rewarded to those who are more outspoken than truly intelligent), etc.

I know that some of you are probably thinking that I'm a big jerk with a big ego for even bringing this up. I'm humble. I realize that I'm not the smartest person that ever lived, but I also feel quite comfortable in knowing that I'm smarter than average, just like I know most of us in here are as well. People are not all created equal, and there is nothing wrong in pointing out that somebody is smarter, despite intelligence being very tricky to measure. Some people are tall, some people are fat, some people are smart and have an easier time learning new things and solving problems - it's as simple as that. There is nothing wrong with knowing that you are smart (as long as you are simultaneously humble about it), and again, I don't think enough people actually have an appreciation of the fact that it can be truly hard being smarter than average. Again, life is easiest when you are of average intelligence and are satisfied with blending in with pop culture.

Has anybody ever felt any of these sentiments themselves?

I'm happy being the biggest fool I know.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The problem is that "smart" is almost useless as a descriptive term. Nobody is tall if you look at him from one angle and short from another. But a lot of people are clever at some things and hopeless at others. I bet there are a lot of areas where I could intellectually smear your average university math professor, but I don't think that necessarily means mathematicians are stupid.

True. It's called the theory of multiple intelligences.

[quesera]

There's a character in a movie, Network, I believe who is asked with sarcasm, "You must find it hard to always be the smartest person in the room?" She answers, with no sense of the insult, "Yes, it is."

Sometimes I feel like that.

Other times I feel rather stupid.

Strangely, these feelings can come when I'm the only one there.


Yes, American "culture" is sick and dumbed down, lowest common denominator, hit the feeder bar and wait for another pellet till you die like those drug addicted laboratory monkeys from the 80s. We don't value intelligence or intelligent acts. Even for those talented or trained in one area, a well-rounded intelligence or education is often non-existent. My university has a pretty good reputation, but I recall the astounding display of arrogant ignorance displayed by so many who were either techies(sciences and engineering) or fuzzies (liberal arts for lack of a better term).

[besson3c]

Chuckit: it is true that people have their intellectual strengths, but I'm speaking more to the choices that people make about whether or not they pursue these strengths, and in seeking out other areas of intellectual curiosity. I'd be willing to wager that the majority of people don't have any real intellectual pursuits. Therefore, it is very difficult to relate to them.

Intelligence to me is not purely about biological advantages or disadvantages, but what we do with the intelligence we all have.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Your social problems ain't because you're smart, Bess. They're because you listen to jazz.

I've actually been waiting for you to show up, Doofy...

When you have a minute, can you do something for me? Listen to Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy here:

MySpace.com - Return To Forever - New York, New York - Fusion / Jazz / Rock - www.myspace.com/returntoforever

Let me know what you think, please...

[Tiresias]

Starved for intellectual stimulation, besson3c? Why not turn off the television and pick up a book?
They come highly recommended!

The reading of good books is like a conversation with the best men of past centuries—in fact like a prepared conversation, in which they reveal only the best of their thoughts.

—Rene Descartes, Les Discours de la methode (1637) pt. 1.

Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bread them.

—John Milton, Areopagitica (1644).

Who is he that is now wholly overcome with idleness, or otherwise involved in a labyrinth of worldly cares, troubles and discontents, that will not be much lightened in his mind by reading of some enticing story, true or feigned, whereas in a glass he shall observe what our forefathers have done, the beginnings, ruins, falls, periods of commonwealths, private men's actions displayed to the life, etc. [...] For what a world of books offers itself, in all subjects, arts, and sciences, to the sweet content and capacity of the reader! [...] What vast tomes are extant in law, physic, and divinity, for profit, pleasure, practice, speculation, in verse or prose, etc.! their names alone are the subject of whole volumes, we have thousands of authors of all sorts, many great libraries full well furnished, like so many dishes of meat, served out for several palates; and he is a very block that is affected with none of them.

—Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, Pt. 2, Sec. 2, Mem. 4, “Exercise rectified of
Body and Mind.”

[besson3c]

Tiresias, I have my intellectual pursuits, and watch very little TV. I've learned how to escape the world and be comfortable in my own little bubble with my wife, but that's just it - once I leave the perimeter of my property it becomes much harder to cope.

Of course, I'm exaggerating for effect... I have some friends and I'm not a complete hermit, but I do feel like I'm among a minority.

[amazing]

Smart is only one dimension of what it's all about. For example, being smart doesn't guarantee that you have any social skills, it may even be a handicap when it comes to relating to others around you.

Take another extreme: Someone who is too beautiful or too handsome doesn't have to develop any social skills, because people flock to be around them. They don't have to learn to moderate their tongue because those who flock around them (wishing to be with the in-crowd, or to be with the beautiful people) will let them say the darndest things without consequences. So, they don't need to learn how to compassionate or friendly, they can say the most hurtful things and people will laugh. In school, teachers will be seduced into giving better grades because of their looks. In short, they're not as challenged to grow as someone who has to learn to make friends, someone who has to learn how to "grow" friendship.

"Smart" is the same thing: Having all the facts of the world at your fingertips, you can parade them at the drop of a hat. You therefore don't learn how to put those ideas across, how to build a team or gather a consensus. After all, knowledge is always "right," how could anyone ignore that, how could anyone possibly go against that? In short, you're not forced to look beyond knowledge, beyond the surface of the world.

Being smart is not the same thing as being wise.

It's all about being comfortable in your own skin. You can't turn yourself into that which you are not, and if you try, you're doomed to a lot of suffering. You're dealt a hand of cards when you're born, after that it's all about how you play the cards you've been dealt--and it's you that has to be satisfied with how you've played the game, not someone else, not your parents, your friends, your enemies, certainly not pop culture.

Breathing and walking around is not the same thing as being alive.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've actually been waiting for you to show up, Doofy...

Of course.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When you have a minute, can you do something for me? Listen to Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy here:

MySpace.com - Return To Forever - New York, New York - Fusion / Jazz / Rock - www.myspace.com/returntoforever

Let me know what you think, please...

It's poo Bess. It doesn't say anything - it's totally bereft of any kind of emotional impulse. I'd have expected better, considering the participants.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

I have met too many people who think that because they know a lot of things, they know ... how to solve the world's problems.

I, for one, am in favor of the people who know a lot of things trying to solve the world's problems.

As to Besson's point. Our culture does not always favor the intelligent. They often rise above because, well, they're intelligent. But in general, we favor the charismatic.

Take for instance our Presidents. The current one is not incredibly bright. Perhaps average, but didn't do well in school and isn't overly inquisitive. And take John McCain. Third from the bottom of his class in college. I'm not saying that you have to be valedictorian to be President, but doing well in college USUALLY indicates that you have at least read broadly (as opposed to the Cliff's Notes), and that you can assimilate knowledge and information. As a country, the United States generally elects its leaders these days on the basis of "Would I like to have a beer with him/her?". There are lots of people that I enjoy drinking with who in no way shape of form should be President. Personally, I want my President to be smart and to be elite, in the sense that they went to elite schools, scored among the most elite among them, were offered elite jobs, have elite speaking skills, and can assimilate the opinions of the rest of the elite.

Now let's look at society's attitude toward science. Politician's get votes because they come out against the teaching of solid scientific principles. Global warming, evolution: there is close to zero debate among the intelligent. I should take that back. There are some intelligent people who are willing to rise to power by exploiting the less intelligent by convincing them that the rest of the smart people actually do debate these issues. But alas, there is no debate among 99% of biologists or climate scientists as to the validity of these theories, the 'fair and balanced' press notwithstanding.

Compare the ratings between American Idol and Frontline. Does Fox News or the News Hour get more viewers? There's a market for the National Inquirer?!?! Rush Limbaugh just got a 400 million dollar contract?!?! People don't want intelligent discussions, they want their uninformed, knee-jerk opinion reinforced.

I have no doubt that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are intelligent. They know that evolution by natural selection is the cornerstone of modern biology and that creationism/intelligent design is hogwash. They know that global warming is occurring and caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They just don't care. They are smart enough to recognize this and then to heap BS upon the rest of us to convince the 50%+1 of the unintelligent among us to keep them in power. Now that takes some smarts!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Of course.



It's poo Bess. It doesn't say anything - it's totally bereft of any kind of emotional impulse. I'd have expected better, considering the participants.

Ahhh, so you're after emotion more so than an appealing rock and roll sound?

[kman42]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

MySpace.com - Return To Forever - New York, New York - Fusion / Jazz / Rock - www.myspace.com/returntoforever

Sorry, Bess. I tried to go to that MySpace page, but my lowly 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM was no match for MySpace. Although I am unable to try out your taste in music, I am reminded why I am happy that I am old enough to have missed the craptastic bandwidth-sucking horror that is MySpace.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

Sorry, Bess. I tried to go to that MySpace page, but my lowly 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM was no match for MySpace. Although I am unable to try out your taste in music, I am reminded why I am happy that I am old enough to have missed the craptastic bandwidth-sucking horror that is MySpace.

Well, I like Return to Forever, but my main reason for posting it was because I think it might be appealing to somebody who listens to and likes rock and roll and is not already a fan of jazz like I am. RtF also has a pretty big following...

[Horsepoo!!!]

The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing.

[Wiskedjak]

Smart people seem to be more inclined to think for themselves ... that's very dangerous

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Smart people seem to be more inclined to think for themselves ... that's very dangerous

The governments wouldn't want that...that's for sure.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by kman42 

I, for one, am in favor of the people who know a lot of things trying to solve the world's problems.

As to Besson's point. Our culture does not always favor the intelligent. They often rise above because, well, they're intelligent. But in general, we favor the charismatic.

Take for instance our Presidents. The current one is not incredibly bright. Perhaps average, but didn't do well in school and isn't overly inquisitive. And take John McCain. Third from the bottom of his class in college. I'm not saying that you have to be valedictorian to be President, but doing well in college USUALLY indicates that you have at least read broadly (as opposed to the Cliff's Notes), and that you can assimilate knowledge and information. As a country, the United States generally elects its leaders these days on the basis of "Would I like to have a beer with him/her?". There are lots of people that I enjoy drinking with who in no way shape of form should be President. Personally, I want my President to be smart and to be elite, in the sense that they went to elite schools, scored among the most elite among them, were offered elite jobs, have elite speaking skills, and can assimilate the opinions of the rest of the elite.

I believe I read somewhere a couple years back that people don't like to have leaders who're more than 30 IQ points ahead of them (which would in the political world be, obviously, measured against the average IQ of the unwashed masses). It makes the leaders seem remote and isolated, and thus breeds resentment.

Originally Posted by kman42 

Now let's look at society's attitude toward science. Politician's get votes because they come out against the teaching of solid scientific principles. Global warming, evolution: there is close to zero debate among the intelligent. I should take that back. There are some intelligent people who are willing to rise to power by exploiting the less intelligent by convincing them that the rest of the smart people actually do debate these issues. But alas, there is no debate among 99% of biologists or climate scientists as to the validity of these theories, the 'fair and balanced' press notwithstanding.

Sorry, that's just complete tosh. The intelligent question everything they've been told and come to their own conclusions rather than accept what's force fed to them by "consensus". We're not supposed to do science by consensus, remember, we're supposed to do it by scientific method.

Originally Posted by kman42 

Sorry, Bess. I tried to go to that MySpace page, but my lowly 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM was no match for MySpace.

You need an extra 0.04 GHz in that there machine, since it worked for me on this 2.2 GHz, 2 Gb MBP.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh, so you're after emotion more so than an appealing rock and roll sound?

Yep. Thus one moment I may be listening to Manowar and the next I may be listening to Sade. It's mostly all about emotion for me, with timbre and form bringing up the rear.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Your social problems ain't because you're smart, Bess. They're because you listen to jazz.

OK Bess, just for you I'm going to explain the meaning behind that joke.

From what I've observed of you (on here, obviously), it appears like you've turned intelligence into a lifestyle rather than letting it remain a tool. Just stuff like your love of jazz, your love of Linux and your theoretical rather than practical political questioning leads me to that conclusion. Not trying to diss you or anything, just making an observation.

You cannot hope to turn society onto an intelligent lifestyle or for it to mirror your own good self - it just doesn't work like that. So, the way I see it you have two options:

1) Force yourself to get into regular, non-intelligent stuff that other people are into. I'm not talking ultra-dumb stuff like sports bars and the like, but rather the slightly more intelligent than average stuff. For example, go buy a boxed set of Frasier and immerse yourself into it.

or

2) Simply stop referencing yourself against society, accept that it's dumb and go into a "free-run" mode. Just be yourself, doing what you want to do, and stop thinking about society completely.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Has anybody ever felt any of these sentiments themselves?

Welcome. My friends and I figured this out 25 years ago, in jr. high. Changes your incentives, doesn't it? Your intellect, work ethic and morality will be used against you if you don't recognize what's happening. Changes your benchmarks pretty quickly, too -- you stop comparing yourself with others.

I'm guessing it's this way everywhere, and has been this way forever. Otherwise, mankind would never have gotten anywhere.

You might want to read some (but not all) of "Atlas Shrugged" to get an idea of how it translates to the bigger picture. Society is set up to exploit folks with brains and morals.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Sorry, that's just complete tosh. The intelligent question everything they've been told and come to their own conclusions rather than accept what's force fed to them by "consensus". We're not supposed to do science by consensus, remember, we're supposed to do it by scientific method.

I agree with you that intelligent people question what they are told and that good science is not done by consensus but rather by the scientific method. But part of the scientific method is raising hypotheses to the level of theories after they have undergone rigorous testing and reworking. As these theories continue to stand the test of time and scientific inquiry, they can be used as the basis for further exploration and progress.

Saying that 99% of biologists believe that species evolve by natural selection is not suggesting that we do biology by consensus and is not tosh; rather, it is suggesting that 99% of biologists have read enough of the more than 100 years of accumulated evidence to believe that the basic tenants of evolution are correct and that science can progress by incorporating it into novel hypotheses. This is in stark contrast to many politicians and press reports that would have you believe that evolution is 'just a theory' and that the basics of evolution are still debated. The details of the mechanism of evolution are still being studied, but it is ridiculous to argue that the vast majority of biologists don't consider it a bedrock of modern biology.

Likewise, although the mainstream media would suggest that the basics of global warming are still being debated by scientists, surveys of actual climatologists suggests anything but a 50/50 debate on the issue. Again, science is always open to skeptical inquiry, but the way it is presented to the masses by the media and the politicians is inaccurate and prevents progress.

[kman42]

Besson: after going off to eat dinner and coming back, my machine finished loading that MySpace page. I watched one of the YouTube videos and was quite impressed. I'll check out some of their stuff. Thanks for the tip!

[besson3c]

Doof: I'll respond to the rest of your post in a little bit, but connecting Chick Corea and RtF and emotion together instantly made me think of this track. I'm curious to hear what you think of that. I've always found the melody to be hauntingly beautiful, passionate, and Chick's solo (keyboard) brilliant (he's got his right hand on one synth and his left on his Rhodes, I have no idea how players can be that coordinated). The beginning of the piece is a little abrupt since it is the second movement of a longer piece, and it is broken up this way on the album.

For some reason, the combination of Firefox, Apache, and Quicktime, and possibly the Mac don't seem to work very well together since you'll only get the first few seconds of this track in Firefox, most likely, so open this up in Safari, or else just download it to your computer if you decide to take me up on offer to give this a listen. Don't miss the ending, it's gorgeous! I love that little final piano flourish...

Thank you for giving it a chance

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42 

Besson: after going off to eat dinner and coming back, my machine finished loading that MySpace page. I watched one of the YouTube videos and was quite impressed. I'll check out some of their stuff. Thanks for the tip!

You're welcome. I heard them a week or two ago live. They have recently reformed after being apart for 25 years. The crowd was really into it, and they played quite well. The tracks in the Anthology are from the 70s, their recent performances sort of put a nice modern technological spin on their sound.

[besson3c]

Doofy: regarding the scientific method, I think the thing is that none of us have the time or resources to personally conduct these scientific tests ourselves and do this research so that we can come to a truly informed opinion for ourselves. Therefore, in the absence of this, overwhelming scientific consensus seems to be the next best thing, no? Without conducting tests using the scientific method and doing our own research and whatnot, it seems silly to disregard the scientific work that has been done by a wide range of credited scientists and come to a conclusion based solely on our gut feelings. This is what a lot of people seem to do, and this seems to be what we get caught up in.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

OK Bess, just for you I'm going to explain the meaning behind that joke.

From what I've observed of you (on here, obviously), it appears like you've turned intelligence into a lifestyle rather than letting it remain a tool. Just stuff like your love of jazz, your love of Linux and your theoretical rather than practical political questioning leads me to that conclusion. Not trying to diss you or anything, just making an observation.

You cannot hope to turn society onto an intelligent lifestyle or for it to mirror your own good self - it just doesn't work like that. So, the way I see it you have two options:

1) Force yourself to get into regular, non-intelligent stuff that other people are into. I'm not talking ultra-dumb stuff like sports bars and the like, but rather the slightly more intelligent than average stuff. For example, go buy a boxed set of Frasier and immerse yourself into it.

or

2) Simply stop referencing yourself against society, accept that it's dumb and go into a "free-run" mode. Just be yourself, doing what you want to do, and stop thinking about society completely.

This is interesting insight...

I do live what you refer to as an intelligent lifestyle, but it hasn't always been this way. Throughout high school and earlier I thought I was stupid. It wasn't until I grew older that I sort of turned on. When I think about how quickly I changed as a person from this point based on some events in my life, I look around and wonder why other people don't decide to do the same. I mean, it just seems like life is much easier when you decide to take control and become inquisitive about things, rather than letting others lead you around by the nose, you know?

I've talked to enough people about this and have come to the tentative conclusion that while natural intelligence and IQ and all of that certainly helps, most of this is simply about a choice that we make about how we wish to use the intelligence that we have. There are plenty of people with much greater intellectual capacity than I that have chosen not to engage in critical thinking and live as an inquisitive individual, I'm sure....

However, part of me thinks that perhaps life would be easier at times had I not made this choice...

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by kman42 

I, for one, am in favor of the people who know a lot of things trying to solve the world's problems.

Being smart is not enough to solve the world's problems. You also have to listen and take other people's concerns into account--this doesn't mean that you do what they want, but you do have to take them into account--before you put together your plan.

Too many times, I have seen so-called smart people think that anything they say is true. They don't have to get outside analysis and opinions because they "know" how others will react to what they are going to do.

You wouldn't believe how often such people are genuinely surprised when others react negatively to their plans. This is why smart people fail.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Welcome. My friends and I figured this out 25 years ago, in jr. high. Changes your incentives, doesn't it? Your intellect, work ethic and morality will be used against you if you don't recognize what's happening. Changes your benchmarks pretty quickly, too -- you stop comparing yourself with others.

I'm guessing it's this way everywhere, and has been this way forever. Otherwise, mankind would never have gotten anywhere.

You might want to read some (but not all) of "Atlas Shrugged" to get an idea of how it translates to the bigger picture. Society is set up to exploit folks with brains and morals.

Thank you for the welcome! This is actually something I've been aware of for a while, but it seems like something that people don't like to talk about. It is hard to do so without getting into accusations of thinking that you are better than they are. What I'm growing increasingly tired of is these sorts of accusations being made in the first place, and I wanted to see what sort of backlash I'd get in raising this in this thread.

Again, like I said before, I do think that natural intelligence helps, but more influential than that are the choices we make. As a society we are able to say to people on welfare that they choose to be on welfare, and they can go out and get a job (well, at least most of them), and while this might not be politically correct it generally is fairly accepted. However, if you say that people can choose to stop being a dumbass you get all of this crap that I'm referring to.

I think I'll try telling somebody that they can choose not to be a dumbass sometime just to see how that goes over

[BasketofPuppies]

Besson, have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

It goes over the things that you're complaining about without being overly cynical or forcing opinions on viewers.

Morals of the movie: mocking smart people because they're smart is dumb, and no one has to average; if you do something with your life, you can be extraordinary.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doof: I'll respond to the rest of your post in a little bit, but connecting Chick Corea and RtF and emotion together instantly made me think of this track. I'm curious to hear what you think of that.

OK...

To start with, the voice is a little too "plummy" for me. I never did like classically trained voices. However, the vocal melody and the music surrounding it is OK. I wouldn't go out of my way for it but it's OK.

But the rest is not my cup of tea at all. One of the main problems I have with jazz of this nature is that it's not emotionally cohesive enough for me. It's trundling along with a haunting line then all of a sudden a completely random, disjointed flourish will spoil the mood. To me, it's like sitting and watching a really heavy film (let's say "The Passion Of The Christ") and all of a sudden cutting to a Coco Pops ad.

Plus, I'm not a big fan of solo work. Sure, rock music has guitar solos but for me, the shorter the better. A solo should be there for a valid emotional reason, not simply to show that the musician can play (yes, I've had many an argument with guitarists over this). The solo in this is one of my favourite solos - short, sharp, sweet - does a job then gets out.

This is really about as far as I go into jazz (even though you probably think it's not at all jazzy and more like pop). I really can't mesh with anything more jazzy than that - it's just not cohesive enough for me.

Sorry mate. Jazz is just not for me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

Besson, have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

It goes over the things that you're complaining about without being overly cynical or forcing opinions on viewers.

Morals of the movie: mocking smart people because they're smart is dumb, and no one has to average; if you do something with your life, you can be extraordinary.

Yeah, I love the premise of that movie... You really only need to see the first 10 minutes of it though, the rest is mostly goofy and lacking the same focus and clever narrative. I still really like the movie though

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

OK...

To start with, the voice is a little too "plummy" for me. I never did like classically trained voices. However, the vocal melody and the music surrounding it is OK. I wouldn't go out of my way for it but it's OK.

But the rest is not my cup of tea at all. One of the main problems I have with jazz of this nature is that it's not emotionally cohesive enough for me. It's trundling along with a haunting line then all of a sudden a completely random, disjointed flourish will spoil the mood. To me, it's like sitting and watching a really heavy film (let's say "The Passion Of The Christ") and all of a sudden cutting to a Coco Pops ad.

Plus, I'm not a big fan of solo work. Sure, rock music has guitar solos but for me, the shorter the better. A solo should be there for a valid emotional reason, not simply to show that the musician can play (yes, I've had many an argument with guitarists over this). The solo in this is one of my favourite solos - short, sharp, sweet - does a job then gets out.

This is really about as far as I go into jazz (even though you probably think it's not at all jazzy and more like pop). I really can't mesh with anything more jazzy than that - it's just not cohesive enough for me.

Sorry mate. Jazz is just not for me.

That's cool, I just like taking the time to get people to appreciate it when I can, and to not pigeonhole it so easily. I also think that anybody that is musically trained should be supportive of jazz and classical music even if it is not their cup of tea. For one, there are players with great chops doing this, as you pointed out. Also, people that devote their time to this area also have to struggle with the fact that the art form is not terribly popular, yet this is a vital part of our musical history. You can go back and connect everything we have now to what came before it. Rock and roll traces back to jazz and the blues, which in many ways are closely related, and I believe that every serious musician needs a healthy respect and understanding of the music that came before their time. There are arguments and debates as to how far back we should go, but I don't think that many would argue that a serious rocker ought to check out the great players that achieved success in the 60s and 70s, for instance...

I think that we should all hope that this music doesn't completely die, because not only is it an important part of our history, but it's sort of sad when things such as languages become extinct (this is in part why many don't want to see China completely take over Tibet).

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to this stuff with an open mind, it means a lot to me.

[red rocket]

‘Smart’ doesn’t say much, I find.

The bigger problem are people who are averse to assimilating information and hostile towards people who know things they don’t. I try to avoid them as much as possible, but it seems to be a losing battle.

[Eriamjh]

Stupid people just love it when you point out how stupid they are.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I do live what you refer to as an intelligent lifestyle, but it hasn't always been this way. Throughout high school and earlier I thought I was stupid. It wasn't until I grew older that I sort of turned on. When I think about how quickly I changed as a person from this point based on some events in my life, I look around and wonder why other people don't decide to do the same. I mean, it just seems like life is much easier when you decide to take control and become inquisitive about things, rather than letting others lead you around by the nose, you know?

I hear ya. However, the price of such independence is ...ummm... independence.

I've found over the years that it's just better not to broadcast your intelligence. Or your financial status. You've heard about "keeping up with the Jonses" (KUWTJ)? Well, the whole of society is like that, in every aspect. One thing about KUWTJ is that you have to keep up - not exceed by a wide margin.

Last year I'd sold the farm and was living in one of my rental properties on a housing estate. Think typical high-density suburb type scenario. Gave me some time to observe "normal" society a little, which somewhat solidified my KUWTJ theory.

Live in a suburb where everyone has a new (and I'll use out of date designations here because that's what I know) Ford 1.6 L and you'll be expected to have a 1.6 L or a 1.6 LX. The neighbour will then get a 1.6 LX. The other neighbour will then get a 1.8 L. That's how it goes, that's the game - small increments.
Own a 20-year-old rust bucket and refuse to play the game, you're a pariah - because you've, in a roundabout way, told the neighbours that their little game (and thus basically their whole life) is stupid. Turf up in a brand new Lamborghini one day and again, you're a pariah - because you've essentially told the neighbours that their little game (and thus basically their whole life) is worthless.

Thankfully I'm now back in an area where nobody gives a toss what anyone else is doing - there's brand new Corvettes (imported, wheel on wrong side) brushing up against 20-year-old lumps of rust that used to be bottom-of-the-range Datsuns. Nobody cares, and it's good - it's independence. Nobody is referencing themselves against anyone else, nobody is playing the game.

Now, this theory can be applied to anything, intelligence included. You want to be part of the masses, you have to play their game - small increments. So basically there's a choice - play their game and fit in or be yourself and have independence. You choose the latter, and the independence is both reward and price.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I hear ya. However, the price of such independence is ...ummm... independence.

I've found over the years that it's just better not to broadcast your intelligence. Or your financial status. You've heard about "keeping up with the Jonses" (KUWTJ)? Well, the whole of society is like that, in every aspect. One thing about KUWTJ is that you have to keep up - not exceed by a wide margin.

Welcome to to Anglo-Saxon Calvinism...

PB.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Welcome to to Anglo-Saxon Calvinism...

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You described the "is". I gave you the "why".

PB.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

You described the "is". I gave you the "why".

But you gave me a why which doesn't fit. Since the same thing can be observed in Celtic Catholics and such.

I put it at human nature and the natural flocking tendency.

But, I'm open to ideas so if you want to be expand I'd be very interested in your explanation.

[chabig]

If people were smarter, the Democratic Party wouldn't exist.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by chabig 

If people were smarter, politicians wouldn't exist.

Fixed™

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

Fixed™

I don't get it. The Democrats are the party of "we know what's good for you".

[besson3c]

So are the Republicans with their big brother spying programs, Patriot Act, discrimination against gays, prevention of embryonic stem cell research, interference in private affairs such as the Terry Schaivo case, No Child Left Behind, etc.

Politics are a game of who has power and how, and it's played by all politicians. We need a government to delegate and regulate some power, we just need a *good*, *benevolent* government given this sort of responsibility.

[Chuckit]

Hey, y'all, PL is thattaway.