Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I have never found it profitable to discuss religion with the religious in the past, so I suspect this question, likely my first and last, is a mistake. Regardless, I feel an irrational compulsion and curiosity to violate my own principles and nonsensically draw some of your beliefs to a logical conclusion and witness your response. Anyway, my perception of your concept of god is the following:
Your god is jealous. (I understand you think this wholly distinct from envy.)
Your god is boastful.
Your god is proud.
Your god dishonors others.
Your god is self-seeking.
Your god is easily angered.
Your god keeps a record of wrongs.
Your god does not always protect.
Your god does not always trust.
I am making some leaps, perhaps, based on the few words you've said on the subject, but I think at the very least you would find it hard to reasonably argue against the statement that "your god keeps a record of wrongs". Does the correctness of any of the above statements imply your god is not love / does not love humanity?
I personally hold many irrational beliefs and don't think any irrational belief in and of itself is a good or a bad thing simply by dint of its irrationality.
Why?
By asking "why?" it seems you are implying that you disagree with the statement "merely being irrational is insufficient to classify a belief as good or bad." It's fairly obvious to me why that statement is most likely true, one only has to come up with an irrational belief whose essential classification (as good or bad) has nothing to do with its irrationality. If you ask me to present an example, I can, though I suspect you are also capable.
To me as a somewhat neutral observer it seemed as though Bisqwit didn't use any logical fallacies, as long as he starts from the premise that the Bible holds absolute truth.
Well, any reasonable person must admit the bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions, so the assumption itself that the bible holds absolute truth is, logically speaking, irreparably fallacious. The entire concept of using the bible as an axiomatic system holds no meaning in any logical sense, so accusing Bisqwit of logical fallacies (or saying he has displayed none) equally makes no sense given that he has not represented his bible-based system of beliefs as such. This highlights one of the main problems of trying to "argue" against a per se* irrational worldview with logic: you can't. It's meaningless.
tl;dr - the bible is not math.
Please note that I am not attempting to make any value judgments, here. I personally hold many irrational beliefs and don't think any irrational belief in and of itself is a good or a bad thing simply by dint of its irrationality.
*Most people don't actually know the meaning of this Latin phrase, so its correct usage here may be confusing. It means "instrinsically". (As far as I can tell, most people seem to think it means "so to speak".)Bisqwit wrote:
And he says, it's as disgusting as a rag used to absorb menstruation.
...
The wife is to be obedient to her husband
I will chuckle condescendingly at those little gems, though. Hee hee. How truly blessed Bisqwit must be that he was not born a disgusting woman with the vile consequences of being such. Perhaps you fellows should not be arguing with one so obviously blessed, after all.
A year or two ago I saw some impossibly sophisticated Conway's Game of Life simulator in Starcraft: Brood War, of all things. It had something like 800 cells (though Brood War only supports 256 locations on a map), and had a built in interface for both manually toggling cells and changing birth and survival rules.
I most likely still have it on a hard drive at my house, once I get back from Christmas vacation I'll see if I can find it.
I make a habit of not voting for a video unless I'm going to vote yes, but this video ALMOST made me vote meh, I guess because I bothered to watch it all for some reason. (In the end I just didn't vote.) It was ok but I don't feel like it brought anything new to the table.
I am not particularly well versed in the mathematics involved in packings and tilings and the like, but my understanding is that it is helpful (for humans) to consider a finished 5x5x5 cube as being "tiled" like a checkerboard. (Color each 1x1x1 cubie a solid color.) That leads to a number of obvious parity arguments, for example, a valid solution cant put pentacubes in a configuration that has two adjacent cubies of the same color.
If you're looking for a fancy computer algorithm, unsurprisingly there is a way to convert tiling problems into a matrix that you can calculate an exact cover of. For example, if there are 29 distinct pentacubes, and you want to tile a 5x5x5 cube (125 cells big), the rows of your matrix will be 29+125 columns long.
Otherwise filled with 0s, each row will contain a single 1 within the first 29 columns identifying the pentacube being used, and five 1s within the next 125 columns indicating which of the 5x5x5's individual cells are occupied by the pentacube in question. Construct a comprehensive listing of all such rows for each pentacube. (For example if there are 100 different ways to place pentacube-1 in a 5x5x5 cube, pentacube-1 would have 100 rows in this matrix. I made the number 100 up.)
Put all 10,000 (or whatever, made this number up) rows together into one big 10,000 by 154 matrix, and then calculate an exact cover. (That is, is there a subset of rows containing exactly one 1 in each column?) I won't go over a good algorithm for this, since I don't know one off the top of my head. I know that efficient algorithms exist and have been written about extensively by the likes of Conway, Knuth, etc.
This run was awesome and made me realize I'd suck insane amounts of dick for a Metroid themed pinball machine in real life, especially if the pinballs all looked like morph balls.
It has always amused me why Microsoft considers open source software to be such a huge threat to them, requiring propaganda campaigns like that one, while at the same time emphasizing how open source software (eg. Linux itself) has an extremely marginal market share (which it does; eg. Linux has a market share of less than 3%) and how Microsoft products dominate the market (which they do; eg. Windows XP and newer have a market share of over 90%).
Well, why would Microsoft make an ad campaign nowadays claiming that Word is better than WordPerfect? WordPerfect is just another proprietary piece of software people have to buy and need support contracts for. Switching from Word to WordPerfect for reasons having to do with cost is a hard sell and I doubt Microsoft worries about that scenario. Open source software, on the other hand, on the surface offers a very compelling value proposition. It's free! Stop paying for software and just pay for the support contracts! Save money! It does everything Office can do!
If we assume they must have some form of advertising, it makes sense for that advertising to address what they think are some of the common misconceptions that lead people to believe OpenOffice, for example, is both as good as and more cost effective than Office. People who don't know any better also tend to group all open source software together under the same umbrella, so Microsoft really only needs to attack the most popular open source office package, and it's like attacking them all.
Warp wrote:
This is rather curious (and strange) considering that eg. MacOS X has a larger market share than Linux, yet you seldom see Microsoft making propaganda campaigns against it.
For a long time Apple was essentially a hardware vendor that happened to roll a lot of its own software. Microsoft had no interest in actually selling PCs, so Apple wasn't really a competitor. Also, Microsoft sells a lot of software for Macs. Bigger also, Apple has a very good image and better PR. Apple can get away with their condescending "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" ads for various reasons. Microsoft would get crucified if they tried to run a direct comparison ad campaign like that directed at Apple. Finally, I'm guessing Apple has a smaller market share in the corporate environment than Linux does.
Warp wrote:
As for that video in question, I also like how it presents a false dichotomy: As if MS Office and OpenOffice were the only two alternatives.
You're saying it's a false dichotomy because in reality it's a unichotomy, right? That is, MS Office is the only office package worth using. BOOM!
I don't understand, do you think I obtained a bunch of sheet music with this exact version transcribed, and learned it like that, note for note? Of course it's "written" by me, I play by ear. The idea that you would think otherwise for a second is reasonably funny to me, and pretty clearly shows that we're speaking in very different languages.
Well, the cat's out of the bag on the way I feel about the transcription. I won't apologize for thinking it's terrible, but I do apologize for not couching my opinion in social niceties. I didn't know the transcription was your own. Your playing is decent though amateurish, nevertheless the complexity of the transcription more closely resembles something I would expect a more experienced pianist to write. There are no hard and fast rules about any of this, that was just my impression.
Anyway, if you want help improving your compositional technique, my first piece of advice would be to start from a very simple version of the music, say, with just chords in the left hand and single-note melody in the right hand. From there, vary each repetition of the melody by giving it a unique identity through the exclusive (or nearly exclusive) use of a few variational techniques. As it stands it sounds like you threw every embellishment you've ever heard into every section of the song.
Take, for example, the classic Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star variations by Mozart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGThde7X2I. Each variation has a thematic structure for the method of variation, and then proceeds in a fairly predictable fashion once that structure has been revealed. Also, even the busiest of variations have brief sections of downtime, to give the piece balance and to allow the listener a moment of respite in which to rest his or her ears. Your music, on the other hand, is an introduction of the melody followed by wall-to-wall notes without rest. Allow your phrases to resolve and just hang, at least some of the time.
You might naturally ask why Elton John's version of Can You Feel The Love Tonight doesn't have to obey these rules. After all, every phrase in that song ends with him either pausing or holding a note, while the piano fills in some little embellishment, like so:
Vocal: "There's a calm surrender [pause...] To the rush of day [pause...]"
Piano: "[Mostly rhythmic chords] [flourish] [Rhymthic chords ] [flourish]"
In reality, despite the piano embellishments, he is following those rules. In the original version of the song, the focus is on the vocals, and each phrase gives the listener a little break in which they no longer need to pay attention and can rest their ears, because Elton is no longer singing. Since you have just a single instrument to work with, one of the best ways to provide a break to the listener is with a moment of silence.
Fabian wrote:
Edit: Thanks for your more detailed thoughts on my playing. I definitely don't agree with everything, as is to be expected, but obviously realize my playing has very clear flaws, and that personal taste sometimes differs greatly. If you overlook the tone, which is still pretty condescending, it does show that you can indeed talk to people like a normal person, so I take that part back. Take care.
Which parts don't you agree with? To my mind everything I said was factual and can be evaluated objectively. Yes, there is an implied value judgment in that I clearly believe "being able to make effective use of rubato" is intrinsically good, for example. You either did or did not maintain a steady tempo, however.
I think the problem was not the critique, but the really blunt and harsh words you used, which felt disrespectful.
Perhaps, but none of my blunt words were directed at Fabian. Of Fabian, I said, "You are fine for an amateur." That doesn't seem particularly blunt, harsh, or disrespectful to me. My words describing the particular version of the piece he chose were less kind, but unless he actually wrote the transcription, he's got nothing to get bent out of shape about. Also, had I suspected he wrote the transcription, I would have been nicer. As it stands, there is no particular reason to observe social niceties when talking about whatever phantom entity wrote the crappy transcription Fabian downloaded from the web.
Sorry, but how is an opinion "sheer hyperbole?" Perhaps if I had said "I watched the Lion King one million times when I was little," or, "Fabian, you are truly a God of the Keys who puts scum like Sir Elton to shame."
But really... I'm just praising him. Just because our opinions don't coincide doesn't mean that mine is exaggerated.
Of fairly average playing, of a pretty bad transcription, you said, "Wow, this is amazing!" But I suppose speaking plainly and without rancor is somewhere between murder and pedophilia nowadays. Next time I should just stab someone and thereby avoid all the controversy.
Critique is great. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't want to hear some constructive criticism. Of course I would.
Thanks for the clarification on the transcription thing. Honestly I still don't really understand what you mean though. How should a transcription for solo piano sound, in your opinion?
Anyway, obviously I'm not interested in arguing these other points with you. You're entitled to your opinion, am am I, which is fine. Rock on!
A few points about your playing, and here I'm just referring to Can You Feel The Love Tonight:
You speed up quite a bit throughout the piece. Try to maintain a constant tempo. Paradoxically, being able to maintain a rock steady tempo will ultimately be what allows you to make effective use of rubato.
You start playing at a comfortable mezzoforte, and then steadily get louder and louder and louder, with no dynamic variation other than constant growth. Try adding in some piano sections even if they aren't indicated in the music. Not only will it give the music more depth, but being able to play softly is a skill you need to learn. As above, being able to consistently voice notes at low volume will ultimately be what allows you to make effective use of dynamic variation.
Somewhat related, you tend to SLAM your hands down on the keyboard, as opposed to pressing keys with your fingers, especially when you're playing big chords. Unless the music indicates all those notes should be heavily accented, that's not an appropriate technique, as its overuse makes music sound mechanical and clunky. The main reason people make this mistake is because it's very difficult to voice all the notes in a chord cleanly and concurrently with just finger pressure. It's a skill that takes years to learn, so for a long time your chords may sound jumbly.
There are a lot of little ornaments throughout the piece that you treat as if they are as important as the melody. Try to play them more softly. The melody should basically always be the dominant voice, but the way you are playing right now there is no dominant voice. Playing multiple notes at different volumes or with different levels of articulation is really difficult, but that's one of the little touches that can take you from good to great. It's something to think about.
Now for my thoughts on the transcription. The whole thing is filled to the brim with syncopated interplay between the left hand drone, the right hand melody, and various little flourishes, grace notes, rhythmic doublings, etc. in both hands (though mainly the right hand.) There's way too much of it, and the music sounds incredibly busy and unfocused. Whatever structure and flow the music could have gets ļǿşť ǐǹ ŧħǝ ƨƕƭƒſɇ.
All the novel techniques composers use to make listeners's ears perk up really cease to be novel when an entire piece is nothing but those embellishments, especially when the whole piece is dominated by just one or two of them. It's kind of like when you are reading a book and you can tell the author is REALLY in love with some word or phrase because he uses it entirely out of proportion with its normal usage in the language. R.A. Salvatore is terrible about this. I think he uses the word "limn" and the phrase "purely on instinct" at least 100 times each in every book he writes. It's very tedious and back when I still bothered to read his drivel I found myself wondering if he couldn't stop having his characters stand in windows/doorways/caves limned in candlelight/moonlight/sunlight every other page ... or at the very least just invest in a fucking thesaurus.
Music is exactly the same way. It becomes very tedious and hard to listen to when it's just the same thing over and over again. And here's the kicker: I realize there was actually significant variation from one repetition to the next in the transcription you played. It may as well have been the same 10 measures played over and and over again, though, because each variation sounded exactly the same: a giant messy blob of notes. There was no natural progression or development, nothing interesting to be remembered or described, no way to identify one section or distinguish it from the one that followed.
I'm generalizing here, but with most good music you can say things like, "Oh, this is the part where the melody was played by the left hand," "This is the part where there was an interesting syncopated rhythm," "This is the part where the melody was doubled in octaves," "This is the part where there was that cool progression of embellishment from grace note to mordent to gruppetto," "This is the part where one of the notes in the melody unexpectedly changed," etc., etc. There are countless musical tricks one can use, I couldn't begin to list them all. The key is to combine them over the course of a piece in such a way that each section has its own identity. There is very little of that in the particular transcription of Can You Feel The Love Tonight that you played. There's just "the beginning" and "any of the very similar, highly syncopated, and messily embellished variations of the theme."
But then, I was like :(
Seriously though, thanks a lot Specter. [Pointless] Boy, what do you mean by finding a less mind-numbing transcription?
I don't know why you are unhappy to be critiqued. You should be eager to improve. Anyway, by transcription I mean the version of the music you are playing. The song was originally written in one form (for vocals, piano, various other backing instruments), and now you are playing it transcribed into another form (for solo piano.) Different formats generally have different requirements, and I don't think the transcription you are playing is well-suited for solo piano.
L-Spiro wrote:
But with critiques like the recent one(s) I am not so sure I want to post anymore.
My response to Fabian's playing was incredibly mild, if that's what's got you down I can't really see why it should be so. Anyway, your choice of music was good and your playing is fine. Keep practicing and keep up the good work.
Fabian wrote:
Spiro, don't let some condescending elitist douchebag who doesn't know how to talk to people like a normal person dissuade you from posting.
The vehemence of your response is misplaced. I gave you a very mild critique that said virtually nothing of substance about your playing. Moreover, "you're fine for an amateur" certainly isn't insulting, even if it's not the exaggerated praise you got from everyone else.
My main contention was just that you should find a better version of the music, and you instantly started spewing caustic vitriol. I'm not sure how my suggestion prompted such a series of bitter and violent outbursts from you, but perhaps you should take a step back and reexamine the situation. Nobody here is out to get you.
Meanwhile, in Fabian's imagination ...
... ALSO YOU PLAY WORSE THAN A ONE-ARMED RETARD! MY INCONTINENT GRANDMOTHER HAS HAD FARTS MORE MUSICAL THAN YOUR PLAYING!
The lack of compelling variation, relentless syncopation, and constant forte dynamics get really tiresome. Maybe try to find a less mind-numbing transcription?
That being said, you're fine for an amateur. I bet the chicks lap that shit up.
