Where all classical music heading?

Some people (ahem, Tokke) are passing judgment on the music. Others (ahem, me) think that passing judgment on music is foolish. And the OP even asks people to -not- pass judgment on music. Hmm...

Tokke, if you put all your eggs in the basket of economics, this "free market," government, and so on, then how convenient it must be for you to be able to pass judgment on anything that doesn't make money. That must put you in a very comfortable place. You must be very, VERY sure of yourself.

The truth is, the system you put your faith in to justify your judgment of music will inevitably collapse just like it always has in the past (Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc) because it is unsustainable. THEN, what will you have as a justification for your judgment of contemporary music, Tokke? Absolutely nothing.

Your point is taken that 20th Century music didn't put butts in seats, that it didn't "make money," as if that's some lofty goal we should all strive for as artists. Please.

Obviously you didn't read my second post. It is a delicate balancing act for the artist to weigh whether money or art comes first and I think its up to each person to choose which. In my case, my family has never had money, we always live on the edge. Being that New York City's cost of living is the highest in the world doesn't help either. So I know what it means to be in financial turmoil. I won't be able to be a composer that can only do composition and live, I know that. I don't want it to be like that, but that's the real world. And you, who just disregards the money factor is just plain ignorant then. I mean, come on! I DO NOT want to get rich, I don't care about money to get rich, but I know it matters in the real world.

BTW, all this crap about how the free market is gonna collapse? It's been around for a heck of a long time and isn't running out of steam. Will the government collapse? Probably. But mankind, being specialized in what they do, will use money because other means of exchange are inconvenient, as they have for several millennia. That won't change. Will the social structure change? I don't know, but its not likely to happen in the next 100 years, and even if it does, so what? We'll adapt and fix the problems and move on, that's what humans are the most specialized at doing. So I apologize if you think I put all my eggs in that basket. Do you have any other baskets that would be better? I'd love to hear about them.

Tokke,

Seriously. Go to the link. Watch the video. Comprehend the message.

Then come back and read your second paragraph. If you don't think you need to edit/erase it, then you likely don't understand me at all.

LOL Zeitgeist movement. Man, people still love a good conspiracy~

The original movie was a conspiracy vid, yeah. That was a while ago, though.

The Zeitgeist movement isn't "conspiracy" at all, though. Where are you getting this notion?

A movement based on a conspiracy movie would imply conspiracy movement.

The movement isn't based on the conspiracy movie, though. The Zeitgeist is the conspiracy movie. The Zeitgeist: Addendum is not, and the movement is based on the Addendum, not the original movie. And in many ways, I despise the original movie because of people who assume this "conspiracy" crap before even taking the time to investigate the matter to any substantive level of insight.

Of course, instead of wasting all this space posting about something I can tell you haven't even bothered to watch, it's no wonder that you still think it's a conspiracy video. The link is to a lecture, not a movie. Instead of pretending like you're informed about something, why not take the time to actually BECOME INFORMED? I suppose that's just expecting too much...

I have watched the initial movie and some of the second. Both are certainly conspiracy movies. Besides, when someone questions the Christian theology when making broad generalizations and assumptions about the Bible when they don't even know the history of it, I tend to get a little bitter of it.

Of course, instead of wasting all this space posting about something I can tell you haven't even bothered to watch, it's no wonder that you still think it's a conspiracy video. The link is to a lecture, not a movie. Instead of pretending like you're informed about something, why not take the time to actually BECOME INFORMED? I suppose that's just expecting too much...

Er I watched the whole thing and there's a lot of errors in their assumptions, such as the bit with the hunter-gatherers and leadership (some examples of X don't make X the norm.) There's a matter of scale (global scale vs tribes and even small communities) and anyway even if the overall gist of the thing may be positive and I may even tend to agree with their final conclusion, it raises more questions than it answers.

Does it mean I'm in favor of capitalism and so on? gently caress no, I'm pretty much an anarchist since I tend to think that no matter what system people with power will dominate others with less power. I mean, gee, isn't that the entirety of human history? What makes them think that suddenly that's going to change? I mean they drop the ball on the genetic behavior traits too, forgetting that altruism and (some) morality so on is genetically coded in everyone. The problem is simply that money or no money, for the "Open source" world they're talking about to happen you have to get people to actually consider people they'll never meet, and that's kind of hard. Anyway it sounds all very pretty but reality is that nothing'll change and if anything does it'll be replaced by something just as oppressive as the current system is.

And lol a world with no ownership, yeah that'll work perfect. It still falls on the same problem of who then controls that everyone doesn't hog up resources? Self-regulation is bullshit on a global scale and you can just "buy" people around you in various ways, without the need for money (which is really a version of the ancient trade.) Even if you ignore all this, you still need the power to regulate manually if things start getting out of control. All it boils down is that you gotta have power to maintain any kind of system, and that power needs to be controlled by few people (not everyone.) That's something the guy "forgets" to address, and it's of course a HUGE problem. He kind of waves crime away in such a hilarious fashion you can kind of tell that all the people making these promises have never really seen what this stuff is all about.

I'm very skeptical with any utopia-like promise, since usually they are overlooking things to get to those promises. Like I said, for all of this you need power, he says it himself. For his idea to work, you need the people with power to listen and do what he wants. After that, what, he needs power to maintain it so that the current system doesn't resurface (and you BET it will!) And that power is power to make others do what he wants, and I'm not seeing any difference with the current system save that it may actually be much worse if power is centralized like that (assuming doing this is even remotely possible.)

You know, it's super easy to point out flaws in today's systems. It's super hard, however, to propose something better that doesn't have the same holes.

Speaking of which, here's something I found on a forum elsewhere that sums up my problems with the proposal in general (venus project and all that):

Here are the questions the movie refused to even ask much less answer. I've been asking these same questions here for a few days, and nobody ever answers them.

1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?

2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?

3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.

The movie talking about communism. No different than the NWO.

Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

The only way you can get rid of money, is for nothing in the world to have value. Which requires actual UNLIMITED resources for everyone. In which case, you don't need a system to manage the limited resources. The moment something becomes limited, then it has a value. And you can NOT get past that.

Indeed.

Here are the questions the movie refused to even ask much less answer. I've been asking these same questions here for a few days, and nobody ever answers them.

Funny, each question was answered by the movie. The poster failed to comprehend the answers.

1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?

In an abundant society, no one is needed to make such decisions.

2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?

No one "decides" this... conclusions are arrived upon empirically based on the existence of any given resource as to its propensity for sustainability.

3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.

Educate them.

The movie talking about communism. No different than the NWO.

LOL. Ok. See above.

Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

Controlled? No. Managed? Yes. Very different from today...

The only way you can get rid of money, is for nothing in the world to have value. Which requires actual UNLIMITED resources for everyone. In which case, you don't need a system to manage the limited resources. The moment something becomes limited, then it has a value. And you can NOT get past that.

Assumption: Resources that are more limited have more value tied to them than resources that are more available.

Isn't something that is more available more valuable to us? Why shouldn't it be? The assumption we should all operate under, if we all mutually share the belief in the value of self-preservation, is:

Resources that are more limited are less valuable to us than resources that are more available. It makes perfect sense to me... how the poster missed this is beyond me.

You're still dodging the question: what happens when people don't want to follow along?

And how is "managing" different from simply "controlling?"

I mean really now, let's not play those games. Today the wealthy "manage" resources, yea? So if the power is given to others to "manage" the resources, what's the difference?

No one "decides" this... conclusions are arrived upon empirically based on the existence of any given resource as to its propensity for sustainability.

Oh wait, so you mean to tell me the part of the video that says nobody is objective (and are incapable of being objective) is an outright lie? Cuz hey it seems you gotta be rather objective to do that what you're saying. And, again, who watches the watchmen? How can we be sure that people who make those conclusions aren't biased? Who regulates this??? I don't trust people to be 100% good and trustworthy out of nowhere and neither should you.

In an abundant society, no one is needed to make such decisions.

Barring the obvious logistic problems and the fact that resources are FINITE, how can they be abundant? Again of course, who stops people from hogging resources and making them NOT abundant to further their own goals?

I said it before, I still see no difference with today's system, only a shift of power but it's the same thing: power. At the end, it's all about power and it always has been, no matter how it's dressed.

You're still dodging the question: what happens when people don't want to follow along?

What?! How is proposing to educate people on the merits of running society based on the value of sustainability instead of the value of scarcity and limitation "dodging the question?"

And how is "managing" different from simply "controlling?"

Controlling resources implies ownership of resources.

Managing resources implies the opposite... not owning resources but simply assessing what is available and working to distribute what is needed to where it is needed.

I mean really now, let's not play those games. Today the wealthy "manage" resources, yea? So if the power is given to others to "manage" the resources, what's the difference?

"Power" is a product of acquisition. If no one "owns" the resources of the planet, but people still need those resources, then the objective is to connect people with resources, most likely through technological automation. Power has nothing to do with this objective.

Oh wait, so you mean to tell me the part of the video that says nobody is objective (and are incapable of being objective) is an outright lie? Cuz hey it seems you gotta be rather objective to do that what you're saying. And, again, who watches the watchmen? How can we be sure that people who make those conclusions aren't biased? Who regulates this??? I don't trust people to be 100% good and trustworthy out of nowhere and neither should you.

The only objective regulatory power I recognize is that of the earth itself. No other valid authority exists.

Barring the obvious logistic problems and the fact that resources are FINITE, how can they be abundant? Again of course, who stops people from hogging resources and making them NOT abundant to further their own goals?

Many resources renew. Geothermal energy is renewable. Given enough time, even Oil is renewable, but the difference is the span of time it takes for Oil to renew verses that of Geothermal energy. And if some individual or entity seeks to hog resources in an effort to further some agenda, which I see no foreseeable rationale or even any feasible way of doing so but w/e, then there would obviously be the need for a systemic or social construct in education, technology, or some other area to confront this... not that much of a deal breaker for me.

I said it before, I still see no difference with today's system, only a shift of power but it's the same thing: power. At the end, it's all about power and it always has been, no matter how it's dressed.

To me, power is a construct of an obsolete social model, nothing more.

What?! How is proposing to educate people on the merits of running society based on the value of sustainability instead of the value of scarcity and limitation "dodging the question?"

Uh, this is all assuming they are convinced. Or you mean brainwashing them outright? What if they have a different opinion? This is all sketchy, and it depends on everyone suddenly agreeing and they may just as well not agree. Then what?

Controlling resources implies ownership of resources. Managing resources implies the opposite... not owning resources but simply assessing what is available and working to distribute what is needed to where it is needed.

Oh yeah? Who assesses what's available and then distributes it? Who decides what is needed and how can they be trusted? Again, to mobilize resources means to have a measure of power, to decide where they go implies also power. This is all, again, power.

"Power" is a product of acquisition. If no one "owns" the resources of the planet, but people still need those resources, then the objective is to connect people with resources, most likely through technological automation. Power has nothing to do with this objective.

Uh, no. Power is simply the ability to do something that others cannot, be it for resource reasons or knowledge, or what have you. Do you think that everyone gets to decide where the resources go? Who's problems are worse is not something objective, now is it? What if I feel that I deserve more than you, and yet I'm not getting it? What happens then? Do I file a complaint... to whom? Again, sketchy.

The only objective regulatory power I recognize is that of the earth itself. No other valid authority exists.

What? There must be some authority, again, because otherwise let's just overthrow and hog resources. Who can stop me, again? What are you going to do with the millions upon millions of people who are left over from the current system, plus all the remnants of this culture? You're going to have to mass-destroy information to manipulate new generations so that nobody ends up thinking "the wrong way."

Many resources renew. Geothermal energy is renewable. Given enough time, even Oil is renewable, but the difference is the span of time it takes for Oil to renew verses that of Geothermal energy. And if some individual or entity seeks to hog resources in an effort to further some agenda, which I see no foreseeable rationale or even any feasible way of doing so but w/e, then there would obviously be the need for a systemic or social construct in education, technology, or some other area to confront this... not that much of a deal breaker for me.

Uh, yes, resources renew if you somehow let them. But again, education may seem like the obvious answer but of course what if that doesn't work? And again hogging resources can be really easy. Imagine I stock up food and trade food others like (but isn't readily available in the region,) for other resources? How do you stop trading of resources? How do you stop trading, period?

To me, power is a construct of an obsolete social model, nothing more.

Power is everything, no matter how it's dressed up. And again you keep dodging the question, who is in charge of this whole system and how do you keep it from going south? Even "education" means that SOMEONE must decide what needs to be taught. That's power already right there. Who decides?

The only power in existence that actually decides anything is the power of Earth's resources to sustain us. This answers your question, it doesn't "dodge" anything, and if that somehow doesn't compute, I'll be glad to point out how this works later.

The only power in existence that actually decides anything is the power of Earth's resources to sustain us. This answers your question, it doesn't "dodge" anything, and if that somehow doesn't compute, I'll be glad to point out how this works later.

That's gibberish and you know it. The earth doesn't manage itself, someone needs to manage it and who is that someone?

It might be better to continue this particular sub-discussion in a different thread.

Seconded Gardener.

Imma make a thread in off topix for this, this could be a lollercoaster.

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t24665/project-venus-zeitgeist-movement-nonsense/page__view__getnewpost

Discussion about THAT particular scraggy moved to new thread, plz erase/don't post anymore on this thread about it thx.

That's gibberish and you know it. The earth doesn't manage itself, someone needs to manage it and who is that someone?

Oh? Earth is managed by the force of chance. Chance has no bias, and therefore often the most chaotic. (I.e natural disasters.) Earth was fine without any sapient management, I mean look what humans have done.

Oh? Earth is managed by the force of chance. Chance has no bias, and therefore often the most chaotic. (I.e natural disasters.) Earth was fine without any sapient management, I mean look what humans have done.

Who are you? Harvey Dent?

Who are you? Harvey Dent?

/clap

Just some asian kid who can see that earth's better off without human management. we're the ones who almost engaged in nuclear war after all

Discussion moved children, plz don't litter here anymore. Plus bonus for batman reference.

Dead threads are fun.

Why would you want to make them undead then?