Whiplash

I didn’t even say I agreed with the moral you autist

True achievements and skill is only possible through grueling, single-minded labor that you must dedicate your entire life to, letting everything else including your own morals and relationships fall into disarray.

Attached: 1560669399517.jpg (340x599, 60K)

>rich and famous
>playing drums in a jazz band
Ya he'll be famous with all the dozens of people who give a shit about jazz

It made me want to drink a lot of soda from plastic convenience store cups.

Attached: dog stop.jpg (734x991, 68K)

It's implied that he dies at an early age like his hero Charlie Parker

>What’s the moral of the story?

The same moral as Gladiator (2000): Win the crowd.

One person will try to fuck you up and fuck your life up, but he went back on that stage instead of being defeated and showed the CROWD who he was, even when JJJ wanted to destroy him. He won the crowd with his talent and bravery, and won JJJ over by doing that.

You may have a person in your life that hates you and drags you down, but there are way more people that will make your life better and see you for who you really are.

That sneed's feed and seed is formerly chuck's

that ending was pure fucking kino. realizing j. jonah jameson was right the entire time was amazing
this. giving him the wrong music wasn't spite, it was like a final test of his resolve

Nope at the end he found "home." Which is the aim of every art (of course sometimes home cannot be found), morals are a lazy middle school American phenomena.

This. Its about sacrifice.

If you work hard enough, you can get what you want. There's nothing worse than wanting something but not having the willpower to push for it. You'll end up halfway there, with all bridges burned behind you and nowhere to go.
In short, life sucks, and then you die. Unless you have the will to do what is necessary.

Which I and 95% of our generation don't.
I want to die.

only shitty people like jazz

Yeah keep banging out those cookie cutter "synthwave" shits on whatever color-by-numbers DAW you use zoomzoom, you're definitely superior to jazz.

Don’t be a drummer

>"hurr everybody that devotes their lives to a discipline dies early"

this is what millennials ACTUALLY believe.

>trying to find the next Charlie Parker at the expense of a guy hanging himself

This is why liberal arts people are insane. They literally think that subjective "great art" is more important than a person's life.

Flescher's jazz bar speech spells it out for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=S6vTI5g198E

Of course his character is similar to Rorschach's in that he embodies the extreme of a viewpoint. The ending scene implies that in creating art, his type is a necessary evil. Of course this has consequences manifested as the student who killed himself. A good companion piece is Atlanta S02E06 Teddy Perkins. It also explores the consequences of this archetype and offers a different viewpoint.

>have one chance at life
>dedicate it to autistically bashing on a drum set playing gay music no one will ever care about with lip smacking niggers

Attached: 1458566300160.jpg (592x492, 73K)

Out of everything people are willing to kill, suffer and die for, art is probably the one thing I can get behind.
Fuck religion, fuck king and country, fuck principles. Art? Now that's literally the closest something can ever be to true immortality for the ages.

>"MUH SYNTHWAVE"
>"MUH NEON"
>"HEY GUYS CHECK OUT MUH NEW SYNTHWAVE COVER OF POKEYMAN"

Do (((((millennials))))) still do this?

Listening to jazz while you have coffee is literally the most kino life moments you can have.

It's a level of kino that zoomers cannot even understand because they never want to put down their video game controllers.

Even if it was only a few dozen people, which it's not. Their respect would be more valuable than a million trend following soundcloud losers.

so this is the power... of zoomer intellect...

retard
it's what the writer explicitly stated

So some guy takes a piss on a piece of cardboard and it gets put on display in some modern art museum exhibit, and that is more important than a person's life?

Fuck that.

It’s not about Jazz it’s about pederasty.

Art isn't a bad pick. But I contend that being a conquering warlord is still the best path to immortality.

Who do we know more about Alexander the Great, or Socrates?

No, that's not the art I am talking about. That's just what art has been turned into, and I'm aware of the issue of defining art brings with it. I just take the liberty to say that some art (which I consider art) I consider worth dying for. Make more sense?

If no one in your zoomer/boomer friend circle (more like a bunch of losers who happened to get acquainted) gives shit about jazz doesnt mean no one does. People who matter, in rare cases when they do have time for music, a lot of times prefer jazz and academic music. Getting together with people who matter, matters much more than assembling a stadium of teens who will forget about you when the next new hot thing comes, and so will your promoters and publishers.
In any case being a quality jazz musician pays well and moves you up the ladder well. There is a shortage of those nowadays. It's also not as embarassing as being another guitar-wielding forever-young kitsch so there's that.

Never saying "good job" takes it too far. I'm not advocating treating everyone like a special snowflake and giving everyone a trophy at the end and all that liberal bullshit, but if young people NEVER get any positive response, they will be conditioned to think they are shit no matter how hard they try.

Haha

Leonardo Da Vinci. Socrates was a philosopher, not an artist in the sense I was using the term in. See

Drop that bait and switch argument nonsense.

The Statue of David is worth more than a human life. Da Vinci's portfolio is worth more than a life. The Statue of Liberty, the English Crown jewels, Taj Mahal, you get the point.

Da Vinci is known for a lot more than his paintings though. He is basically THE iconic Renaissance man.

socrates wasn't even a real person

I'm not involved in this conversation, but I think the drummer in whiplash had a kinda distorted view of what he thought was the end goal. Why did he want to be the best so much? He risked his health big time to be the best. It kinda corrupts you and it's amplified by the instructor.

A couple years down the line when he's achieved what he set out to and realized it's trash because jazz music is such a niche thing nowadays, the only thing he'll have is getting fucked up and drumming. There is no end to this kind of success. There is no shore. you only just keep swimming until you drown

Not my point. But conceded. Whatever. I don't give a shit.

We could break it down further and call what Socrates and Alexander did was also art.

Loosely defining art as the true achievement of a man, any act can be a single man's art. I do now mean that anything IS art, but that, if done with talent an thing can become art.

Would you call a world class athlete an artist? How about a great surgeon? How about a man who makes himself a dictator/warlord? I'd consider these real questions worth exploring.

Current thinking is that he was, but that Plato was simply modeling him after a close friend of his, but was not an otherwise recognized philosopher of that era.

I feel like he won the “crowd” over in a metaphorical sense, I’m sure the crowd at the end of the film loved his performance but their reaction is never shown. I feel like that kinda implies that at that point the drummer didn’t give a fuck about the crown anymore and just wanted to impress himself and J.K. Simmons

*didnt give a fuck about the crowd anymore

Where can I read about this concept

The only way to be successful is to be a sociopathic loner who abuses others

>The Statue of David is worth more than a human life.
Subjective. If you tell a father that he has to either destroy his son, or destroy the statue of David, he is going to destroy the statue of David.

>They literally think that subjective "great art" is more important than a person's life.
It literally is. Life is ridiculously overvalued in modern society because we're dumb fucking animals. Most of us just want to stay alive and reproduce, because that's the most effective thing for a meat machine to want if it's going to make more meat machines. Billions have pointlessly lived and reluctantly died without ever doing a single thing of value to the world. I would throw a million of you useless eaters into the grinder if I could get one genius out of the other end.
And here is a thing of beauty for you to bounce around in the hollow parts of that sensory bulb teetering atop your neck blubber: that is exactly what's happening. All of you shiftless slobs, going about your mediocre routines and grinding away your health and happiness in toil for the profit of others. You're feeding a system that eats you all alive at the bottom and shits out beauty and meaning from the top, where actual sapient creatures can while away their years immersed in the sublime. You will live and die for this and no one who matters will ever know or care how you feel about it.

>jk simmons will never rape you

I see your point and considering I'm not interesting in arguing semantics, I'll generally agree with the sentiment that most truly great achievements are worth dying in pursuit of, and some of them will endure through time. Including acts of atrocity, violence and sadism as a means justifiable with a noble end goes against what I think about freedom and choice, but it's a typical argument cynical people would offer.
I'm of the opinion that at least in theory everyone's freedom ends where it starts restricting that of others. I know that self-defense exists, but it's a difficult thing and we probably agree that no dictator or mass murderer is acting in true self-defense.

Well put, even though there's some unnecessary bitterness in there. No need to insult anyone, although I get that harsh words sometimes make your meaning more palpable.

It's definitely a complex and uncomfortable idea.

I will say this, there ARE father's in the world right now that would choose the statue over their own son. But so far, that only further supports the subjective nature of art.

This is the best thread on Yea Forums

Would you throw yourself into the grinder?

That you want to be on J.K. Simmons' time.

>millennials
>zoomers
Why confuse the two? Zoomers are clearly subhuman, alongside baby boomers and cryto/miniboomers (gen x). KYS

Im pretty sure i remember the director commenting about Andrews future after the events of the movie, and he said something that Andrew would have ended up all drugged out and eventually kill himself if the drugs didnt.

look up literary theories of 1900's aesthetic authors: Nabokov, TS Eliot, etc.

Jazz is fucking gay.

>rich, famous, loaded with prestige and either happily married with a woman of his choice or neck deep in pussy
Yeah trad jazz is very popular now LMAO

Consider this a devil's advocate argument:

Drilling down into base human nature, where violence, fear, physical dominance and rage dwell. A true act of art is to exert one's will over another.

To put it simply; Art is an attempt to express the human condition as purely as possible.

Is Picasso's Guernia more of less valuable than if he had become a rebel insurgent himself?

This is not how anyone here originally formulated the idea of art being wort suffering and maybe even dying for. It's not about preserving and protecting it with your life – which countless people in all wars and other situations have done over and over, by the way – , it's about what it is worth offering in the pursuit of creating what one perceives as great art.

The point was to separate the weak from the strong in search of greatness.

Obviously this principle doesn't apply to most things in life, but when you're in search of perfection, it is a necessity. Whether it be in music or a cutthroat corporate environment. If not being patted on the head and told you've been a good boy is enough to dissuade you from achieving greatness, then you, like 95% of other people just doesn't make the cut.

That's right, you fuckers are now gonna paypal me all your money, so I can quit my job and create great art. It's all for the better so you fucking braindead worthless faggots better hurry the fuck up. I'm objectively superior to everyone ITT

Why argue for the argument's sake? I disagree that complex concepts like theoretical human nature can be broken down without becoming a caricature of what they are in a desperate attempt to make it understandable and easy to discuss. It's like the linear cause and effect relations we endlessly construct to survive, how we constantly think we understand why others or even we ourselves act a certain way, when the underlying motifs are often entirely different ones. I don't think you can gather actual, modern understanding by simplifying these complex matters.

>jazz drummer
>rich and famous
Lol faggot you wanna join us in the 2010’s? Get a grip dummy

Either your reading comprehension or your sense of humour is very poor.

As far as you're concerned I am a God. I'm so above you it's pointless to even try to discuss me in terms of mortality/immortality. Time is a feeble concept that you hang on to so your pathetic brain doesn't shut down

He's asking if he works for Moscow or Beijing or more specifically their respective national governments. It's a little confusing because you'd expect him to refer to Russia as a bear since that's the typical animal national personification and would be consistent with referring to China as a dragon, but we the viewer can assume he is either unaware or has some personal disdain for referring to Russia as such and instead simply uses the common colloquial name for the Russian Federation.

I was going more for disdainful than bitter. A little venom to emphasize the difference in value between the elite and the everyman. Talking about subjectivity makes it easy to ignore that experiences aren't just ephemera; every experience that any person ever has is as much a real, factual component of the universe as any other event. And two people can have analogous experiences with orders of magnitude worth of difference in the scope of that experience. Like the difference between Euler thinking abou the number 1 and your neighbor thinking about the number 1. Most societies are designed to funnel its efforts into cultivation of the former, and that's a good thing.
Not a question of whether I would. Either I'll be the grinder's beneficiary or I'll be its food. That's what the grinder is. I guess I chose the metaphor poorly if I implied that there's any agency involved.

This to be honest. I mean goddamn if you're going to utterly destroy yourself actually learn a chad instrument like the Piano or the Guitar. Who wants to be the Virgin Drummer?

It's a matter of convenience in the forum we are in. We're deep in a Yea Forums thread about a jazz drumming movie trying to have a conversation about the nature of man and art. Simplifying complex theoretical ideas about the true nature of things is the best we can do here. If we really wanted to find something worth knowing, we'd be having these discussions else where. As it is, these is all a pseudo-intellectual diversion before I go to bed for the night.

My advice, allow yourself to indulge in some common human numb-skullery, without needing to defend yourself with discourse rules. You're already doing it anyway, just admit it's fun to have conversations.

>Like the difference between Euler thinking abou the number 1 and your neighbor thinking about the number 1
What if your neighbor IS Euler

when miles came back on for the caravan solo JK wanted to fuck him up at first
but over the course of the song you can see that he actually starts to respect both his balls and his musical ability - he even starts to direct him and try to shape his raw outpouring of bombast. out of egoism? perhaps. but miles still respects him enough to work with him and to allow him to dictate his soloing to some extent. every fucked-up interaction between the two of them led to this moment: rage channeled into rhythm, mediated by years of experience in shaping the raw clay of aspiring jazz students.
at the very end, they are both exhausted. miles' look is that of a man resigned to his fate, and JK's is that of a man who has struck gold. all you see is his eyes, but you see in his eyes the first signs of a genuine smile he's shown for the entire film. at last, they succeeded in making music.

Right, I missed out on voicing my opinion more directly before or after going into the justification for it. I don't agree that everything can be art if pursued far enough, especially if it includes acts of violence and sadism, as I stated before. Exerting your will over another implies that, and even though you put that in a list of things that I'd take no issue with, I won't let it pass.

Very good. Then our final point of disagreement is:

You claim art is ultimately an act of civility, and so excludes overt exertions of one man over another.

I claim that art is purest when it expresses a man's true nature best, even including acts of pure violence and the subversion of others.

This is a basic human dividing line, not something we can pivot around on a later Tuesday night. Let's take our anonymous exchange, and see if any small personal growth can be taken out on reflection. Good night.

Then Euler is surprisingly fond of cannabis, Halo, and Kenny Chesney.

>The Statue of David
No it isn't, there are hundreds of replicas and any idiot who studies marble sculpture can do it

>A copy or replica is as valuable as the original as long as it went through the motions precisely enough
Behold, the simpleton.

The struggle is the joy. It's why people play Dark Souls, run marathons, free solo cliffs, train for the SeALs, or sink years and years of their lives into banging sticks on cylinders and cymbals. Humans are masochists by nature. Accept it. Grow from it.

>any idiot who studies marble sculpture can do it
yeah okay.

Tell me how the original is in any way more valuable
>mfw you tell me because it came first

Attached: 1401256268258.jpg (419x480, 81K)

I have to agree with him. If you reduce the original to dust, it won't detract a bit from the ability of a superior sensibility to appreciate the beauty of the form itself. Likewise, it won't erase from history the event itself, or the genius that produced it. The form can be carried by any medium that will support it, which particular piece of stone you find it in is irrelevant.
Have you ever seen F for Fake? If not, you should. It's relevant.

In case you're not just baiting: The original is about having the idea. It's why conceptual art exists. The genius of composition, perspective, colour, motif, proportion... I could go on forever, but you get the point.

See above. I'm not saying that replicating something that takes immense skill isn't skillful in itself, but it's a vastly different thing from creating something for the first time, from your own idea or imagination. Revers engineering and recreating an invention can be incredibly impressive, but it's hugely different from actually having the idea for the original invention and executing on it.

>but it's a vastly different thing from creating something for the first time, from your own idea or imagination.
As far the ultimate goal of art is, which is to say something about the human condition and to have that something perceived and understood by an audience, then no, there's ZERO difference

Both, faggot. Their names are equitable to Gods.

Plato wasn't the only person to write about Socrates you cunts.

No, that's Nightcrawler.

When you look at the original David you aren't experiencing its initial creation. You're just experiencing the form. Your experience is completely agnostic of any authenticity or lack thereof. Your experience is true whether any expert or critic will stamp their approval on the rock that brought it to you. And besides, its initial creation is carried in every replica anyway, irrespective of the skill involved in its creation. Michaelangelo's hand reaches forward through time into every image of the David, from the finest forgery to the chintzy plastic keychain version. Your experience of the form and your capacity to appreciate beauty are the only things you bring to the art, and if something as petty as the "authenticity" of its medium impairs you in this respect then the art probably wasn't made for you in the first place.

Perfection requires extreme dedication and hard work without constant affirmation.

no one "makes it" anymore.
you just kinda survive.

That you might think someone is helping you but really you're just another disposable piece in his quest to win a collegiate big band competition

He wasn't trying to find the next Charlie Parker, he was just trying to win a competition

You misunderstand, I'm not arguing my perception of the art being necessarily changed by it being an original piece or not. I do however hold the belief that through the idea and execution an original inherently holds a higher value compared to a copy of it.

imma put in the screenshot

Attached: 452423492.jpg (864x720, 148K)

wow nice post

GREAT thread lads

Attached: gjgppjauq5231.jpg (960x507, 50K)