Was Fanny Mendelssohn actually a notable composer from her period, particularly in comparison to her brother Felix? I'm taking a music history course, and I noticed that my textbook devotes multiple pages to her music and gives her a full biographical passage which is normally only reserved for the most accomplished composers of that period. Felix Mendelssohn's music isn't even mentioned outside of the context of how it "overshadowed" his sister's music until two chapters later when it is only given a single page.
No not at all. Even the works published under the name of Felix are rather unambitious pieces of chamber music, mostly solo. Felix himself on the other hand is grossly overlooked and I would consider him perhaps the single greatest post-Mozartean composer and one of the few notable maintainers of musical formalism in a world after Beethoven.
Do you think my professor recognizes this, even if he can't point it out due to pressure from the feminist mob? He toured the historical sites in Europe pertaining to the history of music and everything. He must have noticed that the textbook puts a spin on things if he actually knows his shit.
James Lopez
How am I supposed to know? I haven't taken a class like that since 2010 and I have never been to America.
Parker Rodriguez
>he hasn't been in a college arts/humanities course since 2010. Lucky man.
Nathan Rogers
Not really, it beats the hell out of employment.
Angel Nelson
Pre-2015, perhaps.
Noah Thomas
I believe this is a case of being blind to your own privilege.
Hunter Young
>point out bias in the textbook >instantly expelled for "hatespeech" and blacklisted from higher education and therefore any chance at gainful employment What privilege? I'll admit, I'm glad I'm not a wageslave (yet,) but how can you say you didn't have a more "privileged" higher education than me if you received yours before the Orwellian thought police became widespread?
Justin Diaz
I don't think you realize just exactly how degrading wagecucking is.
Bentley Diaz
HAHAHAHA Fanny Joke! Get it? Because Beyonce isn't a Classical composer or performer. This is some next-level Penguin of Doom shit.
You: >received higher education before 1984 kicks in on college campuses >now a wageslave Me: >Am receiving higher education in 1984 era >greater than 90% chance I'll be a wageslave in the future In the end, the only difference between us will be that you received a quality higher education, whereas I will have received a 1984 indoctrination form of higher education. The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that you will have been the more "privileged" one in the long run.
Leo Rivera
umm excuse me ladies but can we talk about some music instead?
Camden Johnson
It's rather questionable whether my education was much better than yours, as the quality of education has been compromised since the adaption of prussian schooling to higher education.
Isaac Ward
>It's rather questionable whether my pre-social justice era education was much better than yours I believe this is a case of being blind to your own privilege.
Robert Smith
Feminists have a place in classical music to help guide the genre toward greater progress and equality.
I take it you haven’t read any phislosophy. Because science is a real shitty meme factory
David Nguyen
Learn math, and you might start getting it, my friend. You have a head start already if you're capable of appreciating classical music, since classical is inherently mathematical. The philosophers who dismissed science all got btfo by the reality of the technological advancements of the 20th century, so I'm afraid you're about 100 years too late to making that argument.
Benjamin Rogers
stem is a meme, but so is philosophy. music is a meme. life is a meme. memes r memes. we might as well throw in the towel and cut our losses now
Wyatt Torres
Oh user
Do you really think you can derive a cause from the observation of an effect? Well then user what caused the cause?Or perhaps somehow technology is capable of escaping empirical realism? Or that induction isn’t a fallacy and deduction can not prove any thing? user. You’re a scientismic realist. A logical positivist. An empirical buffoon trapped in a nightmare.
Math proves nothing user. Because it can’t even prove itself
Ur a Gamma user. Get this. Every single thing science ever said was true turned out to be false. I hope you’re enjoying your dogmatic slumber
Julian Nguyen
Anyone here try and compose? I am thinking about trying to compose some chamber pieces or symphonic, have only really composed for solo instrument or bands/quartets
You made that post on a computer which relies on 20th and 21st century physics to function. You call the scientific view of the world a nightmare, but the true nightmare would be the disorderly world you live in where modern technology could only run on mysterious, incomprehensible forces instead of the well understood modern physics it actually utilizes. To make an analogy to music, science is Baroque while your superstitious quackery based on the debunked speculation of 19th century philosophers would be plainchant. There was never anything wrong with plainchant, but it was the product of a more primitive conception of music theory when compared to Baroque.
Wyatt Sanders
>Math proves nothing user. read Plato
Parker Robinson
yeah some guy called pollypocket or something. he's the king of this board
Christopher Allen
user. It’s politics. The technology in your hand has irreversibly altered your value system. You’re living a hollow life compared to those lived by our ancestors. We don’t know why user. We know less than nothing about anything. We don’t know what it is to know. We don’t know what gravity even is. We have huge unbelievable irreconcilable inconsistencies in all our theoretical models. We hamfast mathematical models to approximate observed phenomena. We don’t even know how muscles get stronger when you lift heavy things up and down. We don’t know what food to eat. We don’t know why gravity is gravity. We don’t know anything user. We know how to build shit that won’t fall for no reason. That’s it.
I read Parmenides. Now you go read Kant and Godel.
Zachary Wright
arrogant scientism on full display. why people hate the "i fucking love science" reddit crowd
Michael Sanders
nice spooks >You’re living a hollow life compared to those lived by our ancestors Yup, herding cows, being illiterate and dying as an old man at 35 was a much richer life than having a multimedia workstation computer at your home and access to all humanity's knowledge in an instant. >irreversibly altered your value system It sure did, see ^^^ >We know less than nothing about anything. You sound exactly like a fucking advertisement. >We have huge unbelievable irreconcilable inconsistencies in all our theoretical models They are not huge, they are quite believable and they are being reduced every year. "Theoretical models" exist not to be reconciled in the first place, it's not the purpose of theories. Quit this sensationalist crap. >We don’t know what food to eat lol, stfu already
If you really put into practice the belief that math can prove nothing you would cease to function. It is like when Nietzsche describes the concept of the leaf and how there is no platonic form of the "leaf", and yet to convey to us what he means he cannot help but use the term leaf, which implies a general concept. Why move through the world denying you have faith when you really do - you cannot prove that the ground you plan to take your next step on is not an illusion, but you take the next step anyway. I'd like to see a modern Schopenhauer recite his assertions at gunpoint!
Ryder Hughes
Socrates was executed at 70 in 400bc
Until you’ve grappled with Kant we can’t have a conversation about math
Easton Davis
You clearly have no understanding of quantum electrodynamics, and therefore how modern computers function, if you think that Feynman belongs in some kind of "bad physicists" category. Way to prove my point. >You’re living a hollow life compared to those lived by our ancestors. Our culture has declined, but our understanding of the world has become more refined. >We don’t know why user. We know less than nothing about anything. We don’t know what it is to know. An incredibly vague set of statements. Do you mean to say that you disagree with science from a standpoint of epistemology? Again, that is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold for someone living in the 19th century, but to deny the effectiveness of the epistemological approach that science takes today in spite of the technological advancements of the 20th century is unreasonable. >We don’t know what gravity even is. We have huge unbelievable irreconcilable inconsistencies in all our theoretical models. Classical physics was filled with inconsistencies as well. The inconsistencies of today will be resolved eventually, and then new questions in physics will take their place. This will continue happening over the centuries until we asymptotically approach a complete understanding of the universe. >We hamfast mathematical models to approximate observed phenomena. It has worked since the time of Galileo. Why stop now? >We don’t even know how muscles get stronger when you lift heavy things up and down. medium.com/@SandCResearch/explaining-how-hypertrophy-works-using-only-basic-principles-of-muscle-physiology-48beda5fbf1b >We don’t know anything user. We know how to build shit that won’t fall for no reason. That’s it. What an arrogant statement to make. Your ignorance of the profound nature of math and science does not reflect on mankind's knowledge as a whole.
Hudson Wood
It’s as simple As
Induction is fallacious And deduction doesn’t happen
Just read some popper or Quine dude. Is it a particle or a wave dude. You believe in incremental progress? The hexane ring was discovered in a dream dude
Adrian Wright
And in response to that laughable medium article you provided as a scientific response to how muscles get stronger. We dont know shit about cellular filaments or locomotion. Stop assuming my god it’s pointless. You either know or you don’t. “They just get bigger”
Bentley Myers
>Induction is fallacious How so? When has an object in a vacuum ever not fallen according to a quadratic function, for instance? >And deduction doesn’t happen The deduction happens when you use a theory built upon the application of inductive logic to experimental evidence to successfully predict things. >Is it a particle or a wave dude. It's an excitation of a quantum field which, while being a discrete unit like a particle, has properties befitting a wave.
Isaac Gutierrez
never heard of a category have You.
It’s modeled as a particle. And we cooked in wave like properties. Look we know!
Asher Nelson
>explain how something happens "I asked you why it happens, not how it happens." >okay, here's a deeper explanation which explains why that simpler description is the way it is. "That's still only showing how and not why." >here's the deepest explanation we have which explains why the previous explanation is the way it is. "That's still only showing how." It's at this point where a reasonable person recognizes that the anti-science advocate will never be satisfied. You could explain the phenomenon in question with science from a thousand years in the future, and the anti-science advocate would still claim that we can only know nothing since we don't know absolutely everything. It's like the epistemological version of a spoiled child having a tantrum.
Justin Miller
You've never even heard of photo-multipliers and the double slit experiment, have you? Each one respectively demonstrates the particle-like and wave-like properties of elementary particles. The latter one can even be done with a cardboard box and a flashlight in your own home.
Christopher Scott
It’s like I said how or something. It’s like the jaundiced eye sees only yellow
It’s as if the particle wave dichotomy was known from anything other than the ds ex
it’s as if knowledge exists
Adam Wood
>It’s like I said how or something. It’s like the jaundiced eye sees only yellow The "how vs why" dichotomy is the central argument behind the epistemological stance your side takes, so I addressed it when you attacked the epistemological validity of science. >It’s as if the particle wave dichotomy was known from anything other than the ds ex If you mean to imply that the double slit experiment is the only piece of evidence supporting the assertion that subatomic particles have wave-like properties, then I must inform you that your computer is proof that you're wrong. The design of computers revolves around the transistors, and the only reason for why transistors aren't being miniaturized at the rate they were in the past is because the electrons begin to undergo quantum tunneling at those scales. Quantum tunneling is a direct result of the wave-like properties of electrons.
Dominic Morgan
Just delete the thread and start over ffs
Ethan Sanders
Start with Haydn and Beethoven first, buddy
Mason Peterson
MUH KEK SJW FEMINAZIS AM I RITE FELLOW R*DDITORS
Jacob Rivera
Jesus fucking christ are you baiting because you're a stereotypical scientism faggot AND an epic MUH FEMINAZIS MUH 1984 MUH ORWELLIAN MUH COLLEGE BAD youtube cringe compilation SJWS OWNED watcher at the same time holy shit how can one man be such a fucking caricature at the same time fucking an hero now you colossal fucking philistine shit
equality has nothing to do with arts, and if yes it's a degrading function
Jonathan Thompson
Some of us compose. The first piece is pretty bad user, read Schoenberg's "Fundamentals of Musical Composition". The second track implies you should be focusing on jazz rather than classical.
Carter Wright
nobody likes Ni**ers
Levi Ward
>Socrates he was a philosopher amongst educated city dwellers of Athens, i.e. 1/1000000 of the mankind at that time
it's quite true, because there's void in your skull
Nicholas Gray
Your efforts are pretty pointless in trying to make me mad or something and to continue this thread is also pointless since there is one far better. So goodbye fags
Benjamin Gutierrez
HAHAHA i totally forgot hitler killed himself HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
William Peterson
>commits suicide metaphysically
Tyler Hernandez
Bye, loser. An hero ASAP.
Like a true Nazi icon; a loser detached from reality, violent murdering psychopath, meth addicted and godless. Hopefully this colossal faggot does the same sooner rather than later.
i thought fascists like being strong, not running away and trying to get a hit off when no ones looking
Jackson Stewart
I wouldn't know. I was merely asking why that other user was so eager to wish death upon others and throwing around inappropriate homophobic slurs at the same time.
John Turner
haha shut the fuck up faggot and slink off into your corner. or you can give me your skype/discord and we can chat :)
