BASS SOLOS RUINED JAZZ

Listen, I love jazz 'till the day I DIE. Jazz is fantastic, phenomenal, and the embodiment of the rebellious american spirit. The damn greatest. Until the seventies rolled around, and these doofuses started a thing called "fusion." Fusion meant electronics and electronics meant you could hear the bass. When bassists can hear themselves, they start taking solos. And that is when jazz ended. 

Bass is a fantastic instrument that i support to the ends of the world, but when they stop laying down the back beats and start taking solos, it breaks the conventions of jazz. Now, the breaking of conventions is arguably what DEFINES jazz; however, when you start defying jazz, you aren't playing jazz anymore: its something new and different. 

A bass line is called that for a reason. It is the line that a bass is meant to play. Just because the strings allow you to go high enough to solo in the generic sense, doesn't mean you SHOULD. 

Sure you can throw your children out of car windows, but does that mean you should? The bassist's job is to support. When they break away from their supportive role, the whole band falls apart. The glue between the rhythm and the melody breaks apart, and the song loses its focus and direction. 

Originally, way back when, before the bass was an instrument, orchestras just has cellos, violas, and violins. then architectural abilities grew, and the "bass" notes in the cello could no longer fill the great halls of Versailles, which prompted the creation of a bigger, better way to support an ensemble throughout space and time: the bass. 

The whole purpose is to support and help the music withstand the elements, and when bassist's heads grow too big and they feel left out of the solo game, the music falls apart and the beauty that remains is far from the jazz we know and love. 

If you want to solo, add two strings and call yourself a guitar. Your instrument confines your purpose and abilities.

We are creatures of LOGIC not EMOTION.

Does anyone even value Dale Carnegie anymore? Dale Carnegie. Google search.

Do people base their decisions off of reason or emotion? When you're buying a phone, you tend to compare the specifications of everything and that combined with the price leads you to your decision. If you're adopting a dog, well... you're adopting a dog.

Although we all feel feelings (hopefully), and are always thinking things based on our emotions, I find that when expressing these emotions or making a decision, we always tend to use logic. What will be the least offensive? What will make me sound the least stupid? What has the most pros?

Now should we be basing all of our actions on logic?

Disregarding any emergency life or death situations... I think the answer to that question comes back to the age old question: Are people inherently good or inherently bad?

The good side:
Often times, people are afraid to say how they think or how they truly feel. When someone has spinach in their teeth, no one tells them because they're not sure if that will offend them or not. If someone y'know... like likes someone, they're always scared to tell the other person in case they look like an idiot walking away alone. Everyone would be less stressed out all the time if we knew no one would have to talk shit about us behind our backs, and if they had something to say, would just come out and make fun of us to our faces!

The bad dark side.
Yes there are people that think all people just maintain high levels of self control but deep inside just imagine murdering everyone that crosses their path.  (The average person may be offended by this because maybe we aren't all secretly rapists/nazis/child pornographers/cannibals/politicians as the song suggests.. instead take it as... we are all secretly selfishly motivated and therefore bad). Inherently bad = inherently selfish. No one wants to SEEM like the bad guy... like the guys in the song. If everyone acted on their emotions, no one would help anyone, and everyone would only do what is best for themselves. Everyone would be nasty and unforgiving and there would be no such thing as a true friendship. If we all acted on emotions, we would all be sad and alone. No one is allowed to know that we are cynics.

So if I could decide for myself, if I could pick between believing in the inherent good or the inherent evil, I would tell you whether I think people should act more based on emotion or on logic.

Reason, Emotion, and the SYSTEM

When speaking about whether or not a post-secondary education should be free or not, I found that the three main ways of knowing in this debate are reason, emotion, and faith (in our society).

In terms of reason, those against a free education could say that it wouldn't function in the realms of our economy. A small hand full of people said that our economy is fine and everyone that wants to can either get an education or find a job, but the fact that people believe that could go towards one of their arguments, that the quality of a free education will be lesser than that of a paid education (on the same spectrum, they argued that the people in the private institutions will end up in a bubble and not learn about the world outside of their socioeconomic class). Those for a free post-secondary education could form a reasonable argument in that that everyone who cannot afford an education deserves a free method of attaining one if they so please, simply because the amount of money in their bank account shouldn't determine the amount of knowledge they have access to.

Regarding emotion specifically in the film we watched, when the Cooper Union announced a tuition, most of the current students were appalled in that it was going against the words the institution was founded on. Its not like they would have to pay the tuition, because they were graduating, but they still felt an emotional connection to the school and any future students of the school, and believed it wouldn't be just to go against the school's word. Coincidentally, in class, a big reason why people stood on the free education side of the classroom was because it was "right." That it is somehow morally wrong to have something considered so vital in today's society be paid. That, especially recently, all of us are being bombarded with college tuition prices and countless ways to try for a scholarship or apply for financial aid, and perhaps some part of all of us felt that people children shouldn't have to be put through that kind of pressure (as if the pressure of applying wasn't bad enough).

Although when speaking about faith, I'm pretty sure its meant in a religious beliefs kind of way, I mean it in a faith in our government/society way. Now, I'm not saying everyone has faith in the government, so in that case, a lack of faith could cause peoples' opinions to sway. Many people have faith in the "system:" they believe that so long as they go to a good college and get a degree they will get a job and pay off their debts and start their lives, or they believe that college is the only way to do so. Some people have faith in that they can be successful as long as the work hard, regardless of whether or not they have a college education. Now although these beliefs don't inherently fall under one side of the debate or the other, they do contribute. Someone who believes that college is the only way to monetary success could either believe that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education (in order to strengthen the middle class), or they could believe that the less people that attend college, the richer they (the college valuing and attending individual) could become. People who don't necessarily find college as a necessity might find that a free education is viable, because they  don't understand the value that other people see in it - they wouldn't price it, or they believe that the more people go drastically into debt to earn a sheet of paper, the more sheeple will exist out there and the more unique and revered their outlook will become.

In what ways do emotion and reason justify balance in ethics?

See: the argument that tuition at the Cooper Union should be free because of the founding principles that education should be available to all and not priced. Balance referring to the school's physical ability to balance their budget, and how their financial situation balances with their moral code.

Is Economics a Science? Or: Who Really Knows What Anything Is Anymore?

I guess the first question that goes towards "answering" the bigger one on top is: what is a science?

According to my beliefs, a science is anything that can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively and then turned into some sort of conclusion that should be able to repeat itself each time given the same conditions.

In regards to economics:

Can be measured quantitatively: Yes. Money. CREAM.

Can be measured qualitatively: I guess if you consider the livelihoods of people in regards to the economy, then yes? I'm hesitant to say there is anything specifically qualitative that doesn't result directly from the quantitative ($$$).

Conclusion: I think the idea of economics is that people are always trying to come up with some sort of definite conclusion... but they never can... which is why all those Wall Street people LOVE WU TANG.

Repeatable: I think it would be if we could have the same conditions, but that part seems extremely difficult to achieve.

So, in regards to my (questionable) parameters of what makes a science, I do think that economics is a science; however, I think it is an incomplete science that people still have not made substantial discoveries in for it to become a commonplace science (like physics for example, where we know that if you drop something on earth, it will always fall towards the earth).

To What Extent does Emotion Clarify Knowledge in the Arts?

In my (likely heavily biased) opinion, the arts are the most emotionally driven area of knowledge. Without emotion, most of the art facets would either not exist or be meaningless (in which case, they shouldn't exist). Your knowledge of a certain painting can only go so far.

What is your knowledge of this painting? It is a painting... of trees... in a field... maybe you know Van Gogh painted it.

So, what is so valuable to you or anyone else if that is all this painting is? Its just a block with color if you remove emotion. Your emotions are the only reason this painting matters to you.

Figuratively, your emotions are what colors this piece of art. Maybe you see the red and purple on the ground and you think of a warm countryside setting and you are suddenly made more serene. To me, the piece gives me a sense of nostalgia, but I have never been there, nor do I have any logical reason to feel nostalgic (based on what I know).

When I hear "Georgia on my Mind" I am not struck with anything I know: I have no connection to Georgia, nor does that (incredible) chord progression shift my mind in any way. The emotions brought into the song are what makes me feel ANY sort of attachment to it, and is what gives the song value to me.

The only reason any painting or song or performance matters to anyone is not because of any logical value they hold, but because of the emotions they ensue.

To What Extent Does Culture Influence Perception? Or: Why do Bulgarians not Trust Doctors?

Our cultural backgrounds which foster biases greatly influence our perception. In regards to subjective things such as politics, arts, and literature, most of how we perceive the message is through our culture. On the other hand, when speaking about more concrete things such as math and past events, how we perceive them doesn't really change based on our culture, although our views about these does. For example: Bulgaria.

In Bulgaria, especially among the older generation, going to the doctor is considered a sign of emotional weakness, because one admitting that there is something wrong with them means that they cannot bear the burden of life. This is extremely detrimental to those suffering from mental illnesses. When someone has never been to a doctor in their life because it is discouraged by society, they fail to learn about the existence of many illnesses, specifically those that cannot be seen.

My uncle, a Bulgarian, would always have teeth problems, so instead of seeking out a dentist, like most of us would, he would pull the teeth out himself, at home. It's not like he had a medical background - he would repair cars for a living. Eventually, through the negligence of his own health, he died from cancer that he did not realize he had until the very late stages.

On the other hand, here in America, and many other places, people frequently seek medical attention. Whenever there is something wrong, people will go to a doctor in fear of a small annoyance leading to a fatal illness.

People around the world can agree that doctors specialize in treating illnesses; however, different cultural backgrounds can lead a person into shying away from admitting the existence of an illness, or a person being proactive in preserving their physical and mental health.

Should words have just one meaning or more than one meaning? Or: a linguistic exploration of board culture.

I'm sure most all of you are familiar with ambiguity from your English classes. Someone says "let the flow go," and you know it can either mean to let the flow be free and do its own flow thing or to forget about the flow and stop trying to control this- then you understand from the two meanings that the only way to let the flow be free and do the flow thing is if you stop worrying about it.

Straying away from anything more English class-ey, let's explore everyone's favorite word:

Gnarly 

When you hear "gnarly" you probably get some IMAGES of California surfer dudes with blonde hair transferred into your BRAIN (but obviously if we don't see the same pictures, I've got you with  some gnarly videos). "Gnarly" (in culture) generally has two definitions.

1) Something gross/gnarled/repulsive

2) Something impressive/incredible/ground-breaking

If "gnarly" had only one meaning, where would all the fun be in life? You wouldn't know if I was talking about bot flies coming out of peoples eyes or Danny Davis using all his money to shift snow around and invite the greatest (living) snowboarders to give their chops a go. Think of the adrenaline rush!

So besides making your life more confusing/annoying/difficult to use Google Translate/whatever, words having two meanings makes the world more exciting. Obviously "gnarly" is a very shallow example, but if you go into poetry, the double meanings of words don't make it more confusing, but add twice as much imagery to half the character count. It makes language an inconvenience on a surface level, but the ambiguity is what changes it from a grammatical formula to a form of artistic expression.

Are there reasons to be skeptical of your knowledge claims? Or: an exploration of musical emotion through the icon of your elementary school general music class.

Of course... Unless you think you are absolutely positive that you really know everything you know. Even the things that everybody knows, maybe none of it is true because everything we learned is a human construct... like numbers and math and emotions. There's a bunch of vague words that sound like they are only coincidentally insightful (because if you're vague enough, you can sound like you know anything). For example, from a musical standpoint (because it's the only thing I think I can form a decent example out of in the middle of the night), its "known" that major chords/arpeggios/scales/pieces are happy, and minor chords/arpeggios/scales/pieces are sad. Maybe light and dark would be better phrasing than happy and sad - although "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" is a "dark" piece because it is in a minor key, many people are made happy by listening to minor, darker songs. For most people, the chords in a piece like "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor", reflect images of... that one Disney Halloween movie, while the chords and melodies in a piece like "Carnival of the Animals" seem cheerful, light, and carefree. Is the knowledge of the mood of a piece really something we can know, or have the connotations of major-happy, minor-sad, been implanted into us since we were children watching Fantasia 2000 three times every year in elementary general music class? Often times, when we listen to music, that music has words, so through that many of us begin to associate a different tone of words with different musical modes, but when we remove words from music (See Fantasia examples above! Elementary school music has prepared you for this moment!), those emotions still remain. We have been told and (I dare say, most of us) believe, that the majorness/minorness of a song is representative of its happiness/sadness, but do we believe that this knowledge is something that is fundamentally implanted in the human brain, or is this knowledge we have been trained to believe and have acquired through the knowledge of a language? Are sad songs actually... sad?

Questions?

Do you think that if people could prove plant emotion that there would be less vegetarians/vegans in the world because somehow taking the life of an animal would be just as bad as taking that of a plant?

We already have legislation in place protecting certain animals and plants. If plants could be proven to have feelings, how do you believe society will change, if at all?

Staring directly as the sun, physically, is a disadvantage to people. Metaphorically speaking, name a situation where "staring at the sun" is harmful.