The onion must be really annoyed that such a great story was ripped from their grasp. In saying that this is so unbelievably dumb. Honestly is a wonder people who think this stuff up have any...
The onion must be really annoyed that such a great story was ripped from their grasp.
In saying that this is so unbelievably dumb. Honestly is a wonder people who think this stuff up have any power at all. Like how do they function on a daily basis.
I've come to think that stuff like this is probably designed to be a distraction from stuff that actually matters. It's so unbelievably nonsensical no matter how prude you are.
I've come to think that stuff like this is probably designed to be a distraction from stuff that actually matters. It's so unbelievably nonsensical no matter how prude you are.
Asking the impossible of subjects is a well-worn strategy for authoritarians. It doesn't matter that the rules are ridiculous or impractical; what matters is that people be seen trying to abide by...
Asking the impossible of subjects is a well-worn strategy for authoritarians. It doesn't matter that the rules are ridiculous or impractical; what matters is that people be seen trying to abide by them. It's gaslighting on a societal scale.
No, I think gaslighting works here. If enough people go along with the impossible demand, a person will begin to wonder if he's the only one who sees the bullshit. It's a way of isolating people...
No, I think gaslighting works here. If enough people go along with the impossible demand, a person will begin to wonder if he's the only one who sees the bullshit. It's a way of isolating people in crowds, cutting them off from communicating with each other and potentially cooperating to overthrow you.
Acting like gaslighting is a formally defined term instead of a loose metaphorical nod to a particular plot point of an old movie is a form of gaslighting.
Acting like gaslighting is a formally defined term instead of a loose metaphorical nod to a particular plot point of an old movie is a form of gaslighting.
You can find a definition in every major dictionary and it has been documented and in psychology and sociology journal articles for years now. A brief glance through examples shows that they all...
You can find a definition in every major dictionary and it has been documented and in psychology and sociology journal articles for years now. A brief glance through examples shows that they all agree on the definition, even if it's not a terminologically precise concept.
Promonk’s usage is entirely consistent with the original etymology, within the bounds of the inherent “terminological imprecision”, as you choose to call it. “Terminological imprecision” is a form...
Promonk’s usage is entirely consistent with the original etymology, within the bounds of the inherent “terminological imprecision”, as you choose to call it.
“Terminological imprecision” is a form of informal definition in my book.
E: Practical example - you can find “jawn” in dictionaries and scholarly articles too - which is the least formally-defined word I could think of.
My specific question is about what something requires to be formally defined. If one of the two has it right, then it seems to me there must be some level of formal definition. I see there are...
My specific question is about what something requires to be formally defined. If one of the two has it right, then it seems to me there must be some level of formal definition. I see there are linguistic studies on the meaning and origins of "jawn" but those aren't the same kinds of studies as the ones regarding gaslighting, which seek to measure and analyze the concept it refers to, which requires some level of definition of what they're studying within the scientific method.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formal In a nutshell, I’m using formal in the first sense (1) listed on the link above; you’re using it in the second (2). Put another way, since...
In a nutshell, I’m using formal in the first sense (1) listed on the link above; you’re using it in the second (2).
Put another way, since “gaslighting” is used a general metaphor for “similar to that thing that happened in that movie” as opposed to a descriptor of a concrete idea, it’s not formally-defined.
As a musician... this is so vague you could ban anything. What's to say a song is 100BPM in cut time vs 200BPM common time? I suppose that's the point - to have free license to suppress any song.
As a musician... this is so vague you could ban anything. What's to say a song is 100BPM in cut time vs 200BPM common time? I suppose that's the point - to have free license to suppress any song.
Veering off topic here, but could you expand on this for someone who is definitely not a musician? Because without any deeper knowledge it feels very much like the answer is "just count the beats...
Veering off topic here, but could you expand on this for someone who is definitely not a musician? Because without any deeper knowledge it feels very much like the answer is "just count the beats and time it" and my cursory search on common time vs cut time has not helped me see what you're talking about.
Sure - mathematically they are exactly the same, but the feel of the song can change based on the "pulse", or more often it's simply easier to think of a fast song as "cut time" instead of having...
Sure - mathematically they are exactly the same, but the feel of the song can change based on the "pulse", or more often it's simply easier to think of a fast song as "cut time" instead of having to count every single beat.
Take the can can from Orpheus in the Underworld. Here's one version that's conducted in 4/4 (and the audience claps every beat). It's fast, exciting, ~160BPM. Compare that to this recording, wherein the conductor is waving his hands essentially half as often - 2/2 time - cut time, ~80BPM.
Same song, but one version is much easier on the conductor, and arguably the basic pulse of the song is in a different place. (You can even see in the 160BPM choir clapping that some of them are thinking of it as cut time - only clapping half as often as the others.)
Thank you for giving examples. I do not perceive the second to be noticably slower than the first one, definitely not at half the pulse/tempo/speed/bpm. Edit to add: if they are mathematically...
Thank you for giving examples. I do not perceive the second to be noticably slower than the first one, definitely not at half the pulse/tempo/speed/bpm.
Edit to add: if they are mathematically identical, does that not contradict your assertion that a bpm classification is vague?
Them being mathematically identical is exactly the reason bpm classification is vague. That song is both 160bpm and 80bpm. It’s also 40bpm and 320bpm, and every other multiplication and division...
Them being mathematically identical is exactly the reason bpm classification is vague. That song is both 160bpm and 80bpm. It’s also 40bpm and 320bpm, and every other multiplication and division of 2. Mathematically the song is ALL of those speeds.
That being said, there is usually one division that is most natural to the human ear and mind. Often the natural one is closer to 100bpm, but not always.
Here is a more direct explanation. I would even recommend you follow along with this yourself. Let’s say I tell you to keep a beat at 100bpm by tapping your foot or a finger. This is the temp for the songs “Stayin’ Alive” and “Another one bites the dust” for reference. Now sing a note once every beat. You are now singing at 100bpm. Now each time you sing, maintain the note for 2 beats. The beat you are keeping with your finger/foot is still at 100bpm, but you are singing at half that, 50bpm. You could maintain your notes for 4 beats, and then you would be singing at 25bpm. You could even subdivide the beat and sing 2 notes for every beat you make. Now you are singing at 200bpm.
All of these different tempos are mathematically accurate ways of describing a song that is conducted at 100bpm. The two linked videos don’t sound different because they aren’t different. To use an analogy, if you are driving on the freeway and pass 1 mile marker every minute, you are going 60mph. If you pass 2 mile markers every 2 minutes, you are still going 60mph. If you pass 4 mile markers every 4 minutes, still 60mph. In this analogy, the beat is the mile marker. There is no musical equivalent to mph because the miles (beats) in music are not a definite length, they are arbitrary.
Thank you, this is a much better explanation than I could come up with! The conductor for my community orchestra often switches between conducting in 2 or 4, even within the same section, just to...
Thank you, this is a much better explanation than I could come up with!
The conductor for my community orchestra often switches between conducting in 2 or 4, even within the same section, just to create a slightly different feel (but not a different speed). It's really quite arbitrary.
"Reportedly"--a word that often precedes lies. But I'll be damned, this seems to be true. The primary source (I think) https://www.grozny-inform.ru/news/culture/159912/ Actually people this...
"Reportedly"--a word that often precedes lies. But I'll be damned, this seems to be true.
"Today under the leadership of Musa Dadayev held an extended meeting with the heads of creative state and municipal collectives of the Chechen Republic, during which he voiced the final decision, agreed with the Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Akhmatovich Kadyrov, that from now on all musical, vocal and choreographic works must comply with the tempo of 80 to 116 beats per minute," - said in the Ministry of Culture of the Chechen Republic.
Suppression of music by authoritarian governments has always been a thing. Around WW2, the composer Shostakovich was threatened and he lost his job for writing music the state disagreed with. Less...
Suppression of music by authoritarian governments has always been a thing.
Around WW2, the composer Shostakovich was threatened and he lost his job for writing music the state disagreed with. Less fortunate composers were "disappeared".
What a ridiculous attempt to force people to behave. I hope it backfires big-time.
Alternatively, Chechnya now plays it at higher speeds? But (under a different leader) I suppose it also wouldn't be out of character for Chechnya to reject Russia
Alternatively, Chechnya now plays it at higher speeds?
But (under a different leader) I suppose it also wouldn't be out of character for Chechnya to reject Russia
Some back-of-the-napkin math tells me that the nightcore version of the Russian national anthem should be about 102 bpm, so they can just play that instead.
Some back-of-the-napkin math tells me that the nightcore version of the Russian national anthem should be about 102 bpm, so they can just play that instead.
Misplaced comment on wrong topic here dude? Banning and controlling music/information is incredibly sad. Seeing as you brought it up; philosophers and sci-fi writers have long postulated that...
Misplaced comment on wrong topic here dude? Banning and controlling music/information is incredibly sad. Seeing as you brought it up; philosophers and sci-fi writers have long postulated that music may be the only thing that makes us unique in the universe.
No, it's not misplaced. Once you grow up with things like this, you start seeing the humor in the absurdity of it all. At least certain people do. It feels better than being gloomy and sad about...
No, it's not misplaced. Once you grow up with things like this, you start seeing the humor in the absurdity of it all. At least certain people do. It feels better than being gloomy and sad about it all the time. So, yes, while it's a tragedy, it's also incredibly desperate on the side of conservatives and authories, and really funny.
The onion must be really annoyed that such a great story was ripped from their grasp.
In saying that this is so unbelievably dumb. Honestly is a wonder people who think this stuff up have any power at all. Like how do they function on a daily basis.
I've come to think that stuff like this is probably designed to be a distraction from stuff that actually matters. It's so unbelievably nonsensical no matter how prude you are.
Asking the impossible of subjects is a well-worn strategy for authoritarians. It doesn't matter that the rules are ridiculous or impractical; what matters is that people be seen trying to abide by them. It's gaslighting on a societal scale.
No, I think gaslighting works here. If enough people go along with the impossible demand, a person will begin to wonder if he's the only one who sees the bullshit. It's a way of isolating people in crowds, cutting them off from communicating with each other and potentially cooperating to overthrow you.
Acting like gaslighting is a formally defined term instead of a loose metaphorical nod to a particular plot point of an old movie is a form of gaslighting.
You can find a definition in every major dictionary and it has been documented and in psychology and sociology journal articles for years now. A brief glance through examples shows that they all agree on the definition, even if it's not a terminologically precise concept.
What else does it need to be formally defined?
Promonk’s usage is entirely consistent with the original etymology, within the bounds of the inherent “terminological imprecision”, as you choose to call it.
“Terminological imprecision” is a form of informal definition in my book.
E: Practical example - you can find “jawn” in dictionaries and scholarly articles too - which is the least formally-defined word I could think of.
My specific question is about what something requires to be formally defined. If one of the two has it right, then it seems to me there must be some level of formal definition. I see there are linguistic studies on the meaning and origins of "jawn" but those aren't the same kinds of studies as the ones regarding gaslighting, which seek to measure and analyze the concept it refers to, which requires some level of definition of what they're studying within the scientific method.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formal
In a nutshell, I’m using formal in the first sense (1) listed on the link above; you’re using it in the second (2).
Put another way, since “gaslighting” is used a general metaphor for “similar to that thing that happened in that movie” as opposed to a descriptor of a concrete idea, it’s not formally-defined.
As a musician... this is so vague you could ban anything. What's to say a song is 100BPM in cut time vs 200BPM common time? I suppose that's the point - to have free license to suppress any song.
Veering off topic here, but could you expand on this for someone who is definitely not a musician? Because without any deeper knowledge it feels very much like the answer is "just count the beats and time it" and my cursory search on common time vs cut time has not helped me see what you're talking about.
Sure - mathematically they are exactly the same, but the feel of the song can change based on the "pulse", or more often it's simply easier to think of a fast song as "cut time" instead of having to count every single beat.
Take the can can from Orpheus in the Underworld. Here's one version that's conducted in 4/4 (and the audience claps every beat). It's fast, exciting, ~160BPM. Compare that to this recording, wherein the conductor is waving his hands essentially half as often - 2/2 time - cut time, ~80BPM.
Same song, but one version is much easier on the conductor, and arguably the basic pulse of the song is in a different place. (You can even see in the 160BPM choir clapping that some of them are thinking of it as cut time - only clapping half as often as the others.)
Thank you for giving examples. I do not perceive the second to be noticably slower than the first one, definitely not at half the pulse/tempo/speed/bpm.
Edit to add: if they are mathematically identical, does that not contradict your assertion that a bpm classification is vague?
Them being mathematically identical is exactly the reason bpm classification is vague. That song is both 160bpm and 80bpm. It’s also 40bpm and 320bpm, and every other multiplication and division of 2. Mathematically the song is ALL of those speeds.
That being said, there is usually one division that is most natural to the human ear and mind. Often the natural one is closer to 100bpm, but not always.
Here is a more direct explanation. I would even recommend you follow along with this yourself. Let’s say I tell you to keep a beat at 100bpm by tapping your foot or a finger. This is the temp for the songs “Stayin’ Alive” and “Another one bites the dust” for reference. Now sing a note once every beat. You are now singing at 100bpm. Now each time you sing, maintain the note for 2 beats. The beat you are keeping with your finger/foot is still at 100bpm, but you are singing at half that, 50bpm. You could maintain your notes for 4 beats, and then you would be singing at 25bpm. You could even subdivide the beat and sing 2 notes for every beat you make. Now you are singing at 200bpm.
All of these different tempos are mathematically accurate ways of describing a song that is conducted at 100bpm. The two linked videos don’t sound different because they aren’t different. To use an analogy, if you are driving on the freeway and pass 1 mile marker every minute, you are going 60mph. If you pass 2 mile markers every 2 minutes, you are still going 60mph. If you pass 4 mile markers every 4 minutes, still 60mph. In this analogy, the beat is the mile marker. There is no musical equivalent to mph because the miles (beats) in music are not a definite length, they are arbitrary.
Thank you, this is a much better explanation than I could come up with!
The conductor for my community orchestra often switches between conducting in 2 or 4, even within the same section, just to create a slightly different feel (but not a different speed). It's really quite arbitrary.
"Reportedly"--a word that often precedes lies. But I'll be damned, this seems to be true.
The primary source (I think) https://www.grozny-inform.ru/news/culture/159912/
Actually people this insanely stupid.
Suppression of music by authoritarian governments has always been a thing.
Around WW2, the composer Shostakovich was threatened and he lost his job for writing music the state disagreed with. Less fortunate composers were "disappeared".
What a ridiculous attempt to force people to behave. I hope it backfires big-time.
The Russian national anthem should be played at 76 bpm. I guess it's banned now.
Alternatively, Chechnya now plays it at higher speeds?
But (under a different leader) I suppose it also wouldn't be out of character for Chechnya to reject Russia
Some back-of-the-napkin math tells me that the nightcore version of the Russian national anthem should be about 102 bpm, so they can just play that instead.
This is incredibly funny, and reminds me once again how universe is so random, including the human part of it.
Misplaced comment on wrong topic here dude? Banning and controlling music/information is incredibly sad. Seeing as you brought it up; philosophers and sci-fi writers have long postulated that music may be the only thing that makes us unique in the universe.
No, it's not misplaced. Once you grow up with things like this, you start seeing the humor in the absurdity of it all. At least certain people do. It feels better than being gloomy and sad about it all the time. So, yes, while it's a tragedy, it's also incredibly desperate on the side of conservatives and authories, and really funny.
Plenty of deep house and melodic techno are fine. Some bass music is in that range too. Rave music exists at every bpm!
Goldilocks will be thrilled
So, now you can't teach how to dance real slow...