@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ I SEE IT MORE AS A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM

THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE HUMAN

THUS THE ACT OF OBSERVATION LINKS OBSERVER AND OBSERVED

Have you considered that needing to find novelty is driven by the collapse of that particular medium? They try to find something unique because they came in at a point at which everything which could be said has been said, in terms of diminishing returns? Also that the intellectualizing has removed all the mystery of the genre itself and with that, anything to explore.

So you mean the vestments of science on humanist philosophy @-A?

THIS IN TURN IMPLIES IDEALISM: INTERACTION IS A RESULT OF PRESENCE/RESPONSE TO SOMETHING, NOT MATERIALITY PER SE

I object to that popular science propaganda shit too

wait dearth of skill? Dude, plenty of people who can't play for shit made good music

@diversity_is_racism yeah that's what I was saying minus idealism

@profagonist It at the very least seems to give the impression that it is more widespread that it should be. Maybe it isn't.

But I took out observation

https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/comments/5v7eg3/is_deep_ecology_a_conservative_philosophy/

@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ ALSO SKILL CAN MEAN LISTENING

SOME ARE SKILLED MUSICIANS BY OUTLOOK, NOT ACTUAL MECHANICS

THE IDEALISM IS ESSENTIAL

IF INTERACTION LINKS THINGS, THERE IS NO DECONSTRUCTION

AND

@diversity_is_racism Why does there HAVE to be an observer at all? I don't understand because it seems like it is a conclusion that is just leapt to for no reason other than to uphold the idea that obervation leads to event.

ALL OF THE UNIVERSE ACTS AS A LARGE CALCULATION

I'm still coming across good rap and electronic releases but it's easy to see that it takes more and more effort for only marginal returns.

@-A THAT IS HOW MOST UNDERSTAND IT: "OBSERVATION LEADS TO EVENT" TRANS. TO "INTENT => EVENT"

@diversity_is_racism Okay, that observation must lead to occurence?

intentionality

not really observation

Hence the perturbation

Being the clash of intentions

@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ They can at least understand what good music is. That is a skill in and of itself apparently. With the collapse of a medium because all has been said, the beauty of music is that you don't need words (such as the electronica you keep coming by, which I also like) so sure, the words have been said but has the sound been made? Maybe, maybe not. When there is this impression you want to express, it encourages creativity. Maybe it will be nothing new save for the order or how long ago it was done? Maybe it will be completely new. One's inner model leads to creativity.

I disagree that there is anything to understand about "good" music.

Since what we experience is aesthetic

I think you underestimate the degree to which your inner model is dependent upon the cultural model you were born into

Meh. Maybe. I just think theorizing leads to impression and impression leads to expression and that this could at least make for new creation. Some will be good, some will not.

It's almost always the other way around and that's as true of music as it is of broader cultural trends. They always start out more visceral, irrational and maybe a bit simplistic and end up abstract, rational, ornate.

But

The key here

Is that the second "phase" is derived from the first

Look what people did in response to death metal? They went primitive as hell with black metal

What happened in rock after prog

punk came out

Where does this visceral quality come from? One of those things that can't be known?

immediate experience

Therefore, the emotions that these experiences make? A reflection of these experiences?