I Have A Confession To Make

[Jac459]

2. The same Wikipedia article you've quoted also says "the term 'big beat' traces its roots to the Eastern Bloc in the 1960s.".

There are many underground bands that contributed on big beats arrival. It was indeed a scene. But without chemical brothers and prodigy it would never have had the breath and width it had and it's lasting impact on music.

[enroe]

Just to pick up the thread and recapitulate the train of thought, I
quote again:

We are all just spare parts stacked on shelves in some vast
warehouse, eminently disposable and mostly of little or no use.
We are left there to gather dust until we pass our use-by date
and are tossed into a bin.

From the perspective of the "big picture", from the perspective
of the universe, this is objectively true. But from the perspective
of our society, this view is subjective.

No, it is not. It's exactly the same as "American exceptionalism", it's just a concept, it's not real. It is how society controls you, not through some deep, evil conspiracy but just as a product of society itself. Like a good marketing campaign, it taps into that evolutionary anomaly in our make-up to keep us in line.
...
because I am just a cog within a pointless machine who needs to eat, we'll continue this later.

Mmmh...? What I mean by "subjective view" is that you can have
this view - but you can also have a completely opposite opinion.
The view is subjective!

We have two different points of view:

(1) The individual is completely unimportant and can be replaced
at will. He is only important to society insofar as he is supposed
to fulfil the function assigned to him. He is just a cog in a
senseless machine.

(2) The individual is extremely important, unique. He is the
source of all creativity, all thoughts and the basis of society in
general. All great ideas - social or scientific - have been thought
up by individual people. Great songs have been invented by
individual people. It is the individual, every single person, who
counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both viewpoints (1) and (2) are possible. However, the
viewpoints imply very different philosophies about humans:

Philosophy (1) includes a rationally disillusioning view of society
"as a functioning organism" - like an anthill. In it, every individual
must fulfill a function. If it does not, it is replaced.

It is a Kafka-esque view that emphasizes the subjection of the
individual to the entire apparatus: the individual must obey, fulfill
his function - otherwise sanctions will be applied. The individual
is helplessly subjected to the "leading society." He is trained by
it - educated to obey. Chained in this way, he is only allowed to
eke out an existence as long as he fulfills his function. After that,
he is disposed of.

Philosophy (2), on the other hand, emphasizes the uniqueness
and importance of the individual: Without Paul McCartney and
John Lennon, there would be no Beatles. Without Bob Dylan
and the Beatles, pop music would have taken a completely
different direction in the 70s.

Without Albert Einstein and Max Planck, we would live in a
completely different world today.

The list of examples could be extended indefinitely. But it is not
just these outstanding, well-known musicians or scientists who
changed the world. It is each and every one of us who changes
the world through our daily work in our small environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha, interesting isn't it? Everyone can have a point of view.
Most people will be stuck somewhere between (1) and (2) with
their worldview.

This raises many questions: Does (1) or (2) have to do with
where - in which country, in which family, in which financial
environment - you grew up?

Do (1) or (2) also have anything to do with how you evaluate
an AI?

[machinesworking]

We have two different points of view:

(1) The individual is completely unimportant and can be replaced
at will. He is only important to society insofar as he is supposed
to fulfil the function assigned to him. He is just a cog in a
senseless machine.

(2) The individual is extremely important, unique. He is the
source of all creativity, all thoughts and the basis of society in
general. All great ideas - social or scientific - have been thought
up by individual people. Great songs have been invented by
individual people. It is the individual, every single person, who
counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both viewpoints (1) and (2) are possible. However, the
viewpoints imply very different philosophies about humans:

Just wanted to say, this framing is way too close to rhetorical.
The framing is already biased towards one result, that free will and individuality is inherently better than any sort of collective project, or that somehow it's the individuality of the people involved that make for anything like progress.

I just personally find it too reductive to break things down this way. I don't necessarily believe in free will, but our patterns are complex enough to make it seem like it exists, and in no way is the greater society around you not immensely responsible for the decisions you make.

So to me it's not as you say at the end

This raises many questions: Does (1) or (2) have to do with
where - in which country, in which family, in which financial
environment - you grew up?

Do (1) or (2) also have anything to do with how you evaluate
an AI?

You don't have any choice to not be influenced by which country, family and financial environment you grew up in, nor the big traumatic events in your life. These literally shape people into who they are. You're not getting Einstein from a country that doesn't teach algebra. Geniuses are always walking in the knowledge of the people before them, and nurtured or destroyed by the society they live in.

Plus, Einstein and really all scientists aren't inventing things, they're using accumulated knowledge to discover new things. This also applies to art, it's almost all subtle tweaks on what came before it. I mean all of your musical choices directly stole from blues and country artists before them.

[VariKusBrainZ]

The delusional being requires an excess of words to explain why they deserve a chair at the table, meanwhile Simon Cowell has buzzed you out with a bored grin

Haha, now things are getting really interesting.

Humans have always tried to see themselves as special, their lives as important and meaningful, but that's nothing more than an effective evolutionary tactic. The people who think their lives matter will outcompete those who do not. The reality, though, is completely different.

And it gets even better:

We are all just spare parts stacked on shelves in some vast warehouse, eminently disposable and mostly of little or no use. We are left there to gather dust until we pass our use-by date and are tossed into a bin.

Here, Bones, you are of course absolutely right! Because your
assessment is completely subjective: you can consider yourself
and every single person to be absolutely unimportant and
irrelevant.

From the perspective of the "big picture", from the perspective
of the universe, this is objectively true. But from the perspective
of our society, this view is subjective. In other words, you could
just as well say the opposite: every single person is absolutely
uniquely valuable and contributes something valuable and
irreplaceable to society just by "existing". It doesn't even matter
"what" they do exactly. Just by being a thinking individual, every
single person is incredibly valuable. And they must be treated
as such.

That is, by the way, the difference between dictatorships or
failed states and Western democracies: In Western
democracies, every individual is infinitely important and unique.
That is why there are human rights and the right to asylum. In
dictatorships and also in Trump's world, the individual counts
for nothing; at best, he is "shifting mass" or even "deal mass".

But ultimately, it's like this: Everyone has to give themselves
importance and relevance. Because there can't be a social
worker or a coach behind everyone who constantly suggests:
"Ohh, you are so important and so great!" That's only true as
long as you're a child and your parents suggest this.

As an adult, you are "aware of yourself". And you either give
yourself this importance or you don't. Everyone creates their
own "self-image" in their head - and is completely free to do
so.

You, Bones, feel completely unimportant, like a stereotypical
pecking chicken among tens of thousands of chickens in tens
of thousands of cages. That is your right - and in that respect,
it is completely OK. From this perspective, the use of AI is not
an issue at all.

I - and everyone in the band and around me - see myself as
absolutely unique and infinitely valuable. And every other
person too. This perspective changes the way we deal with
ourselves - and with others. And it also changes the
assessment when using AI.

[Bunny_boy]

As to the term "big beat" - "Punk" is a term that has been around for decades and decades, and was originally homophobic, I think.
Lester Bangs began to refer to fellow travellers as "punks" in his late 60s writings and Suicide described their first gig as a "Punk mass" All of this shows that the term punk was used for music a good few years be there was any sort of punk genre.

Big beat music is from the 90s. Grebo, as well as including the poppies, also included the Wonder Stuff and Ned's Atomic Dustbin.

[Jac459]

Just to pick up the thread and recapitulate the train of thought, I
quote again:

We are all just spare parts stacked on shelves in some vast
warehouse, eminently disposable and mostly of little or no use.
We are left there to gather dust until we pass our use-by date
and are tossed into a bin.

From the perspective of the "big picture", from the perspective
of the universe, this is objectively true. But from the perspective
of our society, this view is subjective.

No, it is not. It's exactly the same as "American exceptionalism", it's just a concept, it's not real. It is how society controls you, not through some deep, evil conspiracy but just as a product of society itself. Like a good marketing campaign, it taps into that evolutionary anomaly in our make-up to keep us in line.
...
because I am just a cog within a pointless machine who needs to eat, we'll continue this later.

Mmmh...? What I mean by "subjective view" is that you can have
this view - but you can also have a completely opposite opinion.
The view is subjective!

We have two different points of view:

(1) The individual is completely unimportant and can be replaced
at will. He is only important to society insofar as he is supposed
to fulfil the function assigned to him. He is just a cog in a
senseless machine.

(2) The individual is extremely important, unique. He is the
source of all creativity, all thoughts and the basis of society in
general. All great ideas - social or scientific - have been thought
up by individual people. Great songs have been invented by
individual people. It is the individual, every single person, who
counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both viewpoints (1) and (2) are possible. However, the
viewpoints imply very different philosophies about humans:

Philosophy (1) includes a rationally disillusioning view of society
"as a functioning organism" - like an anthill. In it, every individual
must fulfill a function. If it does not, it is replaced.

It is a Kafka-esque view that emphasizes the subjection of the
individual to the entire apparatus: the individual must obey, fulfill
his function - otherwise sanctions will be applied. The individual
is helplessly subjected to the "leading society." He is trained by
it - educated to obey. Chained in this way, he is only allowed to
eke out an existence as long as he fulfills his function. After that,
he is disposed of.

Philosophy (2), on the other hand, emphasizes the uniqueness
and importance of the individual: Without Paul McCartney and
John Lennon, there would be no Beatles. Without Bob Dylan
and the Beatles, pop music would have taken a completely
different direction in the 70s.

Without Albert Einstein and Max Planck, we would live in a
completely different world today.

The list of examples could be extended indefinitely. But it is not
just these outstanding, well-known musicians or scientists who
changed the world. It is each and every one of us who changes
the world through our daily work in our small environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha, interesting isn't it? Everyone can have a point of view.
Most people will be stuck somewhere between (1) and (2) with
their worldview.

This raises many questions: Does (1) or (2) have to do with
where - in which country, in which family, in which financial
environment - you grew up?

Do (1) or (2) also have anything to do with how you evaluate
an AI?

There is an awesome book about this :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_at_Noon

In french the title is even more evocative of this discussion: "the zero and infinity".

[Jac459]

As to the term "big beat" - "Punk" is a term that has been around for decades and decades, and was originally homophobic, I think.
Lester Bangs began to refer to fellow travellers as "punks" in his late 60s writings and Suicide described their first gig as a "Punk mass" All of this shows that the term punk was used for music a good few years be there was any sort of punk genre.

Big beat music is from the 90s. Grebo, as well as including the poppies, also included the Wonder Stuff and Ned's Atomic Dustbin.

Indeed.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Apparently, If Google AI can be trusted

The word "punk" was first recorded in a ballad around 1575.

[Bunny_boy]

Apparently, If Google AI can be trusted

The word "punk" was first recorded in a ballad around 1575.

It seems to be fixed now, but when googling Sabrina Carpenter's parents (as you do), it brought back a completely different person for her mother.

[Largos]

That's right, because for the first 40 years of my songwriting career I didn't write any lyrics at all, much less win prizes for them. (I won a pair of wedge monitors for the lyrics to ARMAGEDDONready at a battle of the bands contest in 1985.) But, you know, whatever bullshit you need to believe to get through the day...

1985 battle of the bands, is that even a flex? Your original post is about you using A.I. because it takes you so long to write lyrics and you want a shortcut. I'm supposed to deduce you are a modern day Lord Byron from that?

[BONES]

Someone was suggesting I use AI because I am unable to write lyrics. I was simply pointing out that I've won f**king prizes for lyric writing.

There are many underground bands that contributed on big beats arrival. It was indeed a scene. But without chemical brothers and prodigy it would never have had the breath and width it had and it's lasting impact on music.

What lasting impact? It's not that different to a hundred other things. It's a variation on a theme, nothing more.

Both viewpoints (1) and (2) are possible. However, the viewpoints imply very different philosophies about humans:['/quote]
As soon as you bring philosophy into it, you cease to be objective. Philosophjy is meaningless, made-up shit used to justify any-f**king-thing you want to justify. It's worthless bullshit that people use to make themselves feel good about their hopelessness.

[Jac459]

What lasting impact? It's not that different to a hundred other things. It's a variation on a theme, nothing more.

Well I don't know in Australia, but in Europe both prodigy and chemical brothers have been super super successful with many many singles being number one. They made big beat genre known and successful.
Late this genre has been a source for jungle and dubstep and many other stuffs and have influenced pop music.

[enroe]

Both viewpoints (1) and (2) are possible. However, the viewpoints imply very different
philosophies about humans:

As soon as you bring philosophy into it, you cease to be objective. Philosophjy is meaningless, made-up shit used to justify any-f**king-thing you want to justify. It's worthless bullshit that people use to make themselves feel good about their hopelessness.

Hmmm, your statement here irritates me. You can't just sneak
away with that.

Because whether we use the word "philosophy" here or not is
completely irrelevant. Maybe we should use the word "mindset"
instead.

Every person - each of us, you and I, we are influenced from
childhood onwards. And by other people. In childhood it is our
parents and some friends, then mostly school. All the people
around us and all the experiences we have shape us and make
our "mindset" what it is today.

That is why "nothing" is objective! Because everything is just
ideas in our heads that arise from our "mindset".

And there are essentially - as we have seen in this thread -
2 polar diametrically opposed mindsets:

(1) The individual is completely unimportant and can be
replaced at will. He is only important to society insofar as he
is supposed to fulfil the function assigned to him. He is just a
cog in a senseless machine.

(2) The individual is extremely important, unique. He is the
source of all creativity, all thoughts and the basis of society in
general. All great ideas - social or scientific - have been
thought up by individual people. Great songs have been
invented by individual people. It is the individual, every single
person, who counts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you call them philosophies, "mindsets" or "inner
viewpoints" is completely irrelevant. But every person, really
every person, acts and thinks at a point on the scale from (1)
to (2).

And depending on where he is on the scale from (1) to (2), he
will assess things differently, he will make different decisions,
he will treat his fellow human beings differently.

And that has an impact, for example, on how he assesses AI:
Is it just a tool that has no relevance anyway, because nothing
has any relevance (Mindset 1).

Or is AI crossing a red line because it fundamentally changes
the world of music and art by creating something new as a
creative tool (Mindset 2)?

[BONES]

Well I don't know in Australia, but in Europe both prodigy and chemical brothers have been super super successful with many many singles being number one.

Not really. If you exclude Finland, The Prodigy have only had two no. 1s anywhere in the world (Firestarter and Breathe). They never made the Top 20 in the US and only ever had two singles that charted at all. Similarly, Chemical Brothers have also only had two no. 1s, both in the UK and early in their career. They had a modicum of success ion the US dance charts but the only single that cracked the main US chart only managed to get to no. 80.

Interestingly, both bands did way better in the album charts but they both had their 15 minutes before sliding into obscurity pretty quickly. To be clear, I am not knocking their success, both did very well, but it's not life-changing stuff, they just tapped a vein that paid out for a few years before the world moved on. They didn't change anything, they aren't in the same star system as the Sex Pistols, for example, who turned the whole industry on its head, which led to everything that came after it, including Big Beat, which I wasn't really aware of as an actual sub-genre until you brought it up.

Late this genre has been a source for jungle and dubstep and many other stuffs and have influenced pop music.

Not beyond the micro-managers of dance sub-genres, it hasn't. The wider world would be totally oblivious. e.g. Explain to me the difference between Grebo and Big Beat. Not by listing bands but by telling us the differences in the music. Do that as an exercise and you'll see how meaningless those distinctions are - a little bit more of this, a little bit less of that but 90% or more exactly the same. Seriously, there is more variety on one of our albums than you'd find across a dozen different dance sub-genres but it's all still well within the bounds of EBM.

Maybe we should use the word "mindset" instead.

Same difference, it means "no objectivity", either way.

Every person - each of us, you and I, we are influenced from
childhood onwards. And by other people. In childhood it is our
parents and some friends, then mostly school. All the people
around us and all the experiences we have shape us and make
our "mindset" what it is today.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends how weak-minded you are. People's opinions have to stand up to scrutiny and most are easily overturned in the face of reality. Your mindset should be shaped by all the things around you, not just other people. Not even other people, in fact. To quote a song by Machines of Loving Grace, "don't place faith in human beings, human beings are unreliable things".

That is why "nothing" is objective! Because everything is just
ideas in our heads that arise from our "mindset".

Don't be absurd. When someone puts a gun to another person's head and pulls the trigger, that's real, it exists, and your mindset can't change that fact. The Universe and everything in it is real and independent of anybody's f**king mindset. The physical laws of the Universe are immutable.
(1) The individual is completely unimportant and can be
replaced at will. He is only important to society insofar as he
is supposed to fulfil the function assigned to him. He is just a
cog in a senseless machine.
(2) The individual is extremely important, unique. He is the
source of all creativity, all thoughts and the basis of society in
general. All great ideas - social or scientific - have been
thought up by individual people. Great songs have been
invented by individual people. It is the individual, every single
person, who counts.[/quote]
Firstly, how is creativity of any consequence whatsoever? I'd suggest that practical minds are of far greater importance. The contribution of Sir Isaac Newtown is far more significant than even that of Leonardo Da Vinci.

But here's the thing, those two viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive, it is just a matter of how narrow or wide your perspective is. You choose not to see the big picture, because it clashes with your own desperate need to believe that you matter. I see it all and am able to immediately discount such a narrow perspective as self-serving and, therefore, irrelevant. Real and important to you, I'm sure, but utterly irrelevant in the scheme of things. e.g. If you were to get caught up in a terrorist attack in a shopping centre or something like that, your perspective would be utterly irrelevant in the face of the terrorist's. To him you would be eminently disposable. Killing you would be nothing more to him than one more irrelevant infidel to add to his tally, one step closer to heaven and his 40 virgins or whatever. In the face of that reality, how can you possibly cling so desperately to your own perspective? It makes no sense at all.

And that has an impact, for example, on how he assesses AI:
Is it just a tool that has no relevance anyway, because nothing has any relevance (Mindset 1). Or is AI crossing a red line because it fundamentally changes the world of music and art by creating something new as a creative tool (Mindset 2)?

No, you are not seeing it correctly. Your attitude towards AI is shaped purely on how big a threat you see it as to your own agency. Your Type 1 people are terrified it will make them irrelevant, whilst the Type 2's are able to see it for what it is - a useful tool like any other. But it's not about how they see the world, it is 100% about self-confidence and self-esteem. That's what makes it so sad.

[donkey tugger]

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."

Always one of me faves from Uncle Karl. A whole (and rather dispiriting) subsection of academic historiography exists on the role of the individual in shaping history. You lads aren't going to solve it...