That sounds like René Girard's "mimesis of desire" in which we desire the things because we observe other people desiring them.
Since learning of it I frequently ask myself how much I actually want something, versus "How much do I want this because I feel that I _should_ have it because I saw others desire it?"
Have there been any other studies that attempt to confirm this theory?
I’d be interested in a traditional suit, but with a lot of extra give for mobility and cooling engineered in for active play. Think performing on stage under heavy lights or playing sports.
Or am I woefully uninformed about suits and this is already a common option?
The suits they make for bodyguards often have hidden stretch panels for greater mobility.
In reality, the sport coat was originally designed for equestrian sports. Modern fashion has turned the sporty features into aesthetic features. A equestrian wouldn't buy a normal sport coat and someone looking for a nice jacket to wear to brunch wouldn't buy a polo jacket.
This slightly resembles what I'd buy as a sport coat but the cut is a bit different because this coat is actually intended for horseback riding whereas my sport coat is cut for general comfort.
Recently someone referred to Trump as "playing 4D chess", which in the context of our conversation felt like hand waving to absolve anyone of having to come up with a coherent explanation for Trump's policies.
It has since gone into my lexicon of thought-terminating cliches.
It's not that Trump doesn't have a coherent reason for some of his policies, but it very much felt like a dismissal of thinking along the lines of "His strategy is too advanced for us to know what games he's playing, so I don't have to explain it."
Career musician here. My dirty secret is that Coltrane doesn’t resonate with me at all. Not one iota; despite me being a huge jazz fan.
For my taste, his harmonic language tips over the threshold where it goes from being viscerally enjoyable to a more heady, academic exercise. It all feels like a blur to me. Maximal in it’s vocabulary, and yet flat in it’s overall effect. It’s often so dense that it ends up feeling “same-y” and grey to me. Like Schoenberg’s serial music.
Maybe my impression here comes from the fact that by the time I began listening to him in the mid 2000’s an entire school of derivative jazz players had long since developed upon and retroactively made his innovations feel far more common (to no fault of his own). It’s that flavor of jazz where you get the impression that the players are enjoying this way more than the audience. It’s not for me.
Also a jazz musician and I find that it depends on what time frame you're talking about. I like him a lot up to the very early 60s, and then he loses me around this point. I prefer the direction other hard bop players took at this time. Coltrane benefited greatly imo from Tyner's rock solid comping and Jones' aggressive drum work. His sax soloing got a bit too interested in dense excess, often fairly inscrutable even before he drifted into free jazz. Opinions absolutely vary on this point though. I think it still sounds good even if it's not what I reach for.
>an entire school of derivative jazz players had long since developed upon and retroactively made his innovations feel far more common
The worst of this to me is at straightahead jazz jams when sax players run out of ideas or lose the form and then just start honking lol
His Ballads album is probably one of the best albums ever made by anybody. It got dunked on by critics originally because they thought he was ditching his sheets of sound stuff from Giant Steps for more commercial appeal.
If you don't own it you should. Preferably the deluxe edition with his Greensleeves takes.
As far as his sheets of sound stuff, I think Sun Ship is ridiculously underrated and is a bridge between his classic quartet and Pharoah Sanders/free jazz era stuff. Really really good if you've never listened to it.
If the does nothing for you or feels like an inaccessible academic exercise, your ear must be very, very different from mine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=saN1BwlxJxA
Same. It’s a tiring exercise keeping up with what is going on in Giant Steps. I marvel at the intricacies I can’t mostly even begin to understand but it doesn’t speak to me musically the way eg Watercolors or Kind of Blue or Take Five does.
Agree. There’s a Berklee player stereotype and later Coltrane is like that. It’s all about his drive to do his thing, in his own special way, nothing to do with his audience, and only a little about the other players.
I love Coltrane - I find the complexity lyrical, like Art Tatum or Django Reinhardt in their respective disciplines - or if you throw back, Liszt, Chopin, the other bloody show-offs who could sing with an instrument. I dunno. It talks to me, but I guess at the end of the day it’s all just taste.
I'm not a saxophonist but I believe that a lot of Coltrane's rapid scale traversal approach comes from transcribing or appropriating Art Tatum pieces for the saxophone.
Oh totally - but if you listen closely to Tatum you find Rachmaninov hiding in there, occasionally a little
Chopin riff - it’s turtles all the way down.
Which era Trane are you talking about? The man went through at least 4 major shifts. I’m guessing you are talking about Giant Steps and the later avant garde years?
He did a lot of stuff too which is not dense at all and very approachable - Naima, A Love Supreme, My Favorite Things, Kind of Blue with Miles, a lot more, enjoyable, classic albums.
It's all subjective. The idea that none of these are dense is pretty bonkers to me. Some people don't find hard-bop to be approachable. Kind of Blue is really more the exception to his typical output.
> For my taste, his harmonic language tips over the threshold where it goes from being viscerally enjoyable to a more heady, academic exercise. It all feels like a blur to me. Maximal in it’s vocabulary, and yet flat in it’s overall effect. It’s often so dense that it ends up feeling “same-y” and grey to me. Like Schoenberg’s serial music.
I felt exactly like this about Coltrane for years, which I think now was a consequence of primarily being exposed to Coltrane via his work with the first great Miles Davis quintet. Coltrane's albums as band leader come a bit later in his career and he drops a lot of the Art-Tatum-translated-to-sax "sheets of sound" approach in favor of a more lyrical yet still unorthodox style. Any of the late-50s or early-60s albums with Coltrane as band leader and McCoy Tyner on piano are really very good. From my perspective Coltrane had the fire and competitiveness as well as the pop sensibility of a player like Sonny Rollins and the thoroughly studied devotion to "the new thing" of players like Eric Dolphy.
Anyway all that is to say that I heard screeds like this from Coltrane devotees for years and there is really something amazing there. The albums with Coltrane as leader are quite good and worth giving another chance if you're in the mood to listen to some good jazz recordings.
And after 10 years of this going on, they finally did something against it. Unfortunately the wrong thing. They don't show pre-screening ratings anymore, amassing the cheater ratings then to the public on the Premiere day. Pretty hard to catch them this way. They should catch and block them before.
imdb had the very same problem before, but nobody trusts imdb ratings anyway.
metacritic and rotten-tomatoes don't need cheaters en masse, they just need to pay one or two popular "influencers".
RateYourMusic has a great algorithm I think - they assign rating weights to users depending on how their rating distribution looks like, so anybody who rates everything with 5/5 would have zero weight.
Yeah. Having a model of the signal flow in your mind and being creative with the structure is half the fun of synthesizers for me. And even if you don't comprehend everything in the moment, happy accidents are a big part of the fun.
Some modular performers like Keith Fullerton Whitman have a very dynamic approach to patching. I've seen shows where he was aggressively re-patching throughout the performance and hot-swapping connections on the fly. I'm talking several patches in a minute. It wasn't subtle, either. It was a nice contrast to many performers who tend to design their system as a fixed structure and then play from there.
No shame in that. I find modulars a bit too expansive for my taste. It sounds like you'd benefit from a more traditional hardware synth where the signal flow is mostly locked down.
reply