sburstall Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 What do you think the phrase "whose time has come" means? It means the conditions that call the idea into being, or that now make it "good", are present. If the conditions are not present, how can the idea be good? Your postulate bucks the rules of causation: If there's no need to be filled, then changes made in that absence are indeed willful and arbitrary.willful: deliberate, voluntary, or intentional arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported. Maybe it's a good idea to change the US Constitution so that the President has one 6-year term, but to get the change through, such a proponent has to demonstrate a need that this change addresses. An organization can propose bylaws changes to its members, but generally people are going to ask, "Why?" "Because it's a good idea" probably won't suffice as an argument. Even when explaining why it's "good", a proponent has to explain the deficiency this change will address. If there's a deficiency, it isn't a good idea to let it continue after one has identified it, is it? If there's no need to be considered, how would you convince someone an idea is good? What you're championing is truly "change for change's sake". Mike, did you ever read any of George Hopkin's proposals? They had absolutely no depth, no research, no nothing as to the reason why. There was no valid reason as to why. He had nothing but free-thought going in each proposal. So you're telling us that proposals with no valid reason except "it would sound good" or "saxes are cool" is reason enough to pass any proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Mike, did you ever read any of George Hopkin's proposals? They had absolutely no depth, no research, no nothing as to the reason why. There was no valid reason as to why. He had nothing but free-thought going in each proposal. So you're telling us that proposals with no valid reason except "it would sound good" or "saxes are cool" is reason enough to pass any proposal? I bet I could answer for him, but I won't.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 MikeD- Mozart composed within the forms of Baroque music, not Classical. Now, as for creativity...I'm waiting for someone who can make a handful of woodwinds sound exactly like, and as good as Madison's 1996 hornline. That, would be creative! As for "creating" more with less...how about a killer horn line powered by flatulance? That too, would be creative. Umm...no, no, and no. Someone already pointed out the Mozart/Classical thing, so I won't go there. And while Scouts 90's corps were incredibly entertaining, every year there were much better hornlines. No offense to Scouts honks. And flatulence-powered hornline would be innovative, that is, application of old concepts in new area, not creative, which would be something totally new. Semantics, I know. And I'm not into Baroque enough, nor familiar with enough Mozart to comment on your reply. Maybe like Beethoven? He was a classical composer who just totally took composition a different direction with and following the 3rd Symphony--right into the Romantic era. Mozart the same? Eh, probably not. Maybe Leopold Mozart was Baroque, but Wolfgang was just different. Mike, did you ever read any of George Hopkin's proposals? They had absolutely no depth, no research, no nothing as to the reason why. There was no valid reason as to why. He had nothing but free-thought going in each proposal. So you're telling us that proposals with no valid reason except "it would sound good" or "saxes are cool" is reason enough to pass any proposal? Can anyone else objectively validate this claim? I honestly haven't read any of Hop's proposals. Do they have such terminology as 'sound good' and 'cool'? Or is there more depth, or as burstall says, research, substance, etc to them? Curious to know--and be nice, please. If there's nothing more to it than that, that's kind of disappointing. If there is, well...that's another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburstall Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Can anyone else objectively validate this claim? I honestly haven't read any of Hop's proposals. Do they have such terminology as 'sound good' and 'cool'? Or is there more depth, or as burstall says, research, substance, etc to them?Curious to know--and be nice, please. If there's nothing more to it than that, that's kind of disappointing. If there is, well...that's another matter. Just look at the proposals Hopkins put out this past round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muchojackdaniels Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 good for you. Last weekend I got the flu and couldn't do jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Mike, did you ever read any of George Hopkin's proposals? They had absolutely no depth, no research, no nothing as to the reason why. There was no valid reason as to why. He had nothing but free-thought going in each proposal. So you're telling us that proposals with no valid reason except "it would sound good" or "saxes are cool" is reason enough to pass any proposal? Yes, I read them, and they are not as you describe them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDuffy Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 "sniptitty dodah"As for "creating" more with less...how about a killer horn line powered by flatulance? That too, would be creative. That would be a gas McD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.