Jazz as a medium of self expression

[Stevebol]

[mrcee]

And of course the lenders are borrowing a lot of the money that they're lending. They borrow wholesale and lend retail
like most any vendor. Obviously I suppose.

[fumblefingers]

I'm not talking literal "who's responsible?". Law of unintended consequences or whatever. It's still true that bailing out homeowners who can't repay their mortgages somewhat bails out the loan companies as well. It perpetuates business as usual. I wouldn't think that lenders are lobbying for more conservative underwriting. Again, it's not their money. Basically printing money through these loans. Seems like the loan companies would have to be "interested in the rights of the borrower".

Likewise, schools WANT tuition paid for. Wouldn't imagine they're too concerned with whose money it is. Whether they're the ones bailed out or not is kind of beside the point. I would think they have a lot more skin in the game than students do. They have vested interests in these students "getting their loans" , and I'm sure they lobby for it. I feel like you're arguing semantics.

I don't think Cuban or anyone else thinks that it's literally bailing out universities.

Cuban is smart enough to know that but went out of his way to say something else.

And regarding your reference to the Democrat driven 2008 meltdown set up by the Community Reinvestment Act - the loan companies were bailed out in some cases.

Back to this story - Sure universities want money, no one argues against that. The fact remains, the loans are to the students.

Loans given to citizens from the government - no matter where they're spent - and then forgiven, are a DIRECT bailout to those citizens on the taxpayers dime. You and Cuban keep wanting to talk about INDIRECT considerations.

[fumblefingers]

And of course the lenders are borrowing a lot of the money that they're lending. They borrow wholesale and lend retail
like most any vendor. Obviously I suppose.

yes the lenders are borrowing what they lend. they very likely won't repay either.

[Stevebol]

A real success story;



It's the American way.

[mrcee]

Pretty basic.

Debt is like fire: It's a good friend but a bad enemy.

A better way to put it would be: Debt is a good servant but a bad master.

[mrcee]

One of the heaviest statements of the 20th Century was first spoken by Milton Friedman and repeated by then US President Nixon in around 1973 (when the US started to experience nasty inflation in the wake of the Vietnam War). "We're all Keynesians now". This would be like the Pope saying "We're all Hare Krishnas now". Friedman is demonized by the left as is Keynes by the right. So when an arch economic conservative like Friedman in effect embraces Keynes this is something that needs to be contemplated. Keynes was a smart guy and was really the father of modern Democratic Socialism. His extremely influential theories were a response to the UKs great depression. He advised US president Roosevelt on the New Deal and was the star of the Breton Woods Conference. He was the one who formalized the idea of Govt spending/intervention and other stimuli to jump start an ailing economy. This created debt and is inflationary. He and Lenin both thought that the best way to destroy Capitalism was through the creation of inflation because it "debauched" the currency. His theories have been discredited over the years in some circles although most liberal economists still take their cues from him. The dreaded Stagflation (high prices AND high unemployment) is widely considered to be the first example of the failure of Keynesianism. Even during his early career his theories were criticized by his more conservative colleagues as being inflationary and creating huge debt which in the long run (like 2015 maybe!) would be a serious unpayable burden. His famous response was "In the long run we'll all be dead." OK..... seems a bit cynical. Like many others, including Marx, he could be rolling over in his grave looking at what his ideas have turned into. IMO economic stimuli is like any other stimulant and should be used very sparingly during an emergency. Like a college student drinking gallons of coffee loaded with sugar when cramming for final exams. Or a motorist doing the same in order to stay awake at 2 AM on the highway. But what we have now is the equivalent of late stage meth amphetamine addiction. So when Friedman, another smart guy, made his statement he was in effect saying "We're not going to be able to keep this dog and pony show of obsessive compulsive consumerism and the attendant Happy Campers/Voters (on an increasingly global level) without Funny Money (fiat currency)."
IMH(and somewhat jaded)O we're in eepday oodooday. Pig Latin for deep doo doo. With no comfortable easy way out.

OK. Back to the music. Where IS my Real Book?

[GuyBoden]

One of the heaviest statements of the 20th Century was first spoken by Milton Friedman and repeated by then US President Nixon in around 1973 (when the US started to experience nasty inflation in the wake of the Vietnam War). "We're all Keynesians now". This would be like the Pope saying "We're all Hare Krishnas now". Friedman is demonized by the left as is Keynes by the right. So when an arch economic conservative like Friedman in effect embraces Keynes this is something that needs to be contemplated. Keynes was a smart guy and was really the father of modern Democratic Socialism. His extremely influential theories were a response to the UKs great depression. He advised US president Roosevelt on the New Deal and was the star of the Breton Woods Conference. He was the one who formalized the idea of Govt spending/intervention and other stimuli to jump start an ailing economy. This created debt and is inflationary. He and Lenin both thought that the best way to destroy Capitalism was through the creation of inflation because it "debauched" the currency. His theories have been discredited over the years in some circles although most liberal economists still take their cues from him. The dreaded Stagflation (high prices AND high unemployment) is widely considered to be the first example of the failure of Keynesianism. Even during his early career his theories were criticized by his more conservative colleagues as being inflationary and creating huge debt which in the long run (like 2015 maybe!) would be a serious unpayable burden. His famous response was "In the long run we'll all be dead." OK..... seems a bit cynical. Like many others, including Marx, he could be rolling over in his grave looking at what his ideas have turned into. IMO economic stimuli is like any other stimulant and should be used very sparingly during an emergency. Like a college student drinking gallons of coffee loaded with sugar when cramming for final exams. Or a motorist doing the same in order to stay awake at 2 AM on the highway. But what we have now is the equivalent of late stage meth amphetamine addiction. So when Friedman, another smart guy, made his statement he was in effect saying "We're not going to be able to keep this dog and pony show of obsessive compulsive consumerism and the attendant Happy Campers/Voters (on an increasingly global level) without Funny Money (fiat currency)."
IMH(and somewhat jaded)O we're in eepday oodooday. Pig Latin for deep doo doo. With no comfortable easy way out.

OK. Back to the music. Where IS my Real Book?

Using the planet's finite resources to fulfill the "obsessive compulsive consumerism" demand we've created isn't the cleverest idea.

[jzucker]

the goal is to be unique and have your own style and yet the greatest improvisers of our time from Armstrong to Coltrane to Wes to Martino to Benson to Kreisberg to Hendrix to BB King have all spent years emulating the masters. And it's not just musicians. This is true in all art forms. Most of the greatest artists on the planet spent years emulating others. When you do this, all you are doing is learning the rules. Once you understand the rules, then you can break them.

Yes, there are a few guys who play well or draw well or sculpt well who never copied others but it's rare.

[mrcee]

the goal is to be unique and have your own style and yet the greatest improvisers of our time from Armstrong to Coltrane to Wes to Martino to Benson to Kreisberg to Hendrix to BB King have all spent years emulating the masters. And it's not just musicians. This is true in all art forms. Most of the greatest artists on the planet spent years emulating others. When you do this, all you are doing is learning the rules. Once you understand the rules, then you can break them.

Yes, there are a few guys who play well or draw well or sculpt well who never copied others but it's rare.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[screamineagle]

Interesting post! I copy anything that sounds good to me. I copy from many genres, artists and composers. I identify what sounds good to me through them. It rarely comes from my talent or lack there of except for when it needs to. Things would get really boring if all I did was attempt to tap into my own innervoice. It would be creepy, in a non interesting way. If that was the deal my improvising would a lot of the time sound as interesting as telling a story of how the transmission blew in my 1997 Honda Civic left me at the side of the road over in cow country. Cuz like that really just happened, it's almost an interesting story, but i would rather skip it.(I did not skip it, haha get it?) I would like to copy Chopin or maybe Morricone a bit more to use in my jazz improvising. Parker grabbed ideas from Stravinsky. Why should I view or approach Early 40's artists and music any differently? There is a lot of pop anchored Internet garbage pissed off because the next jazz Jesus isn't hear right now to change and innovate jazz for them so they dont have to put a tip jar on stage and so bars will give them more gigs due to the raised alcohol consumption of all these jazz Jesus fans.

This thread should be re focused in how to deal with the possibility I may have sounded like (enter name) on stage so to punish myself I locked my self in a room and hit myself HELP. OP you sound like your bored out of your mind, what is the deal? So let me get this straight, you do not transcribe other people playing next to you, so someone throws you a bone on stage and you have no idea because you didn't hear them? What's the difference? transcribing is useful and important to some as A listening tool and for others transcribing is not a useful listening tool. So if you happened to play a quote from some other artist which you probably do all the time, you wouldn't even know because you are completely denying any kind of sub contious quotation? similarly the song you sang a million times growing up and you can't even hear it in your playing. How do you transcribe heads? Do aliens stick a probe in your ass and send you back to earth with all those melodies? No you copied them from the composer. You played their melody. You transcribed them, that's not cool right?