Who's Better?

[J Larsen]

I think Hawkings deserves a Nobel because I trust the data. But I also respect the skeptics who distrust black hole data, because science needs skeptics! (I also have to say I'm not the most knowledgable person about observational black hole physics. It's more accurate of me to say that people who I know and trust who are very familiar with the data trust the data.) In addition to those who simply distrust the data, there is evidently another camp of quantum cosmologists who think that the effects described by Hawkings theory are better described by a quantum-mechanical theory. Of course then you're faced with the problem of quantum gravity, which most theorists seem to be giving up on. (Even Witten isn't working in string theory anymore. I was originally a string theory student but quickly jumped ship myself.)

You've remembered the Aspect experiment correctly. The really amazing things about that experiment are the distance over which they were able to maintain the correlations and the mechanism they came up with for randomizing the detector orientations between measurements. Oh yeah, the result was pretty impressive, too!

Edited June 18, 2003 by J Larsen

[J Larsen]

By the way, wasn't Einstein's famous quote of "God doesn't play dice" in relation to the original challange that Bell and Aspect later proved? I believe the orginal paper was known as EPR (from the names of the 3 people involved in writing it) from the mid 30's.

In a sense, yes. Einstein thought that QM was accurate but incomplete. More specifically, he recognized that quantum mechanics gave accurate statistical predictions, but he thought that there existed a set of hidden variables that were necessary to complete the theory. He thought that once these variables had been identified, you'd have a new, fully deterministic theory (i.e. no more random variables). When he said "God does not play dice", this is what he was talking about. In a separate paper, the (in)famous EPR paper, he ridiculed QM for prediciting non-local interactions between particles (i.e. a measurement on a particle in New York could conceivably affect the outcome of a measurement of a particle on the moon, where the second measurement is outside the light-cone of the first). Bell showed that Einstein couldn't have it both ways. He showed that any local hidden-variable theory is inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and he derived a set of experimentally accessable inequalities to decide the question of locality. The experiments have been repeated many times with breathtaking precision. Non-local quantum mechanics wins decisively. It is still possible (though extremely unlikely) that Einstein was right about the existance of hidden-variables, but any hidden-variable theory must admit non-locality.

That's all from me until tomorrow night. I hope this is intellegible. I'm a sleep-deprived zombie at the moment. If there's any desire for me to write this in a clearer fashion, I can try to do so tomorrow.

Sorry for derailing the thread!

[Guest Mnytime]

As I recall it there where two views on the EPR matter. The one championed by Einstein and the other by Bohr.

Bohr and Heisenberg were convinced that one could not supplement quantum theory with hidden variables. And in the early 30's, von Neumann claimed to have proved that the application of hidden variables to quantum theory was indeed impossible.

A conceptual approach to the problems of quantum measurement was provided by Bohr in the 20's. Bohr's starting point was that the results of a measurement must be expressed classically. That there must be a classical region of every experiment where physicists can set apparatus, read pointers, etc.... And since (in the absence of hidden variables) there must also be a quantum region, then there must also be a "cut" between these two regions. The position of this cut would be to a considerable extent be arbitrary. The arbitrary position of the cut implies what Bohr called wholeness.

This than led Bohr to his framework of complementarity, which the value of a particular quantity can only be discussed in the context of an apparatus for measuring that quantity being in place. Evidence obtained under different conditions cannot be comprehended within a simple picture but is complementary. But this also contradicted many of science's most cherished beliefs, such as realism.

As you pointed out Bell was to prove Einstein who he considered himself a follower of wrong.

In regards to Edward Witten and the rest I believe the big thing now is "M" Theory, which puts the 5 string theories (three superstrings and two heterotic strings) under one Super Theory called "M". So that there is an underlying theory of which all string theories are only different aspects. That now is up to 11 dimensions. With M standing for Membrane as in which every single atom and particle is inter-linked or inter-connected.

I heard something about there now being something called F Theory with 12 dimensions.

Are you now into M Theory as well or moving on to the newer and sexier F Theory?

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[JohnJ]

Wow, start reading a thread about Nascar and 20 or so posts later the thread has mutated into a discussion of quantum theory.

Recently, I actually managed to read a book on quantum physics called 'The Ghost in the Atom' edited by Paul Davis. I have to admit it was not an easy read and I would not pretend to understand all of it but it is certainly a fascinating subject.

[J Larsen]

In regards to Edward Witten and the rest I believe the big thing now is "M" Theory, which puts the 5 string theories (three superstrings and two heterotic strings) under one Super Theory called "M".  So that there is an underlying theory of which all string theories are only different aspects.  That now is up to 11 dimensions.  With M standing for Membrane as in which every single atom and particle is inter-linked or inter-connected.

I heard something about there now being something called F Theory with 12 dimensions.

Are you now into M Theory as well or moving on to the newer and sexier F Theory?

Hey Mny - I'm not working in unification at all anymore. It's a tough road to take. There is very little progress being made, the leading stars of the field are all frustrated and depressed (and nasty to be around), and there's no funding available for it anymore. I may well return to it someday, but for now I'm working in low-energy QM, looking at mesoscopic phenomina in particular (where classical and quantum physics meet). The field has a lot of advantages: there are many experiments being done, there is, relatively speaking, a lot of funding available, and there is a lot of commercial interest.

In addition to M and F theories, some ex-string people are working in large extra-dimension brane-world theories. Dvali is a big name in that field (he invented it, actually). One fascinating aspect of that field is that, in principle, experiments can be done, as these theories predict deviations from Newtonian gravity on millimeter scales. Of course, measuring deviations from Newton on scales that small is a monsterous challenge.

Witten's last couple of talks have been on particle cosmology, with only passing reference to brane theories.

Just to keep things on track, Driver A is still the superior racer.

Edited June 18, 2003 by J Larsen

[Jim Dye]

This thread gets my vote for the all-time greatest thread hijack.

Seriously, some very interesting reading here. Thanks Mnytime and J Larsen!

[Joe G]

So string theory is dead? I haven't even gotten around to reading my copy of The Elegant Universe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Driver A, Driver B... it's all relative...

Edited June 18, 2003 by Joe G

[J Larsen]

So string theory is dead? I haven't even gotten around to reading my copy of The Elegant Universe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Driver A, Driver B... it's all relative...

It's not dead in the sense that it's been proven wrong, but almost no progress has been made for several years now.

[minew]

Another version of this question (the race car driver one) has always occured to me about tennis. That is, it's quite possible to win more games in a match than your opponent and yet not win the match.

[JSngry]

In the matter of who was the better driver between the two, one could look at the facts and say that when Driver A was the winner of a race that he was the better driver, but that when he didn't win Driver B was. Considering that Driver A won 50% of his races, that means that in the other 50%, Driver B was better. A perfectly even split.

Consider also that the difference between 1st & 3rd place is much smaller than that between 2nd/3rd and, at best, 10th, and the case could easily be made that Driver B was the better driver in the races he lost than was Driver A.

Any way you look at it, an objective reading of the statistics indicates that 50% of the time, Driver B was a better driver than Driver A. Also, in the 50% of the time when he wasn't, he was a better driver than all but one or two drivers on the course, which cannot be said about Driver A under similar circumstances. I'd also think that both drivers' peers would have great respect for both. Driver B automatically reduced their odds (in retrospect, of course) of finishing in the top ten to 1-in-9, and that could not be said of Driver A. Driver B's mere presence on the track made it a tougher race 100% of the time. The same could not be said of Driver A. although Driver A's mere presence GREATLY reduced their odds of actually winning. But as some have stated, there are more ways to win the money than by winning the race. So I'd think that both Driver A and Driver B were greatly, and possibly equally, respected by their peers, albeit for totally different reasons.

Clearly, Driver A is a "champion", something that Driver B never was. But - is Driver B's talent worthy of total dismissal, or was his a talent that was every bit as special IN ITS OWN WAY as Driver A's? Even if Driver B never reached the highest heights of Driver A, did he not sustain a high level of performance that Driver A was unable to? Does "mediocre" accurately describe such a talent? Is such a designation realistic or arbitray?

Some simple questions follow from this - If appreciation (sincere appreciation, not the glancing blows of condescension) by others of one's effort and achievement is considered a reward for any worthy endeavor, and if said appreciation is witheld or otherwise denied on the grounds that one's unique accomplishments do not measure up to somebody else's, that "success" comes in one form and one form only, is the implication then that being the best you can be is an ultimately worthless pursuit if that absolute triumph never comes? If one never reaches that highest goal and is viewed by others as a "lesser" talent because of it, is taking pride in whatever one DOES accomplish merely a matter of self-delusion? If it is, why should anything less than the "win at any cost" ideology be adopted by any and everybody? And if it's NOT, then what are the implications to the specatators of the world who perhaps value the glory of the winner more than his/her actual feat? Are they responsible for both creating and sustaining a hype based on a false set of values? Is that a good thing? Is it at times possible to OVERvalue being a champion?

And then, possibly the most intriguing question of all - how many spectators would be "losers" if they applied the same standards of success to THEIR lives' endeavors as they did to the efforts of those whom they so enjoy watching compete?

Edited June 18, 2003 by JSngry

[Guest Mnytime]

In the matter of who was the better driver between the two, one could look at the facts and say that when Driver A was the winner of a race that he was the better driver, but that when he didn't win Driver B was. Considering that Driver A won 50% of his races, that means that in the other 50%, Driver B was better. An even split.

Consider also that the difference between 1st & 3rd place is much smaller than that between 2nd/3rd and, at best, 10th, and the case could easily be made that Driver B was the better driver in the races he lost than was Driver A.

Any way you look at it, an objective reading of the statistics indicates that 50% of the time, Driver B was a better driver than Driver A. Also, in the 50% of the time when he wasn't, he was a better driver than all but one or two drivers on the course, which cannot be said about Driver A under similar circumstances. I'd also think that both drivers' peers would have great respect for both. Driver B automatically reduced their odds (in retrospect, of course) of finishing in the top ten finishers to 1-in-9, and that could not be said of Driver A. Driver B's mere presence on the track made it a tougher race 100% of the time. The same could not be said of Driver A. although Driver A's mere presence GREATLY reduced their odds of actually winning. But as some have stated, there are more ways to win the money than by winning the race. So I'd think that both Driver A and Driver B were greatly respected by their peers, albeit for different reasons.

Clearly, Driver A is a "champion", something that Driver B never was. But - is Driver B's talent worthy of total dismissal, or was his a talent that was every bit as special IN ITS OWN WAY as Driver A's? Even if Driver B never reached the highest heights of Driver A, did he not sustain a high level of performance that Driver A was unable to? Does "mediocre" accurately describe such a talent?

Some simple questions follow from this -  If appreciation (sincere appreciation, not the glancing blows of condescension) by others of one's effort and achievement is considered a reward for any worthy endeavor, and if said appreciation is witheld or otherwise denied on the grounds that one's unique accomplishments do not measure up to somebody else's, that "success" comes in one form and one form only,  is the implication then that being the best you can be is an ultimately worthless pursuit if that absolute triumph never comes? If one never reaches that highest goal and is viewed by others as a "lesser" talent because of it, is taking pride in whatever one DOES accomplish merely a matter of self-delusion? If it is, why should anything less than the "win at any cost" ideology be adopted by any and everybody? And if it's NOT, then what are the implications to the specatators of the world who perhaps value the glory of the winner more than his/her actual feat? Are they responsible for both creating and sustaining a hype based on a flase set of values?

And then, possibly the most intriguing question of all - how many spectators would be "losers" if they applied the same standards of success to THEIR endeavors in life as they did to those of whom they enjoy watching compete?

I don't agree. There is a major difference between 3rd and 1st. Also, while Driver B was doing better in 50% of the races over Driver A he was still losing overall. Nobody remembers who came in 2nd forget about even talking about 3rd.

Having been on several Championship teams in 3 sports in my time it's a lot harder to get there than 3rd. Not that I know anything about 3rd. ugg The thought of 2nd bugs the hell out of me as it is without talking about 3rd.

When your trying to win you take chances that those that really don't want to win won't take. Sometimes it works and you win and sometimes you don't but at least you took the chance in trying to win. I will take that person over the easily satisfied person that is willing to come in 3rd every time.

The Bills who went to 4 Super Bowls in a row and lost are considered losers and they came in 2nd.

We are talking about someone that lost 100%. No way anyone is going to convince me that someone who loses 100% is better than someone that wins 50%.

Driver A is a winner and Driver B is the perpetual loser!!!

A winner will find a way to win he will do that little extra something, whatever it takes. While the loser will always find a way to lose and have excuses ready. He will settle for finishing or coming in 3rd Everytime. If you are not there to win why even bother!! Anything below 1st is losing!

Can anyone tell I follow the Lombardi school of thought?

John Elway was a loser after losing 3 straight Super Bowls where he came in 2nd mind you. But after being on 2 Super Bowl winning teams now he is called a winner even though his record is 2-3 in Super Bowls. Personally I think the Broncos won in spite of Elway but that's another subject.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[pryan]

Clearly, Driver A is a "champion", something that Driver B never was. But - is Driver B's talent worthy of total dismissal, or was his a talent that was every bit as special IN ITS OWN WAY as Driver A's? Even if Driver B never reached the highest heights of Driver A, did he not sustain a high level of performance that Driver A was unable to? Does "mediocre" accurately describe such a talent?

Yeah, that paragraph pretty much sums up the career of golfer Phil Mickelson. He's a special talent, for sure, having won a PGA tournament when he was still in college. Mickelson has many wins in "ordinary" Tour events, but has failed, thus far, to win a Major (ie. U.S. Open, PGA, British Open, and the Master's). He also has many second, third, fourth, etc. finishes, and has established himself as one of the world's top golfers, yet he's still criticized for not having won a Major. Mediocre is definitely not an apt word to describe Mickelson's golfing talent and ability.

[Swinging Swede]

Another version of this question (the race car driver one) has always occured to me about tennis.  That is, it's quite possible to win more games in a match than your opponent and yet not win the match.

And then we have US presidential elections, where it is possible to get half a million more votes than the nearest candidate, and still lose!

[Guest Mnytime]

To put this in terms of Jazz, Coltrane is Driver A and Mobley is Driver B. Not that I am saying Mobley is a loser. But there is a reason Coltrane is so big today and only hardcore Jazz fans know Mobley. Coltrane put in more work than anyone else around him. All he did was practice and play. He took chances and was willing to change his style over time. Most of the time it worked sometimes it didn't. Mobley while an excellent sax player but stuck to Hard Bop and didn't really push the envelope or himself. He was satisfied in the style of music he was playing, which in itself was incredible of course.

Both excellent sax players but one was very special. There is a reason the Coltrane influence is all over Jazz and Sax players and Mobley really isn't.

You could say the same for Coleman Hawkins, Pres and many others. While music is not a sport these people where still competitive even if they didn't admit it outright. Though in Beans case he wasn't hiding it.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[JSngry]

I don't agree. There is a major difference between 3rd and 1st. Also, while Driver B was doing better in 50% of the races over Driver A he was still losing overall. Nobody remembers who came in 2nd forget about even talking about 3rd.

Having been on several Championship teams in 3 sports in my time it's a lot harder to get there than 3rd. Not that I know anything about 3rd. ugg The thought of 2nd bugs the hell out of me as it is without talking about 3rd.

When your trying to win you take chances that those that really don't want to win won't take. Sometimes it works and you win and sometimes you don't but at least you took the chance in trying to win. I will take that person over the easily satisfied person that is willing to come in 3rd every time.

The Bills who went to 4 Super Bowls in a row and lost are considered losers and they came in 2nd.

We are talking about someone that lost 100%. No way anyone is going to convince me that someone who loses 100% is better than someone that wins 50%.

Well, your opinion is your own, and perfectly valid. I would agree with you up as well, at least up to a point.

But these questions remain - is a career of otherwise sustained excellence ultimately meaningless if it is not accompanied by that moment or two of shining glory? And, from whence does that shining emanate?

In other words, is the notion that there is only one form of "real" success an arbitrary one, and one that has been distorted/perverted by vainglorious means to life-defeating ends by and to society at that? Have we become so intent on celebrating one, and ONLY one, form of success that other forms, less glamourous and more personal in nature, have not just been overlooked, but have actually been devalued? Is this a good thing? Does it devalue the notion of a champion in any form to celebrate the accomplishnments of the near-champions, not in place of, but AS WELL AS, those who come close but never quite get there? And - if the notion of what makes a champion is so fragile that it cannot withstand sharing the glory, how worthy, how desireable, how correct in the deeper sense is that particular manifestation of the concept?

Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with music.... :D :D

[Guest Mnytime]

I don't agree.  There is a major difference between 3rd and 1st.  Also, while Driver B was doing better in 50% of the races over Driver A he was still losing overall.  Nobody remembers who came in 2nd forget about even talking about 3rd.

Having been on several Championship teams in 3 sports in my time it's a lot harder to get there than 3rd.  Not that I know anything about 3rd. ugg  The thought of 2nd bugs the hell out of me as it is without talking about 3rd.

When your trying to win you take chances that those that really don't want to win won't take.  Sometimes it works and you win and sometimes you don't but at least you took the chance in trying to win.  I will take that person over the easily satisfied person that is willing to come in 3rd every time.

The Bills who went to 4 Super Bowls in a row and lost are considered losers and they came in 2nd.

We are talking about someone that lost 100%.  No way anyone is going to convince me that someone who loses 100% is better than someone that wins 50%.

Well, your opinion is your own, and perfectly valid. I would agree with you up as well, at least up to a point.

But these questions remain - is a career of otherwise sustained excellence ultimately meaningless if it is not accompanied by that moment or two of shining glory? And, from whence does that shining emanate?

In other words, is the notion that there is only one form of "real" success an arbitrary one, and one that has been distorted/perverted by vainglorious means to life-defeating ends by and to society at that? Have we become so intent on celebrating one, and ONLY one, form of success that other forms, less glamourous and more personal in nature, have not just been overlooked, but have actually been devalued? Is this a good thing? Does it devalue the notion of a champion in any form to celebrate the accomplishnments of the near-champions, not in place of, but AS WELL AS, those who come close but never quite get there? And - if the notion of what makes a champion is so fragile that it cannot withstand sharing the glory, how worthy, how desireable, how correct in the deeper sense is that particular manifestation of the concept?

Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with music.... :D :D

Of course this is only my opinion nothing more. Though the majority of people (including those in this thread) are agreement with my point of view on this issue.

"But these questions remain - is a career of otherwise sustained excellence ultimately meaningless if it is not accompanied by that moment or two of shining glory?"

But to answer this question again, yes. But than I don't consider coming in 3rd to be excellence. Maybe 2nd but not 3rd. If a person is not there to come in first than don't bother showing up to compete!! IMHO Because you will always lose 100%. You have to want to win and badly to win.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[J Larsen]

Which team was the "team of the 90s" in baseball? The Braves made the playoffs every year (or did they miss once?) but only won one WS. The Yanks won three WS but had less playoff appearances. I believe the popular opinion is that the Yanks were the team of the 90s (as painful as it is for me to say it). Personally, I believe in winning big and losing big. I wouldn't want to be a perpetual also-ran.

[Guest Mnytime]

Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with music.... :D :D

I don't know about this I forgot to add. There wouldn't be cutting contests if musicians where not just as competitive.

[Guest Mnytime]

Which team was the "team of the 90s" in baseball? The Braves made the playoffs every year (or did they miss once?) but only won one WS. The Yanks won three WS but had less playoff appearances. I believe the popular opinion is that the Yanks were the team of the 90s (as painful as it is for me to say it). Personally, I believe in winning big and losing big. I wouldn't want to be a perpetual also-ran.

Bingo!!!

The Bills went to 4 Super Bowls in a row but the team of the 90's is The Boys who won 3. Just like the Braves the Bills are considered losers.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[JSngry]

Mobley while an excellent sax player but stuck to Hard Bop and didn't really push the envelope or himself. He was satisfied in the style of music he was playing, which in itself was incredible of course.

Both excellent sax players but one was very special.

Here we differ - I say that everybody has their own envelopes, and that in his world, Hank pushed his as hard as Trane did his. BREAKTHROUGH is a painful, bloody record in its best cuts - its not a Mobley record per se, so there are pieces in which he is either secondary or absent altogether - that is every bit as intense IN ITS OWN WAY as anything Trane did, and DIPPIN' is as boldly a fully personal statement as, say, CRESCENT. Again, in its own way and on its own scale. They were both very special, and if it's important to recognize that in the grand scheme of things one was more "very special" than the other, then that should not necessitate denying that the other one, though less "very special", in fact WAS "very special" to a degree that many, MANY musicians aren't.

Now, of course, Trane's envelope was much bigger than Hank's, so it could withstand a proportionally harder pushing. When it got pushed, and indeed it did, as hard as was possible for him to push it, more people couldn't help but notice. But that's not the point, not at all. THAT point will be stipulated to, and anybody who objects will be declared incompetent! THIS point is that if all one can see and appreciate is the big things, then one has a viewpoint that is really just a magnified version of one which can only see and appreciate the small things. Doesn't matter if all you have is a left eye or a right eye if all you have is one eye, dig? It takes an appreciation of the full scale to be balanced, I think, and I also think that most of us would agree that balance is a good thing, right? That's my point, and nothing more.

PS - kudos to the omnisicient Chuck Nessa for sniffing this puppy out from jumpstreet. But its not just Hank, its music as a whole. Actually even more than just music, but that's as far as I'm going with it. All this talk of "overrated" this and that lately, although definitely within the legitiamte domain of personal opinion, was beginning to too often strike me as either arrogant or clueless. Not anything in particular, mind you, just the accumulated pile of "I don't think that "$%$^" is all it's cracked up to be". After a while, it's just too much - none of us can ever get ALL of it, but a little humility, a little willingness to admit that there might be more things going on than we can grasp at the present time in terms of both scale and substance is in order. Music is bigger than ANY of us, doncha' know. Just remember that. Again, not directed at any one person or idea, honestly. Just an honest reaction to cumulative stimuli.

And btw - I am not a NASCAR fan AT ALL! But I liked the analogy anyway as a conversation starter.

[Guest Mnytime]

Now, of course, Trane's envelope was much bigger than Hank's, so it could withstand a proportionally harder pushing. When it got pushed, and indeed it did, as hard as was possible for him to push it, more people couldn't help but notice. But that's not the point, not at all. THAT point will be stipulated to, and anybody who objects will be declared incompetent! THIS point is that if all one can see and appreciate is the big things, then one has a viewpoint that is really just a magnified version of one which can only see and appreciate the small things. Doesn't matter if all you have is a left eye or a right eye if all you have is one eye, dig? It takes an appreciation of the full scale to be balanced, I think, and I also think that most of us would agree that balance is a good thing, right? That's my point, and nothing more.

But the reason Coltrane's breakthrough was greater than Mobley is because he put in all that extra effort. He took the chances as well. He was never satisfied always experimenting to see what was out there so to speak. If he were easily satisfied type that normally does not win anything he would not have been who he was. We would not be talking about him today the way we do. He would have remained some R&B guy who walked the bar if he was the easily satisfied type or he would have just stayed in Miles band as long as possible. But that was not his personality. Oh he was quite and all but underneath it all he was just as competitive as any great Champion was. Maybe he was only competing against himself but it gets the same result as in sports or everything in life.

There is a reason that people that are generally successful in sports are successful in normal life.

Actually I think you agree with me more than you think.

You have to think of everything your doing in terms of a War. Oh your not going to kill anyone but it's life and death in it's own way.

Can you tell how competitive I am? I guess you turn out this way when your father gives you The Art of War to read at 8.

Everything in my family is competition. It would drive me crazy when I would take both my brothers on in a game of basketball at the same time if they even scored a single basket. Even if they where 6 and 8 years younger than me. Since they had no chance in hell of winning keeping them from scoring a single score was my way of winning. Lots of 100-0 games. I even piled drived my younger brother into the ground to keep him from scoring. The score was 98-0 at the time.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime

[Sundog]

To put this in terms of Jazz, Coltrane is Driver A and Mobley is Driver B.

Hah, I knew it, Driver B was Mobley!

[JSngry]

Of course this is only my opinion nothing more. Though the majority of people (including those in this thread) are agreement with my point of view on this issue.

Of course, the majority is wrong (or at the least, uninspired and limite in vision) at least as often as it is right, doncha know. It's not like the majority of cavemen were bold MFs who discovered fire as a matter of consensus...

And let's not even talk about the eating of oysters! Sometimes the loon who goes solo ends up being more righter than what's already right.

(just tweakin', my friend, just tweakin' )

And on that, I gotta run. Hasta manana, y vaya con Dios.

[Guest Mnytime]

Of course this is only my opinion nothing more.  Though the majority of people (including those in this thread) are agreement with my point of view on this issue.

Of course, the majority is wrong (or at the least, uninspired and limite in vision) at least as often as it is right, doncha know. It's not like the majority of cavemen were bold MFs who discovered fire as a matter of consensus...

And let's not even talk about the eating of oysters! Sometimes the loon who goes solo ends up being more righter than what's already right.

(just tweakin', my friend, just tweakin' )

And on that, I gotta run. Hasta manana, y vaya con Dios.

No it took that one special competitive caveman that went out and "invent" fire.

[JSngry]

But the reason Coltrane's breakthrough was greater than Mobley is because he put in all that extra effort.  He took the chances as well.  He was never satisfied always experimenting to see what was out there so to speak.  If he were easily satisfied type that normally does not win anything he would not have been who he was.  We would not be talking about him today the way we do.

Actually I think you agree with me more than you think.

Dammit, I lied - can't go yet! :D

Dude - the point is not the ultimate magnitude of their respective accomplishments. It's about being able to fully appreciate each of them on their own unique terms with an appreciation un(dis?)colored by comparison to anybody else. If anybody listens to Hank with a "cool, but he's no Trane" P.O.V., then they're not getting it. No matter how much they dig it, they're not getting what it is that goes into the creation of a personal voice, REAGARDLESS of the scale.

Similarly, the person who listens to Trane and can ONLY obsess about how end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it brilliant-at-the-expense of everything else it is is not getting it either. By all accounts, Trane was the most genuinely humble man imaginable, and that's because he DID get it - that we ALL have our individual voices, and that even if a person has a limited message, if that message is somehow unique to that individual, then it is to be valued for that uniqueness, not pissed on because of its smaller magnitude. Trane was legendary for this attitude, and quite honestly, I think that THAT is what gives his music such a real human impact - that realization and pursuiance of the fundamental beauty of all of humanity, "big" and "small" alike.

People are not for defeating (except as part of the learning process. Or in family sporting events ). Challenging and bettering, yes, and by some tough ways if need be. But people are not for destroying, at least not in music. People are for building up and celebrating as they bring forth whatever amount of the divine (or whatever the PC term-du-jour is ) they have, or can find, within them, in ALL walks of life, not just in music. To marginalize or otherwise not appreciate somebody who brings forth the divine in a smaller quantity or somehow less spectacular fashion than somebody else is to VERY MUCH miss the point, and flirts with a disrespect of that which creates the music in the first place! Respecting and appreciating the small(er) doesn't mean equating it with the gargantuan, it just means appreciating it in full for what it is, and being glad that it is what it is. It also doesn't mean celebrating mediocrity, which ALSO misses the point entirely. Like I said, we all got our envelopes, and they come in all sizes. But having a smaller envelope is no excuse for not pushing it!

Touchy-feeley, ain't it? But you get my point, I hope.

Now I really DO have to run. If I get a sec tomorrow, we can talk about cutting contests and the whole matter of competition in music. It's not as simple as "win or die", not by a long shot! Although that DOES factor into it...

Edited June 18, 2003 by JSngry