Big Band Rock, what happened?

lsits

Gold Member
Lots of good and valid viewpoints. Here's my take:

Rock music is, at its most basic, a simple art form. (You could probably say the same for blues). A guitarist could learn three or four chords and get a band together playing Chuck Berry numbers. Song structure is similar: I, IV IV chords. Most musicians in the past 40 years have been guitarists, bassists (a subset of guitarists), and drummers. Keyboard, brass, and reed players usually have to get extra instruction at the start, whether through the school system or through private instruction, in order to even attempt to play in even the most rudimentary band. Drums and guitars can be somewhat self-taught. Maybe not the best way to learn, but that's the way most people start out.

As bands grow in musical ability, many opt to add musicians in a song-by-song basis. If the song that's being written calls for a horn section, one gets hired. It doesn't make economic sense for a full horn section to be hired for a bar band who only needs them for two or three songs. It makes more sense for a keyboard player to replicate something close to the desired sound.

Once a certain level of earnings are achieved, more musicians can be hired. I recently saw The Eagles and there were sometimes 10 musicians on stage. Same with Fleetwood Mac and The Beach Boys. Bruce Springsteen has always had a big band behind him.
 

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
Robin,

Rock is music, as well as an ethos. An ethos that has largely been forgotten. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for me to judge at this point but I've got to say, for a guy that writes code, you're not very good at putting together a coherent set of statements.
Proof by contradiction, is just an inductive proof in disguise. Though, some people look down on proof's by contradiction as a poor form of dialogue with low information content, they serve their purpose.
 

Mediocrefunkybeat

Platinum Member
Proof by contradiction, is just an inductive proof in disguise. Though, some people look down on proof's by contradiction as a poor form of dialogue with low information content, they serve their purpose.
You should know then that there is no such thing as 'proof', except 'proof' in mathematics and the Cogito. Merely evidence.
 

tamadrm

Platinum Member
Proof by contradiction, is just an inductive proof in disguise. Though, some people look down on proof's by contradiction as a poor form of dialogue with low information content, they serve their purpose.
And,the purpose, inductive proof by contradiction serves ,is to fuel the strawman agrument,which always...proves nothing.Or possibly ...post hoc,ergo propter hoc..Either way,a false burden of proof,in any debate.

Steve B
 

Mediocrefunkybeat

Platinum Member
Its not obvious to me how you could see any thing in the real world as coherent, with that ideology.
I do. It's quite simple. I look at the reliability of observation and repeatability. I just always know that there could be something that contradicts my observation. If I see it, I make a note of it and investigate the evidential anomaly.

It really causes no practical issues whatsoever.

If you simply accept that there is an overwhelming case of evidence for a particular outcome or process, then you accept it as a quasi-fact or proof. I just know that one day, it might be contradicted.

In day-to-day reasoning, we can use Newton's law of gravitation. Since its inception, better models have been proposed and evidenced but Newton is good enough for general observation. It's not strictly correct but it's accurate enough. Now if I were trying to solve N-Body equations, that would be different - but I don't deal with those on a regular basis in my job as a mental health support worker.
 

firesgt911

Senior Member
Big band rock music sounds about as fun as a root canal. Perhaps that is why it never progressed to that point. I've played in groups of up to 6 total (Obviously not "big band"). It can add some cool elements, but seemed more tedious to me. I've played in 2-3 piece groups that were about as fun as fun gets. I know this isn't very philosophical or whatever, but it is my experience.
 

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
I do. It's quite simple. I look at the reliability of observation and repeatability. I just always know that there could be something that contradicts my observation. If I see it, I make a note of it and investigate the evidential anomaly.

It really causes no practical issues whatsoever.

If you simply accept that there is an overwhelming case of evidence for a particular outcome or process, then you accept it as a quasi-fact or proof. I just know that one day, it might be contradicted.

In day-to-day reasoning, we can use Newton's law of gravitation. Since its inception, better models have been proposed and evidenced but Newton is good enough for general observation. It's not strictly correct but it's accurate enough. Now if I were trying to solve N-Body equations, that would be different - but I don't deal with those on a regular basis in my job as a mental health support worker.
As a software engineer I try to keep my "black box" testing to a minimum, which in many ways is at odds with a scientific approach, which relies heavily on "blind tests", the problem with "blind tests" and "black box testing" is that they don't allow you to really understand what is going on in the process and fail to give any explanation for success or failure, and don't really extrapolate any better to new conditions, though they have their place.
 

Mediocrefunkybeat

Platinum Member
As a software engineer I try to keep my "black box" testing to a minimum, which in many ways is at odds with a scientific approach, which relies heavily on "blind tests", the problem with "blind tests" and "black box testing" is that they don't allow you to really understand what is going on in the process and fail to give any explanation for success or failure, and don't really extrapolate any better to new conditions, though they have their place.
...and that has got to do with 'proof' against 'overwhelming evidence' how?

My distinction is largely philosophical in nature. If you wish to discuss it on those terms, be my guest.
 

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
...and that has got to do with 'proof' against 'overwhelming evidence' how?

My distinction is largely philosophical in nature. If you wish to discuss it on those terms, be my guest.
Its like Lindley's paradox, you can generate overwhelming evidence that people have ESP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindley's_paradox

So yeah, overwhelming evidence, just means you have enough money to collect enough data to get significant results, the rest of us have to solve our problems the on the cheap, by thinking it out.
 

Mediocrefunkybeat

Platinum Member
Its like Lindley's paradox, you can generate overwhelming evidence that people have ESP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindley's_paradox

So yeah, overwhelming evidence, just means you have enough money to collect enough data to get significant results, the rest of us have to solve our problems the on the cheap, by thinking it out.
Great straw man there mate. Come back when you've at least done some basic epistemology.
 

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
Great straw man there mate. Come back when you've at least done some basic epistemology.

Well did you look at the problem with simply accepting large sample sizes IE overwhelming evidence, "A prominent illustration is Lindley’s Paradox which emerges in hypothesis tests with large sample size and exposes a salient divergence between Bayesian and frequentist inference..."

Here here is a paper about it:
http://www.laeuferpaar.de/Papers/LindleyPSA.pdf
 

Mediocrefunkybeat

Platinum Member
I never said I was referring to large sample sizes. Where did I mention that? You've interpreted 'overwhelming evidence' as meaning 'large sample size'. Two totally different things. In future, don't put words into my mouth.
 
Top