The mcchris show on Friday was good. I had hopes of seeing some friends there, but when you're three feet from the stage, they have to find you. People have been noticing the tattoo on my arm, which is a good thing. Hope to get all the guys out here in a couple of weeks for a giant paintball war.
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I just spent three goddamn hours at the retard rodeo of an orthopedist's office
the conclusion: oh hey looks fine, guess we didn't need to take your cast off and in the process give you a huge cut/burn. Lets just slap another cast on there, only this time, because we are a shitty clinic it won't be waterproof and because our technician has downs you won't be able to move your thumb. Also it will constrict bloodflow to your hand ever so slightly so you feel cold all the time.
I keep pussying out of confessing to a girl that I have feelings for her, with a large number of factors being involved such as (A) she kinda sorta not really at all who knows has a boyfriend (B) she rarely calls me when she's headed out after work or something and (C) over internet a few nights ago she said it would be "the girl's loss" if I got turned down when asking someone out, with some other compliments thrown in.
I have no idea what to think. One way or another, though, that information is getting out there.
I keep pussying out of confessing to a girl that I have feelings for her, with a large number of factors being involved such as (A) she kinda sorta not really at all who knows has a boyfriend (B) she rarely calls me when she's headed out after work or something and (C) over internet a few nights ago she said it would be "the girl's loss" if I got turned down when asking someone out, with some other compliments thrown in.
I have no idea what to think. One way or another, though, that information is getting out there.
man up and ask her out but don't take it too hard if you get rejected
well no, but you're basically sneering at every artwork in the last seventy years
ain't no way to get good by doing that and going "HA I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO, NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT"
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
And yeah, training's good, but spending 2.5 hours a day every day of the week talking about how hooking up an oscilloscope to a film projector, and projecting the music reflects the writing of Brecht? That's not training, that's masturbation. Sure, I use a variety of techniques to compose, and I think a shitton on what I'm writing, but when I'm thinking about it, if I have a choice between something that keeps a critical detachment from the art itself, allowing the audience to further think on the matter, or something that is good for reasons as banal as "It sounds better this way" or "I want it this way", I'm certainly not going to get anything from forcing myself to write something just so I can look more artsy.
I keep pussying out of confessing to a girl that I have feelings for her, with a large number of factors being involved such as (A) she kinda sorta not really at all who knows has a boyfriend (B) she rarely calls me when she's headed out after work or something and (C) over internet a few nights ago she said it would be "the girl's loss" if I got turned down when asking someone out, with some other compliments thrown in.
I have no idea what to think. One way or another, though, that information is getting out there.
man up and ask her out but don't take it too hard if you get rejected
seriously, go ahead and do it
Girls are hella confusing about this shit. She could really like you, but this will not stop her from turning you down because of some fucked up female reasoning.
On the other hand, she could not be interested at all but still send all these mixed signals just to fuck with your head.
well no, but you're basically sneering at every artwork in the last seventy years
ain't no way to get good by doing that and going "HA I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO, NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT"
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
i'm pretty sure you don't actually know what these terms mean
if you didn't codify the style you wouldn't really know what style an artwork was in
and i don't know what the hell you mean by stylistic writing, since all writing is stylistic
And yeah, training's good, but spending 2.5 hours a day every day of the week talking about how hooking up an oscilloscope to a film projector, and projecting the music reflects the writing of Brecht? That's not training, that's masturbation. Sure, I use a variety of techniques to compose, and I think a shitton on what I'm writing, but when I'm thinking about it, if I have a choice between something that keeps a critical detachment from the art itself, allowing the audience to further think on the matter, or something that is good for reasons as banal as "It sounds better this way" or "I want it this way", I'm certainly not going to get anything from forcing myself to write something just so I can look more artsy.
it's funny because all you're really telling your audience is that you didn't think at all about your work
it makes you look like an idiot, not keep the audience guessing
you are masturbating more than any of the teachers you are pissed with
The bachelor party I arranged for my friend ended in a fist fight between two people, and some tard flew through a stop sign in front of me this morning before work, nearly making me a hood ornament. It hasn't been a very good couple of days.
as to (C), maybe she has this evil plan to make you fall for her so she can crush your hopes and dreams and make you hate and fear women forever.
Or maybe she's just being a friend and mouthing off inane babble to make you feel better about yourself.
Either of the above is possible/likely. Even with statements like, "It's the girl's loss" Women typically are still ok with rejecting you. They are evil I say, evil. But yeah you should tell her anyway.
Grapist on
♫We can both wear cowboy hats and pretend that we can speak Italian...♫
I'm on vacation right now. Doing nothing all day. Which is pretty sucky once the boredom sets in.
Ferrus on
I would like to pause for a moment, to talk about my penis.
My penis is like a toddler. A toddler—who is a perfectly normal size for his age—on a long road trip to what he thinks is Disney World. My penis is excited because he hasn’t been to Disney World in a long, long time, but remembers a time when he used to go every day. So now the penis toddler is constantly fidgeting, whining “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How about now? Now? How about... now?”
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
well no, but you're basically sneering at every artwork in the last seventy years
ain't no way to get good by doing that and going "HA I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO, NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT"
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
i'm pretty sure you don't actually know what these terms mean
if you didn't codify the style you wouldn't really know what style an artwork was in
and i don't know what the hell you mean by stylistic writing, since all writing is stylistic
I know exactly what the terms mean. If you strip away codification of the styles then yeah... you wouldn't know what style the artwork was in. And if you write without any thought of style, then you wouldn't be bound within a style.
So in my perfect world, you wouldn't have people attributing works to a specific style simply because they share some characteristics, and you wouldn't have people sacrificing certain aspects of their writing just so that they could "fit in" to a style. That's my point. The entire idea of having strictly separated styles is dumb. Why can't we just create art to fill whatever artistic purpose we want? Why do I have to say "Hey, this work is in the tintinabuli style because I wanted to evoke the sound of bells by focusing on triadic figures in the piano" instead of saying "Here, I wanted it to sound like bells". One of those implies restrictions on the music, the other gives a general feel.
And yeah, training's good, but spending 2.5 hours a day every day of the week talking about how hooking up an oscilloscope to a film projector, and projecting the music reflects the writing of Brecht? That's not training, that's masturbation. Sure, I use a variety of techniques to compose, and I think a shitton on what I'm writing, but when I'm thinking about it, if I have a choice between something that keeps a critical detachment from the art itself, allowing the audience to further think on the matter, or something that is good for reasons as banal as "It sounds better this way" or "I want it this way", I'm certainly not going to get anything from forcing myself to write something just so I can look more artsy.
it's funny because all you're really telling your audience is that you didn't think at all about your work
it makes you look like an idiot, not keep the audience guessing
you are masturbating more than any of the teachers you are pissed with
That's almost right. But I didn't say that I don't think about my work. I said that if I come to a choice between some overly-wrought justification for what I've done or something that I feel is right, I'm not going to try to look more artsy or intellectual by picking the overwrought choice, I'm going to put in what I think should be in. And I'm completely not masturbating artistically, I still have a message, I still put effort into my work, I still make very clear decisions on my works, and I still spend a shitton of time thinking about things that I do. I just don't exclusively use justifications that are purely academic in nature.
well no, but you're basically sneering at every artwork in the last seventy years
ain't no way to get good by doing that and going "HA I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO, NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT"
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
i'm pretty sure you don't actually know what these terms mean
if you didn't codify the style you wouldn't really know what style an artwork was in
and i don't know what the hell you mean by stylistic writing, since all writing is stylistic
I know exactly what the terms mean. If you strip away codification of the styles then yeah... you wouldn't know what style the artwork was in. And if you write without any thought of style, then you wouldn't be bound within a style.
So in my perfect world, you wouldn't have people attributing works to a specific style simply because they share some characteristics, and you wouldn't have people sacrificing certain aspects of their writing just so that they could "fit in" to a style. That's my point. The entire idea of having strictly separated styles is dumb. Why can't we just create art to fill whatever artistic purpose we want?
nobody sacrifices aspects of their writing to fit into a style unless they suck
the best art isn't easily classifiable, because it incorporates elements of other art so it doesnt' exactly fit
strict separations is entirely imposed by critical theory anyway, so your dumbass 'nyah i don't have a style' won't last past anybody looking at or hearing it, because then they'll go 'woot this is like that other thing i heard'
Why do I have to say "Hey, this work is in the tintinabuli style because I wanted to evoke the sound of bells by focusing on triadic figures in the piano" instead of saying "Here, I wanted it to sound like bells". One of those implies restrictions on the music, the other gives a general feel.
no, one's specific and one's too general to be useful in being criteria
you're being stupid and imposing attacks and restrictions where there are none
That's almost right. But I didn't say that I don't think about my work. I said that if I come to a choice between some overly-wrought justification for what I've done or something that I feel is right, I'm not going to try to look more artsy or intellectual by picking the overwrought choice, I'm going to put in what I think should be in. And I'm completely not masturbating artistically, I still have a message, I still put effort into my work, I still make very clear decisions on my works, and I still spend a shitton of time thinking about things that I do. I just don't exclusively use justifications that are purely academic in nature.
academic justifications are supposed to be precise and concise so that your teacher and audience knows what you mean
'hurf i did it because it sounded good' is utter shit if you're working towards a message since every aspect of the work should support the message
I've found this question extremely interesting. Being 59 years old and having been married four times, I'm currently a widower, I might be able to shed some light on this issue.
I have been dancing since my college days, and I'm still at it. Of course this wasn't vintage swing but free style or Hustle. It seems when I wasn't married, I spent my leisure time in the bars and clubs. As a consequence, over the course of a lifetime, I have probably asked thousands of women to dance.
The first question that comes to mind is why anyone would want to dance in the first place? Well the simple answer for men, is to meet women. For women, the answer is much more complicated. In fact, I don't believe most men really want to dance. I have know an awful lot of men in my life having served in the military for 25 years. I believe that most men really hate to dance, and most of them never will.
It's interesting to see women who come alone to take group dance lessons at Elegance and other studios often have a perfectly good husband at home who refuses to dance. If their mate recognized their lady's need to dance or move her body and joined her, they'd have a happier wife and likely better life together.
And this answers the second part of the question, or the very obvious need in women or their instinctual desire to move their bodies. In general, most men don't have this desire. If you go to just about any club, you'll see women dancing together. A local joint that I go to quite often, every Saturday in fact, it isn't unusual to see several women dancing alone. Sometimes I have tried to join them, and they welcome me. Occassionally, but not often, I'm told they're a solo act.
I have a lady acquaintance that I once asked why she was such a nut about dancing. She's a ballroom dancer, and she has been taking lessons for a number of years. She tells me that it is just like foreplay! I'm afraid that dancing just doesn't stir my libido! For me, dancing is a form of stress reduction and with a few drinks inside of me, I can relieve a whole lot of stress!
On a more serious note and when I was dating my third wife, the disco craze began. You know John Travolta and Saturday Nite Fever. I loved the music of that era, so we learned the 4-count Hustle. I must admit I had one Hell of a good time going to the all the Hustle Clubs that proliferated during that period.
But let's get back to who dances with whom at Elegance on a Wednesday nite and why. Except for the instruction portion, I seldom dance with anyone. However, occassionally I can find a willing victim who will submit to my total incompetence on the dance floor.
First it isn't usually a matter of snobbery; although, some of you do fit that category. In general, people congregate around people they feel comfortable with. People will seek out individuals of their own age range, and if they know each other or came as a group, they are sure to hang together. Also skill level is another important consideration, and you'll see people of similar ability hanging out together. Let's face it that people who can perform well like to be with people of similar talents. When these people dance with those who aren't as well blessed as they are, it's practically a mercy dance.
But I should speak for myself. I'm actually a very open person who is also on the quiet side. I'm certainly not shy, but I'm not terribly aggressive either. This is more due to the aging process than any character flaw. As I have gotten older, I have become more laid back and easy going prefering to be in the background than in the foreground. When I was younger, I was real Hell on wheels riding motorcycles, flying airplanes(former miltary pilot), and clubbing 24/7. I never expected to live this long. If I had known that I would, I'd have taken better care of myself. Also, unfortunately for me, I have suffered several injuries from airplane crashes, that limit my flexibility on the dance floor.
Finally, I have a few comments about older men or men in my age range. With the high divorce rate, many men of my generation find themselves in the singles world. For us, meeting women is very problematic due to less opportunities (compared to younger people), accumulated baggage, and the role confusion that occur as men and women age. I won't get into all the details except to say that the world of 21 years ago, when I got married to my fourth wife, was diametrically different than the world today. In any case, these men take up dancing as a way to meet women. Of course, some probably find enjoyment in it for the sake of doing it which is my story. In any case, the women I have met in the ballroom scene are totally enamored of the glamourous, as they see it, world of dance.
well no, but you're basically sneering at every artwork in the last seventy years
ain't no way to get good by doing that and going "HA I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO, NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT"
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
i'm pretty sure you don't actually know what these terms mean
if you didn't codify the style you wouldn't really know what style an artwork was in
and i don't know what the hell you mean by stylistic writing, since all writing is stylistic
I know exactly what the terms mean. If you strip away codification of the styles then yeah... you wouldn't know what style the artwork was in. And if you write without any thought of style, then you wouldn't be bound within a style.
So in my perfect world, you wouldn't have people attributing works to a specific style simply because they share some characteristics, and you wouldn't have people sacrificing certain aspects of their writing just so that they could "fit in" to a style. That's my point. The entire idea of having strictly separated styles is dumb. Why can't we just create art to fill whatever artistic purpose we want?
nobody sacrifices aspects of their writing to fit into a style unless they suck
the best art isn't easily classifiable, because it incorporates elements of other art so it doesnt' exactly fit
strict separations is entirely imposed by critical theory anyway, so your dumbass 'nyah i don't have a style' won't last past anybody looking at or hearing it, because then they'll go 'woot this is like that other thing i heard'
Sadly, a lot of artists do sacrifice aspects of their writing to fit into a style. I've seen a lot of composers decide to write a piece that is fitting into a specific style, and then they'll make choices to stay in that style when the piece doesn't necessarily demand staying in that style.
And you're right, the best art doesn't stay in one style. It's written either in stylistic isolation, where even if it's aware of the styles which it touches on, and is influenced by them, it's not controlled by them, or it's written with knowledge of the good aspects of each style, so picks and chooses what it's doing without being bound by a style. In other words, it's not written in any specific style. Which is good. Because trying to write within a style is bad. Which is my point.
As for people saying "Hey, this sounds like that"... that's one thing. A 90 page article in a magazine which very clearly states the components and definition of a specific style? That's when it starts getting bad.
I write trying to ignore styles. Will I fit into certain styles? Yes. Am I writing stylistically? No. I'm trying to write what's best, not what's most minimalistic.
Why do I have to say "Hey, this work is in the tintinabuli style because I wanted to evoke the sound of bells by focusing on triadic figures in the piano" instead of saying "Here, I wanted it to sound like bells". One of those implies restrictions on the music, the other gives a general feel.
no, one's specific and one's too general to be useful in being criteria
you're being stupid and imposing attacks and restrictions where there are none
Really? What if the composer who's trying to write in the tintinabuli piece should move on from the triadic motion, but has already set up very clearly what they're doing? The composer who wants it to sound like bells can go where the piece needs to go.
That's almost right. But I didn't say that I don't think about my work. I said that if I come to a choice between some overly-wrought justification for what I've done or something that I feel is right, I'm not going to try to look more artsy or intellectual by picking the overwrought choice, I'm going to put in what I think should be in. And I'm completely not masturbating artistically, I still have a message, I still put effort into my work, I still make very clear decisions on my works, and I still spend a shitton of time thinking about things that I do. I just don't exclusively use justifications that are purely academic in nature.
academic justifications are supposed to be precise and concise so that your teacher knows what you mean
'hurf i did it because it sounded good' is utter shit if you're working towards a message since every aspect of the work should support the message
otherwise it's fluff
and sucks
much like you
(the one who sucks)
It's not Engineering, or Physics... it's art. Sometimes the best justification is "I wanted it to be like this". Whatever else art contains, it's still a personal expression, and sometimes that takes precedence over logical thought. If I think about it, I'm sure I could come up with an explanation that would look nice and explain why it's moving towards something, but what's the point? It's there because I want it there.
It's not Engineering, or Physics... it's art. Sometimes the best justification is "I wanted it to be like this". Whatever else art contains, it's still a personal expression, and sometimes that takes precedence over logical thought. If I think about it, I'm sure I could come up with an explanation that would look nice and explain why it's moving towards something, but what's the point? It's there because I want it there.
This is why (critical) art history and cultural studies and such are important. Artists are usually dumb as hell and have no idea what they're doing. Hell, most of the time when the artist tries to explain what's going on in his own work, he's wrong. But the work usually ends up being interesting anyhow, at least through a certain interpretive lens.
Posts
Thanks in advance.
KHAVALL SUCKS
I just wish I would've found out differently
depends on the kinds of pretty things you want to make
D :
I'm so sorry, I can't stop crying I need to go lie down
the conclusion: oh hey looks fine, guess we didn't need to take your cast off and in the process give you a huge cut/burn. Lets just slap another cast on there, only this time, because we are a shitty clinic it won't be waterproof and because our technician has downs you won't be able to move your thumb. Also it will constrict bloodflow to your hand ever so slightly so you feel cold all the time.
Oh good.
I was afraid the answer was that pretty things don't make a statement, unless they're being ironic, which is cliché now.
I've been burnt before.
if you're just making it to look nice, well, it's not really art because you're not making a statement
but if you're making a pretty thing to make a statement, then it's art
even that definition is really nebulous because art is really subjective
I have no idea what to think. One way or another, though, that information is getting out there.
man up and ask her out but don't take it too hard if you get rejected
I'm not sneering at the art, I like a lot of the art that happens to be often attributed to the styles. I just think the codification of the styles and the academic institution of stylistic writing is horribly dumb. Hell, the only reason I put myself in any stylistic range is to insult academic postmodernists.
And yeah, training's good, but spending 2.5 hours a day every day of the week talking about how hooking up an oscilloscope to a film projector, and projecting the music reflects the writing of Brecht? That's not training, that's masturbation. Sure, I use a variety of techniques to compose, and I think a shitton on what I'm writing, but when I'm thinking about it, if I have a choice between something that keeps a critical detachment from the art itself, allowing the audience to further think on the matter, or something that is good for reasons as banal as "It sounds better this way" or "I want it this way", I'm certainly not going to get anything from forcing myself to write something just so I can look more artsy.
Or maybe she's just being a friend and mouthing off inane babble to make you feel better about yourself.
seriously, go ahead and do it
Girls are hella confusing about this shit. She could really like you, but this will not stop her from turning you down because of some fucked up female reasoning.
On the other hand, she could not be interested at all but still send all these mixed signals just to fuck with your head.
i'm pretty sure you don't actually know what these terms mean
if you didn't codify the style you wouldn't really know what style an artwork was in
and i don't know what the hell you mean by stylistic writing, since all writing is stylistic
it's funny because all you're really telling your audience is that you didn't think at all about your work
it makes you look like an idiot, not keep the audience guessing
you are masturbating more than any of the teachers you are pissed with
'hurf durf it sounded better this way'
'f'
Either of the above is possible/likely. Even with statements like, "It's the girl's loss" Women typically are still ok with rejecting you. They are evil I say, evil. But yeah you should tell her anyway.
hey
i just heard search and destroy for the first time
it's a great song
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
I know exactly what the terms mean. If you strip away codification of the styles then yeah... you wouldn't know what style the artwork was in. And if you write without any thought of style, then you wouldn't be bound within a style.
So in my perfect world, you wouldn't have people attributing works to a specific style simply because they share some characteristics, and you wouldn't have people sacrificing certain aspects of their writing just so that they could "fit in" to a style. That's my point. The entire idea of having strictly separated styles is dumb. Why can't we just create art to fill whatever artistic purpose we want? Why do I have to say "Hey, this work is in the tintinabuli style because I wanted to evoke the sound of bells by focusing on triadic figures in the piano" instead of saying "Here, I wanted it to sound like bells". One of those implies restrictions on the music, the other gives a general feel.
That's almost right. But I didn't say that I don't think about my work. I said that if I come to a choice between some overly-wrought justification for what I've done or something that I feel is right, I'm not going to try to look more artsy or intellectual by picking the overwrought choice, I'm going to put in what I think should be in. And I'm completely not masturbating artistically, I still have a message, I still put effort into my work, I still make very clear decisions on my works, and I still spend a shitton of time thinking about things that I do. I just don't exclusively use justifications that are purely academic in nature.
I see nothing wrong with this explanation, beyond the "hurf durf".
nobody sacrifices aspects of their writing to fit into a style unless they suck
the best art isn't easily classifiable, because it incorporates elements of other art so it doesnt' exactly fit
strict separations is entirely imposed by critical theory anyway, so your dumbass 'nyah i don't have a style' won't last past anybody looking at or hearing it, because then they'll go 'woot this is like that other thing i heard'
no, one's specific and one's too general to be useful in being criteria
you're being stupid and imposing attacks and restrictions where there are none
academic justifications are supposed to be precise and concise so that your teacher and audience knows what you mean
'hurf i did it because it sounded good' is utter shit if you're working towards a message since every aspect of the work should support the message
otherwise it's fluff
and sucks
much like you
(the one who sucks)
yeah that's really your main problem
I have been dancing since my college days, and I'm still at it. Of course this wasn't vintage swing but free style or Hustle. It seems when I wasn't married, I spent my leisure time in the bars and clubs. As a consequence, over the course of a lifetime, I have probably asked thousands of women to dance.
The first question that comes to mind is why anyone would want to dance in the first place? Well the simple answer for men, is to meet women. For women, the answer is much more complicated. In fact, I don't believe most men really want to dance. I have know an awful lot of men in my life having served in the military for 25 years. I believe that most men really hate to dance, and most of them never will.
It's interesting to see women who come alone to take group dance lessons at Elegance and other studios often have a perfectly good husband at home who refuses to dance. If their mate recognized their lady's need to dance or move her body and joined her, they'd have a happier wife and likely better life together.
And this answers the second part of the question, or the very obvious need in women or their instinctual desire to move their bodies. In general, most men don't have this desire. If you go to just about any club, you'll see women dancing together. A local joint that I go to quite often, every Saturday in fact, it isn't unusual to see several women dancing alone. Sometimes I have tried to join them, and they welcome me. Occassionally, but not often, I'm told they're a solo act.
I have a lady acquaintance that I once asked why she was such a nut about dancing. She's a ballroom dancer, and she has been taking lessons for a number of years. She tells me that it is just like foreplay! I'm afraid that dancing just doesn't stir my libido! For me, dancing is a form of stress reduction and with a few drinks inside of me, I can relieve a whole lot of stress!
On a more serious note and when I was dating my third wife, the disco craze began. You know John Travolta and Saturday Nite Fever. I loved the music of that era, so we learned the 4-count Hustle. I must admit I had one Hell of a good time going to the all the Hustle Clubs that proliferated during that period.
But let's get back to who dances with whom at Elegance on a Wednesday nite and why. Except for the instruction portion, I seldom dance with anyone. However, occassionally I can find a willing victim who will submit to my total incompetence on the dance floor.
First it isn't usually a matter of snobbery; although, some of you do fit that category. In general, people congregate around people they feel comfortable with. People will seek out individuals of their own age range, and if they know each other or came as a group, they are sure to hang together. Also skill level is another important consideration, and you'll see people of similar ability hanging out together. Let's face it that people who can perform well like to be with people of similar talents. When these people dance with those who aren't as well blessed as they are, it's practically a mercy dance.
But I should speak for myself. I'm actually a very open person who is also on the quiet side. I'm certainly not shy, but I'm not terribly aggressive either. This is more due to the aging process than any character flaw. As I have gotten older, I have become more laid back and easy going prefering to be in the background than in the foreground. When I was younger, I was real Hell on wheels riding motorcycles, flying airplanes(former miltary pilot), and clubbing 24/7. I never expected to live this long. If I had known that I would, I'd have taken better care of myself. Also, unfortunately for me, I have suffered several injuries from airplane crashes, that limit my flexibility on the dance floor.
Finally, I have a few comments about older men or men in my age range. With the high divorce rate, many men of my generation find themselves in the singles world. For us, meeting women is very problematic due to less opportunities (compared to younger people), accumulated baggage, and the role confusion that occur as men and women age. I won't get into all the details except to say that the world of 21 years ago, when I got married to my fourth wife, was diametrically different than the world today. In any case, these men take up dancing as a way to meet women. Of course, some probably find enjoyment in it for the sake of doing it which is my story. In any case, the women I have met in the ballroom scene are totally enamored of the glamourous, as they see it, world of dance.
Sadly, a lot of artists do sacrifice aspects of their writing to fit into a style. I've seen a lot of composers decide to write a piece that is fitting into a specific style, and then they'll make choices to stay in that style when the piece doesn't necessarily demand staying in that style.
And you're right, the best art doesn't stay in one style. It's written either in stylistic isolation, where even if it's aware of the styles which it touches on, and is influenced by them, it's not controlled by them, or it's written with knowledge of the good aspects of each style, so picks and chooses what it's doing without being bound by a style. In other words, it's not written in any specific style. Which is good. Because trying to write within a style is bad. Which is my point.
As for people saying "Hey, this sounds like that"... that's one thing. A 90 page article in a magazine which very clearly states the components and definition of a specific style? That's when it starts getting bad.
I write trying to ignore styles. Will I fit into certain styles? Yes. Am I writing stylistically? No. I'm trying to write what's best, not what's most minimalistic.
link
now
This is why (critical) art history and cultural studies and such are important. Artists are usually dumb as hell and have no idea what they're doing. Hell, most of the time when the artist tries to explain what's going on in his own work, he's wrong. But the work usually ends up being interesting anyhow, at least through a certain interpretive lens.
No, you really don't want that.