En ce moment sur Inter, Patrick Zelnik vs Pascal Nègre

Citation : Mais n'a t'on pas un peu oublié que la destination originelle de la musique, c'est d'être jouée ?

Citation : Mais n'a t'on pas un peu oublié que la destination originelle de la musique, c'est d'être jouée ?

Hors sujet : depuis le temps, l'émission est pas terminée

Citation : Mais n'a t'on pas un peu oublié que la destination originelle de la musique, c'est d'être jouée ?

Citation : Je persiste à penser que c'est plus que discutable Ca rejoint l'avis de certains pros donné ici meme il y a quelque temps déjà: tu dois passer un examen pour etre musicien. Perso, je peux pas dire que je trouve ca génial comme solution.

Citation : Donc je disais qu'à force de diffuser en boucle de la musique yaourt bas de gamme, les gens finissent par bouffer ces yaourts et les trouver bon.

Hors sujet : çà va dracy? , moi je pense que tu vas gagner le concou rs

Citation : les rois sont LES RADIOS!!!

Citation : Si il y a tant de merde c'est qu'il en faut pour tout le monde! Dion, starnac, nolwen, çà réconforte le coeur de plein gens que vous le vouliez ou non! La musique est un don, un musicien joue au service de la musique et c'est l'auditeur le roi!
Qui pourrait davantage se permettre de critiquer tel ou tel artiste qui s'exprime à sa manière sans relever une putain de ségrégation de merde, tout çà pour dire moi je m'y connais en émotionnel artistique!

Mon cul!

Les gens qui ne supportent pas de ne pas gagner de fric avec leur musique sont des branleurs, et ne trouve pas mieux que de critiquer et jalouser l'autre voisin qui réussi.

Hors sujet : Merci Bantamo, c'est sympa ton avis au sujet du concours ! Joe Hisaishi fait des BO de films, notamment ceux de Miyazaki et Kitano. Ex celle du "Voyage de Chihiro" est très belle. Il a aussi fait des trucs moyens, mais avec le temps il devient bon. Son dernier disque "Concert à Tokyo" est excellent. C'est de la musique de film symphonique, réorchestrée pour les versions live.

Citation :
Tout le monde s'imagine aujourd'hui que la télé est regardée par "tout le monde" et que "tout ce monde" qui la regarde est convaincu, crois sans broncher à ce qu'ils y voient et y entendent. Mais c'est faux, on est tous conscient que ce n'est pas la réalité!

Citation :
The analogy between the terms "global" [2] and "universal" is misleading. Universalization has to do with human rights, liberty, culture, and democracy. By contrast, globalization is about technology, the market, tourism, and information. Globalization appears to be irreversible whereas universalization is likely to be on its way out. At least, it appears to be retreating as a value system which developed in the context of Western modernity and was unmatched by any other culture. Any culture that becomes universal loses its singularity and dies. That's what happened to all those cultures we destroyed by forcefully assimilating them. But it is also true of our own culture, despite its claim of being universally valid. The only difference is that other cultures died because of their singularity, which is a beautiful death. We are dying because we are losing our own singularity and exterminating all our values. And this is a much more ugly death.

We believe that the ideal purpose of any value is to become universal. But we do not really assess the deadly danger that such a quest presents. Far from being an uplifting move, it is instead a downward trend toward a zero degree in all values. In the Enlightenment, universalization was viewed as unlimited growth and forward progress. Today, by contrast, universalization exists by default and is expressed as a forward escape, which aims to reach the most minimally common value. This is precisely the fate of human rights, democracy, and liberty today. Their expansion is in reality their weakest expression.

Universalization is vanishing because of globalization. The globalization of exchanges puts an end to the universalization of values. This marks the triumph of a uniform thought [3] over a universal one. What is globalized is first and foremost the market, the profusion of exchanges and of all sorts of products, the perpetual flow of money. Culturally, globalization gives way to a promiscuity of signs and values, to a form of pornography in fact. Indeed, the global spread of everything and nothing through networks is pornographic. No need for sexual obscenity anymore. All you have is a global interactive copulation. And, as a result of all this, there is no longer any difference between the global and the universal. The universal has become globalized, and human rights circulate exactly like any other global product (oil or capital for example).

The passage from the universal to the global has given rise to a constant homogenization, but also to an endless fragmentation. Dislocation, not localization, has replaced centralization. Excentricism, not decentralization, has taken over where concentration once stood. Similarly, discrimination and exclusion are not just accidental consequences of globalization, but rather globalization's own logical outcomes. In fact, the presence of globalization makes us wonder whether universalization has not already been destroyed by its own critical mass. It also makes us wonder whether universality and modernity ever existed outside of some official discourses or some popular moral sentiments. For us today, the mirror of our modern universalization has been broken. But this may actually be an opportunity. In the fragments of this broken mirror, all sorts of singularities reappear. Those singularities we thought were endangered are surviving, and those we thought were lost are revived.

As universal values lose their authority and legitimacy, things become more radical. When universal beliefs were introduced as the only possible culturally mediating values, it was fairly easy for such beliefs to incorporate singularities as modes of differentiation in a universal culture that claimed to champion difference. But they cannot do it anymore because the triumphant spread of globalization has eradicated all forms of differentiation and all the universal values that used to advocate difference. In so doing, globalization has given rise to a perfectly indifferent culture. From the moment when the universal disappeared, an omnipotent global techno-structure has been left alone to dominate. But this techno-structure now has to confront new singularities that, without the presence of universalization to cradle them, are able to freely and savagely expand.

History gave universalization its chance. Today though, faced with a global order without any alternative on the one hand and with drifting insurrectionary singularities on the other, the concepts of liberty, democracy, and human rights look awful. They remain as the ghosts of universalization past. Universalization used to promote a culture characterized by the concepts of transcendence, subjectivity, conceptualization, reality, and representation. By contrast, today's virtual global culture has replaced universal concepts with screens, networks, immanence, numbers, and a space-time continuum without any depth. [4] In the universal, there was still room for a natural reference to the world, the body, or the past. There was a sort of dialectical tension or critical movement that found its materiality in historical and revolutionary violence. But the expulsion of this critical negativity opened the door to another form of violence, the violence of the global. This new violence is characterized by the supremacy of technical efficiency and positivity, total organization, integral circulation, and the equivalence of all exchanges. Additionally, the violence of the global puts an end to the social role of the intellectual (an idea tied to the Enlightenment and universalization), but also to the role of the activist whose fate used to be tied to the ideas of critical opposition and historical violence.