ICCs grab for cash-The death of the 5 Test Series?

[silentstriker]

Do you understand music theory to be pronouncing such a judgement ?
Do you know what is and isnt a balanced piece of music, whats a decatonic or do-decatonic scale to make that pronouncement ?
Or do you consider yourself knowledgable about music simply because you listen to any number of vocally mismatched, scalarly inconsistent and tonal distorted trash that plays mostly on the radio ?
If you dont understand music, you have no business trying to judge music !

This is hilarious. Music is not an engineering diagram where you dissect it to see if its made properly. Music is supposed to evoke an emotional response and basically, to sound good. I "judge" music based on whether I like listening to it. That might be a shocker to you though.

I don't give a crap whether it is 'properly constructed', I'll leave that to you, as Mr. Culture. As a simple barbarian brute, I will listen to music only if I like hearing it.

But of course, unlike the Mr. Culture's of the world, I don't really judge people on whether they like Chardonnay.

Test cricket is one of the few sports i can think of - badminton would be another. But in general, i am not much into sports so i dont care much about it.
As per propping up unpopular sports with taxpayer's money - well they'r already doing it with arts and as i explained to you, with good cause.

Its a separate issue, but I don't agree with that either.

Your tax money is NOT something on which you have absolute say,
given that it serves the society as much as it serves you,if not more tilted towards society.

Why would badminton serve the needs of society?

Again - expected. Very American, very crude and very blaize. Much like most of your country. Culture is what you described above. But much much more than that as well.
Its the celebration of all the worthwhile accomplishments of man- which given how common your 'sell me mum' types are, is few and far between.
Culture is also the sum total of philosophical and artistic heritage of a nation. Given that your nation doesnt understand the concept of heritage very well and is extremely illiterate about its own heritage

It wouldn't really be C_C without attacks on America, now would it?

( i dont blame them honestly- if my country was as stark historically as your's i'd not be very inclined to learn about it) and given that you'r a quintessential immigrant/2nd gen 'wannabe', i dont expect you to understand these nuances either.

Oooh, I'm a immigrant 'wannabe' (whatever that means). Thats some impressive powers of analysis, Mr. Culture. I gotta hand it to you, you have me pegged.

 

[marc71178]

Tell me, what would you prefer. A 2 test series against Pakistan followed by 5 ODIs, or a 5 test series against Pakistan?

Depends on the time scale available for the tour - 2 Tests & 5 ODIs would be playable in 5 weeks with lots of breaks, 5 Tests would not.

 

[C_C]

Music is not an engineering diagram where you dissect it to see if its made properly.

It is if you understand music for christ's sake ! Like i said- if you dont understand music, how the fook do you know if the allegro was misplaced or if the scale change was too rough ?

Music is supposed to evoke an emotional response and basically, to sound good.

And if you understood music, you'd find that what sounds good and what doesnt changes significantly. From the way you talk, i'll wager you arnt personally acquainted with any professional musicians. Here's a suggestion : educate yourself about music theory and then have this discussion with me. For before that, its pointless- you are trying to argue about something you dont understand the basics of. Once you do educate yourself about music, you'd realise how some of the stuff you listen to are hopelessly badly written/executed. Music is very close to mathematics if you understand it.

I gotta hand it to you, you have me pegged.

Truer words never have been spoken by you.

Why would badminton serve the needs of society?

Fundamentally wrong approach, like i keep telling you. Art is not about need, its about pleasure. Two vastly different concepts that i fear you do not distinguish very well.
You may not find it pleasurable and thats fine- but the reason i advocate cultural preservation of music and/or sports is the same damn reason why people dont just let the Mona Lisa rot away.

 

[silentstriker]

It is if you understand music

Well Mr. Culture, you can continue to dissect music note by note, whereas I will continue listening to music that I like hearing.

Truer words never have been spoken by you.

Great, maybe you can explain to me what it actually means.

Fundamentally wrong approach, like i keep telling you. Art is not about need, its about pleasure.

But its obviously not giving enough people pleasure, if it cannot sustain itself or through private contributions, right?

 

[C_C]

Well Mr. Culture, you can continue to dissect music note by note, whereas I will continue listening to music that I like hearing

Absolutely fine by me. I am not trying to tell you what you should/shouldnt listen to.
But next time you feel like looking down your nose and comment about relative quality of music, i'd suggest you learn the basics of music. For right now, you wouldnt be able to tell me if Madonna is singing off key or out of scale. Sure, these things may not matter to you but thats only a function of your ignorance. Just because you cannot determine something's existance (in this case, presence of a flaw) doesnt mean your opinion is just about as valid as Ravi Shankar's as to which is a better musical piece.

But its obviously not giving enough people pleasure, if it cannot sustain itself or through private contributions, right?

The Mona Lisa and many other paintings also cannot survive solely on private contributions. So in your 'sell me mother for the right price' world, i guess its okay to let the Mona Lisa rot. So just because Versailles is not making a profit, its okay to let the palace fall apart, eh ?
Simply because you and the vast majority are not educated enough to preserve or appreciate some of the highest forms of art/culture concieved by man doesnt absolve you of your social responsibility to preserve it - maybe for a later generation who'd be more educated and a wee bit more intellectually inclined.
As i said- you are approaching arts fundamentally the wrong way- not surprising, given that your grasp of art is highly limited- but art is NOT business - its not about turning in a profit or fiscal reality. True, i can understand art taking a backseat if the nation is in genuine trouble but saving yourself 50 bucks a year when you are already better off than 90% of humanity is a very poor excuse to shed your cultural responsibility.

Great, maybe you can explain to me what it actually means.

The mere presence of this question serves as a testament to why i cannot explain it to you. Its afterall- a matter of concience and itegrity.

 

[silentstriker]

Absolutely fine by me. I am not trying to tell you what you should/shouldnt listen to.
But next time you feel like looking down your nose and comment about relative quality of music,

I'm looking down my nose? You're the expert on judging what music is 'proper'. I am fine with any music that sounds good to me, and if some piece of music sounds good to you, it should be with fine with you.

My problem was when you sanctimoniously came on here and declare classical music as somehow the pinnacle of all creation. I have no problem with classical music, as long as my taxpayer money is not spent propping it up.

The Mona Lisa and many other paintings also cannot survive solely on private contributions. So in your 'sell me mother for the right price' world, i guess its okay to let the Mona Lisa rot. So just because Versailles is not making a profit, its okay to let the palace fall apart, eh ?

Define 'OK'. I wouldn't want to let it fall apart, but if it cannot survive on its own, the government has better things to spend its money on (i.e scientific research, for example). Something that will create some tangible benefit.

Simply because you .. are not educated enough

Hah!

 

[silentstriker]

The mere presence of this question serves as a testament to why i cannot explain it to you. Its afterall- a matter of concience and itegrity.

It's a matter of 'integrity' and 'conscience' how I am an 'immigrant wannabe'? Wow, Mr. Culture, you never cease to completely amaze me. I know you are in the habit of making the flimsiest and the oddest little connections, but this one should be very interesting indeed.

 

[C_C]

I'm looking down my nose?

Most definately- when you rubbished the entire school of musicology and the fundamental bedrock of music theory by proclaiming 'those words have no meaning when it comes to music'.

My problem was when you sanctimoniously came on here and declare classical music as somehow the pinnacle of all creation.

It isn't sanctimoniousness- it is a fact. Its the very same reason why classical musicians who've never picked up a particular instrument ( say a Lyre) will tell you in less than 5 seconds that your lyre isnt playing the right tempo or in the right scale while your standard average hack pop musican will be clueless. Its about theory- theory that your average wannabe musicians (pop artists or most mainstream artists) dont understand.

I have no problem with classical music, as long as my taxpayer money is not spent propping it up.

It is and you have no choice about it. As the saying goes - tough beans, old boy. This is your social responsibility.

Something that will create some tangible benefit.

Human existance and reality of society is often as much into the intangiable than the tangiable. You have this streak of trying to put everything in tangiable terms to try and understand it - to the point of absurdity where you take win % as the barometer of great captaincy. Perhaps your mind cannot understand anything if it isnt represented in hard numbers - which is probably why you'r fascinated with plethora of statistics, most of which are absurd to any person who watches cricket (which i doubt you do much sitting in the US). This is why you wont understand culture, metaphysics or artistic taste- simply because your lack of understanding the intangiable leads you to dismiss it as nothing more than 'opinions'.

Hah!

Your absurd comments about music so far has done nothing to lend credence to your dismissive comment above. As i said- you are NOT educated enough on this- so drop it. Or is that too much for your pride ? Besides, if you want to debate this, i got a much better person in mind for you - my mother. Not only is she a semi-classical professional singer, she also happens to be a MA in Music. As i said, i only understand the basics of music- just enough to tell the trash apart from gold. But i am not an authority on this- mostly a lifelong side-student from interacting with my mother and if you want a thorough and far more cogent explanation on why your position on music is utterly ignorant, i can arrange for you to have a chat with her ( given that she consents, ofcourse).

 

[silentstriker]

It is and you have no choice about it. As the saying goes - tough beans, old boy. This is your social responsibility.

Yes, I realize I have no choice about it. Hence my problem with it.

You have this streak of trying to put everything in tangiable terms to try and understand it - to the point of absurdity where you take win % as the barometer of great captaincy.

Yea, actually, that part is true. I think tangible benefits always outweigh the mystical intangible benefits which are often untrue, and almost always unproven.

Perhaps your mind cannot understand anything if it isnt represented in hard numbers

Oh, it can comprehend it, but once it comprehends it, it usually decides that its rubbish.

- which is probably why you'r fascinated with plethora of statistics, most of which are absurd to any person who watches cricket (which i doubt you do much sitting in the US).

Do you mean the stadium or the TV? If the latter, then I probably watch more than 90% of people on this forum. I don't think I've missed a single ball of India, England or Australia for a LONG time unless they conflict with each other (at least in test matches).

This is why you wont understand culture, metaphysics or artistic taste- simply because your lack of understanding the intangiable leads you to dismiss it as nothing more than 'opinions'.

Let me address all three:

1) Culture - I get it, I just don't like the superior than thou attitude of cultural elitists
2) Artistic taste - I get that too. Everyone has their personal taste, I just don't like the elitist attitudes of 'my taste is superior to yours'. Or taxpayer money going to feed a specific artistic taste.
3) metaphysics - Ah, the old intellectual toilet bowl. No thanks, not for me. At least not metaphysics as the modern usage implies.

I'm a big math guy though, and a lot of math is completely theoretical (i.e has no physical relation), and I'm fine with it. As long as the taxpayers aren't paying for it.

 

[C_C]

Yes, I realize I have no choice about it. Hence my problem with it.

Not everything in life is up to your choice. Remember that you are, ultimately, at the mercy of the universe. Scary thought i know, but if you get peeved off at something simply coz you got no choice over it, you'r gonna be peeved off at a lotta things. Perhaps you should accept that your tax money is being better spent in some regards than you would spend it.

I think tangible benefits always outweigh the mystical intangible benefits which are often untrue, and almost always unproven.

You think wrong then.
Concrete quantification is not a pre-requisite to guaging the nature of something's impact.

Oh, it can comprehend it, but once it comprehends it, it usually decides that its rubbish.

hence, it doesn't comprehend it! It reacts - and reactions arnt based on comprehension but far more on impulse.

Culture - I get it, I just don't like the superior than thou attitude of cultural elitists

No, you dont get it. As i said- culture is the cumulation of achievements of humanity or on a smaller scale, a region of humanity. The fact that you see it simply as 'practices,habits and lifestyles to be propagated to the next generation' is pretty much a very typical interpretation of a person living in a society that otherwise is not very culturally inclined.

2) Artistic taste - I get that too. Everyone has their personal taste, I just don't like the elitist attitudes of 'my taste is superior to yours'.

Never said anything about taste - which is why i am not judging between Ravi Shankar and Chopin. What you fail to realise is that music most definately is a very scientific concept based on set rules, parameters and basic constructs and classical music takes those into account while pop music largely ignores it simply because most of the public arnt attuned to listening to music with musical knowledge at hand. Most of the public cannot tell a tonal fudging or a scale poop-up. It simply and genuinely is a higher art-form and which is why classical musicians are far far more versatile and skilled than your pop stars.

3) metaphysics - Ah, the old intellectual toilet bowl. No thanks, not for me.

Elaborate.
Please tell me which works of metaphysics you've read, the flaws you've found and the reason you are rubbishing it to the toilet bowl. I get the distinct impression that you've not read much metaphysics but have read about metaphysics.
Anyways, this is the last i will comment on this- this thread has gone off topic enough as it is.
Just let me know if you want to educate yourself better on music - i'll try to arrange a conference with ma.

 

[silentstriker]

Not everything in life is up to your choice. Remember that you are, ultimately, at the mercy of the universe. Scary thought i know, but if you get peeved off at something simply coz you got no choice over it, you'r gonna be peeved off at a lotta things. Perhaps you should accept that your tax money is being better spent in some regards than you would spend it.

Heh, so you are basically saying no matter what the government chooses to spend the money on, I shouldn't be worried because 'it's not my choice'?

 

[C_C]

Heh, so you are basically saying no matter what the government chooses to spend the money on, I shouldn't be worried because 'it's not my choice'?

No what i am saying is that as long as it isnt hurting anybody or isnt an exorbitant burden on the public (and supporting cultural activities are not-i assure you in terms of % of funds spent) perhaps you should realise that there are many fields you may not know much about to deciede if its worthy of support or not.
Ie, you are getting far too wrapped up with the 'its my chioce..mine mine mine' aspect of it than realising that its arguing over really small change from one of the most developed nations in the world.

 

[silentstriker]

No what i am saying is that as long as it isnt hurting anybody or isnt an exorbitant burden on the public (and supporting cultural activities are not-i assure you in terms of % of funds spent)

Its irrelevant whether its $500 or $500 billion. There is always something better they can spend it on than badminton, as you suggest (or at least, not that they would, give it back in the form of a tax cut).

Its part of the problem of why the government is so big these days - it sticks its nose in places it has no business being involved in.

 

[C_C]

Its irrelevant whether its $500 or $500 billion. There is always something better they can spend it on than badminton, as you suggest (or at least, not that they would, give it back in the form of a tax cut).

Its part of the problem of why the government is so big these days - it sticks its nose in places it has no business being involved in.

I completely and utterly disagree.
Its obvious that you are not gonna stop seeing everything with dollar-tinted goggles and its also very obvious that money is one of my least concerns in human existance.
Call it a fundamental discord - to me you are psycho. To you i am probably a wannabe commie tree-hugging hippie. Whatever. its irrelevant. Lets stop this. Now.

 

[silentstriker]

I completely and utterly disagree.

Yea, I figured.

Call it a fundamental discord - to me you are psycho. To you i am probably a wannabe commie tree-hugging hippie.

Yea, that sounds about right.

Whatever. its irrelevant. Lets stop this. Now.

All right. Back on topic:

I think that five test series are an absolutely fabulous idea and would love for all major nations to play those. However, I do think that its probably inevitable that we play less and less tests (as a percentage of total cricket played) as time goes on.

 

[Scmods]

I agree with SS. But it really depends on the series. People come to watch the Ashes so theres a reason they still have 5 tests. Look at how many people go to watch a test in Lanka, or Pakistan, or sometimes in India. Test Cricket doesn't generate as big of a crowd as ODI Cricket in the sub continent. So it's only sensible to give the nations who generate larger crowds in ODI's more ODI games. Plus now, tours are more often than before. That means less time on hand, and more energy being used. Five tests consecutively in like 5-6 tours in a year will use up more energy then it already does.

This is my problem exactly. It would use up more energy, which is why it's called TEST cricket. It tests you both physically and mentally. Just because it attracts more mindless minions doesn't make ODI cricket better. I personally consider ODIs an overrated, worthless form of the game. The Boards schedule more ODIs because they make money, while a test series will leave a legacy for years and years. People still talk about Bodyline, the Invincibles, The Aus v Windies series from 1959-1960 and in the early 90s where we took their crown of number 1 team in the world. Unfortunately in a 2 or 3 test series there isn't time for the momentum to change or for legends to be made.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Hands down, this thread has to be the best example of C_C's over the top, "I know practically everything about anything, shut up now because you're an ignoramus compared to my giant intellect", wanking.

On the other hand, his basic point that some not-as-popular art forms/pursuits need propping up I agree with. It's a given that you are never going to agree 100% with the way the government doles out the cash. As long as I can still get a bed in the hospital when I'm sick and the cops come when I need them it's not so bad.

Hey, wait a minute...




Anyway! Back to the actual topic of the thread - yes, more tests, less ODIs please. The popularity of ODIs IMO is mainly with the casual fans who have no interest in the game on anything other than a superficial level. I couldn't tell you how many people I've met who've seen fit to say something along the lines of "I like one dayers, but I'd rather watch paint dry than a test".

The problem with courting these types is that they'll skip off to the next best thing should it prove to be brighter, shinier and louder than one day cricket. Plenty of them already think that $35 to watch seven hours of cricket is a ripoff, but think it's perfectly reasonable to shell out $80 for a crap seat at an 80 minute All Black test.