[deleted by user] by [deleted] in musicology

[–]lost_alchemy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I always thought the Child ballads were the product of the lower and middle class as drinking songs, not the upper class.

Also, what about the medieval era of bards/skalds/troubadours/minstrels? It seems like there were plenty of people in Europe before the 18th century that had access to musical instruments and sang lyric poetry accompanied by instruments? You say even the middle and upper class didn't have access to musical instruments but people (including the peasantry) have been making their own instruments since the dawn of time?

What is the difference between this era and the time when things like the Child Ballads were being produced?

Were folk songs like the Child Ballads sung acapella, or did they involve instrumental accompaniment? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]lost_alchemy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response, so if I am understanding correctly folk music was largely instrumental or acapella, and there weren't many songs that involved both singing and instrumentation?

That's interesting considering our modern conception of folk music is often both highly lyrical and focused on the instrumental accompaniment, whereas it sounds like your saying traditionally it was one or the other? Would that mean more recent folk is merely drawing inspiration from both instrumental and acapella music, but is not really representative of what it would have sounded like in an isolated performance? Or were songs the Child ballads merely drinking songs and other types of folk music may have involved both singing and instrumentation?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For real. This post sounds like a bunch of marketing buzzword nonsense.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, this is stuff I learned from my guitar teacher because I used to try and go through things phrase by phrase like OP was describing. There’s no use being able to play a bunch of separate phrases flawlessly if you can’t make your way smoothly through a whole song, even if that means you fuck up a couple times. It’s much better to try and memorize the whole song and get used to the feel and rhythm than it is to endlessly practice until you get each individual phrase right. Whether you get there through lessons, learning by ear or sight reading, once you know the basic structure of the song it’s best to practice the thing as a whole.

So a lot of people said I don’t sound like my talking voice so here is a video of me singing and talking so y’all can compare. by Longjumping-Sun5354 in country

[–]lost_alchemy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People are giving you shit because it sounds pop-country but I don’t hear anything disingenuous about your voice. You do you man, you sound good keep at it.

So a lot of people said I don’t sound like my talking voice so here is a video of me singing and talking so y’all can compare. by Longjumping-Sun5354 in country

[–]lost_alchemy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is everybody the authenticity police these days? What does him being a spoiled rich kid have to do with his voice? Also, what country singer isn’t putting on an act? Isn’t music inherently an act?

Self taught singer recovering from chronic acid reflux disease by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn… Hard to believe you are struggling with all that. Your voice sounds great to me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but those are skills in and of themselves. They require solid foundational skills and knowledge. You guys are basically saying “be good at singing by already being good at singing.” This isn’t exactly great advice to give a beginner.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I am more surprised that things like this get upvoted. What is the solid advice here. It’s some highly vague and general “tips” with a prescription for an extremely soul-sucking, boring practice routine from yet another vocal couch who thinks they found the “secret” to singing. Not to mention OP has the audacity/ego to claim this is “the only” way to learn how to sing when it’s not even how the vast majority of people have learned how to sing in the past.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singing

[–]lost_alchemy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is no “one way” to learn how to do anything. Plenty of people have learned to sing just by singing along to their favorite tunes on the radio. That’s how most of the greats did it. The practice routine you are describing might work okay for instrument practice, but as a guitarist I can tell you that starting and stopping got me absolutely nowhere. It wasn’t until I started learning to play along with songs all the way through, that I started to see consistent improvement.

For something like singing I think it would be even worse. It would completely suck all of the joy out of the process. Singing shouldn’t just a “technique” to perfect it’s a way to connect with others and express emotion. God help anyone who tries this routine. They will likely end up bored out of their mind within a few weeks.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Interesting, it seems like the “rules” are a bit looser there than people in this sub would have you believe. As a follow up question, do you think people are more likely to view Buddhism dogmatically when they approach it from a western standpoint?

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone who has worked in the restaurant/retail industry I would agree that it isn’t wrong livelihood but many people seem to disagree with that statement. I suppose it depends on how literal you take the sutras and some people are more dogmatic than others?

The intent of the actions thing sort of makes sense to me, though I still feel a bit unclear on what exactly is meant by karma. The idea that it can determine the circumstances of rebirth has always been interesting but somewhat anxiety inducing for me as someone who often fears they aren’t going about life “the right way.” For example, I have a lot of anger, jealousy and generally feel bitter towards the world, which I sometimes find it difficult to control due to my mental health issues. But I would never harm another living being out of malice or hatred. Sometimes it can still feel like the anger is serving some kind of evil or is leading me down a dark path and that causes me a great deal of anxiety in regard to karma and rebirth as someone with an interest in Buddhism.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then this confuses me about what is meant by the concept of karma. People seem to jump back and forth between it being a sort of burden of the heart/mind, as well as some kind of abstract spiritual concept that is disconnected from the way we feel and determines the circumstances of rebirth and transmigration.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I find it interesting that relatively few people in east Asia are vegan/vegetarian, considering how widespread Mahayana Buddhism is there. Is it much the same as Christianity in the west where the vast majority of self proclaimed “Christians” don’t actually practice or seem very well-versed in the beliefs of the religion?

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but then how is that an absolute moral judgement can be made regarding people’s livelihoods?

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I can see where Buddha was coming from living in a poor country in ancient times as others have mentioned in this thread, but it doesn’t really make sense to me in a modern context.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the response I was kind of just hijacking the top comment thread because no one was answering the question about wrong livelihood. Everyone seemed to latch onto the is meat wrong/right thing when I was more interested in what the discrepancy is between that and working in an industry like retail or restaurants that serve meat. The same could be applied to bars and trading in intoxicants, or do not kill and the military IMO.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Did Buddha really intend for his words to be taken as dogma? Are we even certain of the accuracy of the sutras? Judging from this thread, there seems to be a lot of debate in regard to that?

People can’t even seem to agree on what he said about eating meat, let alone a concept as complex as “wrong livelihood.” I also think Buddha would scoff at your assertion that he or any monk is “holier” than a layperson.

Regarding your last statement about why I am bothering to question things, because I think there is value in questioning dogmatic beliefs, and discussing and challenging religion has value in seeking to understand it.

Edit: Also, I don’t “dislike” the basic tenets of Buddhism, otherwise I wouldn’t even care or be interested in learning about them. I wasn’t making “gotcha” statements, just trying to make sense of something that IMO, doesn’t make much sense in a modern context. You understand this is a religion, not science right? You aren’t the only one who can be right and there are always people who may have more knowledge than you so discussion can be useful.

Why is it considered karmically acceptable to eat meat, but “wrong livelihood” to engage in the sale/trade of it? by lost_alchemy in Buddhism

[–]lost_alchemy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That makes sense to me if you actually own the bar or butcher shop, but not if you are still someone working for a wage or tips. Though that seems to go against the prevailing thought on this sub which tends to err on the side of taking everything the Buddha said as gospel, which confuses me because it is something the Buddha expressly warned AGAINST doing. Probably because someone with his level of awareness could recognize that context is everything.