Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

clashmusic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#91

Post by twelvechairs »

daviddaviddavid wrote: post #29

Just want to share a couple great works by Sakamoto. I'm a big fan. One of my favorite bossa nova albums is A Day In New York by Morelenbaum/Sakamoto. Here's Desafinado from that album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rtdR9WkOOY And his early synth-y stuff is just so hip. Thousand Knives of Ryuichi Sakamoto (1978) is some badass stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGo7n6CMCcE

I always have loved 'thousand knives' most of all. So clear and melodic but such a challenge to western songmaking - 'popular' and 'classical'.

RIP Sakamoto.

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#92

Post by max23_ »

nathankot wrote: post #24
birriel wrote: post #10

My favorite live performance of "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence". RIP https://youtu.be/L49FRjnhrWI

It's very interesting to compare with a more recent performance (2020): https://youtu.be/X6td9KUZMfw?t=5259

Always have the same calm feeling while listening to this piece. Farewell Mr. Sakamoto.

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#95

Post by coldtea »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #88
tantivy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nature” and “natural” are normative terms that commonly distinguish the world altered and created by humans from the world that isn’t altered or created by humans. It’s clear in context that Sakamoto is using the term accurately in a normative sense, not making a semantic error.

This would imply every human action is 'unnatural'...

Only under a naive mechanistic non-contextual machine-like reading :)

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#96

Post by [deleted] »

jjulius wrote: post #34

"The industrial revolution made the production of an instrument like [the piano] possible. Several planks of wood - six I think in this case - are overlaid and pressed into shape by tremendous force for six months. Nature is molded into shape. Many tons of force and pressure are applied, making the strings what they are. Matter taken from nature is molded by human industry, by the sum strength of civilization. Nature…

[deleted]

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#97

Post by coldtea »

throwaway290 wrote: post #90
MichaelZuo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would imply every human action is 'unnatural'...

I think the key is "world". If you yourself can cut a tree down and do whatever else to make a piano, there's no world created by humans. It'll take you a while but in the end there's only you and your shiny new piano and nature. If there is a distributed process with countless people and organizations using intricate mechanisms to build components of mechanisms that build mechanisms that extract natural resources fo…

>If there is a distributed process with countless people and organizations using intricate mechanisms to build components of mechanisms that

And then someone will go on being pedantic and bring forward bees and ant colonies and the like. Let's call it "a matter of degree/scale/breadth" this might shut them up!

Re: Ryuichi Sakamoto has died

#99

Post by coldtea »

msla wrote: post #84
tantivy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nature” and “natural” are normative terms that commonly distinguish the world altered and created by humans from the world that isn’t altered or created by humans. It’s clear in context that Sakamoto is using the term accurately in a normative sense, not making a semantic error.

And that normative sense succeeds in separating humanity from nature, creating an "Us vs It" narrative that makes pollution easier to ignore. After all, if everything humanity does is pollution, why single any specific acts out?

Pollution goes on because it's the convenient path of least resistance, has short term benefits (e.g. we keep indulging in consumptiona as usual) and there are huge profit interests. That simple.

How we see nature plays little role, in after-the-fact justifications or condemnations. In fact pollution could be justified under either view:

Humanity is different than nature: all we do is pollution, in the sense that is outside of nature. So why single any specific act out? Or other potential arguments: "We are better than nature, and we'll eventually just sort pollution out with our technology".

Humanitity is "just" nature: so what we do is natural, including pollution. No need to do something else, we just keep doing what comes natural to us, including polluting. Why consider huge heaps of human garbage any worse that we consider other animals creating their own waste?

Post reply on HN