archetypal dyads

chava

Well-known member
And not that I'm any kind of expert on mental illness or neurological conditions, but it seems to me that schizophrenia might be the result of an inability, or a severely impaired ability, to do this. (Feel free to tell me this in nonsense, anyone with experience in this field.)

Bit off-topic but I thought it was interesting.

Pretty sure you're right on the money about that. Schizophrenia is associated with high openness (personality trait) and as such also high creativity/iq. Highly open people can and will navigate in uncategorizable domains, but if you're too high in openness you're have nothing to hold on to and are basically living in an ever shifting chaotic universe.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10936
 

Woebot

Well-known member
lennon and mccartney (as mentioned upthread) must be the quintessential archetypal musical dyad.

george martin used to say they were (as in the constituents of a good dressing) equivalent of lemon juice and olive oil

no prizes for guessing who was the acidic and who the mellifluous...
 

luka

Well-known member
I wasn't very clear in the previous message (hungover)- I should have specified that I was talking about simplifying and symbolising not being useful in relationships with other people.

while i appreciate the points you're making and agree, in case it wasnt clear i was explaining how we do it to ourselves. i was referring to romantic relationships and friendships in particular. but of course we also project on to, to coin a phrase, archetypal dyads, in the public eye.
 

jenks

thread death
Eno/Bowie - The two apparently used to 'do' Pete and Dud riffs in between takes and Eno once described them as one being a 6H pencil while the the other was a 6B. hard lines v soft smudges. Clarity v drift. Sunshine v fog. The destination v the journey.
 

luka

Well-known member
i often find i cant properly intergrate and make my own all the juicy stuff i've stolen from another person until i get some distance from them for instance.
 

CrowleyHead

Well-known member
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers

Grounding vs Reaching
Restraint vs Flordity
Perception vs Immersion
Realism vs Dreams
 

CrowleyHead

Well-known member
Nile can't make a mean song anymore. You wonder if that's because he wasn't the one who pointed out how things weren't always fun.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
i come back to coltrane/davis a lot and tend to view it as transcendence/immanence.

i think a lot about wiley/dizzee too. such different careers. one inwardly directed the other outwardly oriented. needless to say i relate to wiley.

do you form these dyads in your head too? got any examples?

I think I've spent most of this thread framing such dyads in terms of their personalities rather than their artistic style -

do you think that Wiley's 'inward direction' can be discerned in the music he makes? in the intensity, circularity and compression of his loops and even his flow? or is it just a career thing - dizzee's 'outward' direction allowing him to make songs with Calvin Harris and James Corden? (The price of freedom lol)
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Caught a bit of a documentary about 'graceland' on bbc4 the other night - there was an interesting bit about the south african band having a conversation with each other using their guitars.

i tend to think of music as quite abstract, even when it's emotional, but

i suppose i'm just thinking of how these dyads relate to personality and music/art - if they're mainly creations of the observers
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

luka

Well-known member
John Coltrane
30 July at 23:30 ·

“The real risk is not changing. I have to feel that I’m after something. If I make money, fine. But I’d rather be striving. It’s the striving, man, it’s that I want.”
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
I was going to start a messi/ronaldo thread and I had a feeling there was a thread about dyads already – and here it is!

Interesting idea, not fully explored as yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

sus

Well-known member

And there's a sort of balance in many ways between these heuristics—you can think of political power, cultural power, physical power—all these things, these character classes and stats you can choose to max out. Styles for how you play. Philosophies for moving through the world. They're not perfectly balanced but they're suited to different situations, you can be the most powerful political player in the world and be killed in a fist-fight, there are checks and balances, a satirist can start the French Revolution.

And choosing between these scripts and styles and philosophies is hard because, definitionally, they're frameworks for value, for choosing what's "right." It's easy to evaluate two options within a framework of values, and hard to evaluate two different value systems—hence why some people opt for relativism.
 

sus

Well-known member
A build is something like "a set of tactics that work well together, and whose value is largely emergent." So, it's not like, "just pick the best tactics." It's like, within a network or complex of tactics, you need to think about internal "fit" and synergy.

And then having a group of different builds working together is always most powerful, because individuals' strengths aren't redundant, and their weaknesses don't compound. Rather, their strengths cover each others' weaknesses, and their abilities are magnified by playing together. Each helps create the local ecosystem in which each thrives.

In basketball, like many sports, about "matchups" between teams and players matters a lot. There isn't an "objective" ranking just in the same way rock isn't objectively "better" than scissors.
 
Top