… I often feel literally nauseated upon hearing works representative of the "new simplicity", or of the "new romantic" genre, works which, by aiming low, targeting only the mock-astral plane of musical yuppiedom, ignore the very dangers which make genuine art both human and transcendent. Fortunately, we are witnessing the growth of a grass-roots movement comprised of composers and performers who, having peeked over the fence surrounding this dungheap, have determined that shovelling shit is not to be their fate, and who are lovingly dedicating their lives to the seemingly endless, often agonizing labor which the production of challenging new works entails.
--
Boros, James (Winter 1993). "Why complexity? (part 1) (guest editor's introduction)". Perspectives of New Music 31 (1): pp. 6(4). ISSN 0031-6016.
--
Quoted in Ashby, Arved, ed., ed (2004). The Pleasure of Modernist Music. pp. unidentified page. ISBN 1580461433.James Boros
Beyoncé: "I love Madonna. I do! Definitely. It all works for Madonna. I mean, I couldn’t do a lot of the things she does, but it works for her. I watched the "Human Nature" music video for the "Check On It" video even though it didn’t come out anything like it. I wanted to do something like that but we didn’t have time to do it because it was just a 12-hour shoot."
Madonna Ciccone
Beyoncé: "I love Madonna. I do! Definitely. It all works for Madonna. I mean, I couldn’t do a lot of the things she does, but it works for her. I watched the "Human Nature" music video for the "Check On It" video even though it didn’t come out anything like it. I wanted to do something like that but we didn’t have time to do it because it was just a 12-hour shoot."
Madonna
Why don't we write code that just works? Or absent a "just works" set of patches, why don't we revert to code that has years of testing? This kind of "I broke things, so now I will jiggle things randomly until they unbreak" is not acceptable. [...] Don't just make random changes. There really are only two acceptable models of development: "think and analyze" or "years and years of testing on thousands of machines". Those two really do work.
Linus Torvalds
It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and "Rhapsody in Blue." These works are too valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
Lawrence Lessig
Have you heard about the kid who lost his head at Six Flags? The first time I read it, I thought, "Oh my God...How can I make this funny for everybody?"...Here goes. What happened was, he was in a church youth group and he lost his hat during the roller coaster. Afterwards, he was like, "I'm going to go get my hat." And there was a big fence with signs that said, "Hey, cut your losses." And he was like, "What? Have you SEEN me in that hat? Not today, fence!" So, he climbed that fence, and then there was another fence with a sign that probably said, "Hey, come on, knock it off." He was like, "You can't tell me how to live, signs!" And he climbed over that fence and there, the story ends. Did he get the hat? I'd like to think he did. That small silver lining, "Hey, I got my hat!" Then whack, right then! And I know he was on a church youth group and they don't believe in evolution, but that kid was going to get picked off sooner or later.
Daniel Tosh
Boros, James
Borrow, George
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z