But is was just a typo
Does Melody Even Matter??
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
It's almost as though your understanding is really of the Youtube covers phenomenon.Musicologo wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:00 pm That means: musical practices requiring virtuosity of a physical instrument, mostly real time playing and interaction and ability to create a consistent story often on the spot (intrincate melodic lines and complex harmonizations), that are never equal and for the most aren't fixed: each performance should be different. Invention and innovation are praised. This contrasts with the idea of a "writen down" notation to be later "performed" and imitated the same, and instead relies on the notion of "improvisation" that can be "fixed" only through recording, which then others might transcribe and imitate, but those "imitators" are not valued.
Some of that irritates the crap out of me, to go slightly off-focus.
But composers start from what, exactly, do you think? Having an idea is probably improvisational.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
This word "conservative" is not really doing a lot for me here, I must say.fmr wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:04 pmThat ignorant... How dared he?
Anyway, the Stravinsky that wrote that was a much more conservative guy than the one that wrote "The Rite of Spring" or the "The Firebid" many years before.
I don't find The Firebird an exemplar of radical musical vocabulary, it's kind of an update on Rimsky, isn't it.
The Woody Herman piece is an abstraction of his idea of jazz somehow. It isn't conserving anything, actually he fails at the vocabulary and the feel spectacularly. I mention it actually as a classical (or by your terms more academic) musician wanting something from jazz but it was beyond him.
It's not really wise to proceed from such a notion as you do of jazz being inferior per se, to whatever you think it is inferior to. I doubt the metric applied to this is really the right one. Other side of the coin would be to analyze Pulcinella or something as jazz.
But when you do that, you come up with laughable statements like jazz has stuck to 50 yrs ago. Which jazz? You're just talking of your own take on it out of a dismissive attitude, there is no reality to that at all.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111289 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
you do know we leave our rooms once in a while? 
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
this is a good article and a good read. and, trust me, you DONT want to look any of this stuff up. you really don't. you'll become the next unibomber. https://www.gq.com/story/soundcloud-rap-boom-times
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
Jancivil, that's jargon from musicology as a science. the word "value" is neutral, it's akin to "belief". That description you just dismissed it is a condensation of the beliefs some stevie wonder based musicians expressed, and helped me understand what they value and what they don't like.
The methodology is bought from Merriam and then Rice that music is expressive culture (just like clothing, walking, food diets, etc...). There is a huge diversity in the world, no universals, so the only way to study it is via cultural antropology in order to understand what people are calling music (concepts), how they act on it and make it (behaviour) and what results from that (sounds, texts).
The concepts, behaviours and sounds are historically constructed, socially mantained and individually experienced. This is the core method of this science called musicology. IF you don't believe in cultural anthropology or its methods or agree on how to study human culture we will never agree on this. But I don't think there's other way to do this, and believe me I've studied plenty other angles (deutsch and patel neurology and psychology of music, computer science approaches, etc...).
The main question would then be "what are the values shaping this musical culture?" and finding then homologies with other societal structures. That was the lifelong project of Lomax and other musicologists. I think dismissing lomax as "interviewing some people and telling stories" is just plain ignorance on what he really achieved. I suggest to re-read the papers with other mindset.
Here is a most recent review on Lomax work and I particularly like figure 2.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 4318786084
So in order to achieve that is akin to every other science, like biology: you study individuals. The same way a biologists spend months observing horses or birds in context and takes notes, measures, etc... musicologists study individual musicians, observe, compare, etc... there is no other possible way to do this!
When you have then enormous amounts of samples you start testing and drawing conclusions. Most musicians I know in fact don't know these facts, because they are musicians, they are the subjects of the study! They didn't learn musicology neither read those studies. Most musicians I know were trained in conservatories or were self-taught and learned to play instruments or learned "music theories" on how to imitate some particular styles.
Musicology is none of that. Musicology studies musicians. It is the study of humans making music. All humanking, all musical practices. And it tries to take a point of view of describing and explaining and not judging.
Therefore, there is no "good" or "bad" music, in the same sense there is no "good food" or "bad food". There is certainly more "nutritious food", there is "toxic food", there is "palatable food" and then there is "more well-prepared and presented food" etc...
Max martin is akin mac donalds and pop music is akin fast food... so we have to explain what that means, why that even exists (the relation with musics and other industries is complex, that's tshmuck study all along) and WHY some people actually enjoy it... While I see jazz music as more of a gourmet plate, more well-crafted, requires more knowledge to do it, probably more nutritious with better ingredients, but for some reason, less people seem to be into it. So those reasons need to be explained as well.
Education and early exposure certainly has a great deal into it, also curiosity, willing to listen and engage, etc... and obviously playing an instrument since childhoor or engaging in a collective practice shapes your brain in a totally different way that someone who did not. So when pointing out that fact there is not judgemnet into it. It's just stating the obvious: musicians belong in a different culture than non-trained musicians just because of their experience, and this has consequences in the values shaping their musical practice and tastes.
In the ned, All there is, is different musical cultures that value some parameters while others value others different kind of parameters, and musicology tries to explain those values - WHY some people think "music X is good?", when people Y thinks exactly the opposite?
Why some people call somethings "music" while others don't even recognize it as such?
I think what is missing is really the comprehension of what musicology is, it's purpose, its method and then engaging with the results found. I'm very happy with musicology because it gave me the tools to understand music, ALL kinds of music more than anything else. And also gave me tools to understand or at least try to speculate why some humans are more into some kinds of musics and others into other kinds of music.
It's very hard to explain myself better than this. If anyone is interested in this science and what is has to offer, the best, if not, I'm sorry I'm not able to present it better, go read the references and I'm not wasting more time trying to sell knowledge to the ones who refuse it... after all "who needs science when you have religion?" or "who needs medicin when you have homeopathy, astrology and such"?
Musicology grounded in cultural anthropology is for me the only rigorous, scientific way to explain the musical practices. If others feel otherwise and are happy with other explanations...
The methodology is bought from Merriam and then Rice that music is expressive culture (just like clothing, walking, food diets, etc...). There is a huge diversity in the world, no universals, so the only way to study it is via cultural antropology in order to understand what people are calling music (concepts), how they act on it and make it (behaviour) and what results from that (sounds, texts).
The concepts, behaviours and sounds are historically constructed, socially mantained and individually experienced. This is the core method of this science called musicology. IF you don't believe in cultural anthropology or its methods or agree on how to study human culture we will never agree on this. But I don't think there's other way to do this, and believe me I've studied plenty other angles (deutsch and patel neurology and psychology of music, computer science approaches, etc...).
The main question would then be "what are the values shaping this musical culture?" and finding then homologies with other societal structures. That was the lifelong project of Lomax and other musicologists. I think dismissing lomax as "interviewing some people and telling stories" is just plain ignorance on what he really achieved. I suggest to re-read the papers with other mindset.
Here is a most recent review on Lomax work and I particularly like figure 2.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 4318786084
So in order to achieve that is akin to every other science, like biology: you study individuals. The same way a biologists spend months observing horses or birds in context and takes notes, measures, etc... musicologists study individual musicians, observe, compare, etc... there is no other possible way to do this!
When you have then enormous amounts of samples you start testing and drawing conclusions. Most musicians I know in fact don't know these facts, because they are musicians, they are the subjects of the study! They didn't learn musicology neither read those studies. Most musicians I know were trained in conservatories or were self-taught and learned to play instruments or learned "music theories" on how to imitate some particular styles.
Musicology is none of that. Musicology studies musicians. It is the study of humans making music. All humanking, all musical practices. And it tries to take a point of view of describing and explaining and not judging.
Therefore, there is no "good" or "bad" music, in the same sense there is no "good food" or "bad food". There is certainly more "nutritious food", there is "toxic food", there is "palatable food" and then there is "more well-prepared and presented food" etc...
Max martin is akin mac donalds and pop music is akin fast food... so we have to explain what that means, why that even exists (the relation with musics and other industries is complex, that's tshmuck study all along) and WHY some people actually enjoy it... While I see jazz music as more of a gourmet plate, more well-crafted, requires more knowledge to do it, probably more nutritious with better ingredients, but for some reason, less people seem to be into it. So those reasons need to be explained as well.
Education and early exposure certainly has a great deal into it, also curiosity, willing to listen and engage, etc... and obviously playing an instrument since childhoor or engaging in a collective practice shapes your brain in a totally different way that someone who did not. So when pointing out that fact there is not judgemnet into it. It's just stating the obvious: musicians belong in a different culture than non-trained musicians just because of their experience, and this has consequences in the values shaping their musical practice and tastes.
In the ned, All there is, is different musical cultures that value some parameters while others value others different kind of parameters, and musicology tries to explain those values - WHY some people think "music X is good?", when people Y thinks exactly the opposite?
Why some people call somethings "music" while others don't even recognize it as such?
I think what is missing is really the comprehension of what musicology is, it's purpose, its method and then engaging with the results found. I'm very happy with musicology because it gave me the tools to understand music, ALL kinds of music more than anything else. And also gave me tools to understand or at least try to speculate why some humans are more into some kinds of musics and others into other kinds of music.
It's very hard to explain myself better than this. If anyone is interested in this science and what is has to offer, the best, if not, I'm sorry I'm not able to present it better, go read the references and I'm not wasting more time trying to sell knowledge to the ones who refuse it... after all "who needs science when you have religion?" or "who needs medicin when you have homeopathy, astrology and such"?
Musicology grounded in cultural anthropology is for me the only rigorous, scientific way to explain the musical practices. If others feel otherwise and are happy with other explanations...
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
And now for something completely different (and yet sort of connected):IncarnateX wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:27 pm Seems like this is a really a good time to shift focus from polyphony and requiems to .......(drumroll)...
SWING AND BOOGIE WOOGIE!
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
Yeah, Lovely. I can feel my feets again. Listening as I write. New age relaxation music go home.
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
i'm going throw the other side of this coin at you guys. you don't have to master melody, but if you do... you can stay relevant forever like chris brown. it depends on how far you want to take it. i make fun of a lot of modern music, but the truth is chris brown is a modern musical genius. he knows exactly what his fans need from him. he even pays off chicks to claim rape in paris right as his new single drops to keep up his street cred up and keep him the headlines. that single is currently destroying hit lists. that's what it takes. can you do it? because i know i can't, that's why i stay in my lane.
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
So what are you saying with regard to the question: Does melody really matter? That it depends on cultural and personal values?Musicologo wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:11 pm Jancivil, that's jargon from musicology as a science. the word "value" is neutral, it's akin to "belief".....
(etc.)
.....grounded in cultural anthropology is for me the only rigorous, scientific way to explain the musical practices. If others feel otherwise and are happy with other explanations...
I think you could have said that in fewer words, then, and it seems not like a such a groundbreaking discovery, does it? What is the special thing added from your perspective?
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
IncarnateX wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:52 pmSo what are you saying with regard to the question: Does melody really matter? That it depends on cultural and personal values?Musicologo wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:11 pm Jancivil, that's jargon from musicology as a science. the word "value" is neutral, it's akin to "belief".....
(etc.)
.....grounded in cultural anthropology is for me the only rigorous, scientific way to explain the musical practices. If others feel otherwise and are happy with other explanations...
I think you could have said that in fewer words, then...
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
well, the reality is we are all worm food, ok. you are dirt waiting to happen, so have some fun. people who take themselves too seriously die lonely. disrupt, feel good about yourself, and take it as far as you want to. stop worrying about what everyone else is doing unless you are willing and able to take it the distance. it took me 45 years to lean that lol. my dad had a saying, "if you run into a brick wall you get a bloody nose."