Does Melody Even Matter??

[jancivil]

The problem is that is often starts with "ethic" concepts namely as "pitch", "tone", "key", etc.. as if they were universal and relevant and most often than not, that's not the case.

And if this be a metric, you have yet to apply it eg., to the whole of what you receive from say, Lomax. You simply believe in the universality of the concepts, because they are precious concepts to you for whatever reason. You're going to beg the question all the time now.

You aren't recognizing it in my criticisms of what you're writing.

I just went into it, you can't even sum up my culture to come up with my choices. At all. The only "behavior" I exhibit is the desire to know music, in order to *practice* the art.

There is nothing universal about these arguments you're making. They simply don't add up like that.

Pitch is pretty f**king universal in music. Key means what it means. You can't apply it to Balinese Gamelan, nor in the strict sense to Indian Classical Music. However, should I have a discussion of a raga with an Indian musician we are both saying 'per the tonic' a lot knowing what we mean.

"tone" in which sense of that word? I'm pretty sure any discussion is going to share terms, wherever you are.

WHY are you bullshitting? Seriously, at this point you can't stand the resistance to your notions, and in your world you need to be completely right, so, you're going to keep digging holes for yourself. No one is going to be persuaded by shit like this, who has a CLUE.


PS: that's not what the word 'ethic' does actually. I used it correctly, you want everyone to be ethically equal, extent of knowledge notwithstanding. IE: for you there is a certain conflict of Ethos (in the classical sense) between the person who obtains technique vs the person who doesn't care about those "values". Value system ≃ Ethos.

[jancivil]

"most often than not", terms such as pitch tone key etc are not relevant.

[jancivil]

All kidding aside, you need an education.

[jancivil]

but you cannot start from there {sound}

Really? Please show us the evidence of your superior methodology, your music out of your superior understanding of how to proceed and of what it is, really. You are SO full of shit.

[Aloysius]

Constipation?

[jancivil]

"But I tried to paint a complex overview to explain how humankind arrived at that point. Now dismissing all music cultures and individuals for whom folksong IS music as "they don't understand or care how music works" as if there was one music is missing the point all together."

I never did anything remotely resembling that. One would hope you know from straw man as a fallacy. I said there are people who simply consume music passively. I've said it more than once and I'm writing clearly enough to be understood. I never went into this or addressed anything which looks like this at all. If anything I have done the diametric opposite of 'as if there was one music'. You don't even evidence enough rigor or discipline to have a hint of a sense what people are saying to you because it doesn't fit up your ass with your head and all the shit.

This is dishonest; this dishonesty is why I have a problem in the first place when you come in to pontificate.

You disagree with yourself fairly widely: 'how humankind arrived at that point' is universal. Yet pitch isn't, somehow objective terms used all over aren't. You're just abusing words like "universal" now. You're tying yourself up in pretzels.

[CircuitEYE]

Check out John Cage: 4'33'' for piano.

You will have your answer.

[IncarnateX]

And now a little break. I need some cofee and deffo some of this now.

[jancivil]

"Now dismissing all music cultures and individuals for whom folksong IS music as "they don't understand or care how music works..."
You're obnoxious. You don't know me and you don't need to know or read me, you abused the opportunity, in order to prop up a sounding board for your bullshit putting words in my mouth which are nothing at all like my thought.

Only a weak mind needs to imagine a position - and yours here is a singularly stupid fabrication, seriously immature and lacking experience {particularly in talking to people, which is SUPPOSED to be the basis for everything} - in order to argue against it. You have no business trying to persuade more serious people.

[jancivil]

And you don't even grasp what music theory does.

I've said it many times, if you're doing music in a way to replicate a result consistently, it's the same thing as doing music theory.
People that know how to replicate "folksong", whatever that may represent, and do more than a parrot, write their own take of it and apply their own lyrics or whatever and it all scans, are doing the same thing you'd do if you used certain terms. You don't have to use the lingo. Paul McCartney, are we to take him as an ignorant musician? He knows, he has the interest.

There are levels of understanding, however. More interest is more interest. If all someone does is replicate what their mother does and it's the same folk song all the time, it's not the same level of interest someone who has a creative impulse has.

So it's reducible to one's ethos or values for your purpose; ie., less interest as not the same 'values' as more interest.

Classically, rhetoric is considered in terms of three basic levels: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Persuasion as to: a question of the character of a person; the appeal to emotion; then appeal to logic and reason. Argument to ethos is not great, for example I recognized what you're doing. <A conflict of values.> And the worst thing is eventually we see you trying to paint a picture of me as an asshole, dismissing all but an elite few; this is where the argument to ethos is a fail. This was what you really wanted.

Well, the notion there was as long as you have your Ethos... all people with Ethos are as valid as the next purely thru having the Ethos.
Yet, if the way of being is not to care about technique, it can't end up with an equal result as to care, just because it's a way of being! That isn't reasonable.

Me, I started with drums on some fairly pedestrian songs. I gravitated to blues guitar. I still value stupid songs and personally I think blues guitar can be very subtle. The notion I'm making an argument from complexity or sophistication is you needing a foil to make your arguments seem to be from a higher Ethos. And no, you're suspect in your M.O. there.

[IncarnateX]

Don’t think the sparrow will fly again, Jan. Don’t even think it is a sparrow anymore. At least I see nothing but big canon holes in the ground and feathers flying around. If it resurrects itself, we go nuclear next time. These holes came just from conventional weapons. Warning up.

[IncarnateX]

Btw. Once saw a video about the production of ABBA’s music where they said that one part of the big sound was made by placing nice small motifs below the singers that were hardly recognized as such but simply added to this big sound. They said that Bjørn and Benny could run out a whole tape by just doubling voices and adding motifs. “Subliminal counterpoint” anyone? Interesting technigue compared to just doubling and harmonizing, polyphony used for an unifying sound. Could almost be a contradiction.

[jancivil]

I'm just in no mood. When I'm working on something like I am right now, my sense of things is heightened.
There is no weed in sight for me, or I would have probably such a sense of the absurdity of this I wouldn't be as bothered.

The guy irritates me. I would be able to ignore it but it comes up in quotes and I want to investigate it. I don't know, but it's kind of the arrogance of the adolescent. You could_not be in university writing for a grade and not know better.

[jancivil]

I liked the Steely Dan, it really swings. Never heard that one.

[jancivil]

“Subliminal counterpoint” anyone?

Do you know the video of 10CC's construction of "I'm Not In Love"?