RoR: Forum

If this true, then Rock and Rap are not music or at the very best not good music, as I said when you started this discussion. If you can't hum it, it has no melody.

Post 1

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:33pm

The basic rules of western music, time-honored. And, they work. But, it's not the only way. My beef with experimenters is they start their experiments without mastering a system first. "Learn everything, then forget it," didn't Charlie Parker say something like that? You have to learn rules in order to bend or break (innovate) them. Otherwise, you are just making an unlearned attempt at reinventing the wheel.

A good analogy is to look at the work of Bruce Lee, his "Jeet Kune Do". Using no way as way. That way evolved after he extensively studied everything he could get his hands on about combat.

And, he said something interesting about all that, once. He said, in effect, that unless a new kind of man came along that had more than two arms and two legs, the principles would remain the same.

The study of music involves the study of principles. It is a very human endeavor, in the most complete sense of the word "human". The goal is expression. What do you want to express? Do you have anything to express? And, if you do, do you have any means by which to do so?

Post 2

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 2:24pm

Robert, the "old grey whistle test" has been asserted around here before, with the standard response that many "classics" do not meet this criteria, either. Some melodies are suped up to hyperkinetic proportions that NO trained singer could attempt. Some classics contain hummable themes interspersed with sustained notes and chords that stretch out time to the mind's endurance limits with nothing hummable in range. Without undervaluing melody, many melodically pieces are succesful as music because the organization of time and tones still evoke "musings," encourage contemplation and provoke an emotional experience.

How does it relate to the article, which deals more specifically in deviations in melody?

(It's obvious from your other posts that you have an agenda, nay, a VENDETTA, against rock. WE GET IT. MOVE ON.)
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/28, 2:47pm)

Post 3

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 2:25pm

On the nature of innovation, I found this gem buried in Michael Newberry's recent art post:

"Innovation is a funny thing in art. An artist could easily lose their way by attempting to be innovative in everything they do and lose sight of what their core belief and soul are. On the other hand there are plenty of artists that remain true to themselves and yet use the tools of art that they were simply taught. I view art history more like a palette of colors to tweak, as one of many means to breath freshness into the work; but the end point always comes out of my soul."

Post 4

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:56pm

I'll gladly move on. I suggest you do as well. You'll never find a definition of music that encompasses everything humans think of as musical.

Post 5

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:18pm

Robert, go fuck yourself gently with a chain saw. I'm done with you.

Now, go away before I taunt you a second tiieeemmmee...
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/28, 6:28pm)

Post 6

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:37pm

Robert-

You'll never find a definition of music that encompasses everything humans think of as musical.

Then why did you try to define as basically 'that which people can hum'?

Post 7

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:42pm

Gee - my kazoo can do that... does that make it a musical instrument? ;-o
(Edited by robert malcom on 11/28, 8:43pm)

Post 8

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:50am

Jody,

That is the test for melody.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:51am

Joe,

You are a boring pedant.

Let me amplify that. You go to great lengths to try to describe "music" and expend effort in outlining the rules for creating melody. But it is all pedantic because you haven't the courage to tell us what is not music and why.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/29, 7:25am)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:07am

Robert,

Yes.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:17am

I don't have the courage?

I don't have the desire to tear down other people for their musical tastes. I am not concerned with what is not music. I am concerned with music. I won't play you're little mindgames.

So let's have this out right now.

I respect the wishes of Lindsay Perigo, who doesn't want certain forms of music promoted on his forum, so I keep my ideas on a broader level and let the reader apply them to whatever forms of music they listen to. And I am presenting ideas, not the whole of my being. I don't have the answers to all music questions, I am looking to spark debate and discussion on the nature of music. I WANT people to respond with arguments of a musical nature. I DON'T want to attack people for liking rock or rap or Lanza, but I'd like look closer at their musical choices and see how they work.

If you're trying to get me to say that rock and rap aren't music, it's not happening. I don't like rap per se, but I consider it music. I don't like Slayer, but I consider it music. I define music rather broadly, and not by my preferences. Intentional arrangements of sound and time used to arouse the listener.

Robert, you've had a stick up your ass ever since day one. I tried to engage you, but you persist in being snarky. For some reason the existence of this forum annoys you, which is why I suggested that it may not be for you:

"As to the definition of music, I assume anyone on this forum has a working definition. But to be fair, I've started a separate thread on the definition. As for whether or not rock is music, you're jumping ahead of the game, and I will state this again: This forum is aiming at a larger understanding of music, so if you're trying to prove something with your comments on rock, or trying to provoke angry discussions like the ones in the past, this may not be the forum for you."

So don't go telling me I don't have the courage. I HAVE my definition, if I was being truly pedantic, I'd be hammering others with it, instead of inviting people to attempt to define it themselves. I WANT people to say, "Hey, Joe...that's not quite right...what about this? What about that?" Then we have discussion.

You've exhausted my good will, Robert, you are a troll. Plain and simple. I don't have the courage? I had the fucking courage to even ATTEMPT this forum. What have you contributed? You think you can do better? DO IT.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/29, 8:18am)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:24am

You've exhausted my good will, Robert, you are a troll. Plain and simple. I don't have the courage? I had the fucking courage to even ATTEMPT this forum. What have you contributed? You think you can do better? DO IT

Thanks Joe, for both having the courage to share your ideas and contribute, and for rightly calling a spade a spade.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:40am

Davison is back to his annoying tricks?? I can't believe it. :)

Good job with SOLO Music Joe. I hope that you are able to continue something like it with the next incarnation of SOLO.

- Jason

Post 14

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:12am

Joe,

I have a GREAT DEAL to contribute esthetics-wise and even in terms of defining music. I will discuss much of this with you later in other contexts.

You have done a wonderful job. Congratulations.

Michael

Post 15

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:28am

Thank you, Jody, Jason, Michael.

Michael, if we can just pull you away from the PARC discussions, we'll be in business! ;)

Post 16

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:33am

Robert,

Joe is simply posing the classic questions. The thread topics have resulted in fruitful discussions. At least, as a lifelong musician, I think so.

As far as avoiding music that doesn't hit Linz's pallette the right way, well, it's his site and that's how it is. I like Lanza and Rach just fine, but it is certainly not first on my playlist. So what? I try not to make fun of what other people listen to (well, Fat Boy Slim, maybe, I just don't get that and in the end he was just too much for me).

It's stupid to get into bitchy little slappy fights over music. It's just brick-dumb. I don't think for a minute Joe is being a musical fascist, he's just talking about the main principles of Western music, that's all. No biggie, dude.

Post 17

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:45pm

I too offer my support of what Joe writes on music. It's a fascinating topic of discussion precisely because the nature of music is damn difficult to objectively define.

Post 18

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:54pm

Joe,

Michael, if we can just pull you away from the PARC discussions, we'll be in business! ;)

Let's see what the wind will bring - better things I hope. If we could have just gotten Solo away from being a hotbed of Branden slamming...

Objectivism is much bigger than all that (music too), but unfortunately this issue is what gives the traffic - and this issue was the focus of the owner...

Michael

Post 19

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:35pm