Militia question 1
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2nd amendment issues
Earthborn said:
Because, as I said, there are objective qualities to music that can be measured. If all other things are equal, in training, practice time, etc., and one person is able to play a piece (say) perfectly in rhythm (with the disclaimer that musical interpretation does allow for variances in this) whereas the other person keeps starting and stopping, I think, yes, it can be objectively stated that the former person has more musical ability than the latter.
I'd like to see examples.
Not at all, no moreso than an objective definition of "language" limits one's ability to write novels or "tools" the ability to design architectural structures.
Of course, flaws in language can make the writing of novels more difficult, and, of course, the better tools available the better the architectural structures you can design. And this is the case with music, too. It's like the point I was making to Merc above about temperament.
In Bach's day, harpsichords were tuned to perfect fifths and thirds. "Perfect" does not refer to any subjective human construct; as I elucidated, it has to do with how the frequencies of the tones stay in phase with each other. Even people who are used to equal-temperament, which doesn't use perfect thirds and fifths, think that this sounds very pleasant when they hear it. So it has nothing to do with what we're used to or what we subjectively appreciate.
But there was a trade-off. Once you tuned the harpsichord to a perfect key, you could only play a certain set of chords in that key. Any other chords played out of tune and sounded terrible (and still do). This limited what composers could do. The advent of equal temperament allowed composers to use a greater range of chord structures and accidentals in their composition, but the trade-off is that thirds and fifths are sometimes dozens of cents sharp or flat (the only perfect interval remaining being the octaves). That really isn't enough to make it badly out of tune, though, so it's considered a good trade-off.
However, unequal temperaments are coming back in vogue. They just sound so pretty that more and more people want to use them, and most people when they play the piano only use a limited number of accidentals. Vilotti temperament is a modern one used for a lot of pianos (some even use it as their standard tuning).
I can demonstrate all of this to you quite easily if you and I ever get in the same room with an instrument that can switch temperaments fairly easily (like my electric piano).
Can you provide an example of music that is not tonal?
Please reread this sentence...I hope you'll realize you keep talking around yourself.
Mercutio said:
Good point. But there are still pleny of other criteria that they could have varied on.
Yeah, a theremin—I saw John Linnell of They Might Be Giants play one once. I've always wanted to try one. I thought of that after I hit the "send" button on your message, but didnt think it was worth editing to mention.
It might be interesting to let some elephants try it, but I don't know how much of the elephant's enjoyment comes from actually handling the instrument. You don't touch a theremin.
Having never heard that particular mockingbird, I can't say. It's more than any birds or cicadas or anything else I've heard. There's also much, much more variation.
I guess it must be--it certainly fits my recall of what I was talking about. Oddly enough, [derail] just to demonstrate how faulty memory recall can be...this is a crystal trombone, and I had thoroughly switched names and descriptions. I do not think an elephant could play this one. [/derail]CFLarsen said:
Most instruments must be tuned. Usually to what is called "Concert A" at a specific frequency (440 something-hurtz [I know, I know: "Call a doctor"]).
Even then, most classical stringed instruments haven't frets to help fingers find the "approved" tones.
Brass intonation is affected by lip positioning.
Reeds require something more than simple banging.
All this discussion is interesting, but no elephant would be pre-disposed to create music unless he/she was shut in a room with a musical instrument.
Humans did this without the bordom-induced tinkering of a zoo-keeper.
I wanted to add that the evidence for this, IMO, is that humans have been on Earth a mere blink of time compared to other species.
No symphonies except our own.
Even then, most classical stringed instruments haven't frets to help fingers find the "approved" tones.
Brass intonation is affected by lip positioning.
Reeds require something more than simple banging.
All this discussion is interesting, but no elephant would be pre-disposed to create music unless he/she was shut in a room with a musical instrument.
Humans did this without the bordom-induced tinkering of a zoo-keeper.
I wanted to add that the evidence for this, IMO, is that humans have been on Earth a mere blink of time compared to other species.
No symphonies except our own.
c0rbin said:
It varies. Some modern concert bands are tuning them even higher, 444Hz or even as high as 450Hz. Classical tuning is usually lower, something like 430Hz, and Baroqie pitch is even lower than that. It seems to be creeping up as the centuries pass.
And allows them to play mean-tone temperaments.
But most brass instruments (except the trombone) are played using valves which restrict the temperament. Valveless brass instruments play perfect thirds and fifths, but are restricted in what notes can actually be played (although this improves the higher you go; upper octaves can play almost every note, but you have to have one helluvan embouchure).
Actually, they found that they make music better in groups. Alone they tend to just make more random noise.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
The only that can be stated is that the former is apperently better at producing that particular kind of music. The latter might be better at music that does not require him to conform to properties that make up that kind of music.
I like to see examples of claims you made too. You don't provide them, but I'll provide you with one: I once saw some report on television about a group of artists who made machines to perform a concert. It basically were mechanisms randomly banging and screeching to produce a cacophony of sound. It was refered to as 'experimental music'.
What is the objective definition of 'language' and of 'tools' ?
Are more people using them because they sound pretty, or do more people start to think they sound pretty because more people are using them?
You cannot show the objectivity of it. If we disagree on what sounds pretty you have shown the subjectivity, if we agree you have shown the intersubjectivity.
Atonal music, duh!
Earthborn said:
Yes, or he may be better at another instrument. I've always been able to pick up keyboard, brass, and stringed instruments and do pretty well with them. I'm also pretty good with percussion instruments, too. I can't play a woodwind to save my life.
But the point is, the ability itself is objective, even if the test I mentioned is restrictive to one instrument or one style of music.
It depends on what kind of "experimental music" you're talking about. P.D.Q. Bach has made instruments out of sweet potatos, cardboard tubes, or, my personal favorite, the double reed slide music stand. It's about experimenting with instruments to see what works, what their range is, etc. Instruments that work go outside of the experimental area and become instruments in their own right. The saw I mentioned above is an example of this. There are, believe it or not, professional saw players.
Or it could be experimenting with new types of sounds. The theremin mentioned above is an example of this. That kind of sound was never heard before; but the theremin is regarded by many to be no longer experimental and is an instrument in its own right.
If you could remember the name of the group, it would greatly assist me in commenting on this.
Well, language has all sorts of constructs: nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc., and there's sentence structure as well. Actual implementations vary, but the basic ideas are there.
Tools are also evaluated in their ability to perform whatever the intended task is. There's a reason why the carpenter's hammer and the ball peen hammer are so different, even though they're both basically hammers.
No, it's pretty immediate. If I could show you you'd see instantly. Mean-tempered instruments just plain sound better in the key they're tuned to, even if that's the first time the person has ever heard them.
"Atonal" is a misnomer, and was a term used specifically to try and disparage the music. "Atonal" music is quite tonal, thank you very much; it just departs from the traditional base-hierarchy method of constructing keys and chords. It's still tonal, though, because it uses tones to make the music.
To judge from recording sales, Kenny G is objectively superior to Charlie Parker. To judge from critics' reviews, the aforementioned objective result is the work of Satan's minions. Both Bird and One-Chord-Kenny are technically very good (when compared with, say, a high-school sax player). By what objective criteria would you compare the two? Can you conceive of other criteria by which other conclusions might be reached?shanek said:
Mercutio said:
I think the issue is "talent" vs. "skills". Shanek is confusing the two: He thinks that just because he can play the notes, he can play music.
But music is art created in the moment, and to achieve that, you have to understand, first and foremost, your own limitations.
Shanek, I'd like to ask you a question: When do you play your best music? In what state of mind?
CFLarsen said:
I'd say his work counts as music, yes, although much of it could probably be considered more experimental. It's hard to tell in the clip you provided as it's so short relative to his phrase length. Each movement of that piece is over half an hour long, and it takes a really long time for him to build a musical phrase. It's almost like Entish...
Here's a clip that, in my opinion, does a better job of demonstrating this:
http://www.pernoergaard.dk/ress/musexx/m1300156.mp3
Mercutio said:
I'm not saying one can fully and objectively compare the value of different pieces or styles of music or different composers. I'm saying that there is a certain amount of objective criteria for something to fall in in order to be considered what we call "music."
CFLarsen said:
No, I'm not. Talent has to do with the inherent ability; skill is the ability to express it. So someone who has more talent for something can achieve the same level of skill as someone who isn't as talented with much less practice. But no matter how talented a person is, he can't just sit down and crank out a concerto first try. Even the most talented performers practice like mad to play the piece as well as they can.
It depends. If "best" means giving myself the best perceived benefit, then I guess it would be whenever I'm depressed or p!ssed off. Then sitting down and playing Beethoven is much more rewarding than it would be otherwise. But if you're talking about the best performance, it would have to be when I'm the most focused and relaxed.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
The ability to play a specific instrument and make a specific kind of music can be claimed to be objective. That's not what 'musical ability' is. Musical ability is the ability to make music, and since there is no objective definition of music, there can be no objective criteria to decide whether someone is able to make it or not.
I don't remember the group. All I know is that the noise produced was random and without any structure whatsoever. The people who made the machines made no attempt to make it sound like something people would automatically associate with music. Whether people would consider it music or not depended only on their subjective experience and whether they were willing to call random noise 'music'.
Conclusion: you don't know an objective definition of 'language' or 'tools'. All you can do is present a few characteristics that they may or may not have.
If you could show it to me, you can't prove that it would sound better to someone who has never heard it before, because I may have heard it before. It will probably be difficult to test yur claim, because it will be nearly impossible to find test subjects you can be sure of have never heard it before. It is also not relevant: just because you can prove that the vast majority of people will subjectively think it sounds better, does not mean it objectively sounds better.
btw, you can show it to me. Just play a bit, record it, put it on a webpage so anyone can download it.
That's not what tonality means. If all you mean with tonality is that it consists of tones (an incorrect definition) then it would be even less of a typical characteristic of music, because a lot of sounds have tones that are not music.
Note from the Wikipedia article, that some of the definitions of tonality define it through subjective experience.
shanek said:I'd say his work counts as music, yes, although much of it could probably be considered more experimental. It's hard to tell in the clip you provided as it's so short relative to his phrase length. Each movement of that piece is over half an hour long, and it takes a really long time for him to build a musical phrase. It's almost like Entish...
That may be so. However:
Where is the phrasing?
Where is the rhythm?
In what rhythm is this? 3/4? 2/3?
Where is the tonality?
What musical ability does this music require?
shanek said:
I see your Google skills improve as well. Why does it do a better job?
Earthborn said:
No, I presented characteristics that they all certainly have, just like I have with music.
I've given you physical reasons why it would sound better; why is this not enough? And what would be?
If I get some time together I'll try and see if I can record a demonstration of what I'm talking about.
You need to realize that, as with most other jargon, words can mean different things in different situations. There's tonality, as opposed to modality, but both tonality (in that context) and modality would be considered tonality in the Wiki definition. Tonality at its very basis deals with the nature of tones (being sounds of a distinct pitch) and how they relate to each other. And that is how I meant it above.
No, that is actually its most basic and most correct definition.
I never said tones were exclusive to music.
shanek said:
You are generalizing again: Mozart was a wonderkid, he could walk up to any cembalo and simply play whatever he had heard once, regardless of what other instruments the piece had been played on.
The reason why the most talented performers practice is because they need to develop their motor skills. It isn't as if they don't know what key to hit, it has nothing to do with their musical skills.
shanek said:
That's extremely telling.
You may be able to play music, but you have absolutely no understand of music. You are like a Neanderthal, banging away at Bach's piano.
Years ago, I played the guitar. Not merely the odd 3-chord pop song, but also classical pieces. My fingers bled, I practiced, I dreamed where the fingers would go. I took classes, I tried to learn the techniques. And, as every guitarist can relate, I was struggling. The guitar is not an easy instrument to play, if you want to go beyond "Where have all the flowers gone" and "Whiskey in the Jar". But my analytical mind seemed at a loss - I could play parts of pieces, but I could never get one right from bar 1 to the end.
And then, someday - revelation. I discovered, that when I let go of myself - when I didn't focus on what I was doing, I played perfectly. I didn't just hit the right notes, there was music streaming out. I could be pondering when I had to do laundry, or what to cook for dinner, didn't matter. But I had to let go, to let the music speak for itself.
You use music as a vent, to get rid of your own problems. Music to you is something you can exploit, a tool by which you yourself can benefit. To you, music is not an end goal in itself.
You have absolutely no humility towards music. And that is why you don't understand music. To you, music exists to serve you. To me, music exists, because it does. I am merely here to enjoy it.