Sorry Jan, that was a typo. I meant "etic" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic
the difference between concepts defined by the researcher vs the words used by the people they are studying, for instance the Suya people don't use the word "pitch" (as in Seeger, "Why suyà sing?").
But I never meant to upset anyone and obviously everything that I write is coming back at me, my goal was just to share the knowledge I learned from those books that I linked and that I found useful.
I obviously failed in doing so. I'm not native english speaker, and because 800p books are complex would require a command of english language and power of concision I don't seem to have. Therefore I leave the discussion because I don't want to be nuked whatever that means, neither I am in a battle. If anything I invite you to just take a peak on Nettl's book, first chapters as he explains all these points much better than I am able to do so. Again, really sorry for any harm caused and I don't bother you again, as everything I was trying to convey is in those books anyway.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2473734/19022a
Does Melody Even Matter??
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
Play fair and square!
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
For all I care you could have gotten away with your sea of assertions if science was not taken hostage in best of KVR style to lend objectivity to your statements. We have enough of that shit already in these times of fake news and emotion based science rejection. No need to contribute to the upcoming age of anti-enlightenment. Seems apocalyptic enough already.
As far as academia concerns, here is one of my shortest rules that concerns most of it. Know that there are three ways to screw up an argument, which can enhance each other:
1. You base the whole argument on false or ungrounded premises from which point everything else will be screwed even if it has the right logical form.
2. You infer consequences, which does not follow from the premises, that is, your inference has not a valid logical form.
3. You are not able to make conclusions in a valid logical form
Hope you can infer from this yourself that if you screw up any of these, argument is down the drain. And if you screw up all of them, you get utterly nonsense. Further; even if you do not screw up, you will convince no one unless you provide the analysis unambigiously
In everyday conversation we make a lot of such errors and that is why we in academic contexts need to approach it systematically, analyse, critisize and finally reach our own conclusions to either support or reject the source as something of interest to our topic.
Academia is not about just repporting a lot of non-transparent assertions, inferences or conclusions already made. However, everyday babble-wabble is about that, and therefore it is ok with me as long as it not even remotely claims to be scientific or objective, because that it ain’t for sure.
As far as academia concerns, here is one of my shortest rules that concerns most of it. Know that there are three ways to screw up an argument, which can enhance each other:
1. You base the whole argument on false or ungrounded premises from which point everything else will be screwed even if it has the right logical form.
2. You infer consequences, which does not follow from the premises, that is, your inference has not a valid logical form.
3. You are not able to make conclusions in a valid logical form
Hope you can infer from this yourself that if you screw up any of these, argument is down the drain. And if you screw up all of them, you get utterly nonsense. Further; even if you do not screw up, you will convince no one unless you provide the analysis unambigiously
In everyday conversation we make a lot of such errors and that is why we in academic contexts need to approach it systematically, analyse, critisize and finally reach our own conclusions to either support or reject the source as something of interest to our topic.
Academia is not about just repporting a lot of non-transparent assertions, inferences or conclusions already made. However, everyday babble-wabble is about that, and therefore it is ok with me as long as it not even remotely claims to be scientific or objective, because that it ain’t for sure.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
-
- KVRian
- 1071 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
I did not watch the video. I think sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, depends on genre. Probably less so for dance genres where moving feet and smiles is the goal. Here you can potentially rely on interesting sounds and their textural movement.
I think there needs to be some melody, but music with complex melody can be great or not so great and the same goes for a track with very little melody, can be great or not. Most of the time either will fall into the forgettable region, and maybe 1pct of the time you will capture a few people who feel magic.
Very subjective to which there no definitive answer.
I think there needs to be some melody, but music with complex melody can be great or not so great and the same goes for a track with very little melody, can be great or not. Most of the time either will fall into the forgettable region, and maybe 1pct of the time you will capture a few people who feel magic.
Very subjective to which there no definitive answer.
-
- KVRian
- 1100 posts since 9 Jan, 2015 from NY, NY
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
What started it for me was:
So you try to portray it in this negative light.
Recognizing infantilization of a culture is being real. It isn't a disrespect of viable, wholesome values. It is a recognition of a failure of values.
Compounding this, "Musicologo", was to establish this goalpost, views on pop music held by your supposed cognoscenti in a straw man form, and then once I had addressed it move the goalpost way over here to talk about folksongs. And NOW I have dismissed EVERYTHING under the sun that wasn't something something elite.
It has NOTHING to do with simplicity vs complexity. This is in your head, and it's garbage. Per the topic, a melody may be quite simple and be elegant and a little gem. It may be complicated and simply hard to follow, with no guarantee of quality of its construction. If you knew about music, the chances are good you don't come away with this quality of assertion.
Consideration of behaviors isn't going to result in a knowledge of music. People may do music in modern times far outside their own particular milieu. People find their own level, I guess and yours is unfortunately not way up here above musicianship {accessing "a real music theory"}.
You are pontificating on things you don't really know about, in the first place. You aren't working in the field talking to people or you'd have a sensitivity you direly lack. You're not basing this shit in talking with people.
You aren't really writing, or you'd know about fallacies, and logic, rhetoric... no one in academia worth a shit would tolerate this. You may think I'm mean, but write a paper this full of holes and see if you don't get an F and a suggestion maybe you need to be doing something else with your time.
I'm surely not alone in that the pontificating gets old, fast.
First, a straw man. You know where this comes from probably? A resentment against people who have advanced skills.All other music practices are then considered "inferior" because of the "simplicity" of the musical materials and the lack of innovation or dexterity. Most pop music is seen as infantile because any 10 year old can play those, and imitate those.
Of course, everyone who starts from other kinds of values (for instance, most people who were not grown as "trained musicians" or don't play instruments) don't share them.
So you try to portray it in this negative light.
Recognizing infantilization of a culture is being real. It isn't a disrespect of viable, wholesome values. It is a recognition of a failure of values.
Compounding this, "Musicologo", was to establish this goalpost, views on pop music held by your supposed cognoscenti in a straw man form, and then once I had addressed it move the goalpost way over here to talk about folksongs. And NOW I have dismissed EVERYTHING under the sun that wasn't something something elite.
It has NOTHING to do with simplicity vs complexity. This is in your head, and it's garbage. Per the topic, a melody may be quite simple and be elegant and a little gem. It may be complicated and simply hard to follow, with no guarantee of quality of its construction. If you knew about music, the chances are good you don't come away with this quality of assertion.
Consideration of behaviors isn't going to result in a knowledge of music. People may do music in modern times far outside their own particular milieu. People find their own level, I guess and yours is unfortunately not way up here above musicianship {accessing "a real music theory"}.
You are pontificating on things you don't really know about, in the first place. You aren't working in the field talking to people or you'd have a sensitivity you direly lack. You're not basing this shit in talking with people.
You aren't really writing, or you'd know about fallacies, and logic, rhetoric... no one in academia worth a shit would tolerate this. You may think I'm mean, but write a paper this full of holes and see if you don't get an F and a suggestion maybe you need to be doing something else with your time.
I'm surely not alone in that the pontificating gets old, fast.
Last edited by jancivil on Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 643 posts since 28 Apr, 2004 from location: location
You only need three chords and the truth (although, you could probably get away with two).
eh?
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105791 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105791 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105791 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
according to wikipedia it goes back to the 50s.
so i was wrong, unless of course strummer quoted it
so i was wrong, unless of course strummer quoted it
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Harlan Howard
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... es-197596/
probably points more to the truth of the story being told
If you want Ice Cream changes you're doing too much.
Which one of I vi IV V has to go, I wonder.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... es-197596/
probably points more to the truth of the story being told
If you want Ice Cream changes you're doing too much.
Which one of I vi IV V has to go, I wonder.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105791 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
