mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/11/85)
Thank you all for your responses. They have been most helpful, educational, informative. And polite, too. It is a pleasure to argue with such fine gentlemen. Since you collectively have covered the topic in its entirety, let us then consider the matter resolved. I am the richer for the experience. If you will allow me, however, to make these miserably insignificant points: To Tom Duff: My dictionary and standard music theory text (MATERIALS AND STRUCTURE OF MUSIC, Vol 1: Christ, Delone, Kliewer, Rowell & Thomson; Prentice Hall 1972) define rhythm as "the pattern produced by emphasis and duration of notes." No mention of time signature. Generalizing a bit, we can say that rhythm is that quality of music that differentiates the note I play today from the same note you played yesterday. In that sense is rhythm intrinsic to music. You cite some examples. Well, Cecil Taylor has not played in any measurable meter in some 20 years, yet is surely one of the most rhythmic pianists around. To Chris Yoder: That irresistibly rhythmic music you find so intellectually flat, does it get from here to there? And do you want to go there with it? To Doug Alan: Your posting surely passes the Rich Rosen relevancy test. I don't, however, understand how my interest in grammar relates to my interest in rhythm. Maybe you can explain it to me, and to the rest of us. On second thought, don't. It might prove taxing to your numerous, brilliant brain cells. To Rich Rosen: Sorry I disappointed you so. I promise to do better next time. I realize now that listening to the opinions of the top practitioners of a craft is not useful in defining it. I was also mistaken in believing the saying that goes "Anyone in the band can swing, but it's the drummer who swings the band." And I now understand that you know better than I what may be inferred from my postings. Well, let me not clog your CRTs any longer. This discussion has been wonderful. I look forward to some more in the very distant future. Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/12/85)
> Thank you all for your responses. They have been most helpful, educational, > informative. And polite, too. It is a pleasure to argue with such fine > gentlemen. Since you collectively have covered the topic in its entirety, > let us then consider the matter resolved. I am the richer for the experience. > If you will allow me, however, to make these miserably insignificant points: > > To Rich Rosen: Sorry I disappointed you so. I promise to do better next time. > I realize now that listening to the opinions of the top practitioners > of a craft is not useful in defining it. I was also mistaken in believing > the saying that goes "Anyone in the band can swing, but it's the drummer > who swings the band." And I now understand that you know better than I what > may be inferred from my postings. [MARCEL SIMON] Oh please, spare us this, sir! You were unable to corroborate your statements about rhythm being THE most important element in music when pressed for it. There are lots of cute epithets in this world that are simply wrong. If an important (not "the only") element in swing is percussive rhythm, then the drummer may be the driving force behind it. That does NOT make percussive rhythm or even rhythm in general THE most important element in music. It is to you because that's your personal taste. My personal emphasis in listening to music is on harmony. Am I listening to music in a "wrong" manner? Are you going to educate me now on your "right" way of emphasizing rhythm first and foremost? It's interesting to note here some of the beautiful elements of the net itself. Not long ago there was a discussion on this very topic (or rather on the meta-topic around it): are there absolutes in music? The conclusion of the abstract discussion was "no, there are not". But now we got to see a practical example on the same topic: one person claimed that his tastes/preferences were in fact absolutes, and others responded with their own perspectives on listening to music, showing that the first person's tastes were indeed not absolute at all. Mr. Simon, as for your last statement above, it may shock you at times in the future when other people do actually know better than you do about certain things. I hope it doesn't upset you too much then. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/13/85)
["You cannot achieve the goal without suffering"] > [Marcel Simon] To Chris Yoder: That irresistibly rhythmic music you > find so intellectually flat, does it get from here to there? And do > you want to go there with it? What is this anyway with expressions like "rhythm is what gets you from here to there"? They are totally meaningless! Where is here and where is there? Maybe I like it just where I am. Maybe I want to move in rapid little circles about 3.5 inches big. There exists music containing rhythm machine sounds that gives me what I want out of music -- a unique, enjoyable, and thought and emotion inducing experience. Your insisting that music with drum machines won't take me from here to there is either blatantly false or then that is only one of the many things that can make music interesting. Also, if there is such a thing as music getting me "from here to there", it seems to me that rhythm progressions (performed by either by a drum machine or human) would do a good job in aiding to achieve that goal. > To Doug Alan: Your posting surely passes the Rich Rosen relevancy > test. I don't, however, understand how my interest in grammar relates > to my interest in rhythm. Maybe you can explain it to me, and to the > rest of us. On second thought, don't. It might prove taxing to your > numerous, brilliant brain cells. Besides one stray comment in an article more than a hundred of lines long, everything I said was completely relevant. You don't agree? Well please do tell me what isn't relevant. Or is it just that there is no way that you can refute what I have said? Come on, give it a try -- I'm sure it wouldn't prove too taxing on your numerous, brilliant brain cells. Alas, I must admit, that individually, each of my brain cells is really a pretty stupid thing. Seen as a whole, the collection of brain cells is a totally different thing. Just like with music. The whole is not just a sum of the parts. And regarding your opinion on grammar -- it does relate in a way to your opinion on music. In both cases you demonstrate that you believe that your particular taste on an aesthetic matter is FACT and not merely just your opinion. > To Rich Rosen: Sorry I disappointed you so. I promise to do better > next time. I realize now that listening to the opinions of the top > practitioners of a craft is not useful in defining it. I was also > mistaken in believing the saying that goes "Anyone in the band can > swing, but it's the drummer who swings the band." And I now understand > that you know better than I what may be inferred from my postings. Well, Marcel, let me tell you that you have completely convinced me now. I now realize that all the music I liked before is worthless. It just doesn't get me from here to there any more. And if it doesn't get me from here to there, it surely must be worthless. I'm throwing out all my records -- everyone's tastes in music should be the same as yours Marcel because variety in the world is just way too confusing. Hey, Marcel, can I use a quote of yours. I really liked it. Here it is: > So we are now reaping the rewards: when musicians have absorbed that > the only rule is no rule, the structures they create are based on > their own creativity rather than on "what the book says". This is a great thing for you to say Marcel, only I think you got it slightly wrong. Didn't you mean to say So we are now reaping the rewards: when musicians have absorbed that the only rule is no rule except "Drum machines are worthless", the structures they create are based on their own creativity rather than on "what the book says" as long as their creativity follows the guidelines prescribed in books by Martin Williams, Duke Ellington, or Marcel Simon. > Well, let me not clog your CRTs any longer. This discussion has been > wonderful. I look forward to some more in the very distant future. Awwwww, come back Marcel! The net's no fun without having someone to flame at! "I kept it in a cage, Watched it weeping, but I made it stay (But now I've started learning how) I leave it open I leave it open" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP nessus@mit-eddie.ARPA