# What's to be and what's not to be considered as Music?



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

In my opinion,
not every composition out of musical sounds can be considered as Music.

In order to be music, the composition in question must be *tonal*, *melodic*, and 
to be music of classical style - *hearty* and *serious* in addition to the above.

*Music proper can't occur without melody. *

It's not enough to express emotions in sounds.

With notes (and musical sounds) one should sing and dance. Well, or narrate. 
One should not, for instance, draw or paint with them - the right things to do that with are brushes or pencils. When a composer draws with sounds, he does not deal with and write music proper.
Unfortunately, starting with the 20th century, quite a lot of authors struck out on this wrong way.

Opponent:

I can't agree to confining music in any way! 
Everyone has his own, individual vision. Those, who see visual images, pictures, they "draw" or "paint". For example, Rachmaninov wrote his Etudes-tableaux, expressing quite concrete images. Isn't it Music?!

Others cannot see so, but can sing and dance or present music in yet other ways. All depends on one's own individual, inner vision of music. So what one person sees as a visual image, a picture, others can present as melody (a dance, a song).
Music is universal as a whole and individual in its parts.

Reply to the opponent:

Oh, yes. Different people can have different visions and opinions and see music in their own individual ways. A lot depends on one's own inner, individual sense and understanding.
But the real, objective, right and true state of things does not depend on it and won't change.
We also know - Man is prone to error. People greatly differ in how easily they get misled and how gross and frequent mistakes they make are.

Different creative spheres belong to and are governed by different Muses, not by one, universal, as you wrote. Each Muse has her own ways and tools. If a composer for some reason (he can't, he won't, hasn't got taste) avoids melodic work and with musical sounds starts to do what is to be done with paints, brushes and pencils or follows another wrong course - say, that of 'theatre of sounds', then it means he *sits down between two chairs* (which stand apart from one another).

Try to sit between 2 chairs! - Where shall you find yourself? Anyway, not in the sphere of Music. Nor do you manage to get to the sphere of Graphic Arts. You just fall onto the floor.
Not few authors found themselves where they did not intend to be.

Thus, individuality and individual search are welcome till one has the right measure in him and the feeling of it.

And as far as the Rachmaninov's Etudes-tableaux are concerned - 
Rachmaninov is a well known melodist and these etudes are really musical compositions. There is quite a lot of melodic content in them, deviations are scarce. The very name "...-tableaux" misled you.

Yet another thought to the point:
Music should always carry Beauty, even when it tells us about something very sad and tragic. In this respect music is comparable to belles-lettres, fiction, in contrast to non-fictional, documentary chronicle. Some authors lost the right path and sense and wrote chronicles.

---
AB
http://aleksandr_bystrow.musicaneo.com


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

While I batten down the hatches and wait for all the inevitable "define tonal" remarks, I will keep my opinions about what is music to myself for now.

But I am reminded of a podcast I just listened to about a remarkable program called Apps for Apes. Apparently orangutans in zoos across the world are getting iPod Touch tablets and are really taking to them. Some of the younger ones are up to understanding and playing children's games, with the predictable result that their orangutan mothers are trying to keep them from playing so much. I found this so amazing it brought tears to my eyes. The podcast can be found here, with the Apps for Apes story beginning at about 27:30 --

http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Quirks%2Band%2BQuarks/ID/2385860929/

However, the researchers also performed an experiment with playlists. One list would have intact music, the other a list of music files that had been chopped up and scrambled in random ways. The orangutans showed no preference for either play list, picking both with equal frequency.

Now this tells me one of three things:

1. Orangutans do not hear music as music.
2. Orangutans are very sophisticated and will enjoy 20th and 21st century music with as much enthusiasm as more accessible forms.
3. People who love 20th /21st century music are as sophisticated as orangutans.

The jury is out.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft


Don't worry, the new term starts soon.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ssdei said:


> In my opinion,
> 
> (snip)


Excellent introduction. The rest as you state is your opinion.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

The OP is so full of foolishness I'll withdraw from participation here...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

OP, Sorry, I can't really understand what you are trying to say beyond "I prefer tonal melodic music". I tried a couple times, but I can't get through it in any sort of comprehensive way.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Well no I'm sorry to say I don't agree with your opinion. Especially when you say that music must convey beauty. A good counter example would be brutal atonal(or close to atonal) works that came out during the second world war. My example, Prokofiev's sixth piano sonata






This piece is beautiful, I think, not because of the "melody", but because of the raw emotion. This is how Prokofiev expressed his emotions, this is one of the way he described war, which is NOT beautiful.

I know I know it's just opinion but still it upsets me a little.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

ssdei said:


> In my opinion,
> not every composition out of musical sounds can be considered as Music.


surely you can see the fallacies in that very statement.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Music without melody is indeed hard, but the effort towards it makes it not 'less Music', exactly the same goes with 'tonal'

"Music should always carry Beauty" Define beauty? This statement is not really musicological...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

You begin by stating that this argument is your opinion, later on you nullify it completely by saying that opinions do not matter and are likely erroneous anyway. This whole argument is an attempt to, as you say, *sit between two chairs*, one labelled _subjectivity_ and the other _objectivity_, or perhaps to wear a blindfold and sit upon the former while believing yourself to be on the latter. A little consistency goes a long way.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Finally!

Thank you so much ssdei! I have been waiting so long for this.

I've really tried to write a parody like this but you did so much better than all my failed attempts.

It was such a great parody I am little speechless; my envy is palpable for how cleverly, humorously and intelligently you displayed how silly the 'music has to dripping with melody' advocates are.

By taking an opposite viewpoint (common in debate preparation) you were really able to get into the psyche of those who feel like they can tell others what music is and is not - allowing a beautiful and open display of how flimsy such arguments are.

"to be music of classical style - hearty and serious..." For me this was a real highlight. I know others may actually believe this, but I am comforted that you, I, and Mozart can chuckle at such a notion.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

........................


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> Well no I'm sorry to say I don't agree with your opinion. Especially when you say that music must convey beauty. A good counter example would be brutal atonal(or close to atonal) works that came out during the second world war. My example, Prokofiev's sixth piano sonata
> This piece is beautiful, I think, not because of the "melody", but because of the raw emotion. This is how Prokofiev expressed his emotions, this is one of the way he described war, which is NOT beautiful.


Thank you for this example of yours. 
I know his three war sonatas and appreciate them.

There is enough order (melodic, harmonious organization) in them, Prokofiev in his intense search still retained himself in good enough, musical frames.

And hopefully, you see yourself, it is not like a documental chronicle, it's like belles-lettres, it's the sphere of Arts.

Although I myself would have been more cautious and particular in some places when choosing among sounds which should participate and which not.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> You begin by stating that this argument is your opinion, later on you nullify it completely by saying that opinions do not matter and are likely erroneous anyway. This whole argument is an attempt to, as you say, *sit between two chairs*, one labelled _subjectivity_ and the other _objectivity_, or perhaps to wear a blindfold and sit upon the former while believing yourself to be on the latter. A little consistency goes a long way.


Who says 'opinions do not matter'? - Not me.
You got entangled.
There is no logical contradiction in the starting article. There can be different opinions - clever and not so, informed and ... , weighty and ... . What's important is to see and be close to the Truth. And Beauty.

I just draw your attention to the phrase in the article you seem to have failed to take in - 
'Thus, individuality and individual search are welcome till one has the right measure in him and the feeling of it.'


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

violadude said:


> OP, Sorry, I can't really understand what you are trying to say beyond "I prefer tonal melodic music". I tried a couple times, but I can't get through it in any sort of comprehensive way.


The matter here is not exhausted only with individual preferences.
People can allow themselves very different opinions about the truth, but the truth does not depend on opinions.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Joris said:


> Music without melody is indeed hard, but the effort towards it makes it not 'less Music', exactly the same goes with 'tonal'
> 
> "Music should always carry Beauty" Define beauty? This statement is not really musicological...


I hope, you see the difference between belles-lettres and documentary chronicles, between theatrical films and documentary ones.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

deggial said:


> In my opinion,
> not every composition out of musical sounds can be considered as Music.
> 
> - surely you can see the fallacies in that very statement.


No fallacies at all. You've got tangled in the matter.

Musical sounds = pitched ones.
A composition out of pitched sounds is not always music. It can be just compilation of sounds - with no melody, little sense, with no organismic structure in it.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

ssdei said:


> People can allow themselves very different opinions about the truth, but the truth does not depend on opinions.


The same can be said of music; it is not dependant on tonality or atonality, music is just the mindset of the listener! And as such it has always been an opinion of the individual! The truth or opinion is not truer just because several individuals share it, it is not truer just because it seemingly was discovered and documented in antiquity, it is no truer just because someone can see parallels to it in scientific research.

The truth is all about the mindset of the individual, if it weren't religions would not still be reaking havoc on this fragile little planet!

just my 2 pence the reality of 'truths'

/ptr


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

ssdei said:


> A composition out of pitched sounds is not always music. It can be just compilation of sounds - with no melody, little sense, with no organismic structure in it.


Can You please make a list of non-music that fit the structure You describe!

/ptr


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

ssdei said:


> No fallacies at all. You've got tangled in the matter.
> 
> Musical sounds = pitched ones.
> A composition out of pitched sounds is not always music. It can be just compilation of sounds - with no melody, little sense, with no organismic structure in it.


And.... a composition out of pitched sounds is sometimes music. It can be a compilation of sounds - with no melody, with sense, and with structure in it.

You may not like serialism - but there is, very much so, a lot of sense and structure to it.

Any definition of music is going to look something like, "sounds that produce effect." You may not like the effect, but that does not mean it is not music.

The problem here is that you are creating your own definition and expecting everyone else just to fall in line. The hubris would be comical if it wasn't so infuriating.

For example: I do not find soap operas to be entertaining, but that does not mean they are not entertainment. You may not like the sounds that certain composers make, but that does not mean it is not music.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

ssdei said:


> In my opinion,
> not every composition out of musical sounds can be considered as Music.
> 
> In order to be music, the composition in question must be *tonal*, *melodic*, and
> ...


I think it would help us if you provided a definition of these terms from the outset. What is "tonal"? What is "melody"? That way, everyone would be on the same plane and it would be easier to debate the actual issue at hand.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Celloman said:


> I think it would help us if you provided a definition of these terms from the outset. What is "tonal"? What is "melody"? That way, everyone would be on the same plane and it would be easier to debate the actual issue at hand.


Come now, if he defined his terms he would be forced to contradict himself even more. You're just trying to lead him into a corner where his unfounded prejudices can't help!


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

ptr said:


> The same can be said of music; it is not dependant on tonality or atonality, music is just the mindset of the listener! And as such it has always been an opinion of the individual! The truth or opinion is not truer just because several individuals share it, it is not truer just because it seemingly was discovered and documented in antiquity, it is no truer just because someone can see parallels to it in scientific research.
> 
> The truth is all about the mindset of the individual, if it weren't religions would not still be reaking havoc on this fragile little planet!
> 
> ...


Oh, God! 
You've got into a muddle.

Music proper has got a lot to do with tonality, since tonality provides order. 
Disordered compilations of sounds are just summations.

Take a litter-basket and an organismic whole - what is the difference between them?

The first can be divided, the latter is indivisible, i.e. dividing the content of a litter-basket (=summation) you get what? - two litter-baskets (=summations), because the broken internal connections were very poor or did not exist at all, so no change in the quality of the whole. 
Quite the different case with an organismic whole - divide He by 2 and you get what? - 2 H.

That's why you can easily play Debussy changing the order of the parts of his piece, even playing it from the end up to the beginning, and such a performance won't be worse or even will sound better. 
So Debussy and those like him are on the way out of Music, onto, say, the Muse of graphical Arts or Theatre (of sounds).


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

ssdei said:


> A composition out of pitched sounds is not always music.


a composition is music all right.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ssdei said:


> Music proper has got a lot to do with tonality, since tonality provides order.
> Disordered compilations of sounds are just summations.
> 
> Take a litter-basket and an organismic whole - what is the difference between them?
> ...





ssdei said:


> Oh, God!
> You've got into a muddle.


Indeed.

The statement about Debussy is not only untrue, it is laughably and obviously untrue. One could say the same about Bach or Beethoven, both of whom wrote music before the term tonality was defined, or the Renaissance masters, who wrote music that was, according to scholarly definitions, not tonal.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I think it ironic that "beauty" can be found in places that you wouldn't expect. Take, for example, that most awkward of intervals: the tritone. Many of the most beautiful harmonies are based on this very interval. In fact, whole pieces are based on it. Music is full of these paradoxes, I think. "Beauty", however you define it, can come from just about anywhere.

And who says that music has to be beautiful? In a world where there's so much darkness and suffering? Music helps us relate to this stuff, so it shouldn't have to be beautiful.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

ptr said:


> Can You please make a list of non-music that *LACK* the structure You describe!
> 
> /ptr


I've already mentioned Debussy.
Other sorry examples - late Skriabin and all those poor experimentalists who lost melody and organismic organization during their composing efforts - quite a lot of the 20th century and contemporary authors.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

To me music is pleasant sounds which are there for themselves not for some external meaning, and most of all: somebody chooses to listen (to it).

More people chose to listen to late Skriabin than to your highly personal rant


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mitchell said:


> The hubris would be comical if it wasn't so infuriating.


As a new member, it's sometimes hard for me to distinguish between thoughtful and controversial statements of opinion, and simple trolling. I prefer to treat any post I reply to as the former, but a suspicion it may be the latter makes it easy to keep my cool.

I apologize if this is off-topic. :angel:


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Blancrocher said:


> I apologize if this is off-topic. :angel:


No. It couldn't be more on-topic, in fact! I'm not sure which one it is, myself. All of us have probably been guilty of both at some point in time.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Celloman said:


> I think it would help us if you provided a definition of these terms from the outset. What is "tonal"? What is "melody"? That way, everyone would be on the same plane and it would be easier to debate the actual issue at hand.


Well, do you mean you don't know what tonality is?? 
(Mein Gott!)

Speaking about tonality I also meant modus. Tonality/modus is a powerful means to organize elements into a structured whole, otherwise there is disorder.

Melody manages to provide logic, sense, feeling.

Off course, you can express some information with the theatre of sounds, but not that which Music does.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Debussy does not care if you don't label his "sound collection" as "music" (actually, Varese defined music as 'organized sounds', and he also said that anything new in music is always described as noise to the untrained ears... does this ring a bell?). 

Your whole arguments rests in your own appreciation of these "sound collections". The only fact here is that music isn't automatically understable, everybody's brain processes it, and your own ears evidently cannot comprehend the order that actually exists in Debussy's music. We do comprehend that order, so your arguments to us are akin to "birds cannot fly! i've never seen a bird fly therefore they don't fly!". Of course we have seen birds fly, so there is little point discussing it, we are left scratching our heads asking ourselves how can you be so blind that you cannot see them fly.

I hope my analogy explains the general reaction to your posts.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

ssdei said:


> Well, do you mean you don't know what tonality is??
> (Mein Gott!)
> 
> Speaking about tonality I also meant modus. Tonality/modus is a powerful means to organize elements into a structured whole, otherwise there is disorder.
> ...


Organizing elements into a structured whole? That's a little vague. Could you elucidate?

And what is melody? What are the parameters? Can it jump around, or does it have to move in stepwise motion? Does it have to fit into an even number of measures?


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I too was bemused by your examples. Debussy and Scriabin; talk about nipping at the heels of giants. I was expecting Christopher Rouse, Harry Birtwistle, Elliott Carter, Ezra Laderman, or someone else of that sort (not that there's anything wrong with them). 

But Debussy and Scriabin? Really?

Honestly?

You honestly cannot make sense of Scriabin?

Since the OP linked to their personal website, from which this essay was lifted, I am (sadly) convinced that this is not a troll, but someone who genuinely thinks that he can both define music on his terms and then condescend to the rest of us for disagreeing.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Replace his 'Music' with 'God' or 'Truth' and you understand why I don't like some religious tendencies


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Mitchell said:


> I too was bemused by your examples. Debussy and Scriabin; talk about nipping at the heels of giants. I was expecting Christopher Rouse, Harry Birtwistle, Elliott Carter, Ezra Laderman, or someone else of that sort (not that there's anything wrong with them).
> 
> But Debussy and Scriabin? Really?
> 
> ...


I'll explain the puzzle. - I've got only .... 24 hours per day.

'Christopher Rouse, Harry Birtwistle, Elliott Carter, Ezra Laderman,' you say? - sorry, first heard of them!

By the way, I respect and appreciate young enough Scriabin.

I even find something interesting with Debussy. 
I was, in particular, speaking about his 'Series of Images'. 
There are interesting sound combinations in the beginning of the second Series, Debussy is not talentless, but his works are very often just like picking at piano keys - very raw and splinter-like, mosaic improvisations. I wonder if you manage to see the *labour distance* between raw (and splinter) improvisations and finished melodious works? If these raw splinters could have only be tackled by a proper melodist?
But Debussy's finished pieces can be played from the beginning up to the end, from the middle, even from the end onto the beginning and what ... this may sound approx the same or even better, for many people, for you, for appreciators of Christopher Rouse, Harry Birtwistle, Elliott Carter, Ezra Laderma?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

> But Debussy's finished pieces can be played from the beginning up to the end, from the middle, even from the end onto the beginning and what ... this may sound approx the same or even better


See, to me, that sentence is akin to "birds don't fly". Please explain where did you get that idea.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Organizing elements into a structured whole? *That's a little vague. * Could you elucidate?
> 
> *And what is melody?* What are the parameters? *Can it jump around*, or does it have to move in stepwise motion? Does it have to fit into an even number of measures?


It can't be but a little vague. (hope my English here is correct.)

Do you want absolute clarity from me in all qq?
Do you want me to produce a doctoral dissertation, here, so soon? It might not be enough for such a serious q!

Oh, yes, it CAN jump, but should do it properly, providing sense and beauty!
Yeah, it can even move in stepwise motion, provided ... .
Odd numbers can be relevant, but Measure, Measure, Measure! The feeling of it is needed, in the author!


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

niv said:


> See, to me, that sentence is akin to "birds don't fly". Please explain where did you get that idea.


Mein Gott! 
What on earth birds? Do you mean hens? Or perhaps penguins?

Why are you so greatly eager to go OFF topic? No arguments of your own?

I see. This often happens to some people.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

The point I'm trying to make is this. Music is a highly subjective art form. Your perception of beauty may be very different from mine. Just because I think that one melody is better than another, doesn't mean that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. It's nearly impossible to make absolute statements about music because it's so completely abstract. Some music may be more appealing for some people than others, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

And yes, accurate and concise definitions do matter.

Interesting thread, ssdei! Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

niv said:


> Debussy does not care if you don't label his "sound collection" as "music" (actually, Varese defined music as 'organized sounds', and he also said that anything new in music is always described as noise to the untrained ears... does this ring a bell?).
> Your whole arguments rests in your own appreciation of these "sound collections". The only fact here is that music isn't automatically understable, everybody's brain processes it, and your own ears evidently cannot comprehend the order that actually exists in Debussy's music. We do comprehend that order, so your arguments to us are akin to "birds cannot fly! i've never seen a bird fly therefore they don't fly!". Of course we have seen birds fly, so there is little point discussing it, we are left scratching our heads asking ourselves how can you be so blind that you cannot see them fly.
> 
> I hope my analogy explains the general reaction to your posts.


Oh, no. You provide a wrong talk!

If you are given an unknown piece of Debussy or the like authors, played with a wrong order (say, of its segments), you won't notice it, because summation is dividable, it HAS NO ESSENTIAL INTERNAL CONNECTIONS, so when accidental poor connections are broken or shifted, the whole does not change its quality.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

ssdei said:


> Mein Gott!
> What on earth birds? Do you mean hens? Or perhaps penguins?
> Why are you so greatly eager to go OFF topic? No arguments of your own?


Obviously many bird DO fly. It's not an off topic, it's an analogy. I don't need to make any arguments. You could as well say something like "Mozart has no melody". To me, it's something obviously false. It's up to you to prove or at least argue somehow that you can actually play debussy by mixing up the measures and it will actually sound better. You're arguing with a giant here.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I hear melodies and beauty throughout the oeuvres of Debussy, Schoenberg, Messiaen, Takemitsu, and many others you have dismissed without so much as a single second of listening time. You have not defined either melody or tonality, so I'll give you definitions to work with. Explain exactly why you disagree with them.

Melody: a series of pitches organized as a single line with a definite starting and ending point.
Tonality: the system of harmonic hierarchies developed in the 17th century, organized primarily around the perfect fifth and the triad as points of stability.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Celloman said:


> The point I'm trying to make is this. Music is a highly subjective art form. Your perception of beauty may be very different from mine. Just because I think that one melody is better than another, doesn't mean that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. It's nearly impossible to make absolute statements about music because it's so completely abstract. Some music may be more appealing for some people than others, but that doesn't make it better or worse.
> 
> And yes, accurate and concise definitions do matter.
> 
> Interesting thread, ssdei! Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.


Yes, subjective. But there is also a lot of objectivity in it.
Yes, it can be impossible to make absolute statements sometimes.

And thank you.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Ah Celloman. Well done playing the diplomat. I'm not feeling so gracious. 

Don't think this is going anywhere, so I will take a bow. 

Good luck ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

niv said:


> Obviously many bird DO fly. It's not an off topic, it's an analogy. I don't need to make any arguments. *You could as well say something like "Mozart has no melody"*. To me, it's something obviously false. It's up to you to prove or at least argue somehow that you can actually play debussy by mixing up the measures and it will actually sound better. You're arguing with a giant here.


Das ist ein klein bißchen zu viel! - about what you said about Mozart, I mean.

But hens - I assure you - *do it very badly*! You should enrich your knowledge about them.

Debussy - to tell you the truth - is no giant, just talented and one who struck off on a wrong way, off Music proper.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I wonder what you think of Ligeti, ssdei. He must be on your Most Wanted list! :lol:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ssdei said:


> Debussy - to tell you the *truth *- is no giant, just talented and one who struck off on a wrong way, off Music proper.











................................................................................


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Do an experiment. Take a Debussy's piece, chop it off into a few alternate versions, and give them to unsuspecting people to see which they like the most.

I know about hens though. I wasn't thinking of hens or penguins, I was thinking of other birds, the ones that fly I mean. I insist, debussy's music is meaningful, I get the meaning, therefore there is meaning. You don't get the meaning, it does not follow that there is no meaning, it only follows that you don't get it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ssdei said:


> In order to be music, the composition in question must be *tonal*, *melodic*, and
> to be music of classical style - *hearty* and *serious* in addition to the above.
> 
> *Music proper can't occur without melody. *


Ah, another "muster," telling us what music _*must *_be. I won't bother reading through the whole thread this time, but will simply advise the OP to attend a decent taiko drumming concert (there are a lot of them around these days). Don't worry, I guarantee you'll have a good time! Then read your words again.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ssdei is clearly heinrich schenker









Anyway, wasn't Debussy using a lot of modality in his pieces?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

debussy knew what he was doing? nonsense!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

ssdei said:


> Yes, subjective. But there is also a lot of *objectivity* in it.
> Yes, it can be impossible to make absolute statements sometimes.
> 
> And thank you.


I'd like to ask a very simple question.

By *whose authority* are you saying these things? Who is defining what is objective and what is not?


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

ssdei said:


> Das ist ein klein bißchen zu viel! - about what you said about Mozart, I mean.
> 
> But hens - I assure you - *do it very badly*! You should enrich your knowledge about them.
> 
> Debussy - to tell you the truth - is no giant, just talented and one who struck off on a wrong way, off Music proper.


Dem muss ich widersprechen.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Yipes! For once, I'm glad I don't know any German!


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

Zanralotta said:


> Dem muss ich widersprechen.


Ich meine, im Bezug auf Debussy, sowohl als Pianistin, als auch als Orchestermusikerin, die sich nicht vorstellen kann, eines seiner Stücke in der Mitte anzufangen...


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

Celloman said:


> Yipes! For once, I'm glad I don't know any German!


Well, at this moment, I'm not entirely sure ssdei knows German either...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Zanralotta said:


> Well, at this moment, I'm not entirely sure ssdei knows German either...


My German is terrible and I can tell that ssdei's " ein klein bißchen zu viel" is very unidiomatic...


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Judging by the OP's website and some of his posts here, Russian is probably his first language.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

What's music? Anything in between these two extremes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

norman bates said:


> ssdei is clearly heinrich schenker
> 
> View attachment 23025
> 
> ...


Difference being that Schenker knew at least something about functional harmony! From reading this thread, ssdei seems to have taken on half formed arguments alluding to typical judgments made by infamous 19th century music critics with very little credibility to back up his/her opinion.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

In some thousands of years philosophers have made no progress on aesthetics whatsoever and its not likely to change soon. Rather than ask "what is music?" let us ask more productive questions, like "what is for dinner tomorrow night?"


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

well obviously if its art that has nothing to do with sound then it isn't music. Any art where it is the art of sounds is music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Rapide said:


> What's music? Anything in between these two extremes.


Am I the only one who has ever noticed that "I'm too Sexy" quotes a theme from the Jimi Hendrix tune "Third Stone from the Sun"?


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Zanralotta said:


> Ich meine, im Bezug auf Debussy, sowohl als Pianistin, als auch als Orchestermusikerin, die sich nicht vorstellen kann, *eines seiner Stücke in der Mitte anzufangen*...


Sie müssen es einmal versuchen. - Just try!


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Mitchell said:


> Judging by the OP's website and some of his posts here, Russian is probably his first language.


Quite right!

(My German is not very strong at all, but still much stronger, than some people here openly supposed it to be.)


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Am I the only one who has ever noticed that "I'm too Sexy" quotes a theme from the Jimi Hendrix tune "Third Stone from the Sun"?


The second is quite fine!


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Joris said:


> Music without melody is indeed hard, but *the effort towards it makes it not 'less Music', exactly the same goes with 'tonal'*
> 
> "Music should always carry Beauty" Define beauty? This statement is not really musicological...


This can be to a reasonable extent accepted. The whole point is in the measure of deviation.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Mitchell said:


> And.... a composition out of pitched sounds is sometimes music. It can be a compilation of sounds - with no melody, with sense, and with structure in it.
> 
> You may not like serialism - but there is, very much so, a lot of sense and structure to it.
> 
> ...


Sorry for my delay in answering this post of yours. You all responded actively and too simultaneously.

It does make sense to differentiate between *Music Proper * and *(just) compilation of sounds* (which transgresses the laws of the Muse of music and so proceeds to the spheres of other Muses -> drawing/painting with sounds, theatre of sounds, sonorific poetry).
In Russian there are different terms - music and звукотворчество = creating something with sounds (which is a broader term than music and can also be understood as 'not music', 'not musical creation'.)

Is it quite OK to mix very different things into one large heap? After which some people (the most ... ) start failing to see the difference?



Couchie said:


> In some thousands of years philosophers have made no progress on aesthetics whatsoever and its not likely to change soon. *Rather than ask "what is music?" let us ask more productive questions, like "what is for dinner tomorrow night?*"


In what direction are you going to develop in your life?
Do you want to develop your brain, your spirit, your highest components and qualities or do you want to develop your, say, stomach and so on?

Yet another point: Do you want go up or to stay at the same level or to degenerate?
TV and other means of mass media actively draw you to the latter.



ssdei said:


> The second is quite fine!


Well, I mean ISB off course!



niv said:


> I insist, debussy's music is meaningful, I get the meaning, therefore there is meaning. You don't get the meaning, it does not follow that there is no meaning, it only follows that you don't get it.


You should read my answer to Mitchell (it's #40 and some others nearby) about Skriabin and Debussy.

Debussy's is somewhat meaningful, but not properly organized, into real music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Let us not respond anymore and let this tiresome topic die.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

This thread is still here, huh?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'll just leave this here, purely to troll:


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

The only thing about this discussion I'm curious about is why he tagged the thread title with the red angry face.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

ssdei said:


> Sorry for my delay in answering this post of yours. You all responded actively and too simultaneously.
> 
> It does make sense to differentiate between *Music Proper * and *(just) compilation of sounds* (which transgresses the laws of the Muse of music and so proceeds to the spheres of other Muses -> drawing/painting with sounds, theatre of sounds, sonorific poetry).
> In Russian there are different terms - music and звукотворчество = creating something with sounds (which is a broader term than music and can also be understood as 'not music', 'not musical creation'.)
> ...


I believe there is something in what you are saying.
It is very easy to be mis-understood and to be subject to knee-jerk reactions such as those you have encountered here.

You are not alone in your view, it is a view shared by millions of people but I'm afraid that due to the limits of language it is not easy to to discuss these concepts. We rely on a shared definition of terms and a willingness to think without prejudice.

I think that there is indeed a distinction to be made between what you call 'Music Proper' and "drawing/painting with sounds, theatre of sounds, sonorific poetry". But the terms you use (English is not your mother tongue) cause confusion and consternation.

It must be understood that when one makes a distinction between things, labelling them X and Y, it is not always akin to dismissing one or other as invalid or making a generalised value-judgement. It is quite alright however, to say that we may enjoy X more than Y.

I would very much like to know when the term звукотворчество first came into use? And in what context.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

ssdei said:


> Sorry for my delay in answering this post of yours. You all responded actively and too simultaneously.
> 
> It does make sense to differentiate between *Music Proper * and *(just) compilation of sounds* (which transgresses the laws of the Muse of music and so proceeds to the spheres of other Muses -> drawing/painting with sounds, theatre of sounds, sonorific poetry).
> In Russian there are different terms - music and звукотворчество = creating something with sounds (which is a broader term than music and can also be understood as 'not music', 'not musical creation'.)
> ...


Just because we call everything "music" it does not follow that we cannot see the difference between this






and this






and this






It does not change one thing if you decide to call Spielgel not music. Really. It's just a word. A label. A tag. The map is not the territory[1].

I'm boldy speaking for everyone that calls all three things music: we know the difference very well, thank you very much.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

niv said:


> Just because we call everything "music" it does not follow that we cannot see the difference between this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, we can call all these things music. 
We can also perhaps link the first two together on a very deep and fundamental level which is to do with the nature of the organisation of sound.
Perhaps we can call the third example Y while the first two are X.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

violadude said:


> I'll just leave this here, purely to troll:


you're no trolling very well, that piece clearly contains bits that can be defined as melody with clear beginning and end. So it's at least partially music even by this chap's definition.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

We already do these kinds of subclassifications. In any case, despite the tags we attach to those pieces, we can see that there are similitudes and there are differences. It's ok. We aren't deaf. Classifications and subclassifications might be interesting but in the end we're just drawing maps and the sounds remain the same.

In any case, the original post main thesis wasn't a terminological one. It used terminological "weapons" to attack certain styles of music or "organized sounds" if you want to call them that way. It was an attack on stuff like Spiegel, trying to deprive it from the status of "music". And of course by derivation an attack on the composers and listeners of that kind of "music" or, sorry, "organized sounds". Because we don't cant or wont (or we haven't got good taste to) listen or compose melodic, tonal, "tasteful" music.

It's an empty attack. It does not matter if you stop calling the music you dislike music, people will continue to listen to it, and the "good kind" of music, the mozartian music will remain the same, and maybe even both can coexist, and no harm is actually done, unless someone wants to rule how art "must" be, like KenOC said.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Indeed, we can call all these things music.
> We can also perhaps link the first two together on a very deep and fundamental level which is to do with the nature of the organisation of sound.


Really? I think Mozart would have as much of a hard time recognizing much of a connection between the organization employed in his music and that employed by The Ramones as between his music and Cerha's.

Remember that the conductor Hans von Bulow said that if the first movement of Mahler's Symphony No. 2 was music, then he "no longer knew anything about music".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Really? I think Mozart would have as much of a hard time recognizing much of a connection between the organization employed in his music and that employed by The Ramones as between his music and Cerha's.
> 
> Remember that the conductor Hans von Bulow said that if the first movement of Mahler's Symphony No. 2 was music, then he "no longer knew anything about music".


I whole-heartedly disagree with your statement about Mozart but since we will never know, it might be fruitless to debate it.

However if you would like to put forward a reason why you think that, I am listening. It might end up a very technical discussion.

I also think that it is not pertinent to quote from historical figures in this instance. As what von Bulow said about Mahler does not have any relevance to the OP.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I also think that it is not pertinent to quote from historical figures in this instance. As what von Bulow said about Mahler does not have any relevance to the OP.


I seriously disagree. The von Bulow argument is the same old, tired, often repeated argument heard so many times through story, and it's basically the same argument that the OP is doing: a totally empty one, based on ignorance.

music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/CMC2009/Liberation.pdf‎ I have to recommend this article by edgard varese. It's old, yet in a sense, it's not.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I whole-heartedly disagree with your statement about Mozart but since we will never know, it might be fruitless to debate it.
> 
> However if you would like to put forward a reason why you think that, I am listening. It might end up a very technical discussion


Mozart would have heard nothing but unpleasant noise in either, I think. The slipshod tonal organization of a rock song, combined with the constant rhythm of the drum backbeat, would have sounded no more or less chaotic to him than the Cerha piece. Furthermore, he would have found the insistence of the repetition to have no apparent musical basis.

I think that the Cerha is closer on a musical level to the Mozart than the Ramones are. It came out of the same tradition, after all, and follows principles of forward development that Mozart would recognize in the abstract, if not in the application. The Ramones song does not.



Petwhac said:


> I also think that it is not pertinent to quote from historical figures in this instance. As what von Bulow said about Mahler does not have any relevance to the OP.


So what other people have in the past said was "not music" is irrelevant to a contemporary discussion about what is and is not music? Perhaps things become music if they are accepted in your mind? Or the only ones able to judge what is and is not music are the people of today?

Furthermore, the discussion we are having happens to be speculation about what a particular historical figure would have considered music or not. So I believe that things other historical figures have believed to be music or not are not only relevant, but particularly relevant.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

deggial said:


> you're no trolling very well, that piece clearly contains bits that can be defined as melody with clear beginning and end. So it's at least partially music even by this chap's definition.


You're not my target though, so it doesn't count :devil:


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Indeed.
> The statement about Debussy is not only untrue, it is laughably and obviously untrue. *One could say the same about Bach or Beethoven*, both of whom wrote music before the term tonality was defined, or the Renaissance masters, who wrote music that was, according to scholarly definitions, not tonal.


I draw your attention to *the measure of order* in the tone row and -> composition. *That's what I first of all speak about.* 
So saying 'Tonality' I also meant 'Modus' - the difference between them here is not essential, both provide the tone row with the order, which one needs to create a melody.
A disordered tone row narrows and deprives us of the melody-building possibility.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ssdei said:


> I draw your attention to *the measure of order* in the tone row and -> composition. *That's what I first of all speak about.*
> So saying 'Tonality' I also meant 'Modus' - the difference between them here is not essential, both provide the tone row with the order, which one needs to create a melody.
> A disordered tone row narrows and deprives us of the melody-building possibility.


What specifically creates order in music? Define it non-circularly, without using the terms melody or tonality, because you have already defined them in terms of order.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

violadude said:


> I'll just leave this here, purely to troll:


This is just a theatre of sounds, 
and a very-very poor one.

As far as Cage and the like are concerned - we say: Plumbers are wanted!

Such 'composers' need proper retraining.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ssdei said:


> This is just a theatre of sounds,
> and a very-very poor one.
> 
> As far as Cage and the like are concerned - we say: Plumbers are wanted!
> ...


You took the bait. Excellent, I have you right where I want you


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

ssdei said:


> Sie müssen es einmal versuchen. - Just try!


Sie müssen eine merkwürdige Auffassung von Probenarbiet haben, wenn Sie glauben ich würde jedes Mal, wenn ich übe, meine Stücke von vorne bis hinten durchspielen, denn soviel Zeit und Geduld hat eigentlich niemand, der Musik macht...

Tatsächlich finde ich es einfacher bei einer Beethoven Sinfonie zwischen Probestellen hin und her zu springen als bei Debussy.

Well, that, or my problem is that I find Debussy unbearably boring.

I'm sorry, ssdei, at the moment I'm still not sure if you want to have a serious conversation (either in German or in English). Some of the things you seem to think of as self-evident are anything but. Is this on purpose?


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I believe there is something in what you are saying.
> It is very easy to be mis-understood and to be subject to knee-jerk reactions such as those you have encountered here.
> 
> You are not alone in your view, it is a view shared by millions of people but I'm afraid that due to the limits of language it is not easy to to discuss these concepts. We rely on a shared definition of terms and a willingness to think without prejudice.
> ...


I see you points, 
but think I express myself in English fairly clearly and refer consternation and knee-jerking to a different account.

There is another important point that must be mentioned:

All those disordered, summation-like compositions - painting with sounds, theatre of sounds etc - can be easily written *in kilometres*, labour is not properly contained in them, just a very poor quantity of it is. Writing such compositions is close to or is inkshed. 
And who resorts to these creative methods? - Those who are impotent in melodic writing, in real music. Actually, plumbers.

What do we have afterwards? 
Mass media make persistent effort to popularize this litter, doesn't it? 
It brings lowering or standards in music, culture, conservatoires, society. 
People start losing brains.

Do you need this destruction of your soul and your society?



Petwhac said:


> I believe there is something in what you are saying.
> I would very much like to know when the term звукотворчество first came into use? And in what context.


As far as this term is concerned, I could refer you to a clever Russian forum for classical music and corresponding discussion, but unfortunately, everything there is in Russian.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

Merriam-Webster definition of _music_:

1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

Following this definition, there is no reason why music _must_ have melody to be music; there is no reason why it _must_ be tonal in the sense of being centered on certain keys; there is no reason it _must_ be "serious". As a matter of fact, I like this definition very much because it removes the subjectivity of what an "idea" or "emotion" is in music. Human listeners respond differently to sounds and envision different ideas and emotions based on how our auditory system is connected to thoughts and experiences. Even tones organized in classical music do not have to have any relationship whatsoever to the "ideas" and "emotions" you brought up. Tones are sounds, and sounds are just vibrations.

That is to say, objectively, no organization of sounds has a universal meaning, or really has "beauty", all such things are subjective. The only objective part is that the sounds themselves exist (or perhaps don't) in that particular composition. Therefore, you have absolutely no right to call _any_ collection of sounds non-music just because you don't understand it and/or you don't _personally_ find it expressive of anything!


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I believe there is something in what you are saying.
> It is very easy to be mis-understood and to be subject to knee-jerk reactions such as those you have encountered here.
> 
> You are not alone in your view, it is a view shared by millions of people but I'm afraid that due to the limits of language it is not easy to to discuss these concepts. We rely on a shared definition of terms and a willingness to think without prejudice.
> ...


I would also refer you to #40 post of mine here - about labour distance.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

its sound or silence presented for entertainment. like tonal, atonal, bird sounds, rain.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Okay, let's test your ideas about order and disorder. You said that there were ordered and disordered collections of tones, right? Well here are three such collections, divested of their original rhythm. Each forms a single phrase from a longer composition (one piano work, one orchestral work, and one concerto). No notes have been added or removed, although the accompanying harmonies are not displayed (one of them is presented without any harmonization in the original) and the key signatures are not shown, so all accidentals are written in.

I want you to rank them (anyone else feel free to join in). Then I'll tell you what they are. Deal?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Mozart would have heard nothing but unpleasant noise in either, I think. The slipshod tonal organization of a rock song, combined with the constant rhythm of the drum backbeat, would have sounded no more or less chaotic to him than the Cerha piece. Furthermore, he would have found the insistence of the repetition to have no apparent musical basis.


There is nothing slipshod about the tonal organisation of the Ramones track. It may perhaps be called rudimentary in it's harmonic structure but a quick examination of the opening minute reveals a very tightly organised tune built over the chords of E major, A major and B major. In other words the same I-IV-V relationship that is the very essence of Mozart's music. The very deepest underlying principals of the two as far as harmonic relationships go, are absolutely identical. 
As for the rhythm? A constant pulse is present in both, one can and often does tap ones foot to both. Even more fundamental than harmony and melody to comprehensibility and recognition of musical patterns is that of rhythm. If I clapped the top-line of Mozart 40 to _anyone_ acquainted with it, they would instantly recognise it. Try it.
I agree that Mozart probably would have found the repetition boring but repetition is a feature of 'folk' and 'popular' music. It was the same in his day. In fact one might say that the basic elements in pop/folk music has changed hardly an iota in centuries. I think we can say that pop/folk music and art/classical music were far more closely related in Mozart's era and a greater divergence started to occur through the 19th century and especially so in the 20thC.



Mahlerian said:


> I think that the Cerha is closer on a musical level to the Mozart than the Ramones are. It came out of the same tradition, after all, and follows principles of forward development that Mozart would recognize in the abstract, if not in the application. The Ramones song does not.


I fail to come to the same conclusion and ask what you mean by "on a musical level". What other level is there?
What do you consider "forward development"? Once again, no-one knows what Mozart would think but my guess is that he would tell you on one listening, that the Ramone's track was in E major, in 4/4 and what the verse-chorus- structure was. Mozart has written pieces in E major and in 4/4 too. He might agree that there was little or no thematic development in the song but he would not expect it. In one of his shorter minuets or even arias one might find minimal thematic development but mere statement and restatement with contrasting material and sectional organisation. A pop song is not a symphony and neither is a little minuet for piano.



Mahlerian said:


> So what other people have in the past said was "not music" is irrelevant to a contemporary discussion about what is and is not music?


Correct, it is entirely irrelevant. How can Bulow's view of Mahler effect mine of Cerha or anyone else?



Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps things become music if they are accepted in your mind? Or the only ones able to judge what is and is not music are the people of today?


I am not making a judgement on what is music. I am pointing out that some music is related more to some and less to other music. I have concluded that the Mozart and Ramones example are more closely and fundamentally related to each other than either are to the Cerha. I have given some concrete evidence to support my opinion but you have only mentioned 'forward development' which I consider to be of secondary importance. You also stated that Mozart and Cerha come out of the same tradition but offered no support for that statement. I might reply that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a more plausible musical descendant of Mozart though it would pain me to do so. Perhaps Jennifer Higdon?



Mahlerian said:


> Furthermore, the discussion we are having happens to be speculation about what a particular historical figure would have considered music or not. So I believe that things other historical figures have believed to be music or not are not only relevant, but particularly relevant.


The trouble is that music is not science. Judging by a lot of posts that I've read on TC over the years, it would be hard to _prove_ whether Mahler 2 was any more deserving of the description 'music' than 3 people burping around a dinner table or 4'33". People will call whatever they want 'music'. Where does that get us?
I don't care what Bulow said or what TC poster Z will say unless they can support their opinion.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Zanralotta said:


> Sie müssen eine merkwürdige Auffassung von Probenarbiet haben, wenn Sie glauben ich würde jedes Mal, wenn ich übe, meine Stücke von vorne bis hinten durchspielen, denn soviel Zeit und Geduld hat eigentlich niemand, der Musik macht...
> 
> Tatsächlich finde ich es einfacher bei einer Beethoven Sinfonie zwischen Probestellen hin und her zu springen als bei Debussy.
> 
> ...


Ich habe ein Fehler in Ihrem/Deinem Schreiben gefunden: nicht _Probe*n*arb*ie*t_, aber _Probearbeit_!

Aber ehrlich gesagt, Sie zeigen ein gutes Schreiben; und es ist viel leichter und schneller für mich komplizierte Fragen auf Englisch auszudrücken.

Some people here call Debussy a giant. - I say it is a very inflated personality.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

ssdei said:


> Some people here call Debussy a giant. - I say it is a very inflated personality.


I say you have certain auditory preferences and press them forward as superior to other auditory preferences because they are yours. Good thing this is music, and not something like race.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, let's test your ideas about order and disorder. You said that there were ordered and disordered collections of tones, right? Well here are three such collections, divested of their original rhythm. Each forms a single phrase from a longer composition (one piano work, one orchestral work, and one concerto). No notes have been added or removed, although the accompanying harmonies are not displayed (one of them is presented without any harmonization in the original) and the key signatures are not shown, so all accidentals are written in.
> 
> I want you to rank them (anyone else feel free to join in). Then I'll tell you what they are. Deal?
> 
> ...


The first one sounds like Bach to me, or maybe late Mozart.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

ssdei said:


> As far as this term is concerned, I could refer you to a clever Russian forum for classical music and corresponding discussion, but unfortunately, everything there is in Russian.


Since I cannot speak Russian I would be very grateful if you could look it up for me. At least I'd like to know if the word was around in the 19C or only from 20C.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Forte said:


> I say you have certain auditory preferences and press them forward as superior to other auditory preferences because they are yours. Good thing this is music, and not something like race.


Not because they are mine, but because they are right!


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

ssdei said:


> Not because they are mine, but because they are right!


There is absolutely no objectivity here.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> There is nothing slipshod about the tonal organisation of the Ramones track. It may perhaps be called rudimentary in it's harmonic structure but a quick examination of the opening minute reveals a very tightly organised tune built over the chords of E major, A major and B major. In other words the same I-IV-V relationship that is the very essence of Mozart's music. The very deepest underlying principals of the two as far as harmonic relationships go, are absolutely identical.


The principles of Mozart's harmony are based in melody and melodic movement. The Ramones' accompaniment would seem rhythmically and musically out of sync with the vocals to Mozart, who would have found the see-sawing of the I-IV-I-IV chords voiced the way they are in that track musically sickening. His Symphony No. 40 is full of disjunct intervals and unexpected chromaticisms, but they are used according to voice leading principles that are completely irrelevant to any punk music.

Furthermore, his sense of musical balance would have been severely disturbed by the abrupt change to a different key, without any attempt at reconciling the dissonance thus produced in the listener's mind between two tonal areas.



Petwhac said:


> As for the rhythm? A constant pulse is present in both, one can and often does tap ones foot to both. Even more fundamental than harmony and melody to comprehensibility and recognition of musical patterns is that of rhythm. If I clapped the top-line of Mozart 40 to _anyone_ acquainted with it, they would instantly recognise it. Try it.


True. But Mozart would have found the constant emphasis on backbeat in that song garish and irritating, and the syncopation in the vocal disordered. You are accustomed to the sound of it, but the whole rock ensemble would to him have sounded like a mess.



Petwhac said:


> I agree that Mozart probably would have found the repetition boring but repetition is a feature of 'folk' and 'popular' music. It was the same in his day. In fact one might say that the basic elements in pop/folk music has changed hardly an iota in centuries. I think we can say that pop/folk music and art/classical music were far more closely related in Mozart's era and a greater divergence started to occur through the 19th century and especially so in the 20thC.


Popular music as enjoyed by the bourgeoisie living in cultural centers? Perhaps. Popular music as enjoyed by the majority of the world has always been wildly different from the music of the academies, and unwritten popular music had no means of dissemination before the invention of mass-produced recordings. You are comparing very differ



Petwhac said:


> I fail to come to the same conclusion and ask what you mean by "on a musical level". What other level is there?


A socio-cultural level. You are right to say that the styles of music represented by The Ramones and Mozart both have a higher level of impact on cultural awareness than that represented by Cerha.



Petwhac said:


> What do you consider "forward development"? Once again, no-one knows what Mozart would think but my guess is that he would tell you on one listening, that the Ramone's track was in E major, in 4/4 and what the verse-chorus- structure was. Mozart has written pieces in E major and in 4/4 too. He might agree that there was little or no thematic development in the song but he would not expect it. In one of his shorter minuets or even arias one might find minimal thematic development but mere statement and restatement with contrasting material and sectional organisation. A pop song is not a symphony and neither is a little minuet for piano.


Yes, but even that little minuet will undoubtedly contain in miniature the same kind of musical thinking that is behind a larger work. The melodic/harmonic contours work in a forward-directed fashion, with new developments in the melody conditioned by what preceded them. Rock music, especially punk rock, tends to be circular and constructed in blocks, rather than note-by-note. Cerha's music, like Mozart's, works horizontally, moving forward, and is built by notes, rather than blocks.



Petwhac said:


> Correct, it is entirely irrelevant. How can Bulow's view of Mahler effect mine of Cerha or anyone else?


Potentially by providing a perspective that you would not otherwise have any access to, because it is so far removed from your own experience or that of anyone you know.



Petwhac said:


> I am not making a judgement on what is music. I am pointing out that some music is related more to some and less to other music. I have concluded that the Mozart and Ramones example are more closely and fundamentally related to each other than either are to the Cerha. I have given some concrete evidence to support my opinion but you have only mentioned 'forward development' which I consider to be of secondary importance. You also stated that Mozart and Cerha come out of the same tradition but offered no support for that statement. I might reply that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a more plausible musical descendant of Mozart though it would pain me to do so. Perhaps Jennifer Higdon?


Jennifer Higdon is closer to Cerha in technique than she is to Mozart. I think he would have thought her music sounds like irritating noise as well. Same with Jazz, Hip-Hop, and EDM.



Petwhac said:


> The trouble is that music is not science.


Indeed. That's why people who know nothing can get so far preaching to others who share their prejudices without any real musical basis.


----------



## Zanralotta (Jan 31, 2009)

ssdei said:


> Ich habe ein Fehler in Ihrem/Deinem Schreiben gefunden: nicht _Probe*n*arb*ie*t_, aber _Probearbeit_!


Well, I'll grant you that the "ie" vs. "ei" was a typo, but, while the term "Probearbeit" exsists in German, it has a very different menaing from "Probenarbeit". The former is something you might get "invited" to do when you are on the look-out for a new job, the latter refers to the work you do when you "proben" (=rehearse).



> Aber ehrlich gesagt, Sie zeigen ein gutes Schreiben; und es ist viel leichter und schneller für mich komplizierte Fragen auf Englisch auszudrücken.
> 
> Some people here call Debussy a giant. - I say it is a very inflated personality.


I know enough people who play wind instruments to understand why people call him a gaint, regardless of my personal enjoyment of his works. I still can't imagine his works being play out of order. It simply wouldn't work, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm still confused about your definition of the word "order". Could you elaborate?

(Wir könnten diese Diskussion natürlich auch auf Deutsch weiterführen, aber auf Englisch scheint sie dann doch etwas produktiver zu sein. Für mich persönlich macht das keinen Unterschied.)


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Ssdei, so you say that the music of Debussy does not qualify as "music proper". What composers would you consider as falling under the category of "organized" music? Could you give us some examples?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The principles of Mozart's harmony are based in melody and melodic movement. The Ramones' accompaniment would seem rhythmically and musically out of sync with the vocals to Mozart, who would have found the see-sawing of the I-IV-I-IV chords voiced the way they are in that track musically sickening. His Symphony No. 40 is full of disjunct intervals and unexpected chromaticisms, but they are used according to voice leading principles that are completely irrelevant to any punk music.


I think it is exactly the other way round. Mozart's melody, indeed all tonal music's melody is based on harmony.
Mozart's melodies proceed either by scale-steps of the key or arpeggios of the chord. Any other note will either be an appoggiatura (strong beat) or a passing note (weak beat).
It is true that because rock is based on blues that the general pentatonic character of rock melody would probably sound weird and ugly to him as would the constant use of root position chords. He may find it ugly music but music nonetheless. Not so the Cerha.



Mahlerian said:


> Furthermore, his sense of musical balance would have been severely disturbed by the abrupt change to a different key, without any attempt at reconciling the dissonance thus produced in the listener's mind between two tonal areas.


An abrupt change of key would be less comprehensible than absolutely no sense of key or pulse??
I think not.



Mahlerian said:


> True. But Mozart would have found the constant emphasis on backbeat in that song garish and irritating, and the syncopation in the vocal disordered. You are accustomed to the sound of it, but the whole rock ensemble would to him have sounded like a mess.


A constant backbeat is still a beat. What music could he have heard that had no pulse?
I could transcribe the Ramones or and the Cerha for piano to eliminate the element of instrumentation and volume. The Ramones would sound far closer to Mozart because at it's very core it _is_ closer. In fact, by slightly changing the rhythm and tweaking the pitches of the Ramones song just a little, I could do a version of it in the style of Mozart. Something that would be utterly impossible to do with the Cerha.



Mahlerian said:


> Popular music as enjoyed by the bourgeoisie living in cultural centers? Perhaps. Popular music as enjoyed by the majority of the world has always been wildly different from the music of the academies, and unwritten popular music had no means of dissemination before the invention of mass-produced recordings.


I am saying that the popular music, folk music, of Mozart's day was made from the same 'stuff' as the symphonic music of the day and of the same 'stuff' by and large of today's pop/folk music. Major/minor harmony, tonal or modal melody and pulse.



Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but even that little minuet will undoubtedly contain in miniature the same kind of musical thinking that is behind a larger work. The melodic/harmonic contours work in a forward-directed fashion, with new developments in the melody conditioned by what preceded them. Rock music, especially punk rock, tends to be circular and constructed in blocks, rather than note-by-note. Cerha's music, like Mozart's, works horizontally, moving forward, and is built by notes, rather than blocks.


Blocks of what? If not notes, what? All music moves through time and as I said Mozart's melodies articulate a progression of harmonies. It is the harmony that is at the base level of the music. One could as easily make a chord chart for the Mozart symphony as for the Ramone's song. Not for the Cerha.

The similarities you find between the Mozart and Cerha are minute and insignificant compared to those between the Mozart and Ramones. IMO.



Mahlerian said:


> Indeed. That's why people who know nothing can get so far preaching to others who share their prejudices without any real musical basis.


People with knowledge also have prejudice. As the saying goes, "Knowledge without thought is useless"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I think it is exactly the other way round. Mozart's melody, indeed all tonal music's melody is based on harmony.
> Mozart's melodies proceed either by scale-steps of the key or arpeggios of the chord. Any other note will either be an appoggiatura (strong beat) or a passing note (weak beat).


What about music without harmony? Monophonic plainchant and the like cannot be described in terms of chords and progressions, and they resist tonal arrangement for that reason.

Also, appoggiaturas and passing notes are specifically melodic features, are they not? Doesn't their appearance in abundance in works such as Mozart's signify that melody was the primary consideration? Many dissonances in the 40th symphony and elsewhere are justified horizontally. That is, we wouldn't be able to simply re-voice the notes in those "chords" without destroying the piece's coherence. If these are harmonically derived elements, why can't we justify them except as "leading to" an acceptable harmony?



Petwhac said:


> It is true that because rock is based on blues that the general pentatonic character of rock melody would probably sound weird and ugly to him as would the constant use of root position chords. He may find it ugly music but music nonetheless. Not so the Cerha.


I believe they would have been equally unpleasant to him, and he would have taken no further notice of either beyond that to try to classify them.



Petwhac said:


> An abrupt change of key would be less comprehensible than absolutely no sense of key or pulse??
> I think not.


He would have had no sense of key or pulse in either, as I said. I hear harmony and rhythm in both.



Petwhac said:


> I could transcribe the Ramones or and the Cerha for piano to eliminate the element of instrumentation and volume. The Ramones would sound far closer to Mozart because at it's very core it _is_ closer. In fact, by slightly changing the rhythm and tweaking the pitches of the Ramones song just a little, I could do a version of it in the style of Mozart. Something that would be utterly impossible to do with the Cerha.


But would you get anything like what a fan of the song would enjoy as The Ramones by transcribing it (not talking about changing the style here)? If not, you have lost the core of the music.

User Ptr was talking about Robert Levin taking requests from an audience as to what he should play in the style of Mozart. One member chose the theme of Webern's Variations for Orchestra, and what do you know, he took it and played it in the style of Mozart! I don't know the Cerha all that well, but I'm sure that there's something in there that could be used if the piece isn't too dependent on timbre as a defining element.



Petwhac said:
 

> Blocks of what? If not notes, what? All music moves through time and as I said Mozart's melodies articulate a progression of harmonies. It is the harmony that is at the base level of the music. One could as easily make a chord chart for the Mozart symphony as for the Ramones song. Not for the Cerha.


But a chord chart would lose most of what made the symphony unique, what made it Mozart. The interplay between motifs, the development, the melodic line...everything that allows us to distinguish the work from so many others.

And to classify new harmonies, all we need are new labels. But what good are labels? As I said, if one reduces Mozart to a series of chords one loses everything one enjoys about listening to Mozart.

On the other hand, the musical structure and coherence of the Ramones song are inherently tied to the chord chart. One could probably change every phrase of the melody (or reduce each phrase to a single note) and it would still be recognizable. Hence, built in blocks, rather than piece-by-piece.



Petwhac said:


> The similarities you find between the Mozart and Cerha are minute and insignificant compared to those between the Mozart and Ramones. IMO.


That's because we are using vastly different metrics. Could one ever call the Ramones song a piece of "classical music"? It doesn't come from the same tradition. There is a direct line of descent from Mozart to Cerha that doesn't tie in with Rock.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Personally, I don't believe that there is some Platonic essence of music floating around in the ether which actual things in the world have to correspond to in order to be called music. What music 'is' is not something that can be summed up in a whole book, let alone a single post on an internet forum, it is more a case of music being a way of talking about a set of disparate real world practices whose connection can probably best be understood in terms of Wittgenstein's ideas about family resemblance rather than the way in which they embody a metaphysical abstraction existing independently of them.



Mahlerian said:


> I want you to rank them (anyone else feel free to join in).


The second has the largest compass but the accidentals make me think Ab major. The other two are more chromatic, without any idea of what the rhythm and harmonic background though any of those passages could be anything though.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

After years of meandering on this theme, I have come to the conclusion that it is not us the listeners to determine whether something is music or not. Certain compositions may not suit certain preferences (and may hastily be judged as bad art) but to say that something is not music is something else. I personally consider this sardonic and egoistic attitude irresponsible.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, let's test your ideas about order and disorder. You said that there were ordered and disordered collections of tones, right? Well here are three such collections, divested of their original rhythm. Each forms a single phrase from a longer composition (one piano work, one orchestral work, and one concerto). No notes have been added or removed, although the accompanying harmonies are not displayed (one of them is presented without any harmonization in the original) and the key signatures are not shown, so all accidentals are written in.
> 
> I want you to rank them (anyone else feel free to join in). Then I'll tell you what they are. Deal?
> 
> ...


Just a guess, but is the first one the first few notes of the development section of the last movement of Mozart's 40th symphony?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> What about music without harmony? Monophonic plainchant and the like cannot be described in terms of chords and progressions, and they resist tonal arrangement for that reason.


That is true. Then organum- parallel movement of melody harmonised at the fifth. And then perhaps the greatest development in the history of Western music,- Polyphony. Independent melodic lines interweaving and for the first time composers had a vertical dimension to consider. What composer would ever go back to monody after the invention of polyphony and harmony. What an extraordinary and expressive tool for transmitting musical information. Then the cadence, the tonic, the abandonment of mode in favour of key and so on. All this is well documented and I would classify monophonic plainchant as different from the three examples we are dealing with.



Mahlerian said:


> Also, appoggiaturas and passing notes are specifically melodic features, are they not? Doesn't their appearance in abundance in works such as Mozart's signify that melody was the primary consideration? Many dissonances in the 40th symphony and elsewhere are justified horizontally. That is, we wouldn't be able to simply re-voice the notes in those "chords" without destroying the piece's coherence. If these are harmonically derived elements, why can't we justify them except as "leading to" an acceptable harmony?


The primary consideration of the 40th and all classical sonata structures is the establishment of a key, a move away from the key with the establishment of an opposing key and the return to the original key. That is the foundation upon which was built the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner etc etc. Everything else that all those sonata movements do serve to 'flesh out' the architecture. Mozart could not conceive of establishing a secondary key area that was not the dominant in a major key, or the relative major in a minor key. You will find that the second key area of the 40th (Mov1) is Bb - the relative major of G minor. Whatever else Mozart decides to do in that movement, whatever melodies or themes he is going to invent they will all, they _must_ all serve the harmony. Before Bb is established there is a long passage over the chord of F because F is the dominant of Bb and in Mozart's era a key was not considered established unless it was suitably prepared.



Mahlerian said:


> But would you get anything like what a fan of the song would enjoy as The Ramones by transcribing it (not talking about changing the style here)? If not, you have lost the core of the music.


What fans of the Ramones consider the most important element may well be the lyrics. They may not like my 'cover' version but they would probably be able to recognise the song. If you or anyone else can find one single short passage in the Cerha that could be made to sound like Mozart but still be recognisable as coming from the Cerha, I will very impressed indeed.



Mahlerian said:


> User Ptr was talking about Robert Levin taking requests from an audience as to what he should play in the style of Mozart. One member chose the theme of Webern's Variations for Orchestra, and what do you know, he took it and played it in the style of Mozart! I don't know the Cerha all that well, but I'm sure that there's something in there that could be used if the piece isn't too dependent on timbre as a defining element.


I will try and hear that. I think there's a long video on youtube so I'll get back to you with regards the Webern.



Mahlerian said:


> But a chord chart would lose most of what made the symphony unique, what made it Mozart. The interplay between motifs, the development, the melodic line...everything that allows us to distinguish the work from so many others.


Yes. And what makes a Muddy Waters 12-bar blues different from a Robert Johnson or a Rolling Stones or Status Quo 12 bar blues? Style. The chord structures are identical. The blues is a harmonic structure. In fact it is based on chords I-IV-V just like the Ramones song and many pieces by Mozart.



Mahlerian said:


> And to classify new harmonies, all we need are new labels. But what good are labels? As I said, if one reduces Mozart to a series of chords one loses everything one enjoys about listening to Mozart.


That reminds me of Keats (I think) moaning at Newton for 'unweaving the rainbow'. Reducing it to wavelengths of light, angles, refraction and so forth. Knowing about the physics of light does not in anyway take away from the beauty of the rainbow. For me it adds another layer of wonder.
The wonder of Mozart is not in the sonata structures but what _he_ did with them. The same is true for all other great composers.



Mahlerian said:


> Could one ever call the Ramones song a piece of "classical music"? It doesn't come from the same tradition. There is a direct line of descent from Mozart to Cerha that doesn't tie in with Rock.


Rock is in an aural tradition and classical a written (down) tradition.
Is there the same line of descent from Mozart to Musique concrete? or to Merzebow? I think that is an interesting question and may have more to do with how composers view themselves than any identifiable objective criteria.

I agree with what millionrainbows (where'd he go?) described as the 'umbrella' of harmonic/ tonal music and place Mozart and the Ramones under it. Plainchant and many 20C musics do not go under that umbrella.
That is not a judgement, just an observation.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Zanralotta said:


> (Wir könnten diese Diskussion natürlich auch auf Deutsch weiterführen, aber auf Englisch scheint sie dann doch etwas produktiver zu sein. Für mich persönlich macht das keinen Unterschied.)


Sie können mir immer alles auf Deutsch schreiben, wenn Sie es vorziehen, aber ich werde gezwungen etwas auf Englisch zu antworten.



Zanralotta said:


> I'm still confused about your definition of the word "order". Could you elaborate?


Well, I did a lot of elaboration about it in my posts here.
We need pitched sounds to make music/melody and their tone row should also be regulated (organized) properly, into tonality or modus.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

Forte said:


> Merriam-Webster definition of _music_:
> 
> 1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
> b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
> ...


Of course I replied to them! You just didn't look hard enough.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> That is true. Then organum- parallel movement of melody harmonised at the fifth. And then perhaps the greatest development in the history of Western music,- Polyphony. Independent melodic lines interweaving and for the first time composers had a vertical dimension to consider. What composer would ever go back to monody after the invention of polyphony and harmony. What an extraordinary and expressive tool for transmitting musical information. Then the cadence, the tonic, the abandonment of mode in favour of key and so on. All this is well documented and I would classify monophonic plainchant as different from the three examples we are dealing with.


So, you agree that plainchant is not tonal?

How about this, then?





It's polyphonic, but doesn't have a consistent pulse, nor is it based in the tonal system. Do you disagree?



Petwhac said:


> The primary consideration of the 40th and all classical sonata structures is the establishment of a key, a move away from the key with the establishment of an opposing key and the return to the original key. That is the foundation upon which was built the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner etc etc. Everything else that all those sonata movements do serve to 'flesh out' the architecture....


Believe me, I know how tonality and sonata form work. I also think you have it backwards. The sonata form structure was developed as a method of organizing musical material. The material does not exist to fill in the form, the form exists to give shape to the material.

Berlioz began his Symphonie Fantastique with a melody. The form was worked out afterwards in conjunction with the development of that melody, in response to it. The exact opposite of what you're talking about.



Petwhac said:


> Yes. And what makes a Muddy Waters 12-bar blues different from a Robert Johnson or a Rolling Stones or Status Quo 12 bar blues? Style. The chord structures are identical. The blues is a harmonic structure. In fact it is based on chords I-IV-V just like the Ramones song and many pieces by Mozart.


Blues is about performance, and each performance of a song, even by the same performer, will be unique. The Ramones song is also, in good part, about performance. Most everything but the basic "blocks" of the song could be changed (lyrics, arrangement, even the number of verses/choruses and their placement) and it would still be identified as "the same song". That's not possible with Mozart. You can't move the development/recapitulation section to the beginning and then play the exposition, or switch the first and second subjects. It would no longer make musical sense.



Petwhac said:


> That reminds me of Keats (I think) moaning at Newton for 'unweaving the rainbow'. Reducing it to wavelengths of light, angles, refraction and so forth. Knowing about the physics of light does not in anyway take away from the beauty of the rainbow. For me it adds another layer of wonder.
> The wonder of Mozart is not in the sonata structures but what _he_ did with them. The same is true for all other great composers.


But sonata form structure is not reducible to a chord chart. That was my whole point. You haven't shown what you are purporting to show. The establishment of key is, in the classical style, as much a melodic consideration as a harmonic one. That is, one cannot simply shift the chords underneath a melody by Mozart or Haydn and change the key. The accompaniment and melody are always playing off of each other, just like in the music of Schoenberg or Webern, to produce the effect of resolution.



Petwhac said:


> Rock is in an aural tradition and classical a written (down) tradition.
> Is there the same line of descent from Mozart to Musique concrete? or to Merzebow? I think that is an interesting question and may have more to do with how composers view themselves than any identifiable objective criteria.


That is an interesting question, and I'll admit that musique concrete/noise music are not my forte, so I can't say. But things in those genres have been produced by composers in direct line of descent from Mozart, like Stockhausen.



Petwhac said:


> I agree with what millionrainbows (where'd he go?) described as the 'umbrella' of harmonic/ tonal music and place Mozart and the Ramones under it. Plainchant and many 20C musics do not go under that umbrella.
> That is not a judgement, just an observation.


Schoenberg's Piano Concerto ends with a C major chord (with added major seventh, and a bass note of G rather than C). Is it harmonic music or not? Why?

Stravinsky's Rite of Spring ends with a chord consisting of the notes D-E-A-D-G#-A-D-G#. Is it harmonic music or not? Why?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

ssdei said:


> As far as music is concerned, I provided here in my post a number of arguments to substantiate my opinion and assertions.
> You responded to no of them. You provided no counter-argumentation, just a dislike.


But your arguments were based in unsubstantiated assumptions, for example, you can play debussy with a different ordering and it will sound the same. That's just an assumption that's not substantiated at all, just a few words put together, you think it's true but that does not make it true. Don't get me wrong, in the end, all arguments start with some assumptions about reality, but when you use extraordinary assumptions that no one shares, it's no wonder no one takes your arguments seriously.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Ssdei, so you say that the music of Debussy does not qualify as "music proper". What composers would you consider as falling under the category of "organized" music? Could you give us some examples?


I'll try to answer this question of yours this way :

I guess, approximately in the 19th century an 'interesting' process started to emerge with some composers, which led them from large connected, orderly structures of melodic writing to the mosaic of small pieces, motives and yet smaller splinters and strokes, not connected with each other. So they arrived at a stroke-like (splinter-like) mosaic writing, a kind of painting, having lost the Heart of music - Melody.

You'll probably agree, the ouverture 'King Lear' by Berlioz is a complete fiasco. Experiencing a certain crunch with creating the melody and melodious development, he flops pieces together carelessly and unwarrantedly, so what is to be finished work happens to be an extremely raw draft, and a mosaic of large disconnected pieces.

Much advanced stage of this bad process is noticeable with Debussy and late Skriabin. 
They wrote summations, mosaics of tiny splinters. Both are on the verge of and proceeding further, beyond the boundaries of the Muse of music.

In the 20th century we had a lot of very bad examples, deviations from music. But really talented composers managed to retain themselves in the deep stream of music, melodic writing, including Prokofiev and to a considerable extent Shostakovich. That's why we appreciate them.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

You think, differentiation between summations and organisms (organismic wholes) is subjective? 

You think, the criterion of Melody (its presence, absence in a composition) is not important?

Performers losing a part or by chance changing the order of parts in the process of performance on stage with the examination commission noticing nothing - does not testify to the summation-like character of the composition?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> So, you agree that plainchant is not tonal?
> 
> How about this, then?
> 
> ...


 I agree. I was hoping not to have a debate about definitions of terms like tonal. My starting point in this discussion was that the Mozart 40th shared more _fundamental_ musical characteristics with the Ramones track than with the Cerha piece. I still hold to that view.



Mahlerian said:


> Believe me, I know how tonality and sonata form work. I also think you have it backwards. The sonata form structure was developed as a method of organizing musical material. The material does not exist to fill in the form, the form exists to give shape to the material.


I'm sure you do know. I think you'll agree that the early prototype sonatas of D. Scarlatti show the same harmonic plan as the one I laid out earlier.



Mahlerian said:


> Berlioz began his Symphonie Fantastique with a melody. The form was worked out afterwards in conjunction with the development of that melody, in response to it. The exact opposite of what you're talking about.


If you mean that Berlioz came up with a melody that was to be the idee -fixe for his symphony it doesn't alter the fact that his symphony starts with a preparation for and then establishment of the key of C minor well before the melody makes an appearance.

......to be continued?


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

ssdei said:


> You think, differentiation between summations and organisms (organismic wholes) is subjective?


Yes, no, what of it? There is nothing there that defines music. You can't pick and choose what you _think_ are "summations" and "organisms" and then say that one is not art from an objective standpoint. There are musical structures in certain compositions, and some compositions completely lack those structures, or perhaps construct them in unorthodox ways. If you're referring to motivic and harmonic organization (and melody which I will get to) there, composers have simply chosen to do different things - some to use it fully, others to toss it away, seeing it as unnecessary. If you're not, well, your terms of organization are pretty damn ambiguous.

I challenge this notion that certain ways of organizing music are more legitimate than others. You cannot say one is right or wrong, objectively.



ssdei said:


> You think, the criterion of Melody (its presence, absence in a composition) is not important?


Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of music, yes, it is completely unimportant.

_You_ define what a melody is, and then _you_ decide that it is important enough to capitalize lol and that any structure of sounds has to contain these melodies to be considered music. That's not objectivity _at all_. There is no physical law that states that a group of sounds must contain a melody to be meaningful, in fact there is no physical law that states _any_ group of sounds is meaningful.

Merriam-Webster has two definitions of _melody_:

1: a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds : tunefulness
2: a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole

What is sweet or agreeable in music? That depends on the individual. Certain musical aesthetics that you have do not have to apply for any one of the other seven billion people on the planet. Something you find horribly unsatisfying to your ear might be highly enjoyable to someone else, and vice versa. That doesn't make one _right_ over another, that just means that part of the definition of a melody is subjective, and therefore music is subjective.

If you don't realize that music is not objective, it doesn't make sense to argue what music is and isn't, let alone what is "good" or "bad" music.



ssdei said:


> Performers losing a part or by chance changing the order of parts in the process of performance on stage with the examination commission noticing nothing - does not testify to the summation-like character of the composition?


A composition is generally made out of sounds, and more usually made out of tones, exchanged with silences in time. If in performing a piece of music you miss out on the composer's intentions (e.g. miss notes, play different notes, do not play the written rhythm, have an inconsistent tempo, play different dynamics, use different articulations, etc.) then you are simply not playing what the composer has written and therefore it is considered a "mistake".

If, for example, Haydn writes a minuet in a symphony with conventional form, the trio should be played in between the first minuet part and the recap, which is perhaps followed by a coda. Now, if a performer plays the piece backwards, with the coda first and the introduction last, then of course it is different - it's just that you're playing it contrary to how Haydn wrote it! A minuet follows a certain structure because musicians and audiences liked that particular structure. It doesn't mean that structure is more correct to use than some other structure, it's just that contemporary listeners found it more appealing.

But then composers started to experiment with form a bit. For example, in a string quartet, or piano sonata, or symphony, at the time you usually had a fast first movement, followed by a slow second movement, followed by a dance for a third movement, followed by a fast finale. Beethoven later on decided not to follow that form in his compositions, choosing to switch the order of the second and third movements. Some people liked it, some people didn't - but nobody had the right to call it correct or incorrect to do so.

Essentially, a performance error is simply an error against the composer's intentions; if the composer intends a big mess of exotic sounds, the performance should deliver a big mess of exotic sounds.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but I'd like to say that trying to define precisely what is and what is not music is an impossible task. You're better off not worrying about it and just enjoying the music that you prefer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but I'd like to say that trying to define precisely what is and what is not music is an impossible task. You're better off not worrying about it and just enjoying the music that you prefer.


No no no, I will absolutely NOT enjoy listening to anything at all until somebody explains clearly how I can tell if it is or isn't music. After all, if I love it and it turns out that it isn't music, imagine how silly I'll feel!


----------



## Borodin (Apr 8, 2013)

You've all had the definition of music wrong this whole time. It's actually something you have never heard before, as it is impossible to hear music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Music is sound that has been organized by using rhythm, melody or harmony. If someone bangs saucepans while cooking, it makes noise. If a person bangs saucepans or pots in a rhythmic way, they are making a simple type of music.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> No no no, I will absolutely NOT enjoy listening to anything at all until somebody explains clearly how I can tell if it is or isn't music. After all, if I love it and it turns out that it isn't music, imagine how silly I'll feel!


Ironically, doesn't what we like - a holistic subjective experience - actually determine what we define as music ? For those who regard silence as a spiritual experience, John Cage can easily become the greatest musician. For those who value melodic invention, John Cage is not more than a fraud. The definition of music, in my opinion, must not fail to include subjective preferences, the latter which in itself cannot be rationally explained. Music is not a simple one way process.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Defining music as "organized sound" still leaves much to be explained. Even terms like "melody" and "harmony" can mean very different things. You could argue that "music" is an undefinable term. It could be any sound, really. Who's to say that a bird chirping isn't "organized"? Is it aleatory? Or is it simply so completely organized that it defies our efforts to analyze it?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Itullian said:


> Music is sound that has been organized by using rhythm, melody or harmony. If someone bangs saucepans while cooking, it makes noise. If a person bangs saucepans or pots in a rhythmic way, they are making a simple type of music.


What is an unrhythmic way to bang a pot?


----------



## Borodin (Apr 8, 2013)

When you're banging pot's sister?


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

ssdei said:


> In my opinion,
> not every composition out of musical sounds can be considered as Music.


Well... up to here it is OK. It is your opinion. No problem.



> [....] must be [...] and [...] and [...].
> 
> [...] can't occur without [...]
> 
> [...]It's not enough to [...].


  

The only thing I can say is that something grounded in _"must be's"_ always endanger creativity, freedom and willingness to do and realize. And I don't see any good in that.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

......and



Mahlerian said:


> Blues is about performance, and each performance of a song, even by the same performer, will be unique. The Ramones song is also, in good part, about performance. Most everything but the basic "blocks" of the song could be changed (lyrics, arrangement, even the number of verses/choruses and their placement) and it would still be identified as "the same song". That's not possible with Mozart. You can't move the development/recapitulation section to the beginning and then play the exposition, or switch the first and second subjects. It would no longer make musical sense.


Making 'musical sense' and being the 'same song' are two completely different things. You could indeed swap the recap for the expo in Mozart 40th and those who were not well acquainted with either that piece, the genre or classical music in general wouldn't care. The 'good tunes' are still there, the 'exciting bits', the 'beautiful bits' etc. 
It would be still identifiable as the same piece. Try it. Chop up any symphony by for example, Brahms, chop it into sections of 32 bars jumble them up and stick them back together randomly and anyone who knows the piece will recognise it as soon as they hear any sign-post phrase, melody, chords or whatever. It would not make musical sense but neither would chopping up most rock songs. Rock songs are not just thrown together randomly you know. Great pains are taken with the verses-bridge-chorus-middle8 arrangement, the lyrics hardly ever make sense if swapped around and the arrangement is carefully built so as to maxi maize the impact of the chorus. It is a little unfair to take The Ramones as a standard and I imagine if we were talking about other pop/rock records we would be in a very murky area of definitions. There are some pop songs that are every bit as composed and carefully put together as any Schubert Lieder.

Also, many eminent conductors choose to leave out the repeat of the exposition in a classical sonata. That to me, completely destroys the whole architecture of the movement and makes no musical sense. Those repeat marks are put there for a reason. The reason being balance and proportion of _key _ and _material_.

Blues is about performance and so is Mozart. There is more improvisation in blues but what supports the improv is a very strict harmonic and rhythmical structure. I don't need to go on about the improvised element of figured bass, da capo aria and cadenza being about a particular performance. Or about written down blues a la Ellington.

What would Mozart have made of Ellington? I say this from the bottom of my heart and in all seriousness that I think if Mozart's musical spirit or musical nature was transportable and he lived in the 20C, he would be an Ellington, not a Stockhausen. Impossible to prove and pointless conjecture though it is, that's what I think.



Mahlerian said:


> But sonata form structure is not reducible to a chord chart. That was my whole point. You haven't shown what you are purporting to show. The establishment of key is, in the classical style, as much a melodic consideration as a harmonic one. That is, one cannot simply shift the chords underneath a melody by Mozart or Haydn and change the key. The accompaniment and melody are always playing off of each other, just like in the music of Schoenberg or Webern, to produce the effect of resolution.


I don't see that at all. One can take a melody and depending on the particular order of the notes it is possible to 're-interpret' the melody in another key. It is a well used device. The whole point of a development section in a classical sonata is the freedom to pass through different, more distantly related keys even more so than to rework the melodic material. Some development sections will chop up the melodies or motives to a greater or lesser extent, some will introduce new material but all will modulate away from tonic/dominant area.
Also it would be impossible for Mozart to conceive a melody without simultaneously 'hearing' it's implied harmony.



Mahlerian said:


> That is an interesting question, and I'll admit that musique concrete/noise music are not my forte, so I can't say. But things in those genres have been produced by composers in direct line of descent from Mozart, like Stockhausen.


In a direct line? According to who? Themselves? Scholars? I prefer to decide for myself. I've heard people call Lloyd Webber and Einaudi the Mozart of today too. 
Reich studied with Berio but is not in a 'direct line' at all.



Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's Piano Concerto ends with a C major chord (with added major seventh, and a bass note of G rather than C). Is it harmonic music or not? Why?
> 
> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring ends with a chord consisting of the notes D-E-A-D-G#-A-D-G#. Is it harmonic music or not? Why?


I am not a librarian so I don't have to worry about which categories to file music under. 
The Rite is tonal, bi- tonal, poly-tonal, modal, folk song and atonal. It is not one thing only. 
It has passages that are 'harmonic' triad based and some that are not. 
In a very large part it's comprehensibility is due to it's overriding emphasis on rhythm and pulse albeit constantly shifting ones.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Forte said:


> Yes, no, what of it? There is nothing there that defines music. You can't pick and choose what you _think_ are "summations" and "organisms" and then say that one is not art from an objective standpoint. There are musical structures in certain compositions, and some compositions completely lack those structures, or perhaps construct them in unorthodox ways. If you're referring to motivic and harmonic organization (and melody which I will get to) there, composers have simply chosen to do different things - some to use it fully, others to toss it away, seeing it as unnecessary. If you're not, well, your terms of organization are pretty damn ambiguous.
> 
> I challenge this notion that certain ways of organizing music are more legitimate than others. You cannot say one is right or wrong, objectively.
> 
> ...


Mein: 
You think, differentiation between summations and organisms (organismic wholes) is subjective?

Yours: 
… what of it? There is nothing there that defines music.

Mein: 
A mistake! There is a lot there that defines *order, structure* and *mess, chaos*! 
And this aspect is relevant and very important for music and aesthetic composition.

Forte: 
You can't pick and choose what you think are "summations" and "organisms" and then say that one is not art from an objective standpoint.

Mein: 
Oh yes, we can. We can grasp it and say: 
It's a raw draft, or It's a finished composition; 
It's a heap of disconnected splinters, It's an organismic whole.

Forte: 
There are musical structures in certain compositions, and some compositions completely lack those structures ..., composers have simply chosen to do different things - some to use it fully, others to toss it away, seeing it as unnecessary.

Mine: 
The point is different structures are of very different weight and value. One can dispose of these, but can't dispose of those, since it draws him out of the sphere of the Muse of music. 
Some authors have got good feeling and measure in them, others haven't, the result is the former are respected and famous, the latter are neglected and forgotten (even in spite of the very importunate exertions by mass media to popularize the latter).

Mine:
You think, the criterion of Melody (its presence, absence in a composition) is not important?

Yours:
Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of music, yes, *it is completely unimportant*. Merriam-Webster has two definitions of melody:
1: a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds : *tunefulness*
2: a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an *aesthetic* whole

Mine:
There are just to things that can be arguments - *Logic* ans *Facts* (provided facts are applied correctly and honestly).
Authorities, quotations as such are no grounds.
Still let's look into your quotation -
You openly contradict yourself, since *Tunefullness* and *esthetic* has got a lot to do with *Melody*.

Yours:
There is no physical law that states that a group of sounds must contain a melody to be [musically - _my insertion_] meaningful, in fact there is no physical law that states any group of sounds is meaningful.

Mine:
On what grounds do you state 'there is no …' ? 
No grounds provided here. Just an opinion, a wish.

Yours:
What is sweet or agreeable in music? That depends on the individual.

Mine:
That depends on what Nature and other circumstances have put into the individual. So doesn't it depend on Nature, its laws?
Here is a bit of reasoning: A blind person can't see and says: there are no such things, I can't see them. A seeing person says: here they are! 
- How on earth can you say they are *on equal subjective, individualistic* terms?!

Yours:
Certain musical aesthetics that you have do not have to apply for any one of the other *seven billion people* on the planet. Something you find horribly unsatisfying to your ear might be highly enjoyable to someone else, and vice versa. That doesn't make one right over another, that just means that part of the definition of a melody is subjective, and *therefore music is subjective*.

Mine:
… seven billion people, you say? 
They show a lot of objectivity through average numbers: Top composers - Mozart, ISB, Handel, … - are steadily top ones, then and again. You can't deny that!

Yours:
If you don't realize that *music is not objective*, it doesn't make sense to argue what music is and isn't, let alone what is "good" or "bad" music.

Mine:
Your position is absolute subjectivist, and further - sophist.
I wonder why you are so afraid of objective approach and of seeing objective things? - Interesting! Very much characterizing.

Mine:
Performers losing a part or by chance changing the order of parts in the process of performance on stage with the examination commission noticing nothing - does not testify to the summation-like character of the composition?

Yours:
...

Mine:
I meant not so much finished parts (=movements) of a multi-part composition, as much small parts, fragments, segments.
If a highly qualified performer performs on the stage by reading music and by chance reads a wrong page first, then corrects himself and reads the right one, then proceeds (without stopping because of possible abashment) and the examination committee notices nothing, it means: the performed piece is a summation, not an organism, not a real whole, since easily divided, parts shifted.

Yours:
Oh yeah, and you seem to have an almost unhealthy obsession of "melody" in music. *There is nothing that rules melody at the center of music. Absolutely nothing!*

Mine:
Dass ist ein bißchen zu viel!
You are not a musician. Not a true, real one.
And again no grounds on your part, just wishful thinking. You produce a lot of wishful thinking.

Remembering the above example - you ought to try to believe to the seeing persons or remain blind!

Yours:
It is really *just your ear* saying what is being put together carelessly, it is not a fact that it is put together carelessly. You are *not warranted* to say that is in fact inferior music just because you don't like the way it's organized.

Mine:
On what grounds do you say that? Again just wishful thinking. And the things you say can be addressed to anyone on any occasion. But what the use of them?
*Music is not just likes and dislikes, not like 'Tea or coffee for breakfast?'.* 
You definitely confuse these different things.
Nature puts a lot into people, including laws of the universe - to some ones more, to some ones less. Some persons are more seeing ones, some are more blind. It's not right to lock oneself in absolute subjectivism and insist on the absolute equality of tastes. At least you ought to listen to Logic! I applied it not ones.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

You've converted me ssdei. I will no longer listen to impure sound collections. I will no longer listen to impure sound collections. I will no longer listen to impure sound collections.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I am not a librarian so I don't have to worry about which categories to file music under.


Okay. Let's not worry about these categorizations, then.



Petwhac said:


> The Rite is tonal, bi- tonal, poly-tonal, modal, folk song and atonal. It is not one thing only.
> It has passages that are 'harmonic' triad based and some that are not.


....What? Which you am I arguing with? The you who wants to stick the Ramones and Mozart in a box and Cerha in a different box or the you who wants to get away from categorizations entirely?


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

Zanralotta said:


> (Wir könnten diese Diskussion natürlich auch auf Deutsch weiterführen, aber auf Englisch scheint sie dann doch etwas produktiver zu sein. Für mich persönlich macht das keinen Unterschied.)


Out of propriety it makes a difference to others that the discussion is in English - if you want the majority to read what you write it would be best. I can have a conversation with you in Italian, French, Swedish, Hrvatski, and get by with pleasantries in German, Russian, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Gujurati, Vlaams, Xhosa, Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish - but what is the point, an odd word in another tongue can add a certain something to a sentence but why would people read if they have to go and look everything up.

This rant is mainly for ssdei so I do beg your forgiveness.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I haven't read everything from all the other pages in this thread, but wow, this last post was just plain insulting, and the fact that you call all this opinion "objective truth" only makes your argument more narrow-minded (not the mention off-topic). Look, I know what I say will just seem like another "nonfactual and inferior argument" to you, and perhaps you think you're looking at facts, ssdei, but you're only looking at those that you want to believe in and ignoring all others that you don't know or don't want to know. Other members have presented their views to you, and you blocked them all out with your "objective facts" without even considering other views. It's tempting to want to use "facts" to automatically reject the "mainstream" opinion, but could you at least give the posts on the previous pages some open-minded thoughts?

And by the way, looking at the races from your point of view based on the time period of your choice and the selective statistics of your choice and dismissing everything that could prove you wrong (like by saying "You so easily believe to what they say of themselves?")... *is not truth*.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ssdei said:


> Mine:
> You think, the criterion of Melody (its presence, absence in a composition) is not important?
> 
> Yours:
> ...


Melodies can be described as having disjunct or conjunct intervals, or a mixture of both. Whether the melody is "sweet or agreeable" to the listener is up to (guess who?) the listener. Theres a melody that starts in the horn in this piece (at about 1:16) and is passed onto the piccolo. It is made if of many disjunct intervals but _I_ find it beautiful. To _me_ it is a n agreeable succession of notes, to _me_ it is a rhythmic succession of notes organised into an aesthetic whole. Have you ever done a course in music at a university or conservatory? You would have learnt more about melody than a simple dictionary definition.






The objective: the melody is made up of disjunct intervals, it is played by the horn in its high register, it is passed onto the piccolo and is played in its high register also, it is made up of disjunct intervals, it is atonal, it uses syncopated rhythms and complex tuplets.

The subjective: the melody (according to me) is beautiful, it has an aesthetic whole, there are moments when it gets very exciting.

Now, as an exercise, pick a melody of your choice and do the same.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Feathers said:


> ... but could you at least give the posts on the previous pages some open-minded thoughts?


There have been so many posts here that I could not pay equal attention and time and answer all of them.

2. Your wording about the rest in this post of yours is not persuasive owing to wishful general assertions, with no grounds provided.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

ssdei said:


> There have been so many posts here that I could not pay equal attention and time and answer all of them.
> 
> 2. Your wording about the rest in this post of yours is not persuasive owing to wishful general assertions, with no grounds provided.


Well I wasn't trying to be persuasive. I was just stating a fact.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Melodies can be described as having disjunct or conjunct intervals, or a mixture of both. Whether the melody is "sweet or agreeable" to the listener is up to (guess who?) the listener. Theres a melody that starts in the horn in this piece (at about 1:16) and is passed onto the piccolo. It is made if of many disjunct intervals but _I_ find it beautiful. To _me_ it is a n agreeable succession of notes, to _me_ it is a rhythmic succession of notes organised into an aesthetic whole. Have you ever done a course in music at a university or conservatory? You would have learnt more about melody than a simple dictionary definition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the example.

Just my very first impressions:

It's drawing/painting with sounds or theatre of sounds. 
A lot can be written this way!
Fragments can successfully change their places within the whole. It is a summation to a considerable extent.

Some elements can be interesting and melodic and it is intellectual, but it's a pity, the author does not want or can't compose a real melody and put it in the centre.

Real music is when notes sing or dance. Neither of it is here.
He is a painter.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Feathers said:


> I was just stating a fact.


Certainly no, you were not.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I love this thread! It's very "note"orious.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

ssdei said:


> Certainly no, you were not.


Oh? And how was I not, Mr. Knower-of-All-Truths? :lol:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread started out about defining music. It has morphed into arguments about race and nationalism. There are also many posts which discuss other members in a negative manner. Please refrain from these negative comments about members. If posts continue in a similar fashion to the last couple of pages, we will close the thread.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> This thread started out about defining music. It has morphed into arguments about race and nationalism. There are also many posts which discuss other members in a negative manner. Please refrain from these negative comments about members. If posts continue in a similar fashion to the last couple of pages, we will close the thread.


I in all honestly am in favor of this thread being closed. Opinions are all great and should all be accepted, but OP has done almost nothing but attack other people for having different opinions than his own. He merely posted his thoughts on the first post and following ones - attacking impressionist composers like Debussy and much 20th century music, insisting it isn't music at all. Then he started posting things that are pretty damn offensive.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> *This thread started out about defining music.* It has morphed into arguments about race and nationalism. There are also many posts which discuss other members in a negative manner. Please refrain from these negative comments about members. If posts continue in a similar fashion to the last couple of pages, we will close the thread.


Sorry, mmsbls, but that's demonstrably untrue. This thread is not about defining music, it's not even about race or nationality, it's about ssdei gratifying himself, insulting others, causing frustration and asserting how right he is in doing so. It has been about those things from the very start. If this is the kind of content the administrators want on this forum, fine, but I will have to seriously consider whether or not I want to continue visiting a place where such insidious garbage is deemed acceptable and apparently even supported by moderators.


----------



## ssdei (Aug 17, 2013)

Feathers said:


> ...and yet you say that we shouldn't believe what the Indians and Chinese have to say about themselves.


You failed to see my words *documents*, *photographs*. 
And I also add here - *archeological artefacts*.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

This thread is now closed due to persistent off-topic discussions and personal remarks.


----------

