Hugowin

While I'm downloading the first movement I might as well ask what you mean with this: What?

One of the saddest songs I know, Naked as we came by Iron and Wine, is in a major key. I know the song is sad, and I feel the sorrow deeply and cry, and yet it makes me smile. Beck's Lost Cause, which is also in a major tonality, makes me cry and smile for other reasons; things deeply connected with my whole being, with all my thoughts. If you think that this is easily explainable, it might be. But the explanation does not matter, at least not for me, in my appreciation of the songs; I react the way I do because of something I see, hear, in the song itself, and that I could try to hint at. In the case of Naked as we came, I'd say something too wordy, perhaps about the sad fate of every loving human, the strength of meeting death bravely, and I could go on indefinitely. But whoever listens to the song can meet me halfway. And, whatever made this discernment possible, bless it - be it nature, culture, or God.

Two possible uses of better in aesthetics. "Beethoven's first symphony is better than Brahm's; it makes me happy, I enjoy listening to it more, etc etc." - Here you can be wrong, of course, but that would mean misjudging yourself. This is the kind of use we learn from childhood up. An example of the second use: "Bach's 48 are better than Shostakovich's 24; the number is larger (to display the arbitrariness of deciding criteria) and so is the number of contrapuntal devices." This use is harder to learn, since you have to know facts about the music. A tone deaf person would not be able to learn this. (Or, in a sense, he could by learning notation as a kind of picture game.) Confusing the two can cause heated debate. "Coca Cola is better than milk, it is tastier." "But it is bad for you! It is made up of..." How do we settle this? We avoid misunderstanding each other by specifying what we mean. It is as if Gianluca wanted to exclude the first of these uses from our language. (Perhaps with the motive of making us aesthetically healthier, with a change in our musical diet.) What I am interested in is: What compels us (you Gianluca) to believe that there are objective criteria for judging all music? The idea is that we find, rather than invent, the criteria; and if we had truly searched, we would all have found the same. But why the search at all? Will God punish a false judgement of music?

I'm asking, again, what does 'harsh' add that 'dissonance' lacks? What does "an entirely different category" mean about 'harsh'? I'm curious of the distinction you are trying to make. The interesting thing is not our little scruples, but that distinction.

Or it could mean that the meaning of your words are passing each other by. But there is something damn important here. We can talk about colors as wave-lenghts of light. But can we talk about colors in any other sense? The same goes with sound and the technical terms of accoustic theory. I'm going to sleep (imagine someone perplexed, wondering how one actually "goes to" sleep. Gardener's criticism of my use of harsh is comparable to someone saying "but I don't feel the "going" in my "going to" sleep. The transition is neutral to me."). I hope someone takes a bite at this; we might all better understand music.

The warmth of a person is not merely subjective. What makes you think it is? And what does 'harsh' add that 'dissonance' lacks?

Now you are making the mistake I thought you made with 'harsh'. We say of people that they are cold and warm, or cool and "on fire," in a secondary sense. Your rebuttal of my calling an interval harsh is now comparable to someone taking the temperature to check if a person is really cold. Saying that a tritone is harsher than a major third means that it is more dissonant, and nothing else. And I think that it is a beautiful way to compare touch with sound, since a tritone has more of those jagged egdes on its waves (bah, I wish I knew the technical terms) than a third. Of course, a poetical genious might find a more suitable word for us to adopt.

Hah, dictionary proved me wrong. You are right. Dissonant is the right word. For some reason I imagined harsh to mean merely "coarse and rough to the touch" without that added unpleasantness. But, actually, I think the dictionary may be at fault here. The gathered "data" for the use of words may be affected by the common philosophical error of associating psychological effect with the meaning of a word. Unpleasantness may have slinked in this way. And this is especially dangerous if any dead 18th century author wanted to actually mean merely "coarse and rough to the touch." This is damn interesting actually. How the methodology of lexicography can affect our understanding of scripture, for instance.

Tonality could be dead in the sense that chess is dead in space. Or we could kill it by composing every possible piece (I can't even imagine what this means). If we compare music to other arts, it can die in a more important sense. Literature, for instance. The language naturally inspires (or forces) certain phrases, rhymes and rhythms that become overused with time; similes and metaphors loose their initial flare, become banal and boring outside the original context. If a cooking tradition has had a long and lively existence, any new disciple will risk making small variations or concoctions of various famous dishes. Your music may sound like a jumble of bits and pieces from famous composers. Nabokov writing brilliantly about his first attempts at versification: In this sense, Tonality's obituary could only be written by a true friend, someone that knew him (lol) inside and out. The distinction of intervals depends on the taste of the composer. I group intervals together in consonance/dissonance, not because of their structural significance, but because of their sound. A tritone sounds harsher than a major third. In this sense the intervals build two different families (and this is what Daniel's talk about the natural must mean). Questioning this is like attacking the use of "lighter/darker" in talk about colors. And what specific meaning do you imagine is bound up with the terms? Schoenberg didn't free the intervals from some old-fashioned tyrannic hierarchy (he was a musical, not philosophical, genious), but wanted to free counterpoint from the shackles of tonal harmony. This is not done by destroying or denying a useful (even in twelve-tone composition) distinction, by wordplay.

Beautiful music and album name ("Nolita"); reminds me of Jane Birkin. And while I'm at it, here's an oddball perplexingly haunting marvel of hypnotism. I warn you, it may drive you insane with questions and questionable glee. Serge Gainsbourg - Elisa

Old-school LuLz. Two songs by the greatest swedish poet. Birger Sj

Three of the best bands you'll never find (consider yourself blessed). Gentle Giant is a musical revolution. Watch out for the drummer. He may unhinge your sense of reality more than the music itself. Gentle Giant - Cogs in Cogs

May be the only bard still alive that can curse you with a song.

There is a debate on this. Our opinions differ radically. But lord Manossg, as the knower of worthwileness, as the spokesman of the people, says it's not worthwhile. And, since it is a fact, that when we write on this subject, the omnipotent lord cannot but read it, it is we that waste his time: we anger the lord!

You remind me of the shenanigans of Will Kirk. Posting in a thread only to remind everyone how pointless an argument is (when it's not), or complaining about where the thread is heading, etc etc. You don't like the rabble about colours? Well, don't read it! This is YC, threads never stay on topic.