Salemosophy Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The title of this is just a parody of the discussion I want to create here. And by discussion, I don't really think of debate, as I really don't know how much there is to discuss. But I'd just like to illustrate what I mean by using the following, playful little saying I heard years ago: "Music is nothing more than dots on a piece of paper." Okay, first and foremost, the 'dot' in music is a rhythmic indicator. It indicates the increase in duration, by half, of the note head the 'dot' is assigned to. This assignment is indicated by placement of the dot on the immediate right side of the note and its stem. The 'dot' is not to be confused with the oval shape of a note head, which often is accompanied by a stem. So, to be more specific, music cannot be nothing more than "dots on a piece of paper" as dots do not actually indicate anything without their oval, note head counterparts... And on we go. Or we could just use our 3rd-grade reading level to extract the context clues of the statement and rationalize that the 'dots' the statement refers to are actually notes, or note heads. Who the hell cares? It's a dot! DOTS! The point of this little example is to point out how truly petty it is to argue over music in the semantic - wordplay - style. With all the threads that pop up around here containing fairly abstract content, the last thing we need to be doing is being sensitive to the most unimportant aspect of these discussions. Truth be told, there is no clear, concise way to speak about music that will be absolutely thorough. Music doesn't modulate to English, but if we want to talk about it (and I hope we all want to talk about music around here), then I propose that we reduce the 'sensitivity level' to statements which could otherwise be more concise. Really, I mean, REALLY! What a waste of time to spend pages and pages arguing over word usage. The simple truth is that even in the above example, the explanation of the statement is not completely accurate - by default - and there's always more to say than can be said to explain the application of the 'dot' to music. And that's just a DOT, not some theoretical discussion about the world of music. I'm certainly not trying to toot my own horn here, but I really think a thread like this one (or this one if there is no other) needs to be stickied and referenced every time, EVERY TIME someone comes along and gets all up in arms over word usage. Seriously, it gets really, really old. Some mistakes can be reckoned against good research and thoughtful preparation before the actual act of posting something. But let's just move beyond the semantics. It's an F'n DOT for CHRISSAKE!! REALLY!! -end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujimufu Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 ... and? I don't realy see what you're trying to say here. Or why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSC Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thanks AA, just what we needed, another flamebait thread. Plan to keep makin' em? Maybe you can make the next one about why Mozart is just simply better than Salieri (Because he just IS!) If you'll troll, at least be amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pliorius Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The point of this little example is to point out how truly petty it is to argue over music in the semantic - wordplay - style. -end rant you meant SEMIOTIC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts