SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I Don't Feel Safe
It used to slightly tweak my nose when the weaponized outrage mob on the left complained of not feeling safe. Primarily because they'd say it in response to someone doing nothing but disagreeing with them or even simply saying something they didn't want to hear. Since neither of those remotely implies impending violence, I figured they're either lying or so paranoid that they need to be institutionalized and medicated.
Nowadays though, I count it as a happy thing. Turns out it's usually a combination of them lying and being extremely fragile little pussies. That sets me up to call them out on both counts and I genuinely enjoy doing so.
Tone wood (String Geek)
I'm trying my best to mark my strange rants on subjects of non-general interest appropriately. If you don't geek out on strings then hit back this is just going to bore you.
So, I'm going to put down a few words on one of the great eternal debates of mankind - the tonewood debate.
I'll try to put it down briefly and hit the important parts. None of this is new or original to me but maybe I can pull the critical pieces into focus.
The first thing is to distinguish between instruments like violins, cellos, and hollow body guitars - from solid body electric guitars.
No one with the slightest understanding of these instruments doubts that tone woods are a real thing *in that context.* These acoustic instruments are physical amplifiers, mechanical devices very similar to speaker cones. The top body panel physically resonates to create the sound the audience hears or the microphone picks up. Centuries of experience taught the makers of these instruments which woods are 'tone woods' and that means woods where you can find the right combination of qualities to make that top out of, something you can shave down until it's thin enough to resonate well, but without weakening it too much to hold up under use. You can make a perfectly functional instrument without any tone wood, btw, but it won't have much volume. That was important before mics and pickups and amps.
The most important tone wood is spruce. The stuff you make the back, sides, and neck from are NOT tone woods.
Now. Electric guitars are not mechanical amplifiers. Absolutely nothing learned from all these centuries of experience about tone woods has any direct application to electric guitars. Period. And I can't remember seeing one made of spruce or cedar either, come to think of it.
So, whenever anyone starts trying to sell you on 'tone woods' in relation to an electric guitar, your spidey sense should start tingling. There really isn't any such thing.
That said, the composition of the solid guitar *does* demonstrably affect the sound. Relatively little, compared to other components, as long as it's sufficiently solid to hold up under use. But it's demonstrable, it's measurable (*though I've yet to see anyone go to the trouble of measuring it properly there's no reason it couldn't be done.)
So then the question that comes into my mind is "Why?"
I haven't done any rigorous experimentation myself, just thought experiments, but I think there's a very simple answer which in this case is even correct.
Any effect of the body or neck materials on the sound in an electric guitar can only be due to damping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio
A solid body doesn't resonate, it's not going to ADD anything to the vibration of the strings which is sensed by the pickups and sent to the amp. Physically impossible.
But it can definitely dampen the sound. We can think of it as similar to the effect of the tone pot capacitor. Tone all the way up is the solidest of solid bodies, Les Paul's log, or maybe something you machined out of aluminum in your shop. The stiffest densest thing you can get. As you back away from that to lighter bodies that are just a bit less stiff and heavy, it's something like rolling that tone pot off the tiniest bit. You're not adding anything, you're only subtracting.
Not necessarily a bad thing, you'll probably subtract quite a bit more at other places before the signal hits the speaker cone. Cutting some frequencies ever so slightly can make others shine through.
(*The tests I've seen people do have all failed to be completely rigorous at one level or another. You'd really have to construct a test bed with a mechanical plucker, run a large number of tests on each configuration, and then spend a good deal of brain power analyzing them to really come to any conclusions. Most people just play their tests rigs (which means the difference you hear might just be the difference between two performances) instead of using mechanical player, and it's rare to even see an oscilloscope come out. But I'm convinced I do hear very slight differences. It's possible someone with better hearing would hear more; it's also likely that most of the public have worse hearing than I do. )
So, I'm going to put down a few words on one of the great eternal debates of mankind - the tonewood debate.
I'll try to put it down briefly and hit the important parts. None of this is new or original to me but maybe I can pull the critical pieces into focus.
The first thing is to distinguish between instruments like violins, cellos, and hollow body guitars - from solid body electric guitars.
No one with the slightest understanding of these instruments doubts that tone woods are a real thing *in that context.* These acoustic instruments are physical amplifiers, mechanical devices very similar to speaker cones. The top body panel physically resonates to create the sound the audience hears or the microphone picks up. Centuries of experience taught the makers of these instruments which woods are 'tone woods' and that means woods where you can find the right combination of qualities to make that top out of, something you can shave down until it's thin enough to resonate well, but without weakening it too much to hold up under use. You can make a perfectly functional instrument without any tone wood, btw, but it won't have much volume. That was important before mics and pickups and amps.
The most important tone wood is spruce. The stuff you make the back, sides, and neck from are NOT tone woods.
Now. Electric guitars are not mechanical amplifiers. Absolutely nothing learned from all these centuries of experience about tone woods has any direct application to electric guitars. Period. And I can't remember seeing one made of spruce or cedar either, come to think of it.
So, whenever anyone starts trying to sell you on 'tone woods' in relation to an electric guitar, your spidey sense should start tingling. There really isn't any such thing.
That said, the composition of the solid guitar *does* demonstrably affect the sound. Relatively little, compared to other components, as long as it's sufficiently solid to hold up under use. But it's demonstrable, it's measurable (*though I've yet to see anyone go to the trouble of measuring it properly there's no reason it couldn't be done.)
So then the question that comes into my mind is "Why?"
I haven't done any rigorous experimentation myself, just thought experiments, but I think there's a very simple answer which in this case is even correct.
Any effect of the body or neck materials on the sound in an electric guitar can only be due to damping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio
A solid body doesn't resonate, it's not going to ADD anything to the vibration of the strings which is sensed by the pickups and sent to the amp. Physically impossible.
But it can definitely dampen the sound. We can think of it as similar to the effect of the tone pot capacitor. Tone all the way up is the solidest of solid bodies, Les Paul's log, or maybe something you machined out of aluminum in your shop. The stiffest densest thing you can get. As you back away from that to lighter bodies that are just a bit less stiff and heavy, it's something like rolling that tone pot off the tiniest bit. You're not adding anything, you're only subtracting.
Not necessarily a bad thing, you'll probably subtract quite a bit more at other places before the signal hits the speaker cone. Cutting some frequencies ever so slightly can make others shine through.
(*The tests I've seen people do have all failed to be completely rigorous at one level or another. You'd really have to construct a test bed with a mechanical plucker, run a large number of tests on each configuration, and then spend a good deal of brain power analyzing them to really come to any conclusions. Most people just play their tests rigs (which means the difference you hear might just be the difference between two performances) instead of using mechanical player, and it's rare to even see an oscilloscope come out. But I'm convinced I do hear very slight differences. It's possible someone with better hearing would hear more; it's also likely that most of the public have worse hearing than I do. )
There is no such thing as chance
There are a lot of things we have words for that don't exist.
One is chance.
We say; 'When one flips a coin, there is an equal chance that it lands heads or tails. This is a 50/50 or .50 chance.'
Now 50/50 is 1/1, but no one seems to remember their fractions these days, and it's not important, so I'll let it slide.
The main thing is, this is nonsense. When one flips a coin, it will either land heads or tails. One or zero. There's absolutely no chance involved.
We think of it as a 50/50 chance, because the two possible outcomes appear to approximate equality, and the longer our test run, the closer the approximation comes. All very rational. Except, again, there's no chance. It's going one way or the other. We just don't have any way that we know of to tell which, ahead of time.
Doesn't mean there's a bit of chance involved though. With good perception and a lot of practice, you can throw a head, or a tail, nearly every time. I knew a guy that made a lot of money in tiny bets at parties proving this. In the case of someone without that skill, the outcome is still contained and determined by the flip, no less. It's just that they aren't consciously in control of the factors.
Einstein famously protested that G_d does not not play dice with the universe. I would add that if He does, it still not be random, as He would clearly be able to throw any numbers He wanted.
One is chance.
We say; 'When one flips a coin, there is an equal chance that it lands heads or tails. This is a 50/50 or .50 chance.'
Now 50/50 is 1/1, but no one seems to remember their fractions these days, and it's not important, so I'll let it slide.
The main thing is, this is nonsense. When one flips a coin, it will either land heads or tails. One or zero. There's absolutely no chance involved.
We think of it as a 50/50 chance, because the two possible outcomes appear to approximate equality, and the longer our test run, the closer the approximation comes. All very rational. Except, again, there's no chance. It's going one way or the other. We just don't have any way that we know of to tell which, ahead of time.
Doesn't mean there's a bit of chance involved though. With good perception and a lot of practice, you can throw a head, or a tail, nearly every time. I knew a guy that made a lot of money in tiny bets at parties proving this. In the case of someone without that skill, the outcome is still contained and determined by the flip, no less. It's just that they aren't consciously in control of the factors.
Einstein famously protested that G_d does not not play dice with the universe. I would add that if He does, it still not be random, as He would clearly be able to throw any numbers He wanted.
I found a Big Lou's
Finally found a Big Lou's in a pawn shop. Kind of nice, just to be able to set my hands on one and see how it actually goes.
Not bad at all. I was afraid 1 7/8" at the nut might still be too narrow, but no, it's enough.
Pickups aren't great but I've definitely heard worse. The geometry is nice, very comfortable.
Didn't buy it, I think they have it rather overpriced. It's this model: https://www.biglouguitar.com/product/el-dorado/
It's not badly worn, though you can tell it's been played, it's pretty near new. Action is reasonable, all frets work, no buzzing. But the whammy bar and the tip of the three-way switch are both missing. And they're asking $320!
If you used that link you may have noticed this model is available brand new, with the missing parts, for $380.
So of course there's no way I'm buying it at that price, but I want to see how low they'll go on it. This same store had advertised the same guitar at the same price or very close, back in the spring, but by the time I got over there to take a look it was gone. They have several locations, so I'm pretty sure they just bounced it around to the other locations, where it didn't sell, and now it's back where it started.
The big boss wasn't in today, and the guys that were there couldn't bargain it down below a floor of about $270, which frankly I still think is a bit high. So I took numbers and I'll call the big boss himself on Monday and see what he can do. If they've really been bouncing this thing between stores for several months they should probably be willing to come down a good bit further... I hope.
Ah well, if not at least I learned something to go forward.
So anyway, the question for anyone that cared enough to keep reading and get here; what do you think would be a good price on this?
Not bad at all. I was afraid 1 7/8" at the nut might still be too narrow, but no, it's enough.
Pickups aren't great but I've definitely heard worse. The geometry is nice, very comfortable.
Didn't buy it, I think they have it rather overpriced. It's this model: https://www.biglouguitar.com/product/el-dorado/
It's not badly worn, though you can tell it's been played, it's pretty near new. Action is reasonable, all frets work, no buzzing. But the whammy bar and the tip of the three-way switch are both missing. And they're asking $320!
If you used that link you may have noticed this model is available brand new, with the missing parts, for $380.
So of course there's no way I'm buying it at that price, but I want to see how low they'll go on it. This same store had advertised the same guitar at the same price or very close, back in the spring, but by the time I got over there to take a look it was gone. They have several locations, so I'm pretty sure they just bounced it around to the other locations, where it didn't sell, and now it's back where it started.
The big boss wasn't in today, and the guys that were there couldn't bargain it down below a floor of about $270, which frankly I still think is a bit high. So I took numbers and I'll call the big boss himself on Monday and see what he can do. If they've really been bouncing this thing between stores for several months they should probably be willing to come down a good bit further... I hope.
Ah well, if not at least I learned something to go forward.
So anyway, the question for anyone that cared enough to keep reading and get here; what do you think would be a good price on this?
Euphemisms
In the incipient tradition of posting illegal links rather than plagiarizing outright, Carlin got it right, it took me 2 minutes to find it, if you haven't heard it you're missing something so please navigate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMm2vF4uFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMm2vF4uFs
Bass is easy
What a horrible thing to say.
First off, at the most obvious and fundamental level, the statement is simply wrong. No instrument is easy.
But it's good to interpret the opposition as far in their favor as you can go. So I'll move down a level.
I think what most people actually mean to say, when they say this, is 'Bass is easier.' Easier than what? Easier than the little guitar with six strings.
So let's evaluate that interpretation instead.
It's not entirely untrue. There are senses in which it's easier. Almost all bass players (sorry Lemmy) play one note at a time, almost all the time. Six blades often play two or more notes at once.
But does that really make it easier? I would argue not necessarily. Depending on where the two notes are located, etc. But perhaps on a general statistical level it makes things a little easier, considered in isolation. And what about lead playing, supposedly the hardest part? That's single notes, like the bass, only with freer time, no?
A better argument, though, and one that I suspect many people with no musical experience actually rely on in making the judgement, is simply that there are fewer strings. And that's one case where the novice is right and the mid-level student often wrong - fewer strings is way easier, in one sense at least. Because every time you ring one string you need to mute all the others. Fewer strings to mute means easier, in isolation.
Another argument that the less musically experienced might rely on, but not such a strong one in my opinion - most songs you hear have simple bass lines. On the surface, that seems like it translates to easier, at least, if not actually easy. But that's a misunderstanding. Many bass lines are simple not because the instrument itself is easy, but because of ways that it's actually more demanding. It's easier to get away with something melodically complicated but loosely timed on virtually anything besides the Bass. It's much harder to express yourself while still holding down the rhythm section function, as opposed to doing so in free time over a solid rhythm section.
So while the Bass *can* expand beyond the rhythm section functions in the hands of an expert, it's much easier to do that with virtually any other instrument. Very much not easier.
Physicality comes into it too. Six blades are very finely tuned to the size of the folks that tend to buy guitars. And with six strings to worry about, often expecting several to ring at once, this is important. Relatively easy if your hands fit, relatively hard if your hands are larger.
Bass strings aren't really spread much wider. BUT you virtually never need to fret one while another rings further up the board, as is so common on six string. And the frets are more widely spaced, of course. Whether this makes one or another easier or harder though? Entirely dependent on your own dimensions and what you want to do. I can fret cleanly all the way up every Bass I've tried it on, I often can't do that with a six string, especially a 24 fret, at the 24th fret the distance between frets is much less than my finger takes up, it's not impossible to hit the note but it's virtually impossible to do so quickly and reliably. If I center my finger where it's supposed to go, I mute the note. If I press it down just right, behind the 23rd fret and rolling up, that works, but it's slow and awkward.
That's the main point, I think, it's not easier or harder, without context you can't tell. Context is always key.
But the consequences of giving generations of kids a hasty generalization as if it were absolute truth? Well that's another layer to this. There have been some incredible bassists, even as the trajectory has been for it to be where you find the least talented and least capable member of each band.
So I'll leave you with a positive example. Perhaps a slightly older one than you were expecting.
Perhaps one more topical in 2019 than you imagine as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CUeI9funsk [The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Studio/Recorded]
First off, at the most obvious and fundamental level, the statement is simply wrong. No instrument is easy.
But it's good to interpret the opposition as far in their favor as you can go. So I'll move down a level.
I think what most people actually mean to say, when they say this, is 'Bass is easier.' Easier than what? Easier than the little guitar with six strings.
So let's evaluate that interpretation instead.
It's not entirely untrue. There are senses in which it's easier. Almost all bass players (sorry Lemmy) play one note at a time, almost all the time. Six blades often play two or more notes at once.
But does that really make it easier? I would argue not necessarily. Depending on where the two notes are located, etc. But perhaps on a general statistical level it makes things a little easier, considered in isolation. And what about lead playing, supposedly the hardest part? That's single notes, like the bass, only with freer time, no?
A better argument, though, and one that I suspect many people with no musical experience actually rely on in making the judgement, is simply that there are fewer strings. And that's one case where the novice is right and the mid-level student often wrong - fewer strings is way easier, in one sense at least. Because every time you ring one string you need to mute all the others. Fewer strings to mute means easier, in isolation.
Another argument that the less musically experienced might rely on, but not such a strong one in my opinion - most songs you hear have simple bass lines. On the surface, that seems like it translates to easier, at least, if not actually easy. But that's a misunderstanding. Many bass lines are simple not because the instrument itself is easy, but because of ways that it's actually more demanding. It's easier to get away with something melodically complicated but loosely timed on virtually anything besides the Bass. It's much harder to express yourself while still holding down the rhythm section function, as opposed to doing so in free time over a solid rhythm section.
So while the Bass *can* expand beyond the rhythm section functions in the hands of an expert, it's much easier to do that with virtually any other instrument. Very much not easier.
Physicality comes into it too. Six blades are very finely tuned to the size of the folks that tend to buy guitars. And with six strings to worry about, often expecting several to ring at once, this is important. Relatively easy if your hands fit, relatively hard if your hands are larger.
Bass strings aren't really spread much wider. BUT you virtually never need to fret one while another rings further up the board, as is so common on six string. And the frets are more widely spaced, of course. Whether this makes one or another easier or harder though? Entirely dependent on your own dimensions and what you want to do. I can fret cleanly all the way up every Bass I've tried it on, I often can't do that with a six string, especially a 24 fret, at the 24th fret the distance between frets is much less than my finger takes up, it's not impossible to hit the note but it's virtually impossible to do so quickly and reliably. If I center my finger where it's supposed to go, I mute the note. If I press it down just right, behind the 23rd fret and rolling up, that works, but it's slow and awkward.
That's the main point, I think, it's not easier or harder, without context you can't tell. Context is always key.
But the consequences of giving generations of kids a hasty generalization as if it were absolute truth? Well that's another layer to this. There have been some incredible bassists, even as the trajectory has been for it to be where you find the least talented and least capable member of each band.
So I'll leave you with a positive example. Perhaps a slightly older one than you were expecting.
Perhaps one more topical in 2019 than you imagine as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CUeI9funsk [The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Studio/Recorded]
RIP Justin Raimondo
Very sad news today, if not wholly unexpected.
"Justin Raimondo, former editorial director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, is dead at 67. He died at his home in Sebastopol, California, with his husband, Yoshinori Abe, by his side. He had been diagnosed with 4th stage lung cancer in October 2017.
Justin co-founded Antiwar.com with Eric Garris in 1995. Under their leadership, Antiwar.com became a leading force against U.S. wars and foreign intervention, providing daily and often hourly updates and comprehensive news, analysis, and opinion on war and peace. Inspired by Justin’s spirit, vision, and energy, Antiwar.com will go on.
Justin (born Dennis Raimondo, November 18, 1951) grew up in Yorktown Heights, New York and, as a teenager, became a libertarian. He was a fierce advocate of peace who hated war, and an early advocate of gay liberation. He wrote frequently for many different publications and authored several books. He was also politically active in both the Libertarian and Republican parties."
Full obit at https://original.antiwar.com/Antiwar_Staff/2019/06/27/justin-raimondo-rip-1951-2019/
"Justin Raimondo, former editorial director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, is dead at 67. He died at his home in Sebastopol, California, with his husband, Yoshinori Abe, by his side. He had been diagnosed with 4th stage lung cancer in October 2017.
Justin co-founded Antiwar.com with Eric Garris in 1995. Under their leadership, Antiwar.com became a leading force against U.S. wars and foreign intervention, providing daily and often hourly updates and comprehensive news, analysis, and opinion on war and peace. Inspired by Justin’s spirit, vision, and energy, Antiwar.com will go on.
Justin (born Dennis Raimondo, November 18, 1951) grew up in Yorktown Heights, New York and, as a teenager, became a libertarian. He was a fierce advocate of peace who hated war, and an early advocate of gay liberation. He wrote frequently for many different publications and authored several books. He was also politically active in both the Libertarian and Republican parties."
Full obit at https://original.antiwar.com/Antiwar_Staff/2019/06/27/justin-raimondo-rip-1951-2019/
Those Turkish F-35s
I'm going to drop a few words here, not because I personally have much to say, but because it's conspicious how the mainstream media is avoiding mentioning something that's already been said.
I just spent over an hour reading stories searched with 'Turkey F-35' and every single one of them has left me with the impression that the US still has an option to lock Turkey out of the program before anything is delivered to them.
This is just not true. Not only is Turkey one of the production partners, they have taken delivery of 2. It took some delving in local resources to find this, google seems to have delisted it, but here you go: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709222963/u-s-turkey-standoff-over-f-35-escalates-as-each-side-waits-for-the-other-to-blin
"Last year, two F-35s were symbolically delivered to Turkey by Lockheed Martin in a ceremony at its Fort Worth, Texas, F-35 assembly plant.
"At Lockheed Martin," Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson declared at the event, "our hope is that the F-35 will continue to strengthen the mission and the values of NATO, our relationship with Turkey and the cause of peace in the region and around the world."
But those two warplanes are still in the U.S., at Luke Air Force Base on the outskirts of Phoenix. Turkish pilots have been training there to fly the F-35s, which are slated to be taken to Turkey in November."
Those are the Turkish pilots your recent news hits will be referring to, who have been grounded, no longer allowed to fly the planes their air force owns, and about to be stuck on an airliner back home.
Now, the US can kick Turkey out of the F-35 program if they want to. They'll need to be refunding some significant amounts of money, in that case.
What they cannot lawfully do is seize the two F-35s that have already been delivered to the state of Turkey.
War? No, Turkey isn't about to declare war on the US immediately.
A generations long grudge, serving a brutal dictators interest, courtesy of our own malfeasance?
Check and check.
Also, why has no one in the US media even referenced the facts here, since this little note in the middle of a long article from a nearly dead source back in April?
It's not a matter of no one's writing about it. EVERYONE is writing about it. I still haven't seen anyone mention the fact the Turks already own 2 F-35s though.
I just spent over an hour reading stories searched with 'Turkey F-35' and every single one of them has left me with the impression that the US still has an option to lock Turkey out of the program before anything is delivered to them.
This is just not true. Not only is Turkey one of the production partners, they have taken delivery of 2. It took some delving in local resources to find this, google seems to have delisted it, but here you go: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709222963/u-s-turkey-standoff-over-f-35-escalates-as-each-side-waits-for-the-other-to-blin
"Last year, two F-35s were symbolically delivered to Turkey by Lockheed Martin in a ceremony at its Fort Worth, Texas, F-35 assembly plant.
"At Lockheed Martin," Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson declared at the event, "our hope is that the F-35 will continue to strengthen the mission and the values of NATO, our relationship with Turkey and the cause of peace in the region and around the world."
But those two warplanes are still in the U.S., at Luke Air Force Base on the outskirts of Phoenix. Turkish pilots have been training there to fly the F-35s, which are slated to be taken to Turkey in November."
Those are the Turkish pilots your recent news hits will be referring to, who have been grounded, no longer allowed to fly the planes their air force owns, and about to be stuck on an airliner back home.
Now, the US can kick Turkey out of the F-35 program if they want to. They'll need to be refunding some significant amounts of money, in that case.
What they cannot lawfully do is seize the two F-35s that have already been delivered to the state of Turkey.
War? No, Turkey isn't about to declare war on the US immediately.
A generations long grudge, serving a brutal dictators interest, courtesy of our own malfeasance?
Check and check.
Also, why has no one in the US media even referenced the facts here, since this little note in the middle of a long article from a nearly dead source back in April?
It's not a matter of no one's writing about it. EVERYONE is writing about it. I still haven't seen anyone mention the fact the Turks already own 2 F-35s though.
For those that prefer illegal links
Definitions are important.
Nonetheless; A bit for the other side of the brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7lhMAOxLxw
I always hear "Money for Nothing" in the background watching this scene.
In particularly "the little faggot with the earrings and the makeup"
Yeah buddy, that faggot was my role model.
Movie scenes are rarely, if ever, perfect. If you can reply to this with a good cogent criticism of the fight choreography please do.
I spotted a few myself, but relatively minor, I consider it better than most films that came after it to say the least.
Why was Guthrie doomed in this fight? I can put it in a few words, a sentence fairly well, a few paragraphs with reasonable thoroughness surely; can you?
Music is notes in time.
No links for this one. No external authorities. Just my ears, my minds product, respond with your own.
What is it about music that captures the human heart?
Definitions are important.
Music is notes in time. Without notes, or without time, there is no music. Am I wrong?
I think I am right. And I think this is why this form of art is so powerful to us. Because...
Definitions are important.
Humans are naked apes who specialize in time-binding. From our most natural to our most artificial environments, this is one constant key to our success - and sometimes our fatal weakness. We do not exist only in the here and now. We remember deeply. We dream of the future. We remember the words of generations long ago turned to dust, and we dream of generations yet to come. Because of this, we could predict, and plan, and harvest nutrition our cousins could not. We expanded into climate change, as they shrank before it.
Anyway music is all about time-binding. Notes in time. You plot time on one dimension, and then you plot something else, usually pitch, or some approximation of pitch, on another axis, and you have music. You have a platform on which to imitate every distinctly human activity.
It's NOT "the universal language." It's not a language.
But it does share some pretty basic characteristics with every language.
Real abstraction is a hallmark of language, and music doesn't quite pull that off without language to supplement it. But our ears are (as befits a species with thin skin, little strength, no claws, and a poor sense of smell) actually very sophisticated, and we can appreciate a great deal of variation musically.
Harmonic scales, diatonic scales, pentatonic scales, a set of drums that don't really have any specific root pitch (but are nonetheless quite distinct to the ear) - all of those things are notes. But if you really want to push the definition of music to the limit, you play a single note for the whole track. Good luck with that. If you want to go one step further and prove I'm REALLY wrong? Play no notes.
Yeah, John Cage got me. Or I'm calling him out (well, sort of, if he were still alive and I ran into him I wouldn't 'call him out' I'd try to buy him a drink, but whatever.)
I think he was deliberately pushing things past the edge to show us where the edge is. Notes and time. That's where the edge is.
And time? Even that can be played with. For the most part, it's a convention so that multiple musicians can play together and not fall apart. If you're playing alone, or if your group is well rehearsed/tight knit, you can speed up and slow down at will.
But here's the important part. You, as a group or a solo performer, you project notes in time. You can bend your notes and you can bend your time - and the audience experiences that as a ride along with you.
Music is not a language, but it can be used to enhance and to *comment upon* language.
That last part is where it truly becomes transformative. Where the language says 'x' and the music says 'probably not x.'
Thoughts?
What is it about music that captures the human heart?
Definitions are important.
Music is notes in time. Without notes, or without time, there is no music. Am I wrong?
I think I am right. And I think this is why this form of art is so powerful to us. Because...
Definitions are important.
Humans are naked apes who specialize in time-binding. From our most natural to our most artificial environments, this is one constant key to our success - and sometimes our fatal weakness. We do not exist only in the here and now. We remember deeply. We dream of the future. We remember the words of generations long ago turned to dust, and we dream of generations yet to come. Because of this, we could predict, and plan, and harvest nutrition our cousins could not. We expanded into climate change, as they shrank before it.
Anyway music is all about time-binding. Notes in time. You plot time on one dimension, and then you plot something else, usually pitch, or some approximation of pitch, on another axis, and you have music. You have a platform on which to imitate every distinctly human activity.
It's NOT "the universal language." It's not a language.
But it does share some pretty basic characteristics with every language.
Real abstraction is a hallmark of language, and music doesn't quite pull that off without language to supplement it. But our ears are (as befits a species with thin skin, little strength, no claws, and a poor sense of smell) actually very sophisticated, and we can appreciate a great deal of variation musically.
Harmonic scales, diatonic scales, pentatonic scales, a set of drums that don't really have any specific root pitch (but are nonetheless quite distinct to the ear) - all of those things are notes. But if you really want to push the definition of music to the limit, you play a single note for the whole track. Good luck with that. If you want to go one step further and prove I'm REALLY wrong? Play no notes.
Yeah, John Cage got me. Or I'm calling him out (well, sort of, if he were still alive and I ran into him I wouldn't 'call him out' I'd try to buy him a drink, but whatever.)
I think he was deliberately pushing things past the edge to show us where the edge is. Notes and time. That's where the edge is.
And time? Even that can be played with. For the most part, it's a convention so that multiple musicians can play together and not fall apart. If you're playing alone, or if your group is well rehearsed/tight knit, you can speed up and slow down at will.
But here's the important part. You, as a group or a solo performer, you project notes in time. You can bend your notes and you can bend your time - and the audience experiences that as a ride along with you.
Music is not a language, but it can be used to enhance and to *comment upon* language.
That last part is where it truly becomes transformative. Where the language says 'x' and the music says 'probably not x.'
Thoughts?
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
