|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| tomato wrote: |
Did anyone else have to look up Hadrian's Wall after reading Steelrails' post?
Or am I singular in my stupdity? |
I knew that one in middle school (thanks to Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, which really is not something to be proud of having learned about something from) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
Did anyone else have to look up Hadrian's Wall after reading Steelrails' post?
Or am I singular in my stupdity? |
Yeah, didn't know that one either, and I saw Kevin Costner's Robin Hood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, you guys need to keep up with your walls. They don't just build themselves, you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Am I the only one that just tried to google self-building walls? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can tell you a little bit more about walls:
Richard III had a horse named Wall.
He got thrown off from his horse in a battle, hence the poem about Humpty Dumpty having a great fall.
I learned that when I was teaching a class about Mother Goose rhymes for January camp.
I also learned the story behind "the dish ran away with the spoon."
The Dish was nickname for the Queen's chef.
The Spoon was the nickname for the woman who tasted everything served for the Queen to make sure it wasn't poisoned.
One day, the Dish ran away with the Spoon.
They were both caught and put in jail.
I decided not to tell the children that story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, microtonality isn't a dead end. Untempered microtonality is an invention of the remotest antiquity, and makes perfect mathematical sense. |
Right, yet people will complain the moment it's used because it hurts the ears. |
I think he's talking about Bach's "Well-tempered Clavier". Written in 1722, Bach actually did away with microtonality then and set the standard for the past 300 years of music.
Up until "Well-tempered Clavier", C# and Db for example, were not the same note. And indeed mathematically, they aren't. The difference is just too small for the average person to hear, so Bach made them the same note for simplicity's sake. What he did essentially enabled the key change and western tonality exploded right up to Shoenberg's 12-tone serialism nearly two hundred years later.
Some forms of microtonality are a throwback to tonality how it was before Bach's time: when C# and Db, properly, weren't the same note. Modern microtonality is more experimental mucking about with things like quarter tones (like tomato mentioned.) The microtonality you and Koveras are talking about are two separate things. |
I appreciate you trying to prevent confusion. I have to say, though, that microtonal differences are definitely not too small for the average person to hear. True, it's hard to discern A natural from A+ (+ representing a difference of one Pythagorean comma, or about 1/80th of an octave) when you hear the sounds in isolation. That is, if you heard an A, then silence for a few seconds, then an A+, you couldn't tell the difference unless you had perfect pitch. But the situation is totally different when the microtone is put in a musical context. In that case even an untrained ear can perceive the very different emotional effects created by differences of one comma, and in general parlance people will often call this sort of thing timbre. In effect the difference of one comma can be perceived as - for example - the difference between a 'bright' and a 'sombre' timbre. If you have a piano or a guitar nearby (or any instrument that leaves you free to sing) you can easily experiment for yourself. Play a sustained C, then sing an 'energetic' E, and compare that to a 'sombre' E, then compare that to a 'peaceful' E, then compare them all to the E on the piano or guitar. These are microtonal differences, and good musicians even today use them all the time, when they aren't restricted by conformance to an equal-tempered piano. Someone who isn't theoretically aware of what's happening can still perceive the difference.
Last edited by Koveras on Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:56 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Commonly understood limits are necessary for meaningful expression. &blech*v ymbbblaiiiiii schschsluoegof nibbni kKkKkC garfield?? |
Extremism aside, have you read A Clockwork Orange? It's nearly unintelligible at first because of a bunch of made up slang, but once you get past the language you find a great piece of literature underneath. Music is the same way. Sometimes you have to dig a little harder to find the meaning. |
In saying "extremism aside" you're making an important concession to my argument. You're admitting that the logical consequences of your position - that musical expression should be free of restrictions - are untenable. I haven't read A Clockwork Orange. I assume that if it's truly any good, then it obeys all the principles of storytelling and the basic rules of the english language, despite any superficial appearances to the contrary.
| UnderwaterBob wrote: |
| Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are remembered because they tested the boundaries of what was accepted in music in their time, and each ended up defining an era. |
Tomato dealt with this line of argument in his first post. These composers aren't 'remembered' just because they tested some cultural rules, but because they created noble and affecting music, which would have been impossible if they hadn't observed the principles.
| UnderwaterBob wrote: |
| The majority of Garfield deserves to be forgotten because of Jim Davis' refusal to make a joke he hasn't already made a hundred times before. |
Garfield the strip is actually much funnier when it's liberated from the arbitrary restriction of Garfield the cat. Have you read Garfield Minus Garfield? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| In saying "extremism aside" you're making an important concession to my argument. You're admitting that the logical consequences of your position - that musical expression should be free of restrictions - are untenable. |
I think all artistic expression, music and literature, should be free of restriction. Your example above was just random keyboard mashing, but I bet in the hands of a talented writer, something interesting could be written in that vein. It's the same with music. Listen to what Anton Webern did to twelve tone serilism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKZt6nPrKJQ
| Koveras wrote: |
| UnderwaterBob wrote: |
| Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are remembered because they tested the boundaries of what was accepted in music in their time, and each ended up defining an era. |
Tomato dealt with this line of argument in his first post. These composers aren't 'remembered' just because they tested some cultural rules, but because they created noble and affecting music, which would have been impossible if they hadn't observed the principles. |
But the point is that they pushed the boundaries of their art further than any other composers of their time.
Anyhow, we're just reliving the "war of the romantics".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Romantics
| Koveras wrote: |
| Garfield the strip is actually much funnier when it's liberated from the arbitrary restriction of Garfield the cat. Have you read Garfield Minus Garfield? |
Yes, and props to Jim Davis for approving of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Play a sustained C, then sing an 'energetic' E, and compare that to a 'sombre' E, then compare that to a 'peaceful' E, then compare them all to the E on the piano or guitar. These are microtonal differences, and good musicians even today use them all the time, when they aren't restricted by conformance to an equal-tempered piano. Someone who isn't theoretically aware of what's happening can still perceive the difference. |
This post is good stuff. I remember at uni, when rehearsing my compositions to be performed the violinists would often ask if they wanted an E or a B etc to lean more towards Eb or F.
It's a typical technique to microshift up or down to give one a sense of direction.
---
Some argue Atonality doesn't even exist, since there is always a tonal centre in any sustained period of note. This just led experimenters to play everything in pizz, pointillism etc. Almost as if out of spite.
But to show a more 'pleasant' ligeti, This one has many obvious and sustained single notes, yet I wouldn't start calling it the tonal centre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRZnsAgKng
Such as at the very start I suppose, and 1:45. Would you call it so in this case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| In saying "extremism aside" you're making an important concession to my argument. You're admitting that the logical consequences of your position - that musical expression should be free of restrictions - are untenable. |
I think all artistic expression, music and literature, should be free of restriction. Your example above was just random keyboard mashing, but I bet in the hands of a talented writer, something interesting could be written in that vein. |
Ignoring the fact that 'new and interesting' =/ good, I'd like to know on what basis you could classify a writer as talented and his work as interesting if you weren't appealing to (at the very least) 'intersubjective' standards of talent and interest, which are the same thing as cultural restrictions. As far as I can tell, you could only assert those things as your own personal opinion, worth no more or less than anyone else's. In that case it's quite possible that my keyboard mashing was a mountainous display of talent which you are simply too small of soul to comprehend. You said "extremism aside"; but I won't let you get away with that. You have no valid reason to leave out the extremism. The logical outcome of your individualistic value system is the confusion of standards and the death of artistic culture. Aside, it's interesting that when art is conceived of as self-expression, and originality is reified, almost nothing of noteworthy originality or expressiveness is created, and banality rules even the extremes.
Furthermore, since under your definition 'artistic expression' is not a specific culturally-restricted sphere of activity, it could eventually be used to describe any sort of activity whatsoever. After all, why should only 'artists' be free from restrictions? Are they better than the rest of us? Aren't we 'artists' too? And then since almost any activity could be plausibly justified as self-expression, freedom from restriction would diffuse through the entire culture like deadly poison. Unrestricted self-expression is literally barbarous. Indeed this is not a hypothetical situation - this decivilizing disease is well advanced in our own time.
In contrast, I advocate positive freedom, which is the idea that legitimate restrictions free us to realize our best nature.
| UnderwaterBob wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| UnderwaterBob wrote: |
| Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are remembered because they tested the boundaries of what was accepted in music in their time, and each ended up defining an era. |
Tomato dealt with this line of argument in his first post. These composers aren't 'remembered' just because they tested some cultural rules, but because they created noble and affecting music, which would have been impossible if they hadn't observed the principles. |
But the point is that they pushed the boundaries of their art further than any other composers of their time.
Anyhow, we're just reliving the "war of the romantics".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Romantics |
Did they? Do you know that for sure? Is art just a contest to see who can push boundaries the furthest? Do millions of people listen to Mozart just because 200 years ago he pushed certain boundaries, boundaries which are not only irrelevant to our time but which most listeners are only vaguely aware existed and could not describe with any detail?? Are those boundaries really of any vital interest to anyone today? Will anybody be listening to 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence in 200 years, savouring the boundaries it broke? Hell, I didn't even listen to it today, despite two independent recommendations, because it's a worthless gimmick.
However that may be, I don't fetishize the classical or baroque styles. I support the diatonic scale in so far as tonality is essential to good music; I don't think it's the best system possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Ignoring the fact that 'new and interesting' =/ good, I'd like to know on what basis you could classify a writer as talented and his work as interesting if you weren't appealing to (at the very least) 'intersubjective' standards of talent and interest, which are the same thing as cultural restrictions. |
"Intersubjectivity" (that I had to look up) is not universal. Yes, people share some of the same subjections towards all art, but not all people share all of them. My standards for "good" are similar to others, but also unique to me, as are everyone else's.
Does art have to appeal to the majority for its creator to be considered talented? There's no doubt in my mind that some of the best musicians and writers have been lost to history simply because few people considered their work good during their time. Visual art is plagued by the posthumous acknowledgement.
| Koveras wrote: |
| As far as I can tell, you could only assert those things as your own personal opinion, worth no more or less than anyone else's. In that case it's quite possible that my keyboard mashing was a mountainous display of talent which you are simply too small of soul to comprehend. |
Entirely possible.
| Koveras wrote: |
| You said "extremism aside"; but I won't let you get away with that. |
I shouldn't have said that, I got lost in the moment. No extremism aside, bring it on!
| Koveras wrote: |
| You have no valid reason to leave out the extremism. The logical outcome of your individualistic value system is the confusion of standards and the death of artistic culture. Aside, it's interesting that when art is conceived of as self-expression, and originality is reified, almost nothing of noteworthy originality or expressiveness is created, and banality rules even the extremes. |
Ahh, but the mountains of turds make the diamonds that much brighter, which gives the turds themselves meaning. "Good" and "bad" art are only so by comparison.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Furthermore, since under your definition 'artistic expression' is not a specific culturally-restricted sphere of activity, it could eventually be used to describe any sort of activity whatsoever. After all, why should only 'artists' be free from restrictions? Are they better than the rest of us? Aren't we 'artists' too? And then since almost any activity could be plausibly justified as self-expression, freedom from restriction would diffuse through the entire culture like deadly poison. Unrestricted self-expression is literally barbarous. Indeed this is not a hypothetical situation - this decivilizing disease is well advanced in our own time. |
This seems a bit like nautilus' evolution conspiracy paranoia. Artists' rights to freedom of expression does not translate to allowing an engineer the right to make a bridge that will collapse and kill hundreds to make some kind of statement. Artistic and scientific creativity are two very different things.
| nautilus wrote: |
| In contrast, I advocate positive freedom, which is the idea that legitimate restrictions free us to realize our best nature. |
And I agree that most good artists know this and conform to this, but sometimes those that don't manage to make a masterpiece out of sh** and thus shouldn't be discounted.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Did they? Do you know that for sure? Is art just a contest to see who can push boundaries the furthest? Do millions of people listen to Mozart just because 200 years ago he pushed certain boundaries, boundaries which are not only irrelevant to our time but which most listeners are only vaguely aware existed and could not describe with any detail?? Are those boundaries really of any vital interest to anyone today? Will anybody be listening to 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence in 200 years, savouring the boundaries it broke? Hell, I didn't even listen to it today, despite two independent recommendations, because it's a worthless gimmick. |
(Ouch, poor John Cage.) It is not a "boundary pushing contest". There are many very popular composers who composed entirely inside the then-current milieu, but the biggest names are those who did challenge the idea of music in their time. Bach caused the end of the Renaissance, Mozart the Baroque, Beethoven the Classical and John Cage provocatively showed us that the music we hear is entirely based on our perceptions. The debate that 4'33"-now 58 years old mind you-inspired is proof alone that it wasn't a "worthless gimmick".
| Koveras wrote: |
| However that may be, I don't fetishize the classical or baroque styles. I support the diatonic scale in so far as tonality is essential to good music; I don't think it's the best system possible. |
You seem to know a bit about music. What do you think is the best system possible? Once we find it there's no looking back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quack Addict
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Music is from the Devil" -Waterboy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| You said "extremism aside"; but I won't let you get away with that. |
I shouldn't have said that, I got lost in the moment. No extremism aside, bring it on! |
Bob, inviting a train to hit you doesn't make it any less fatal. By saying "extremism aside" you showed a bit of good sense. I tried to latch onto that, develop it, and reveal your error.
| Bob wrote: |
| This seems a bit like nautilus' evolution conspiracy paranoia. Artists' rights to freedom of expression does not translate to allowing an engineer the right to make a bridge that will collapse and kill hundreds to make some kind of statement. Artistic and scientific creativity are two very different things. |
Exceptions like this are exactly why I said 'almost'. These utilitarian exceptions are obvious and I would never try to deny them. The technical society values utility and efficiency in production, and anything that serves those ends is also valued. A high musical culture isn't one of those things; what is valued in 'culture' is just permissiveness, or self-expression, as an outlet for frustrations created by the mechanical brutality of the technical society. Art now is little more than a misunderstood residue of pre-technical society.
Comparing my position to Nautilus' only reveals your naive bias. You've mixed your understanding of evolution with a Marxian faith in progress to create a weird rag doll of social darwinism. Actually, I shouldn't say *you've* done it, because yours is basically the default stance on these things. I should point out that there's no reason why a culture should constantly improve - just the reverse. Everything else in nature shows a life process of birth, growth, maturity, decay, and death. Every other culture in history has obeyed that process, more or less. (The biological metaphor isn't exact.) Why the exceptionalism for ours?
| Koveras wrote: |
| (Ouch, poor John Cage.) It is not a "boundary pushing contest". There are many very popular composers who composed entirely inside the then-current milieu, but the biggest names are those who did challenge the idea of music in their time. Bach caused the end of the Renaissance, Mozart the Baroque, Beethoven the Classical and John Cage provocatively showed us that the music we hear is entirely based on our perceptions. The debate that 4'33"-now 58 years old mind you-inspired is proof alone that it wasn't a "worthless gimmick". |
People will endlessly discuss all kinds of trivial issues. The difference between what Mozart and Cage did is of kind, not degree. Honestly, you've reached the peak of absurdity when you claim that not playing any music is a kind of music. It may be meditative, it may be nice, or novel, but it isn't music. It's like calling fasting eating.
| Bob wrote: |
| You seem to know a bit about music. What do you think is the best system possible? Once we find it there's no looking back? |
I'll return to this question soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just because I don't want to turn this into a music forum, I'll post this link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-RT0xeg-pc
Probably my favourite song of the month at least.
The middle section from 1:35 actually makes me giddy. Polyrhythm, In pop music!
In light of that, J-pop music tends to be so much deeper and with less limitations (not saying better) than most western pop. And especially superior to Korean.
I see Korea as trying to be something that has already been done. And I see Japan as having become something that was currently being done, and then taking it several steps further.
Pop music can learn from contemporary classical techniques. It already has done in minuscule amounts, and this is another example. Polyrhythms have been around since the dawn of time, but 3 layers, one in 5/8 is generally unheard of until comparatively recently.
However all modern pop generally lacks the modulatory efficiency of the 80's.
Anyway. I tried to keep this on topic as much as I could. Can't stop listening *cry* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Art now is little more than a misunderstood residue of pre-technical society. |
Why "misunderstood"?
| Koveras wrote: |
| Comparing my position to Nautilus' only reveals your naive bias. You've mixed your understanding of evolution with a Marxian faith in progress to create a weird rag doll of social darwinism. |
Wow, over-think that one much? Your last post suggested extremism in art was the death knell for society. Nautilus thinks evolutionary theory is the death knell for society. I'm pretty sure the comparison didn't make me a futurist, social Darwinist.. Check that, the futurist part might be a bit accurate, but the term is, ironically, dated.
I'll get back to the rest of the post later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
