Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music

Expand Messages
  • Leonardo Castro
    ... I was going to say that maybe a kind of rapping that not everybody can do would be that of Pato Banton, who sounds like something between singing and
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 18, 2013
      2013/10/17 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
      > From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...
      >> 2013/10/16 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
      >>> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
      >>>
      >>>> I just found this Rap song, in some kind of Guarani, produced by CUFA,
      >>>> an organization of favelas:
      >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLbhGYfDmQg
      >>>
      >>> Just goes to show, rap sucks in any language.
      >>
      >> Maybe being so simple and easy to be sung and produced is what make
      >> Rap likely to be adopted by many musically uneducated people from
      >> remote areas.
      >
      > No, I really don't think it's anything other than the overwhelming presence of
      > everything horrid about US American culture being exported to the rest of the
      > world.
      >
      > In reality, music and singing are every bit as native to the human soul and
      > mind as language itself and every culture on the planet expresses its deepest
      > thoughts and emotions via song / music as well as story / speech.
      >
      > Rap is no easier to sing or produce than any other kind of music. It dóes,
      > however, work better in English, if for no other reason than its mechanics
      > were conceived and devised with English word structure (lots of monosyllables)
      > and stress patterns and rhyme patterns and so forth in mind. I will grant that
      > it's *almost impossible* to sound bad rapping:
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy6FEk3ZPw
      >
      > To be honest, I can't tell if this guy is really bad or not... he sounds about the
      > same as all the other cRAPpers out there!

      I was going to say that maybe a kind of rapping that "not everybody
      can do" would be that of Pato Banton, who sounds like something
      between singing and reciting, but it's also quite repetitive if we
      think better of it:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsl6S1p4yU
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSywtiAirKE

      > I think these folks in remote areas are emulating it simply because they have
      > been exposed to it, and it's a part of American pop culture, so it's heard on
      > television, radio, and the internet.

      I wonder why they manage to maintain a good technical level in the
      Jazz age that is absent in current pop music.

      > It's still horrid, mind. I guess if we're going down, we'll drag the rest of you
      > down with us! ;))
      >
      >> Besides, it fits their desire to blame society for their
      >> exclusion, independently of whether the accusations are fair or not.
      >>
      >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsV4GWTF418
      >
      > "la calidad de esa musica un asco... puro ganster... por lo menos
      > hubieran hecho
      > representar bien el Hip Hop boliviano... ese es rap
      > paceño--- y ese rap es muy bajo
      > en cultura..." If I understood that right, spot on! Bas couture indeed!
      >
      > By the way, what a video! Guy's speaking Spanish, it's dubbed in English and the
      > subtitles are Mandarin! Talk about polyglossia!

      You missed the Aymara language in 2:43.

      >
      > Padraic
      >

      Até mais!

      Leonardo


      2013/10/4 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>:
      > 2013/10/2 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
      >>>> The instrumental and general músical influence in both is clearly Iberian;
      >>
      >>>
      >>> They resemble Portuguese style "Fado" in a bit of melancholy, although
      >>> fados are clearly more melancholic.
      >>
      >> And naturally, that particular "Iberian" sound I'm hearing as Spanish and you're
      >> hearing as Portuguese really stems from North African Moorish music! ---
      >>
      >> Awesome Spanish guitar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv2Fyjk0GGM
      >>
      >> now some Portuguese guitar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vat6Y0Vua0
      >>
      >> and now some Moroccan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlzEEKbfXU
      >
      > Based on these examples, I still find Guarania style more similar to
      > Portuguese music. The same for the Brazilian style "Choro", as you can
      > verify in this beautiful song composed by João Pernambuco, son of
      > Portuguese father and Indigenous mother:
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KO0rkOAiig
      >
      > [...]
      >
      >>>
      >>> A proof that Paraguayan music has some songs worth knowing is that it
      >>> has alrady called the attention even of Japanese people on the other
      >>> side of the globe:
      >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkKB1w_9hc
      >>
      >> Nice indeed! Though for harp, I still prefer O'Carolan:
      >>
      >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOVRZdKRrwg
      >
      > I would never identify an harp there if you didn't tell it. Maybe an
      > harpsichord...
      >
      > [...]
      >
      >>> You probably know or recognize the melodies of the songs "El condor
      >>> pasa"
      >>
      >> Sure famous tune. Probably one of the prettiest ever constructed. Simon and
      >> Garfunkel seem to have popularised that one in the US.
      >
      > Yes. And now, Jennifer Lopez has the melody of "Llorando se fue" in
      > the beginning song "On the floor".
      >
      >>> However, I was looking for songs sung in Native American *languages*.
      >>
      >> Not sure if something like this would count: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2TrGD7INY
      >>
      >> I guess this would: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrLL8n4fIe8
      >
      > Interesting! Which language is that?
      >
      >> Some Anglo-Inuit fusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtNuELl5he0
      >>
      >> Take a look here:
      >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_musicians#New_age_and_world_music
      >
      > Wow! I'll have a hard time finding which of them really sing in native
      > languages (I guess it's not the case of Ben Harper and Jimi Hendrix).
      >
      >>
      >>> In this song performed by the Carlos Santana band, they start with
      >>> some text that is presumably in some Mexican language, but I have no
      >>> idea of which one:
      >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNxznQ2ubZQ
      >>
      >> Looks like Spanish mixed with something. I've seen hints that it may be African of some
      >> kind.
      >
      > I've found this transcription:
      >
      > "Deja ja ya mig sin ella no somona
      > Deja ya migo sin ella no somona
      > Tika n'gai wa yo
      > Simba n'gai wa yo yaya"
      >
      > http://www.songsterr.com/a/wsa/carlos-santana-da-le-yaleo-tab-g-s18476
      >
      > I could interpret the sentence in the lines 1-2 as "deja ya, amigo,
      > sin ella no somos nada" (?!?!), but the lines 3-4 are clearly not
      > Spanish, and I don't think that that "simba" is "lion" in Swahili.
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > 2013/10/3 James Kane <kanejam@...>:
      >> The [ɨ] is very distinctive in song!
      >
      > Indeed!
      >
      > And, if one wants to know Guarani orthography and phonology, that "Che
      > pykasumi" videoke is the best practical guide I've seen so far.
      >
      >>
      >> In New Zealand, Māori is unfortunately poorly represented in pop
      >> music, with the last big hit that I can think of in 1984:
      >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQLUygS0IAQ. Before the 60s, when
      >
      > This video clip has something of Village People and Michael Jackson in it.
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > 2013/10/3 Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.jyri@...>:
      >> I guess you should also consider the musical scene when assessing the
      >> vitality of a language. At least music is often used in language
      >> revitalisation projects.
      >>
      >> Around here you can find really varying music in Saami (mostly North
      >> Saami), e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiQ9pQGQKWE. There's also this
      >> guy who does rap in Inari Saami, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-56xy7NhAm4.
      >
      > This one is also nice:
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46WW3D5a_TU
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > Até mais!
      >
      > Leonardo
    • Leonardo Castro
      ... Isn t it a sign that it s easier to sing, after all? ... BTW [ I feel like creating some controversy... :-) ], a violinist friend of mine once told me that
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 18, 2013
        2013/10/18 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>:
        > 2013/10/17 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
        >> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...
        >> [...]
        >> Rap is no easier to sing or produce than any other kind of music. It dóes,
        >> however, work better in English, if for no other reason than its mechanics
        >> were conceived and devised with English word structure (lots of monosyllables)
        >> and stress patterns and rhyme patterns and so forth in mind. I will grant that
        >> it's *almost impossible* to sound bad rapping:

        Isn't it a sign that it's easier to sing, after all?

        >>
        >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy6FEk3ZPw
        >>
        >> To be honest, I can't tell if this guy is really bad or not... he sounds about the
        >> same as all the other cRAPpers out there!

        BTW [ I feel like creating some controversy... :-) ], a violinist
        friend of mine once told me that some music scholar defended the
        thesis that Rap is the only musical form (not the same as musical
        style, as he explained) that have been created in the 20th century.

        It really sounds very different from everything else, and maybe the
        choice between classifying it as "a completely new form of music" or
        "not musica at all" depends on the individual taste.

        The proposed etymologies of "rap" may indicate that they really didn't
        care about calling what thy did as "music".

        Até mais!

        Leonardo
      • Padraic Brown
        From: Leonardo Castro   ... It s (partly) nonmelodic. In other words, he s singing rhythmically (and, by the way, has a nice voice
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 18, 2013
          From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>

           
          >> To be honest, I can't tell if this guy is really bad or not... he
          >> sounds about the same as all the other cRAPpers out there!
          >
          > I was going to say that maybe a kind of rapping that "not everybody
          > can do" would be that of Pato Banton, who sounds like something
          > between singing and reciting, but it's also quite repetitive if we
          > think better of it:
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsl6S1p4yU
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSywtiAirKE

          It's (partly) nonmelodic. In other words, he's singing rhythmically (and,
          by the way, has a nice voice and a rather sweet accent!), but not melodically.
          All of his notes in those sections are the same tone. You hear this a lot in
          liturgical (modern Catholic) chant. Other parts, usually phrase codas /
          cadences, are more melodic. This is pretty common, as far as I can tell,
          in rap and similar forms of music.

          After a while, though, I think it becomes *very* tedious indeed! I don't know
          if "not everyone can do" this kind of singing, but I am certain that not
          everyone can do it as well as he did do it!

          >> I think these folks in remote areas are emulating it simply because they
          > have
          >> been exposed to it, and it's a part of American pop culture, so
          > it's heard on
          >> television, radio, and the internet.
          >
          > I wonder why they manage to maintain a good technical level in the
          > Jazz age that is absent in current pop music.

          Perhaps a large number of factors. One, Jazz is actual music. :) It
          requires a high level of proficiency to sing or play well. Another
          factor is to consider what music from the jazz age has come down to
          us: music performed for public consumption by the best musicians
          and singers of the time. People who couldn't sing a lick or who
          couldn't tell one end of a saxophone from the other never even
          got the chance to sully the world's stages with their mediocrity.
          What we thus find in recordings is the music of the professionals,
          of the very highly talented. Talent was discovered and nurtured
          and formed via lots of practice. If you didn't cut it, well, there
          were always half a dozen others players below you waiting for
          the chance to move up.

          Modern music seems to be far less interested in encouraging or
          nurturing real talent and far more interested in ratings, scandals,
          stupid people and market share. So, we end up being bombarded by
          utter crap and it's billed as "pop music".

          > You missed the Aymara language in 2:43.

          I think I was probably about ready to vomit by 1:14! ;)))

          Padraic


          >>
          >
          > Até mais!
          >
          > Leonardo
          >
          >
          > 2013/10/4 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>:
          >> 2013/10/2 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
          >>>>>   The instrumental and general músical influence in both is
          > clearly Iberian;
          >>>
          >>>>
          >>>> They resemble Portuguese style "Fado" in a bit of
          > melancholy, although
          >>>> fados are clearly more melancholic.
          >>>
          >>> And naturally, that particular "Iberian" sound I'm
          > hearing as Spanish and you're
          >>> hearing as Portuguese really stems from North African Moorish music!
          > ---
          >>>
          >>> Awesome Spanish guitar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv2Fyjk0GGM
          >>>
          >>> now some Portuguese guitar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vat6Y0Vua0
          >>>
          >>> and now some Moroccan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlzEEKbfXU
          >>
          >> Based on these examples, I still find Guarania style more similar to
          >> Portuguese music. The same for the Brazilian style "Choro", as
          > you can
          >> verify in this beautiful song composed by João Pernambuco, son of
          >> Portuguese father and Indigenous mother:
          >>
          >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KO0rkOAiig
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >>>>
          >>>> A proof that Paraguayan music has some songs worth knowing is that
          > it
          >>>> has alrady called the attention even of Japanese people on the
          > other
          >>>> side of the globe:
          >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkKB1w_9hc
          >>>
          >>> Nice indeed! Though for harp, I still prefer O'Carolan:
          >>>
          >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOVRZdKRrwg
          >>
          >> I would never identify an harp there if you didn't tell it. Maybe an
          >> harpsichord...
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >>>> You probably know or recognize the melodies of the songs "El
          > condor
          >>>> pasa"
          >>>
          >>> Sure famous tune. Probably one of the prettiest ever constructed. Simon
          > and
          >>> Garfunkel seem to have popularised that one in the US.
          >>
          >> Yes. And now, Jennifer Lopez has the melody of "Llorando se fue"
          > in
          >> the beginning song "On the floor".
          >>
          >>>> However, I was looking for songs sung in Native American
          > *languages*.
          >>>
          >>> Not sure if something like this would count:
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2TrGD7INY
          >>>
          >>> I guess this would: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrLL8n4fIe8
          >>
          >> Interesting! Which language is that?
          >>
          >>> Some Anglo-Inuit fusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtNuELl5he0
          >>>
          >>> Take a look here:
          >>>
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_musicians#New_age_and_world_music
          >>
          >> Wow! I'll have a hard time finding which of them really sing in native
          >> languages (I guess it's not the case of Ben Harper and Jimi Hendrix).
          >>
          >>>
          >>>> In this song performed by the Carlos Santana band, they start with
          >>>> some text that is presumably in some Mexican language, but I have
          > no
          >>>> idea of which one:
          >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNxznQ2ubZQ
          >>>
          >>> Looks like Spanish mixed with something. I've seen hints that it
          > may be African of some
          >>> kind.
          >>
          >> I've found this transcription:
          >>
          >> "Deja ja ya mig sin ella no somona
          >> Deja ya migo sin ella no somona
          >> Tika n'gai wa yo
          >> Simba n'gai wa yo yaya"
          >>
          >> http://www.songsterr.com/a/wsa/carlos-santana-da-le-yaleo-tab-g-s18476
          >>
          >> I could interpret the sentence in the lines 1-2 as "deja ya, amigo,
          >> sin ella no somos nada" (?!?!), but the lines 3-4 are clearly not
          >> Spanish, and I don't think that that "simba" is
          > "lion" in Swahili.
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >> 2013/10/3 James Kane <kanejam@...>:
          >>> The [ɨ] is very distinctive in song!
          >>
          >> Indeed!
          >>
          >> And, if one wants to know Guarani orthography and phonology, that "Che
          >> pykasumi" videoke is the best practical guide I've seen so far.
          >>
          >>>
          >>> In New Zealand, Māori is unfortunately poorly represented in pop
          >>> music, with the last big hit that I can think of in 1984:
          >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQLUygS0IAQ. Before the 60s, when
          >>
          >> This video clip has something of Village People and Michael Jackson in it.
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >> 2013/10/3 Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.jyri@...>:
          >>> I guess you should also consider the musical scene when assessing the
          >>> vitality of a language. At least music is often used in language
          >>> revitalisation projects.
          >>>
          >>> Around here you can find really varying music in Saami (mostly North
          >>> Saami), e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiQ9pQGQKWE. There's
          > also this
          >>> guy who does rap in Inari Saami,
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-56xy7NhAm4.
          >>
          >> This one is also nice:
          >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46WW3D5a_TU
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >> Até mais!
          >>
          >> Leonardo
          >
        • Padraic Brown
          From: Leonardo Castro   ... See my previous comment about rap music being horrid! :) ... Perhaps he was just being controversial. In
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 18, 2013
            From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>

             
            > 2013/10/18 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>:
            >> 2013/10/17 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
            >>> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...
            >>> [...]
            >>> Rap is no easier to sing or produce than any other kind of music. It
            > dóes,
            >>> however, work better in English, if for no other reason than its
            > mechanics
            >>> were conceived and devised with English word structure (lots of
            > monosyllables)
            >>> and stress patterns and rhyme patterns and so forth in mind. I will
            > grant that
            >>> it's *almost impossible* to sound bad rapping:
            >
            > Isn't it a sign that it's easier to sing, after all?

            See my previous comment about rap music being horrid! :)

            >
            >>>
            >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy6FEk3ZPw
            >>>
            >>> To be honest, I can't tell if this guy is really bad or not... he
            > sounds about the
            >>> same as all the other cRAPpers out there!
            >
            > BTW [ I feel like creating some controversy... :-) ], a violinist
            > friend of mine once told me that some music scholar defended the
            > thesis that Rap is the only musical form (not the same as musical
            > style, as he explained) that have been created in the 20th century.
            >
            > It really sounds very different from everything else,

            Perhaps he was just being controversial. In my opinion, all sorts of
            different musical forms were created in the last century -- and all
            those different forms of music (rap included) are but faces (or
            voices) of the One Great Music.

            As for it sounding so different, well, they ALL sound different to
            some extent or other! YMMV.

            > and maybe the
            > choice between classifying it as "a completely new form of music" or
            > "not musica at all" depends on the individual taste.

            I'm definitely not saying "it's not music". It ìs horrible, but it's horrible
            MUSIC! :)

            > The proposed etymologies of "rap" may indicate that they really
            > didn't care about calling what thy did as "music".

            Padraic

            >
            >
            > Até mais!
            >
            > Leonardo
            >
          • Leonardo Castro
            ... I had failed to understand if the bad in bad rapping means bad in my standards or bad in rappers s standards . In the first case, I guess you meant
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 19, 2013
              Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
              > From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
              >
              >>> it's *almost impossible* to sound bad rapping:
              >>
              >> Isn't it a sign that it's easier to sing, after all?
              >
              > See my previous comment about rap music being horrid! :)

              I had failed to understand if the "bad" in "bad rapping" means "bad in
              my standards" or "bad in rappers's standards". In the first case, I
              guess you meant that "bad" is a level above "horrid" and no rap reach
              that level. In the second one, maybe you meant that raps are all the
              same and so anything is good to their standards.

              But "being all the same" would not be a quite fair argument because
              it's normal that people that aren't used to a given musical style
              usually think that the songs of that style are "all the same". There
              was a period when I was listening to a lot of classical music and some
              people made this kind of comment; some people near to me said that
              couldn't afford the sound of violins anymore. I myself couldn't follow
              the discussions about different substyles of Heavy Metal that a friend
              of mine was usually involved in. They even fought each other when
              discussing which is better, "Progressive Black Death Metal" or
              "Pseudo-Progressive Death Black Metal".

              > [...]
              > Perhaps he was just being controversial. In my opinion, all sorts of
              > different musical forms were created in the last century -- and all
              > those different forms of music (rap included) are but faces (or
              > voices) of the One Great Music.

              I'm not very familiar with the term "musical form", but, considering
              its definition in Wikipedia*, I guess the most successful form used in
              the 20th century is something like

              strophe - chorus - strophe - chorus - bridge/instrumental solo - chorus

              This structure would be ABABCB (ignoring internal structures of
              strophes, chorus, etc.). Songs like "I don't want to miss a thing"
              (Aerosmith), "Nikita" (Elton John), and a lot of 80`s pops come to
              mind.

              I don't know if rap has a defined structure to follow nor what it is...

              * "The term musical form (or musical architecture) refers to the
              overall structure or plan of a piece of music, and it describes the
              layout of a composition as divided into sections."
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_form
            • Leonardo Castro
              ... Yes. And comparing past with present is not completely fair; it s like to compare a line with a point. ... Music is no more made by and for musicophiles ,
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 19, 2013
                2013/10/18 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                > From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                >
                >> I wonder why they manage to maintain a good technical level in the
                >> Jazz age that is absent in current pop music.
                >
                > Perhaps a large number of factors. One, Jazz is actual music. :) It
                > requires a high level of proficiency to sing or play well. Another
                > factor is to consider what music from the jazz age has come down to
                > us: music performed for public consumption by the best musicians
                > and singers of the time.

                Yes. And comparing past with present is not completely fair; it's like
                to compare a line with a point.

                > People who couldn't sing a lick or who
                > couldn't tell one end of a saxophone from the other never even
                > got the chance to sully the world's stages with their mediocrity.
                > What we thus find in recordings is the music of the professionals,
                > of the very highly talented. Talent was discovered and nurtured
                > and formed via lots of practice. If you didn't cut it, well, there
                > were always half a dozen others players below you waiting for
                > the chance to move up.
                >
                > Modern music seems to be far less interested in encouraging or
                > nurturing real talent and far more interested in ratings, scandals,
                > stupid people and market share. So, we end up being bombarded by
                > utter crap and it's billed as "pop music".

                Music is no more made by and for "musicophiles", just like wine is no
                more made by and for enophiles.

                Current successful singers are usually not composers, can't play
                instruments, they are not "musicians". There are the professional
                composers, the professional instrumentists and the singer must be
                someone with a nice body and face. A professional but soulless art...
              • Padraic Brown
                From: Leonardo Castro   ... Bad as in horrid. In other words, whether its done well or done poorly (and we ve now heard examples of
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 19, 2013
                  From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                   
                  > Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                  >> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                  >>
                  >>>>   it's *almost impossible* to sound bad rapping:
                  >>>
                  >>> Isn't it a sign that it's easier to sing, after all?
                  >>
                  >> See my previous comment about rap music being horrid! :)
                  >
                  > I had failed to understand if the "bad" in "bad rapping" means "bad in
                  > my standards" or "bad in rappers's standards". In the first case, I
                  > guess you meant that "bad" is a level above "horrid" and no rap reach
                  > that level. In the second one, maybe you meant that raps are all the
                  > same and so anything is good to their standards.

                  Bad as in horrid. In other words, whether its done well or done poorly
                  (and we've now heard examples of both), it's still quite horrid. But as
                  with all things, de gustibus.

                  >> Perhaps he was just being controversial. In my opinion, all sorts of
                  >> different musical forms were created in the last century -- and all
                  >> those different forms of music (rap included) are but faces (or
                  >> voices) of the One Great Music.
                  >
                  > I'm not very familiar with the term "musical form",

                  Things like "jazz", "R&B", "soul", "swing", "rock", "pop", "rap", "techno".
                  Basically, all inventions of the 20th century.

                  >> Modern music seems to be far less interested in encouraging or

                  >> nurturing real talent and far more interested in ratings, scandals,
                  >> stupid people and market share. So, we end up being bombarded by
                  >> utter crap and it's billed as "pop music".
                  >
                  > Music is no more made by and for "musicophiles", just like wine is no
                  > more made by and for enophiles.
                  >
                  > Current successful singers are usually not composers, can't play
                  > instruments, they are not "musicians". There are the professional
                  > composers, the professional instrumentists and the singer must be
                  > someone with a nice body and face. A professional but soulless art...


                  Indeed. That is certainly a problem. Modern popular music, for all the
                  millions it makes and for all the media exposure, is soulless crap. But,
                  this is what is celebrated in American culture anymore, and it is what
                  we export to everyone else.

                  Padraic
                • Leonardo Castro
                  ... So, I can t see how musical form is different from musical style/genre . I just remember that my violinist friend said that form is wider than
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 20, 2013
                    2013/10/20 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                    > From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                    > [...]
                    >> I'm not very familiar with the term "musical form",
                    >
                    > Things like "jazz", "R&B", "soul", "swing", "rock", "pop", "rap", "techno".
                    > Basically, all inventions of the 20th century.

                    So, I can't see how "musical form" is different from "musical
                    style/genre". I just remember that my violinist friend said that
                    "form" is wider than "style".

                    I wonder how common is for conlangers to create their own musical constyles.
                  • Sam Stutter
                    Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of music of a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation and
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 20, 2013
                      Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of music of a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation and swing you can identify "yup, that style is jazz", whereas genre is a bit more to do with which radio station it gets played on or what aisle of HMV you find the CD.

                      Form relates more to a particular method of constructing a piece of music within a genre. So, canons and passacaglia are forms of music, just like sonnets and haikus are forms of poetry. They have specific components and elements which have to be slotted together in the right order. However, this is quite a tight definition and style, genre and form get thrown about quite interchangeably sometimes, especially since the musical genres which most people listen to nowadays only tend to have one form (and styles). Verse verse bridge semi-chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, guitar solo, chorus, chorus and all that :)

                      Sam Stutter
                      samjjs89@...
                      "No e na'l cu barri"

                      > On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:28, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > 2013/10/20 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                      >> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                      >> [...]
                      >>> I'm not very familiar with the term "musical form",
                      >>
                      >> Things like "jazz", "R&B", "soul", "swing", "rock", "pop", "rap", "techno".
                      >> Basically, all inventions of the 20th century.
                      >
                      > So, I can't see how "musical form" is different from "musical
                      > style/genre". I just remember that my violinist friend said that
                      > "form" is wider than "style".
                      >
                      > I wonder how common is for conlangers to create their own musical constyles.
                    • Padraic Brown
                      ... Except when it s classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home in the musical world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly,
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 20, 2013
                        > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of music of

                        > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation and swing
                        > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",

                        Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home in the musical
                        world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something else makes it
                        "jazz" or "classical"! :)

                        > whereas genre is a bit
                        > more to do with which radio station it gets played on or what aisle of HMV you
                        > find the CD.
                        >
                        > Form relates more to a particular method of constructing a piece of music within
                        > a genre. So, canons and passacaglia are forms of music, just like sonnets and
                        > haikus are forms of poetry. They have specific components and elements which
                        > have to be slotted together in the right order. However, this is quite a tight
                        > definition and style, genre and form get thrown about quite interchangeably
                        > sometimes, especially since the musical genres which most people listen to
                        > nowadays only tend to have one form (and styles). Verse verse bridge
                        > semi-chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, guitar solo, chorus, chorus and all that :)

                        Yep. I was definitely not using a narrow definition!

                        Padraic

                        >
                        > Sam Stutter
                        > samjjs89@...
                        > "No e na'l cu barri"
                        >
                        >
                        >> On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:28, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                        > wrote:
                        >>
                        >> 2013/10/20 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                        >>> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                        >>> [...]
                        >>>> I'm not very familiar with the term "musical form",
                        >>>
                        >>> Things like "jazz", "R&B", "soul",
                        > "swing", "rock", "pop", "rap",
                        > "techno".
                        >>> Basically, all inventions of the 20th century.
                        >>
                        >> So, I can't see how "musical form" is different from
                        > "musical
                        >> style/genre". I just remember that my violinist friend said that
                        >> "form" is wider than "style".
                        >>
                        >> I wonder how common is for conlangers to create their own musical
                        > constyles.
                        >
                      • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                        (Resending this as my reply went to Padraic only...) ... Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical music. Both also feature jazz
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                          (Resending this as my reply went to Padraic only...)

                          On 21 October 2013 02:38, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:

                          > > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of
                          > music of
                          >
                          > > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation
                          > and swing
                          > > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",
                          >
                          > Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home
                          > in the musical
                          > world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something else
                          > makes it
                          > "jazz" or "classical"! :)
                          >
                          >
                          Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                          music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                          people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                          "classical music" moniker. And indeed, I've heard more than once people
                          arguing that jazz was the proper evolution of classical music in our modern
                          times, rather than the weird and atonal "modern classical music" that is
                          being made nowadays.

                          So maybe the difference between jazz and classical music is not one of
                          style but one of form (thanks Sam for the distinction). As to why jazz
                          seems to sound so different to classical music, well that's just a matter
                          of time difference. Classical music from the 17th century also sounds
                          extremely different from classical music from the 19th!
                          --
                          Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                          http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                          http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                        • Garth Wallace
                          On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets ... I think it has more to do with the fact that they are both now considered sophisticated
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                            On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                            <tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                            > (Resending this as my reply went to Padraic only...)
                            >
                            > On 21 October 2013 02:38, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >> > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of
                            >> music of
                            >>
                            >> > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation
                            >> and swing
                            >> > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",
                            >>
                            >> Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home
                            >> in the musical
                            >> world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something else
                            >> makes it
                            >> "jazz" or "classical"! :)
                            >>
                            >>
                            > Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                            > music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                            > people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                            > "classical music" moniker.

                            I think it has more to do with the fact that they are both now
                            considered "sophisticated music for intellectuals".

                            > And indeed, I've heard more than once people arguing that jazz was the
                            > proper evolution of classical music in our modern times,

                            Music-history-wise, that position's pretty hard to defend. Although
                            there's been influence (in both directions), jazz just plain did not
                            originate in the classical tradition.

                            > rather than the weird and atonal "modern classical music" that is
                            > being made nowadays.

                            If by "nowadays" you mean "a brief period in the middle of the last
                            century". Even Boulez doesn't really mess with serialism anymore, and
                            he was one of its biggest purists in its heyday.
                          • Roger Mills
                            Interesting discussion here. Christophe wrote: ... RM don t disagree entirely, except I don t know of any real blue notes or swing (as we now know it)  in
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                              Interesting discussion here.

                              Christophe wrote:

                              On 21 October 2013 02:38, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:

                              > > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of
                              > music of
                              >
                              > > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation
                              > and swing
                              > > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",
                              >
                              > Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home
                              > in the musical
                              > world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something else
                              > makes it
                              > "jazz" or "classical"! :)
                              >
                              RM don't disagree entirely, except I don't know of any real "blue notes" or "swing" (as we now know it)  in pre-20C music. Improv, polyrhythms, syncopation, certainly  As to jazz/classical difference, see further....
                              =========================
                              Christophe:
                              Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                              music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                              people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                              "classical music" moniker.

                              RM interesting. You're talking about the Netherlands, right? This may be a "de gustibus" question...My satellite system here in the US offers a whole slew of music channels, in all genres, from techno thru bluegrass and all stops in between.  But their "classical" channels (just 2 out of maybe 25) are devoted to 18th-19th C snippets.
                              ---------------------------------------
                              And indeed, I've heard more than once people
                              arguing that jazz was the proper evolution of classical music in our modern
                              times, rather than the weird and atonal "modern classical music" that is
                              being made nowadays.

                              RM I find that difficult. Jazz evolved in America from the music of African slaves, who combined bits of their native traditions with the hymns and popular songs they would have heard in their White environment, plus work songs, much more natively inspired and which seem to have given rise to the blues.

                              My best friend/room-mate from school and college was really into the early jazz, and I got quite the education, albeit informal-- he had much of whatever was available on LPs in the 50s (often remastered from field recordings/old 78s made in the early 20th C)-- the earliest exs. were work songs usually either a capella solo or choral, occasionally with guitar accompaniment. After emancipation, I imagine, as ex-slaves had more access to European instruments like trumpets, reeds and the piano, these became the early blues/Dixie that we know from 1920s recordings-- ragtime, Dixieland, on into 30s  pop and big-band swing. I think rag and Dixie entered the mainstream (i.e. white culture) via the old vaudeville ~blackface stage shows. The fact that the epicenter of early Jazz seems to have been New Orleans indicates a lot of influence from Spanish/French music. Then as white artists got involved, it evolved further with infusions of classical European music
                              and the pop music of the day (from all those dreadful [I jest ;-)].operettas. Jazz then evolved through be-bop (some of which verges on atonality) into the "cool" styles of Brubeck, Gerry Mulligan et al. But even they often follow the familiar ABA form. After that I seem to have lost track, lost interest. The most modern jazz I hear (from 1970s on) strikes me as rather disjointed, trying to be deliberately "modern" cum "atonal" and far from the original traditions.

                              Thus jazz can be said to have its own division of classical vs. modern, but aside from the work songs > blues, it still had its beginnings as _copies_ of European forms. True, it has had its own evolution, but cannot IMNSHO be said to be the "proper evolution of classical music in our modern times"."Classical music" has had its own evolution, as can be easily traced.
                              -------------------------------

                              So maybe the difference between jazz and classical music is not one of
                              style but one of form (thanks Sam for the distinction). As to why jazz
                              seems to sound so different to classical music, well that's just a matter
                              of time difference. Classical music from the 17th century also sounds
                              extremely different from classical music from the 19th!

                              RM true dat, but much of it depends on technological changes-- strings have become the standard 4 we know, brass have profited from better construction, likewise the reeds. And they are now standardized, and use standardized tuning. Plus some social changes-- e.g. music moved from its religious roots into more secular directions as wealthy lords supported ever-larger orchestras, until you get the really large 19th C orchestras with popular appeal.

                              Schoenberg, Alban Berg et al. tried to evolve classical music in a new direction that achieved some popularity with composers (but not, I suspect, the public), but it may have been a dead-end; composers are going back to more tuneful and familiar forms now (I still don't like a lot of it, but so what....). Some European composers (Ravel, Milhaud, not to mention Americans like Gershwin) successfully adapted jazz to their works, along with other traditions: Debussy-- jazz and Indonesian gamelan; Bartok-- Gypsy/eastern/central folk traditions etc. etc; nowadays even the Japanese and Chinese are getting into the act, to the benefit of music in general. But modern classical (I prefer to call it "serious") music is becoming something of a pastiche.

                              To create a linguistic analogy !! -- if earliest Western classical music can be said to be Proto-European starting from somewhere in the (maybe) 9th or 10th C, with earlier roots both sacred and profane ** (see note below) then it has indeed evolved into its various modern branches, Germanic, Italic/Romance, Slavic, etc. with lots of borrowings from traditions encountered over time. Jazz on the other hand, represents a European "language" that has been adopted on top of non-western languages, a superstrate.Perhaps it is a pidgin or creole. But it is basically unrelated to "Proto-European" and cannot be said to represent an evolution from it, though it has its own evolution, often influenced by European developments.  But.when we trace its roots, we end up in Africa, terra et musica incognitae. It has its own evolutionary path, but not directly from "Proto-European".

                              **(Note) aside from some speculations about ancient Greek music, we know almost nothing about other early European traditions, especially Roman, which must surely have influenced early W.Eur. popular music. Was there a classical/popular division in Roman times? We do have a few chant traditions (both Roman and Byzantine), and some popular forms have survived (songs of the troubadours, dance forms etc.).But what did the Goths, Norsemen, Rus sing about in the leisure moments?????

                              Sorry to have gone on at such length, but I'm a music lover and omnivore-- as I like to say, everything from Perotin to Pärt :-)))))
                            • Roger Mills
                              Well, Garth has said, in few words, what I was saying at great length in my previous post. ________________________________ From: Garth Wallace
                              Message 14 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                                Well, Garth has said, in few words, what I was saying at great length in my previous post.


                                ________________________________
                                From: Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>

                                On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                                <tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                > (Resending this as my reply went to Padraic only...)
                                >
                                > On 21 October 2013 02:38, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >> > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a piece of
                                >> music of
                                >>
                                >> > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation
                                >> and swing
                                >> > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",
                                >>
                                >> Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home
                                >> in the musical
                                >> world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something else
                                >> makes it
                                >> "jazz" or "classical"! :)
                                >>
                                >>
                                > Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                                > music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                                > people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                                > "classical music" moniker.

                                I think it has more to do with the fact that they are both now
                                considered "sophisticated music for intellectuals".

                                > And indeed, I've heard more than once people arguing that jazz was the
                                > proper evolution of classical music in our modern times,

                                Music-history-wise, that position's pretty hard to defend. Although
                                there's been influence (in both directions), jazz just plain did not
                                originate in the classical tradition.


                                > rather than the weird and atonal "modern classical music" that is
                                > being made nowadays.

                                If by "nowadays" you mean "a brief period in the middle of the last
                                century". Even Boulez doesn't really mess with serialism anymore, and
                                he was one of its biggest purists in its heyday.
                              • Jörg Rhiemeier
                                Hallo conlangers! ... When will they start playing progressive rock? That certainly also is sophisticated music for intellectuals ;) ... Indeed not. Some
                                Message 15 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                                  Hallo conlangers!

                                  On Monday 21 October 2013 17:30:00 Garth Wallace wrote:

                                  > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                                  > <tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                  > [...]
                                  > > Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                                  > > music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                                  > > people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                                  > > "classical music" moniker.
                                  >
                                  > I think it has more to do with the fact that they are both now
                                  > considered "sophisticated music for intellectuals".

                                  When will they start playing progressive rock? That certainly
                                  also is sophisticated music for intellectuals ;)

                                  > > And indeed, I've heard more than once people arguing that jazz was the
                                  > > proper evolution of classical music in our modern times,
                                  >
                                  > Music-history-wise, that position's pretty hard to defend. Although
                                  > there's been influence (in both directions), jazz just plain did not
                                  > originate in the classical tradition.

                                  Indeed not. Some modern jazz musicians attempted to incorporate
                                  some concepts from the classical tradition into their music, but
                                  jazz simply does not originate in the classical tradition and
                                  thus cannot be considered the "proper evolution of classical
                                  music in our times".

                                  But the victory of the serialist avant-garde after 1945 (before
                                  1945, there still was the classical modern current represented
                                  by Hindemith, Stravinsky and others; and that was considered
                                  the mainstream of modern classical music, and the avant-garde
                                  was a specialized minority current) left a vacuum. There simply
                                  is a demand for music that is new, sophisticated and listenable.
                                  The avant-garde was new and sophisticated but widely considered
                                  unlistenable. And what happened? People "discovered" modern
                                  jazz, which gave them new, sophisticated and listenable music.
                                  (Bebop, the first genre of modern jazz, began about 1940.)

                                  History repeated itself when modern jazz began to stagnate and
                                  was eclipsed by free jazz in the 1960s. Again, the new
                                  sophisticated music was "unlistenable" to many. Again, there
                                  was an unfulfilled demand. And that is part of the reason why
                                  progressive rock became so immensely popular in the late 1960s:
                                  it fulfilled the demand for new, sophisticated and listenable
                                  music.

                                  The decline of classical progressive rock, no as much due to
                                  punk or disco (which appealed to *different* audiences than
                                  progressive rock) as due to the hostility of rock journalists
                                  whom the progressive rock musicians gave too little "sex, drugs
                                  and rock'n'roll" to write about, and also due to unmistakable
                                  stagnation in the works of the major progressive rock bands,
                                  left a yawning gap, and most people seeking sophisticated music
                                  turn to classical music and modern jazz, grudgingly accepting
                                  that "no good music is made anymore these days", often being
                                  unaware of the fact that progressive rock never really died,
                                  but continued to flourish in the unlit no-man's land between
                                  mainstream, underground and avant-garde.

                                  I somehow do not expect hip-hop or electronic dance music
                                  to spawn anything that can be compared to modern jazz or
                                  progressive rock in its sophistication in the foreseeable
                                  future, though. These musics seem way too limited and
                                  formulaic to me. However, jazz and rock were that before
                                  1940 and before 1965, respectively, too (at least, those
                                  genres were at least *hand-made* and not parasitizing music
                                  recorded earlier), so we are perhaps in to a surprise.

                                  > > rather than the weird and atonal "modern classical music" that is
                                  > > being made nowadays.
                                  >
                                  > If by "nowadays" you mean "a brief period in the middle of the last
                                  > century". Even Boulez doesn't really mess with serialism anymore, and
                                  > he was one of its biggest purists in its heyday.

                                  Indeed, serialism is no longer the thing in academic music
                                  composition, and much of the more recent music, starting with
                                  minimalism and New Simplicity, is indeed quite listenable.
                                  But the classical music audience has developed a very strongly
                                  conservative attitude which looks upon anything composed after
                                  1945 with distrust. The "unlistenability" of "modern classical
                                  music" is a cliché and a prejudice that few people are willing
                                  to put to the test. Contemporary academic music, whatever it
                                  may sound like, exists in an ivory tower at the exclusion of a
                                  wider audience.

                                  --
                                  ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                  http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                                  "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
                                • Padraic Brown
                                  Just a couple comments... ... Note sensibles or sensitive notes. Quarter or third tones used to bring out some desired quality in the music. Maybe at a
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Oct 21, 2013
                                    Just a couple comments...

                                    >> > so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms, syncopation...
                                    >
                                    >> Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at home
                                    >> in the musical world of the ancients as they are of the moderns.
                                    >
                                    > RM don't disagree entirely, except I don't know of any real "blue
                                    > notes" or "swing" (as we now know it)  in pre-20C music. Improv,
                                    > polyrhythms, syncopation, certainly  As to jazz/classical difference, see
                                    > further....

                                    "Note sensibles" or sensitive notes. Quarter or third tones used to bring out
                                    some desired quality in the music. Maybe at a cadence or in a series of rising
                                    or falling tones. For example, in a A-B-C#-D run, the flutist would throw out this,
                                    to modern equal temperament ears blaringly out-of-tune, c-extra-sharp, and then
                                    float beautifully up to the final d.

                                    It's not like they were using scales full of the things (although, I am sure that
                                    an amateur blarted out his share of "odd notes"!), but these "sensitive notes"
                                    certainly existed and were exploited.

                                    >> So maybe the difference between jazz and classical music is not one of
                                    >> style but one of form (thanks Sam for the distinction). As to why jazz
                                    >> seems to sound so different to classical music, well that's just a matter
                                    >> of time difference. Classical music from the 17th century also sounds
                                    >> extremely different from classical music from the 19th!
                                    >
                                    > RM true dat, but much of it depends on technological changes-- strings have
                                    > become the standard 4 we know, brass have profited from better construction,
                                    > likewise the reeds. And they are now standardized, and use standardized tuning.

                                    Any profit is arguable. Construction techniques, materials and so forth are clearly
                                    better. But, if the new instruments are so much better, then why are people  copying,
                                    making and playing old instruments? (The period performance movement) Why bother
                                    learning how to play a just intonation instrument or, worse, an instrument whose natural
                                    harmonics don't fit ány tuning scheme, when you've got a perfectly good 21st century
                                    sterling boehm flute for your Mozart flute concerto or your compensating valve monster
                                    6/4 tuba for Berlioz? And while I appreciate modern brass quintets playing from
                                    Terpsichore, there's just nothing like hearing it in all its rackettacious glory:

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6mK4akP9xY

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWRDLcQBM90
                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGI4zG-Zddw

                                    > To create a linguistic analogy !! -- if earliest Western classical music can be
                                    > said to be Proto-European starting from somewhere in the (maybe) 9th or 10th C,
                                    > with earlier roots both sacred and profane ** (see note below) then it has
                                    > indeed evolved into its various modern branches, Germanic, Italic/Romance,
                                    > Slavic, etc. with lots of borrowings from traditions encountered over time. Jazz
                                    > on the other hand, represents a European "language" that has been
                                    > adopted on top of non-western languages, a superstrate.

                                    Ah! So, jass is the musical equivalent of English! ;)

                                    > Perhaps it is a pidgin or creole.

                                    Certainly not a pidgin! It is now fully evolved.

                                    > **(Note) aside from some speculations about ancient Greek music, we know almost
                                    > nothing about other early European traditions, especially Roman, which must
                                    > surely have influenced early W.Eur. popular music.

                                    We dó know a lot about their instruments: the tuba, the cornu, the water organ, various
                                    cymbals and tambours and lyres. We just don't really know how they were used or
                                    what their musicians did with them. It's one thing to put an ancient instrument in the hands
                                    of a modern player, but just because the modern player can do something with it doesn't
                                    mean the ancient player would have!

                                    For example, a modern french horn player would not be too out of league with these
                                    natural horns:

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjY6w1KQMo

                                    But who would have guessed that their antecedant was played more like this:

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0T7a6eIpg8

                                    Who's to say which sound better captures the use of the Roman cornu!?

                                    > Was there a classical/popular
                                    > division in Roman times? We do have a few chant traditions (both Roman and
                                    > Byzantine), and some popular forms have survived (songs of the troubadours,
                                    > dance forms etc.).But what did the Goths, Norsemen, Rus sing about in the
                                    > leisure moments?????

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooj25_j3k1E

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xisBERxHJ6g

                                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVdA9t-AOfU

                                    Padraic








                                    From: Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>

                                     
                                    > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                                    > <tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                    >> (Resending this as my reply went to Padraic only...)
                                    >>
                                    >> On 21 October 2013 02:38, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>> > Style, as I understand it, are those all features which make a
                                    > piece of
                                    >>> music of
                                    >>>
                                    >>> > a genre - so if you hear blue notes, improv, polyrhythms,
                                    > syncopation
                                    >>> and swing
                                    >>> > you can identify "yup, that style is jazz",
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Except when it's classical! All of those things are as perfectly at
                                    > home
                                    >>> in the musical
                                    >>> world of the ancients as they are of the moderns. Clearly, something
                                    > else
                                    >>> makes it
                                    >>> "jazz" or "classical"! :)
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >> Not necessarily. At home I can get two TV channels devoted to classical
                                    >> music. Both also feature jazz concerts prominently. So clearly for the
                                    >> people who run those classical music channels, jazz falls under the
                                    >> "classical music" moniker.
                                    >
                                    > I think it has more to do with the fact that they are both now
                                    > considered "sophisticated music for intellectuals".

                                    I think much of classical (and jazz) music is entirely appropriate for non-intellectuals
                                    to enjoy and understand. I think the composers of the day understood, maybe even
                                    more than some moderns do, that music is a thing to be enjoyed and taken pleasure
                                    in. I recall listening to the local classical station a few weeks back and they were
                                    talking about some of the concerns of the composers of the day. One had written
                                    in a letter of his own concern over balancing a desire to push the envelope versus
                                    the realistic understanding that his art wasn't just for his own intellectual puffery, but
                                    was, in fact, a thing given to all people to enjoy.

                                    Certainly, in those days, if you produced too much atonal twaddle, your boss and
                                    patron would probably drop you from his employ and find someone who could
                                    actually write music. Anymore, composers are not always so constrained. They
                                    are free to write all the twaddle they want. :/

                                    >> And indeed, I've heard more than once people arguing that jazz was the
                                    >> proper evolution of classical music in our modern times,
                                    >
                                    > Music-history-wise, that position's pretty hard to defend. Although
                                    > there's been influence (in both directions), jazz just plain did not
                                    > originate in the classical tradition.

                                    It may not be "direct genealogical descendant", but I agree with Christophe that
                                    there is a connection there, between approachable classical music and approachable
                                    jazz music. I think it is the more modern atonal and amelodic rubbish that is the disjoint.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.