Re: Proms


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d4f33ff8-5968-4397-8bca-7ac18485d22e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 1 Aug, 17:00, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:153c06b3-9997-4937-823d-5a55cc341622@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> On 31 Jul, 19:00, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:1a4c62c7-7ce1-4775-9b5e-e75f98af782b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 31 Jul, 13:43, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> > <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >news:f11fe9c3-5a9b-4026-bc93-dc1d2931a1ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > > On 30 Jul, 19:26, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> > >>news:f8d5c0a4-a479-4536-aa9e-0726ccfee013@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> > On 30 Jul, 12:03, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> > >> >>news:6fa27f16-8066-4362-b8e6-72aaba138ece@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> > On 30 Jul, 02:54, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> > >> >> >>news:c836c53e-c966-49a8-951a-d0a39671be7c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> >> > On 29 Jul, 20:45, "Agamemnon" >> > >> >> >> > <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote
>> > >> >> >> >> in
>> > >> >> >> >> message

>> > >> >> >> >>news:dQHjk.39135$3L5.24445@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> >> >> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in >> > >> >> >> >> > message
>> > >> >> >> >> >news:PamdneKk0deyIxPVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >> >>On 30 Jul, 12:03, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> >>wrote:
>> > >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> > >> >>news:6fa27f16-8066-4362-b8e6-72aaba138ece@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> > On 30 Jul, 02:54, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >> <pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> > >> >> >>news:c836c53e-c966-49a8-951a-d0a39671be7c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> >> > On 29 Jul, 20:45, "Agamemnon" >> > >> >> >> > <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> >> >> >> wrote
>> > >> >> >> >> in
>> > >> >> >> >> message

>> > >> >> >> >>news:dQHjk.39135$3L5.24445@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > >> >> >> >> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in >> > >> >> >> >> > message
>> > >> >> >> >> >news:PamdneKk0deyIxPVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > > could you give an example of this Irish folk music that doesn't >> > > use
>> > > traditional instruments? Folk music is by definition traditional
>> > > music

>> > No it isn't. Folk music is by definition Irish pop music.

>> <<<Not by any definition but yours. Quoth Wikipedia:>>>

>> Anyone can write what they like in Wikipedia.

> Now, now, Aggy, no double standards. Wikipedia proved that RTD
> admitted to a cameo in Dr Who, after all. You said so, so it must be
> true.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Except on you, apparently, based on implied admissions in past threads
that your edits regarding Greek history and religion were rejected.

By a bunch of bigoted fanatical arsefuckers that know nothing about ancient Greek and biblical chronology.


RTD has already admitted being in the walk-on
cameo.

No he hasn't. He's admitted that he would never do a cameo.

No he hasn't. He jokingly said he would not do a cameo in the specials knowing and admitting that he had done a cameo in Forrest of the Dead.


>> <<<"Traditional music: The original meaning of the term "folk music" >> was
>> synonymous with the term "Traditional music", also often including>>>

>> No it wasn't. It was synonymous with a 1950's/60's attempt to concoct >> a
>> fake
>> genre of Irish music that would give the false impression that it was
>> traditional, but neither was it traditional nor was it even based
>> predominantly on Irish music.

> This was the "original meaning" that was being used before the 1950s,
> right?

The meaning of Folk Music is Irish Pop Music. Nobody outside of the English
speaking world uses the term Folk to refer to their own traditional music.

Stop parrotting and respond to the question, Aggy. What were people in
the English-speaking world referring to prior to the 1950s (before
which there was no such idea or expression as pop music, Irish or

WRONG. Cultures outside of the English speaking world had their own words for Pop music before the 1950s, such as Demotika in Greece which was a distinct form of traditional Popular music, distinct from Rembetica which in the 1950s was transformed into Laika which also means Popular music.

otherwise), if folk music is a form of Irish pop created in the '50s?

>> <<<World Music and Roots music; the term "Traditional music" was >> given>>>

>> World Music is a genre of Experimental Art Music and another >> artificial
>> genre. It has nothing to do with Folk, other than both are forms of >> Art
>> Music.

> So, world music is an artificial genre (which is, admittedly, true),
> but your invented hodgepodge "Art Music" isn't? And in what way is

The term Art Music is an internationally accepted term referring to
popular/traditional music combined with classical music, and is used on
Radio 3.

It might well be used on Radio 3, but I'd be willing to bet it's not
used the way you use it. None of what you're incorporating into "Art
Music" is "popular/traditional music combined with classical music".

Yes it is.

Dengue Fever, say, have no classical influence, and the music is rock
based on '60s psychedelia.

> world music necessarily "experimental"?

Because the Experimental form of Art Music is creating completely new styles
of music.

This would be new styles of traditional music, right?

How can they be traditional if they are brand new and are totally concocted?


> World music means "music from anywhere in the world with a different
> culture from the record shop selling it". It includes folk (Antongil

NO IT DOES NOT! It means Experimental Art Music. Italian House and Dutch
Techno are not classified as world music.

Twit. "music *styles* from anywhere in the world with a different
culture" - and it should be added "music with songs in non-English
language by non-Anglophone musicians" Techno and house aren't
indigenous to mainland Europe, and unlike, say, Cambodian rock, aren't
genres appropriated by those countries from somewhere else as their

Techno was invented in Europe. Italian House was invented in Italy.

own. They just happen to be house and techno played by people of non-
Anglophone nationalities, with no distinctive cultural elements
linking them to any society.

WRONG! You don't know what you are talking about as usual.


> Vert are described as a "Malagasy folk group"), rock (Cambodian rock,
> for example, is based heavily on Western psychedelic rock - indeed

Completely artificial genres, thus experimental, and pretending to be
traditional but using western classical composition, hence Art Music.

Cambodian rock has a pedigree dating to the '60s (that's *why* it's
based on '60s Western rock); Dengue Fever just revived it, without
changing much. It uses no classical composition and doesn't pretend to
be anything other than a tribute to a locally popular interpretation
of Western rock music from the middle of last century.
What it does have is a distinctive character, just as Delta blues has
a distinctive character that sets it apart from Mississippi (how many
's's in Missssissssssippi?) Blues.

Right, lets make this clear. If the only thing distinct about Cambodian rock is that the lyrics are in Cambodian then it is ROCK, NOT world music, just like German rock is ROCK and Greek rock is ROCK and Turkish rock is ROCK and just ROCK, not world music. If on the other hand Cambodian rock describes rock arrangements of traditional or indigenous Cambodian music then it is Art Music since rock arrangements are based on the principles of western classical music.


> Dengue Fever, who won an award for the "best world music of 2006" with
> Escape from Dragon House, were formed in San Francisco, and are all
> American except from the Khmer lead singer), genuinely traditional
> tribal music, pop variants thereon (such as commercial Aboriginal
> music), Portugese blues, Greek rembetika - and everything else from
> countries outside the Anglo-American sphere of influence, from Edith
> Piaf to samba.

Nope. Rembetika is classified as popular music and is part of the blues
sub-genre. It's a new genera that evolved in the 1920's. It's no more World
Music than Jazz or American Blues or Rock and Roll. World Music is an
artificial genre consisting of Experimental Art Music. If the music is
international or foreign, then it is called international or foreign music.

Hey, you're almost getting the hang of this synonym thing. I was
always disappointed that I'm not allowed to be a foreigner in
Australia. :-( I always have to be international or overseas - they
even call their Foreign Office the Department of Indigenous,
International and Multicultural Affairs.

>> According to your favourite source "Wikipedia", "Many Roots musicians >> do
>> not
>> consider themselves to be folk musicians" Roots music is nothing to do
>> with
>> Folk music. It's a blanket term for Blues and related genres.

> Just as folk in this sense is a blanket term for traditional music,

Nope. The musicians themselves don't accept such a term to describe their
music,

*Some* roots musicians don't consider themselves folk musicians (which
isn't the same as not "accepting such a term to describe their music")

The don't accept the term, period.


because the know that Folk refers to Irish Pop Music that developed
in the 1950's.

I very much doubt any of them 'know' any such thing. Roots music by
its nature goes with a strong sense of pride in origins of American,
particularly African-American, culture. What's more they perform in a
country where folk music is associated with Bob Dylan and country

Bob Dylan and Country are based on traditional Irish music.

music. All they're doing by regarding the folk music label as not
applicable to them is distinguishing what they're doing as looking
back to the era of blues and overtly Africanised American music, to

They are saying that it is not Irish Pop Music.

distinguish it from the country and rock influence that 'folk' is
associated with in popular consciousness. They aren't making some kind

Folk in popular consciousness is associated with Irish Popular Music which incorporates elements of Balkan dance music.

of rebellious statement,

> which can be used instead of or alongside other blanket terms like
> roots or world. There's no reason for the labels to be mutually
> exclusive.

Nope. The musicians don't accept such terms. Roots is the accepted blanket
term for Blues and related genres, not Folk.

They're blanket terms for different aggregations of genres, but that
doesn't mean they don't have areas of overlap. Blues isn't folk music,
but much of it can be considered Roots music. Irish folk isn't Roots
music, but is folk music. Traditional African-American music predating
the blues era is both.

No. Traditional African-American music predating the blues era is Gospel or Cajun music which is based on French music, since French was the main language spoken by the Africans of Louisiana.


>> > >> > that matter folk music generally (since you insist that folk >> > >> > music
>> > >> > is
>> > >> > Irish music by definition). Did Bob Dylan use it? I think >> > >> > you're

>> > >> What's Bob Dylan got to do with it?

>> > > Hmm, what does Bob Dylan have to do with folk music? You aren't >> > > truly
>> > > this clueless, surely? Bob Dylan began his career as a folk >> > > singer,
>> > > to

>> > So he sang and played Irish Pop music.

>> <<<No, he sand and played American folk music, which was based on >> older
>> Irish folk music.>>>

>> So it's as I said.

> No, he sang and played American folk music.

He sang music based on Irish folk music.

Ultimately, but he certainly didn't sing and play music based on '50s
Irish pop music, as you define 'folk'.

Yes he did. It was all part of Irish pop music.


There is no such thing as American folk music. America has not existed long
enough for there to be such a think even if you define folk as meaning
traditional (which is does not since it means popular).

It doesn't take long to form a tradition - there have been plenty of
generations in America's history, and a tradition is something passed
down across generations.

America has not existed long enough for there to be such a thing. The term tradition in America is totally meaningless.


> 'traditionally Irish' just as they're 'traditionally Spanish'? Folk
> music doesn't have to use instruments invented in the country where
> it's being played.

Folk music is a 1950's created genre of Irish Popular Music.

Then what was the term being used to refer to before the 1950s? Or
will you evade the answer yet again?

Traditional Irish music or popular Irish music.


>> > > Oh, no, you don't, do you? You don't actually think *River Dance* >> > > is
>> > > what's meant by the term "Irish folk music"??

>> > It's Irish Pop/Art Music.

>> <<<But that's what you're calling folk, isn't it?>>>

>> Because that is what Folk means.

> No, Aggy, River Dance is a type of pop musical that tries to pretend
> it's folk music - that doesn't make folk music as a genre fake, it

River Dance is Irish Pop/Art Music.

But that's what you're calling folk, isn't it?

I have already told you what Folk is.


>> It was called British pop.

> Everything was called pop then. Pop that just happens to be British
> isn't Britpop, and the word "Britpop" wasn't used at all.

Britpop is the name of the genre of British pop music from the mid to late
60's and the music that was based on it.

No it isn't. No one used the word "Britpop" at all before Oasis became
popular.

Irrelevant. It was called Britpop retrospectively.


>> <<<Did I? Where? You must really be getting desperate to prove me >> wrong
>> if you have to invent things I didn't say to do so.>>>

>> You're squirming.

> I'll take this as an admission that you haven't been able to find any
> point where I claimed "Rembetika has no Arabic influence".

WRONG! You claming Rembetika had no Arabic influence further up the thread
and then did a complete U-Turn.

"And that was one song pulled from
the genre (and go on as you like about the Greek ancestry of some of
rock's pioneers, the music they played had no more Greek influence
than Misirlou had Arabic influence"

I was making a comparison between the populariser of Misirlou, being
an Arab, and the ancestry of some blues pioneers. The point being that
Misirlou didn't derive Arabic influence from *** Davies, and in the

That is not what you said. And it was *** Dale who covered Misirlou.

same way blues didn't derive Greek influence from Johnny Otis. I

Yes it did, just like it derived Jewish influence form the Jews that played it and African Americans influenced from the African Americans that played it, and just like they were influence by the music of the French and the music of the Irish.

suppose this could be an actual mistake on your part rather than an
attempt to twist what I was saying, since people often strike me as
having remarkable difficulty in understanding things in context, but
in the correct context I wasn't saying anything like "Rembetika has no
Arabic influence".

>> > >> It's not Anglo anything. It's Greek, Jewish, Latin, Irish, French
>> > >> and
>> > >> African in origin.

>> > > Aggy, I really wish you'd invest in a course in basic English
>> > > comprehension. "Anglo-American popular music" - i.e. popular music
>> > > from England and America (but conventionally the Anglophone world

>> > Blues did not originated from England or from any Englishman.

>> > > generally), the tradition that encompasses most popular music in >> > > the
>> > > English-speaking world for the past century, regardless of its

>> > Oh, right, and English music's indigenous contribution to popular >> > music
>> > in
>> > the past 100 years is what precisely? SKIFFLE! Yep, that's it. >> > Skiffle
>> > and
>> > nothing more. And then only because the Beatles originated from a
>> > Skiffle
>> > band. That's England's sole indigenous contribution to popular music >> > in
>> > the
>> > past century, and long after Blues had evolved, which clearly isn't
>> > Skiffle.

>> <<<You're forgetting metal, which derived out of British >> interpretations
>> of American blues, but that's beside the point. Read the above >> again.>>>

>> Metal may have been invented by the British, but it has nothing
>> whatsoever
>> to do with traditional English music,

> So what? I've said all along that traditional English musical styles
> have no bearing on modern popular music - see my comment about John
> Mayall. That doesn't mean the modern popular music wasn't shaped in
> Britain and America - pop, rock and metal in both countries (and in
> much of the rest of the Western world) owes a lot to the British
> invasion, the British blues revival of the '60s and the rock anthems
> of the '70s, many also British.

The British blues revival was a revival of AMERICAN music.

You really don't understand how this works, do you? No wonder you
struggle with the idea of world music. When people appropriate

You don't have a clue about music.

('revive') music from somewhere else and produce their own styles of
music based on it, that music is part of that country's musical
tradition.

After the fact. It is not part of their countries musical tradition before the fact. British music had no influence on the Blues. Where does the Blues incorporate Music Hall and Skiffle?

British blues is British music based on American origins,
just as American blues is American music based on African origins. It

No it isn't. It's is based on Greek, Jewish, Irish, Gospel (ie. classical Romantic church hymns) and French traditional popular music which influenced the music of African Americans. If there was a predominant influence of African music (other than Arabic, since the Arabs were behind the African slave trade) then someone would have mentioned where it came from and the name of the genre. I am not aware of any such genre. Bruce Forsyth's documentary makes it clear that the most dominant influences on early Blues were Jewish, Irish and Gospel music.

doesn't have to have any kind of relation to British folk music to be
British music.

>> > > You're confusing arrangement and style. Given your obsessively
>> > > literal
>> > > use of language, you shouldn't make that mistake. Arrangement is
>> > > quite
>> > > literally the way the notes in a piece are arranged - inflection,
>> > > speed, instrumentation, accompaniment are all elements of style.

>> > IDIOT! Does arrangement mean using completely different notes? NO!

>> <<<IDIOT! Did I say it did? NO! It's about playing all the right
>> notes,>>>

>> That's what you said when you claimed *** Dale changed all the notes >> of
>> Misirlou.

> Where did I say that?

Earlier on at the beginning of this thread.

"*** Davies did the song as a one-
string guitar solo - this is not the rembetika style. If the
arrangement was also different as well (i.e. notes changed, added or
removed), then it's hard to see any resemblance at all to the
original."

Taking out of context again, Aggy? And this one much more obviously
deliberate. Firstly, note "*If* the arrangement was also different as

You were insinuating that the "If" was a given fact.

well" (different as well? I must have been mentally deranged when I
wrote that. Either that or a fake impostor wrote it) - which was
specifically in response to *your* claim that *** Davies changed the
arrangement (when what he actually changed was, as I said, the style).

*** Dale did not change the style. It was still Rembetika arranged in the mode of Surf Music. It was a combination of both styles.

I then defined what "arrangement" meant for your benefit (look up
"i.e.")

You didn't know what arrangement meant. you thought it was changing all the notes or playing them in a different order.


>> > Nope. You said the Indian instruments were 2,000 years old.

>> <<<5,000.>>>

>> According to who?

> Wikipedia and sources therein:

> "Before the development of the electric guitar and the use of
> synthetic materials, a guitar was defined as being an instrument
> having "a long, fretted neck, flat wooden soundboard, ribs, and a flat
> back, most often with incurved sides".[1] Instruments similar to the
> guitar have been popular for at least 5,000 years. The six string

Right, so there is no mention of India.

This is an introductory paragraph. Read on.

> classical guitar first appeared in Spain but was itself the product of
> a long and complex history of diverse influences. Like virtually all
> other stringed European instruments, the guitar ultimately traces back
> thousands of years, via the Middle East, to a common ancient origin
> from instruments then known in central Asia and India. It is therefore
> very distantly related with contemporary instruments such as the
> Iranian tanbur and setar and the Indian sitar. The oldest known
> iconographic representation of an instrument displaying all the
> essential features of a guitar being played is a 3300 year old stone
> carving of a Hittite bard.[2] The modern word, guitar, was adopted

Ah, just as I thought, the idiots editing Wikipedia don't know where the
Hittites lived. And they think that 3300 years ago is 3300 BC, not 1300 BC.

Check your comprehension skills. Nowhere does the article suggest that
the Hittite picture is the 5,000 year old origin of guitars (it says

But you DO!

"the first iconograpogic representation" dates to 3,300 years old -
suggesting that there are older sources of non-pictoral evidence).

No mention of India there.


The Hittites lived in Asia-Minor which is now Turkey. None of this
contradicts what I have already said. 1300 BC is Mycenaean times. There are
also depictions or remains of Lyres found in Greece dating to 1580 BC and
2800 BC.

What do lyres have to do with guitars apart from being string
instruments?

The lyre is what became the guitar. That is the generally accepted history. That is the source of the 5000 year history of the guitar. The Lyre is what is 5000 years old. The earliest examples are found in Greece. The earliest image of lyre based instrument to look like a guitar is found in a Hittite mural.


> into English from Spanish guitarra, derived from the Latin word
> cithara, which in turn was derived from the earlier Greek word kithara,
> [3] which perhaps derives from Persian sihtar.[4] Sihtar itself is

Which is a load of bollocks because the word Kithara appears in Homer which
dates to 400 years before the Persian empire.

So what? You don't think the Persians had a language before they had
an empire? Must have made it hard to build one when all they could do
was mime at each other...

You don't think that the Greek didn't have language before Homer? Homer wrote in what is effectively Mycenaean Greek, so that puts the origin of the word Kithara back to Proto-Greek which dates to 3000 BC. Oh, look, the first ancestors of the guitar are found in Greece dating to exactly that period. I wonder what they were called. The Greeks obviously had their own word from them since that word became Kithara. Even the meaning of the word describes the shape of the instrument because Kithara means hip shaped.


>> > > guitar would mysteriously go unknown in the non-Grecian parts of
>> > > Europe until someone happened to bring it back from India.

>> > They didn't bring it back from India. It came from Byzantium just >> > like
>> > the
>> > Violin

>> <<<Wikipedia notes that it reached Europe from South Asia. And since >> it
>> was still there nine minutes later it must be true.>>>

>> CODSWALLOP!

>> Herodotus refers to Arion playing the Kithara or Guitar at the time of
>> Perriander in about 600 BC.

> So, that's about 700 years later than Hittite depictions of the
> instrument, then.

Nope. The earliest Greek depictions of Lyres date to 2800 BC, so we can
conclude the Greeks also had the guitar complete with handle at the same
time the Hittites had it.

Can we? Why?

See above.


> It has nothing to do with India.

> And the name "sitar" is a complete coincidence, of course, as is the

It's a corrupted form of Kithara like Zither. The origin is clearly Greek
since in Macedonian dialect as well as Cypriot and Creatan dialects Kithara
would have been pronounced Jithathar which gives Zither which in India was
corrupted to Sitar.

And the reason for supposing Jithathar/Zithar wasn't corrupted *from*
sitar, and kithara derived from a Greek mispronunciation, is what?

See above.


> And the Honeymoon Song was among them, was it? Oops, silly me, it was
> a British film score.

IDIOT! What on *** are you on about?

"The Honeymoon Song" was written as part of the soundtrack for a
British film set in Spain called, unimaginatively enough, "Honeymoon".
And having listened to it, could you identify exactly what the Greek
elements of this music are? It's very good, but in style it sounds
like an awful lot of instrumental film music from both Britain and
Hollywood.

BULL***! The song is Entechno which is a classicised version of traditional Greek music, mainly influenced by rembetika and also incorporating demotika .. Go and listen to some other Entechno.


Phil

.

Quantcast