Re: Proms


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d0aeca3e-0dc1-40a4-964c-e7813611c2f1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2 Aug, 12:42, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c1f898f1-c065-4c6e-bf4d-0e98f32dde61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> On 2 Aug, 00:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <pbow...@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.

> You know, Aggy, the fact that you tried to edit your "facts" into
> Wikipedia and they were rejected massively increases my faith in the
> accuracy of Wikipedia.

No it doesn't.


No, it really *does* massively increase my faith in the accuracy of
Wikipedia. Or are you now more of an expert on my opinions than I am?

Nope. Wikipedia has no credibility when people who know nothing about history or religion are allowed to become moderators.


It shows that the arsefucking Hitlers dictating over
Wikipedia don't know what they are talking about and justifies why
universities have decided not to accept it as a source of reference.

Most universities either don't accept 'grey literature' at all or
accept only a small proportion of references from it, and that
includes all online sources that haven't been subject to peer review -
nothing special about Wikipedia.

Look at
how some tosser decided to pretend to be a professor of religion and removed
articles from the Wikipedia section on religion which he didn't agree with.

Hadn't heard of this one. What's the story?

Some bloke pretended to be a professor of religion and used the catholic encyclopaedia or something to edit Wikipedia so that it all conformed to what he thought it said, and eventually he was busted.


>> WRONG. Cultures outside of the English speaking world had their own >> words
>> for Pop music before the 1950s,

> Amazing. Cultures outside the English speaking world have their own
> words for lettuce, too due to, you know, *not speaking English*. That
> doesn't mean their lettuce isn't actually lettuce.

It means they would not called their lettuce, lettuce, but use their own
word for it and if lettuce was not available here then we would call it by
their name.

Yet most musical genres have names that aren't specific to musical
genres but have been appropriated from existing words in the language -
in English such words as 'folk', 'rock', 'metal', 'dance', 'country',
'world', 'blues', 'roots'...

And other countries have their OWN names too for their OWN genres. They don't call them folk and the don't even call them traditional. The most common name group name is Popular Music otherwise the names of specific generas are used.


>> >> > 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.

> Britain, wasn't it?

Nope. Europe as a whole.

What, the entire continent got together to program a computer? Someone
must have come up with it first.

You are confusing Techno with Electric music in general. If you want some names, then Vangelis Papathanassiou was one of the pioneers of electric music with the themes to Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner, and there was also Jeff Wayne's, War of the Worlds score and it's mostly music like that which led to Trance and another reason why Trance should be classified as classical music. Of course Abba was producing electronic music even earlier. And don't forget Gary Newman. I don't think any of them used a computer. They used keyboards and synthesisers and electric guitars.


>> > 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.

> Okay, so what is distinctively Dutch about 'Dutch Techno' as opposed

Listen to some records.

You might not believe it from the time I spend arguing with you, but
I'm not *actually* a masochist. And I am a music lover. So why on
Earth would I subject myself to the torture of listening to computer
music?

What computer music? Trance is virtually classical.

> use typically Dutch instrumentation, as Latino music uses Mexican
> instrumentation? Does it derive from Dutch traditional music, as folk-
> rock derives from Irish-American music?

It uses Dutch compositional styles originated by Dutch musicians, just like
Greek techno uses Greek compositional styles, etc.

You almost make it sound as though it's real music. What are the
"compositional styles"? I thought this stuff was typed up as a piece
of software and then put on random play to generate tracks.

No. Someone actually composes it. They take a pop song and arranged it or re-mix it as Techno.

>> > 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,

> Correct.

> NOT world music,

> Not correct.

WRONG! It is not NOT world music. It is Rock.

The two aren't mutually exclusive; nor is world and other styles such
as pop. As it happens, I've been ripping a boatload of old CDs today,
and among the artists on one Radio 3 World Music Awards album is ...
Bjork. Hardly an 'experimental art music' star.

Have you actually ever heard Bjork? Experimental Art Music down to the core. I can't think of anything more definitive.

> At least, the people defining these genres disagree -
> remember I'm using this example because a music magazine (or possibly
> website) gave the band an award for "Best World Music" for its second
> album.

Either they don't know what they are talking about or you don't.

Well, let's see, Peter Gabriel signed them onto his world music label
Real World Records - so you're saying a major singer-songwriter and
founder of a company specialising in distributing world music doesn't
know what world music actually is?

Either it's Experimental Art Music or its Rock just like any other rock. It's most likely that you don't know what it is.


> 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.

> You're trying to invent a rigidly-defined genre where there isn't one.
> Right, let's try this again to be clear:

> Rock is a musical genre in the traditional sense. It is typified by
> particular ways of playing guitar, particular combinations of
> instruments, and ultimately a particular sound that's recognisably
> rock.

> World is, as you said yourself, an artificial genre, one of the ones
> invented for the convenience of record stores who don't want separate
> sections for each country's music.

The use by record stores is completely different to the use by record
makers, radio stations and magazines and people who give awards. Going by
the music nominated for awards for so-called World Music it is clear that
every song that has been nominated is Experimental Art Music.

Including Bjork? Since you seem content to reinvent your imagined

Yep. Bjork is definitive of the genre of Experimental Art Music.

"experimental art music" to mean whatever you want, probably so, but
it will be interesting to listen to the four BBC Radio 3 World Music
Award albums I now have and see how much of it fits that category.
From what I've heard so far, the answer is probably "none".

From what I've heard, all.


So as to avoid
confusion, it should be referred to a Experimental Art Music and that alone
not World Music.

Since it comes from the world and isn't experimental art, even if
anyone but you used that term, surely it would be less confusing to
avoid the use of the term experimental art music and just use world
music?

Nope. It's not world music. Is Ricky Martin world music? Is Abba world music?

Everyone knows you won't find either artist in the world music section of a record shop because the music they produce is no experimental art music, it's pop music.


The term World Music should be outlawed.

This has to deserve a place in a sig somewhere. Snarky?

>It is not really a genre in the
> same way as rock or blues; rather it's a generic label like indie,
> which is defined not so much by the type of music it includes as a
> more arbitrary convenient classification. Indie can cover anything
> that's independently produced; world can cover anything that's
> produced in the world (by converntion, the Anglosphere - or, if you

Such a classification would be contrary to EU anti-discrimination laws.

Twit.

Fool.


People who know what World Music and what it was when the term started to be
used know it is Experimental Art Music. Is Abba sold or advertised as World
Music?

Abba is thoroughly Anglicised pop music - even when sung in Swedish it
still sounds like Abba's usual light pop.

Anglicised? You mean its Skiffle or Music Hall? The *** it is. It's European Dance Music. The generally accepted term is Eurobeat.


> prefer, the West as a whole - doesn't count as part of the world for
> this purpose). It's like world cinema or world literature is usually
> taken to encompass all non-English language works.

> This being the case, something can equally well be both rock and world
> music, because these genres are defined by different aspects of the
> pieces/artists.

Nope, not by your argument.

Yes, exactly by my argument, hence "This being the case..."


Nope, not by your argument.

>> > 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.

> Precisely - Irish folk music.

Folk Music is Irish Pop Music.

No it isn't, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

It is, as has been explained to you repeatedly.



>> > 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.

> No, they are saying *their* interpretation of roots music is not *folk
> music*, which as generally understood these days is American folk-rock
> of traditional Irish and country origins - and has nothing to do with
> what was happening in Ireland in the '50s.

They are saying that Roots music is not Folk Music because they know full
well that Folk Music is a term which is now synonymous with Irish Pop Music
and Roots Music has nothing to do with it.

No, they are saying that it's a term which is synonymous with American
folk-rock that has little if anything to do with Roots music.

Folk-rock is a brand of Irish pop music, similar to New Age.


That being said, however, one of the old albums I've dug out is called
American Roots - it includes, among other largely country and blues
songs, the country instrumental Duelling Banjos, the Johnny Cash rock
song I Walk the Line ... and Bob Dylan's Girl from the North Country,
exactly the sort of thing the modern definition of 'folk music'
describes, included here under the blanket of Roots music.

Well that's their problem.


> And it was *** Dale who covered Misirlou.

> So it was.

>> > ('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.

> So? All music comes from somewhere else originally. That doesn't mean
> it's all African traditional music. Most Australians are of European
> descent within the last two hundred years - that doesn't mean they
> aren't Australians now.

> British music had no influence on the Blues.

> British music is just music produced by the British. British musicians
> had a definite influence on the blues and its '60s derivatives, rock
> and metal.

But indigenous British music didn't.

Which is a point I specifically made myself. What's it got to do with
anything?

Incidentally, you claim that Cat Stevens based his music on Greek
blues because he's of Greek origin.

Yep, he even played Bouzouki on it.

Yet you insist that British music
has no influence on blues, despite the fact that Cat Stevens is
British. You don't see a double standard here? Surely Cat Stevens
would have drawn his influences at least as much from his home country
as his ancestral one, by your argument?

Right, let me think, Cat Stevens, Skiffile.... um... no, can't think of any such tracks, Music Hall, um, nope, none of those either. Bouzouki, yep, did those.


> in a back issue of Classic Rock from earlier this year devoted to the
> blues. For a while it was the profile image on Joe Bonamassa's Myspace
> page (he was on the cover), but I don't think it is now. I can't see
> it lying about right now or I might be able to give you the name of a
> genre - but since all these genre names for pre-20s music were
> invented retrospectively, maybe it doesn't have one since "Roots
> music" already exists as a description.

Well if the names are retrospective, unless the music was written down or
recorded before the 1920's then I would not give much credibility to the
genre ever having ever existed at all.

Robert Johnson's music wasn't called blues until well after the event
either; divisions like Delta blues are much more modern concoctions.
And yet they've been enough to elevate Johnson to the founding father
of Delta blues. The name rock 'n' roll wasn't applied to the genre as
a whole until the early 1950s (even though the phrase appeared in late
'40s R&B records), and yet older music like Guitar Boogie and Rocket
88 are still classed as rock 'n' roll.

And your point is? Are you saying that 1920's songs should be called folk because they are what Irish Pop Music was based on?


> Bruce Forsyth's
>> documentary makes it clear that the most dominant influences on early
>> Blues
>> were Jewish, Irish and Gospel music.

> I thought you said it was a documentary about Latin music.

There was two parts. The first was about the development of Roots music and
dance and its modern derivatives including Hip-Hop and Brakdanceing. The
second was about Latin music and dances.

Did the documentary have a name?

Something with the word Dance in it I think.


>> > 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.

> No I wasn't.

Yes you were. That is how you wanted it read.

No I wasn't and no I didn't. It's just how you read it after the fact.
It was "if" in the sense that "assuming you're correct that the
arrangement was different, this means..."

Nope. You put the if there as if it were a given fact. That is how it read.




>> > 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.

> Surf music is a style, Aggy, not an arrangement.

Arrangement is style.

You just said that *** Dale didn't change the style, but did change
the arrangement to that of surf music - plainly you can't regard the
two words as synonyms if you're saying he changed one and not the
other.

The style of the music was a cross between Rembetika and Surf music.


>> > 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.

> Because that's what it is... Hence my explaining it for your benefit.

That is not what arrangement means in musical terms. You don't have a clue.

"The American Federation of Musicians defines arranging as "the art of
preparing and adapting an already written composition for presentation
in other than its original form. An arrangement may include
reharmonization, paraphrasing, and/or development of a composition, so
that it fully represents the melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic
structure"

Right, so its not rearranging the notes in a different order. Now admit you didn't know what arrangement meant.

You can't claim that this is Wikipedia making things up - the source
is referenced, and the definition is that of people whose job is to
define musical terms. Yet again you are categorically incorrect.

WRONG! You have just proven that I am right and you didn't have a clue about what an arrangement was. You thought it was changing all the notes.


> No I don't. I took the 5,000 year figure from the introductory
> paragraph. It's plain that it doesn't refer to the same thing as the
> Hittite representation, which is later in a different part of the
> world.

You said it referred to Indian instruments. It clearly doesn't. You didn't
understand the article. The examples I have shown show that the 5,000 year
old instruments were found in Greece.

No they haven't. The article is really quite simple to understand if
you read through the section I quoted in full without interruption -

That was after you made claims that were wrong and could not possibly have been derived from that article unless you didn't understand it. It never said the guitar came from India or that the Indians had similar instruments 5,000 years ago.

you shouldn't have this comprehension difficulty. The article makes
two essential claims - that the instrument dates back over 5,000

And I have provide evidence that this is to Greece.

years, and that it reached Europe from South Asia sometime after that.

No it didn't. It was already in Europe in Greece. You have once again misunderstood the article and taking a section on the introduction of the guitar to Spain as being connected with its appetence in Persia and India at an earlier time. The article makes it clear that the Guitar came to Spain from Rome in early Christian times.

It also notes that the instrument appears to derive from the sitar.

NO IT DOES NOT! You can't read and you clearly can't understand English.

You really ought to be able to understand the link this entails - i.e.
no origination of the instrument in Europe or Asia Minor, and instead
a development from South Asian instruments dating back as much as
5,000 years,

BULL***! The above is something that you have made up because you do not understand a simple article on the history of the guitar. This is what you always do. You read things without understanding them and have no common sense to realise that you have made a mistake.


>> >> 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.

> Accepted by whom? There's no suggestion of that in the Wikipedia

By the experts.

Any willing to give their names?

Let them do so, if they are reading this.


> piece, and the sitar is a much more plausible origin than the lyre

BULL***! Sitar is a corruption of Zither which is a corruption of Kithara.
The Sitar has no plausibility as the origin of the Kithara. The Kithars as
the meaning of its name (Hip shaped) suggests originated from the Lyre.

Sitar means "30 strings" (and setar means "3 strings"). The fact that

What a load of BULL***!

It's a corruption of the Greek word Kithara via Zither and Cittern. A Sitar does not even have 30 strings. 23 strings at most.

it has a specific meaning in South Asian languages is every bit as

No it doesn't. It means nothing in south Asian languages because it is not a south Asian word. It is a Proto-Greek word that can be found in Homer, and dates back to at least 3000 BC when Proto-Greek evolved, and is means Hip Shaped.

persuasive as the fact that Kithara has a meaning in Greek - and it's

No it isn't. The Greek term is thousands of years older that the Asian term, which has virtually no recorded history.

rather more persuasive that the name sitar has a rather restrictive
meaning that can be applied to few things other than musical
instruments, while everything from lyres to islands can be "hip-
shaped" (and it's a funny hip that looks like a guitar).

You are a fool. You've obviously never seen a woman naked.


> simply because the instrument looks and plays much more like a guitar
> than a lyre does,

Twaddle! Archaeological artefacts show that the Kirara was a Lyre with a
handle. The meaning of Kirtara means Hip Shaped, which is the shape of the
Guitar. Sitar means nothing and is not even the right shape.

It means '30 strings' and has no bearing on the shape of the
instrument that has 30 strings.

TWADDLE! It means Hip Shaped and has a longer recorded history of use than Sitar. All the experts state the etymology of the word Guitar and Cittern and Zither, therefore Sitar is from Kithara.


> 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.

> How?

See above and see earlier.

Where?

Above and earlier.


> I'm prepared to accept the Wikipedia piece may be wrong, but so far

Nope. You just don't understand what its says, just like most thinks. It
never claimed the Guitar came from India. That is something which you
invented.

Pay attention, Aggy.

From the entry for guitar (in the part that I quoted):

"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."

No it doesn't. The earliest depiction and evidence from such an instrument if from Greece, going back 5,000 years. See below.


From the entry for sitar:

"The guitar appears to be derived from earlier instruments known in
ancient India and Central Asia as the Sitar or Setar."

RUBBISH!

You have show us all once again that you can't read or understand Englaih properly.

Let's see the full context shall we.

"The Indian sitar is derived from the long-necked lutes of western Asia and from the veena family of Indian musical instruments. It should not be confused with the similarly named "setar". In the Persian language, sitar (سی تار ) literally means "30 strings," while setar (سه تار ) means "3 strings." Both names are deceptive, however. The guitar appears to be derived from earlier instruments known in ancient India and Central Asia as the Sitar or Setar.

and

"to a common ancient origin from instruments then known in central Asia and
India."

Right, so where in the above does it say that the earlier Indian instruments predate the instruments in Europe. IT DOESN'T! What it says is that the common ancestor of the guitar and the sitar was known in India and Central as the Sitar or Setar, not that it predates the Kithara. The Kithara, a Greek instrument and the root of the terms Guitar, Zither and Citter as well as Sitar and Setar predates them all.

Let's see what it says further down shall we.

"Instruments of central and west Asia circulated in the South Asian subcontinent from at least the 12th century, and some were later modified and adapted to Indian uses. "

Right, so the sitars appearance in India is 12 century AD. Its a modern instrument to all intents and purposes.

In Spain the Guitar was introduced by the Romans 1200 years earlier. In Greece the Kithara predates it by 4000 years! The Pandouri, a 3 stringed guitar with a handle predates it by 1600 years.

How did this instrument get to India so it would be a common ancestor to all guitars?

ALEXANDER THE GREAT TOOK IT THERE!

You really need to learn some comprehension skills instead of trying to twist something you don't understand to correspond to something you have made up!


> all you've come up with to counter the simple story of an Indian
> origin with progressively later appearances of the guitar in Persia,

There is no story of an Indian origin.

Pay attention, Aggy.

There is no story of an Indian origin. Not even a shred of archaeological evidence.

> similar to ours accompanying the transitions) is the irrelevant "Well,
> they had guitars in Greece several thousand years later", a bunch of
> speculation and the suggestion that the Greek for guitar does actually
> mean something in Greek other than 'guitar', which might be taken to
> imply an origination of the name there. You've got to do quite a lot
> better than that.

Twaddle! The word Kithara descries what the Guitar looks like and what its
predecessor the Lyre, or which the earliest examples are found in Greece,
looked like.

It describes approximately what a lyre looks like - then again "30
strings" is also a reasonable description for a lyre. It's not a good
description of a guitar.

YOU ARE A FOOL!

Why would an instrument with 30 strings predate and instrument with only 3 strings?


Sitar means nothing, because it is a corruption of Kithara via
Zither.

Wrong. Sitar has a defined meaning in both Indian and Persian, as does

30 strings? HA!

The first guitars only had 3 strings. That is what all the history books say. How can a 30 stringed instrument predate them?

setar, another possible name for the ancestral instrument, so that's
yet another of your pet theories debunked. Why not do even a minute's
research before making silly claims?

TWADDLE!

I have already provided evidence for the earliest known depiction of the ancestor of the guitar and that is the Kithara dating back to 2800 BC in Greece. There is no Indian or Asian instrument similar that pre-dates it.

http://homoecumenicus.com/ancient_instruments.htm


.

Quantcast