Re: Proms

On 3 Aug, 02:45, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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.

As well as their own names for rock, metal, dance etc...

They
don't call them folk and the don't even call them traditional.

You've been told before, Aggy, equivalent terms in different languages
aren't always direct translations of one another. "Folk music" is a
pretty silly name in English - looking at the etymology, it means
"music by folks". However, it is used to describe a particular musical
concept, and other languages use words of their own to describe the
same concept, that may or may not be direct translations of the word
"folk".

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.

Electric music has nothing to do with electronic music. Wikipedia
describes techno as "a form of electronic dance music" - i.e. computer
music. Not the same thing as synthesiser pop.

Incidentally, Wikipedia also notes that it was created in Detroit. So,
not exactly getting the European flavour here.

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.

Synth pop, in other words. War of the Worlds is certainly synth pop.
Not the same as techno.

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.

You mean they take a computer, feed a pop song into it and switch on
the randomiser, don't you?

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?

Yes. Pop to the core. No classical arrangements whatsoever.

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.

It's rock and world music. In fact Wikipedia lists five genres Dengue
Fever belongs to - Cambodian rock, rock, psychedelia, surf and indie -
which just goes to show your artificial efforts to categorise
everything as one thing or the other are simply misguided. Quoth Peter
Gabrial (reminder: the guy who signed them onto a world music label)
of the band's style:

"They’re California based but have taken 60’s Cambodian pop as their
main source of inspiration and it’s done with a lot of style. It’s
spirited, impassioned stuff."

Okay, here's a thought - how about listening to some of their stuff
and seeing if you think it's "Experimental Art Music". Why not try
"Sleepwalking through the Mekong":

"http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?
fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=13885609"

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?

Twit.

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.

Try Winds Blow Over The Hill from Kitaro's home page: http://domo.com/kitaro/
This is New Age music.

Now try Girl from the North Country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qhwemir1Ag
This is folk rock.

See the difference?


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.

Yes, strange how all these artists, albums, and labels know so much
less about music than you do.

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.

Only to the comprehensionally challenged.

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.

Okay, I had a feeling this definition would be too technical for you
to understand. Let's go through it piece by piece:

Reharmonisation = changing notes within chords to alter the harmony
with one another. It's taken to an extreme in jazz, where
reharmonisation can translate as "replacing all the chords".

Paraphrasing = saying the same thing as the original in a different
way. In music this translates as, you got it, *changing the notes* -
or to use the technical name "chord substitution".

Development of a composition = adding extra notes or otherwise
changing an original piece.

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.

I enjoyed watching you try to splutter your way out of this one after
I requoted the passage later in the post...

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.

No you haven't.

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.

Yes, it does. And from Greece before that. And Asia-Minor before that.
Persia before that. And, hey presto, India.

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.

I got another laugh out of this and your vain efforts to remove your
foot from your mouth later on.

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.

Of course they aren't reading this, Aggy. The voices don't exist
outside your head.

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***!

Nope, that's what it means.

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.

A modern sitar. Who said anything about the guitar deriving from a
modern sitar? It came from an instrument called the sitar 5,000 years
ago, which was similar to the modern one. Guitars didn't have six
strings thousands of years ago either.

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.

Well, I suppose I have yo admire your blind stubbornness in the face
of incontrovertible evidence you're wrong. Plus, it's funny.

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.

Different word, Aggy. Note the guitar article says "The modern word,
guitar, was adopted 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 related to the Indian instrument, the sitar."

*Perhaps* derives. i.e. possibly the Greek word comes from "hip-
shaped" and is independent of the word "sitar", or perhaps the word
Kitharra was used because it was the closest existing word the Greeks
had to the new word "sihtar", so they used it despite its meaning
being less relevant to the instrument.

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.

You must have seen some rather strangely-shaped women 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.

You know, Aggy, when citing expert opinion, no one who actually knows
of any experts who say something would say "All the experts state
that..." Instead they'd give examples of experts who state it, which
you consistently refuse to do, no doubt because they don't exist.

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 article says it does. And so there goes your claim that the
article doesn't. Poor Aggy, however will you squirm your way out of
this one?

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.

Yes. The guitar is derived from an Indian instrument called the sitar.
What are you trying to show here? That it's not the modern instrument
called the sitar? When did I ever claim it was? You're the one who
went on aboiut how the sitar (the modern one) is the wrong shape or
doesn't have enough strings. If I were to say that they had guitars
5,000 years ago, would you imagine that I meant they had Stratocasters
then? Stop wriggling - no, actually, keep wriggling. It's hugely
entetaining.

and

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

Naughty Aggy, snipping context. "Virtually all European stringed
instruments" shared this common origin - not "guitars in Greece and
South Asia shared this common origin", although even if it was the
latter, again it meshes exactly with what I've been saying.

Right, so where in the above does it say that the earlier Indian instruments
predate the instruments in Europe.

Well, "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.irtually alla European stringed instruments" is a bit of a
clue...

IT DOESN'T! What it says is that the
common ancestor of the guitar and the sitar

No, the common ancestor of European stringed instruments. It happened
also to be the common ancestor of the modern sitar, but the instrument
itself was, indeed, a sitar.

was known in India and Central
as the Sitar or Setar, not that it predates the Kithara.

The kithara is a European stringed instrument, correct? What's more
the article goes onto trace precisely the sequence from sitar to
kithara to guitar.

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.

You're talking about the modern sitar. This is an irrelevance in the
context of tracing the origin of European instruments, since modern
sitars evolved from ancient ones along a separate path,

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

ALEXANDER THE GREAT TOOK IT THERE!

In the 12th Century?

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!

Pot, kettle, black, Aggy?

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?

Why should it? There may have been instruments around with all sorts
of string numbers at various times - but only the 30-stringed sitar
(or possibly 3-stringed setar) was ancestral to the guitar.

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?

Quite easily - you take away a lot of the strings.

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

Which demonstrates what, save that the chitara looks nothing like a
guitar? All this points out is that the name comes from chitara, which
we've already established.

Phil
.

Quantcast