Re: Socialism in SF

On Apr 26, 8:47�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<77876ed5-4cc6-4618-9889-23b749110...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
�Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 25, 1:01?pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 25, 1:20?pm, Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 5:31 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

plausible prose man wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:48 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
plausible prose man wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:39 pm, Gene <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
plausible prose man <Georgefha...@xxxxxxx> rote in
news:55dfcf72-d2d9-45d2-
aad4-2ba2cbd43...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

harmonic variations, which is what Bach
is all about

Stick to talking about what you know,

Probably you should get an argument or two right, and admit when
you're wrong better, to be handing out such pronouncements. You
can
understand where your ipse dixits just sort of shatter on the
ground
now, after the butter thing and Empiricism and the various other
arguments you've either ceded to me after much redefining of your
position and changing your story, or just ignored all along..

Bach's main explorations were in harmonic variations, your
various
fugues and canons.

Baroque music, while more like the sort we listen to now than
Renaissance music, is more like renaissance music than classical
and
especially romantic music, which is very much like popular music
and
scores, as anyone with any real knowledge of music would admit.

If you could write English well enough that the nonsense above
could
actually be parsed,

What's hard to understand about what I wrote?

It's ambiguous

Oh, horse***, Schilling. Where has this lame *** worked for you
before, huh? You're an embarassment to all you represent.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I would have said "meaningless" instead of ambiguous.

?And you'd have been wrong.

The statements
are sweepingly applied to entire musical movements as if they were
small and coherent collections.

?I assume there's some family resemblence, there, or else why the
categorization in the first place, even if you might argue "is
Beethoven more Romantic than Classic?"

? "More like"?

?Yeah, that's a hard concept, isn't it?

?Romantic music" is
"more like" popular music" than "Baroque"? ?

?I think they were pretty much done with counterpoint by the time
opera and symphonic music became the dominant forms.

Like Berlioz' Symphony
Fantastique is more like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" than Bach's Mass in
B minor?

?Well, kind of, but change "Mass in B Minor," and you're onto
something.

To the extent there is actual meaningfulness in your comparisons, they
are trivial; ?Renaissance music was on balance monodic;

?que?

Baroque was
polyphonic; Rococo and Romantic music went back to mostly monody, and
20th century went back to including polyphony. ?

?I mean the kind that people listen to, not, you know, Warlock or
Glass or Reich or any of that ***.

Tonality replaced
modality in about the 10th century through the 12th century; strict
meter wasn't really established until the 17th century; polytonality
anad polyrhythmicity came in in the 20th century, and popular music in
the 20th century stayed extremely conservatively tonal and strict-
metrical.

?Plus, you know, it's expressive in a way renaissance and baroque
music isn't, classical music only sort of is, and and romantic music
very much so is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What a massive display of arrogantly defended ignorance.

I'm done.

He never listened to Haydn's music of the Storm and Stress period.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it's more than that -- he seems not even to recognize standard
terms of music theory like monody. To be so ignorant and not even to
know how ignorant you are is a *problem.* Small wonder he can't seem
to see any significant distinction between Beethoven and modern pop.
.

Loading