Champion Rabbit wrote:

Cranius wrote:Please.

Google it.

You google it. I want you to put a bit of work into the flabby, guffy ideas you keep spouting

Cranius wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Cranius wrote:Please.

Google it.

You google it. I want you to put a bit of work into the flabby, guffy ideas you keep spouting

You stated that Back invented modern tuning.

That is incorrect, which I pointed out.

Beyond that, you are on your own.

Champion Rabbit wrote:You stated that Back invented modern tuning.

That is incorrect, which I pointed out.

Beyond that, you are on your own.

Yeah but I said in my original post that I my well be wrong. No offence rabbit but you often come across as not having a point. What's the point of this discussion when we could be autodidactically reading wikipedia? Do you see what I mean?

Why are you so evasive when asked to pin down what you actually mean?

Are you just on the wind up?

Cranius wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:You stated that Back invented modern tuning.

That is incorrect, which I pointed out.

Beyond that, you are on your own.

Yeah but I said in my original post that I my well be wrong. No offence rabbit but you often come across as not having a point. What's the point of this discussion when we could be autodidactically reading wikipedia? Do you see what I mean.

Why are you so evasive when asked to pin down what you actually mean?

Fair points.

I appologise if that's how I come across.

Sorry.

Perhaps I don't have much of a point; that's quite possible. Indeed if you are of that opinion having read my ideas, perhaps it is likely that I don't have much of a point.

Regarding Bach; it's a fairly common myth about him having invented equal temporament. In fact it was established (but not commonly used) way before his time by Marin Mersenne.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Regarding Bach; it's a fairly common myth about him having invented equal temporament. In fact it was established (but not commonly used) way before his time by Marin Mersenne.

Ok that's better. So are we talking equal or well temperament?

This is honest question because I admit I don't know. I am not a musician.

Cranius wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:Regarding Bach; it's a fairly common myth about him having invented equal temporament. In fact it was established (but not commonly used) way before his time by Marin Mersenne.

Ok that's better. So are we talking equal or well temperament?

This is honest question because I admit I don't now.

Equal.

Bach was into his relative temperament rather than a universal tuning that could be applied...er...universally.

Some might argue that the results are superior, certainly in terms of modulation, but they obviously limit what can be played without sounding horrid.

The myth of Bach (if memory serves) related to his 'well tempered clavier' which people mistakenly took to being a referance to 'equal temporament'.

These days equal temperament is the western norm apart from er...shite.

I can't remember.

Harpsichord?

I think maybe that's it.

I'm genuinely sorry that I have come-across as being 'on the wind-up'; I must brush-up on my social skills.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:sorry to butt in, but can somebody summarize what the point and content of this thread are? it seems like it's getting so much action, but i don't know if i want to take the time to read all 50,000 pages of it without knowing what's going on here... thanks.

Haha! This is funny, toomanyhelicopters!

You make many posts yourself (so many! toomanyhelicopters is number one most-posts poster!) and now you say is too many! Is Funny!

Salut! toomanyhelicpoters!

Cranius wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:sorry to butt in, but can somebody summarize what the point and content of this thread are? it seems like it's getting so much action, but i don't know if i want to take the time to read all 50,000 pages of it without knowing what's going on here... thanks.

We are trying to ascertain who is Hulk Hogan and who are the 14 who have been hospitalised.

I'm trying to see if I can get some of that pistachio burfi.

This thread is interesting.

In literature there's something called the intentional fallacy. The idea is that it is a fallacy to consider an author's intentions as the "correct" reading of a text. While authorial intention may certainly inform and enrich one's reading of a text, a reader can derive meaning from a text that the author did not necessarily intend.

In the case of childrens' art, then, I don't see that it defies analysis at all. If I can derive value and meaning from a child's drawing, and then write or speak about it in a way to communicate these insights to another person, then I have analyzed the work. It doesn't matter whether a child intended to convey the message or not. The text, or in this case the drawing, is all that should matter.

I don't have time to follow this line of thought to rock music at the moment (and it might be pointless to do so anyway). But maybe tomorrow.

spokes wrote:This thread is interesting.

In literature there's something called the intentional fallacy. The idea is that it is a fallacy to consider an author's intentions as the "correct" reading of a text. While authorial intention may certainly inform and enrich one's reading of a text, a reader can derive meaning from a text that the author did not necessarily intend.

In the case of childrens' art, then, I don't see that it defies analysis at all. If I can derive value and meaning from a child's drawing, and then write or speak about it in a way to communicate these insights to another person, then I have analyzed the work. It doesn't matter whether a child intended to convey the message or not. The text, or in this case the drawing, is all that should matter.

I don't have time to follow this line of thought to rock music at the moment (and it might be pointless to do so anyway). But maybe tomorrow.

Even if you are correct, you're still going to run STRAIGHT into that fact that a large number of posters here are convinced that rock music is A, not like a child's painting and B, is entirely intentional.

**Edit: Not that they are neccesarily wrong.