Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[Lat-Literal]

I think this predates most of that

Or this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SW6qVLSVzw

Very interesting tracks - neither of which I had heard before - but they weren't hits.

McCartney visited Delia Derbyshire in her electronics shed and asked her to re-record "Yesterday".

If she had agreed - and I don't know why she didn't - it could have been a different matter entirely.

[MrGongGong]

Very interesting tracks - neither of which I had heard before - but they weren't hits.

McCartney visited Delia Derbyshire in her electronics shed and asked her to re-record "Yesterday".

If she had agreed - and I don't know why she didn't - it could have been a different matter entirely.

"Hits" ???

Delia had taste and discernment.

[Lat-Literal]

"Hits" ???

Delia had taste and discernment.

Yes.

[doversoul1]

Do you think this NatBalance is having us on? He has managed to notch up 140 plus posts on this thread without taking in one single point that has been explained to him. If he is genuine, I find this quite extraordinary.

[MrGongGong]

Do you think this NatBalance is having us on?

Of course he is.
But i'm enjoying talking about some of my favourite music and flexing the "what is music" muscles (B and F# for a VERY long time)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A mate of mine (who happens to be a University Lecturer in music and aesthetics) once pointed out that (and it was after several pints so in pedant mode) "Music Theory" as it is widely known isn't a "Theory" at all. There is very little that is "Theoretical" as it's usually applied to areas of music that are about practical application rather than speculative ideas.

Yes - I believe that this is what is meant by the term in Science: Einstein's "Theories" weren't "hypotheses" or "conjectures" or best guesses, but statements of fact and observation, and explanations about why these were happening.

Music Theory is the same - it explains things like why A major has a key signature with three sharps and why those three sharps have to be exactly F#, C# and G# - it is precisely "an exact science".

As for "I don't believe knowledge of music theory bares [sic] any relationship on your ability to judge good music from bad" - it's like saying that being literate has no bearing on one's ability to judge good literature from bad; not knowing Mathematics has no bearing on one's ability to judge the validity of Quantum Physics.

I suspect (or "reckon") that what is meant is "enjoyment" rather than "judgement", which "works" ("I don't believe that knowledge of Music Theory bears any relationship on your ability to enjoy good Music and bad") but which is a very different animus.

[Beef Oven!]

As for "I don't believe knowledge of music theory bares [sic] any relationship on your ability to judge good music from bad" - it's like saying that being literate has no bearing on one's ability to judge good literature from bad; not knowing Mathematics has no bearing on one's ability to judge the validity of Quantum Physics.

I suspect (or "reckon") that what is meant is "enjoyment" rather than "judgement", which "works" ("I don't believe that knowledge of Music Theory bears any relationship on your ability to enjoy good Music and bad") but which is a very different animus.

I cannot understand music, but I enjoy it very much.

My maths is fine, but I don't understand quantum physics, nor do I enjoy it.

Where does this 'fit in'?

[Old Grumpy]

I cannot understand music, but I enjoy it very much.

I have no beef with that beefy - indeed I have a theory (only IMV, TBH) that too much musical "understanding" may lead to a lesser enjoyment of a given piece or performance

OG

[doversoul1]

I cannot understand music, but I enjoy it very much.

My maths is fine, but I don't understand quantum physics, nor do I enjoy it.

Where does this 'fit in'?

Maybe that’s the (or one of the) difference (-s) between Art and Science?

[Beef Oven!]

I have no beef with that beefy - indeed I have a theory (only IMV, TBH) that too much musical "understanding" may lead to a lesser enjoyment of a given piece or performance

OG

Yes, I can see the sense in that, but the whiff of 'pig philosophy' worries me.

[Beef Oven!]

Maybe that’s the (or one of the) difference (-s) between Art and Science?

Is there a difference between art and science? I imagine there is.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I cannot understand music, but I enjoy it very much.
My maths is fine, but I don't understand quantum physics, nor do I enjoy it.
Where does this 'fit in'?

Largely a grumpy, late night reaction to Natty's use of the word "judgement" - I don't think I "understand" the Music I most enjoy, either. I love Quantum Physics - I find it reassuring that at a fundamental level, the universe is bonkers: I feel more at home with that knowledge.

[Beef Oven!]

Largely a grumpy, late night reaction to Natty's use of the word "judgement" - I don't think I "understand" the Music I most enjoy, either. I love Quantum Physics - I find it reassuring that at a fundamental level, the universe is bonkers: I feel more at home with that knowledge.

[Lat-Literal]

Didn't someone once say that the most intelligent people have leanings towards both music and maths?

Well, I guess having one out of two isn't so bad.

Elsewhere, I have always preferred a tree to be something that is just visual rather than a concept that functions. As soon as there is a labelling of parts, it all becomes too real and yet also, oddly, it's then that it is artificial. That, I think, is on account of the fact that leaves and branches are only meaningful as words to people. The exception may be Da Vinci who with art has the ability to draw one away momentarily from being too flowery. It has never escaped my attention that there is an irony there and very sweet it is too.

More broadly, I am not impressed by notions of human beings managing nature. Any garden isn't owned but rather it is, in my opinion, on loan. But what I did believe in until this year was the power of reason, especially when it came to systemic organisation. That turns out to have been a ludicrous idea and curiously there is a plus and a minus. The latter is that one can feel vulnerable in not having a strong argument for anything. The former is, as contributors have suggested, that everything can safely be labelled as raving mad.

Similarly, when it comes to music, a bit of knowledge can be spice but it is possible to boil it all down so assiduously that it disappears into nothing. I have had moments when any meaning has seemed to drop into a permanent void. Two hours later the emotional structure has reappeared showing that any brilliance was just an over-elaborate optical illusion.

I thank you!

[cloughie]

Maybe that’s the (or one of the) difference (-s) between Art and Science?

I reckon they're symbiotic.