Let’s Talk About Musical Form

"You know more than me? Really? Care to substantiate or even prove that?"

It's abundantly evident from your posts that you're very ignorant about music, but you also like Marrillion's 'Script For a Jester's Tear.'  This, by rule, makes you a musical novice. 

"You know more than me? Really? Care to substantiate or even prove that?"

It's abundantly evident from your posts that you're very ignorant about music, but you also like Marrillion's 'Script For a Jester's Tear.'  This, by rule, makes you a musical novice. 

(blah blah blah.... I'm cert and I'm a f*cking ignorant sot... blah blah blah)

We'll have less of that abuse, you old fart.

No, it's not.  It's your intellectual superior **** giving you a well-deserved smack across the face for being so pitifully ignorant and daring to once more approach me with your poorly-constructed thoughts.  Get back to your studies and learn a bit before you engage me again, little boy.

If you consider a smack across the face a shoal of herrings, then go ahead. You don't justify any of this abuse, so I take it as more trolling designed to get a rise.

Sorry. No rise from me to crap bait.

"You mislead deliberately from the start by stating something that is true, but in no way connected with the statement in question."

and for the fourth time, yes it is.  Because you fail to understand something does not make it untrue.  This is a lesson you'd do well to learn.  It might keep you from being so completely embarassed when arguing with people who know more than you.

No it isn't for the reasons I gave. The misunderstanding is yours, sir.

You know more than me? Really? Care to substantiate or even prove that?

The evidence so far is decidedly to the contrary, if I may be so deceitful.

"Then you make a false claim - namely that form is inessential - the form of a Haiku is dictated by thumber of syllables. This leads nicely back to your original herring - whatever colour you'd prefer it to be - another statement of truth that has no bearing on the original precept."

A person can write a three line poem that fails as a Haiku by one syllable, yet make a great poem.  Are you disputing this?   

No. Read what I said.

"You then stretch that to another fallacy by claiming it's a logical extension, when the logic is fundamentally flawed."

You've failed to state why there is a logical fallacy.  I'll point out again something isn't true or false simply because you're unable to squeeze your little brain around the concept.

That was all elborated before I summed it up. As I said, try reading the details instead of "beyond them", as you're fond of doing.

Try again, your Impetuousness, try again.

Howzat?

yargh wrote: ...the sources of classical music are higher "art" than the sources of rock music -- and they aren't.  Beethoven's 9th symphony is no greater an example of art than a Ramones album.

This is clear evidence you're a troll looking to fan some flames.

I would say that the alternative is "an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about", but your choice of words is admirable, if trolling is to be admired.

yargh wrote: My point stands, and my analogy was perfectly illustrative of my point.  It is generally difficult to know what a musician was trying to do, so it makes no sense to critique them on what an observer thinks might have been their goal.  Furthermore, my point was only to show how inessential attention to form is.  A poem could "not" be a Haiku because the final stanza is off by a syllable, but that does not prevent it from being a great poem.  Take that to its logical extension, and you have the issue of a great symphony making a poor concerto (or fugue or opera or whatever).  Musical forms are artificial constructs and breaking them down is no more or less important to effective music than adhering to them.  A progressive rock piece is not de facto "better" or of "higher quality music" because it keeps sonata form, opposed to a rock piece that uses the 12-bar blues, or a free jazz piece that has no form at all, or even a key. Sorry, no red herrings here.  Sometimes what appears to make sense in one context does not when taken to it's logical extreme.  If an argument is not supportable at its extreme, then it is of little value at any other time.

More evidence of trolling.

You mislead deliberately from the start by stating something that is true, but in no way connected with the statement in question.

Then you make a false claim - namely that form is inessential - the form of a Haiku is dictated by the number of syllables. This leads nicely back to your original herring - whatever colour you'd prefer it to be - another statement of truth that has no bearing on the original precept.

You then stretch that to another fallacy by claiming it's a logical extension, when the logic is fundamentally flawed. Is it true that a great symphony would necessarily make a poor concerto? I think not.

You go on to state that musical forms are artificial constructs. This is a sweeping generalism, and only true if applied to established Western forms, which is the bulk of the music we are considering here. In the writing of Western style music, Western style forms are essential, unless one goes entirely "free-form".

The main reason most people don't write loads of free-form stuff is that it invariably sounds meandering and deadly boring in all but the most able hands - and even then most of them adopt loose traditional forms in order to keep everything together. It is not easy to think of a piece of music that is widely recognised as great that has no form. It just doesn't happen.

If a piece of music has a beginning and an end, it has a form. Form is essential.

If one writes a Concerto and ignores all previous rules for Concerto writing - such as missing out the solo instrument, then it is not necessarily a poor Concerto - in all likelihood it is not a Concerto at all, but a symphony.

Your next statement indicates that you are now floundering, and the holes are obvious, so I won't pick at those; "...breaking them down is no more or less important to effective music than adhering to them. "

Clear evidence to me that you've never studied composition.

There are many reasons why a person might hold Progressive Rock to be qualitatively better than other forms, and at the end of the day, it's down to opinion and the way you measure quality. However, there are certain traits that lift it above Twelve Bar Blues - for example, in form. The form of 12-bar blues is perfect for 12-bar blues - indeed, rarely are there variations on this. That same form could be used as a part of a Progressive Rock (or Blues) piece, and that section could still be 12-bar blues.

The point is that Progressive Rock assimilates forms and can de facto improve upon them by using the very methods you seem to think are useless.

A complete shoal of colourful herrings (mostly of the red variety) in your words, in fact - mostly uninformed balderdash.

...the sources of classical music are higher "art" than the sources of rock music -- and they aren't.  Beethoven's 9th symphony is no greater an example of art than a Ramones album.

My point stands, and my analogy was perfectly illustrative of my point.  It is generally difficult to know what a musician was trying to do, so it makes no sense to critique them on what an observer thinks might have been their goal.  Furthermore, my point was only to show how inessential attention to form is.  A poem could "not" be a Haiku because the final stanza is off by a syllable, but that does not prevent it from being a great poem.  Take that to its logical extension, and you have the issue of a great symphony making a poor concerto (or fugue or opera or whatever).  Musical forms are artificial constructs and breaking them down is no more or less important to effective music than adhering to them.  A progressive rock piece is not de facto "better" or of "higher quality music" because it keeps sonata form, opposed to a rock piece that uses the 12-bar blues, or a free jazz piece that has no form at all, or even a key.

Sorry, no red herrings here.  Sometimes what appears to make sense in one context does not when taken to it's logical extreme.  If an argument is not supportable at its extreme, then it is of little value at any other time.    

Proglover wrote: Manunkind wrote: Proglover wrote: We must therefore use the same criteria that we would judge all other works of art, when viewing and listening to progressive rock music. This is why I dont' feel that it is outlandish to view prog rock from a classical perspective. In this case you get what you ask for. I will analyze Gentle Giant the same way I would Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Brahms.......I will analyze YES the same way I would Liszt, Sibelius, or Schubert.... There's nothing wrong with analyzing Gentle Giant the same way as Chopin... the problems start only when you analyze Gentle Giant with  Chopin. OH good lord....my dear chap...I wouldn't even dare to analyze Chopin with Chopin!!

Good to hear that.

I hope now that you won't analyze Chopin with The Ramones. 

"Beethoven's 9th and a Ramones album are both examples of art, sure. Only that the former is better, because it is the fruit of more work, reflection, perception and feeling."

This is wrong on many levels.  First, you have no way of knowing whether the former is the product of more work, reflection, perception and feeling than the latter.  Second, even if you did somehow know this, it certainly doesn't make it better.  How is working on something longer and reflecting on it more a measure of its quality? Some great pieces were written on the fly, with little exertion, effort or reflection.  The works of many a mediocre composer are the products of painstaking years of effort and reflection and perception -- and to no avail. 

Lastly, whether or not something is the fruit of more "feeling" is impossible to measure, so it may as well be not even be considered.