Tunes/songs

Blues/jazz folks are often a very informal bunch...not to mention ironic, irreverant, sarcastic, humorous, self deprecating, and very blunt. I'm not too worried about the "correct" terminology for referring to music...and If I knew using a certain term might be offensive to a "snot," I might go out of my way to be sure to use it, just for a hoot...why not...best...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wish it was true. I've seen many easily offended informal musicuans in my day.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:06:18
To: <makemicromusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MMM] Tunes/songs

Blues/jazz folks are often a very informal bunch...not to mention ironic, irreverant, sarcastic, humorous, self deprecating, and very blunt. I'm not too worried about the "correct" terminology for referring to music...and If I knew using a certain term might be offensive to a "snot," I might go out of my way to be sure to use it, just for a hoot...why not...best...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Spending all my life in both worlds I've met a lot of intolerance, sectarian cathegorization and snobbery in classical circles as well among pop/rock/jazz/electronica fans.

But there's hardly any reason not to use proper terminology (or to use established terminology for something different). To everything its own. I have no problem with it.

You can call a bread "blubirgnagg" but don't expect somebody will understand you. Language should be clear and understable.

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2011, at 8:06 AM, Neil Haverstick wrote:

>
> Blues/jazz folks are often a very informal bunch...not to > mention ironic, irreverant, sarcastic, humorous, self deprecating, > and very blunt. I'm not too worried about the "correct" terminology > for referring to music...and If I knew using a certain term might > be offensive to a "snot," I might go out of my way to be sure to > use it, just for a hoot...why not...best...Hstick

>"You can call a bread "blubirgnagg" but don't expect somebody will  understand you. Language should be clear and understable."

Right, but if you call an instrumental a "song", most people will still understand you, even if it's "technically incorrect".  That's my point, the term "song" used to define anything by Debussy, for example, is close enough!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Right, but if you call an instrumental a "song", most people will still understand you, even if it's "technically incorrect".  That's my point, the term "song" used to define anything by Debussy, for example, is close enough!

That is just fucking moronic. If your aim in life is to aim at the lowest common denominator, go for it. No one that I have any respect for is actually *proud* to applaud less education, less knowledge, less desire to understand the world around them.

You completely danced around the issue (and I *only* used DJ Micheal because your login name is shown as "djtrancedance" - don't blame me) - you gave all kinds of specifics as to what components *your* music had as opposed to "dance" music. You want specifics where you are concerned but couldn't care less about simple and common communication - which is all anyone is saying here - when it comes to identifying other types of music.

What a waste of time this is. I should know better. In fact, I do. I'll see you guys later...

Me>"Right, but if you call an instrumental a "song", most people will
still understand you, even if it's "technically incorrect".  That's my
point, the term "song" used to define anything by Debussy, for example,
is close enough!"

JonS>"That is just fucking moronic. If your aim in life is to aim at the lowest common denominator,
go for it. No one that I have any respect for is actually *proud* to
applaud less education, less knowledge, less desire to understand the
world around them."

   Showing your true colors about this issue.  You see this is my point.  I'm stubborn, but any other musician would likely curse right back at you and leave the list.  Talk about driving away your audience for not-so-earth-shaking mistakes.

    You're being like a math teacher who gave zero credit on a problem because the person rounded the answer by hundreds instead of one thousandth accuracy even though they used all the right formulas and got the right answer.  Yes it's better the latter way, but turning around and saying the person did not make an intelligent effort....

   All this simply because I tried to give Mike B a simple compliment about a Debussy link and called his works "songs"...  Now both you and Carl have cursed at me for it...  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

--- On Sat, 2/26/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

From: jonszanto <jszanto@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Tunes/songs
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2011, 6:50 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Right, but if you call an instrumental a "song", most people will still understand you, even if it's "technically incorrect".  That's my point, the term "song" used to define anything by Debussy, for example, is close enough!

That is just fucking moronic. If your aim in life is to aim at the lowest common denominator, go for it. No one that I have any respect for is actually *proud* to applaud less education, less knowledge, less desire to understand the world around them.

You completely danced around the issue (and I *only* used DJ Micheal because your login name is shown as "djtrancedance" - don't blame me) - you gave all kinds of specifics as to what components *your* music had as opposed to "dance" music. You want specifics where you are concerned but couldn't care less about simple and common communication - which is all anyone is saying here - when it comes to identifying other types of music.

What a waste of time this is. I should know better. In fact, I do. I'll see you guys later...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"You can call a bread "blubirgnagg" but don't expect somebody will  understand you. Language should be clear and understable."
>
> Right, but if you call an instrumental a "song", most people will still understand you, even if it's "technically incorrect".  That's my point, the term "song" used to define anything by Debussy, for example, is close enough!

If you speak of a song by Debussy to someone into classical music, they will assume you mean a song by Debussy, and that's just a fact.

Gene>"If you speak of a song by Debussy to someone into classical music, they
will assume you mean a song by Debussy, and that's just a fact."

   Meaning, a piece of music with vocals written by Debussy...correct?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But if I mention all of Debussy's music together and can't use the terms songs because not all the pieces have vocals...what should I call them?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

...that's the question that needs answering no one hear seems to able to tell me...they are too busy talking about how/why I got the wrong answer and how wrong it is to take a millisecond to write down a couple of words to describe what the RIGHT definition for these works of music by Debussy are...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> Gene>"If you speak of a song by Debussy to someone into classical music, they
> will assume you mean a song by Debussy, and that's just a fact."
>
>    Meaning, a piece of music with vocals written by Debussy...correct?

No. Pelleas et Mélisande is certainly a piece of music with vocals, but it's not a song.