Definitions...

I almost gave up on microtonality (or at least the Tuning List) many years ago, before a lot of you were here, because of the ridiculous debates over the simplest and least-consequential things...I think the straw that finally sent me into a several-year dormant period was a debate about what constitutes a "scale."

Michael, you should not worry about terminology scaring people off. Terminology can be explained to those who don't get it; people have been explaining things to me for a long time and I quite enjoy it. I have learned an immense amount of music and mathematical theory from people here and on the tuning list, and I am eminently grateful whenever someone informs me that I'm missing a technical distinction in terminology. If somebody points out that your usage of a word isn't proper, take it as educational rather than critical, and move on.

What *does* scare people off are long-winded rambling posts about vague philosophical points about the community in general, or nit-picking debates about simple and rather inconsequential things. A simple "oh, I didn't realize there was a difference, sorry" will do a lot more to keep the stream of discussion focused on useful and interesting topics than will any other response. Think about that next time, okay?

-Igs

Igs>"What *does* scare people off are long-winded rambling posts about vague
philosophical points about the community in general, or nit-picking
debates about simple and rather inconsequential things. A simple "oh, I
didn't realize there was a difference, sorry" will do a lot more to
keep the stream of discussion focused on useful and interesting topics
than will any other response. Think about that next time, okay?"

-----------
Igs, please get some perspective...I'm NOT the one who started this, Carl is...
Here are exact quotes from Carl's reply...

ME (to Mike B)>"Ok Mike, you've posted one too many excellent Debussy songs!"
Carl>"Please stop calling every piece of music a song! *$*#$("
------------

The reason this post flamed up, as usual, is people blindly assumed I had some sinister reason for simply saying "it's really not that big a deal I said song instead of say 'instrumental'".

Why do I argue? Because I REFUSE TO BE BLAMED FOR TAKING STANCES I NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And if you want me to apologize for someone saying $*#$( to me by saying "oh I'm sorry"...forget it...I respect myself!

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> The reason this post flamed up, as usual, is people blindly assumed I had some sinister reason for simply saying "it's really not that big a deal I said song instead of say 'instrumental'".

The reason this post flamed up is that after Carl said "stop calling
compositions songs," you went off on this huge rant about how it's
okay to call them songs because everyone knew what you meant.

-Mike

MikeB>"The reason this post flamed up is that after Carl said "stop calling compositions songs," you went off on this huge rant about how it's okay to call them songs because everyone knew what you meant."

   Look.   I did say it's OK.  In fact, I still think it's OK.  It's an honest simple mistake, like someone calling laminate wood by mistake when looking at a new house...not like if someone calls a three chord song on a single guitar an orchestral movement. :-P

    However the argument really kicked up when people assumed I meant it was somehow worse to use more formal terminology (for the record, you can't easily call everything Debussy made a Sonata/Prelude/Quartet...because his work spans across many of those!) than the quartet.

  My point of frustration was not simply people's correction of my use of song (which I ADMITTED I learned to understand IE songs must have vocals), but their attitude of saying "you're a )(*&()ing idiot for using the word song!" as if my compliment to you for posting the Debussy song had absolutely no basis of intelligent thought and then NOT offering an acceptable alternative term for his songs (other people argued piece of music vs. quartet vs. a whole load of other terms with no clear conclusion!).

  If people on this scene jump the gun on calling people idiots over honest mistakes when they honestly try to make progress repeatedly, of course, after a while, they are going to throw up their hands and say "give me a break!" and likely be repelled from the art you represent, no matter how technically right you may be.

   So what should we call all of the Debussy songs you posted anyhow?  And...when I thanked you honestly for posting the songs, couldn't you at least have the courtesy to say something like "Just a correction: songs have vocal so those aren't songs...but you're welcome for my posting those (Debussy) pieces of music".

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

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    So what should we call all of the Debussy songs you posted anyhow?  And...when I thanked you honestly for posting the songs, couldn't you at least have the courtesy to say something like "Just a correction: songs have vocal so those aren't songs...but you're welcome for my posting those (Debussy) pieces of music".

I would just call them "pieces," or "compositions," or something like
that. I posted a lot of Debussy pieces.

-Mike

Me> "So what should we call all of the Debussy songs you posted
anyhow?  And...when I thanked you honestly for posting the songs,
couldn't you at least have the courtesy to say something like "Just a
correction: songs have vocal so those aren't songs...but you're welcome
for my posting those (Debussy) pieces of music".

MikeB>"I would just call them "pieces," or "compositions," or something like

that. I posted a lot of Debussy pieces."

    Thank you (finally, for an answer), "pieces" it will be....unless...

    Does anyone have a burning issue with my using the word "pieces" to describe any type of music (without getting half the group running after me with knives and burning me at the stake)? :-D   No need to drop another A-Plomb ("What the A?!")... :-D

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

Finally??? I think I was the first to answer your post. I said using the word 'song' is confusing, as Debussy actually wrote a lot of songs (that singers sing) but the pieces you were talking about were not those.
Then I recommended calling pieces pieces. Peace.
jn

>
>     Thank you (finally, for an answer), "pieces" it will be....unless...
>
>     Does anyone have a burning issue with my using the word "pieces" to describe any type of music (without getting half the group running after me with knives and burning me at the stake)? :-D   No need to drop another A-Plomb ("What the A?!")... :-D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ok, looking back, Carl said....

> Carl>"Please stop calling every piece of music a song! *$*#$("
......while you said

Juhani>"Of course you can call Debussy the 'producer' of 'tracks' such as La
Mer if you think that speaks to a potential audience, but the word
'piece' would not be genre-specific in any way, nor misleading."

    Now I get that what you two perhaps meant...was not simply "stop calling every piece of music a song" or "the word piece is not genre specific" but rather "stop calling every piece of music a song, call it a piece of music (which is not genre-specific) instead". 

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