Gibberish or not, normally we disagree with what we don't comprehend. That's obvious.
Obvious to you, maybe, but not necessarily to anyone capable of rational thought and expression. I don't comprehend the mathematics behind Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but I don't disagree with it. On the other hand, I profoundly disagree with the views of the BNP, but I fully comprehend them only too well.
As for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, since you don't cropehend it, you simply accept it, as most of us do, due to the fact that science has already approved it as a fact of science and life. So, there is not much room to agree or disagree.
I'm not aware of "BNP's views" (it's a British thing), but you may probably comprehend them, to such a high degree, that yo go beyond the "BNP"'s initial perception and understanding. So, probably they have to comprehend you to agree with you.
So, the "rational thought and expression" is, in any case, such a relative thing.
As for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, since you don't comprehend it, you simply accept it, as most of us do, due to the fact that science has already approved it as a fact of science and life. So, there is not much room to agree or disagree.
There will be a small prize for the most imaginative suggestion for what this could possibly means in earth language.
Entries are now open.
Thank you for finally providing the key to understanding pala – I knew I'd heard it all somewhere before...
One thing, Mr. Klaatu: suppose this group should reject your proposals. What is the alternative?
I'm afraid there is no alternative. In such a case, the planet Earth would have to be... eliminated
Such power exists?
I assure you, such power exists.
Audio Editor, Gramophone
By the way, which is the actual contribution of Pop and Rock, let's say, to the factual development and advancement of music? In other words, in which way, music became somehow better, more important, in musical terms only?
Firstly, I am not a spokesman for Cambridge University’s music department and so am not in a position to explain their rationale for including a module on the Spirituality of Pop Music in their degree course. And second, as I don’t know what you mean by the phrase ‘somehow better, more important, in musical terms only’, so I don’t understand the question. And lastly, this is a distraction from answering the question I’ve put to you twice now, namely why is a score for a Beethoven symphony ‘literature’ whereas one for a Paul Simon album not?
The importance of the written score is obviously very important to you and it would be useful to understand your position on such a central issue.
I understand we have problem(s) of communication even in "earth" languages (some suggested certain other funny stuff, anyway).
So, Craig, in certain of my questions you have no "authority" to speak (you are not spokeperson of Cambridge, etc.), you don't understand some other and I'm distracted to reply to a particular one of yours.
So, to make a long story short and possibly to come to a short of closing this chapter of our communication, I simply and very sincerely wish to know what is the contribution and mostly the legacy of Pop, Rock (and any other form of music you wish to refer to) to the development and advancement of Music (I'm not interested in the social, political, economic or other ramifications, which are well projected and known; I'm talking about the music ones only).
Thanks in advance for your consideration,
I agree that I have no authority to speak (in the sense that I do not represent a musical or academic institution and that my views carry no more weight than anyone else's) and I never claimed to have – quite the reverse in fact. That being the case, why are you asking me to provide an analysis of the musical contribution of pop and rock?
And to be honest, I don’t really have a view on the matter – nor did I ever say I did. All I did was to point out that jazz and pop features on music degree courses in such an august institution as Cambridge University - whether that's a good thing or bad is not something I have any view on.
All I am trying to do isto understand is the logic behind your interesting statement that a Beethoven score is literature whilst a pop or rock score isn’t. As far as I can see, this is a fairly central argument underpinning your belief that classical music is superior to all other genres – so I would have thought you would welcome the opportunity to explain your statement.
... the contribution and mostly the legacy of ... music .... the development and advancement of Music ...
It is your seeming obsession with such aspects (including "levels", hint, hint) that blinds you to the fact that for most people music is about enjoyment.
I would have thought you would welcome the opportunity to explain your statement.
Craig, why ever would you expect Parla to make an exception for you?
One can but live in hope...
Come on Craig, if it's worth anything, it's worth writing down. OK some 'really important' Rock and Jazz 'composers' couidn't read or write, but when they had sobbered up and been on 'cold turkey' for a week, they could have asked a grown up to do it for them.
First things first. Vic has the priority and the honour (long standing... whatever you want to call it).
Eventually, Vic, it's all about enjoyment, after all. No bother for who comes first, if Beethoven and Madona stand together, as long as we can enjoy both of them, even for completely different reasons and criteria that might have nothing to do with music itself. In any case, in enjoyment, who cares for "reasons and criteria"?
Frankly speaking, I have no problem for any person, anywhere, to listen to whatever he/she likes, as long as he/she does only that. The problem starts when, while it's all about "enjoyment", we have to "streamline" everything and put all the composers, musicians we like (enjoy) in the same basket, making them looking the same, having the same value, treating them as equals or quasi-equals, etc. That's my problem and our difference.
If we agree, it's all about enjoyment and there is no interest from your side to go further to evaluate what we like, I will refrain from pursuing the matter as well. Which means, you are crazy about P.S.; fine. You may adore him, if you wish, but, please, don't bring him in a classical music forum, like he belongs to the Classics, as "equal", or "equivalent" or anything else you may consider as necessary.
As for your irony about the "exception" to replying to the point to any post of anybody in these forums, I overcome it as an awkward joke (the blame stays with you, anyway).
P.S.: Craig, for reasons of time constraints, I reserve my right to reply to you later on, in the day.
So as well as defining who can and can't reply to whom, you'd now like to lay down the limits of the subject-matter for discussion here?
Just a reminder that it's gramophone.co.uk, not parlaphone.co.uk.
Yes Andrew, Gramophone are just as capable of 'dumbing down' as anyone else. That's way your distribution has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years. What new branding exercise can we expect next to bring in the uninterrested masses.