I'm trying to find the gist of your comments. Yes, civilization developed first in the east, and that would include music. But I believe the operative word is "develop." Western music is a development, as polyphony is a development. I don't think Indian music should provide anything like a standard for music.
So, what exactly is your point? Are you saying all music will return to monophony? Based on what? Based on Bob Moog's alleged disliking for polyphonic synthesizers? Your getting a bit grandiose in your ideas, aren't you?
A REAL Moog
Well it was really an immature low to go to, but I forgive you.panamabirthcanal wrote:Wow. I have never tried to be mean here, just want an honest discussion. Sorry for that comment but it was supposed to be joking, and apparently we have gone past an amicable discussion to name calling.
Let's get back to bickering like adults.
I don't play or listen to Indian Classical music. I don't play or try to compose western classical music. I use polyphonic and monophonic instruments.panamabirthcanal wrote: Indian Classical music is where Western music came from as all European peoples came from Indo-European cultures, like our languages all stem from Proto-Indo-European, and Most Indian people are caucasoid like Europeans.
....
.... A Moog is a revolutionary product in the history of music as a whole, and polysynth are a tangential byproduct. Sorry to all those who own polysynths, but please at least consider my view.
I'm sorry your view is so narrow you can't understands some elses desire for an instrument. I have no desire to ever touch and or use a sitar a sarangi or sarod. But I would never tell someone they were trying to cover some perceived inadequacy because they wanted one.
I've considered your view and filed it where it belongs in this thread.
Good day.
"Music expresses that which can not be said and on which it is impossible to be silent."
-
panamabirthcanal
A poly synth one note at a time is a mono synth. I know you know what you are talking about. But I feel that no one really understand what i am saying, because not very many people are versed in indian Classical music, which is not to say I am smarter or a better musician than anyone else, but it does bring some perspective. The vast majority of musicians i know use Western theory, which includes defined sonorities. If you study an musical form such as Hindusthani Classical music , which has the same importance as Western theory (maybe not in the US or Europe, but definitely world-wide)that does not have defined sonorities you get an idea of what harmony and polyphony really are. They are simply a background for a melody. Any music out there Western or non-Western is not based on harmony, but melody. The Western classical piece mentioned above was based on a melody (which includes rhythm) with harmonic backing (which is mostly devoid of rhythm). Sure there are pieces with no melody or rhythm, but they are few and far between and not very interesting.
-
panamabirthcanal
[quote="The Analog Organist"]. I don't think Indian music should provide anything like a standard for music. "
That's because you do not know the importance of it. They have know about playing notes at the same time since music began, obviously (not to you) but as with all forms of music, learned that more expression comes from melody and rhythm, and harmony can be pretty limiting. Most of my friends who are Western classically trained take the same argument, that We are a more advanced society in India, therefore our music is more advanced, and Indian Classical is just folk music. Completely misguided. Their music has stood the test of time for centuries, and our society has not even come close to the time that even their music has been around. There is much Wisdom in India and the East the Westerners will not accept because of their need to "advance".
That's because you do not know the importance of it. They have know about playing notes at the same time since music began, obviously (not to you) but as with all forms of music, learned that more expression comes from melody and rhythm, and harmony can be pretty limiting. Most of my friends who are Western classically trained take the same argument, that We are a more advanced society in India, therefore our music is more advanced, and Indian Classical is just folk music. Completely misguided. Their music has stood the test of time for centuries, and our society has not even come close to the time that even their music has been around. There is much Wisdom in India and the East the Westerners will not accept because of their need to "advance".
-
panamabirthcanal
I'm sorry your view is so narrow you can't understands some elses desire for an instrument. I have no desire to ever touch and or use a sitar a sarangi or sarod. But I would never tell someone they were trying to cover some perceived inadequacy because they wanted one.
I've considered your view and filed it where it belongs in this thread.
Good day.[/quote]
Why do you guys have to take my comments out of context? The last few posts have done just that, just for trying to put my view out there. I can understand anyone's desire for anything. What i am trying to say is that specifically with an Analog Synthesizer, and no other instrument other than an Analog Synthesizer, playing chord tones limits your SONIC capabilities in simply in favor of adhereing to ONE musical form, albeit the most popular in our modern society, and that goes against the purpose of analog synths, which is to provide interesting and pleasing and creative sounds. Now if other companies like DSI want to have a different outlook than Dr. Moog, that's fine, and i'm not saying he was a god or anything, but as far as Analog Synthesizers, and only Analog Synthesizers, he knew what was up.
I've considered your view and filed it where it belongs in this thread.
Good day.[/quote]
Why do you guys have to take my comments out of context? The last few posts have done just that, just for trying to put my view out there. I can understand anyone's desire for anything. What i am trying to say is that specifically with an Analog Synthesizer, and no other instrument other than an Analog Synthesizer, playing chord tones limits your SONIC capabilities in simply in favor of adhereing to ONE musical form, albeit the most popular in our modern society, and that goes against the purpose of analog synths, which is to provide interesting and pleasing and creative sounds. Now if other companies like DSI want to have a different outlook than Dr. Moog, that's fine, and i'm not saying he was a god or anything, but as far as Analog Synthesizers, and only Analog Synthesizers, he knew what was up.
I know when I hear multiple notes played simultaneously on an Oberheim, Jupiter 8 or Juno-60 it sounds beautiful. I'll trust my ears.panamabirthcanal wrote:What i am trying to say is that specifically with an Analog Synthesizer, and no other instrument other than an Analog Synthesizer, playing chord tones limits your SONIC capabilities
-
panamabirthcanal
-
The Analog Organist
I would agree that music developed from monophonic beginnings. But you've way over-stated the importance of Indian music in western music. Western music developed directly from the ancient Church modes. That's the historical fact. From these developed our tonal system, and eventually the temperament of our tuning system.
Interestingly, the music of the classical era was based on melody plus accompaniment. This is much like modern music, including rock, jazz, etc. But Baroque music is the style that most contradicts your theories. It involved a number of equal voices, and, in a sense, was neither monophonic nor polyphonic. Rather, it was contrapuntal.
Please explain what you mean by the polyphony/capitalism connection. Monks who have taken vows of poverty make polyphonic music as part of the liturgical worship of God. Are they capitalists?
Interestingly, the music of the classical era was based on melody plus accompaniment. This is much like modern music, including rock, jazz, etc. But Baroque music is the style that most contradicts your theories. It involved a number of equal voices, and, in a sense, was neither monophonic nor polyphonic. Rather, it was contrapuntal.
Please explain what you mean by the polyphony/capitalism connection. Monks who have taken vows of poverty make polyphonic music as part of the liturgical worship of God. Are they capitalists?
Last edited by The Analog Organist on Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Kevin Lightner
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:20 pm
- Location: Wrightwood
I think he was being sarcastic in that last statement, that or he's completely batsh*t.The Analog Organist wrote:Please explain what you mean by the polyphony/capitalism connection. Monks who have taken vows of poverty make polyphonic music as part of the liturgical worship of God. Are they capitalists?
Last edited by Subtronik on Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
The Analog Organist