I would just like to say...

Actually, no mother's heartbeat would go at the speed of some "tonal" music, so that's just a silly, feel-good, new-agey comment to make. It's balony.

That whole comparison is "balony". Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

And as for physics, well, that's also debatable. I don't think you'll get too many tonal composers admitting to using physics to define the course of their harmony.

Who cares what the believe when they are writing it. The overtones of ANY note, provide the dominant 7 chord which wants to resolve. The minor triad is "sad" because the minor third clashes with the major third in the overtones. Harmony is defined by the harmonics of every note. These harmonics are natural. V goes to I because of that. Everything is based on the harmonics. Get rid of tonality (and the whole of tonality is within one note), and you get rid of the form of nature. Whether composers new this or not, it doesn't matter they are using it.

But if it makes you feel better to believe these things, then go to it! Have fun.

I like knowing why things happen, and how. People who are ignorant of why and how just know what. What means nothing and is nothing. I don't like how people spiritulize music. Heck, even the (subtle) "emotions" in music is trained, and can be learned through studying. People who spiritulize music are merely lazy and couldn't be bothered actually thinking about why they like what they here. Everything is 2 dimensional to them, well... there is a third dimension in the real world.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

What?

Explain, please.

Originally Posted by gms5287

You have the "experimentalists" who think a concerto for cellphone and orchestra is a good idea...

I so considered this once...not even joking.

But I totally agree with what you say. I think it's a part of human nature to take sides on any issue. Cooperation, in my opinion, is not in our makeup. Stretching our boundaries beyond our comfort level and borrowing from all sources isn't either. But those 100 years were an exciting time for music in terms of development and should be embraced. I don't really like Brahms, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

That whole comparison is "balony". Since when did a nursery rhyme go at 280bpm? So because some pieces are fast, that PROVES there is absolutely no connection between fast music and slow music?

that's NOT what I said.

I said there is no connection between a mother's heart beat and music.

A heart beat doesn't vary the way musical rythme does.

While you're at it, why don't you just say that rythme is like the passing of the days?

Or like the revolution of the atoms?

Or the planets?

I'm sorry, I just don't ascribe to the pseudo-poetic justifications for music's existance, or those for the debate between tonality and non-tonality.

What?

Explain, please.
__________________

It was a rhetorical question as a response. Nursery rhymes are for children, and are rarely fast.
It was suggested that because tonal pieces are fast it proves that meter didn't come from a mothers heartbeat. I'm asking if he really thinks there is no connection between fast music and slow music. If there is a connection you can merely trace it from slow to fast. His argument was fallacious.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

I don't like how people spiritulize music. Heck, even the (subtle) "emotions" in music is trained, and can be learned through studying. People who spiritulize music are merely lazy and couldn't be bothered actually thinking about why they like what they here. Everything is 2 dimensional to them, well... there is a third dimension in the real world.

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact ), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

It was a rhetorical question as a response. Nursery rhymes are for children, and are rarely fast.
It was suggested that because tonal pieces are fast it proves that meter didn't come from a mothers heartbeat. I'm asking if he really thinks there is no connection between fast music and slow music. If there is a connection you can merely trace it from slow to fast. His argument was fallacious.

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by amadeus2726686

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact ), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

good point

Originally Posted by robinjessome

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

I think, in terms of natural comfort, we relate more to pieces that are around the same tempo as our mother's heartbeat. Don't quote me on that though.

A heart beat doesn't vary the way musical rythme does.

Who mentioned anything about rhyme? I was talking about meter... Although rhythm come (by extensions) from meter, was was not referring to it.

I'm sorry, I just don't ascribe to the pseudo-poetic justifications for music's existance, or those for the debate between tonality and non-tonality.

You regard physics as poetry? That certainly is very odd.

Try re-reading and think in more depth maybe. Non of these are "poetic" in nay shape or form.

While you're at it, why don't you just say that rythme is like the passing of the days?

Or like the revolution of the atoms?

Or the planets?

What on earth are you talking about?

There is a third dimension...but I'd think it was the spiritual dimension, not the physical or scientific one. I believe that things happen in our lives -- including the musical experience -- that can't necessarily be explained by science. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of science (PBS can attest to that fact ), but not everything is solvable through empirical research, IMO.

Please point out something that cannon be explained through the sciences?

What the hell does a mother's heartbeat have to do with music. The only parallel that I can see, is our natural penchant for 'pulse', period - tempo, speed and meter have nothing to do with it.

Think outside the (musical) box. tempo, speed and meter are also extensions of pulse.


Hell, how was speed in music originally measured?