Do you hear noise or a story?

Let's say you're listening to one of your favorite pieces of music. Do you appreciate the composition in a mathematical pleasure, as though it were a series of noises one after the other, or does the piece please you because it has some sort of significance as if it were telling a story?

Deep meaning or pleasing noise? A little bit of both perhaps?

What really do you classify music as, saying that you are a music professional? Is it more than just noise to you, or maybe are you into the theories of "supernature" like Wagner?

Is melody overrated?

Or is it the most important thing?

Delve into your opinion, and tell why a certain composer plays an important role in music for you based off of your ethics.

This is an excellent question, but one I find exceedingly difficult to answer. I can't help feeling that any attempt to quantify or render as text the sublime and transcendant experience of listening to the music I love will just end up being . . . . well. I feel I'll probably end up making it up to compensate for a lack of understanding. I shall try anyway.

As far as I can tell, I hear music as a logical pleasure, delighting in the way notes slot into place in an orderedly and intelligent manner whilst simutaneously conveying a thought, emotion, place or time. I do however consider the construction of the music itself of far greater significance to its purported meaning. To my mind, this is why a piece claimed insignificant by the composer can seem deeply emotional, but why a piece called 'Symphony of the Dead' (or something similarly melodramatic) might fail to render any thoughts at all.

Mainly then it's the sound, construction and logic of music I appreciate. This then, perhaps, explains I find some baroque music (a genre which contains some of, arguably, the most logically complex compositions devised) so sublime. It also may go some way to explaining why my unconscious loses interest in most music post-1750. Sigh.

I don't think of a story unless there is one. Inventing a story over (say) a Mozart Piano Concerto is stupid. That said I do not think mathematically at all and every piece requires a memorable melody of sorts.

What really do you classify music as, saying that you are a music professional? Is it more than just noise to you, or maybe are you into the theories of "supernature" like Wagner?

Tonality is natural.

Oh yeah, that's why all Bees buzz in D sharp minor.

Define "natural" before saying that sort of nonsense.

As far as how I listen to music? I don't know if that's the question exactly, but let's see... You know when you hear two people speaking in a language you don't understand? After a while, you're not really going to think "Oh hey that's language I don't understand" since all that'll remain is just the noise they're producing.

In a way, I think that's how I do it. I can listen to a Mozart piano concerto with the same abstract attitude that I would listen to something by Messiaen. Sound it sound, no matter what sort of meaning you attach to it. It doesn't matter to me if something is atonal or tonal, it doesn't matter to me if something has chords or clusters, it doesn't matter to me if something has a "Melody", or other such parameters.

It only matters that A: I like the noise I'm hearing, B: I'm getting something from what I'm hearing. Be it inspiration, ideas, feeling, whatever.

So, I can as well stop and listen to traffic just as I would stop and listen to Bach. It's no different to me, it's just noise, organized differently by different parameters. That someone "composed" something is to me irrelevant in practice, since the end result is on the same level as any other sound, "composed" or not.

The composition layer of meaning does bring more insight maybe into intention, etc, but I really like my sound naked of any attached meaning if I can have it that way. I want to judge for myself what it's going on, and how it affects me just as purely sound. After that, sure, I can listen to what was "intended", or what other people make of it, but I try to make my first listening experience as void of "default" meaning as possible.

So if I go to a concert I don't read program notes, I don't like it when people try to "explain" a piece. I want to hear it first, and then anyone can say what they want. Sometimes the explanation has made me like things more, or less, and because of that I want to have it without the attached nonsense, or else I feel I'm not giving the actual music-sound a fair chance.

When it comes to vocal works, pop music with lyrics, etc etc, I'm also the same way. I'm used to listening to a lot of music where I don't understand the lyrics, so I can shut off trying to hear coherent words rather than the pure sound that produces them. Again, later I can listen again and pay attention to the lyrics, etc etc. But one thing at the time.

I think this is one of the reasons why there's really nothing I'm technically "against for" when it comes to music. If I don't like something, I don't tend to view that as a flaw in the thing I'm seeing, because it's just my opinion. In a way, the piece was successful in causing my dislike, which is an achievement too. Likewise, when I like something, I don't consider that to be something favorable or any of that sort, it won't make the piece superior to others.

I tend to find things boring rather than not liking them outright. One of the reasons I find a lot of classical music rather boring, and a lot of pop music uneventful is adherence to a lot of made-up rules and such that influence how something sounds. After a while, I'm hearing the same noise over and over again and it's just really tedious to me.

So, the entire tonal/atonal thing to me is rather irrelevant. Atonality can be really boring if you're still hearing the same noise over and over, though it's a different noise.

An interesting aside is minimalism. I'm the type of guy who listens to Reich's pieces one after the other (come out, piano phase, variations, etc etc) and I'm particularly fond of the 20 minute tape pieces. Sure, if my argument was that system made something boring through repetition, this would be an extreme of it. But because it's such an extreme, I find the result much more interesting.

On an intellectual level, I find the whole repetition thing fascinating, so I'm bias to it because of my interest. But, even then, when I listen to it without thinking about it, I still really enjoy it. Sort of like how I really dig the sound actuators make on things like excavators, I would listen to that all day (and actually have.)

So, yeah. I'm not kidding about that piece for dog whistle and garbage truck. You heard the sound those trucks make? Awesome stuff.

PS: Oh wow, I realized I didn't really answer the question at all with all this text-walling. Oh.. uh.. So, I don't know. I like the stuff I like, and every time there are different reasons for it. I think that's the case for a lot of people really. I try to look up the reasons why I like something, sure, but I can't sum it up without an impossibly long catalog of each example I can think of. Sometimes it's intellectual, sometimes it isn't, ETC. Depends.

I just thought about something pretty in accord with what I said before. The whole thing about context and attached meaning is very, very, prevalent in almost everyone's judgment. Why is it that someone operating an excavator is not considered a musician and the excavator is not considered a musical instrument? It produces its own sound, surely, and a person controls it to produce sounds. Sure, it may have a practical purpose too, but that can be viewed as the process by which sound is achieved, like a score. The job of digging something can be as valid as a score (see process music), as through that parameter a certain conception of sounds is created.

The reason why this isn't considered "proper music" is pretty much because of a majority that doesn't really think it's proper music, because a majority before them didn't, and so on. I want to kill that dying tradition, at least where I have a say or when it comes to the matter of me~

I see all music as pictures. At times they can be the same picture but the colours change or it could just be a motion picture. Along with the pictures I usually have charachters that express the mood of the piece, of course when it is a complex feeling in which the composition is creating somehow my mind works on it and lets several different people feel different things.

Of course there is not general structure in what I see, one could primitively say that I create a movie with different camera angels and plot. One thing that I do find a bit odd is that some pieces do not create the same mental picture every time - those are of course exceptions since I usually have the exact same visualization to the exact same piece. Well that is just me, wierd?

My favorite pieces of music are operas, so of course I see them as stories (because they are in fact stories). As for non-opera, I really do listen to them mathematically - I'm much less interested in the emotion they portray than the combination of sounds they produce. Daniel out!

I'd say it's a little bit of both. I don't really "see a story" per se, unless the piece is explicitly programmatic and I have program notes right in front of me, but knowing the historical and personal context of a piece can help in a way (Kinda like DSCH's 5th symphony). I'm also big on Romantic music, so I love melodically centered music, but I wouldn't be listening to complex art music if I didn't appreciate the intricacies of it.

SSC's reply is pretty nice. It eventually comes down to sound. It may sound silly, if you try to draw an analog to the literary arts, and say that you view each poem as a set of lines rather than a set of letters that form words that make sense, but on the other hand, if you try to actually comprehend all of Joyce's "Ulysses", then you'd probably have a really hard time doing so and maybe do something that was not intended by the writer. Maybe Joyce didn't want us to read his Ulysses like anything else, maybe he just wanted us to read it so that all we're left after each phrase is a reminiscence of that phrase/sentence/paragraph/page/chapter/volume, something that mingles all together in a blurry image.

But yeah, if I ask you if you like the word "leaflet", you can say whether you like the sound of it, its graphic representation (as a written word), or in semantic terms (meaning), all of which are equally valid. But the criteria that are common in comparing the word "leaflet" with the word "melalyenir" are the aural (the sound of it) and the visual (the writing of it), not the semantic one, since you don't know the meaning of the word "melalyenir", or if there's even a meaning of that word.

In other words, I agree with SSC more or less :P

Oh yeah, that's why all Bees buzz in D sharp minor.

Define "natural" before saying that sort of nonsense.

Part of nature. The harmonic overtones which create tonality are found in every note.

Of course you DO realize that notes are entirely arbitrary created, right? Acoustics vary greatly too from one instrument to another, and so do how overtones sound depending on what creates a sound.

That's pretty "natural", as with different conditions vibrations behave differently and produce different results.

Now, as far as saying overtones create tonality, I really don't see the connection there. If you play a pitch outside of a scale altogether, it'll create overtones too. But that pitch in relation to the other pitches in a scale is going to sound dissonant to all hell, so it's much more about creating a system of organization for pitches and limitings things so that the system is effective at organizing what it's meant to organize.

If you're defining "nature" like I think you are, you can say the atomic bomb is also part of nature, and so are computers and the internet. After all, they adhere to physic laws and are made out of components found in nature.

If the point is saying that "tonality" is found in nature, WITHOUT human aid, then it's a lost battle. Again, birds sing in F major. "Nature" as far as can be observed, doesn't really care much how sounds are organized or produced. Sounds in nature are entirely resultant of an objective procedure or set of circumstances. Like a waterfall isn't necessarily thinking "Oh, now I will produce sound!", the animals that produce sound on their own (birds, etc) could be doing it only for the sound, OR as it is more likely the case, a functional purpose that is attached to that sound (mate calls, warnings to the pack, etc.)

In such cases, there's no need for an organization system of any sort, and indeed, there isn't. As far as the overtones are concerned, they don't say anything else other than intervals from a given sound, which can be entirely outside the range of any scale (microtonal, etc), and thus I don't see how that's any argument for saying tonality is natural, or stems from any natural procedure.

Tonality is a man-made system, furthered by popularity and tradition, and it's entirely arbitrary in all its parameters. That the overtones served as inspiration to work out the system is one thing, saying that the system is natural is an entirely different thing.

To illustrate my example. If tonality was such that you could pluck it out of nature like, say, an apple, you'd hear a cat or a pig make noises and then quickly attempt to imitate them and end up with a Mozart-style sonata. Or at the very least, a Gregorian chant. ETC.

You can't take ANYTHING from nature literally and squarely and end up with something "tonal". You have to start mudding it up with tons of man-made rules and parameters, or it'll be just salad of noise, just like it really is "in nature".

Thing is though, the argument misses the crucial point from the get-go, saying that nature is something found in a forest somewhere in Brazil. However, if you look around you, the traffic noise, washing machines, the computer buzzing and fans spinning, etc etc, are all analogous to what nature sounds like. These are things producing sound based on procedures, and as you hear them there is no real organization that binds them all except the concept of a listener.

Tonality, atonality, etc etc, work in principle with the concept of creating (in a vacuum) an aural experience which is controlled and defined by people entirely. However, it's never quite the case. In a live concert there are millions of other sounds that interfere with that objective, most of which are not consciously produced as the piece of music on stage.

If anything, Cage's 4′33″ is a lot closer to "nature" as it were than anything tonal, or atonal, or any of these things barring music concrete and process music (which arguably is where 4′33″ falls.) By switching the focus from an isolated attempt at manipulating sound in any system to focus on everything that happens within the audible spectrum, the piece can be compared to listening to sitting down in a forest and listening to the birds chirp and the other tons of noises that happen naturally. Or like I do, listen to traffic, excavators, etc etc in the city.

Hope that clears things up some.

Now, as far as saying overtones create tonality, I really don't see the connection there.

Go read a book on it - it's not a solution you'll think up by idle bickering in a thread.

Hot dog! Imagine an actual discussion, in a DISCUSSION FORUM! Oh god, such a concept just blows my mind.

If it bothers you, skip our posts.

I can't be bothered discussing it if you are that ignorant of logic. Good day. I've only found two people here who bother thinking.... and I can't remember their names.

I've always hated telling people the basics of music. And this is as basic as you can get in this stream. I could never teach people what a crotchet means, it bores me too much. I like having conversations with slightly advanced people, or more advanced... now they are stimulating.

I can't be bothered discussing it if you are that ignorant of logic. Good day. I've only found two people here who bother thinking.... and I can't remember their names.

I've always hated telling people the basics of music. And this is as basic as you can get in this stream. I could never teach people what a crotchet means, it bores me too much. I like having conversations with slightly advanced people, or more advanced... now they are stimulating.

Nice backpedaling. Could be better, but hey at least you tried.

PS: Oh who am I kidding, that's terrible backpedaling. You could've as well gone with the "I left something in the oven, can't talk to you now!" excuse. Or claimed your internet broke. Really poor, and worse, resorting to personal attacks! Come on, that's your so-called logic? If it is, then thankfully I'm ignorant of it, as you put it.

Haha I really like what you guys have to say. So you're almost basically saying that music is made not to be understood or perhaps music should be heard and not understood. Of course not in a logical way, but understood in an emotional or connecting way. By most people who are fans of music, they have no training. They're not geniuses.

Repetition and memorization are only half of the puzzle... It's not "true" music for me unless it expresses an illogical feeling connected to possibly a logical one (a subtle experience) or even a new feeling. Being logical about it is a key to experimentation (so you know what you don't know), but enevitably you want to compose your piece with the factors of not only pattern, but surprize. Not only logic, but emotion. Not only the theory of music, but the test of music. More importantly, the intuition of the capability and the proof of its capabilty.

You can make whatever sounds you want and say its music, but that doesn't mean you really know what you're making. This can go both ways logic vs emotion or emotion vs logic. You can have one portion down but completely be missing the other portion. You can also hear whatever sound but it doesn't mean you know what it is! Usually a piece of music that has only one thing going for it, I like to cast aside and use it for just listening pleasure and minor inspiration every now and then. But to hear something with both elements, that is a masterpiece and it's a tie of two factors making it way more complex than anything else.

Think of 1x1, thats 1. But 2x2, thats 4. So mathematically speaking for some of you to rightly understand, a masterpiece is worth 4x as much as half of a masterpiece. Haha. I like how this suddenly works :P

Explanation: 1 factor (emotion) is only tied up with itself so its just an emotional assortment without any structure. That would be 1x1. But once you give it logic, the logic must tie with the emotion, and the logic must also tie with itself. There are 2 factors that must tie with eachother, so that would be 2x2. Anyways, most people don't care about silly mathematical explanations, but I was bored. So there ya go :P

I can say that its easy for me to get caught up in all the logic of music, but to actually clear my mind and hear a piece once more as if its the first time I've heard it, yes that is really what the piece is. It's a premiere, or even a gateway.

When it catches you by surprize (the possitive kind), that is when it's the most amazing.

So overall I'm saying that.... it's hard listen when you already know what you're going to hear.

Though I've been known to be harsh with my reasoning. Please do correct me.

Yes I love the sound of the garbage truck, especially when waking the men and women of the orange sky dawn.

Haha I really like what you guys have to say. So you're almost basically saying that music is made not to be understood or perhaps music should be heard and not understood. Of course not in a logical way, but understood in an emotional or connecting way. By most people who are fans of music, they have no training. They're not geniuses.

I only said that sound is just sound. If you want to dress up sound as stuff, that's all fine and dandy. I don't have anything against anyone's method of listening or thinking about music/sound. But I do have something to say when it comes to the fact that, beyond all opinions, sound has no "real" or "proper" interpretation.

All the talk about emotion is fine, but talking about logic is something else. Logic would dictate that, given an opinion, the perception of something can change. Therefore, if your opinion is that birds singing is beautiful, then that's what you'll hear by auto-suggestion. The suggestion of aesthetics can come from tons of places, as well as the connection between certain sounds and representation of given emotions.

That's pretty normal. A sad story is considered sad because it contains things commonly accepted as being "sad." But in reality, the story itself, even if it claims to be sad, is incapable of transmitting that emotion. It can only suggest it, through either symbols that represent it or through suggestion of its meaning, abstract from what symbols it may or may not use.

The same goes for music. Music is by itself incapable of transmitting anything other than what it is, sound. When the sound reaches the listener, the listener reacts to it, and depending on different factors, different emotions can arise, as can none at all.

Excuse me if I'm being Captain Obvious, or something, but I don't want to give the impression I have something against "understanding" music. What I'm saying is, that "understanding" can mean anything you want it to mean (In this context.) Understanding usually applies to something concrete, however.

You can understand how a machine works. You can understand weather systems. But when it comes to art, is there anything to be understood really? If music can be as arbitrary as the sounds occurring naturally during a given portion of time (Cage), you can understand the concept, but the music itself has nothing to be understood.

When people talk about understanding music, I interpret it as trying to understand a tone organization system, such as tonality, atonality, serialism, etc etc. Or a certain set of parameters and rules. It's just like a machine, in this sense.

Then, it can be said that the pleasure one gets from understanding the functioning of something, such as an internal combustion engine or chemical reactions, can be transported to listening to music as well.

A painter is probably happy that he understands the complex brush-strokes and techniques required to paint old works, and therefore he can do it himself as well. Just like an engineer feels nice that he knows how a machine he's seeing works, it gives him mastery over it.

Feeling mastery over something is pleasurable, as far as I can tell. However, sometimes it's easy to let that guide everything. That's why I say, that above all, it's about the sound itself. Beyond any meaning, any psychological pleasure or consequence, etc.

It's the case for many composers that they're amazed at the systems they learned, and are amazed that they're able to produce things in likeness to those they like. That the mastery is theirs to do as they please with it. It's fine to be happy to be able to dominate something and do what one wants with it, but is it really OK to let that be the guide of artistic process?

There's so much more than that to music, and sound, and art itself. There's much more than any meaning given by anyone. Underneath all what people dress sound to be, there's an infinite amount of possibilities for expression. That's what I'm getting at. To get to those possibilities, it's important to know where systems have their place, what they're used for, and when they become unnecessary.

If someone's sensibility can adapt, they will be able to extract many things, from what otherwise would be perceived as "shapeless noise" or meaningless sound. Therefore, this opens the door for others to use these forms as methods of expression as the sensibility will have developed to allow them to be effective.

For example, a person like Cage who wrote pieces like those he wrote, did so because he had the sensibility to find things in them. Things such as feeling, meanings of all sorts, etc. Because he wrote them with this sensibility (as he had it himself), he opened the door for more people to attempt to work with this material without the concern that it "won't work", as there's at least someone it worked with.

Less than a matter of preference, I'd say the emphasis is in telling people they can REALLY do whatever they like, and it's OK. It's not about playing favorites with musicians or composers, or saying tonality is better or worse than this or that. I feel that many people may say that today it's possible to do anything one likes, but I know that a lot of people are scared of really trying to do what they want. It's understandable, how can you not be scared if you have huge monoliths there such as public opinion, traditional canon, ETC and you may or may not be going against them. "What will other think" is also a huge barrier.

It's important to know when to care about what other think, and when not to.

So when it comes to "understanding music", all of this is what comes to mind. It's not understanding a piece, but how it ALL works. Despite the hard time I give musicologists, I must say that it's one of the hardest tasks ever. One that I'm really glad to take part of, and I encourage everyone who's got an interest in music to at least give it a thought. There's a lot to gain, and nothing to lose really.

PS: You edited your post while I was typing all this nonsense. So, yes I agree it can be hard to listen to something if you already have a good idea of how it will sound. But with some training you can do away with that, too.

Well you can "understand" how amazing something is without understanding how it works. Because you know why it works. The proof is there infront of you.

You ask, "Why is this piece of music perfect?" as if you did not know the answer. I reply, "Listen to it. That is why."

Though in this example, "perfect" is just a formality. You can substitute any adjective.

So I agree with you completely, although we have gotten off topic. Asking "how" is a different question and a natural explanation to those who already know and who can already replicate music they have heard. It is a gift.

Your reasoning on sensiblity is why I love realistic people so much who don't have as much as a clue about musical "rules". They are capable of giving more reason in music than I can because of their vast knowledge on everything else therefore being relative to music. It is their gift to see the "big picture." (I'm not saying musical genius and realist have a relation, although by proof a musical genius can be a realist. By my leading example, the realist is obviously not a musical genius, just to be clear.)

Well you can "understand" how amazing something is without understanding how it works. Because you know why it works. The proof is there infront of you.

Depends. A doctor can just sit down and marvel at the human circulatory system. But a person without his knowledge won't be able to do the same thing.

In the case with music, if I understand how something was made, it can really kill my interest for it since I can then produce something just like it. It automates the composition process, if you let it.

ETC. I don't feel like typing THAT much today!

Depends. A doctor can just sit down and marvel at the human circulatory system. But a person without his knowledge won't be able to do the same thing.

In the case with music, if I understand how something was made, it can really kill my interest for it since I can then produce something just like it. It automates the composition process, if you let it.

ETC. I don't feel like typing THAT much today!

I can agree on one thing. There are millions of right ways, only one wrong way, right? :P (That's a joke for the satirically challenged.)

But were not looking for "all" the right ways. Most people just want to argue based on the material they feel is comfortable as well as on their behalf of what is comfortable (by this given material.)

Simply put, it's called an opinion. And they can get more limitting than you can imagine, even if the person giving the opinion did not intend it to be limitting. I'm afraid we don't have all the answers, even if society thinks one of us is a genius. It's only relative.

I can agree on one thing. There are millions of right ways, only one wrong way, right? :P

I'd say there are no wrong ways. It really depends on what you want to get out of music in the first place. Most of the junk I say has to do with widening the realm of artistic expression, which I think is always helpful. I have nothing against people, for example, who listen to Wagner their entire lives thinking it's the best thing ever and so on. Or some guy who writes string quartets ala Haydn all his life. That's all fine.

But you never know who may be reading/Listening, and I've met some really brilliant people precisely because I was engaging in such conversations and I was overheard, or they read what I said. People who knew nothing about music, but became interested and ended up being composers themselves.

So, I'm really trying to dispel a lot of the mystery/etc around music. In my opinion, someone who knows zit about music but has his ideas clear can be a fantastic composer if he does a little research on what he likes/etc. Or even without the research. It's not necessary to know anything about music history to make music, or any given system. It's not necessary to even be able to read music notation!

Anyways, that's enough of that.

I'd say there are no wrong ways. It really depends on what you want to get out of music in the first place.

Sorry, that was a joke. But you still prove a valid point.

Depends. A doctor can just sit down and marvel at the human circulatory system. But a person without his knowledge won't be able to do the same thing.

Yes this depends, but doesn't everything depend once it becomes a question? Again though, valid point. You are filling in the holes of the cracks in which my theories are "too grand" schemingly to ambit, and that is much helpful.

Nice backpedaling. Could be better, but hey at least you tried.

PS: Oh who am I kidding, that's terrible backpedaling. You could've as well gone with the "I left something in the oven, can't talk to you now!" excuse. Or claimed your internet broke. Really poor, and worse, resorting to personal attacks! Come on, that's your so-called logic? If it is, then thankfully I'm ignorant of it, as you put it.

Hahahahaha. That really is pathetic. There is so much literature on the subject. Try reading. You clearly don't know the basics of the science of music. And I don't wish to tell you, if you want to dream up some crappy story to fit your unhappy life then do so. But it is pathetic.

I would like to know the basics. Oh, me me me me me! If I only knew the basics of science of music.... of culture of history of art of love of war of ... wow this really goes on doesn't it? I would be capable of so much if I only knew the basics! Dang, you really caught me off guard!

You are the one who seems pathetic right about now. If I wanted to argue, I wouldn't chose to continue arguing with somebody who didn't know the "basics" of whatever the argument intentions cover by your "quite solid" definition.

I guess the saying is true... when you point the finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Hahahahaha. That really is pathetic. There is so much literature on the subject. Try reading. You clearly don't know the basics of the science of music. And I don't wish to tell you, if you want to dream up some crappy story to fit your unhappy life then do so. But it is pathetic.

... wow, you really don't take it gracefully, eh? Insult me all you want, if that makes you happy. Apparently, it's the only thing you can do at this point.

As pathetic as "this is", at least I don't spew garbage I'm not ready to defend. If you're so fantastically informed of all this, why not show it? Back the scraggy you say, and maybe you'll be more than a comic relief in what is otherwise an interesting discussion.

If you aren't going to defend the stuff you claim, then please, don't bother talking. Though I do admit that while it's great comedy, it makes you look like a dude whose mouth writes checks his donkey can't cash and THAT, sir, is pathetic.

PS; hey RK, stop editing your posts so often, I have to reload all the time just in case I missed something. Also, after reading this Yagan Kiely person's blog, I can see why the whole argument. Pretty lame, he could've just said "I'm attempting to explain it in my blog" and none of this would've happened. Not that, now having seen it, I wouldn't be able to shoot it full of holes too! But hey that's something entirely different. I'm not going to do something like that if he doesn't request it.

In fact, I sorta already did this when I posted all my replies to the tonal vs natural thing. That's probably why all the "LOL LITERATURE!" mentions and the angry reactions. But y'know, just because some clown wrote a book on something, doesn't mean that book is worth anything. Specially when it comes to these things.

Sorry I'm the one editing my posts now all the time, LOL.

hey RK, stop editing your posts so often, I have to reload all the time just in case I missed something. Also, after reading this Yagan Kiely person's blog, I can see why the whole argument. Pretty lame, he could've just said "I'm attempting to explain it in my blog" and none of this would've happened.

Sorry I'm the one editing my posts now all the time, LOL.

Haha sorry. I can't help adding to this ongoing list of bull. But it's fun now knowing that Yagan inspired you to mull over all of this.