JBM,
I am not trying to tear into you! I thought this was a discussion. Is this supposed to be just agreement?
I have no problem with science. I was originally going to become a scientist and was "diverted" so you are quite off base there. Also - thanks for reducing my arguments to a repetition of cliche.
What I was saying on melody analysis was obviously the successful analysis. Yes, I have seen over and over the little theoretical discussions of the arc of a melody, etc. They all mean nothing. They are outer descriptions. Just like the exterior, non-causal descriptions of consciousness. No composer who ever wrote a good melody did it by following the rules like cookbook. You can create a piece of shit melody with the exact same characteristics. That was the point I was making.
If you want to get all irritated with a simple discussion - then fine, forget it. Everything you say is right, all the time. You're right. Absolutely.
I am not trying to tear into you! I thought this was a discussion. Is this supposed to be just agreement?
I have no problem with science. I was originally going to become a scientist and was "diverted" so you are quite off base there. Also - thanks for reducing my arguments to a repetition of cliche.
What I was saying on melody analysis was obviously the successful analysis. Yes, I have seen over and over the little theoretical discussions of the arc of a melody, etc. They all mean nothing. They are outer descriptions. Just like the exterior, non-causal descriptions of consciousness. No composer who ever wrote a good melody did it by following the rules like cookbook. You can create a piece of shit melody with the exact same characteristics. That was the point I was making.
If you want to get all irritated with a simple discussion - then fine, forget it. Everything you say is right, all the time. You're right. Absolutely.