Book Quotes

Google books might be evil

2009-06-02T12:46:00.002-05:00

~From What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis, pages 143:

Publishers treat Google as an enemy for scanning books and making them searchable (though you can't read them all cover-to-cover at Google.com). Instead, publishers should embrace Google and the internet, for now via search and links more readers can discover authors and what they say and develop relationships and perhaps buy their books. Authors can reach the huge audience that never goes into a bookstore. Publishers and authors can find new ways to bring books into the conversation. Books can live longer and spread their messages wider. I don't have the answers to books' challenges. But I know we must be willing to reinvent the form. The internet won't destory books. It will improve them. Take Coelho's advice to publishers and authors: "Don't be afraid."

For some reason, I'm not so comfortable with what Google is doing with books here. Some problems I see:

1) Am I allowed to go into a library or bookstore and just start scanning, copying, and saving books, even if just for my own personal use? Isn't that against copyright? Why should Google get to do it if we all don't get to do it?

2) If I write or publish a book, why should Google make any money off of it? Just because they have the audiences and the search tools? All right, that might not be a bad deal, but again, if Google gets to do it, do we all?

How innovation is made

2009-06-02T12:31:00.003-05:00

~From What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis, page 113:

In 2008, I joined a seminar on innovation at the World Economic Forum at Davos. It was a highly formatted hour, with the entire room sitting in a circle (making the moderator dizzy). They had us write down the technology we loved most. Then we compared notes with a neighbor and came up with some neat invention out of this mashup. We heard a few cute ideas and then, thank goodness, a scientist in the room put a stop to it. This, he said, is not how innovation is made. Scientists start with a problem and then try to find a solution.

I agree that that is not how innovation is made. But I don't think it necessarily starts with a problem either. I think it starts off with someone saying "Wouldn't it be cool if ..." That might solve a problem, but it might just be something someone thinks would be cool, neat, fun. Then it can solve problems people didn't even know they had as new ways to behave emerge.

That said, "innovation" alone doesn't automatically lead to success, but I suppose that's a different topic. Don't innovate merely for the sake of innovation. Innovate because you think "it'd be cool if..." something.

Mistakes aren't good

2009-06-02T11:03:00.003-05:00

~From What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis, page 91:

We are ashamed to make mistakes--as well we should be, yes? It's our job to get things right, right? So, when we make mistakes, our instinct is to shrink into a ball and wish them away. Correcting errors, though necessary, is embarrassing.

But the truth about truth is itself counterintuitive: Corrections do not diminish credibility. Corrections enhance credibility. Standing up and admitting your errors makes you more believable; it gives your audience faith that you will right your future wrongs. When companies apologize for bad performance--as JetBlue did after keeping passengers on tarmacs for hours--that tells us that they know their performance wasn't up to their standard, and we have a better idea of the standard we should expect.

Yeah... um... no. I think it's important for individuals to admit mistakes to themselves and get past any personal pride. It can also sound ridiculous when you hear someone who you know was wrong make excuses ("well, what I really meant was blah blah blah" ... "well, I don't know, it wasn't like that for me, blah blah blah" *cough* you know who you are *cough*). But the point isn't to admit mistakes, it's to not make them. If (or when) you make them, it's best to hide them, if you can. If it's already very obvious you made a mistake, the damage to your reputation is already done. Trying to make excuses or not admitting the mistake when it's obvious only damages your reputation further.

However, sometimes whether or not something was a mistake is a subjective thing. Was it a mistake to go to war with Iraq? Some say yes, and then they say that it should be admitted by everybody. Well, no! Some people honestly don't believe that. And when people are arguing over whether or not something was a mistake, admitting it was is a stupid thing to do. If you admit a mistake, your opponents won't say "Well, at least you're honest!" ... no, they say "Aha! Even you admit it, you mistake-making loser!" ... and if you don't admit it, all they can do is continue to disagree with you.

So . . . whether or not it's wise to admit a mistake I believe depends on the circumstances. Do others all agree that you made a mistake? Is there anyone you can effectively blame? Are there any excuses that might work? Do not just let "admitting the mistake" be the first thing you do. The situation and the possible consequences must be considered.

In the more personal realm, unless you know everything, you are definitely wrong about a lot of things. Admitting your incomplete knowledge to yourself is always a good thing. After all, it's usually not admitting your incomplete knowledge to yourself that gets you in to making mistakes in the first place.

Consciousness makes no sense

2009-04-29T18:22:00.002-05:00

~From Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga, pages 320-321:

I was recently asked by a Time magazine reporter, "If we could build a robot or an android that duplicated the processes behind human consciousness, would it actually be conscious?"

...

Underlying this question is the assumption that consciousness reflects some kind of process that brings all of our zillions of thoughts into a special energy and reality called personal or phenomenal consciousness. That is not how it works. Consciousness is an emergent property and not a process in and of itself. When one tastes salt, for example, the consciousness of taste an emergent property of the sensory system, not the combination of elements that make up table salt. Our cognitive capacities, memories, dreams, and so on reflect distributed processes throughout the brain, and each of those entities produces its own emergent states of consciousness.

In closing, remember this one fact. A split-brain patient, a human who has had the two halves of his brain disconnected from each other, does not find one side of the brain missing the other.

Some people theorize that any sort of feedback loop at all is conscious. I'm really not sure about that, but this twist on how we think about consciousness is still hard to wrap the mind around. Splitting the brain does not split consciousness, and I think that's confusing in and of itself. What if we split the brain even more? Well, that'd probably kill people... but there is not one part of the brain that is the "conscious" part. Consciousness arises from a bunch of other systems. And, if you really get down to it, isn't consciousness just atoms moving around? It really makes no sense.

Apples and oranges

2009-04-29T18:00:00.003-05:00

~From Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga, pages 250-251:

Harvard researchers Alfonso Caramazza and Jennifer Shelton claim that there are domain-specific knowledge systems for animate and inanimate categories that have distinct neural mechanisms. Indeed, there are patients with brain damage who are very poor at recognizing animals but not man-made artifacts, and vice versa. If you have a lesion in one spot, you can't tell a tiger from an Airedale, and if it is in another spot, the telephone becomes mysterious object. There are even people with brain lesions that make them specifically unable to recognize fruit.

For such people, the expression "apples and oranges" means nothing!

Interesting stuff... and weird...

People don't think

2009-04-29T17:15:00.002-05:00

~From Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga, pages 141-142:

Even when we are trying to think rationally, we may not be. Research has shown that people will use the first argument that satisfies their opinion and then stop thinking. David Perkins, a Harvard psychologist, calls this the "makes sense" rule. However, what people consider makes sense varies widely. It is the difference between anecdotal evidence (an isolated story that presumes a cause and effect) and factual evidence (a proven cause and effect). For instance, a woman may believe birth control pills will make her sterile, because her aunt took birth control pills in the past, and now she can't get pregnant. Anecdotal evidence, one story, was all she needed to support her opinion, and it made sense. ... Predominantly, people use anecdotal evidence.

I think it was in Taleb's book called The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable that Taleb mentions confirmation bias. When people have an argument, they tend to only consider evidence that supports their belief. Instead, people should always be trying to prove themselves wrong. If you do that, you have admit all the times you're wrong (at least to yourself), but you'll become right more often! Or at least you won't be believing wrong things.

I think Taleb also mentioned that this sort of thought is needed to play chess. When you think about your next move, you have to consider all the moves your component could do that could ruin your plans. If you just moved without thinking about how your opponent could ruin you, you'd be ruined pretty quickly, unless your opponent was just as dumb as you.

Men are naturally better

2009-04-29T16:22:00.004-05:00

~From Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga, page 69:

Wrangham [professor of biological anthropology at Harvard] reports that observational studies have found chimps to be patriarchal. Males are dominant, inherent territory, raid and kill their neighbors, and gain the spoils (not only increased foraging, but neighboring females), but they also are killed if they lose their territory. Females, however, gain a different advantage. They can remain in their territory and continue to forage by simply changing allegiance to the conquering band. They remain alive to reproduce again, whereas the male is killed. OK, so chimps are patrilineal, but what about humans?

Wrangham reviews the ethnographic records, studies of modern-day primitive peoples, and archeological finds to show that humans are, and always have been, a patrilineal society, regardless of what some feminist organizations assert. ... It has been argued that this patriarchy is a cultural invention, but a new field of study, branded evolutionary feminism, views patriarchy as a part of human biology.

So there.

Though this makes sense, as I don't recall knowing about any matriarchal societies, besides made-up ones. I often hear that Jesus called God "the Father" because the society he lived in was patriarchal. Maybe it would be more accurate to say the humans species was, and still is.

But perhaps humans are better at psychologically reversing this natural emergent property by simply being conscious of it and making a mental effort to do so. But I imagine that would be pretty hard unless the society was comprised entirely of females. The farthest we could get is to create a completely equal society that was neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. I imagine that would still be pretty difficult though.

Focus!

2009-02-24T00:15:00.003-05:00

~From Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely, page 140:

And in the case of our kids, we give up their time and ours--and the chance that they could become really good at one activity--in trying to give them some experience in a large range of activities. In running back and forth among the things that might be important, we forget to spend enough time on what really is important. It's a fool's game, and one we are remarkably adept at playing.

Yes, it's a good point! I agree! I even think this is one of the problems with education: it tries to teach too much. I once met someone on our school board who was just this blindly stupid. He seemed to think that the more classes one can stuff in a school, the more "well-rounded" a student is, the better off he'll be. Well... NO! Okay, "well-rounded" is good, but I think forcing students to take too many classes in too many subjects just makes them "poorly-rounded" and that doesn't help. It helps to have focus. FOCUS! Don't just try to take in everything. You can't. Focus on something.

Forcing kids to learn

2009-02-23T23:54:00.004-05:00

~From Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely, pages 85-86:

So how can we improve the educational system? We should probably first rethink school curricula, and link them in more obvious ways to social goals (elimination of poverty and crime, elevation of human rights, etc.), technological goals (boosting energy conservation, space exploration, nanotechnology, etc.), and medical goals (cures for cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc.) that we care about as a society. This way the students, teachers, and parents might see the larger point in education and become more enthusiastic and motivated about it. We should also work hard on making education a goal in itself, and stop confusing the number of hours students spend in school with the quality of the education they get. Kids can get excited about many things (baseball, for example), and it is our challenge as a society to make them want to know as much about Nobel laureates as they now know about baseball players. I am not suggesting that igniting social passion for education is simple; but if we succeed in doing so, the value could be immense.

While I'm not sure "making education a goal in itself" makes much sense, I do overall agree with this statement. I think this sort of goes with the quote I posted right below this one, about how when we're forced to do things they don't seem quite as nice. So much of school seems like "forcing kids to learn" and as a result they don't like it. I think a lot of parents and teachers don't even question it; they had to go to school, so it must be a good thing. But I believe there are quite a few ways that can make a child be more interested in his or her own education, such as giving them more control over what they're learning, getting rid of so much strict testing, and getting rid of the strict-grading system which obscures the real reasons behind learning. It's like when a child asks his parents "why do I have to do such-and-such?" and the parent says "because I said so!" That is a DUMB nonsense reason, and any parent who says that is a BAD parent, for that moment at least. Have a REAL reason and be honest; let's not be stupid!

On a side note, I think the "moodiness" of teenagers is caused almost entirely by being forced to do things all the time that don't matter them: go to school, do your homework, do your chores, go to bed. If parents and teachers lived in the same restrictive environment teenagers do and were forced to go to school, do homework, etc., they'd be just as moody! It has nothing to do with hormones and changing brains and all that crap. But I think teenagers grow up, become adults, and forget the real reasons they were miserable, continuing the cycle. :-(

Enjoying work?

2009-02-23T23:38:00.002-05:00

~From Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely, pages 42-43:

Of course, Mark Twain came to the same conclusions: "If Tom had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do." Mark Twain further observed: "There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line in the summer because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work, and then they would resign."

This is more of a quote within a quote, because my post here is really in response to what Mark Twain said. I don't think what he said implies that a price can be stuck on anything at all and people will then be willing to pay for it; humans are not absolute complete idiots. However, how we view what we do is affected by why we think we're doing it. I've observed this first-hand with some of my hobbies, especially computer programming. I enjoy the act of programming when I feel that I'm in control, when I feel that I'm programming something for my own self-interest. But when I know I'm doing it for homework, as an assignment, it instantly becomes dreadful work that I hate doing. It makes no sense, I'm doing the same dang thing, why oh why do I suddenly begin hating it? I've observed it, but it seems there's really nothing I can do to change what I feel. Even though I know it's all psychology, I just can't trick myself into enjoying it if I feel like I don't have a choice. I wish there was a way I could but I haven't discovered it. And this goes for even something like cleaning my room. If I decided to clean my room, the task didn't make me very angry, but if my parents then commanded me to clean my room, it turned into a chore, and I began hating it in the middle of doing it. That really makes no sense if you think about it, but that's how my psychology works, and I can't think of any way to change it. :-(

Society is not Newtonian physics

2008-03-01T09:51:00.004-05:00

~From Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Anotherby Philip Ball, page 30:

There are few political thinkers who have defined a social model with the logical precision of Hobbes, and none who have carried those precepts through to their conclusions in a truly scientific, rather than suppositional way. This is not by any means to denigrate such models; rather, it is simply to say that their approach is different. Political theorists tend to concern themselves with what they think ought to be; scientists concentrate on the way things are. The same is true of the new physics of society: it seeks to find descriptions of observed social phenomena and to understand how they might arise from simple assumptions.

Whoa, don't give Hobbes's lame attempt too much credit... trying to be scientific is not the same as being scientific. If Hobbes started off with such silly and scientifically baseless axioms as "people remain in motion," then he's really being no more "scientific" than anyone else. Isn't he still concerning himself with what ought to be the axioms?

Hobbes the fool

2008-02-28T10:51:00.003-05:00

~From Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Anotherby Philip Ball, page 17:

On meeting the great man [Galileo], Hobbes became convinced that [intertia] must be the axiom he was seeking [to form a fundemental hypothesis about human behavior]. Constant motion was the natural state of all things, including people. All human sensations and emotions, he concluded, were the result of motion. From this basic principle Hobbes would work upward to a theory of society.

I didn't know Hobbes was that foolish... to take the physical property of inertia and just decide it must apply to human thought?! Where in the world does that axiom come from?! I can understand how the human mind is like a computer, a very simple notion nowadays, and the notion that it "remains in motion" might have some merit, but it's Hobbes's logic that I find surprising... he learns something about physics and just decides to apply it humans in way that its meaning changes so much its basis in physics is almost meaningless. Give me a break, Hobbes, you fool!

Fairy Tales

2008-02-26T20:13:00.003-05:00

~From The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Storiesby Christopher Booker, page 11:

Over the past 100 years innumerable attempts have been made to interpret myths, folk tales and other stories in this way, from Ernest Jones's essay analysing Hamlet as another example of the Oedipal triangle to Dr Bruno Bettelheim's The Use of Enchantment analysing the reasons for the appeal and value of the old fairy tales to the children of today.

Kind of in an unrelated point, I don't think "children of today" have any particular craving for one type of story or another; what types of stories they hear are largely decided by adults. A best-selling children's picture book does not imply that children love that book the most, it's sales are determined by parents who decide to buy the book! Similarly, Shakespeare's continued popularity is, I believe, in large part due its continued teaching in school. Hamlet sales would plummet if high school students suddenly no longer had to write essays on it. It would be wrong to conclude that there's something special about Shakespeare's work just because of book sales and the fact that every high schooler has heard of him.

In other words, popularity is an emergent property that does not necessarily correlate with the presence of specific recognizable attributes. (It might, it might not.)

Music of the future

2007-05-15T14:05:00.001-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 377:

The music of the future! What an intoxicating notion--and what a marvellous excuse for obscurity! No wonder it proved so popular. Yet its practical effects were surprisingly limited. To sloganize and pamphlateer was one thing; to put notes on paper, quite another. Composers soon discovered that being 'in advance of one's time' is more easily said than done. The real innovations were rather the outcome of stylistic cross-fertilization, mainly between east and west, than of any striving after novelty.

People are only 'ahead of their time' in retrospect.

Real artists

2007-05-15T13:53:00.001-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 345:

The selfsame contradictions persisted into the twentieth century. Schoenberg was merely echoing Wackenroder when he wrote: 'I believe that a real composer writes music for no other reason than that it pleases him. Those who compose because they want to please others, and have audiences in mind, are not real artists.'

Uh... thanks, Mr. Schoenberg...

Plausible but worthless

2007-05-15T13:42:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 300:

In view of these associations, it was probably inevitable that these patterns should attract the censure of Authority: 'It will be quickly realized that sucha common formula... however plausible it may sound, has little musical worth; it belongs to the realm of "salon" at best, or the lowest type of popular dance music, or sentimental "sacred solo".'

Yuck. I cringe when I hear quotes like that. How can something sound plausible but have little musical worth? In my opinion, musical worth is based on, gee, I don't know... how plausible it sounds! Maybe I'm just reading it wrong... it kind of reminds me of that Mark Twain quote: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Please note, I think Mr. Twain was trying to be funny. If he wasn't, he's an idiot. And unfortunately his quote is only funny once.

The genetic fallacy

2007-05-15T01:28:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 230:

Next to snobbery and ethnic prejudice, the greatest barrier to recognizing these patterns is what philosophers call the 'genetic fallacy', the feeling that everything somehow carries the taint of its origins. Compositions that draw on trivial sources must themselves be trivial; Oriental patterns must go on sound Oriental--or so we tend to think. The greater the composer, the more triumphantly will such notions be refuted.

Not that I've met anyone who actually disagreed with this, but I think it's an important thing to keep in mind, and worthy of being quoted for at least my own remembrance.

Evolution by nature

2007-05-15T01:15:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 142:

Even today, our notions of causation are profoundly influenced by the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Newtonian physics gave such satisfying results that later thinkers gound it natural to apply its principles to biology. They assumed that nature--including human culture--must proceed by similar chains of cause and effect. One had only to trace the chain backwards to arrive at the ultimate cause: natural selection in Darwin, the economic motive in Marx, the sexual instinct in Freud. People argued about which was the correct 'driving force', but seldom stopped to wonder whether the whole system might be based on false analogy.

It now appears that no driving force is needed... Evolution is a process whereby parts combine into wholes, and this happens automatically.

Exactly. Also note that in some systems, like John Conway's "Game of Life", you can't work backwards, as deterministic as the future is.

I think this point is also touched upon in Taleb's The Black Swan which I hope to read this summer. Some composers look at Mozart's and Beethoven's influence and ascribe them entirely towards something like their innovations in certain pieces of music, when in reality their influence is most likely part of a much larger more incomprehensible system.

And, while an artist may strive toward innovation in his work, it is not only not a promise a success, it is also not needed to bring about changes in the art world as a whole. The artist's desire to innovate for its own sake is not a driving force. The art world will change and innovations will emerge without needing to be forced.

Clichés

2007-05-15T01:04:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, pages 139-140:

... clichés are an inescapable part of the evolutionary process. Before a musical pattern can be elaborated, it must first become familiar; and this, in practice, means mechanical repetition, ready-made emotion, and cheap effects generally. If the word had existed in the fifteenth century, critics would no doubt have complained about the irritating new cliché of preceding the tonic chord with the dominant.

People should love clichés because it's cliché to hate clichés.

But, seriously, many composers vehemently reject musical clichés whilst trying to create new ones. I personally do not think they are inherently bad... in fact, they're quite vital! Without them, no film music at all would work. It's kind of a shame a 'cliché' is most often used as a negative word nowadays. I think clichés can come and go without any forced opposition. ("Forced opposition" being the choice to reject a cliché for mere sake of its being cliché instead of for some more natural reason, like honest cliché-caused displeasure.)

Defensive snobbery

2007-05-15T00:58:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 132:

... popular music was especially highly developed among [the Germans]. Nowhere in Europe did it come closer to what we should now call 'art' music. This closeness, while encouraging beneficial cultural exchanges, also drove 'serious' composers (as they were beginning to think of themselves) into a defensive snobbery. It is easy to adopt an attitude of benign condescension to a popular musician when he is a peasant bagpiper or blind hurdy-gurdy man; not quite so easy when he is a prosperous bandleader in the house next door.

What can one say but... Salieri?

The sad minor mode?

2007-05-15T00:41:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 127:

The truth is not that early composers were unaware of the mournfulness of the minor mode, but rather, as in the case of the more extreme discords and dissonances, that they had yet to exploit it. In fact, from the strictly scientific point of view, minor intervals were a form of discord and dissonance. The emotions expressed, depending on the context, might be gloom, melancholy, tension, resolution in adversity, wistfulness, and a host of others. But they were all in a some sense negative, and nothing could entirely erase the negativity. A jig in the minor mode may well express merriment, but never quite the same unclouded merriment as the same jig in the major.

This seems to be a large point of discussion in the music world... is how we hear the minor mode conditioned? Could the major and minor mode be reversed in regards to the feelings commonly associated with them? I think only to a certain degree. I think all human brains will naturally here the minor third and major third intervals as fundamentally different, but to say that one is 'happy' and one is 'sad' depends far too much on the context of the actually music than the interval itself. So, in a sense, it is conditioned by what music one has heard previously, but it is more strongly conditioned by the context of the piece.

I've heard people say that Javert's suicide song does not sound sad because he is singing in the major mode, and that the ending of "O Fortuna" is too happy because it ends in the major mode instead of the minor. But whether or not a piece is in the major or minor mode has more to do with what degree it's perceived at. No piece (that sounds good, at least) will be composed entirely in the minor mode; there will always be some major mixed in, and vice versa. What makes a piece be in a minor key is the degree to which those minor intervals are percieved.

So, in the end, I think to just associate major and minor to happy and sad in general is to, well, over generalize. It's never really been that way.

Ugly thirds?

2007-05-15T00:31:00.001-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 111:

The level of discord does indeed rise in medieval music, largely because of increasing polyphonic complexity (though it is a myth that twelfth- or thirteenth-century composers were afraid of thirds and sixths), reaching a peak in the Ars Nova of the fourteenth century.

I'm not quite sure what the author means by 'afraid of thirds and sixths', but I, unlike some, do not believe anyone from those centuries heard such intervals as dissonant, though this depends on how you define 'dissonant'. What I mean is, it is my belief that no one heard such intervals as unpleasant. Did they hear it as strange? I don't know, maybe. But some people seem to like to think that back then people heard such intervals as disgusting then as we might hear some random cluster nowadays, and that, in the future, if put to good use, that cluster will sound as good as a third someday. I reject this notion, and think it absurd.

What the public wants

2007-05-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 85:

Historians owe a great debt to Joan Ambrosio Dalza... We should be thankful that his intention was not to be clever or original, but merely to turn an honest penny by giving the public what it wanted.

Oh, how many 'serious' composers loathe the idea! Heck, I might loathe the idea too, but I am in the fortunate state of sharing at least a portion of the modern public's tastes, so I believe my work suffers considerably less...

Still, it seems interesting that many 'serious' composers would rather shun the public's tastes in this day and age when it's rather doubtful any of it will be forgotten by history by its merely being shunned by anyone. Then again, maybe that's why it's shunned.

All music is pentatonic

2007-05-15T00:16:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 50:

In a way, the word 'pentatonic' is unfortunate. It is incidental that there happen to be five notes in the scale. The real basis of pentatonic melody is consonance, and, ultimately, that 'sound in nature', the major triad. This primordial pattern is so powerful that it provides a frame of reference for all the more elaborate types of melody and harmony, whether heptatonic, chromatic, or, for that matter, atonal. In the end, all music is pentatonic.

I just thought that was an interesting perspective! It certainly seems true when you think about it... but it's not something that pops out. Quite interesting!

Harmony and melody

2007-05-15T00:02:00.000-05:00

~From Roots of the Classicalby Peter Van der Merwe, page 21:

Chords are melody, behaving in a special way... Harmony is an 'emergent' property of melody, in the same way as life is an emergent property of matter, or mind of life. And, just as one can have life without mind and matter without life, so one can have melody without harmony--but not harmony without melody. There can be no explanation of harmony that does not take into account its melodic component.

This seems to be an important point. Harmony and melody are often thought of as perpendiculars; the melody is the horizontal and the harmony is the vertical, which is, in a sense, still true when it comes to looking at notes on a page. But chord progressions, harmonic shifts, and such, which are usually implied by the use of the word 'harmony', are definitely based on melody. They're not opposing forces. Any good chord progression is melodic by nature, though probably much simpler.