>Er . . . yeah. Do you know what the words “credentials” means?
“Credentials” is only one word, and yes I do. Your point?
> Huh. How about one of those wooden fish-shaped things that you rub
> with a stick to get a “clicky-clicky” sound? You find it in Latino
> bands a lot. That an instrument?
>
> How about a dried-out gourd filled with beans? That an instrument?
>
> Explain how the use of them as emphatic or texture-producing
> percussive devices differs significantly from the use of a turntable
> as an emphatic or texture-producing percussive devices. Please show
> all your work.
Texture-producing? What the hell does that mean? I assume you mean “frictional” or possibly “textured”. That being said, I gotta ask you to show that the distorted mess that comes from a turntable when scratched is more tonal than fingernails on a chalkboard. Remember, part of the definition as given is ‘pleasing to the ear’…
> Really? What about, say, “Revolution #9”? Or, as a better example,
> “Tomorrow Never Knows”? How about the work of Edgar Varese? Or Spike
> Jones? He used a typewriter as an instrument. Plumbing equipment,
> too.
You really missed the point of the argument I put forth on this line: I didn’t say that non-traditional objects cannot be instruments, I said that my playing a tape of someone else’s music doesn’t make ME a musician.
> How easy do you think it is to program a drum machine, and why
> exactly does it matter how the percussion on your song is provided?
> What if you performed live with only an acoustic guitar and an
> amplified metronome?
What the hell? Who said anything about ease of use? Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it’s musical. Also, I can’t accept the replaying of electronically-produced thumps as percussion; no actual ‘striking’ is taking place. Saying a metronome is percussive is a stretch, but by Gadfrey, there is a ‘body striking another body to produce a sound’.
> I bet that “Bring the Noise” has more melodic range than, say, any
> given Iggy Pop song. I’m also curious as to why you seem to be
> positing that the human voice is incapable of producing tones.
Behold this creature that walks as a man, yet fails to communicate as one. I never argued that the human voice couldn’t produce tones, I said that the normal, speaking, non-singing human voice (the type of voice employed by rappers) is not tonal.
> Or it can stay on the same tone for several measures. And there can
> be little doubt that rap music is rhythmic in nature.
Now, see, you’re changing the rules; you said I could pick the definition of music, and now you’re trying to change my definition.
I’m getting real tired of this; skip skip skip…
> Hmmm, let’s see, rap consists of a human voice varying in pitch in a
> rhythmic nature over time against various percussive devices?
One, ordinary speech is not musical. Two, what percussive device? The tape deck?
You know what’s really interesting about this entire discussion? I’ve never said that I didn’t like rap. Why does rap have to be music? Is it somehow less enjoyable to you if you can’t say that it’s music? Is it less of an art? Less socially relevant?
Example: one of my favorite bands is They Might Be Giants. They have quite a few ‘songs’ that are little more than collections of sampled sounds, often seemingly random. I wouldn’t call that music either. But I enjoy it.
But, screw it, I’m done. You’d claim a political speech is musical.