well, David, I tried to answet aht question to the best of my
abilities/conceptions somewhere around this thread. but I'm used to being
ignored.
KS
2009/5/14 David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> Seriously, Judy, I really do think that this discussion from the start has
> had the same problem that continually bedevils discussions about 'theory'
> in
> literature: what is meant by theory in the first place? I try to find out
> and end up holding a cloud. It's not that I think theory is impossible in
> literature nor that I think it undesirable, I just don't seem to see any
> theories being proposed whenever theory in literature is discussed.
> best
>
> dave
>
> 2009/5/13 Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Which Shaksper wrote MNT?
> >
> > 2009/5/13 David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > It is clear to me that the general drift of comments in this thread
> > display
> > > an absence of a defined theory of the nature of theory, without which
> > > theory, theory theoretically cannot theorised or theoretically be, in
> > > theory
> > > or not.
> > > In A Midsummer Night's Theme we see what can happen if you cavort with
> > the
> > > theories.
> > >
> > > 2009/5/13 Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > > And then there's The Best, Art Tatum:
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYcZGPLAnHA&feature=related
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > 2009/5/13 Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >
> > > > > I admit that I may be wrong in thinking that music theory & poetic
> > > theory
> > > > > arent quite the same thing. I'd respond to this John, by saying
> that
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of the 'theory' can only be learned by reding the poems, & then
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > > write the way that excites you most, not copying others' poem
> exactly
> > > so
> > > > > much as seeing how those poems do what they do. And to see that,
> one
> > > must
> > > > > read poems, a lot of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is a bit like paying a lot, while also asking questions, like
> > > that
> > > > > one Miles asked Dizzy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug
> > > > > On 13-May-09, at 9:43 AM, John Herbert Cunningham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Until recently, Dominic, all the great composers were known as
> great
> > > > >> improvisers - Bach Beethoven, Mozart, etc. This meant that they
> were
> > > > able
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> play by ear and, in fact, because of this skill, they were able to
> > > > notate
> > > > >> what they heard in their heads. Many composers these days compose
> > via
> > > > >> mathematical algorithms so I cannot say anything about their
> ability
> > > to
> > > > >> hear
> > > > >> music. As to Jazz, Andrew, it used to be the case that there was a
> > > > certain
> > > > >> amount of pride in jazz musicians saying that they were untutored.
> > > > Recent
> > > > >> investigations and writing on the early and later jazz giants
> > > indicating
> > > > >> that most of them were schooled in theory. Dizzy Gillespie and
> > Charlie
> > > > >> Parker would talk for hours about chords and structure. The
> > legendary
> > > > >> cutting sessions in Kansas City and the same type of sessions in
> New
> > > > York
> > > > >> required musicians to be able to modulate their way through
> complex
> > > > >> chordal
> > > > >> patterns. Legend has it that Ornette Coleman taught himself theory
> > > while
> > > > >> operating an elevator in L.A. The joke that others were to tell is
> > > that
> > > > he
> > > > >> got it wrong. This doesn't really matter much as he went on to
> > create
> > > > his
> > > > >> own harmelodic theory. So whether classical or jazz, if you want
> to
> > > > >> compose
> > > > >> then you'd better have your chops down. I think the same works
> for
> > > > >> poetry.
> > > > >> The better a poet you become, the more you've paid attention to
> > > literary
> > > > >> theory and the more poetry reflecting this theory you've read
> never
> > > mind
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> time spent trying to figure out what another poet is saying and
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > >> thing is in the way that say it that makes that poem and poet
> > > effective.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Barbour
> > > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/<http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/>
> > > > >
> > > > > Latest books:
> > > > > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > > > > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> > > > > Wednesdays'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
> > > > >
> > > > > and this is 'life' and we owe at least this much
> > > > > contemplation to our western fact: to Rise,
> > > > > Decline, Fall, to futility and larks,
> > > > > to the bright crustaceans of the oversky.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phyllis Webb
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Bircumshaw
> > > "Nothing can be done in the face
> > > of ordinary unhappiness" - PP
> > > Website and A Chide's Alphabet
> > > http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
> > > The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
> > > Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Bircumshaw
> "Nothing can be done in the face
> of ordinary unhappiness" - PP
> Website and A Chide's Alphabet
> http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
> Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk
>
|