Militia question 1

[CFLarsen]

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying John Lennon just wrote his music randomly and got lucky?

I am saying that Lennon did not know about Mixolydian or any kind of mode. He simply wrote the music down, usually on a scrap of paper with a few chords here and there. At the time he wrote "Norwegian Wood", he could barely put down notes correctly.

So, how could he write in that way, without knowing what he was doing?

 

[shanek]

I am saying that Lennon did not know about Mixolydian or any kind of mode. He simply wrote the music down, usually on a scrap of paper with a few chords here and there. At the time he wrote "Norwegian Wood", he could barely put down notes correctly.

So, how could he write in that way, without knowing what he was doing?

Claus, you know NOTHING about music or the people who make it. John Lennon was taught how to play the harp, and quite a lot of harp music is in the mixolydian mode, and it's also the basis for a lot of the blues music that he got a lot of his inspiration from. Lennon made quite a lot of use of this mode in a lot of his songwriting; "Tomorrow Never Knows" is another example. He might not have known the word "mixolydian," he might have known it only as a major scale with a flattened 7th, but don't think he didn't know exactly what he was doing when he wrote it.

 

[Larspeart]

WOW! Now THIS is a derailed topic!

John Lennon???
WTF?


Hey, let's see if we can get this puppy to 100+ posts!

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you know NOTHING about music or the people who make it. John Lennon was taught how to play the harp, and quite a lot of harp music is in the mixolydian mode, and it's also the basis for a lot of the blues music that he got a lot of his inspiration from. Lennon made quite a lot of use of this mode in a lot of his songwriting; "Tomorrow Never Knows" is another example. He might not have known the word "mixolydian," he might have known it only as a major scale with a flattened 7th, but don't think he didn't know exactly what he was doing when he wrote it.

.........OK.

The first music I heard was The Beatles. Been a hardcore fan for almost 4 decades. I have never heard that Lennon was taught how to play the harp. I read all the bios, and I cannot remember anything about a harp.

His mother, Julia, taught him to play the banjo. Then, guitars. He couldn't even tune the bleedin' thing in the beginning (none of them could), so they had to take their guitars to friends who could. Later - during Beatlemania - he picked up some piano skills.

But never, ever, have I heard anything about a harp.

I did google for "Lennon harp", and came across this article: The man who taught John Lennon harp. I doubt, however, that you will use this as a reference, because it refers to a harmonica...

So, I await your evidence. Somehow, I suspect that this will end up in you screaming like usual...

 

[CFLarsen]

Wait, wait...a harp is a harmonica?

Well, pardon me for taking things at face value...

 

[shanek]

I did google for "Lennon harp", and came across this article: The man who taught John Lennon harp. I doubt, however, that you will use this as a reference, because it refers to a harmonica...

No, that's the guy, and that's the instrument I was referring to. Harmonicas (which ARE a type of harp) are modal instruments; they have no accidentals.

 

[Earthborn]

Harmonicas (which ARE a type of harp)

This may be a little language confusion right here. When English language people use the word harmonica it seems that most of them refer to this:

And in another language I know, the word harmonica might also refer to this instrument:

Now, I'm not an expert on music, but neither looks very much like a harp to me.

 

[shanek]

And in another language I know, the word harmonica might also refer to this instrument:

What we here would generally refer to as an "accordian," not to be confused with a concertina:

Now, I'm not an expert on music, but neither looks very much like a harp to me.

You're probably thinking of an Irish Harp:

All of the above (and a lot more) are considered harps.

 

[Mercutio]

"are considered harps"? Well, sorta...are among the objects known as harps. The harmonica is not a harp under the first definition of the word (the triangular stringed instrument)....Harmonicas are also called "mouth organs"--does that mean they are also "considered organs"?

On the other hand...

Harp: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on.

 

[Earthborn]

What we here would generally refer to as an "accordian," not to be confused with a concertina

Around here, both can be called harmonicas, but only the first can also be called 'accordion'.

All of the above (and a lot more) are considered harps.

Ha, I think I got it now. Wikipedia to the rescue!

Looks to me like instruments that are considered harps are all string instruments, so I say you are wrong. The wikipedia article does however mention this:

Harp is a slang term for the diatonic harmonica.

Let's just stick to the official terms, shall we, and not confuse people with slang.

Let's call a groan box a groan box. If we stop jawboning and start gumbeating guff folks will be gummoxed up and Irish confetti will fly all over the joint.

 

[Mercutio]

All of the above (and a lot more) are considered harps.

Not by my dictionary. Not the accordian, not the concertina. Not by any of the definitions of "harp", even broadly considered (I am not willing to suggest that a small rectangular free-reed instrument having a row of free reeds set back in air holes and played by blowing into the desired hole describes an accordian--it describes a harmonica). I am certain, though, that you will supply an appropriate reference.

 

[c0rbin]

I have heard the harmonica referred to as "harp" all my life (grew up south of the Mason-Dixon line).

Usually the people who play them or aspire to play them (in that region of the US, at least) referred to them as "harps."

 

[shanek]

"are considered harps"? Well, sorta...are among the objects known as harps. The harmonica is not a harp under the first definition of the word (the triangular stringed instrument)....Harmonicas are also called "mouth organs"--does that mean they are also "considered organs"?

All of the non-stringed instruments referred to as "harps" use the term colloquially, not formally.

On the other hand...

Harp: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on.

Hmmmm....

 

[shanek]

Let's just stick to the official terms, shall we, and not confuse people with slang.

It was just habit. No confusion intended.

 

[Mercutio]

I have heard the harmonica referred to as "harp" all my life (grew up south of the Mason-Dixon line).

Usually the people who play them or aspire to play them (in that region of the US, at least) referred to them as "harps."

[slight derail, but genuinely curious] So, is it the first instrument that comes to mind when someone says they were "taught to play the harp"? (I think "trained on the harp" is pretentious enough to imply the stringed ones...) [/derail]

 

[shanek]

[slight derail, but genuinely curious]

You're worried about a derail now???

 

[Mercutio]

You're worried about a derail now???

Hey, the social compromise definition of both music and rights is absolutely on topic!

 

[Earthborn]

No, her point was that things are only objective if they have the same properties regardless of circumstances. That's clearly false.

That was not Earthborn's point. Please re-read that post; I think you will see your misunderstanding.

Knowing Shanek, he probably still doesn't understand it, so I'll clarify.

Something that is objective does not have to have all the same properties under all circumstances. It should however have all the properties it has been defined as.

For example, if we define 'water' as a molecular substance with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule, then rain, watervapor and ice are all objectively water. If however it loses one of the properties from the definition, for example it is put under circumstances that split the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, then it is no longer objectively 'water'.

The definition lists all the properties it must to be the objective thing. All other properties it might have do not change it from being that thing, but if it loses properties from the definition then it is no longer that thing.

We can objectively define 'ice' as 'solid water', but if we put it under circumstances where it is no longer solid (a higher temperature) it is no longer objectively ice.

You cannot objectively define something by providing a list of properties it may or may not have and which other things also may or may not have. That makes it impossible to distinguish the thing from other things objectively.

In such a case it is better to define the thing intersubjectively: Music is what people consider music. Tonal music is music that is similar to music that people consider tonal.

 

[crimresearch]

Not by my dictionary. Not the accordian, not the concertina. Not by any of the definitions of "harp", even broadly considered (I am not willing to suggest that a small rectangular free-reed instrument having a row of free reeds set back in air holes and played by blowing into the desired hole describes an accordian--it describes a harmonica). I am certain, though, that you will supply an appropriate reference.

A harmonica is a harp in the sense that it has the tapered set of reeds that look like a harp *inside* the rectangular case...just as a piano's inner frame of strings is a harp.

Squeeze boxes in general may force air across the same sort of reed plate, but by and large the pedal harp (concert), lever harp(folk), and harmonicas (not to be confused with armonicas......) are the ones that musicians understand to be 'harps'.

 

[Mercutio]

A harmonica is a harp in the sense that it has the tapered set of reeds that look like a harp *inside* the rectangular case...just as a piano's inner frame of strings is a harp.

A harmonica has no reeds! Come on!*

*ducks, runs*


*yeah, I know, some will pedantically call it a glass reed, just as a flute has an "air reed", but that ruins the joke...