🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 04:14:10 -0400 Ram Samudrala said:
>I come back to resume the argument?  No, I was having an honest
>argument until YOU started the whole thing by saying "wake me up when
>you learn more about music theory" or something like that.  That is

I'll append  below the  things you  wouldn't listen  to in  your "honest
argument". (Sorry  to bother the rest  of you with this,  but Ram didn't
want to have *this* discussion online....)

>insuinating that I am ignorant.  I then said you are the one who's
>ignorant (of what was in that interview with the group).

No,  what you  said was  that I'm  ignorant of  music. This  is a  *bit*
different.

I never  denied what  the article  may or  may not  have said.  I freely
admit that  I've never seen it,  and have no knowledge  of its contents.
However, this  does *not* mean  that I'm  therefor ignorant of  music in
general, or that you cannot discuss the  context of it anyhow. If I said
"I  saw in  an article  that somebody  said the  moon is  made of  green
cheese", would  you feel a  need to go and  read the article  before you
started listing  possible reasons  why this didn't  agree with  what you
know about the world?

>What you know is irrelevant.  What is published is what counts.  This
>is what you refuse to accept and this why I called you ignorant.  You
>haven't read the article and yet you make summary judgements on it.

I can't avoid  a cheap shot here  - if you saw something  published on a
topic you knew  about, and you *knew* that the  article was WRONG, would
that make  what you  know irrelevant?  Would that  make you  ignorant? I
hope you're more open-minded when you do research...  ;)

I did *not*  make any judgements about the article.  What I commented on
is  that just  because  a band  says  in  an article  that  'XYZ was  an
influence', that doesn't make it true,  or make it *sound* like XYZ. But
you  didn't want  anybody to  discuss even  the *possibility*  that that
there was more to it than "It  was said in an article, and therefor it's
The Entire Truth As Stated By The Divine Being Himself'.

Plenty of things get said in articles.  Yngwie Malmsteen (who *is* quite
the technique and theory monster) once said "I know all there is to know
about music theory".  Well, that was in an article, so it must be true,
right?  Take a reality check - is it even *possible* to know "all" about
music theory?

The reason I  asked if you know anything about  music theory or actually
writing songs is  because I did, and wanted to  contribute what *I* knew
from personal  experience. First  off, when you're  writing a  song, you
usually have *many* influences (among other things, if you wrote it with
only one  influence, you're likely  to get  yourself sued big  time, and
also not listened to). Secondly,  just because something is an influence
doesn't mean  the finished  product *sounds*  like it.  Case in  point -
when I  write songs, Jimi Hendrix  is an influence of  mine, however the
music I end up writing is some of the most non-Jimi I've ever heard (For
you music theory buffs, every time I  try to work in a blues pentatonic,
it ends up falling  over into myxolydian ;) I went as  far as stealing a
lick  out of  "Foxy  Lady" as  far  as I  dared  without infringing  the
copyright - first  3 people who heard  the song all said  "Killer riff -
but are you gonna  get sued by <abc>?". Got 3  different answers for who
ABC was, and none of them said Jimi...  ;)

But of course,  I'm just ignorant, and know nothing  at all about music,
and  Ram is  the all-knowing  because he  saw the  magazine article.  ;)

/Valdis