StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Dare I say it? Music. Its not a scientific field of study, but give us some credit. "Just muscle memory" my ass.

The barrier to doing well in music is usually skill, rather than understanding. It is a highly skilled art, of course, but it is not something where conceptual comprehension is generally an issue.

Granted. But I've run into people *cough*Durandal*cough* who seem to think that any fool can pick up an instrument and learn to play it in a couple days.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have never had a teacher before this one that has done it to this extent. She chewed out one of my friends for having the audacity to have his work finished and be working on something for another class.

Did he go to his parents with this little anecdote? My parents would have torn a strip off her for berating a student over working too fast, and they would have gone to the principal and the local school trustees if necessary.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Dare I say it? Music. Its not a scientific field of study, but give us some credit. "Just muscle memory" my ass.

The barrier to doing well in music is usually skill, rather than understanding. It is a highly skilled art, of course, but it is not something where conceptual comprehension is generally an issue.

Granted. But I've run into people *cough*Durandal*cough* who seem to think that any fool can pick up an instrument and learn to play it in a couple days.

Oh, anyone can learn to PLAY in a couple of days. In a couple of days you can learn all the keys and positions and notes. It's being able to play is another story.

Darth Wong wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have never had a teacher before this one that has done it to this extent. She chewed out one of my friends for having the audacity to have his work finished and be working on something for another class.

Did he go to his parents with this little anecdote? My parents would have torn a strip off her for berating a student over working too fast, and they would have gone to the principal and the local school trustees if necessary.

No, he didnt. Besides, we are working on our own brand of revenge... Basically showing her in detail what sort of work she is trying to hold back...

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have never had a teacher before this one that has done it to this extent. She chewed out one of my friends for having the audacity to have his work finished and be working on something for another class.

Did he go to his parents with this little anecdote? My parents would have torn a strip off her for berating a student over working too fast, and they would have gone to the principal and the local school trustees if necessary.

No, he didnt. Besides, we are working on our own brand of revenge... Basically showing her in detail what sort of work she is trying to hold back...

Sounds like what I did to my English teachers, though not on the scale you're attempting. Wish I could see the look on her face. See if you can get a pinhole camera and take pics, will ya?

Rogue 9 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Dare I say it? Music. Its not a scientific field of study, but give us some credit. "Just muscle memory" my ass.

The barrier to doing well in music is usually skill, rather than understanding. It is a highly skilled art, of course, but it is not something where conceptual comprehension is generally an issue.

Granted. But I've run into people *cough*Durandal*cough* who seem to think that any fool can pick up an instrument and learn to play it in a couple days.

It's a whole lot easier to play an instrument while drunk or hung over than it is to, say, write a good lab report or do calculus problems. I know a couple hundred people who know about both and can personally attest to this.

Darth Wong wrote:The barrier to doing well in music is usually skill, rather than understanding. It is a highly skilled art, of course, but it is not something where conceptual comprehension is generally an issue.

For that you need to turn to performers who improvise solos. Chord changes that change sometimes at the rate of once every half a second, the possible scales that can be used with each individual chord (just counting the basic choices are somewhere around five or six scales per chord), then figure in general theory knowledge, characteristics of melody, style, expression, theme/motive, tension, harmonies, leading tones, non-chord tones, rhythm, swing, added chord tones (+9, +11, flat 13, etc.), tempo changes, articulation--all of which have to be weighed, judged, disregarded or approved by the musician as the solo happens.

And not only does it have to happen that quickly, but at the same time you need to actually make it happen on your instrument. There are very few other fields that require you to be able to process so many aspects of the subject so quickly, while at the same time being judged, appraised, and critiqued while doing so.

And, taking into consideration that thought process goes on constantly in soloist's head for every single chord of every single solo, I'd say that an incredible amount of understanding is needed.

Trytostaydead wrote:Oh, anyone can learn to PLAY in a couple of days. In a couple of days you can learn all the keys and positions and notes. It's being able to play is another story.

Thank you. There's a huge difference between being able to honk out a couple of notes, poke some piano keys for a couple of years, and make music. People who get paid to be professional musicians have a much greater understanding of music and musical expression than someone who picked up a couple "How to Master the Kazoo in Six Easy Lessons" books and just went to town with them.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Howedar wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Dare I say it? Music. Its not a scientific field of study, but give us some credit. "Just muscle memory" my ass.

What is playing music but memorization and practice? Sure as hell in my five-six years of playing the piano I saw nothing else.

Then frankly you didn't have a very good teacher. Either that, or you're glossing over a lot of knowledge about chord structure and the underlying theory that you should have learned.

Further, since you did ask what beyond memorization and practice, there's this little thing we like to call sightreading, but I don't think that's what you meant.

I know a couple of music people, and I agree it's a very tough field which includes a lot of theory and even math (which is why I don't consider a music major to be an art major), but the worse aspect of music theory I've noticed is that everyone I know who studies it stops enjoying music.
They analyse it in their heads even when they would rather just listen.

A field of study that can make you hate turning on the radio is a bad business indeed.

And people wonder why I listen to pop music on my free time! It's so simple to analyze, I don't have to consciously think about it, so I can just listen and have a good time!

Rogue 9 wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Did he go to his parents with this little anecdote? My parents would have torn a strip off her for berating a student over working too fast, and they would have gone to the principal and the local school trustees if necessary.

No, he didnt. Besides, we are working on our own brand of revenge... Basically showing her in detail what sort of work she is trying to hold back...

Sounds like what I did to my English teachers, though not on the scale you're attempting. Wish I could see the look on her face. See if you can get a pinhole camera and take pics, will ya?

Oh, she hasnt graded my list of defined terms.. which is 5 pages long...

Mathematics deserves a mention here. I won't say it is the most misunderstood, simply because most people who understand Physics or CS have a pretty good idea what math is about, but the average Joe seems to be completely clueless.
They think it's like Calculus, but even more so.



For example, if I'm sharing a check with people, they'll ask me to figure everything out, since I'm the Math major. They say, "You're a Math major so you're good with numbers."

I haven't dealt with numbers for years!

Thanks for the backup, Zaia. Where were you when Durandal was chewing me over for daring to suggest that music was challenging?

Rogue 9 wrote:Thanks for the backup, Zaia. Where were you when Durandal was chewing me over for daring to suggest that music was challenging?

Most likely teaching my music students.

The sciences. Most people view them as memorization of odd and useless knowledge that seems to make you very intelligent.

I'm a biochemistry major and am right now taking an introductory communication and journalism class. I am the only science major amoung a slew of music education, message therapy, media arts, buisness, and other such majors and being such I am thought of as the all knowing master of knowledge (and hence most the public speakers that have something even remotely science like in their speech makes the joke "I don't know about this stuff, you could ask Larz though after my speech" *general laughter from class*)

Music, quite literally, in its own way. Many people think it's just a bunch of people sitting around playing sitars or whathaveyou, but it's far more than that. It's also being trained both instrumentally as well as vocally, and you learn history and theory and many other lovely things like that. Hell, it takes 6 years to get a music ed degree, in some places (you also have to take educator's classes and public speaking classes, and in some places have to contact both the Fine Arts dept. as well as the Education dept.).

I'm not saying that anything is more or less misunderstood than anything else, really, but if you mean in general, sciences are misunderstood in exactly the methods of study, whereas (for example), music is misunderstood in *what* is being studied.

There are so many misconceptions in each field that if you were to ask people a similar set of questions about what they think each field is about, you'd probably get as varied a set of answers for a scientific field as you would for an arts field.

Zaia wrote:And, taking into consideration that thought process goes on constantly in soloist's head for every single chord of every single solo, I'd say that an incredible amount of understanding is needed.

Further, each musician (whether s/he be a soloist or no) has to take understanding of chords in every single note that is played - if one person hits the wrong note, it has the potential to screw up everything at that note... or if one person is ahead or behind in time, it can change the outcome of the entire piece, especially in pieces where there are key changes, time changes, and pieces split into movements.

verilon wrote:I'm not saying that anything is more or less misunderstood than anything else, really, but if you mean in general, sciences are misunderstood in exactly the methods of study, whereas (for example), music is misunderstood in *what* is being studied.

No, I'd say that people know exactly what music is. You are confusing the concept of music with the methods of music. Everyone knows that music is an arrangement of sounds made for entertainment value. They just don't know how much work goes into it beneath the surface (although it must be pointed out that this work is not necessary; some of the most popular music is very simplistic).

Contrast that to science, where people truly do not even understand what science is at all. They just think it has something to do with being geeky and knowing a lot of jargon. Ask people to define "science" for you, and you'll either get blank stares or complete bullshit.

I agree with Wong on this. Most people have a base understanding of music and frankly couldn't care more about the tons of layers and work that go into making the music appealing. How many people who like classical music that are not music majors care about the sudtle use of tone, scale changes, harmonics, or how much work went into creating all that compared to just enjoying the final product.

With science people just have strun misconceptions about what really goes on in the fields and they come up with far fetched ideas of their own based off of movies and such: Physicists build big bombs and fill up chalk boards with arcane script that equals something simple and pointless. Biologists play with animals. Chemists pour stuff from beaker A into beaker B and make explosions all while wearing white coats.

While music is a far greater beast then what most give it credit for, most nail the point of it right on: to provide something pleasant and entertaining to listen to. Science however is this strange and elusive thing with no real set idea.

Sex.

Larz wrote:While music is a far greater beast then what most give it credit for, most nail the point of it right on: to provide something pleasant and entertaining to listen to. Science however is this strange and elusive thing with no real set idea.

Well, based on what you just said, I don't think you understand the point of music at all.

Besides, I know plenty of people who don't give a shit how a computer works, or how medicine makes the body heal, or how a suspension bridge stays up. They only know and care that that stuff happens; they don't care how. In that regard, music (by your definition) and science are quite similar.

Darth Wong wrote:

verilon wrote:I'm not saying that anything is more or less misunderstood than anything else, really, but if you mean in general, sciences are misunderstood in exactly the methods of study, whereas (for example), music is misunderstood in *what* is being studied.

No, I'd say that people know exactly what music is. You are confusing the concept of music with the methods of music. Everyone knows that music is an arrangement of sounds made for entertainment value. They just don't know how much work goes into it beneath the surface (although it must be pointed out that this work is not necessary; some of the most popular music is very simplistic).

Granted, but this thread is about the field, which, in this case, necessitates the mechanics of music and how it's produced, am I correct?

As far as I understand, a field of study would be what things about a particular field are needed in order to understand it. For music, it happens to be processing the way music is played, while playing it, among other things. People know about music, yes, I'm not denying that. But people DON'T know how it's produced, or what time, knowledge and effort it takes to make it. Granted, it does take some skill to really play music, but it does require understanding of how notes fit together, not only in relation to each other, but in relation to how fast or slow a piece is going, in relation to where in the piece it's being played, etc., etc. This applies mostly to classical music, but it is a universal concept.

Contrast that to science, where people truly do not even understand what science is at all. They just think it has something to do with being geeky and knowing a lot of jargon. Ask people to define "science" for you, and you'll either get blank stares or complete bullshit.

You'd probably get something like "physics" or "biology" or some such. You could very easily ask somewhat what music is and get "pop" or "rock" but the answer would be equivocal to the science answer examples I just gave you. People don't really know the entity of music, if you think about it.

Larz wrote:I agree with Wong on this. Most people have a base understanding of music and frankly couldn't care more about the tons of layers and work that go into making the music appealing. How many people who like classical music that are not music majors care about the sudtle use of tone, scale changes, harmonics, or how much work went into creating all that compared to just enjoying the final product.

How many people who like computers actually care about the inner workings? Not so different. How many people like genetics but don't understand how it works, except *maybe* on a very basic level? I'm one of those kind of people.

With science people just have strun[g] misconceptions about what really goes on in the fields and they come up with far fetched ideas of their own based off of movies and such: Physicists build big bombs and fill up chalk boards with arcane script that equals something simple and pointless. Biologists play with animals. Chemists pour stuff from beaker A into beaker B and make explosions all while wearing white coats.

Analagously, person A plays instrument 1 and person B plays instrument 2, and voilà, you've got music. Some people think like this.

While music is a far greater beast then what most give it credit for, most nail the point of it right on: to provide something pleasant and entertaining to listen to. Science however is this strange and elusive thing with no real set idea.

Entertainment value is the point of providing it. It's a service. Not much unlike science and technology. It provides a service. Granted, science is a bit more practical and useful than music, but it serves a function that is no more than a service. Using it to understand things is still a service; it's not handled, so it can't be considered a good.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Dare I say it? Music. Its not a scientific field of study, but give us some credit. "Just muscle memory" my ass.

The barrier to doing well in music is usually skill, rather than understanding. It is a highly skilled art, of course, but it is not something where conceptual comprehension is generally an issue.

Granted. But I've run into people *cough*Durandal*cough* who seem to think that any fool can pick up an instrument and learn to play it in a couple days.

Go ahead and quote me on that, you lying, sniveling little cunt. I said that anyone with sufficient practice and conviction could get good and that no conceptual understanding was required, which happens to be exactly what Mike said. They won't be famous, but they'll be competent in the field, just like people who graduate from universities with physical science degrees. So suck my dick you lying sack of horse shit.

As for a singular field that's misunderstood? Quantum mechanics. "Oh, but quantum mechanics says that anything is possible." Jesus Christ, that's irritating.

Granted, people don't care how medicine and such are created. Medicine is produced by pharmacutical companies. Bridges are built by construction workers. So, what do scientists do exactly? What do they do other than apparantly propagate more scientists. I've often found that people don't even know how science applys to any real life situation other than just lumping their work under the giant category of 'research'.

I do understand the point others are making. Most people don't understand the true nature of music, the work and understanding that goes into making a musical piece (and for the record I've been playing musical insturments for 8 years and have been writing music for about 4 years... so I'm not just stabbing blind into a subject I know nothing about). But nevertheless, they understand that musicians play music, composers write music, directors direct musicians in playing music, and so on and so forth.