Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, all went to bed with their trousers on.
Do you know who they were? what they supposedly said? who they supposedly said it to? Do you know what they supposedly did? who they supposedly did it to? How does it affect your life today?
Peter and Paul, fly away Peter, fly away Paul.
Mustn’t forget nice but dim Timothy.
Who the hell are these guys? I’m a highly educated individual and very erudite. But I’m awfully sorry I know next to nothing about these guys, and what they supposedly said and did. Or who they said and did it to. I find it disturbing when people even mention them, let alone quote them. Who honestly can attach any kind of importance to it in this day and age? Poor sods, I pity you.
Words on a screen right? Words carved on a stone in a desert somewhere, right? Personally, I have zero interest and lay zero importance to what they all supposedly did or didn’t say or do thousands of years ago in a desert somewhere.
Who cares what was said in F2 three years ago by a load of weirdos? want to read the edited logs and quote some back at us?
Who cares what was said by the oasis near Tescos in the desert, up the road from Bethlehem 2000 years ago by a load of weirdos? want to read the edited logs and quote some back at us?
It has no bearing on my life whatsoever. Zero. And it shouldn’t have on your life either.
I think we all learned our lesson a while back on these boards as I recall,
Religion is like a penis.
For every Christian scientist, you will find 99 non Christian scientists.
He was the first to establish his own branch of science in the popular imagination.
Dont be ridiculous. Firstly, he never had a “branch” of Science, he had several.
Maths, Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Astro-Physics, Cosmology, just for starters
If your statement is correct, that would mean that Darwin didn’t establish his own branch of Science, ie, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, into the popular imagination.
If Darwin didn’t establish Evolution into popular imagination, then who did?
I think there are many Scientists that have popularised their own branch of Science into popular imagination
It’s all a load of bollox !
What Stephen Hawking’s great legacy is, is that he was the greatest communicator of his day, in his field. He was able to bring the very complex world of Cosmology, Astronomy, Astro- Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Space and Time, and many other branches of Science, into quite simplistic layman’s terms. With his best seller A Brief History of Time, he was the leading light of his era, and ours. His book has been an eye opener and great help for millions of people who aren’t educated enough to even begin to take on these subjects and ideas, to begin to understand, due to his communication skills.
His greatest achievements and his awards are based in communication and writing as much as Science.
Back to Music theory :)
Music evolves like everything does. Bach stamped his DNA in music. Every generation after Bach carries his influence, sometimes it’s obvious sometimes it’s not so obvious. The influence will diminsh with generations, yet always remain. All the giants of Music stamp their musical DNA upon the next generations developement. If one has the musical know how, all modern music can be easily traced back to previous generations. Think of it as a musical family tree. In our musical family tree, there will be a direct line between Starstedt and Bach, just about every piece of music post Bach will be connected to him, but Starstedt wasn’t a musical giant and didn’t shape music for generations to come, so he would be on a little twig and not a big major important branch like Bach.
Find me a decent rock guitarist today who hasn’t any Jimi Hendrix in them.
It is of course possible and probable, that MrQ’s association between Sarstedt’s song and Bach is not of a musical nature but more of an emotional or sensorial association. This does seem more likely, especially as MrQ’s music theory is probably quite limited.
The power of association is an amazing feature of the mind. Maybe when MrQ listens to Bach it brings out a certain emotion or a happy and gay feeling that Sarstedt’s song also does, there we have an association made. It could be a certain image invoked in his mind of cavorting in a haystack with the summer breeze blowing through his true loves long golden hair. If it is an emotional association it could be quite mysterious and unexplainable, therefore MrQ himself maybe doesn’t fully realise why he’s making such an association.
I hope this helps :)
I think MrQ’s connection between the song and Bach is Sarstedt’s use of arpeggios and implied arpeggios, which are Bach like. Bach’s music is very much built on the use of arpeggios as is a lot of Classical music. Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata is a good example of arpeggios in music.
It’s very probable that the distinct chord sequence of the Sarstedt song are identical or similar to something that Bach composed. A chord sequence is as identifiable as a melody when it comes to our familiarity and recognition of songs. Bach was such a prolific composer that its most likely there is a piece of music he composed that has the same or similar chord sequence. Starstedt’s timing though is very un Bach like, as he uses 6/8 timing, a double waltz, whereas Bach is a solid 4/4 kind of guy.
If MrQ has perfect pitch, which he doesn’t, he probably doesn’t even have relative pitch let alone perfect pitch, but if he does have perfect pitch then it’s also possible he can hear which key the song is in, and can relate that back to Bach’s use of keys. If MrQ is a huge Bach fan and listens to him a lot and is very familiar with his works, then it’s also possible he can “hear” Bach when he listens to other music.
I hope that helped :)
1 member liked this post.
