> I guess you will have to toss out TONS of great musicians,
CAN YOU PEOPLE FUCKING READ??? A half-dozen people so far have totally failed to comprehend what I said and then attacked me for what they wanted my post to say. I said the "CORRECT WAY TO LEARN." I didn't say "artists who didn't learn by notation aren't artists."
The "correct" way to learn to be a doctor is to go to med school. That doesn't mean you can't gain those same skills by "mimicking" a real doctor. But you lose a lot by doing it that way, and it's not considered "correct." However, you may gain some skills that school-trained doctors don't have.
Not quite as good: The "correct" way to learn a programming language is to study its structure, commands, and start by writing simple programs. I learned C by staring at MUD code and tracing it until it made sense. I may have lost a lot doing it that way, I may have gained more insight, but it doesn't mean I am a better or worse programmer because of it. I still do not claim to have learned it "correctly."
To deny the brush is to deny the art, regardless whether you use it... However, I never denied the ear!
> Reading music vs. playing by ear has nothing to do with understanding musical theory.
No it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. I said the correct way to learn how to make music... I said nothing about playing it. Yes, there's a difference.
> That's like saying you can't study literature if you listen to a storyteller instead of reading a book.
No, it's more like saying you can't study literature without learning how to read at all. Unless, of course, you have a perfect memory for what you've heard. But that's still not the correct way to study literature.
> Do you think Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are merely "mimics" who don't understand musical theory?
Starting off, yes, Ray Charles was a mimic. He mimicked gospel music. And yes, I'm not so sure they necessarily knew much/any musical theory. Doesn't mean they weren't good. I did not say that you can't become great by learning the "wrong" way. Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, did not learn the "correct" way to play, but they were considered masters.
> Musicians - please mod this nonsense back down to where it belongs.
> Music died when folks stopped singing and playing musical instruments and left music to the "experts".
I guess I'm your antithesis then. I make music, and some of it is relatively original, yet make no claims to being an expert. Granted, the only traditional instrument I play is a trumpet, but a PC can be a very powerful "instrument." I also don't claim to be great, but there are some people who like it a lot. Are you saying that, somehow, your opinion of what is "music" means more than another person's?
Well... OK, yeah, it had a GUI without Workbench, but it had no icons, menus, etc. Pretty much a single window with a command prompt, although you could launch other graphical programs from AmigaDOS (CLI).
Lazy != wrong, just different. I used that word because it was the word used in the parent.
My father learned to play piano, banjo, and mandolin by ear (guitar by book), and as a bit of a musician myself, I see advantages to both. By-ear musicians tend to be more original and innovative, while by-the-book musicians may gain technical advantages.
As for gaining a feel for tone, learning to play by music probably won't help those who are "tone deaf," but neither would playing by ear.
I think that's the definition of a "derivative work." I'm not quite clear on the technicalities of those, such as how much needs to be changed to be considered different-enough.
> Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"?
Hmm... Not really. It's more like reading "Cliffs Notes." You get the gist of it, but the execution is greatly obscured. Sheet music tells you things that just aren't in tabulatures: most importantly, note and rest duration. But it also shows other things, like note style (legato/staccato), volume changes ([de]crescendos), and there are other handy things like codas. I believe it is also easier to denote dramatic changes in the music, such as time or key signatures, in the middle of a song.
Also with sheet music, it is easier to represent more than one instrument on the same page, although since we are only talking about one instrument here (guitar), that's mostly just a space-saving convenience and not really important in this discussion. Unless you have a friend that plays Bass.:)
BTW, I'm not really suggesting that tabs are worse than sheet music. With tabs, a creative person may take more liberties with the music, adding their own feel to it, making it "theirs." With sheet music, people usually play exactly what is printed, exactly as was originally intended.
People dieing because of software bugs in their neural implants is quite different than "sacrificing your family for the right to run Windows." Interesting thought, nonetheless.
> Criticism of a copyrighted work is likely to be ruled as fair use of that work and thus not an infringement
Yes, they would be able to point out errors, but I don't believe they would be able to reprint the whole thing, just to point out those errors. People would still need to purchase the inaccurate books.
> You have just made the case for the copyright holder intent on protecting the integrity of his work
Integrity of their work??? If someone has a guitar tab and hears a song, they are likely to play it better than just hearing it alone. Making the tabs available increases the quality of future performances by others. All of this ignores that someone who's just learning a new song via tabs is unlikely to be playing the song publicly, let alone for profit. Your point makes little sense.
> Hence "copyright", the right to copy. That is what is provided for under law, and it's a system fair to all parties.
So I should not be able to "copy" presidential speeches, as the content of those were written by the president (well, his speech writers). If the public wants to know his opinion they have to listen to him live, not read his words that were illegally copied by some damned newspaper.
Playing by ear is the lazy way to do it. It's mimicry. Learning how to read music, and understanding musical theory, is the correct way to learn music.
> what do you think Cameroon would look like if the median income was say $30,000 USD?
I'll admit I am not well-versed in economics, but could the answer be inflation? The price of goods in Cameroon could increase dramatically, thus ensuring that much of that 30K is spent on basic needs -- basic needs that only the government and already-wealthy individuals can provide.
Slashdot Mirror
> I guess you will have to toss out TONS of great musicians,
CAN YOU PEOPLE FUCKING READ??? A half-dozen people so far have totally failed to comprehend what I said and then attacked me for what they wanted my post to say. I said the "CORRECT WAY TO LEARN." I didn't say "artists who didn't learn by notation aren't artists."
The "correct" way to learn to be a doctor is to go to med school. That doesn't mean you can't gain those same skills by "mimicking" a real doctor. But you lose a lot by doing it that way, and it's not considered "correct." However, you may gain some skills that school-trained doctors don't have.
Not quite as good: The "correct" way to learn a programming language is to study its structure, commands, and start by writing simple programs. I learned C by staring at MUD code and tracing it until it made sense. I may have lost a lot doing it that way, I may have gained more insight, but it doesn't mean I am a better or worse programmer because of it. I still do not claim to have learned it "correctly."
To deny the brush is to deny the art, regardless whether you use it... However, I never denied the ear!
> Reading music vs. playing by ear has nothing to do with understanding musical theory.
No it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. I said the correct way to learn how to make music... I said nothing about playing it. Yes, there's a difference.
> That's like saying you can't study literature if you listen to a storyteller instead of reading a book.
No, it's more like saying you can't study literature without learning how to read at all. Unless, of course, you have a perfect memory for what you've heard. But that's still not the correct way to study literature.
> Do you think Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are merely "mimics" who don't understand musical theory?
Starting off, yes, Ray Charles was a mimic. He mimicked gospel music. And yes, I'm not so sure they necessarily knew much/any musical theory. Doesn't mean they weren't good. I did not say that you can't become great by learning the "wrong" way. Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, did not learn the "correct" way to play, but they were considered masters.
> Musicians - please mod this nonsense back down to where it belongs.
Mod myself down? I am a musician, you dunce.
> [Jesus] was a guy who could stick his arm up your ass and pull out your lungs if he choose too.
Did you get that from The Budgenator's Reinterpreted Bible? Because there's nothing to suggest that in the "real" Bible.
> we get it, you are "Stuck Up Musician Man"
Yeah, that's why I rap... Get a clue, dude.
> Music died when folks stopped singing and playing musical instruments and left music to the "experts".
I guess I'm your antithesis then. I make music, and some of it is relatively original, yet make no claims to being an expert. Granted, the only traditional instrument I play is a trumpet, but a PC can be a very powerful "instrument." I also don't claim to be great, but there are some people who like it a lot. Are you saying that, somehow, your opinion of what is "music" means more than another person's?
Well... OK, yeah, it had a GUI without Workbench, but it had no icons, menus, etc. Pretty much a single window with a command prompt, although you could launch other graphical programs from AmigaDOS (CLI).
Lazy != wrong, just different. I used that word because it was the word used in the parent.
My father learned to play piano, banjo, and mandolin by ear (guitar by book), and as a bit of a musician myself, I see advantages to both. By-ear musicians tend to be more original and innovative, while by-the-book musicians may gain technical advantages.
As for gaining a feel for tone, learning to play by music probably won't help those who are "tone deaf," but neither would playing by ear.
I think that's the definition of a "derivative work." I'm not quite clear on the technicalities of those, such as how much needs to be changed to be considered different-enough.
> whatever the Amiga used
:) Workbench was the graphical part of the Amiga system.
Oh, like a dagger in the heart!
I too was disappointed by the incompleteness (and inaccuracy) of the page. Oh well...
> how long until the GPC is going be standard dual core?
Excuse my ignoramicousness, but what's GPC? Was the G a typo, or does that mean something else?
Is that supposed to make sense?
> Where's the timeline for Slashdot appearanced?
o rg
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.slashdot.
Advertisement traffic whoring
> The piano has been the death of musical sense.
Wow. just... Wow. So music died in the 1700s?
I believe #4 is something like "improve so much that you decide to play a gig, but fail to hand over a thousand bucks to some company."
> Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"?
:)
Hmm... Not really. It's more like reading "Cliffs Notes." You get the gist of it, but the execution is greatly obscured. Sheet music tells you things that just aren't in tabulatures: most importantly, note and rest duration. But it also shows other things, like note style (legato/staccato), volume changes ([de]crescendos), and there are other handy things like codas. I believe it is also easier to denote dramatic changes in the music, such as time or key signatures, in the middle of a song.
Also with sheet music, it is easier to represent more than one instrument on the same page, although since we are only talking about one instrument here (guitar), that's mostly just a space-saving convenience and not really important in this discussion. Unless you have a friend that plays Bass.
BTW, I'm not really suggesting that tabs are worse than sheet music. With tabs, a creative person may take more liberties with the music, adding their own feel to it, making it "theirs." With sheet music, people usually play exactly what is printed, exactly as was originally intended.
People dieing because of software bugs in their neural implants is quite different than "sacrificing your family for the right to run Windows." Interesting thought, nonetheless.
> Anyone want to go halves on copyrighting the notes A through G?
I would, but I spent all my money on B#, Cb, E#, and Fb. Sorry.
> Criticism of a copyrighted work is likely to be ruled as fair use of that work and thus not an infringement
Yes, they would be able to point out errors, but I don't believe they would be able to reprint the whole thing, just to point out those errors. People would still need to purchase the inaccurate books.
> the other greats pale in comparison to the great Metallica creations!
;)
Yes! Without them, the world never would have heard such great songs as Turn the Page & Whiskey in the Jar!
Hmm... would it make a difference if OLGA made money through banner ads on the site? I don't know if they did, although I assume so.
> You have just made the case for the copyright holder intent on protecting the integrity of his work
Integrity of their work??? If someone has a guitar tab and hears a song, they are likely to play it better than just hearing it alone. Making the tabs available increases the quality of future performances by others. All of this ignores that someone who's just learning a new song via tabs is unlikely to be playing the song publicly, let alone for profit. Your point makes little sense.
> Hence "copyright", the right to copy. That is what is provided for under law, and it's a system fair to all parties.
So I should not be able to "copy" presidential speeches, as the content of those were written by the president (well, his speech writers). If the public wants to know his opinion they have to listen to him live, not read his words that were illegally copied by some damned newspaper.
> Playing by ear is the only method, lazy pricks.
Playing by ear is the lazy way to do it. It's mimicry. Learning how to read music, and understanding musical theory, is the correct way to learn music.
> what do you think Cameroon would look like if the median income was say $30,000 USD?
I'll admit I am not well-versed in economics, but could the answer be inflation? The price of goods in Cameroon could increase dramatically, thus ensuring that much of that 30K is spent on basic needs -- basic needs that only the government and already-wealthy individuals can provide.