|
Post by goofy on May 28, 2008 15:58:49 GMT
But I really don't see how Ravel only composed one string quartet could be misunderstood, except by someone who is looking for a way to misunderstand it.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 28, 2008 16:03:05 GMT
Friedman composed, conducted, and recorded one string quartet, but Ravel only composed one string quartet.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on May 28, 2008 16:11:07 GMT
Friedman composed, conducted, and recorded one string quartet, but Ravel only composed one string quartet. I didn't misunderstand that. My point is that ambiguity exists, but that is what context is for.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 28, 2008 19:27:24 GMT
Yes, I think we can be too picky at times, when the intended meaning is really quite easy to spot.
I do feel, though, that it's important to have an understanding of the potential for ambiguity (or often a downright lie) and to have practice in avoiding it. The "Ravel" example wouldn't cause trouble - and its more accurate equivalent has about it a sense of superiority - but I do so often at work come across things (written by intelligent people) that make the wrong kind of sense, and I wonder whether the authors were never trained to spot rubbish when they write it: they were never challenged by clearer thinkers, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 28, 2008 21:08:56 GMT
>except by someone who is looking for a way to misunderstand it<I think that lawyers might well make a living from doing so! And some of us just do look for a way! (Back to the HOC, then.) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on May 28, 2008 21:26:04 GMT
But I really don't see how Ravel only composed one string quartet could be misunderstood, except by someone who is looking for a way to misunderstand it. You're not a divergent thinker, then, Goofy! My experience is that if anything can possibly be misunderstood, somebody will eventually come along and misunderstand it! Sue
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 29, 2008 9:58:22 GMT
A a few technical musical points (I know, it's a diversion from the main point, but, hey!)
String quartet is the name given to the type of work and the group of people who play it. In fact, in context, the people are generally referred to simply as 'a quartet'. In the world of chamber music, the string quartet is such a standard and popular form, that there is no need to qualify the instruments - everyone knows it's two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Indeed, if it's any other combination of four instruments, it is usually overtly stated. Similarly, a piano quintet is always two violins, a viola, a 'cello and a piano.
The piano is generally considered in a class of its own, although technically, it's a percussion instrument (all professional orchestral percussionists are required to be able to play it, whatever else they do).
Although banjos and guitars are technically string instruments, they tend to be thought of as belonging to a slightly different sub-family, as the strings are plucked rather than (usually) bowed.
Instrument classification is always difficult, as it depends on where you're coming from. In terms of harmony, for example, horns, violas and tenor saxophones may all come in the same bracket - they're all 'tenor' instruments, and work in the same musical range for the purposes of the harmony. The Sachs-Hornbostel classification is largely done from a physics/engineering standpoint; instruments are classified according to how they produce the sound: idiophones (it's the instrument itself that makes the noise - a block of wood being hit, for example, or a bell being sounded); membranophones (the sound is produced by a vibrting membrane, as in a drum or a kazoo); chordophones (sound is produced by a vibrating string - so pianos, violins and guitars); aerophones (the sound is produced by vibrating the air directly (so clarinets, flutes, bullroarers); electrophones (where some sort of electric or electronic mediation is involved - synthesizers, ondes-Martenots, theremins and, weirdly, electrically-operated pipe-organs).
String quartets (and, indeed, chamber music in general) are not conducted; what makes instrumental chamber music special is that complex non-verbal communication between players.
The Ravel quartet happens to be one of my all-time favourite pieces of chamber music (along with his Introduction and Allegro for harp, flute, clarinet and string quartet).
|
|
David
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by David on May 29, 2008 21:45:17 GMT
The Ravel quartet happens to be one of my all-time favourite pieces of chamber music (along with his Introduction and Allegro for harp, flute, clarinet and string quartet). Pleased to hear it, Barry. It's a masterpiece and a particular favourite of mine, too. The Piano Trio is also well worth getting to know. Have we reached a natural conclusion? Is this thread beginning to...unRavel?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on May 30, 2008 2:32:24 GMT
Yes, I think we can be too picky at times, when the intended meaning is really quite easy to spot. I do feel, though, that it's important to have an understanding of the potential for ambiguity (or often a downright lie) and to have practice in avoiding it. The "Ravel" example wouldn't cause trouble - and its more accurate equivalent has about it a sense of superiority - but I do so often at work come across things (written by intelligent people) that make the wrong kind of sense, and I wonder whether the authors were never trained to spot rubbish when they write it: they were never challenged by clearer thinkers, perhaps? I agree. I was reacting to the notion that only should immediately proceed the element it modifies, which I don't think is very helpful advice. Admittedly, I don't think anyone on this board voiced this prescription.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 30, 2008 2:59:46 GMT
... should immediately proceed ... ?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on May 30, 2008 3:47:33 GMT
to the nearest exit.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 7:54:26 GMT
... should immediately proceed ... ? Confused - couldn't see this on goofy's post. Was the post subsequently modified?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 30, 2008 8:24:51 GMT
Confused - couldn't see this on goofy's post. Was the post subsequently modified? I think Paul's picking up on goofy's use of proceed for precede.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 30, 2008 13:49:00 GMT
Confused - couldn't see this on goofy's post. Was the post subsequently modified? I agree. I was reacting to the notion that only should immediately proceed the element it modifies, which I don't think is very helpful advice. Admittedly, I don't think anyone on this board voiced this prescription.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 16:00:28 GMT
Got it, sorry. Having a senior moment!
|
|