so if im hammering on a guitar wouldnt it be percussive? ;)
i make a funny.
Lady Nyx
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Yara
All I did was trying to answer the thread starter's question as to why some people regarded it as a "percussion instrument".
As I said, I [b]don't[/b] like the distinction nor do I think it's any longer helpful.
My [b]one and only point[/b] in both long posts was trying to explain why it made sense for some people to regard the pianist as part of the percussion section in orchestral or chamber music ensembles. I tried to point out that there have been many different reasons for that, historical as well, and while I fully understand that to people more related to certain music cultures, let's say, it all sounds absurd, it does make sense to other people working, and thinking, within a very different context.
[i]I dislike distinctions thought up just for distinction's sake[/i]. I tend to judge any kind of classification method for its [b]usefulness[/b], but I can't deny that some of the reasons for drawing such distinctions were, or still are in some cases, legitimate - the thread starter, [i]and I don't think it was on purpose, let me say that right away[/i], made it all look stupid, as if the people who argued for the second option were dim-witted unsophisticates at best. That's not the case. I don't want to overwhelm the thread even more than I did, but there's more to both sides of the argument than what I just sketched out above.
It's easy just to frown at something we don't see much sense in instead of trying to understand the reasons why it makes sense for many people. This is as true to music as to politics, though I'm not allowed to discuss politics anymore because of what seems to me to be a nonsensical (*:op) rule put into effect by an organization I work for and which I otherwise deeply admire.
Now you may all burn me at the stake.
(arranging the heap of firewoods and pouring alcohol on it) ; -))))
As I said, I [b]don't[/b] like the distinction nor do I think it's any longer helpful.
My [b]one and only point[/b] in both long posts was trying to explain why it made sense for some people to regard the pianist as part of the percussion section in orchestral or chamber music ensembles. I tried to point out that there have been many different reasons for that, historical as well, and while I fully understand that to people more related to certain music cultures, let's say, it all sounds absurd, it does make sense to other people working, and thinking, within a very different context.
[i]I dislike distinctions thought up just for distinction's sake[/i]. I tend to judge any kind of classification method for its [b]usefulness[/b], but I can't deny that some of the reasons for drawing such distinctions were, or still are in some cases, legitimate - the thread starter, [i]and I don't think it was on purpose, let me say that right away[/i], made it all look stupid, as if the people who argued for the second option were dim-witted unsophisticates at best. That's not the case. I don't want to overwhelm the thread even more than I did, but there's more to both sides of the argument than what I just sketched out above.
It's easy just to frown at something we don't see much sense in instead of trying to understand the reasons why it makes sense for many people. This is as true to music as to politics, though I'm not allowed to discuss politics anymore because of what seems to me to be a nonsensical (*:op) rule put into effect by an organization I work for and which I otherwise deeply admire.
Now you may all burn me at the stake.
(arranging the heap of firewoods and pouring alcohol on it) ; -))))
Micrówave
[QUOTE][b]TQ wrote:[/b]
Chordophones are technically a sub-category of string instruments, despite what you read on Wikipedia. [/QUOTE]
Actually I didn't get that off Wikipedia. I learned that when I was 6 or 7 in my first years of playing the piano. They are stringed instruments, though, but you two were trying to decide which. I think the Chordophone references the fact that (1) they have strings, but (2) are their own category and thus given their status.
Since you're arguing strings vs percussion, I take it you've never had any formal piano training. Aside from what you've learned on Wikipedia.
Chordophones are technically a sub-category of string instruments, despite what you read on Wikipedia. [/QUOTE]
Actually I didn't get that off Wikipedia. I learned that when I was 6 or 7 in my first years of playing the piano. They are stringed instruments, though, but you two were trying to decide which. I think the Chordophone references the fact that (1) they have strings, but (2) are their own category and thus given their status.
Since you're arguing strings vs percussion, I take it you've never had any formal piano training. Aside from what you've learned on Wikipedia.
Queen On Ice
When I learned Violin as a child, I was taught that the ever accompanying piano was a stringed percussion instrument.
So for me it is neither one or the other but both.
Asking 'which would you choose if you had to' is really a rather pointless question IMO because it is both, so there is no choice to be made.
So for me it is neither one or the other but both.
Asking 'which would you choose if you had to' is really a rather pointless question IMO because it is both, so there is no choice to be made.