The problem of defining 'deconstruction'
G*rd*n
vu...@aol.com (Vunch):
| I have noticed an ongoing dialogue that is intellectually very passive.
| If you are going to define something, you should consider several ways to
| define both what it is and what it is not. The current diatribe over what
| deconstructive is stupid and boring.
|
| What do deconstructionists do? For a start, they describe the
| etymylogical origins of words. They also describe how the use of certain
| words and phrases
| has changed historically by recounting both the origin and particular uses
| and well as decidedly different uses of terms and phrases, or even ideas.
| Thirdly, they describe the semantic meanings associated with certain words,
| of which there could be many; they may even get into the semantic meanings
| of utterances which can include many soundings that seem similar but are
| actually different.
| Lastly, they will analyze the metonymy of words and phrases. For example,
| Freud often did this by comparing how certain translations would reveal the
| true the meanings of dreams, ideas, phrases. Freud was not a
| deconstructivist, but you could find some good examples of deconstruction
| in his works. Metonymy and synecdoche and tropisms are interesting
| phenomenon which deconstructivists try to capture and contain.
|
| Now, others may agree or disagree. But, I am offering a definition
| that is much more worthy of the word 'definition,' than the discussion
| presently dominating this ng.
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that different
people use the word _deconstruction_ and its relatives
in many different ways. This in itself would not be a
problem; we could simply elucidate the differences as well
as the general meaning. If I may overwork a metaphor from
yesterday, it is as if an attempt to understand what the
Russian language "is" became involved with similar attempts
to understand Ukrainian and Polish -- something any child
growing up in Lviv deals with, but probably a real headache
for the analytical.
However, coupled with the ambiguous use of the word there
is a considerable spirit of hostility and mystification,
which I believe derives from its origin and development in
academic systems. Since knowing something is an academic
stock in trade, knowledge must be heaped up, made scarce
elsewhere, and jealously defended. Any attempt to bring
the Host forth (whatever it may be) and distribute it to
the folk is a profanation and a blasphemy, especially where
there may not be all that much to know in the first place.
(Scientists, blessed by an _embarras_des_richesses_ and the
affection of engineers and businessmen, need do less of
this, although you occasionally see some of it there as
well.)
Hence it becomes safer, easier, and probably more productive
to simply indicate some examples, and step back.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
G*rd*n
| >What do deconstructionists do? For a start, they describe the
| | >etymylogical origins of words. They also describe how the use >of certain
| | words and phrases
| | has changed historically by >recounting both the origin and particular uses
| | and well as >decidedly different uses of terms and phrases, or even ideas.
| | >Thirdly, they describe the semantic meanings associated with >certain words,
| | of which there could be many; they may even get >into the semantic meanings
| | of utterances which can include many >soundings that seem similar but are
| | actually different.
| | >Lastly, they will analyze the metonymy of words and phrases.
semi...@aol.com (Semiosis):
| This is probably the most inadequate defenition of "deconstruction" I have
| ever read. ...
Now I'm jealous.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Andy Lowry
On 4 Sep 1997, Semiosis wrote:
> probably the most inadequate defenition of "deconstruction" I have
> ever read. For being so confident of its reifying capabilities, this
> discourse renders deconstructionist methodology to be so vapid as to be
> practically non-existant. The above definition could apply to many MANY
> schools of analysis, including (and this is what really turned the above
> utterance on its head for me) the long defunct "New Criticism." Anyone
> care to profer something more
> accurate?
Sure, I'll risk baring my naivete ... don't look if you're offended easily
...
All concessions to Moggin's implications of ineffability, I'd hazard that
a "deconstructive" approach relies on identifying and ramifying (is that a
word?) an implicit opposition on the textual or thematic level. Implicit,
in that it's not something the "normal" reading of the text (do we know
this when we see it?) would tend to notice, hence the close reading stuff.
Classic example, de Man's assertion that the
referential/propositional/"meaning" element of a text is subverted by its
poetic/rhetorical element ... with the added bind that we can't simply
drop this opposition and go on our merry way to some other way of reading,
since we always WANT texts to refer, i.e., we want to bring our reading to
an end/understanding/conclusion. People seem to paint de Man as inferior
to Derrida because he doesn't "carry out" the deconstruction to some new
opposition (cf. end of Derrida's "Signature Event Context"), but de Man
never stops being concerned with the truth of literary language, aporia
tho he finds it to be.
Derrida, I'm weaker on, but the earlier texts seem to suggest an endless
play of deconstructions, reconstructions, and deconstructions renewed,
with "truth" being a fighting word rather than a desired goal.
Hence all the bewildering (it seems) attention to etymologies, tropes,
etc., trying to see how language has a life of its own that resists simple
reference or translation ... or, if you don't trust the deconstructors,
such attention tries to contort texts to fit the theories of the critics.
Personally I'm uneasy with most "always" assertions, including de Man's
about rhetoric vs. grammar/logic, so I don't know what I necessarily
think; I do believe it would require serious study.
Flame away, ye cohorts ...
-- Andy Lowry
I know neither science nor art, but am a philosopher.--Heraclides Ponticus
Puss in Boots
vu...@aol.com (Vunch):
> | Now, others may agree or disagree. But, I am offering a definition
> | that is much more worthy of the word 'definition,' than the discussion
> | presently dominating this ng.
False.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
Let me see if I understand this: offering specific, concrete
examples is a way of _not_ distributing knowledge? Perhaps even
of stepping _back_ from it? While conversely (I've got to assume)
indulging in highly rarefied debates over the definition of the
subject matter _is_ a way to get the word out? I can't make sense
of that.
-- Moggin
G*rd*n
| ...
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
| Let me see if I understand this: offering specific, concrete
| examples is a way of _not_ distributing knowledge? Perhaps even
| of stepping _back_ from it? While conversely (I've got to assume)
| indulging in highly rarefied debates over the definition of the
| subject matter _is_ a way to get the word out? I can't make sense
| of that.
Sure you can. What's been asked for is not the thing
itself, but a representation (Ogdenwise: re-present-ation)
of the thing. (A _presentation_ would require that you do
and show the thing itself, for example, by practicing
deconstruction _in_situ_.) Presumably the representation is
held to be more manageable than a presentation; I can dig
that. To refuse to provide the representation is to step
back from the question, indicating perhaps the direction
the asker should take, but not answering the question.
Indication is not representation. As I have already worked
the Russian language metaphor so hard, I'll continue to use
it for examples of these three response types.
Presentation: Nye dai mnye Bog soiti s uma,
Nyet, lyegche posokh i suma,
Nyet, lyegche trud i grad,
Nye to, chto razumom moyim
Ya dorozhil, nye to, chto s nim
Razstatsya byl nye rad.... i.t.g.
Representation: Russian is a language, one of the Slavic
branch of the Indo-European languages, which generally
maintain the IE case system and have certain peculiarities
of syntax, namely.... etc. etc.
Abjuration: Go to Brighton Beach, and keep your ears open.
My understanding of what you've said is that (1) and (2)
would be either impossible or seriously impaired in the
present context, a newsgroup. All this seems not only
sensible but crystalline.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Semiosis
>What do deconstructionists do? For a start, they describe the
| >etymylogical origins of words. They also describe how the use >of certain
| words and phrases
| has changed historically by >recounting both the origin and particular uses
| and well as >decidedly different uses of terms and phrases, or even ideas.
| >Thirdly, they describe the semantic meanings associated with >certain words,
| of which there could be many; they may even get >into the semantic meanings
| of utterances which can include many >soundings that seem similar but are
| actually different.
| >Lastly, they will analyze the metonymy of words and phrases.
This is probably the most inadequate defenition of "deconstruction" I have
ever read. For being so confident of its reifying capabilities, this
discourse renders deconstructionist methodology to be so vapid as to be
practically non-existant. The above definition could apply to many MANY
schools of analysis, including (and this is what really turned the above
utterance on its head for me) the long defunct "New Criticism." Anyone
care to profer something more
accurate?
Semi
Puss in Boots
Andy Lowry:
> All concessions to Moggin's implications of ineffability, I'd hazard that
> a "deconstructive" approach relies on identifying and ramifying (is that a
> word?) an implicit opposition on the textual or thematic level. Implicit,
> in that it's not something the "normal" reading of the text (do we know
> this when we see it?) would tend to notice, hence the close reading stuff.
[...]
I wouldn't say that deconstruction is too ineffable to grasp,
but rather that it's too concrete to be readily abstracted into
a formula. It's a practice of reading, and it exists in the acts
of interpretation where those readings are performed. I don't
see why we can't try to describe or characterize them -- but then,
it's not entirely obvious why we would _want_ to. This thread
began when a couple of people posted questions on the subject. H.
recommended some book-length accounts; I differed with him and
suggested looking at specific examples -- I still say that's good
advice. If someone asked about Virginia Woolf, you could reply
by talking about her themes and her imagery; or you could mention
_To the Lighthouse_ as a good place to look. If someone asked
about the blues, you could tell them about pentatonic scales, and
blue notes, and chord progressions; or you could slap on some
Howlin' Wolf.
-- Moggin
G*rd*n
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
| ...[O]r you could slap on some
| Howlin' Wolf.
In that case, we should deconstruct something right in this
newsgroup. I'm game. What shall it be?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Puss in Boots
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
> | Let me see if I understand this: offering specific, concrete
> | examples is a way of _not_ distributing knowledge? Perhaps even
> | of stepping _back_ from it? While conversely (I've got to assume)
> | indulging in highly rarefied debates over the definition of the
> | subject matter _is_ a way to get the word out? I can't make sense
> | of that.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
Then it must be my fault for not understanding -- unless the
trouble lies elsewhere. For instance, I didn't notice anyone
asking for a representation -- I saw a couple of questions on the
topic of deconstruction. They asked what it is and how it's
practiced -- they didn't prescribe the form of the answer. To me
it seems that the best reply is some good advice on where to
begin reading. Even a handful of well-chosen essays can give you
a better acquaintance with the subject than either a pile of
learned disquisitions or a 25-word summary. But for reasons that
I don't entirely grasp, that's turned out to be a controversial
suggestion -- I'm reminded just slightly of l'affair Sokal, where
my idea that one might read a few issues of _Social Text_ to
learn what it contained (given that one cared in the first place)
met with such sustained resistance.
But I digress. I'm still trying to figure out why you would
say that offering particular examples is a way of _not_
distributing knowledge, and possibly even a way of stepping _back_
from that task. Since I'm the one's been giving them, I figure
you were aiming at me, so I'd like to know what you were thinking.
Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails of it. From my
perspective, I was doing my best to make knowledge _available_ --
your criticism seems bizarre. I sure did answer the question. I
simply didn't answer it in what you seem to have decided is the
only acceptable way. _Why_ you've decided that I don't know, and
you don't say. But I think that "Here -- look and see" is an
excellent reply; it's certainly a good way to make knowledge more
accessible, and better by far than substituting a formula.
-- Moggin
G*rd*n
| ...
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
| Then it must be my fault for not understanding -- unless the
| trouble lies elsewhere. For instance, I didn't notice anyone
| asking for a representation -- I saw a couple of questions on the
| topic of deconstruction. They asked what it is and how it's
| practiced -- they didn't prescribe the form of the answer.
I think they were asking for a representation. Complaints
were uttered that a representation were not offered, were
they not?
| To me
| it seems that the best reply is some good advice on where to
| begin reading. Even a handful of well-chosen essays can give you
| a better acquaintance with the subject than either a pile of
| learned disquisitions or a 25-word summary. But for reasons that
| I don't entirely grasp, that's turned out to be a controversial
| suggestion -- I'm reminded just slightly of l'affair Sokal, where
| my idea that one might read a few issues of _Social Text_ to
| learn what it contained (given that one cared in the first place)
| met with such sustained resistance.
_I'm_ reminded of the insistence of some of the science
campers that I couldn't think about physics until I had
fully mastered the work of Newton, Einstein, and the rest of
the usual suspects, including the associated mathematics.
Of course there is truth in this -- just as one can't fully
understand and appreciate the Russian language without not
only learning to speak it, but living in, perhaps, Pskov,
from the age of zero, and reading the entire literature
several times over. But for some purposes, representation
might do, as I said awhile ago. One needs to know for what
purpose the representation is intended. In the case of
deconstruction, I proposed a variety of situations:
answering a test question in school, chatting cleverly at
at a cocktail party, thinking about what to read on the
plane -- each of which might well make use of differing
representations.
| But I digress. I'm still trying to figure out why you would
| say that offering particular examples is a way of _not_
| distributing knowledge, and possibly even a way of stepping _back_
| from that task. Since I'm the one's been giving them, I figure
| you were aiming at me, so I'd like to know what you were thinking.
| Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails of it. From my
| perspective, I was doing my best to make knowledge _available_ --
| your criticism seems bizarre. I sure did answer the question. I
| simply didn't answer it in what you seem to have decided is the
| only acceptable way. _Why_ you've decided that I don't know, and
| you don't say. But I think that "Here -- look and see" is an
| excellent reply; it's certainly a good way to make knowledge more
| accessible, and better by far than substituting a formula.
Is it? I think that depends on what you mean by
_knowledge_. If I need to know enough to select reading
material for a five-hour plane trip, or avoid embarrassment
at a cocktail party, then surely a good re-present-ation
would be of more service than a book list. You're treating
_knowledge_ as some kind of absolute or uniform thing. But
it's not like that, it's a scratching around on the surface
of things -- some scratches go deeper than others, but it's
scratches after all.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Puss in Boots
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
> | Then it must be my fault for not understanding -- unless the
> | trouble lies elsewhere. For instance, I didn't notice anyone
> | asking for a representation -- I saw a couple of questions on the
> | topic of deconstruction. They asked what it is and how it's
> | practiced -- they didn't prescribe the form of the answer.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> I think they were asking for a representation. Complaints
> were uttered that a representation were not offered, were
> they not?
Oh, they were -- but by who, and why? Not by the people who
asked, I'll tell you that much. Granted, I'm relying on my
memory here, which isn't necessarily a wise thing for me to do --
if I'm getting this wrong, I hope you'll correct me. But as I
recall, Shane's criteria were "simple" and "no-bullshit" -- I met
both of them, in my opinion, and Shane didn't stick around long
enough to give his. Steph, for her part, seemed relatively happy
with my analogy to Dickinson, and we left things there. The
complaints came later, from other sources; I don't feel much like
analyzing them right now, but I'm sure you could do a bang-up
job, if you wanted.
Moggin:
> | To me
> | it seems that the best reply is some good advice on where to
> | begin reading. Even a handful of well-chosen essays can give you
> | a better acquaintance with the subject than either a pile of
> | learned disquisitions or a 25-word summary. But for reasons that
> | I don't entirely grasp, that's turned out to be a controversial
> | suggestion -- I'm reminded just slightly of l'affair Sokal, where
> | my idea that one might read a few issues of _Social Text_ to
> | learn what it contained (given that one cared in the first place)
> | met with such sustained resistance.
Gordon:
> _I'm_ reminded of the insistence of some of the science
> campers that I couldn't think about physics until I had
> fully mastered the work of Newton, Einstein, and the rest of
> the usual suspects, including the associated mathematics.
> Of course there is truth in this -- just as one can't fully
> understand and appreciate the Russian language without not
> only learning to speak it, but living in, perhaps, Pskov,
> from the age of zero, and reading the entire literature
> several times over.
This helps -- if you think that I'm taking the stance of the
science campers, then I can see why you would be critical. The
only thing is, I don't get the comparison. I haven't said even a
single word about what you've got to read before you can think
about deconstruction. Establishing prerequisites is the furthest
thing from my mind. Go ahead, think away, and may God be with
you. I was just trying to provide a helpful reply to some people
who asked about the subject. (Honest.)
> But for some purposes, representation
> might do, as I said awhile ago. One needs to know for what
> purpose the representation is intended. In the case of
> deconstruction, I proposed a variety of situations:
> answering a test question in school, chatting cleverly at
> at a cocktail party, thinking about what to read on the
> plane -- each of which might well make use of differing
> representations.
Sure; and as you may remember, I borrowed the cocktail-party
scenario when I gave Michelle a description of deconstruction.
But what's the purpose here? And why this insistence on treating
vague requests for information and enlightenment ("Could
somebody please clue me in on 'deconstruction'?") as if they were
short answer questions? If this _is_ a quiz, I'm going to get
my usual poor grade -- but why make it one? Is it just that most
of the folks replying have spent too long in school?
Moggin:
> | But I digress. I'm still trying to figure out why you would
> | say that offering particular examples is a way of _not_
> | distributing knowledge, and possibly even a way of stepping _back_
> | from that task. Since I'm the one's been giving them, I figure
> | you were aiming at me, so I'd like to know what you were thinking.
> | Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails of it. From my
> | perspective, I was doing my best to make knowledge _available_ --
> | your criticism seems bizarre. I sure did answer the question. I
> | simply didn't answer it in what you seem to have decided is the
> | only acceptable way. _Why_ you've decided that I don't know, and
> | you don't say. But I think that "Here -- look and see" is an
> | excellent reply; it's certainly a good way to make knowledge more
> | accessible, and better by far than substituting a formula.
Gordon:
> Is it? I think that depends on what you mean by
> _knowledge_. If I need to know enough to select reading
> material for a five-hour plane trip, or avoid embarrassment
> at a cocktail party, then surely a good re-present-ation
> would be of more service than a book list. You're treating
> _knowledge_ as some kind of absolute or uniform thing. But
> it's not like that, it's a scratching around on the surface
> of things -- some scratches go deeper than others, but it's
> scratches after all.
I was following _you_ -- you claimed (if I understood) that
giving examples was a questionable way of spreading knowledge.
You didn't make any qualifications about airplane rides, cocktail
parties, or disuniformity. I _still_ can't find any sense in
your point. Now you're saying that it depends -- and so it does.
But if you were trying to choose reading material for a plane
ride, a few suggestions might be helpful. If you wanted to learn
about deconstruction, they would be handy there, too. Not the
same suggestions, necessarily. I wouldn't want to read de Man on
the plane. On the other hand, Deighton or Le Carre might have
something to say about deconstruction.
-- Moggin
Andy Lowry
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Puss in Boots wrote:
> Andy Lowry:
>
> > All concessions to Moggin's implications of ineffability, I'd hazard that
> > a "deconstructive" approach relies on identifying and ramifying (is that a
> > word?) an implicit opposition on the textual or thematic level. Implicit,
> > in that it's not something the "normal" reading of the text (do we know
> > this when we see it?) would tend to notice, hence the close reading stuff.
>
> I wouldn't say that deconstruction is too ineffable to grasp,
> but rather that it's too concrete to be readily abstracted into
> a formula. It's a practice of reading, and it exists in the acts
> of interpretation where those readings are performed. I don't
> see why we can't try to describe or characterize them -- but then,
> it's not entirely obvious why we would _want_ to.
Well, sure, that's a legitimate intellectual response, & I'm certainly
aware of the poverties of my little definition. On the other hand, is it
a good rhetorical response? or even a good one pedagogically? I don't see
why "deconstruction" is any less susceptible to definition than "sexual
intercourse" or "France." Sometimes all people want is a vague
definition. If they want the real thing, they should read it, do it, or
go there, respectively.
> This thread
> began when a couple of people posted questions on the subject. H.
> recommended some book-length accounts; I differed with him and
> suggested looking at specific examples -- I still say that's good
> advice. If someone asked about Virginia Woolf, you could reply
> by talking about her themes and her imagery; or you could mention
> _To the Lighthouse_ as a good place to look.
Yeah, but if they're _asking_ instead of just going to the library, then
maybe they want some sense of why she's worth looking into? In which
case I could rave on about her work, or quote something, or otherwise
provide the kind of response that might be called for, along with saying
"read _Lighthouse_ it's splendid."
> If someone asked
> about the blues, you could tell them about pentatonic scales, and
> blue notes, and chord progressions; or you could slap on some
> Howlin' Wolf.
If someone asks me about the blues, I'll tell them about grad school.
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <5us733$5...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
[ re: reading list == good answer ]
>Is it? I think that depends on what you mean by
>_knowledge_. If I need to know enough to select reading
>material for a five-hour plane trip, or avoid embarrassment
>at a cocktail party, ...
Hear! Hear! Ever read Stephen Potter books? Very lightweight
stuff, but I always thought "spot on". E.g. general purpose
retort, "Yes, but not in the south." will always leave
you "one up", "game birdsmanship vs. bird gamesmanship" etc.
Bullshit as ultimate knowledge! ( bullshit deconstructs knowledge. )
>.................... then surely a good re-present-ation
>would be of more service than a book list. You're treating
>_knowledge_ as some kind of absolute or uniform thing. But
>it's not like that, it's a scratching around on the surface
>of things -- some scratches go deeper than others, but it's
>scratches after all.
Yes, and knowledge is not some great load of baggage.
I'm fascinated by the idea of sudden insight, and perhaps
some scratches are great penetrations. "My mind, like a
cloud momentarily illuminated by a lightning flash, is
suddenly filled with strange crude ideas." - I love that
line ( from Galileo's TWO NEW SCIENCES ).
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Brian Butler
This whole question seems to me to approximate a question I earlier posted
(with no results) about CLS ideas. While many of the ideas that
"Deconstructivists" and "CLS" scholars are important and fertile they did
not originate them or cannot even be said to be the most rigorous or
insightful users of these tools. It is also a marvelously defensive
position to be in "trashing" other people's points while not bringing one's
own assumptions into the light of day (to use an outmoded expression).
-Mammel,L.H. <l...@ihgp167e.ih.lucent.com> wrote in article
<5uutga$8...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>...
Puss in Boots
"Brian Butler" <dbeb...@hotmail.com:
> This whole question seems to me to approximate a question I earlier posted
> (with no results) about CLS ideas. ...
There were about a half-dozen posts on the thread concerning
postmodernism and law, including CLS; the most informative ones
were from Tom, Philip, and Andy. If you missed them, go and look
for "Postmodern hallenge to law (help") -- I hope you'll find
something useful.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
G*rd*n:
>[ re: reading list == good answer ]
> >Is it? I think that depends on what you mean by
> >_knowledge_. If I need to know enough to select reading
> >material for a five-hour plane trip, or avoid embarrassment
> >at a cocktail party, ...
Lew Mammel, Jr.:
> Hear! Hear! Ever read Stephen Potter books? Very lightweight
> stuff, but I always thought "spot on". E.g. general purpose
> retort, "Yes, but not in the south." will always leave
> you "one up", "game birdsmanship vs. bird gamesmanship" etc.
> Bullshit as ultimate knowledge! ( bullshit deconstructs knowledge. )
Huh -- if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just suggested
suggested some reading.
Gordon:
> >.................... then surely a good re-present-ation
> >would be of more service than a book list. You're treating
> >_knowledge_ as some kind of absolute or uniform thing. But
> >it's not like that, it's a scratching around on the surface
> >of things -- some scratches go deeper than others, but it's
> >scratches after all.
Lew:
> Yes, and knowledge is not some great load of baggage.
> I'm fascinated by the idea of sudden insight, and perhaps
> some scratches are great penetrations. "My mind, like a
> cloud momentarily illuminated by a lightning flash, is
> suddenly filled with strange crude ideas." - I love that
> line ( from Galileo's TWO NEW SCIENCES ).
"...I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into
them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the
depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of
those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak
without experience. The cold water makes one swift.
And to ask this incidentally: does a matter necessarily
remain misunderstood and unfathomed merely because it has been
touched only in flight, glanced at, in a flash? Is it absolutely
imperative that one settles down on it? that one has brooded
over it as over an egg? _Diu noctoque incubando_ [By incubating
it day and night], as Newton said of himself? At least there are
truths that are singularly shy and ticklish and cannot be caught
except suddenly -- that must be _surprised_ or left alone."
(Nietzsche, _The Gay Science_ 381)
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
Andy Lowry:
>>> All concessions to Moggin's implications of ineffability, I'd hazard that
>>> a "deconstructive" approach relies on identifying and ramifying (is that a
>>> word?) an implicit opposition on the textual or thematic level. Implicit,
>>> in that it's not something the "normal" reading of the text (do we know
>>> this when we see it?) would tend to notice, hence the close reading stuff.
Moggin:
> > I wouldn't say that deconstruction is too ineffable to grasp,
> > but rather that it's too concrete to be readily abstracted into
> > a formula. It's a practice of reading, and it exists in the acts
> > of interpretation where those readings are performed. I don't
> > see why we can't try to describe or characterize them -- but then,
> > it's not entirely obvious why we would _want_ to.
Andy:
> Well, sure, that's a legitimate intellectual response, & I'm certainly
> aware of the poverties of my little definition. On the other hand, is it
> a good rhetorical response? or even a good one pedagogically? I don't see
> why "deconstruction" is any less susceptible to definition than "sexual
> intercourse" or "France." Sometimes all people want is a vague
> definition. If they want the real thing, they should read it, do it, or
> go there, respectively.
I'm not criticizing your definition; but if you want to know
what the problem is with offering one -- well, I just told you.
Look at it pedagogically and the point goes double -- it would be
ridiculous to teach about deconstruction _without_ discussing
some of the texts where it's performed. I can only hope that you
agree.
Moggin:
> > This thread
> > began when a couple of people posted questions on the subject. H.
> > recommended some book-length accounts; I differed with him and
> > suggested looking at specific examples -- I still say that's good
> > advice. If someone asked about Virginia Woolf, you could reply
> > by talking about her themes and her imagery; or you could mention
> > _To the Lighthouse_ as a good place to look.
Andy:
> Yeah, but if they're _asking_ instead of just going to the library, then
> maybe they want some sense of why she's worth looking into? In which
> case I could rave on about her work, or quote something, or otherwise
> provide the kind of response that might be called for, along with saying
> "read _Lighthouse_ it's splendid."
If they're _asking_, they must already be interested in the
subject -- obviously it has at least enough importance to them
that they want to know more. The question is, how best can they
learn? Ans: by reading. If someone asks, "Who is this Woolf
person, anyway?" then of course you can offer the standard info:
20th c. English novelist, etc. But why is she worth looking
into? Because of what she wrote. Sure, you can rave on -- it's
a crazy feeling -- but that's no substitute. Ditto for Howlin'
Wolf -- nothing you can say replaces listening to "How Many More
Years." And the same goes for deconstruction. You can give a
spiel, if you feel like it -- but anybody interested in learning
about the topic would be wise to glance at some well-chosen
examples. (That _is_ "the kind of response that might be called
for.")
Moggin:
> > If someone asked
> > about the blues, you could tell them about pentatonic scales, and
> > blue notes, and chord progressions; or you could slap on some
> > Howlin' Wolf.
Andy:
> If someone asks me about the blues, I'll tell them about grad school.
Good one.
-- Moggin
G*rd*n
"Brian Butler" <dbeb...@hotmail.com>:
| This whole question seems to me to approximate a question I earlier posted
| (with no results) about CLS ideas. While many of the ideas that
| "Deconstructivists" and "CLS" scholars are important and fertile they did
| not originate them or cannot even be said to be the most rigorous or
| insightful users of these tools. It is also a marvelously defensive
| position to be in "trashing" other people's points while not bringing one's
| own assumptions into the light of day (to use an outmoded expression).
It would be interesting to me if you would identify and describe
the genealogy of the ideas / tools. I regret not posting
anything about CLS, but I know nothing about it and was not
up to fullfilling the mandate of the _Tao_Te_Ching_: "Those
who know don't say. Those who say don't know." I felt sure
someone would spring into the breach -- wrong again.
But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Puss in Boots
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
[...]
> But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
> Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
> practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
> looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
> and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
At the time it would have been classed as structuralism.
Reading it now, it seems to stand on a fault line between
structuralism and post-structuralism (one of the neat things
about Barthes' history as a writer is that it follows a
trajectory from one to the other). But if you want to label
it "deconstruction" in "the looser sense" -- well, that's
your lookout. According to Lehman, in _Signs of the Times_,
"deconstruction" has even been used in discussing the Mets
and the Dodgers. Granted, he takes both his examples from a
couple of NY rags -- and not the _Post_ or the _News_, but
_The New Yorker_ and _The Village Voice_.
-- Moggin
Brian Butler
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>...
But this still begs the question of what makes this label non-slippery
enough to actually tack onto a group of theorists. Is Heidegger a
"deconstructivist" or a metaphysician or both? When Dewey "deconstructs
the official philosophical meta-narrative is he a deconstructivist or a
reconstructivist? Can a deconstructivist have positive claims? Does all
deconstructivist thought break down because of the "performative
contradiction" as Habermas has it?
I have enjoyed reading many post-modern authors - which of these are
properly called deconstructivists and which not? If the question is
illegitimate....then what?
Brian Butler
(half in jest/half serious)
Brian Butler
> It would be interesting to me if you would identify and describe
> the genealogy of the ideas / tools. I regret not posting
> anything about CLS, but I know nothing about it and was not
> up to fullfilling the mandate of the _Tao_Te_Ching_: "Those
> who know don't say. Those who say don't know." I felt sure
> someone would spring into the breach -- wrong again.
Being a philosopher I would at least look for the irony and sense of humor
in Plato - it seems to me the current portrayal of him as a deadly serious
academic is more a comment upon people of our times than of his. I also
wonder whether the later Wittgenstein should be considered a
deconstructivist (among other more "central" philosophers of today).
>
> But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
> Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
> practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
> looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
> and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
>
Barthes was introduced to me in the context of deconstruction so my reading
of him is suspect. I still am not sure I understand the distinction
between a looser and more rigorous sense of the word. My sense of the
problem is that deconstruction is actually a label that combines the
followers of a few earlier philosophers under a label in a way that creates
the appearance of a coherent movement that satisfies both the need for a
justification of our weak moral subjectivism in a way that seems
academically rigorous and a way to belittle the arguments made those whom
with we disagree. Clearly this is a characterization of why the movement
became so popular - not to be projected upon the truths found by the most
sophisticated practitioners unless borne out with argument in the
particular case.
David Christopher Swanson
When a new field gets baptised in the physical sciences, every
nonscientist does not demand an easy understanding of it. When a new
style of music or of visual art is created, people who want to know
something about it go and look at it. One meaning of "deconstruction"
is "that stuff Derrida does." If you have read Derrida you have no
reason to ask the question "What is deconstruction?" and if you have
not then you have no business asking it. Maybe it should be reserved
for those who have read a little, and only a little, Derrida.
But lots of people use the word in lots of ways. You can find it in
restaurant menus composed by people who have never heard of Derrida.
In many cases the answer to what it means is apparent. Often the
answer is: It doesn't mean a thing.
So, why the eternal question? Why will these threads seemingly never
die? Presumably it's got something to do with the pretentiousness of
people using the word and the inferiority complexes of certain people
not using the word. The debate might perhaps be translated thus: A:
"Why are you pretentious?" B: "What are you worried about?" But we've
seen this debate before, and it can be summarized pretty quickly.
Maybe we can move on?
DCS
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| [...]
| > But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
| > Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
| > practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
| > looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
| > and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
| At the time it would have been classed as structuralism.
| Reading it now, it seems to stand on a fault line between
| structuralism and post-structuralism (one of the neat things
| about Barthes' history as a writer is that it follows a
| trajectory from one to the other). But if you want to label
| it "deconstruction" in "the looser sense" -- well, that's
| your lookout. According to Lehman, in _Signs of the Times_,
| "deconstruction" has even been used in discussing the Mets
| and the Dodgers. Granted, he takes both his examples from a
| couple of NY rags -- and not the _Post_ or the _News_, but
| _The New Yorker_ and _The Village Voice_.
Words mean what people use them or take them to mean, so of
course their meaning changes as we change speakers and
audiences. In this case, I was thinking of the relevant
conversational community as being the people who
participate in the discussions in this newsgroup, not the
sports writers of the _Village_Voice_; I am unfamiliar
with the latter.
Now, if Barthes's _Mythologies_ is a border-line case, we
have a border; so it should not be difficult to take, say,
his examination of a French African soldier on the cover of
_Paris-Match_, or _The_Family_Of_Man_, and say, "Here is
Barthes; that way lies deconstruction; this way is the
country of (something else)." As _Mythologies_ is widely
available, and Barthes's writing style is lucid, one might
almost say facile, it may be we have found what the
deconstruction-seekers are looking for. (At least some of
them -- granted Barthes's ghost must flee a gathering where
the name of Heidegger is thrice pronounced.)
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| > It would be interesting to me if you would identify and describe
| > the genealogy of the ideas / tools. I regret not posting
| > anything about CLS, but I know nothing about it and was not
| > up to fullfilling the mandate of the _Tao_Te_Ching_: "Those
| > who know don't say. Those who say don't know." I felt sure
| > someone would spring into the breach -- wrong again.
"Brian Butler" <dbeb...@hotmail.com>:
| Being a philosopher I would at least look for the irony and sense of humor
| in Plato - it seems to me the current portrayal of him as a deadly serious
| academic is more a comment upon people of our times than of his. I also
| wonder whether the later Wittgenstein should be considered a
| deconstructivist (among other more "central" philosophers of today).
The idea that Plato might sometimes have been ironical or
humorous has been advanced before in alt.pomo, as I recall.
However, the owners and operators of "Plato" have been
fairly insistent over the years on his deadly seriousness,
and I don't know that their control can be broken at this
late date.
I regard Witt as a humorist and a destroyer -- this is why I
like his work -- but not a deconstructionist. Just from the
roots of the word, a _deconstructionist_ should show us the
parts taken from the structure, not a atomized ruin. (But
this is a personal view of Witt, not a fortified position
which I mean to defend. I am no philosopher.)
G*rd*n:
| > But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
| > Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
| > practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
| > looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
| > and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
"Brian Butler" <dbeb...@hotmail.com>:
| Barthes was introduced to me in the context of deconstruction so my reading
| of him is suspect. I still am not sure I understand the distinction
| between a looser and more rigorous sense of the word.
A word defines -- sets boundaries around -- a subspace in
the space of denotation. The boundaries can enclose a
smaller or larger space, and they can be distinct or fuzzy.
They can also be moved in the middle of a statement --
indeed, in the middle of a word. In the case in point, if
one says "X is deconstruction" or "Charlie does decon",
another can always move the boundaries to leave X and
Charlie, or rather those who mention them, stranded. By
saying "looser" I provide that at least the tide may come
back in.
Unfortunately, this strategy failed, and I wound up with a
_Village_Voice_ reporter in Shea Stadium. What a fate!
| My sense of the
| problem is that deconstruction is actually a label that combines the
| followers of a few earlier philosophers under a label in a way that creates
| the appearance of a coherent movement that satisfies both the need for a
| justification of our weak moral subjectivism in a way that seems
| academically rigorous and a way to belittle the arguments made those whom
| with we disagree. ...
If our moral subjectivism is weak, it needs all the help it
can get. How do you mean "weak", though? It seems to me
that it may be weak in the sense of not being very popular,
but per moral subjectivist it seems strong enough.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
lee
On 8 Sep 1997 03:37:13 GMT dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote
in <5uvrt9$e3d$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>:
When a new field gets baptised in the physical sciences, every
nonscientist does not demand an easy understanding of it. When a new
style of music or of visual art is created, people who want to know
something about it go and look at it. One meaning of "deconstruction"
is "that stuff Derrida does." If you have read Derrida you have no
reason to ask the question "What is deconstruction?" and if you have
not then you have no business asking it. Maybe it should be reserved
for those who have read a little, and only a little, Derrida.
I read the word 'aleph' and did not recognise it, did not understand it.
I asked someone who I thought might know and they handed me a list of ten books,
and told me to go and read them. On seeing the hieght of the pile of books, and
the medicore and unengaging style of the writers, I found another person to ask
about 'aleph.'
'You don't read Hebrew, so you've got no right to know!'
But lots of people use the word in lots of ways. You can find it in
restaurant menus composed by people who have never heard of Derrida.
In many cases the answer to what it means is apparent. Often the
answer is: It doesn't mean a thing.
Agreed by all surely? But the point is that sometimes it does mean something...
So, why the eternal question?
...the questioner doesn't know what the word does mean, and has asked us to
explain it simply...
Why will these threads seemingly never
die? Presumably it's got something to do with the pretentiousness of
people using the word and the inferiority complexes of certain people
not using the word. The debate might perhaps be translated thus: A:
"Why are you pretentious?" B: "What are you worried about?" But we've
seen this debate before, and it can be summarized pretty quickly.
Maybe we can move on?
By all means, you write anything you like - move on. But not everyone one has
been here as long as you. What'll you tell your children when they ask how to
spell 'chrysanthemum'? That you know already, don't ask silly questions, I've
been through it with your mother?
The last OED offered a pretty good definition of the term, with a great reading
list. Not just a reading list, mind you, but a pretty good, workable, useable,
positive definition:
b. Philos. and Lit. Theory. A strategy of critical analysis associated with the
French philosopher Jacques Derrida (b. 1930), directed towards exposing
unquestioned metaphysical assumptions and internal contradictions in
philosophical and literary language. Also transf.
I think I wrote something simillar off-line to the questioner, and am a little
surprised that a simillar definition has not yet sprung up here on alt.pomo (at
least).
Could this denial of the original intentions of Derrida's deconstruction have
something to do my newserver, or maybe with the society in which the majority of
contributors to this group post from? Is there something over there, some
vestige of the '50s, which prevents the episteme, hegemony of that society from
being questioned, let alone subverted?
Or, to use a phrase from rec.arts.books, is that 'adolescent student bullshit.'
And if so, is it mine or Derrida's?
David Christopher Swanson wrote (in the above article) that:
One meaning of "deconstruction" is "that stuff Derrida does"
which leads me to ask, does no-one else do it? Someone here, maybe? Moggin would
rather play the blues on a record than explain the blues notes of the
pentatonic: but wouldn't it be great if she could pick up an instrument and give
us a 12 bar? Oh, sure Wolfe is a great singer, and Woolf is a great writer, but
they are sadly not with us to answer questions: our deconstructions might be
poor, but at least they can be questioned, at least in theory.
If you, questioner, are still reading, then may I recommend the thread 'Love!
Honour! Compassion!' from about May/June this year? At one point a
deconstruction of the word 'God' was attempted, which may be of interest. Feel
free to e-mail me for more details.
Lee Goddard @ Jove U-net com
Quotes from the OED:
1973 D. B. Allison tr. Derrida’s Speech & Phenomena vi. 74 The prerogative of
being cannot withstand the deconstruction of the word.
1973 Matias & Willemen tr. M. Cegarra in Screen Spring/Summer 130 A radical
reading of the texts/films, a turning back upon theories and types of criticism,
effecting deconstructions, ruptures, deletions and renewals.
1976 G. C. Spivak in J. Derrida Of Grammatology p. lxxvii, To locate the
promising marginal text, to disclose the undecidable moment, to pry it loose
with the positive lever of the signifier; to reverse the resident hierarchy,
only to displace it; to dismantle in order to reconstitute what is always
already inscribed. Deconstruction in a nutshell.
1979 London Rev. Bks. 25 Oct. 2/4 We are not in favour of the current fashion
for the ‘deconstruction’ of literary texts, for the elimination of the author
from his work.
1982 Encounter May 87/1 The strength of these critiques is that they offer
alternative constructions as well as critical deconstructions of language.
1983 N. & Q. Dec. 549/2 Boucher, Lemoyne, Natoire, discard space as it was
created by Masaccio and their work is a ‘deconstruction’ of quattrocento
achievement.
Hence
decon'structionism, the theory or practice of deconstruction (sense b);
decon'structionist a. and n., (characteristic of) an adherent or practitioner of
deconstructionism.
1980 R. M. Adams in Michaels & Ricks State of Lang. 584 The coincidence of
vulgar with erudite deconstructionism is a circumstance worth remarking.
1982 N. & Q. June 193/2 To see in this poem a ‘structureless habit of
proceeding’ is too determinedly deconstructionist.
1983 N. & Q. June 286/2 In 1979 he rather recommended J. Hillis Miller’s Yale
deconstructionism.
1983 D. Lodge in Times Lit. Suppl. 11 Nov. 1237/2 ‘Bartleby’ is indeed the sort
of story that makes deconstructionists’ mouths water, an astonishingly early
assault on the conventions and assumptions of the ‘classic realist text’.
1984 Listener 15 Mar. 16/2 This follows, as the deconstructionists never tire of
telling us, ‘from the systematic and collective nature of language and literary
convention’.
Lee @ jove . u-net . com
DCS
lee
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 22:48:05 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com> moving closer to the
Leavises:
If they're _asking_, they must already be interested in the
subject -- obviously it has at least enough importance to them
that they want to know more. The question is, how best can they
learn? Ans: by reading. If someone asks, "Who is this Woolf
person, anyway?" then of course you can offer the standard info:
20th c. English novelist, etc. But why is she worth looking
into? Because of what she wrote. Sure, you can rave on -- it's
a crazy feeling -- but that's no substitute. Ditto for Howlin'
Wolf -- nothing you can say replaces listening to "How Many More
Years." And the same goes for deconstruction. You can give a
spiel, if you feel like it -- but anybody interested in learning
about the topic would be wise to glance at some well-chosen
examples.
Speil: German for 'game' used in Yiddish as a verb ...
[definition cut in keeping with alt.pomo's 'No Definition' dogma,
and replaced with an example:]
"The guy ripped off my riffs,
so I gave the usual legal speil..."
"Oh no, not that _Job_ speil again..."
Along with 'schmuck,' these words seem to offer little by way of 'meaning' when
used in the USA. They appear to be parroted without comprehension of their
European uses, and without intention of conveying anything other than derission,
aggression: a reflex response?
What use do American's make of 'putz' - has it come up for misappropriaton yet?
and if so, is that merely another step in the assosiating of the Yiddish
language with negativity?
And who's to blame for that?
Genuinely,
Lee
G*rd*n
| ...
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard):
| Speil: German for 'game' used in Yiddish as a verb ...
|
| [definition cut in keeping with alt.pomo's 'No Definition' dogma,
| and replaced with an example:]
|
| "The guy ripped off my riffs,
| so I gave the usual legal speil..."
|
| "Oh no, not that _Job_ speil again..."
|
|
| Along with 'schmuck,' these words seem to offer little by way of 'meaning' when
| used in the USA. They appear to be parroted without comprehension of their
| European uses, and without intention of conveying anything other than derission,
| aggression: a reflex response?
Yiddish / German _speil_ is somewhat confused with its
cognate _spiel_ in the United States. _Spiel_ (a rote
speech) is colloquial and mildly derogatory. I don't know
whether _spiel_ comes to us direct from Anglo-Saxon or from
the large German immigration of the late 18th and early
19th centuries, many of whom spoke non- standard dialects
of German (in which long _i_ had not yet become _ei_(/ai/)).
The is no trace of the original meaning of _Schmuck_ in
America that I can detect.
| What use do American's make of 'putz' - has it come up for misappropriaton yet?
| and if so, is that merely another step in the assosiating of the Yiddish
| language with negativity?
_Putz_ has been appropriated as a derogatory term for a
person. There is an English cognate, _pud_, meaning penis,
which I've heard in California and the South, but I don't
think most people relate them.
| And who's to blame for that?
We can always blame the Jews; perhaps they themselves
deprecated Yiddish in favor of Hebrew. However, American
English seems to have a tremendous need for derogatory
terms, and gratefully vacuums them up from Yiddish since it
is a fairly close relation, and the way of Germanic
absorption has already been prepared by the aforesaid
immigrants. Although there has been plenty of opportunity
for similar absorption from Italian and Spanish, it doesn't
seem to be have happened to the same extent.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Matt Austern
dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) writes:
> When a new field gets baptised in the physical sciences, every
> nonscientist does not demand an easy understanding of it. When a new
> style of music or of visual art is created, people who want to know
> something about it go and look at it. One meaning of "deconstruction"
> is "that stuff Derrida does."
Ah, now I understand! "Deconstruction" means "something written
in French."
David Christopher Swanson
In article <fxtg1rf...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> writes:
> One meaning of "deconstruction"
> > is "that stuff Derrida does."
>
> Ah, now I understand! "Deconstruction" means "something written
> in French."
Precisely! I only SAID it was something written by Derrida. What I
MEANT was that it was anything written in French. Thanks for the
clarification, which some few may find useful but which is probably
unnecessary for most.
DCS
lee
On 8 Sep 1997 12:49:19 -0400 g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in
<5v1aaf$d...@panix2.panix.com>:
| ...
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard):
| Speil: German for 'game' used in Yiddish as a verb ...
|
| [definition cut in keeping with alt.pomo's 'No Definition' dogma,
| and replaced with an example:]
|
| "The guy ripped off my riffs,
| so I gave the usual legal speil..."
|
| "Oh no, not that _Job_ speil again..."
|
|
| Along with 'schmuck,' these words seem to offer little by way of 'meaning'
when
| used in the USA. They appear to be parroted without comprehension of their
| European uses, and without intention of conveying anything other than
derission,
| aggression: a reflex response?
Yiddish / German _speil_ is somewhat confused with its
cognate _spiel_ in the United States. _Spiel_ (a rote
Okay, sorry - please excuse my typing.
speech) is colloquial and mildly derogatory. I don't know
whether _spiel_ comes to us direct from Anglo-Saxon or from
There's an Anglo-Saxon connection?
the large German immigration of the late 18th and early
19th centuries, many of whom spoke non- standard dialects
of German (in which long _i_ had not yet become _ei_(/ai/)).
The is no trace of the original meaning of _Schmuck_ in
America that I can detect.
| What use do American's make of 'putz' - has it come up for misappropriaton
yet?
| and if so, is that merely another step in the assosiating of the Yiddish
| language with negativity?
_Putz_ has been appropriated as a derogatory term for a
person. There is an English cognate, _pud_, meaning penis,
which I've heard in California and the South, but I don't
think most people relate them.
So many words for penis in America...but you're having me on with 'pud'? I
always thought it was what came after a roast dinner: y'know, like Spotted Dick?
| And who's to blame for that?
We can always blame the Jews; perhaps they themselves
deprecated Yiddish in favor of Hebrew. However, American
English seems to have a tremendous need for derogatory
terms, and gratefully vacuums them up from Yiddish since it
is a fairly close relation, and the way of Germanic
absorption has already been prepared by the aforesaid
immigrants. Although there has been plenty of opportunity
for similar absorption from Italian and Spanish, it doesn't
seem to be have happened to the same extent.
One would imagine a culture so full of derogatory terms would be as violent and
selfish as it sounds: I have never been to the States, so can't testify as to
the accuracy of the reports I hear which confirm this; I do have a load of
Yiddisha family, and though 60p/c are selfish they are by no means violent - I'd
not want to put my head on the line and base an advertising campaing on such
assumptions as I've made here.
Thanks for the reply, Gordon.
Lee
Puss in Boots
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
[...]
> Now, if Barthes's _Mythologies_ is a border-line case, we
> have a border; so it should not be difficult to take, say,
> his examination of a French African soldier on the cover of
> _Paris-Match_, or _The_Family_Of_Man_, and say, "Here is
> Barthes; that way lies deconstruction; this way is the
> country of (something else)." As _Mythologies_ is widely
> available, and Barthes's writing style is lucid, one might
> almost say facile, it may be we have found what the
> deconstruction-seekers are looking for. (At least some of
> them -- granted Barthes's ghost must flee a gathering where
> the name of Heidegger is thrice pronounced.)
I'd say, "This way lies post-structuralism" rather than
"This way lies deconstruction." But that's just a quibble.
What you want here is "From Work to Text" (one of the essays
I always suggest), which takes "a certain change in our
conception of language" as its topic. Also relevant because
of its main theme, that "the theory of the Text can
coincide only with a practice of writing." (In _Image Music
Text_.)
-- Moggin
Brian Butler
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in article <5v0rol$e...@panix2.panix.com>...
>
> G*rd*n:
>
> The idea that Plato might sometimes have been ironical or
> humorous has been advanced before in alt.pomo, as I recall.
> However, the owners and operators of "Plato" have been
> fairly insistent over the years on his deadly seriousness,
> and I don't know that their control can be broken at this
> late date.
Depressing thought - and probably true at this time - it still eliminates a
side of Plato that warms him up for me.
I guess I meant weak in two senses: first, it is weak because it is not
consistent in our society (one moment a person is saying "there is no moral
truth" and the next they are saying "kill the bastard - he is evil"),
second, it is weak because unanalyzed - just an easy and convenient stance
to take in a society with so many conflicting ideals. In this regards
there is a sociological paper I remember reading titled "how to become a
famous French intellectual" (LeMaire?) that tried to make the same point.
Even the deconstructivists have an ethos that has some substantial
assumptions. Moral relativism is its extreme version (not philosophical
per se - more just popular American sentiment). So I guess I would go for
a further type of weakness - that of an "intellectual" stance that does not
explain what it is usually adopted to explain.
sayan bhattacharyya
Andy Lowry <a...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
>If someone asks me about the blues, I'll tell them about grad school.
Come on. It's not that bad.
Thomas Lindgren
Here is a helpful URL for those that want to know more about
deconstruction and how to do it.
http://www.communities.com/paper/deconstr.html
Enjoy!
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University
e-mail: tho...@csd.uu.se
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/
G*rd*n
Thomas Lindgren <tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se>:
| Here is a helpful URL for those that want to know more about
| deconstruction and how to do it.
|
| http://www.communities.com/paper/deconstr.html
|
| Enjoy!
I checked this essay out, and applied the steps to the
Barthes material I previously alluded to. Under your
definition, these are or include deconstructions. The gist
of them seems rather, uh, clicheed, today -- the ideas have
permeated certain strata of our culture -- but they would
have been a great help to me in 1958, enabling me to skip
over a lot that I had to work out for myself.
However, I was very surprised to read your concluding
remarks:
Engineering and the sciences have, to a greater degree,
been spared this isolation and genetic drift because of
crass commercial necessity. The constraints of the physical
world and the actual needs and wants of the actual
population have provided a grounding that is difficult to
dodge.
Being an "engineer" myself (that is, a programmer) I can't
imagine what planet you're on. Ever heard of Microsoft?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Puss in Boots
Lee:
>I read the word 'aleph' and did not recognise it, did not understand it.
>I asked someone who I thought might know and they handed me a list of
>ten books, and told me to go and read them. On seeing the hieght of the
>pile of books, and the medicore and unengaging style of the writers, I
>found another person to ask about 'aleph.' 'You don't read Hebrew, so
>you've got no right to know!'
Sounds crappy; good thing we don't see that attitude around here.
What makes you bring it up?
[Quote from the OED]
>I think I wrote something simillar off-line to the questioner, and am a
>little surprised that a simillar definition has not yet sprung up here
>on alt.pomo (at least).
It has -- Andy Lowry said much the same thing,
> Could this denial of the original intentions of Derrida's deconstruction
> have something to do my newserver,
Yes, it could. But this is interesting. You're acquainted with
Derrida's "original intentions"? Do tell. You might also explain
how you see them being denied here. (Not that I expect you to. It's
just an idea.)
>or maybe with the society in which the majority of contributors to this
>group post from? Is there something over there, some vestige of the
>'50s, which prevents the episteme, hegemony of that society from being
>questioned, let alone subverted?
More likely your newsserver. Where do you see questioning being
prevented, anyhow?
[...]
>Moggin would rather play the blues on a record than explain the blues
>notes of the pentatonic
The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
> but wouldn't it be great if she could pick up an instrument and give
> us a 12 bar?
That might be fun. But why are you incapable of turning on the
radio, or going to a club, or putting on a record?
> Oh, sure Wolfe is a great singer, and Woolf is a great writer, but
> they are sadly not with us to answer questions: our deconstructions
> might be poor, but at least they can be questioned, at least in
> theory.
Virginia Woolf's books and Howlin' Wolf's records aren't hard to
find, so you shouldn't have any trouble there. If you want to hold
them up for questioning, go ahead. What's going to stop you? Or are
you raising a Platonic objection to writing and recording? You're
just about paraphrasing the _Phaedrus_, after all.
-- Moggin
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:05:57 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in
I worte:
I read the word 'aleph' and did not recognise it, did not understand it.
I asked someone who I thought might know and they handed me a list of
ten books, and told me to go and read them. On seeing the hieght of the
pile of books, and the medicore and unengaging style of the writers, I
found another person to ask about 'aleph.' 'You don't read Hebrew, so
you've got no right to know!'
Moggin (mog...@mindspring.com) replied in article
<moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
Sounds crappy; good thing we don't see that attitude around here.
What makes you bring it up?
- Moggin
The answer is to be found in a post by David Christopher Swanson which I quoted
in the article which Moggin replied to, in the paragraph above that which she
quoted. Here it is again:
When a new field gets baptised in the physical sciences, every
nonscientist does not demand an easy understanding of it. When a new
style of music or of visual art is created, people who want to know
something about it go and look at it. One meaning of "deconstruction"
is "that stuff Derrida does." If you have read Derrida you have no
reason to ask the question "What is deconstruction?" and if you have
not then you have no business asking it. Maybe it should be reserved
for those who have read a little, and only a little, Derrida.
- David Christopher Swanson
For what it's worth,
Lee Goddard
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
: the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
: guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
: between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
: finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
: with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Mog, mog, mog. There is no "pentatonic scale". There are several.
Think modes. Lydian, mixolydian, dorian, usw.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Ron Hardin
Ted Samsel wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.books Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
> : the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
> : guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
> : between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
> : finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
> : with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
>
> Mog, mog, mog. There is no "pentatonic scale". There are several.
> Think modes. Lydian, mixolydian, dorian, usw.
I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
thump on that string.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
former lutenist
tune g down to f#
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:05:57 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) in
<moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com> claimed that:
The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
- Moggin.
Everybody I know, from professional blues musicians to teachers of 'classical'
music, and all published works I've ever read identify 'blue notes' as the minor
third and minor seventh, which do occur in the pentatonic scale.
Grey notes, on the other hand, some people will agree fall between the semitones
of tradition Western European music, of the Greek scales: the notes that Monk is
often said to have aimed for.
By Moggin's above definition, Ravi Shankar (forgive the spelling) plays blue
notes - so does he play the Blues?
(And on string bending: I can bend from 12th fret highest E to about an A using
those silly .0000009 Metal strings: does that make it definitive Blues? I can
also sometimes split harmonics on a tenor sax: is that definitive Blues)
> but wouldn't it be great if she could pick up an instrument and give
> us a 12 bar?
That might be fun. But why are you incapable of turning on the
radio, or going to a club, or putting on a record?
Strange, I'm listening to an old NIN record as I type this...
> Oh, sure Wolfe is a great singer, and Woolf is a great writer, but
> they are sadly not with us to answer questions: our deconstructions
> might be poor, but at least they can be questioned, at least in
> theory.
Virginia Woolf's books and Howlin' Wolf's records aren't hard to
find, so you shouldn't have any trouble there. If you want to hold
them up for questioning, go ahead. What's going to stop you? Or are
you raising a Platonic objection to writing and recording? You're
just about paraphrasing the _Phaedrus_, after all.
Always amazes me just how difficult Moggin can make things when she tries.
Holding up texts & recordings up for questioning and asking questions of
individuals is hardly the same thing...or is it?
Still, I'd rather have someone to ask about deconstruction, say, than have a
book to read on it.
That's why I like this USENET thing, mostly.
Sad,
Lee Goddard
Richard Harter
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Er, Gordon, you seem to have your attributions mixed up. You treat the
URL as though it were composed by Lindgren. It was not. It was by (or
is marked as being by) another person entirely, one Chip Morningstar.
This does not, I believe, count as close reading.
However that is not my point which is that Programmers and Engineers are
two different breeds. The title, software engineer, is not evidence to
the contrary - the label, engineer, can and is attached to almost every
occupation. Whether the thesis in the cited paragraph is correct is
another matter.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
There is no better or more profound theory of ethics than that of
Mammy Yokum - "Good is better than evil because it is nicer."
G*rd*n
| ...
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
| Er, Gordon, you seem to have your attributions mixed up. You treat the
| URL as though it were composed by Lindgren. It was not. It was by (or
| is marked as being by) another person entirely, one Chip Morningstar.
| This does not, I believe, count as close reading.
It's true, I was doing a distant reading, and I thought
_he_ wrote it. But what difference does it make? I
thought the Author was Dead.
| However that is not my point which is that Programmers and Engineers are
| two different breeds. The title, software engineer, is not evidence to
| the contrary - the label, engineer, can and is attached to almost every
| occupation. Whether the thesis in the cited paragraph is correct is
| another matter.
Well, programming has come to have certain engineering-like
attributes. You don't have to be very bright to do it, and
the word "engineer" has apparently served as a sort of
academic shibboleth to drive women out of that part of the
field. But you're right, I presume too much, _non_sum_
_dignus_.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:05:57 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
... You're acquainted with
Derrida's "original intentions"? Do tell. You might also explain
how you see them being denied here. (Not that I expect you to. It's
just an idea.)
Many books exist on the subject, even some written by Derrida himself.
I suggest you re-read _Limited_Inc_ (1988) which you can find with ISBN
0-1801-0788-0.
As for your kind enquirey as to 'how' I see them being denied on alt.postmodern:
re-read the thread on deconstruction after re-reading the above book.
I suppose I could offer an explaination, but then ...
Lee Goddard
Puss in Boots
Moggin:
> > : The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
> > : the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
> > : guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
> > : between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
> > : finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
> > : with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Ron:
> I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
> where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
> thump on that string.
I meant when you play using a slide.
-- Moggin
Paul D. Lanier
This Deconstrution arcticle.
Simply stunning and highly appropo, Lee.
Paul Lanier
Thomas Lindgren
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
> /.../
> However, I was very surprised to read your concluding
> remarks:
Well, I hasten to say they're not mine. The author is given
at (in?) the URL as Chip Morningstar.
>> Engineering and the sciences have, to a greater degree,
>> been spared this isolation and genetic drift because of
>> crass commercial necessity. The constraints of the physical
>> world and the actual needs and wants of the actual
>> population have provided a grounding that is difficult to
>> dodge.
>
>Being an "engineer" myself (that is, a programmer) I can't
>imagine what planet you're on. Ever heard of Microsoft?
I believe one could fruitfully deconstruct their manuals.
ObBook: Inside the Tornado, Geoffrey Moore. Not much on manuals
but quite a bit on how the computer market works. "How To Build
Your Own Megacorp". Jolly good.
Puss in Boots
Lee:
>Moggin would rather play the blues on a record than explain the blues
>notes of the pentatonic
Moggin:
> The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
> the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
> guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
> between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
> finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
> with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Lee:
> By Moggin's above definition, Ravi Shankar (forgive the spelling) plays blue
> notes - so does he play the Blues?
> (And on string bending: I can bend from 12th fret highest E to about an
> A using those silly .0000009 Metal strings: does that make it definitive
> Blues? I can also sometimes split harmonics on a tenor sax: is that
> definitive Blues)
I wasn't offering a definition, or a set of sufficient conditions.
But thanks for making my point -- instead of finding out about the blues
by listening to them, you demanded that I explain them to you, and now
you're busy quibbling over the implications of my reply.
Lee:
> > Oh, sure Wolfe is a great singer, and Woolf is a great writer, but
> > they are sadly not with us to answer questions: our deconstructions
> > might be poor, but at least they can be questioned, at least in
> > theory.
Moggin:
> Virginia Woolf's books and Howlin' Wolf's records aren't hard to
> find, so you shouldn't have any trouble there. If you want to hold
> them up for questioning, go ahead. What's going to stop you? Or are
> you raising a Platonic objection to writing and recording? You're
> just about paraphrasing the _Phaedrus_, after all.
Lee:
> Always amazes me just how difficult Moggin can make things when she tries.
I'm making them simple. You want to know what the blues is, you
listen to some. You want to know about Virginia Woolf, you read _To
the Lighthouse_. Perfectly straightforward; but for some reason, you
want to protest.
> Holding up texts & recordings up for questioning and asking questions of
> individuals is hardly the same thing...or is it? Still, I'd rather have
> someone to ask about deconstruction, say, than have a book to read on it.
> That's why I like this USENET thing, mostly.
You might like IRC even more.
-- Moggin
Richard Harter
Thomas Lindgren <tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se> wrote:
>Here is a helpful URL for those that want to know more about
>deconstruction and how to do it.
> http://www.communities.com/paper/deconstr.html
>Enjoy!
> Thomas
Even so. It is not, perhaps, to the taste of those who are very very
serious about their deconstruction but it is very amusing and not so far
off the mark.
Richard Harter
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| ...
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>| Er, Gordon, you seem to have your attributions mixed up. You treat the
>| URL as though it were composed by Lindgren. It was not. It was by (or
>| is marked as being by) another person entirely, one Chip Morningstar.
>| This does not, I believe, count as close reading.
>It's true, I was doing a distant reading, and I thought
>_he_ wrote it. But what difference does it make? I
>thought the Author was Dead.
Oh, dead, well that explains it. I hadn't been aware that dead people
were posting to usenet but now that you mention it that explains a lot of
things that have puzzled me.
>| However that is not my point which is that Programmers and Engineers are
>| two different breeds. The title, software engineer, is not evidence to
>| the contrary - the label, engineer, can and is attached to almost every
>| occupation. Whether the thesis in the cited paragraph is correct is
>| another matter.
>Well, programming has come to have certain engineering-like
>attributes. You don't have to be very bright to do it, and
>the word "engineer" has apparently served as a sort of
>academic shibboleth to drive women out of that part of the
>field. But you're right, I presume too much, _non_sum_
>_dignus_.
Oh, engineers are bright, do not think that they are not. However it is
a specialized intelligence and not well verbalized. It is always a
source of amusement to me (but I am so easily amused) that "people
persons" find engineers and their interests boring and uninteresting.
One might think that a "people person" would find people and their
interests interesting. I used to think that myself - up to about the age
of 5.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5v4gvh$f...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, l...@ihgp167e.ih.lucent.com
(-Mammel,L.H.) wrote:
+ My I'll bet you monsters lead IN-teresting lives.
+
+ I said to my girlfriend just the other day, 'Gee, I'll
+ bet monsters are IN-teresting', I said.
+
+ The places you must go - the things you must see. My stars.
+
+ And I'll bet you meet a lot of IN-teresting people, too.
+
+ I'm always interested in meeting IN-teresting people.
+
+
+ ... Now let's dip our patties in the water!
Yeee-oooOOWW! :-)
You have a good memory -- or perhaps a source of scripts? In which
case I'd like a citation.
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Michael Morse
: Since knowing something is an academic
: stock in trade, knowledge must be heaped up, made scarce
: elsewhere, and jealously defended. Any attempt to bring
: the Host forth (whatever it may be) and distribute it to
: the folk is a profanation and a blasphemy, especially where
: there may not be all that much to know in the first place.
That's scary, but makes a certain amount of sense. Thank goodness you
can't hide knowledge and make a living at it at the same time. I'll just
keep reading until I catch up.
Michael Morse
lee
On 9 Sep 1997 19:51:37 GMT dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote
in <5v49c9$lo9$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>:
In article <5v3vi8$msv$4...@despair.u-net.com>
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) writes:
> The answer is to be found in a post by David Christopher Swanson which I
quoted
> in the article which Moggin replied to, in the paragraph above that which
she
> quoted.
Moggin's not a she.
Moggin's never corrected me.
Why is that?
Easy mistake to make when one chooses to give oneself a female cat's name.
But we've been here before, surely?
Lee.
Michael Morse
: _Tao_Te_Ching_: "Those who say don't know."
That's too bad. Does that mean that those who say say *that* they don't
know, or they say *something*, but they're mistaken, or making it up?
Michael Morse
Puss in Boots
Moggin:
> The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
> the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
> guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
> between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
> finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
> with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Ron:
> I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
> where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
> thump on that string.
Moggin:
> I meant when you play using a slide.
Lee:
> Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes musicians
> talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the pentatonic
> scale. Is this really being disputed?
Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
argument over semantics.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> I wasn't deprecating the work of engineers. The Pulaski
> Skyway is, to me, America's Parthenon. I once knew a
> mechanical engineer who used to design and build gear-
> wheels of exquisite form and, I suppose, exquisite
> function, too; at least his employers thought so, for they
> gave him a lot of money. This in spite of smoking about
> half a pound of dope a day and never saying anything much
> more than "Ah, man... mellow," when asked about anything.
> The gear-wheel part was definitely highly specialized and
> not well verbalized. He reminded me very much of some of
> my colleagues in the Craft.
> If he were here, _he'd_ have an answer for "What is
> deconstruction?"
Probably "Ah, man... mellow."
-- Moggin
Ron Hardin
Puss in Boots wrote:
> Ron:
>
> > I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
> > where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
> > thump on that string.
>
> Moggin:
>
> > I meant when you play using a slide.
>
> Lee:
>
> > Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes musicians
> > talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the pentatonic
> > scale. Is this really being disputed?
>
> Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
> about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
> about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
> about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
> Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
> Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
> you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
> argument over semantics.
I don't think the ``thump'' effect is used much in the blues, or anywhere.
Imus has a blues player on sometimes, I don't remember his name, but it
starts with ``Legally Blind...'' since he's a little farsighted and has
a some astygmatism.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <5v48kh$4...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>Oh, engineers are bright, do not think that they are not. However it is
>a specialized intelligence and not well verbalized. It is always a
>source of amusement to me (but I am so easily amused) that "people
>persons" find engineers and their interests boring and uninteresting.
>One might think that a "people person" would find people and their
>interests interesting. I used to think that myself - up to about the age
>of 5.
I said to my girlfriend just the other day, 'Gee, I'll
bet monsters are IN-teresting', I said.
The places you must go - the things you must see. My stars.
And I'll bet you meet a lot of IN-teresting people, too.
I'm always interested in meeting IN-teresting people.
G*rd*n
| ...
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
| Oh, engineers are bright, do not think that they are not. However it is
| a specialized intelligence and not well verbalized. It is always a
| source of amusement to me (but I am so easily amused) that "people
| persons" find engineers and their interests boring and uninteresting.
| One might think that a "people person" would find people and their
| interests interesting. I used to think that myself - up to about the age
| of 5.
I wasn't deprecating the work of engineers. The Pulaski
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:13:21 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
Moggin:
The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Ron:
I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
thump on that string.
Moggin:
I meant when you play using a slide.
Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes musicians
talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the pentatonic
scale.
Is this really being disputed?
Lee
ObBook: _Postmodern Condition: Knowledge_ Lyotard
Puss in Boots
Moggin:
> > If they're _asking_, they must already be interested in the
> > subject -- obviously it has at least enough importance to them
> > that they want to know more. The question is, how best can they
> > learn? Ans: by reading. If someone asks, "Who is this Woolf
> > person, anyway?" then of course you can offer the standard info:
> > 20th c. English novelist, etc. But why is she worth looking
> > into? Because of what she wrote. Sure, you can rave on -- it's
> > a crazy feeling -- but that's no substitute. Ditto for Howlin'
> > Wolf -- nothing you can say replaces listening to "How Many More
> > Years." And the same goes for deconstruction. You can give a
> > spiel, if you feel like it -- but anybody interested in learning
> > about the topic would be wise to glance at some well-chosen
> > examples.
Paul:
> Just a word about well-choseness... what makes certain examples more well
> chosen than others? Looks to me like you're structuring how to understand
> and read about deconstruction, and isn't that a bit "authoritarian", a
> way of learning you dislike, Moggin? And if you think its unavoidable
> (and it probably is), why do you protest? Is there more to protesting
> authority and/or authoritarianism than just words? Is there a way to
> somehow to do better than the regime, the system, the authoritarians?
A little presumptuous, aren't you, Paul? If you think that I _am_
being authoritarian, how about showing how? You certainly don't have
my agreement -- I'd say you're talking nonsense. I suggested a handful
of essays that I thought would be good reading for someone interested
in deconstruction. In particular, I named ones that I hoped would make
helpful introductions. (That's what I meant by "well-chosen.") They
aren't required reading: just my advice about where to begin. You can
take it or leave it, as you please. Tell me: what's authoritarian
about that?
-- Moggin
Paul D. Lanier
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Lee Goddard wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 22:48:05 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
> in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com> moving closer to the
> Leavises:
>
> If they're _asking_, they must already be interested in the
> subject -- obviously it has at least enough importance to them
> that they want to know more. The question is, how best can they
> learn? Ans: by reading. If someone asks, "Who is this Woolf
> person, anyway?" then of course you can offer the standard info:
> 20th c. English novelist, etc. But why is she worth looking
> into? Because of what she wrote. Sure, you can rave on -- it's
> a crazy feeling -- but that's no substitute. Ditto for Howlin'
> Wolf -- nothing you can say replaces listening to "How Many More
> Years." And the same goes for deconstruction. You can give a
> spiel, if you feel like it -- but anybody interested in learning
> about the topic would be wise to glance at some well-chosen
> examples.
Moggin,
Just a word about well-choseness... what makes certain examples more well
chosen than others? Looks to me like you're structuring how to understand
and read about deconstruction, and isn't that a bit "authoritarian", a
way of learning you dislike, Moggin? And if you think its unavoidable
(and it probably is), why do you protest? Is there more to protesting
authority and/or authoritarianism than just words? Is there a way to
somehow to do better than the regime, the system, the authoritarians?
> Speil: German for 'game' used in Yiddish as a verb ...
>
> [definition cut in keeping with alt.pomo's 'No Definition' dogma,
> and replaced with an example:]
>
> "The guy ripped off my riffs,
> so I gave the usual legal speil..."
>
> "Oh no, not that _Job_ speil again..."
Hmmm. And I thought spiel meant a long winded argument or description or
dramatic monologue, and it was not necessarily bad.
>
> Along with 'schmuck,' these words seem to offer little by way of 'meaning' when
> used in the USA. They appear to be parroted without comprehension of their
> European uses, and without intention of conveying anything other than derission,
> aggression: a reflex response?
I quit using 'schmuck' sometime back when I realized what it meant, and it
wasn't a particularly affectionate expression.
> What use do American's make of 'putz' - has it come up for misappropriaton yet?
> and if so, is that merely another step in the assosiating of the Yiddish
> language with negativity?
I don't use the word 'putz' and find the derision in the word not
good or useful.
I don't think I know exactly what 'putz' means, either.
> And who's to blame for that?
Don't know. The movie makers? The cultures of the Americans and Jews?
Those who find it easy to appropiate words just because their part of the
general linguistic vocabulary- especially the slang vocabularly- of their
society? (Which 'those' of people represents the average person anywhere
I think.)
Anyway, Lee, for the sake of associating the Yiddish language with
positivity, could you give some Yiddish words and their meanings which
should not be mistaken for negativity and agression. I would know more of
the Yiddish language anyway. Sounds to be a much richer and deeper
language than the slang of the movie makers. I heard over the National
Public Radio that several hundreds of Yiddish books are being donated to
libraries in order to preserve the Yiddish, here in America.
Genuinely
Paul Lanier
David Christopher Swanson
In article <5v4kte$1af$3...@despair.u-net.com>
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) writes:
> On 9 Sep 1997 19:51:37 GMT dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote
> in <5v49c9$lo9$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>:
>
>
> In article <5v3vi8$msv$4...@despair.u-net.com>
> lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard) writes:
>
> > The answer is to be found in a post by David Christopher Swanson which I
> quoted
> > in the article which Moggin replied to, in the paragraph above that which
> she
> > quoted.
>
> Moggin's not a she.
>
>
> Moggin's never corrected me.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Easy mistake to make when one chooses to give oneself a female cat's name.
>
> But we've been here before, surely?
>
> Lee.
Who's Shirley?
DCS
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <mls-090997...@mls.dialup.access.net>,
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Yeee-oooOOWW! :-)
>
>You have a good memory -- or perhaps a source of scripts? In which
>case I'd like a citation.
I transcribed that one scene off of a videotape a few years
ago. It did take an impressive feat of memory to dig it up, though.
... JUST THAT ONE! I swear it.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Lee Goddard <lee @ jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes musicians
: talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the pentatonic
: scale.
Again, I say, there are several pentatonic scales. Chinese music uses
several and several different ones are in use in West Africa. And
one can make them up as long as they resolve themselves.
But I play the accordion. The bane of those with "perfect pitch".
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Ron Hardin
Lee Goddard wrote:
> I don't think the ``thump'' effect is used much in the blues, or anywhere.
> Imus has a blues player on sometimes, I don't remember his name, but it
> starts with ``Legally Blind...'' since he's a little farsighted and has
> a some astygmatism.
>
> never heard it used on jazz strings.
The thump-effect isn't a slap effect. I think I've only heard it used
once, at the end of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, if I'm associating
right, performed by Julian Bream.
> As for 'Legally Blind' - hey, that sounds like me! How do I get the Imus number?
1-800-370-IMUS
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:24:38 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
Moggin:
> The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
> the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
> guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
> between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
> finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
> with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
Ron:
> I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
> where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
> thump on that string.
Moggin:
> I meant when you play using a slide.
Lee:
> Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes
musicians
> talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the
pentatonic
> scale. Is this really being disputed?
Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
argument over semantics.
To refresh your memory: this waffle about the Blues you began as a parallel to
the critical theory of deconstruction. A bad comparison, perhaps, but one which
caught my eye: that you profess to 'know' and pass on your 'knowledge' in public
when what you 'know' contradicts the everyday use of the words you 'know' about
kind of annoys me - I was taught by people like that as a lad.
We are not 'caught in an argument over semantics' - not because I will not
*argue* over semantics (though I'll discuss it, and research it), but because
the term 'blue note' has an established definite 'meaning,' as stated above.
Moving on: of course, the best way to appreciate the Blues is to listen to it.
On the other hand, that's not easily done on a newsgroup which doesn't encourage
the posting of binaries (or I'd stick a number up here). So we are reduced to
words again, always insufficient, but let's have a go.
My words on 'the Blues' are merely those I have recited to students when
teaching them to play a 12-bar for the first time: 'listen out for the third and
seventh,' as it's those notes which give the Blues it's distinctive sound.
What you have done with your definition of 'blue note' was to reappropriate the
term. That's not a lot of help, and I'm glad you're not doing it with
'deconstruction'. On that matter, you are just not being much help, we leads me
back to Gordon's little piece about knowledge, and then on to Lyotard, Lord help
me...
Lee.
lee
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:32:04 -0400 Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote in
<3415EA...@research.att.com>:
Puss in Boots wrote:
> Ron:
>
> > I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
> > where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
> > thump on that string.
>
> Moggin:
>
> > I meant when you play using a slide.
>
> Lee:
>
> > Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes
musicians
> > talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the
pentatonic
> > scale. Is this really being disputed?
>
> Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
> about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
> about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
> about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
> Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
> Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
> you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
> argument over semantics.
I don't think the ``thump'' effect is used much in the blues, or anywhere.
Imus has a blues player on sometimes, I don't remember his name, but it
starts with ``Legally Blind...'' since he's a little farsighted and has
a some astygmatism.
The slap effect is used a bit, but only by kids using really light strings:
never heard it used on jazz strings.
As for 'Legally Blind' - hey, that sounds like me! How do I get the Imus number?
- Lee.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
lee
On 10 Sep 1997 11:21:07 GMT Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote in
<5v5vr3$s6u$4...@nw001.infi.net>:
In rec.arts.books Lee Goddard <lee @ jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes
musicians
: talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on the
pentatonic
: scale.
Again, I say, there are several pentatonic scales. Chinese music uses
several and several different ones are in use in West Africa. And
one can make them up as long as they resolve themselves.
But I play the accordion. The bane of those with "perfect pitch".
Too right. Anyway, amongst blues and rock 'musicians' (if I may be so bold as to
use the term) the pentatonic is well known to refer to the scale that runs:
root/minor third/fourth/fifth/minor seventh/octave.
Honestly. Really. Ask someone you know who plays the Blues...it's in all the
books...we say it every day...
Lee
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:05:27 -0400 Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote in
<5v65ua$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>:
Lee Goddard wrote:
> I don't think the ``thump'' effect is used much in the blues, or
anywhere.
> Imus has a blues player on sometimes, I don't remember his name, but it
> starts with ``Legally Blind...'' since he's a little farsighted and has
> a some astygmatism.
>
> The slap effect is used a bit, but only by kids using really light strings:
> never heard it used on jazz strings.
The thump-effect isn't a slap effect. I think I've only heard it used
once, at the end of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, if I'm associating
right, performed by Julian Bream.
Ah - I was thinking of slapping and pulling strings: you're talking about
walloping the body, on the tapping board maybe, or above the fretboard. Sorry.
Wonder what the technical Spanish is?
> As for 'Legally Blind' - hey, that sounds like me! How do I get the Imus
number?
1-800-370-IMUS
Bearing in mind I'm in the UK, could you make that an e-mail address,
or tell me something I've needed to know for years: how do you get those letters
into a phone which only has number keys?
Ron Hardin
Lee Goddard wrote:
> The thump-effect isn't a slap effect. I think I've only heard it used
> once, at the end of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, if I'm associating
> right, performed by Julian Bream.
>
> Ah - I was thinking of slapping and pulling strings: you're talking about
> walloping the body, on the tapping board maybe, or above the fretboard. Sorry.
> Wonder what the technical Spanish is?
Putting the fingers on the frets damps the strings, which gives a very short
sounding note with no harmonics. Actually I think the concierto ends with
open strings, so Bream is probably just damping them lightly below the nut.
Or whatever piece I'm remembering, if it isn't that.
Ron Hardin
Lee Goddard wrote:
> Yeah, and nah: putting fingers on the frets creates a strange buzzing sound (as
> does wrapping two strings around eachother); like you say, you can 'damp' by
> resting fingers on strings without placing enough preasure to 'fret' the string
> (that is, hold the string down on the fingerboard between the frets): this
> creates a kind of dead, muffled, soft thud. Alternatively, you can place the
> heel of the picking/plucking hand against the strings near the bridge and play:
> this creates a damped 'pizzicato' effect (cf the original 'Shakin' All Over').
The thump is in fact a common fault for a beginner, who also gets buzzes
of course but occasionally does it right, damping the string by pressing
on the fret with flesh hanging over enough to damp the string but not enough
deflect it to the next fret, which would give the buzz you speak of.
Probably it's a more noticeable thing with classical strings than steel.
I would break out the Goya and try it but who has the time.
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:28:17 -0400 Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote in
<5v6794$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
Lee Goddard wrote:
> The thump-effect isn't a slap effect. I think I've only heard it used
> once, at the end of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, if I'm associating
> right, performed by Julian Bream.
>
> Ah - I was thinking of slapping and pulling strings: you're talking about
> walloping the body, on the tapping board maybe, or above the fretboard.
Sorry.
> Wonder what the technical Spanish is?
Putting the fingers on the frets damps the strings, which gives a very short
sounding note with no harmonics. Actually I think the concierto ends with
open strings, so Bream is probably just damping them lightly below the nut.
Or whatever piece I'm remembering, if it isn't that.
Yeah, and nah: putting fingers on the frets creates a strange buzzing sound (as
does wrapping two strings around eachother); like you say, you can 'damp' by
resting fingers on strings without placing enough preasure to 'fret' the string
(that is, hold the string down on the fingerboard between the frets): this
creates a kind of dead, muffled, soft thud. Alternatively, you can place the
heel of the picking/plucking hand against the strings near the bridge and play:
this creates a damped 'pizzicato' effect (cf the original 'Shakin' All Over').
Bream is probably using a rizziardo (sp?) over the strings damped as you say.
Next lesson: finger tapping and why not to do it.
Lee Goddard:
Weddings, Birthdays, and Bar Mitzvahs
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:38:14 -0400 Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote in
<5v6ess$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
I sayed:
Yeah, and nah: putting fingers on the frets creates a strange buzzing sound (as
does wrapping two strings around eachother); like you say, you can 'damp' by
resting fingers on strings without placing enough preasure to 'fret' the string
(that is, hold the string down on the fingerboard between the frets): this
creates a kind of dead, muffled, soft thud. Alternatively, you can place the
heel of the picking/plucking hand against the strings near the bridge and play:
this creates a damped 'pizzicato' effect (cf the original 'Shakin' All Over').
Ron Hardin replied:
> The thump is in fact a common fault for a beginner, who also gets buzzes
> of course but occasionally does it right, damping the string by pressing
> on the fret with flesh hanging over enough to damp the string but not enough
> deflect it to the next fret, which would give the buzz you speak of.
>
> Probably it's a more noticeable thing with classical strings than steel.
Preasure is of course the allimportant thing here, though generally less
difficult to master when applying the same technique with the thumb of the
fretting hand.
> I would break out the Goya and try it but who has the time.
Open a bottle and do it.
Lee.Goddard @ jove . u-net . com
- Weddings, Birthdays and Bar Mitzvahs.
--
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Lee Goddard <lee @ jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: Bream is probably using a rizziardo (sp?) over the strings damped as you say.
That's probably "rasgueado".....
Si es posible, toca con un golpe de pulgar tan suave.
ObBook: Some high-dollar luthier's guitars:
A coffee table book on the guitars that this fellow makes for
people like Ry Cooder. The same press that did this also did
Madonna's coffee-table book on fleshly placebeaux. The
guitar book is more sensual, BTW.
Daniel Weiskopf
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) writes:
> Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
> about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
> about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
> about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
> Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
> Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
> you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
> argument over semantics.
An argument over what one would use "blue note" of is not an argument
over semantics. It's an argument about music. It just happens to
employ the technique of semantic ascent--talking explicitly of words
rather than of their objects to improve clarity of discourse. But
although this changes the proximal object of the conversation, it
doesn't change the distal one. The object is still to get clear on
the musical facts.
I think it's not hard to see why a seeker after either deconstruction
or the blues would be dissatisfied with the look-and-see response. I
want to know what the blues is, what you use the word "blues" of. You
tell me to listen to Robert Johnson and other musicians. I may be
satisfied with this; I might think that you use "blues" of Robert
Johnson's music and things that _sound like it_. But I might not. I
might, for instance, fail to see what it is in all this music that is
"bluesy". Can't find the blues in it. So I have to ask again: on
what principles do _you_ know what to call "blues"? What are your
criteria for selection, by means of which I presume you selected the
music I heard? That's what the blues-seeker wants to know: whatever
_you_ use to help you decide of a piece of music that it's blues. And
that question remains even if I've heard a dozen blues discs.
--
Daniel Weiskopf
Department of Philosophy
Brown University
Puss in Boots
Lee:
> I read the word 'aleph' and did not recognise it, did not understand it.
> I asked someone who I thought might know and they handed me a list of
> ten books, and told me to go and read them. On seeing the hieght of the
> pile of books, and the medicore and unengaging style of the writers, I
> found another person to ask about 'aleph.' 'You don't read Hebrew, so
> you've got no right to know!'
Moggin:
Sounds crappy; good thing we don't see that attitude around here.
> What makes you bring it up?
Lee:
> The answer is to be found in a post by David Christopher Swanson which I
> quoted in the article which Moggin replied to, in the paragraph above that
> which she quoted. Here it is again:
[David:]
> When a new field gets baptised in the physical sciences, every
> nonscientist does not demand an easy understanding of it. When a new
> style of music or of visual art is created, people who want to know
> something about it go and look at it. One meaning of "deconstruction"
> is "that stuff Derrida does." If you have read Derrida you have no
> reason to ask the question "What is deconstruction?" and if you have
> not then you have no business asking it. Maybe it should be reserved
> for those who have read a little, and only a little, Derrida.
Yeah, I saw that; but David didn't say "You don't read Hebrew, so
you've got no right to know!" He _did_ say you've got no business
asking what deconstruction is if you haven't read Derrida. To me that
seems too strict (you may need some info about what to read), but he
makes a good point -- asking what deconstruction is without looking at
the way it's performed would be like asking about the blues but
refusing to listen to any. And of course David didn't hand you a list
of ten books. (Nobody has, that I've noticed.) So your reply is
irrelevant.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
Lee:
> Doesn't make any differnce if you're using an e-bow: the blue notes
> musicians talk about are the minor third and the minor seventh notes on
Moggin:
> Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
> about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
> about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
> about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
> Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
> Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
> you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
> argument over semantics.
Lee:
> To refresh your memory: this waffle about the Blues you began as a parallel
> to the critical theory of deconstruction.
Had I forgotten? As I've been saying, anybody who wants to find
out about the blues will do best to _listen_ to some. Similarly, a
person who wants to learn about deconstruction is well-advised to look
at a few examples, like the ones I mentioned.
[...]
> We are not 'caught in an argument over semantics' - not because I will not
> *argue* over semantics (though I'll discuss it, and research it), but
> because the term 'blue note' has an established definite 'meaning,' as
> stated above.
I take it back. We're not in an argument over semantics: you're
having the argument all by yourself. First you were trying to argue
about the meaning of "blue note" -- now you're debating the meaning of
"argue."
> Moving on: of course, the best way to appreciate the Blues is to listen
> to it. On the other hand, that's not easily done on a newsgroup which
> doesn't encourage the posting of binaries (or I'd stick a number up here).
So what? Just the other day you said that you were listening to
a record as you typed. If you want to find out about the blues, I
suggest you listen to some, instead of depending on the "explanations"
you've heard.
[re: deconstruction]
> On that matter, you are just not being much help, we leads me back to
> Gordon's little piece about knowledge, and then on to Lyotard, Lord
> help me...
On the contrary, I've helpfully offered several good examples and
info about where to find them.
-- Moggin
Robert Teeter
Puss in Boots (mog...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Moggin:
: > > : The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
: > > : the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
: > > : guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a spot
: > > : between two frets. But that doesn't bring _you_ much closer to
: > > : finding out what the blues sound like. The time you spent cavilling
: > > : with me would have been enough to hear for yourself.
: Ron:
: > I don't get the part about sliding between two frets, which is
: > where the fingers go. Put the finger on the fret and you get a
: > thump on that string.
: I meant when you play using a slide.
B. B. King plays by wiggling his left hand. He says he never
learned how to play slide, unlike his cousin Bukka White.
ObConcertNotes: Taking Joan Shields' advice (well, actually we
already had tickets), la familia were on hand in Santa Cruz on Sunday to
see Bonnie Raitt (the best slide player going, acccording to B. B. K.)
play some fine music and to see Bob Weir and Graham Nash embarrass
themselves by comparison -- proceeds going to save the redwoods. Both
Bobby and Bonnie played "Walkin' Blues" in their respective sets, but
Bonnie's version *killed*.
ObBook: B. B. King's autobiography
ObNon-ExistentBook: Someone should write a book about
Bonnie Raitt
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
"On the Internet, we are not all wise children" -- E. G.-M.
"Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for
children" -- U.S. Supreme Court, Reno v. ACLU, June 26, 1997
Deborah Griffin Bly
Ah, dearest boys -- dearest, dearest.... Lee et Moggin et...? Et tu, Beauty?
...
Forgive this drivelous intrusion into an argument -- or whatevuh it shall
be seen to have been -- but I really am enjoying this thread, speaking
[typing snoutishly, rather] as a performing musician, and as one who
treasures phrases such as:
"...this waffle about the Blues you began as..."
Beauty is beauty wherever one finds it, and yes -- I am not afraid to say
that I find beauty in this "waffle about the Blues..."
phrase/idea/meme-thingy. Yeth, I sniff it here, with joy.
Again, sorry to intrude. I was just too thrilled to not mention this.
You go, boys! You go!!
your friend, acquainted with the night as well as Da Bluez,
Dweeb
* * * *
* * *tasteful little sig block of dg...@poopity.com*
* *
* * * *
Boom-Boom
Puss in Boots wrote:
>
> Lee:
>
> [...]
>
> > Easy mistake to make when one chooses to give oneself a female cat's name.
>
> a female cat.
are you absolutely certain of that? Surely some fine literary critic's
looked into the dubious textual relationship between "Puss" (In Boots no
less) and that suspicious sounding Dick fellow?
Boom-Boom
Puss in Boots
> > about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
> > about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
> > about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
> > Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
> > Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
> > you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
> > argument over semantics.
Daniel Weiskop <fws63enc...@shell2.tiac.net>:
> An argument over what one would use "blue note" of is not an argument
> over semantics. It's an argument about music. It just happens to
> employ the technique of semantic ascent--talking explicitly of words
> rather than of their objects to improve clarity of discourse. But
> although this changes the proximal object of the conversation, it
> doesn't change the distal one. The object is still to get clear on
> the musical facts.
I suppose it might be, in some case that you haven't described --
but in this instance, Lee is merely arguing about the meaning of the
term "blue note" (not to mention the meaning of the term "argue"). So
here, at least, I think you're mistaken.
> I think it's not hard to see why a seeker after either deconstruction
> or the blues would be dissatisfied with the look-and-see response. I
> want to know what the blues is, what you use the word "blues" of. You
> tell me to listen to Robert Johnson and other musicians. I may be
> satisfied with this; I might think that you use "blues" of Robert
> Johnson's music and things that _sound like it_. But I might not. I
> might, for instance, fail to see what it is in all this music that is
> "bluesy". Can't find the blues in it. So I have to ask again: on
> what principles do _you_ know what to call "blues"? What are your
> criteria for selection, by means of which I presume you selected the
> music I heard? That's what the blues-seeker wants to know: whatever
> _you_ use to help you decide of a piece of music that it's blues. And
> that question remains even if I've heard a dozen blues discs.
Amazing how casually you employ the definite article -- it almost
appears as though you believe that anyone with an interest in blues
would, like you, be more concerned with the word "blues" than with the
music it commonly refers to; personally, I can't find any reason to
share that belief. I think it's at least equally likely that somebody
asking about the blues would be curious about the music which that
term labels. And in that case, "the blues-seeker" would not be mainly
occupied with "the criteria of selection, by means of which" the label
is applied; rather she would like to hear some of the music it's
frequently applied to. Certainly she would learn more about the blues
_that_ way that she would from a list of principles or criteria.
But now let's turn to your case: you're a strange sort of "blues-
seeker" in that you don't too much care about the blues. I told you
where to go to find them, but that didn't hold your attention -- so we
have to ask what you _are_ seeking for. It seems that you want to
know about something else -- viz., what I use to "decide of a piece of
music that it's blues." But I'm not the one to ask, since I didn't
make the decision. I think there's a committee on nomenclature that's
responsible: a cross between the _Academie Francaise_, the Bros.
Fowler, and _Billboard_ magazine. There might also be some non-voting
representatives from ASCAP and BMI. Someone at the proper offices
can undoubtedly fill you in. (Too bad I don't have the address -- but
then, you wouldn't care -- you'd rather hear about the principles I
used to identify it.)
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
Lee:
[...]
> Easy mistake to make when one chooses to give oneself a female cat's name.
As a point of interest (or not), Puss in Boots is not the name of
a female cat.
-- Moggin
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Daniel Weiskopf <deb...@shell2.tiac.net> wrote:
: mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) writes:
: > Here? No. Didn't you read? Ron said he didn't get what I meant
: > about sliding between two frets. I explained that I was talking
: > about using a slide. Which does make a difference. You want to argue
: > about something else -- the meaning of the expression "blue note."
: > Which further illustrates my point: you could have listened to Robert
: > Johnson or Muddy Waters and heard the blues for yourself. Instead,
: > you demanded to have the blues "explained" to you, and now we're in an
: > argument over semantics.
: An argument over what one would use "blue note" of is not an argument
: over semantics. It's an argument about music. It just happens to
: employ the technique of semantic ascent--talking explicitly of words
: rather than of their objects to improve clarity of discourse. But
: although this changes the proximal object of the conversation, it
: doesn't change the distal one. The object is still to get clear on
: the musical facts.
: I think it's not hard to see why a seeker after either deconstruction
: or the blues would be dissatisfied with the look-and-see response. I
: want to know what the blues is, what you use the word "blues" of. You
: tell me to listen to Robert Johnson and other musicians. I may be
: satisfied with this; I might think that you use "blues" of Robert
: Johnson's music and things that _sound like it_. But I might not. I
: might, for instance, fail to see what it is in all this music that is
: "bluesy". Can't find the blues in it. So I have to ask again: on
: what principles do _you_ know what to call "blues"? What are your
: criteria for selection, by means of which I presume you selected the
: music I heard? That's what the blues-seeker wants to know: whatever
: _you_ use to help you decide of a piece of music that it's blues. And
: that question remains even if I've heard a dozen blues discs.
And there's a broad spectrum between the Mississippi Delta fife and
drum music that predates Robert Johnson (and others) and the Gulf
Coast blues of such urbane cats as Bobby Blue Bland, Johnny Otis,
Lowell Fulsom and Louis Jordan.
ObBook: WAKE UP DEAD MAN a photo essay book by Danny Lyons illustrating
the field hollers that were still in use in the '60s and '70s in
the agricultural sections of the Texas Penal System. I don't believe
they are in use these days.
ObNote: Doug Clark and the Hot Nuts are playing tonight in Richmond,VA.
"nuts, hot nuts,
get 'em from the the peanut man!"
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:47:28 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
Lee:
Moggin:
Lee:
[David:]
Fair enough.
makes a good point -- asking what deconstruction is without looking at
the way it's performed would be like asking about the blues but
refusing to listen to any. And of course David didn't hand you a list
of ten books. (Nobody has, that I've noticed.) So your reply is
irrelevant.
Of course it is Moggin.
But nobody has refused to do anything: somebody did ask for an explanation - 'no
bullshit' is a phase that springs to mind.
Lee.
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:52:50 -0600 Boom-Boom <and...@indiana.edu> wrote in
<341790...@indiana.edu>:
are you absolutely certain of that? Surely some fine literary critic's
looked into the dubious textual relationship between "Puss" (In Boots no
less) and that suspicious sounding Dick fellow?
Boom-Boom
Yep, which is why puss-in-boots is not a female cat. Sorry.
Anyway, over here in Britain, Moggin is the name of a female cat.
Lee
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:50:55 -0500 mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote
in <moggin-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>:
> We are not 'caught in an argument over semantics' - not because I will not
> *argue* over semantics (though I'll discuss it, and research it), but
> because the term 'blue note' has an established definite 'meaning,' as
> stated above.
I take it back. We're not in an argument over semantics: you're
having the argument all by yourself. First you were trying to argue
about the meaning of "blue note" -- now you're debating the meaning of
"argue."
I don't want to get sucked into this, but does the above constitue an argument?
> On that matter, you are just not being much help, we leads me back to
> Gordon's little piece about knowledge, and then on to Lyotard, Lord
> help me...
On the contrary, I've helpfully offered several good examples and
info about where to find them.
Oh.
Could you please show me an example of deconstruction: could you *demonstrate*
deconstruction, please?
Lee.
-- Moggin
lee
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:44:46 -0400 dg...@pipeline.com (Deborah Griffin Bly)
wrote in <dgbly-ya02408000...@news.pipeline.com>:
* * ** * *
* * * * * * try explaining a blue note to Moggin...
* * * * *
* ** **
- Lee
"Let that boy boogie-woogie,
'cos it's in him, and it's GOT to come out..."
lee
On 11 Sep 1997 11:03:16 GMT Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote in
<5v8j5k$mt7$1...@nw001.infi.net>:
And that' before we get into pre-slavery African music,
British blues,
British & US R&B (they're different)
trad jazz
the rest of jazz
blues rock
heavy metal
but the point remains that if someone asks me for a no bullshit explanation of
blues, telling them to go take a hike to a local blues joint ain't answer the
question.
Was deconstruction not intended to undermine the episteme/hegemony by taking a
text/article to pieces (literally or metaphorically) and looking closely at
those pieces and the way they were used in the construction?
I still think we should give it a go with the Bible.
ObBook: WAKE UP DEAD MAN a photo essay book by Danny Lyons illustrating
the field hollers that were still in use in the '60s and '70s in
the agricultural sections of the Texas Penal System. I don't believe
they are in use these days.
Now that is the Blues.
Lee.
ObBook for RAB: *The Bluest Eye*, Toni Morrison
ObSong for the hell of it: *Good Morning Blues*, Buddy Guy
Samuel Vriezen
By sheer coincidence it seems, there is a parallel discussion on what
would define/describe/whatever the blues at rec.music.theory. What
does this tell us about Zeitgeist?
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
: By sheer coincidence it seems, there is a parallel discussion on what
: would define/describe/whatever the blues at rec.music.theory. What
: does this tell us about Zeitgeist?
Phoebe Zeitgeist? I thought she'd run off with the Fuller Brush man..
ObAdultComix: Little Annie Fannie by Harvey Kurtzmann
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:57:29 GMT s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen) wrote in
<3417d1b...@news.xs4all.nl>:
By sheer coincidence it seems, there is a parallel discussion on what
would define/describe/whatever the blues at rec.music.theory. What
does this tell us about Zeitgeist?
(Cynical remarks witheld.)
I can't get rec.music.theory - how about you really annoy everyone on the other
threads and cross post it all here?
Lee
G*rd*n
lee @ jove.u-net.com (Lee Goddard):
| ...
| Was deconstruction not intended to undermine the episteme/hegemony by taking a
| text/article to pieces (literally or metaphorically) and looking closely at
| those pieces and the way they were used in the construction?
|
| I still think we should give it a go with the Bible.
| ...
So, why is the first letter Beth and not Aleph or some other
letter?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
G*rd*n
Gordon:
| If our moral subjectivism is weak, it needs all the help it
| can get. How do you mean "weak", though? It seems to me
| that it may be weak in the sense of not being very popular,
| but per moral subjectivist it seems strong enough.
Brian:
| I guess I meant weak in two senses: first, it is weak because it is not
| consistent in our society (one moment a person is saying "there is no moral
| truth" and the next they are saying "kill the bastard - he is evil"),
I think you're referring to a kind of vernacular shorthand
here, and unless you can point to specific examples we stand
in great danger of going around in circles which, of course,
we otherwise would never do.
"Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
| That particular conflict of the same person saying "no moral truth" and
| "that is evil" is one reason I'm no moral subjectivist.
I don't see any conflict. If I say something is evil, it
means I think it's bad. It's _my_ moral truth.
Brian:
| second, it is weak because unanalyzed - just an easy and convenient stance
| to take in a society with so many conflicting ideals. In this regards
| there is a sociological paper I remember reading titled "how to become a
| famous French intellectual" (LeMaire?) that tried to make the same point.
| Even the deconstructivists have an ethos that has some substantial
| assumptions. Moral relativism is its extreme version (not philosophical
| per se - more just popular American sentiment).
Are we going from subjectivism to relativism? These are
somewhat different concepts to me. For example, moral
relativism might be "It is all right for the President to
kill people, because he may have Reasons of State for doing
so, but it is not all right for ordinary citizens to kill
people under ordinary circumstances," which has nothing to
do with subjectivism ("It is not all right for ordinary
citizens to kill people, because I don't like it.") Let's
stick to subjectivism.
Lanier:
| Seems true, few moral relativists have examined their assumptions, but the
| hardcore desconstructionists who started the movement I think had examined
| their ideas and preferred their ethos and analysis to other ones.
| Somewhere though I think they had to "bite the bullet" of the conflict
| between the need to make a moral judgment and the desire not to make the
| judgment. People like Foucalt and Derrida do indeed seem to be making
| moral judgements consciously.
Explicit moral judgements? Can you show us one? My
impression is that they're trickier than that -- they show
us a situation which tempts _us_ to make a moral judgment,
while they stare amusedly out the window, as if to say,
"Put that in your moral pipe and smoke it." It's a kind
of judo.
But I'm by no means a scholar, and both of them could have
authored works full of preachments which I've thankfully
chanced to avoid in my random walks.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Paul D. Lanier
G*rd*n:
The idea that Plato might sometimes have been ironical or
humorous has been advanced before in alt.pomo, as I recall.
However, the owners and operators of "Plato" have been
fairly insistent over the years on his deadly seriousness,
and I don't know that their control can be broken at this
late date.
Lanier:
I'd have to ask when is Plato deadly serious and when ironical? At
different points along the way he seems facetious/satirical and at others
quite serious. I studied under a professor of philosophy who was deeply
versed in Plato (and Hegel and the pragmatists) who saw Plato to be
ironical at times.
Brain:
Depressing thought - and probably true at this time - it still eliminates a
side of Plato that warms him up for me.
Brian or Gordon:
I regard Witt as a humorist and a destroyer -- this is why I
like his work -- but not a deconstructionist. Just from the
roots of the word, a _deconstructionist_ should show us the
parts taken from the structure, not a atomized ruin. (But
this is a personal view of Witt, not a fortified position
which I mean to defend. I am no philosopher.)
G*rd*n:
But back to deconstruction. I was looking at Roland
Barthes's _Mythologies_ today, and he seems to be
practicing a kind of deconstruction here and there, in
looser sense of the word as it bandied about the Net
and the less reputable zines. What do you think?
Lanier:
Barthes seems to be a "demythologizer" and a myth analyzer to em.
"Brian Butler" <dbeb...@hotmail.com>:
Barthes was introduced to me in the context of deconstruction so my
reading of him is suspect. I still am not sure I understand the
distinction between a looser and more rigorous sense of the word.
Gordon
A word defines -- sets boundaries around -- a subspace in
the space of denotation. The boundaries can enclose a
smaller or larger space, and they can be distinct or fuzzy.
They can also be moved in the middle of a statement --
indeed, in the middle of a word. In the case in point, if
one says "X is deconstruction" or "Charlie does decon",
another can always move the boundaries to leave X and
Charlie, or rather those who mention them, stranded. By
saying "looser" I provide that at least the tide may come
back in.
Unfortunately, this strategy failed, and I wound up with a
_Village_Voice_ reporter in Shea Stadium. What a fate!
Brian?:
My sense of the
problem is that deconstruction is actually a label that combines the
followers of a few earlier philosophers under a label in a way that
create the appearance of a coherent movement that satisfies both the need
for a justification of our weak moral subjectivism in a way that seems
academically rigorous and a way to belittle the arguments made those
whom with we disagree. ...
Gordon?:
If our moral subjectivism is weak, it needs all the help it
can get. How do you mean "weak", though? It seems to me
that it may be weak in the sense of not being very popular,
but per moral subjectivist it seems strong enough.
Brian:
I guess I meant weak in two senses: first, it is weak because it is not
consistent in our society (one moment a person is saying "there is no moral
truth" and the next they are saying "kill the bastard - he is evil"),
Lanier:
That particular conflict of the same person saying "no moral truth" and
"that is evil" is one reason I'm no moral subjectivist.
Brian:
second, it is weak because unanalyzed - just an easy and convenient stance
to take in a society with so many conflicting ideals. In this regards
there is a sociological paper I remember reading titled "how to become a
famous French intellectual" (LeMaire?) that tried to make the same point.
Even the deconstructivists have an ethos that has some substantial
assumptions. Moral relativism is its extreme version (not philosophical
per se - more just popular American sentiment).
Lanier:
Seems true, few moral relativists have examined their assumptions, but the
hardcore desconstructionists who started the movement I think had examined
their ideas and preferred their ethos and analysis to other ones.
Somewhere though I think they had to "bite the bullet" of the conflict
between the need to make a moral judgment and the desire not to make the
judgment. People like Foucalt and Derrida do indeed seem to be making
moral judgements consciously.
Brian:
So I guess I would go for a further type of weakness - that of an
"intellectual" stance that does not explain what it is usually adopted to
explain.
Lanier
Well I don't know. Sometimes moral relativism as an intellectual view
does explain what is adopted to explain, whether or not you think its a
good explanation. (I don't think moral relativism is a good
explanation.)
Sorry to interrupt your discussion but I thought another vioce on the
matter would be helpful.
Paul Lanier
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:33:20 -0400 Andrew Hare <an...@physics.mcgill.ca> wrote in
<Pine.SGI.3.91.97091...@nazgul.physics.mcgill.ca>:
Moggin wrote:
The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a
spot between two frets.
Lee wrote:
To refresh your memory: this waffle about the Blues you began as a
parallel to the critical theory of deconstruction. A bad comparison,
perhaps, but one which caught my eye: that you profess to 'know' and
pass on your 'knowledge' in public when what you 'know' contradicts the
everyday use of the words you 'know' about kind of annoys me - I was
taught by people like that as a lad.
We are not 'caught in an argument over semantics' - not because I will
not *argue* over semantics (though I'll discuss it, and research it),
but because the term 'blue note' has an established definite 'meaning,'
as stated above.
Lee added:
What you have done with your definition of 'blue note' was to
reappropriate the term.
Andrew Hare commented:
This strikes me as a little unfair. What you described as a
'grey' note in a previous post is exactly what I have always seen described
as a 'blue' note. "Such and such a singer was shooting for a blue
note". A note, a pitch, falling between two adjacent notes of the
piano. There have been experiments with octaves being divided into, say,
54 parts instead of 12, but so far no top ten hits with microtonal
scales.
I'm almost tempted into spelling Schostakovitch, but shall remain content with
saying that Phillip Glass and Cage did some simillar stuff (though not together,
there's a thought).
In my circles blue notes are the minor thirds and minor sevenths: we use the
term blue note because we all - rock, blues and jazz musicians, and Professors
and tutors alike - know that in so doing we refer to the minor third and minor
seventh. We'd never get through a rehersal and never start a jam if we went by
Moggin's definition. (We'd end up sounding like this thread, Lord help us.) But
I take the point that the audience may take the performers' terms in another way
to the performers.
Two (groups of) questions come to mind.
One at a time now please.
First of all, is it a kind of
synaesthesia that has prompted natural language to have described
these kinds of notes as 'blue' or 'grey'? And why these colours and
not red for example?
I take the bate:
'Grey' notes? No problem. I first read it in a review of Thelonious Monk. Monk
is (if you don't know) a pianist who plays with a lot of dischordant chords (?)
with note-combinations like C, C# D: it was said that he was aiming for the
'grey' note between the black and white piano keys.
Blue notes? I wonder. Perhaps the question for a new thread (in what newsgroup?)
should be 'Why are the Blues not Red'? Maybe when you feel blue, like me you
feel emotionally cold certain shades of blue? Maybe most shades of red give you
a feeling of warmth and never sadness?
Secondly, it is not incredibly easy to hit
a blue note when you want to.
I might have ten per cent standard/regular vision, but I'm glad I've got perfect
pitch and can say: it's damn easy to hit a minor third or a minor seventh, and
much easier to hit a MogginBlueNote or Monkesque (Monky?) grey note.
(Personal experience, singing in
shower for many years, can do it by mistake no problem).
Like my spelling.
How much
a factor is the psychological one (grown up with the same scale
all my life, not many chances to hear blue notes which I could
use to imitate and practise) and how much a purely
musical one (my brain, sensing and admiring the pattern, feels that the
blue note is *wrong*, not aesthetically *right* enough, and I fail?)
Like my spelling. My spelling problem is nobody really explained the spelling
theory of many words to me, and though I'm getting there anyway checking up the
etymology on my new OED CD-ROM (happy-happy joy-joy), I still think my versions
too look betta.
The thing about the minor third is that difference between blue and yellow (a
better illustration than red): my major third is yellow, uplifting; my minor
third is blue, more sombre - you can gather the intro/extrospection and all that
follows, yes? My major seventh is violet, kind of suspends me, gently encourages
me; my minor seventh is raw, and can be a purple when you come down to reach it,
or a scarlet if you're coming up from the sixth ...
But now we're getting into theosophy and probably hot acid (Blue Buddhas, of
course).
ObBOOK: Point CounterPoint Aldous Huxley
Counter ObBook: The Art of Seeing, Aldous Huxley
Additional ObBook: Alice through the Looking Glass
Additional ObAlbum:Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
Additional ObSong: White Rabbit, The Damned (forgetting the hippies)
- Lee.
Ted Samsel
In rec.arts.books Lee Goddard <lee @ jove.u-net.com> wrote:
: 'Grey' notes? No problem. I first read it in a review of Thelonious Monk. Monk
: Like my spelling.
Didn't Scriabin invent (or contract out and have fabricated) a device to
display color along with his performed music? (The color, of course, was
what he "saw" those tones as.)
ObSongs: I'M GOING TO MOVE UP TO THE COUNTRY (AND PAINT MY MAILBOX BLUE)
Taj Mahal
(I'M YOUR) LIGHT GREEN FELLOW
Michael Hurley
ObLightShowOfThePast: "Gee Dad! It's a Wurlitzer!"
lee
On 11 Sep 1997 11:45:05 -0400 g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in
<5v93m1$i...@panix2.panix.com>:
I, lee.goddard @ jove.u-net.com :
...
Was deconstruction not intended to undermine the episteme/hegemony by taking a
text/article to pieces (literally or metaphorically) and looking closely at
those pieces and the way they were used in the construction?
I still think we should give it a go with the Bible.
...
So, why is the first letter Beth and not Aleph or some other
letter?
Not that closely, Sir.
Lee.
Andrew Hare
Moggin wrote:
The pentatonic scale doesn't contain blue notes -- that's sorta
the point. Blue notes fall between the notches of the scale. On
guitar, you get them by bending the strings, or by sliding to a
spot between two frets.
Lee wrote:
To refresh your memory: this waffle about the Blues you began as a
parallel to the critical theory of deconstruction. A bad comparison,
perhaps, but one which caught my eye: that you profess to 'know' and
pass on your 'knowledge' in public when what you 'know' contradicts the
everyday use of the words you 'know' about kind of annoys me - I was
taught by people like that as a lad.
We are not 'caught in an argument over semantics' - not because I will
not *argue* over semantics (though I'll discuss it, and research it),
but because the term 'blue note' has an established definite 'meaning,'
as stated above.
Lee added:
What you have done with your definition of 'blue note' was to
reappropriate the term.
This strikes me as a little unfair. What you described as a
'grey' note in a previous post is exactly what I have always seen described
as a 'blue' note. "Such and such a singer was shooting for a blue
note". A note, a pitch, falling between two adjacent notes of the
piano. There have been experiments with octaves being divided into, say,
54 parts instead of 12, but so far no top ten hits with microtonal
scales.
Two (groups of) questions come to mind. First of all, is it a kind of
synaesthesia that has prompted natural language to have described
these kinds of notes as 'blue' or 'grey'? And why these colours and
not red for example? Secondly, it is not incredibly easy to hit
a blue note when you want to. (Personal experience, singing in
shower for many years, can do it by mistake no problem). How much
a factor is the psychological one (grown up with the same scale
all my life, not many chances to hear blue notes which I could
use to imitate and practise) and how much a purely
musical one (my brain, sensing and admiring the pattern, feels that the
blue note is *wrong*, not aesthetically *right* enough, and I fail?)
ObBOOK: Point CounterPoint Aldous Huxley
Andrew Hare
Tore Lund
Lee Goddard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> In my circles blue notes are the minor thirds and minor sevenths: we use the
> term blue note because we all - rock, blues and jazz musicians, and Professors
> and tutors alike - know that in so doing we refer to the minor third and minor
> seventh. We'd never get through a rehersal and never start a jam if we went by
> Moggin's definition. (We'd end up sounding like this thread, Lord help us.) But
> I take the point that the audience may take the performers' terms in another way
> to the performers.
>
I'm just curious: when do you have occasion to talk about blue notes?
Does someone tell you, "Hey Lee, play a blue note on the second beat of
the third bar, will you?"
You say that you'd "never get through a rehearsal" with Moggin's
definition. If a musical concept is that central, I'd like to hear a
word about how it enters into the communication between musicians, if
you please.
Tore
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
lee
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:19:05 +0200 Tore Lund <tl...@online.no> wrote in
<341852...@online.no>:
Lee Goddard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> In my circles blue notes are the minor thirds and minor sevenths: we use the
> term blue note because we all - rock, blues and jazz musicians, and
Professors
> and tutors alike - know that in so doing we refer to the minor third and
minor
> seventh. We'd never get through a rehersal and never start a jam if we went
by
> Moggin's definition. (We'd end up sounding like this thread, Lord help us.)
But
> I take the point that the audience may take the performers' terms in another
way
> to the performers.
>
> [snip]
I'm just curious: when do you have occasion to talk about blue notes?
Does someone tell you, "Hey Lee, play a blue note on the second beat of
the third bar, will you?"
You say that you'd "never get through a rehearsal" with Moggin's
definition. If a musical concept is that central, I'd like to hear a
word about how it enters into the communication between musicians, if
you please.
Tore
--
Okie dokie, Tore.
We'll start with the MogginBlueNote situation:
Guitar [on finishing new number]: What did you think of that?
Bass: Der.
Drums: Grunt.
Piano: S'okay, but a bit straight - can't you try it with a few more blue notes?
Guitar: Okay.
[Number attempted again, with dischordant, clashing chords all over the place.
Even the drums complain]
Or, more traditionally, the piano could be asking for the odd 7th.
'Make it a bit more bluesy,' or a more likely request to 'jazz it up' does not
normally mean add a note from between the frets with a slide: it usually means
lower a fourth to a minor third, or a root or second to a minor seventh. But if
you are really intested I'll charge you access to my web site where I list a
whole series of blues rifts, with JPEG photo graphics and Shockwave sound.
Only five British Pounds to enter.
Lee.