Anyone have a disordered taste in music and is somewhat puzzled by it?

[TrentCath]

I interpreted him as meaning music that was just rhythmic i.e a lot of what is played in clubs

Yes, but hitting wood blocks together in kindergarten was primarily rhythmic too. Needs more definition.

Fair enough

[Graham]

As for three, all music is primarily rhythmic, so this principle is non-sensical. Probably what he meant to say is that the music primarily accents the rhythm through drum beats or percussive instrumentation. Even Gregorian chant is primarily rhythmic.

I'm not one of those who believes that strong rhythm is necessarily bad or downward leading. Still, I don't think it's supportable to say even that all music is rhythmic, let alone that it's all primarily rhythmic. As an example, the Hindustani musical form alap - comparable in the West to the sound of an orchestra warming up - is not rhythmic.

[Graham]

To spell it out, the point is that these examples evidence a pole of music which is basically arhythmic, meaning that there is a spectrum ranging from there to almost purely rhythmic music (drums have pitch and overtones, so there are melodic and harmonic elements present even in drum music). This would mean that only the music tending towards the rhythmic pole - for simplicity's sake we'll call this half of all music - can be called primarily rhythmic.

[Scriptorium]

You all are showing your Western biases. Just like in Thomist philosophy, there is no such thing as chance coincidence. All music is rhythmic by its nature. That's to not say it is all of the same quality, or that it is simple to discern the rhythm, but it is there. There is a definite line between music which accents the rhythm, and music which does not accent the rhythm, and sounds which are not intended to be music at all. Gregorian chant has definite rhythm to it, but it is wholly subordinated to the melodic line and phrasing of the words, i.e., the rhythm is kept through the voice. Some of the Indian music referred to may have "parcels" of rhythm, that are internally related, but one parcel to another may be more loosely related. Then there is music which runs of polyrhythmic scales, which meet every 108 bars or so, which in the interim might seem rather chaotic if you're not following it. And we need to have respect in some way for rhythmic devices which purposely are meant disorient you in order to produce a later resolution which would give a type of catharsis. I am not trying to prove whether any given music or piece is musically great or even competent, but any musicologist course will say that rhythm is a primary part of the thing we call "music", which are patterned collections of sounds in twos and threes. Jackson's definition is weak, then. He needs to explain what he thinks more clearly. Does he mean percussive music? Music which has percussion in the foreground or prominent? Does he mean music which is not conventional Western metrical structure? Etc. He wants an all-encompassing philosophy to solve this question. I don't think he's going to find it. Some things are relative to the person.

I'm not one of those who believes that strong rhythm is necessarily bad or downward leading. Still, I don't think it's supportable to say even that all music is rhythmic, let alone that it's all primarily rhythmic. As an example, the Hindustani musical form alap - comparable in the West to the sound of an orchestra warming up - is not rhythmic.

Time in Indian Music: Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North Indian Rag Performance, By Martin Clayton


Would one say that free verse poetry is completely without rhythm? Is Billy Collins just prose?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Would one say that free verse poetry is completely without rhythm? Is Billy Collins just prose?

Good point, Scriptorium! I write free verse and Billy Collins is my hero.

Anyway, I think you're making good points on this thread.

[Graham]

musicologist course will say that rhythm is a primary part of the thing we call "music"

"A" primary part? Primary means principal, and can only be singular. A thing can't have two or more primary parts. If all you meant to say is that rhythm forms a necessary part of all music I probably wouldn't have taken this up or would have approached it rather differently.

Time in Indian Music: Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North Indian Rag Performance, By Martin Clayton

Will give that a look, thank you.

Would one say that free verse poetry is completely without rhythm? Is Billy Collins just prose?

No I wouldn't say it's completely without rhythm, but I wouldn't say it's primarily rhythmic either. I would say its basically arhythmic or something to that effect. Please notice I didn't claim that any musical form is completely without rhythm. I mentioned a form that is "basically arhythmic", by which I was in fact trying to qualify that none of it is completely without rhythm, just as I qualified that drum music isn't completely without melody and harmony. We seem to be talking past each other.

I think that the line you're trying to draw between on the one hand, music that is "primarily rhythmic" (in your view, all music), and music which primarily "accents the rhythm" is a distinction without a difference. Rhythm is accent.

[Scriptorium]

"A" primary part? Primary means principal, and can only be singular. A thing can't have two or more primary parts. If all you meant to say is that rhythm forms a necessary part of all music I probably wouldn't have taken this up or would have approached it rather differently.

I apologize if my wording is bad, but music by its nature is pattern. Rhythm at its base is about pattern. Melodic pattern and harmonic pattern are predicated on rhythmic pattern. I.e., melody is a collection of individual notes. Once you reach note two, you have established a rhythmic pattern. So melody has rhythm as a condition. Harmony does not rely on rhythm for its nature, but I imagine that anybody who posited a single chord as a piece of music would predicate such a piece on a shared idea of a "rest" preceding and/or ending the piece, thus creating a type of pattern.

We seem to be talking past each other.

Probably. 

Rhythm is accent.

I don't think they're equivalent, but mutual dependent for understanding. Rhythm can be said to be the "feel" of the music, while the accent is the content of that feeling. For instance, we can have a blank analysis of sound (a type of radical phenomenology) without putting any label onto beat, just recognizing the raw pattern for what it is, but the overlay of labels creates the total experience of which note is up and which one is down, etc. Rhythm I see as bare collection of beat patterns intended to be musical, whereas something like accent is more involved with what that pattern wants out of you (step here, snap here, strum here, rest there, etc.). Perhaps I am being a bit esoteric. The point is that Jackson needs to clarify beyond the label "rhythmic". Most of the polemic against contemporary music suffers from lack of clarity in concepts. We see this right away when a trad gripes about "rock" music. Does this mean I can't listen to a song like "Eleanor Rigby" because it is "rock". Hmm. Listen to the incessant beat of this work!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Itt02QOO0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Itt02QOO0</a>

[introibo]

Great post Alphonsus Jr. !

Thanks. I'm now listening to The Rite of Spring. 

Oh, and the Rite of Spring is very well ordered.......
Christina

[introibo]

Actually, very interesting topic...I had posted a few months back about my teenage daughter who wants an electric guitar and husband who thinks that trad Catholics shouldn't even think about electric guitars...

I grew up listening to pop stuff, but my first love musically from the age of 10 was big band, music of 1920's and 30's etc.  In high school I fell in love with classical and that has become my music of choice.  With the advent of children, we tried to always play good stuff in the house - jazz, classical, some folk, big band, but always the more popular stuff creeps in ...Thankfully, two of my older girls like older pop - Beach Boys, Barry Manilow, etc...although even some of that stuff is problematic.  But I've learned to appreicate that genre more..there is good stuff in the rock/pop genre.  My younger teen is the one into more contemporary stuff...but happily she also is into new age type music (Deuter, Ryan Farrish) which although is not the ideal, is much better than contemporary pop. 

Christina

[Scriptorium]

An FSSP homily on this exact topic and a detailed description of how to determine what music is OK and what music is harmful to one's soul.

Scroll down to "music" under "Homilies given in Tulsa"
http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

This is a great talk. I recommend everyone listen to it. It has other information in it too like detachment. It makes me want to read/listen to Fr Ripperger's stuff on psychology. Thanks.