It's Not OUR Book...

but it's a really good read, and it's online for free at Project Gutenberg. I've been reading Just David, and it's a great book! I haven't quite got to the end yet, although I think I'm getting close, but it's made me both laugh and cry & I just love the language the author has used!

Let's Go Ahead

I'm going to begin looking for the book. Doesn't look like anyone's got any objections, so I say lets DO it! I'm really excited to get looking at this book, the excerpt on Amazon is a nice read, the topic is interesting, I'm thinking this could be just the thing our blogging needs.

Race ya to the bookstore!

Last Call for Objections

So, if nobody is going to object, I think we should read 1421: The year China discovered the world.

Book of Centuries

I mentioned to MissKate that I plan to use my Book of Centuries while we read 1421 (since there doesn't seem to be any objections), and she wanted to know what it is. So I was telling her about it, and it seems to me that maybe Emma & FifeMOM would like to build one too if we're going to read very many history books. I learned about Books of Centuries from some homeschooling stuff. Here's an explanation and a link to a place where you can print out some prefab pages. I did some things a little differently than the file they offer on this site: I started moving by 50 years at a time starting in 1500, since starting about then there's more recorded history and events start happening closer together. But it's basically the same thing. It's pretty fun to be able to see things like the traditional date of the founding of the Japanese empire (660BC) is on the same page as Lehi leaving Jerusalem (600BC) because they happened very close to the same time. Could make for some very interesting speculations. Anyway.

A Book of Centuries is like a timeline in a notebook. As its name suggests, each two-page spread in the book is devoted to one hundred years — a century — of history. Each student creates his or her own book, recording historical events and names of importance, along with pictures, poems, quotes, and anything else that makes the book individual. You can also add written narrations, illustrations from the Internet, or titles of books you’ve read that are set in that time period.

Read more...

Looking at New Books

Well, I propose that we quit with the Brain on Music already. Nobody is enjoying it, and we're not posting about it, and I think it's time to move on. I dug up an old post from when we were last deciding on what book to read - we'd discussed doing some sort of biography. There weren't any comments on that post, so I don't know if you guys thought any of those people were even slightly interesting or not. I also saw a book over at Barnes & Noble a while back that looked interesting: 1421: the year China discovered the world. Or, I picked up America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations not too long ago, and that's got a ton of interesting quotes in it. Maybe it'd spark some interesting conversation as we (ahem) gear up for the whole Presidential Circus Elections thing. I've heard good things about George Washington's World, although I haven't actually read it myself. Hmmmm. That's another history book. I think I'm detecting a theme here. Maybe someone else ought to suggest a book if ya'll want to do something besides history, LOL! I'm completely open to that other stuff too. Just can't think of any of it right this very minute, if you know what I mean!

Useful Article

From the Well Trained Mind.com:
Educating Ourselves: Classical Education for Adults

Begin the habit of keeping a learning journal in which you jot down ideas, facts, questions, material that you're learning. The great writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century are marked by their diligence in writing down what they were learning from their reading. Don't organize these notebooks too elaborately, or you'll find that you're spending your study time tidying your filing and notation system, rather than studying. Just head each page with the subject that you're learning, and write down facts that strike you and your reaction to them. You'll find that these learning journals expand into series of notebooks that chronicle your intellectual journey. Make it a habit to dedicate a week of study time, once every six months or so, to reading back through your own notes on your learning. (emphasis added)

You know, I've been keeping a journal for a while now - it's getting close enough to full that I realized the other day that I was going to have to get another one one of these days. But I don't think that I've done a whole lot in the way of going back through the notebook and looking over the things that I read or the thoughts that I had while I was reading. I'm going to have to do that over the next little while!

Chapter One

So much jargon!!! Ritsumei, you were so very right. For a guy who seems to be encouraging people to get into music, assuring them that the jargon is not that important, he seems to use an awful lot of it. (I sort of have resorted to skimming through most of it) I'm hoping he is laying the foundation for more interesting, in depth observations once he moves past the definition mode.

However, there were some interesting thoughts thrown in amongst all the other stuff too. (I even went so far as to underline some of it!)

I thought it was interesting that Mr. Levitin noted on page 25, that "many melodies do not have a 'correct' starting pitch, they just float freely in space, starting anywhere" and that melody is just "an auditory object that maintains its identity in spite of transformations...". This was a discussion I had many times in college with my other music student buddies. As a vocalist, I'm totally down with that concept. (Especially because I'm not cursed with "Perfect Pitch") I completely agree that songs (melodies) are just a collection of pitches recognizable by their relation to each other, and not necessarily the starting pitch.

Despite the overall heaviness in jargon, I really find it fascinating when Mr. Levitin points out things that have been gleaned from apparent science experimentation regarding brain activity while listening to music. For example, on page 27, he talks briefly about the way different parts process sounds. And while, to the conscious thought process, melodies can be a floating entity of pitches, best recognized by their relationship with each other, it the "absolute pitch values that the brain is paying attention to throughout its different stages of processing."

Later on in the chapter he starts talking about how the octave is found in all cultures (pg 29). I sort of liked his discussion on frequency ratios. He continues with all the details and examples of different intervals, ratios and frequencies, and then on page 33, he says: "This is entirely arbitrary." That amused me greatly.

I am impressed by the human brain's ability to process information. Anyone familiar with Western music is almost intuitively an expert in recognition and anticipation of (typical) music. He defined it very susinctly on page 36:

Declaritive knowlege - the ability to talk about it; but in spite of our lack of
forlmal musical education, we know what the composer intended to establish as
the tonal center, or key, of the piece, and we recovnize when he brings us back
home to the honic, or when he fails to do so.

However, I'm still working through chapter one. More to come later....

Back in the Saddle

Ok! So, I FINALLY started reading this book we've been talking about reading for months. I got through most of the introduction today during lunch. I like his tone so far.. It sounds as though he'll be taking a different approach than most musicians might. I like it!

I thought it was interesting when he said,

"Nowadays there is a great emphasis on technique and skill, and whether a musician is "good enough" to play for others. Music making has become a somewhat reserved activity in our culture, and the rest of us listen." (pg.7)

Recently, I've been trying my hand at composition (again) and I find it rather a daunting task. I feel like since I have a degree and all, people expect that my stuff be amazing, Beethoven level stuff that'll wow the socks off everyone. But having Mr. Levitin point out this juxtaposition aloud sort of started me thinking about how it doesn't have to be that way. I have something to share, and there doesn't have to be such a stark separation between those who do music, and those who listen.

And, in view of my lack of composition confidence, I like how he discussed the similarities of artists and scientists. (pg. 5) Perhaps a little over the top, but my favorite part was when he said:

"The work of artists and scientists is ultimately the pursuit of truth, but members of both camps understand that truth in its very nature is contextual and changeable, dependent on point of view..."

I think that perhaps truth isn't the exact word that I would've used, but the concept of "what is music" is very much captured in that statement. Music is something that is enjoyed based upon perception and point of view, which is as ever changing as the sands of society around us.

Music Brain (Ch1, Part 2)

So, I came back to this thinking that there wasn't very much left to the chapter, but actually there's quite a bit. Let's see what sort of trouble I can get into before my piano lessons start for the day, shall we? I believe we left off with the musicians at the back door.

Let's see. Semitones, Sharp & Flat as in A# and also playing sharp. Still defining what is music. A440. Relative vs. fixed pitch.

You know what I think my beef with this "defining" stuff is? He's says he's trying to explain music & it's jargon in layman's terms. But he can't seem to resist throwing every single name for every single thing in there, even when knowing that there are multiple names for stuff only creates confusion. For instance, on page 35 he's talking about the major scale. Gives the C-scale as an example. C D E F G A B C. Also mentions in passing that it's called "Ionian Mode." This adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact if I hadn't tagged along to one of my sister's college level theory classes once upon a time I'd have no idea what he was talking about. And he just mentions it. Nothing more. No "More on this in a later chapter." No explanation. Just randomly throws a term out there. High-level music jargon. For a guy that says that he's trying to demystify music's jargon, this seems like a sort of odd way to do it.

With that sort of crabbing out there, I think I'll just hush about how much that sort of jargon-y "demystification" irritates me. It's a good thing that the intro was good.

In-spii-rate-tion: Doing Chapter 1

OK. So now you posted and I commented and we're getting some momentum here! Gonna keep things rolling with a bit of a look at chapter 1.

I got a little bogged down in this chapter, actually. That's why I haven't posted in a while. Feeling like I should continue the way I started & wanting to do a post for the 1st chapter kept me from just moving on into the 2nd chapter which was a much more interesting read. Guess maybe it would have been better to just keep going rather than let it stop me altogether.

Anyway. The chapter's called "What is Music: from pitch to timbre." And he sets out to define, in layman's terms, what all the different elements of music are. I guess that you do sorta need to have a common language before you can talk about something, but this is Really Dry. And I was awfully glad to be already familiar with the words from working with music. Some were pretty straight forward:

"Tempo refers to the overall speed or pace of the piece." (Page 15)

Some were a little more difficult to pin down.

"A discrete musical sound is usually called a tone. The word note is also used, but scientists reserve that word to refer to something that is notated on a page or score of music. The two terms, tone and note, refer to the same entity in the abstract, where the word tone refers to what you hear, and the word note refers to what you see written on a musical score." (Pages 14-15)

Oh my. It's sooo much easier in real life! I don't think that ever usually have to even define this note-tone stuff with even the youngest of my piano kids: they just pick it up as we go along! But I suppose that a scientist would have to think about these things. But Levitin gets very into this defining stuff. Sometimes I think he gets a little carried away - for instance, the discussion of solfeg (is that how you spell it? the checker doesn't seem to know that word), adds just about nothing to his section on what is a scale, and considerably clutters that paragraph. (Did I mention that this chapter was hard for me?)

But! As he's finishing up his discussion of the scale, he hits on another interesting gem: every known culture uses the octave. Fascinating! There's a tidbit that I wish they'd mentioned in the World Music (Music Appreciation? I can't remember) class that I took in college. We looked at a Javanese Gamelon - now there is a cool instrument/orchestra/gizmo. They had one at UIUC, and our section got to go and try it out. Most cool. But I had no idea that hidden somewhere in the strange sounds that room full of gamelon made was an octave. I enjoy listening to world music and I'm going to have to start listening closely to see if I can find these octaves. To add further interest he talks about how some animals seem to respond to the octave as well. Weird, but cool.

His discussion of why the notes are named the way they are is also entertaining:

"After centuries of being forced to eat in the servants' quarters and to use the back entrance of the castle, this may just be an invention by musicians to make nonmusicians feel inadequate." (Page 31)

Ahhh. The sweet sound of my boy waking up from his nap. More later.