The Song Fight Bulletin Board

In my worthless opinion, just the instrumental round should be enough to qualify. When I heard it, I immediately wished I had thought of doing an instrumental round.

Jefff wrote:In my worthless opinion, just the instrumental round should be enough to qualify. When I heard it, I immediately wished I had thought of doing an instrumental round.

I haven't heard Frankie's song yet (or anyone's), but I do feel compelled to note that, in music, a round is vocal by definition. Its instrumental equivalent is the canon.

I wouldn't be a stickler about this if I were a judge, though, and I strayed from the strictest definition in my own entry this week, too, so all I can say is that if Frankie's song is as good as everyone says it is, then he's sure to score pretty well. And Frankie does have a history of writing great music, so I'm sure it's liable to win or place.

frankie big face wrote:I'm a little sensitive to being called an "ass" of any sort--smart, wise, dumb or other.

How about sexy- ?

frankie, I wasn't saying I would agree with the judges if they were to dislike how you fulfilled the challenge. In my one cursory listen this morning, I really enjoyed the song, but I didn't notice the round in the choir, or the Frere Jacques lyrical quote/reference. All I noticed was the musical Frere Jacques quote in the bridge. I simply wondered if that would be good enough for the judges. Maybe it's good that I brought it up because now you've had to spell out the details and they may be more likely to hear those things than I was.

Generic wrote:I wouldn't be a stickler about this if I were a judge, ...

Interesting. Several of the judges in round 0 chastised me because I didn't "shout" in their opinion. However, I used the word "shouting" twice in my entry, so it could be considered significant that "shouting" appeared more than once in the song. Is that not a "significant use of shouting"?

Therefore, if a judge has a preconceived notion of what a 'round' is, even though it is not completely explicit and according to definition, Frankie may well be on his way to success in Round 1.

@Generic. Well now I really wish I had thought of it, if only because obsessing over challenge fulfillment is the best part of Nur Ein.

I'm a little sensitive to being called an "ass" of any sort--smart, wise, dumb or other.

Sorry Frankie, I don't think you're an ass. However with this challenge, I would've thought the music teacher would knock this out of the park. Instead he played lawyer ball and bunted. Perhaps it was a clever move. Perhaps I have no business using baseball metaphors. It just struck me as a "smartass" move. It's a super solid song, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'm pretty sure though that your interpretation of the challenge was meant to cause reaction. I was just reacting to it. No hard feelings.

NUR EIN!

Generic wrote: I haven't heard Frankie's song yet (or anyone's), but I do feel compelled to note that, in music, a round is vocal by definition. Its instrumental equivalent is the canon.

Jon, while that is an interesting way of looking at the two terms, it is not correct. The instrumentation has nothing to do with distinguishing whether a composition is a canon or a round. By definition, all rounds are canons, but not all canons are rounds. Rounds are "simple canons" where the imitation is identical and at the same pitch level. The broad term "canon" includes all rounds, but also interval canons, where the imitation is at a higher or lower pitch level; inverted canons, where the imitation is simultaneous and mirrors the original melody; or crab canons, where the imitation occurs simultaneously with the original but is sung or played in retrograde (backwards!). Table canons (also called simply "table music") are particularly clever as the music is placed between the performers, who played from the upper left to the end and it sounds right even though one person is reading the music upside down! (The Wikipedia article on Canon is pretty interesting and well-organized.)

Here is a link (http://www.westmusic.com/book-of-canons.htm) to a book entitled "Book of Canons" which includes "71 rounds and canons from the folksong tradition as well as international and classical." Every one of them is meant to be sung despite their designations as either rounds or canons.

frankie big face wrote:...ancient scrolls and stuff...

Homework? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE! Seriously? Horseshit. Pure and utter horseshit.

"Crab Canons" would be a sweet band name.

I think you mean: Pure and utter horseshit.

This guy was a frequent guest lecturer at my music school:

glennny wrote:I'm pretty sure though that your interpretation of the challenge was meant to cause reaction. I was just reacting to it.

Of course there are no hard feelings! I love you man!

I was not trying to elicit a reaction out of anyone other than "oh, that was clever." It just concerns me when people who obsess over the challenges (Lunkhead) start saying things like "you may be docked by the judges for your interpretation" (paraphrasing) because maybe the judges read these boards and start to think, "oh, I guess Frankie was thumbing his nose at our challenge because the other participants think he's being a smart ass." I wasn't trying to get around the challenge or be a smart ass. I was trying to incorporate the challenge in a clever and meaningful way. That's all. If the challenge had stated "Must include an original round," then I would have written an original round. But it didn't so GET OFF MY BACK! (j/k)

frankie big face wrote:Here is a link

And where is the link that explains away your "Sublime inspiration"? Hmm???

frankie big face wrote:

Generic wrote: I haven't heard Frankie's song yet (or anyone's), but I do feel compelled to note that, in music, a round is vocal by definition. Its instrumental equivalent is the canon.

Jon, while that is an interesting way of looking at the two terms, it is not correct. The instrumentation has nothing to do with distinguishing whether a composition is a canon or a round. By definition, all rounds are canons, but not all canons are rounds. Rounds are "simple canons" where the imitation is identical and at the same pitch level. The broad term "canon" includes all rounds, but also interval canons, where the imitation is at a higher or lower pitch level; inverted canons, where the imitation is simultaneous and mirrors the original melody; or crab canons, where the imitation occurs simultaneously with the original but is sung or played in retrograde (backwards!). Table canons (also called simply "table music") are particularly clever as the music is placed between the performers, who played from the upper left to the end and it sounds right even though one person is reading the music upside down! (The Wikipedia article on Canon is pretty interesting and well-organized.)

Here is a link (http://www.westmusic.com/book-of-canons.htm) to a book entitled "Book of Canons" which includes "71 rounds and canons from the folksong tradition as well as international and classical." Every one of them is meant to be sung despite their designations as either rounds or canons.

I stand corrected. Your source is probably more reliable than Wikipedia.

Anyway. I still haven't heard any of these, but I'm really looking forward to yours now, Frank.

BTW, if our next challenge is "Songs must work as table music", I'm going LWA on your ass, Frank.

Generic wrote: I stand corrected. Your source is probably more reliable than Wikipedia.

Haha. Well, I'm not going to lie. I went to Wikipedia first. But the sources listed for that entry are trusted sources. You can't get much more reliable than The Oxford Dictionary and The Grove Encyclopedias.

I listened to all the songs, and all I really can say for all of you is that I hope you run out of energy and inspiration before the later rounds.

They're all pretty dang good, but my favorites: Wreckdom (lol), Merisan, FBF (except for the organ), and add (except for the talking parts).

Pure horseshit is a canon. Uttered horseshit is a round.

frankie, I think you're overreacting. I don't think my commenting on the board means shit to the judges, and I don't understand why you would think it could matter to them. In hindsight I guess I chose my words poorly, but what I meant was that I liked your song, and it would be annoying to me if I saw the results, and your song ranked lower than other songs I didn't like as much, and the reason was because of some quibbling over the challenge because you got clever about it and the judges didn't notice or didn't get it. Also, please don't conflate my one comment about it, based on one cursory listen to your song, with a whole big debate about it. I tried to excuse myself by adding that I only listened once and didn't pay a ton of attention to all the details. Lastly I regret being characterized as being obsessed with the challenges but I have to admit I am guilty as charged in this case. Oy. It's too soon for this shit!

BenKrieger wrote:Pure horseshit is a canon. Uttered horseshit is a round.

*Hands Ben the Award for Wittiest Comment in This Thread*

Pure horseshit is horseshit. But not all horseshit is pure.