Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 104

Thread: Philistine

  1. #51
    Registered User Tom Smart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    438

    Default

    So art that creates an intellectual response is somehow inferior to art that creates an emotional response? Why?

    A good exercise of the intellect is one of life's most pleasurable and rewarding activities in my opinion.

    Given all the discussion it has provoked here, I'd say "Yob Cultcha" is a successful piece of music in that regard, whether or not you "like it" or think it's "good."

    I have no idea whether "Yob Cultcha" is "good" or not. I don't even know what standard I would apply to make that evaluation. But I did find it quite amusing, and that's good enough for me.



    "Few noises are so disagreeable as the sound of the picking of a mandolin."

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (Tom Smart @ Aug. 07 2008, 19:41)
    Given all the discussion it has provoked here, I'd say "Yob Cultcha" is a successful piece of music in that regard, whether or not you "like it" or think it's "good."
    i must concede that is true ...

  3. #53
    Registered User John Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,258
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Yes, Yob Cultcha has had far more attention than it deserves.

    As for atonality in general, this article on the 100th anniversary of the genre's genesis sums up my thoughts pretty well. Here is a quote (regarding Arnold Schoenberg) for those who don't wish to read it:

    Hadn't he written music simply by subtracting the bits that make music interesting and valuable? It transpires that human beings need repetition to make sense of things: it's what turns noise into music.

    It is difficult to derive satisfaction from music without pattern, without a sense of initiation, dispute and cadence.

    But before along, the only people who cared about these questions were in the academy, because modern art music had lost the attention of the general audience.


    The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon (just for penance after offending Alex's sensibilities # ) and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.



    There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.

  4. #54
    Registered User Doug Hoople's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (Tom Smart @ Aug. 07 2008, 16:41)
    So art that creates an intellectual response is somehow inferior to art that creates an emotional response? Why?

    A good exercise of the intellect is one of life's most pleasurable and rewarding activities in my opinion.
    It's a bit of a red herring to use the term "inferior" here, isn't it?

    Will emotional responses be wider, more general and more primal? Invariably. So an emotional response is much more likely to stir something in a wider audience than an intellectual response, almost by definition, isn't it?

    A piece of music that stirs both could arguably be called "more complete," and I'd wager that there are many who'd make that assertion.

    An emotionally-satisfying, intellectually-empty piece of music can (and often does) become a global hit.

    An intellectually-satisfying, emotionally-empty piece of music will reach a very small audience.

    Is there anything in this second category that has entered our collective conciousness at the same level as countless pieces in the first? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

    Not a judgment of superiority or inferiority, by any means, BTW.
    Doug Hoople
    Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)

  5. #55
    Registered User Doug Hoople's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (MN John @ Aug. 07 2008, 17:17)
    The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.
    So, now, which dog is chasing whose tail?



    Doug Hoople
    Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)

  6. #56
    Registered User John Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,258
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (doughoople @ Aug. 07 2008, 22:09)
    Quote Originally Posted by (MN John @ Aug. 07 2008, 17:17)
    The Schoenberg Center has a webradio/jukebox. After listening to several of his works this afternoon and listening now (...er, uh...suffering rather), as I type, to his Phantasy for Violin with Piano Accompaniment op. 47...I have to say that my opinion of the style is not improved. Interminable pish-posh to use a technical term.
    So, now, which dog is chasing who's tail?
    Oh I'm chasing my own tail. I mean, if I'm going to be a bitter, theoretician-hating-hate-monger-anti-elitist-hater I might as well try to seem open-minded about it by giving the stuff a chance?

    Right?

    As usual on this forum, anything not dead serious falls flat. The "music" was pish-posh but it was an amusing romp through Schoenberg's material.
    There are three kinds of people: those of us that are good at math and those that are not.

  7. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    Inferior/superior is not a dichotomy I'd care to apply in this case. Pleasureable, enjoyable, interesting are more to the point (IMO, ahem). For intellectual stimulation and pleasure, an elegant mathematical proof is far superior to a piece of music; it escapes the terrible linearity and is not tied to a restrictive time arrow that a musical performance must exist within. Apprehension of the intellectual content comes with study, usually (for me) out of the dark side of the brain, in a flash of sorts.

    I vaguely recall a vibrophone solo by Gary Burton from the 60s, that he described as having no melody and no structure, a risky improvisation. But it had lyricism and intellectual content, and was accessible on first hearing. I wish I could find the liner notes. I think "Dreams" was the title. While not emotionally moving, it beat hell out of the yobs. Figuratively, of course.

  8. #58
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (MN John @ Aug. 07 2008, 20:17)
    ere is a quote (regarding Arnold Schoenberg) for those who don't wish to read it:

    Hadn't he written music simply by subtracting the bits that make music interesting and valuable? It transpires that human beings need repetition to make sense of things: it's what turns noise into music.

    It is difficult to derive satisfaction from music without pattern, without a sense of initiation, dispute and cadence.

    But before along, the only people who cared about these questions were in the academy, because modern art music had lost the attention of the general audience.
    Very interesting. I had not read that before.

    It is not much of an extrapolation from that to the arguement that there exists (or could exist) a more objective criteria for judging music. Its not entirely subjective. Perhaps its NOT just an open anything goes if you don't like it you haven't given it a chance musical universe. There could actually be types of music that are more popular because they are more enjoyable - objectively - they have the type of content (things like those mentioned in the quote) that (more) human minds find (more) enjoyable.

    That would mean also that those who really get into these kinds of music - that objectively measureably do not contain these "enjoyable" elements, - that there is something different going on there. Sort of like folks (and I have met some) who like really clashing color combinations for wall paint, or who like really strange food combinations - you can't argue their preference for it, but you CAN say that it ain't gonna catch on any time soon.



    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  9. #59
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default

    Here is a test.

    Two musicians. They make two distinct kinds of music. Neither type of music is popular with the general public, or very popular amongst non professional music consumers. Both musicians claim some popularity amongst experts. Both musicians claim that you have to develop a taste for their music - and that it takes time and exposure and an open mind - but that it can be done.

    But... one of the musicians is a complete charlatan. Has the words down, but is making nothing but goofy sounds with hardly any forethought, backfilling with jargon as needed. The other musician's music is the result of scrupulous and highly skilled deliberation.

    Now here is the question. How do you tell which is which?

    And some might argue that IF the two cannot be distinguished - THEN there is no difference. The "real" musician is fooling himself and us, the charlatan is only fooling us.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  10. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Classical music (or art music, or concert music…call it what you will) of the last hundred years or so (since the breakdown of tonality as a unifying structural element) is of the same tradition as classical music of previous centuries. Palistrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Stravinsky, Carter et. al. They are all part of the same tradition. What is considered consonant and dissonant has changed. But all great composers are able to manipulate sounds to create an emotional response in a listener. Melody is only one of the composer’s tools. There are many others at a composer’s disposal, and beauty can be found within all of them.

    As mentioned before, many great classical composers could write “pretty” music. Mozart is a prime example. Someone who has had very little exposure to classical music can listen to Mozart and enjoy his melodies. However, the transcendent power of Mozart’s art lies deeper. To unlock it one needs understand form, structure, balance, proportion, and how he artfully manipulates them to great effect. Otherwise it is like listening to a foreign language that you don’t understand. You will enjoy the melodious sounds, but nothing more.

    One cannot get into another person’s head. The best I can do is tell you what I find moving in classical music—whether it be tonal, modal, atonal, polytonal, microtonal, or serialist music.

    A beautiful melody is a beautiful melody. They move me as much as anyone else. But I find beauty in many other places:

    There is beauty in the balance and structure of a Bach fugue.

    There is beauty when Mozart suddenly departs from the prescribed formula of Sonata form, for example, to explore a beautiful musical idea.

    There is beauty in Beethoven’s thematic inventiveness. How what was accompaniment is transformed to become a primary idea, and vice versa. A simple trill can turn into an important thematic idea. It is beautiful to witness a composer fully in command of his craft.

    In regards to 20th/21st century classical music:

    …There is beauty in irony—Stravinsky’s Tango, Waltz and Ragtime from The Soldier’s Tale. There is beauty in brevity—Anton Webern. There is beauty in unresolved tension—Gyorgy Ligeti’s Atmospheres. There is beauty in stasis—Arvo Part. There is beauty in music’s kinetic energy, whether regular—Philip Glass or the other minimalists, or irregular—Stravinsky, Bartok. There is beauty in levity—Charles Ives’ The Circus Band. There can be beauty in seriousness—Krystof Penderecki’s Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima. There is beauty in unusual instrumental combinations—George Crumb’s Ancient Voices of Children. There is beauty in unusual juxtapositions-- Luciano Berio’s Sinfonia...

    If someone is just listening to the melody they may be missing out on a lot.

  11. #61

    Default

    OH DEAR.

    All I did was place a link to a piece called Yob Cultcha (or 'Keep taking the Tabloids') written for mandolin virtuoso Michael Hooper by extremely highly regarded composer Michael Finnissy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi8v5...ature=relateda

    I thought it such a beautiful piece that I wanted to share it with others interested in Mandolin music.

    Both the composer and the mandolinist, have spent many years studing Music (they both have a Ph d) probably in an effort to discover the wonder of whichever sound-world they enter.

    Why do some attack them? If it has no meaning for you, you are not compelled to listen.




  12. #62
    Registered User brendon b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    43

    Default

    "I think we're largely in agreement here, but I will split a hair or two here, if you don't mind."

    Go ahead

    "Music colleges DO have 'experimental/R&D' departments, usually called the 'New Music Department.' A lot of cultural organizations sustain an 'experimental/R&D' thread in their efforts."

    In some parts of the world, yes. But in many, a definate no. Here in South Africa, we have a few New Media departments, but apart from two universities with small electronic music departments, we have no New Music departments. It's mostly left up to independent entrepreneurs (keeping with the R&D analogy) like myself to do our thing. On the other hand, I don't think that keeping development at college level is an entirely healthy state of affairs.

    "And the non-scientist corporate executive at Sony may not really care what Stephen Hawking finds intriguing, but you can be sure that he DOES care what the scientists in his own R&D department find intriguing."

    Agreed, but my concern is with the opinion of the general public.

    "Musicians are not obliged to create entertainment. But the bulk of them who want to make a living at it are. A small group of 'basic science' musicians manage to escape that trap, but most find themselves working in 'applied science' (for obvious reasons). One way to escape the trap for sure is to get a day job, no? Grrr. There's got to be a better way!"

    No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.



    cape town, south africa
    my blog
    my music

  13. #63
    Registered User brendon b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Aside to readers and the moderator:
    Sorry about the quote mess - quote function and edit function are not working on my side. Anyone else struggling?
    cape town, south africa
    my blog
    my music

  14. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (barbaram @ Aug. 08 2008, 03:34)
    I thought it such a beautiful piece
    ... define beauty.

    might be timely to post this:

    http://www.michaelfinnissy.info/

    i have nothing against the man - meeting him would be a tremendous pleasure ... it's obvious he knows something i don't.

    please keep posting classical mandolin videos - what i or anyone else feels about them is irrelevant to how interesting they are.

    thank you barbara.

  15. #65
    Registered User Doug Hoople's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (JeffD @ Aug. 07 2008, 20:50)
    Here is a test.

    Two musicians. They make two distinct kinds of music. Neither type of music is popular with the general public, or very popular amongst non professional music consumers. Both musicians claim some popularity amongst experts. Both musicians claim that you have to develop a taste for their music - and that it takes time and exposure and an open mind - but that it can be done.

    But... one of the musicians is a complete charlatan. Has the words down, but is making nothing but goofy sounds with hardly any forethought, backfilling with jargon as needed. The other musician's music is the result of scrupulous and highly skilled deliberation.

    Now here is the question. How do you tell which is which?

    And some might argue that IF the two cannot be distinguished - THEN there is no difference. The "real" musician is fooling himself and us, the charlatan is only fooling us.
    That's a lose-lose proposition, isn't it?

    By this formulation, Bach, Beethoven and Stravinsky (to name just a few) were all no better than a charlatan at some point in their careers.

    How come this test was missing a none-of-the-above option?
    Doug Hoople
    Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)

  16. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Hill, TN
    Posts
    812

    Default

    You know Bill, for a while when I was reading your last post on page two I thought I was finally reading something I could respect even if I disagreed, but then at the end you went right back to the assertion that it's all about shock value and snobbery.

    I feel very much like I'm shouting in the dark. #Even if anyone is hearing what I say they aren't understanding the point. #I think I'm going to stop posting in this thread...happy listening to everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by
    You will enjoy the melodious sounds, but nothing more.
    I generally feel like that is what most people, musicians included, get out of any music they listen to. I really hope that just means I'm too cynical and not that people don't actually appreciate art but I'm not sure.




  17. #67
    Registered User Doug Hoople's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (brendon b @ Aug. 08 2008, 01:31)
    No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.
    PlayStations and Post-It notes (output of the applied sciences) can be found for sale in the shopping mall, so I'm not certain that it's that big a stretch.

    Granted, neither the fiddle player nor the consumer products represent the apex of their respective domains, but there's ready money in the shopping mall for both that's not available (directly) to either a basic scientist or an experimental musician.
    Doug Hoople
    Adult-onset Instrumentalist (or was that addled-onset?)

  18. #68
    Registered User brendon b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (doughoople @ Aug. 08 2008, 06:12)
    Quote Originally Posted by (brendon b @ Aug. 08 2008, 01:31)
    No musicians aren't obliged to entertain, but as you say, most end up there (and yes I've done the lot. The dire: weddings, funerals, pubs, promotions; and the enjoyable: rock and jazz gigs). However I struggle to equate the scientist working in applied science and the fiddle player playing valentine's day hits in a shopping mall.
    PlayStations and Post-It notes (output of the applied sciences) can be found for sale in the shopping mall, so I'm not certain that it's that big a stretch.
    With all respect, and I'd hate to start an (off topic) bunfight about wages of sin i.e. how much us composers/musos actually earn, but i think the bottom line re value of compromise is:

    playstation engineer's salary ≠ poor sod mandolin player in pink lycra valentines day getup's salary

    cape town, south africa
    my blog
    my music

  19. #69
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by
    If someone is just listening to the melody they may be missing out on a lot
    Then again they might be enjoying the music for the right reason, it's pleasing to them. One doesn't have to be able to fly the airplane to ride in it. Some people are happy not knowing what goes into what they are hearing. They simply enjoy it because they like the way it sounds. That doesn't make their enjoyment any less valid.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  20. #70

    Default

    Jheesh. It all comes down to like a thing or don't and there's nothing wrong with your taste one way or t'other. I'm certain that there are some musics that do not appeal to those who are posting here in defense of atonal music. It's interesting to me that in this conversation, they have put so little effort into publicly dismissing or denigrating their own dislikes. Frankly, those who would dismiss the academic as snobbery and elitism can be some of the most myopic elitists around. Again, this perception of an anti-elitist elitism has nothing to do with liking atonal music or not, but with a willingness to simply dismiss it and its value to anyone else. There is nothing wrong with liking a thing or not for any reason; there is something wrong with expecting anybody else to cater to your taste and dismissing the value of what they do if they do not so cater.

    I admit, I only took one music course in college: as a non-major, music appreciation 141. I think the most valuable thing I took from that class was an approach to, of all things, non-appreciation. We were told we could like any music we wanted, but to dislike a thing presented in that course we would have to knowingly justify why we disliked it. "Ugly" wouldn't cut it without some effort at specific qualifiers/quantifiers. I like that approach outside of the classroom as well. Having to put enough effort to know something about or critically analyze your own feeling of a thing before its dismissal, and you find yourself more likely to at least appreciate it and possibly not dismiss it at all.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (billkilpatrick @ Aug. 07 2008, 19:34)
    what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish.

    the more one hears this sort of stuff, the more one become inured to it - to the point where it doesn't "shock" anymore ... and surely, this is the point of it.

    what have we gained in the process? #what have we learned? #how has music benefited? #has "yob" culture been vanquished? - has the notion of "bad is good" or "ugly is beauty" ... or whatever it is we see as "yob" culture ... lost ground to something higher? #has a monotony of discordant "twangs" been elevated to something other than what it is?
    Totally unmodified, you could have made the same elegant rant against Mudarra's music in the 1500s, Galilei's in the 1600s, Beethoven's in the 1800s, blues and all subsequent popular forms from the 1900s on, etc. #You could also apply "what follows - to those who have never heard anything of the sort - is complete jibberish" to absolutely any unfamiliar music depending upon your own past exposure.

    These things are not an affront to beauty because not only is beauty a relatively abstract and totally subjective concept, but music beyond an organized imitation of natural sounds is totally abstract. #The only reason you recognize any organized sound as musical is because of your past exposure to it. Music is abstract and strictly anthropogenic.

    There's also absolutely nothing wrong with you not liking any of these things. #If you don't like them, the correct response is to simply walk away, disinterested, where you encounter them and consume something you do happen to like. #I see something wrong and potentially dangerous with reading a vast conspiracy culture of deliberate elitist shockery into any music based upon your own tastes. #Where does that line fall? #Vote with your own musical consumption and take no offense with how others cast their votes.




  22. #72
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (doughoople @ Aug. 08 2008, 05:36)
    That's a lose-lose proposition, isn't it?

    By this formulation, Bach, Beethoven and Stravinsky (to name just a few) were all no better than a charlatan at some point in their careers.

    How come this test was missing a none-of-the-above option?
    Well I was just teaching the Touring Test to some of my students, so formulating problems this way was on my mind.

    But it does point out what many feel when confronted with some of this music on the fringe. On the one hand you feel the urge to give it a chance, that your just not getting it, but there has to be something there because others seem to be getting it. You hear from folks like Alex, who is reasonably intelligent and knows whereof he speaks, and you try again, but for what ever reason remain unmoved. You feel like an idiot for not getting it.

    And then you feel like a fool for trying so hard, that the joke is on you, there is nothing there and you are being put on. Or else everyone is being put on, that everyone is operating under this fear of looking stupid and pretending to appreciate the subtle nuances of the bowling ball as it rolls down the stairs.

    Its tough, because with any given piece of new music, there may be validity in all these responses.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  23. #73
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (Eugene @ Aug. 08 2008, 09:57)
    Jheesh. #It all comes down to like a thing or don't and there's nothing wrong with your taste one way or t'other.
    Eugene, I usually find myself in agreement with you, or at least strong sympathy. In this case I think there is a bit of a phase angle between us.

    If only your statement were only true.

    But its not, because we have all experienced, right here on this forum, criticism that was beyond "your taste differs from mine".

    There is such a thing as good tremolo. A good chop. Clean playing. Good tone. Heck we twist our fingers into knots trying to achieve a certain sound, we are, none of us, satisfied to say, "well thats how I like it. Your tastes in tremolo or chop or fast playing are equally valid, just different from mine."

    With two words I could bring down the wrath of half the cafe telling me I am doing it wrong, (not telling me "I don't care for your style, its not to my taste, but its equally valid".) Those two words: pinky planting.

    If it is all a matter of taste, what are we working so hard for?

    I'll just purchase my $2500 mandolin shaped bongos and tell everyone they have "different tastes".



    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (JeffD @ Aug. 08 2008, 10:28)
    But it does point out what many feel when confronted with some of this music on the fringe. On the one hand you feel the urge to give it a chance, that your just not getting it, but there has to be something there because others seem to be getting it. You hear from folks like Alex, who is reasonably intelligent and knows whereof he speaks, and you try again, but for what ever reason remain unmoved. You feel like an idiot for not getting it.

    And then you feel like a fool for trying so hard, that the joke is on you, there is nothing there and you are being put on. Or else everyone is being put on, that everyone is operating under this fear of looking stupid and pretending to appreciate the subtle nuances of the bowling ball as it rolls down the stairs.

    Its tough, because with any given piece of new music, there may be validity in all these responses.
    I think it should be as easy as like it or not, have the personal confidence to like it or not, feel no shame for it, and feel no need to prescribe your tastes for others.

  25. #75

    Default

    after all this, in response to the question of "what is required to appreciate this sort of music" i'd have to say a technical understanding of music is essential - there's not much that's pleasurable about it in the visceral sense.

    as for "why would a composer choose the mandolin to play it," i'd have to say it's probably for motives other than tonality or anything else the mandolin does well. in terms of expanding the mandolin's horizon or increasing it's popularity - as a gift to mandolin music - twangs, plings, pings are a trojan horse.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •