Franco, I used to make my living performing music, mostly piano. If you  read what I actually said, you will withdraw most of your comments, because they reflect either 1) failure to understand music, or 2) failure to read.  Every comment was set with a context.

Theolonius, a good trombonist can play in B- Sy Zenter (spl?) had no problem.  4th position to start a scale up to 2nd, etc., instead of 1st (Bb) to 3rd (C) to 1st again (D).  More work?  Sure- B is harder than C to finger on a piano as well, 5 black keys in the scale.  Most pianists like C because it is clean- but we seldom play there.  With the guitar-based groups I encounter these days, I get to play in D, G, A, and E most of the time, with  But I do it all the time.  And wind instruments make the piano play Bb, Eb, Ab.  You just do it.

And I am seriously hearing that alleged music competents don't understand half-step key modulation in an arrangement?  Are you kidding me?

There is no reason whatever not to grant her immunity from prosecution  and force her to talk under threat of contempt.  I don't care about sending her to jail, I want the truth to come out.

Franco, I actually completely agree with you that a song is more than the sum of its parts.  Lyric, feeling, arrangement, technical music stuff, performance, etc. all combine, and some great songs are very simple. 

For example, Bette Midler singing The Rose- it is very simple- the three basic chords, one minor chord and one seventh added in, five notes except for one low fifth, yet it grabs you.  Especially in context of the material, the talented singer (Joplin) who self-destructed.

My comments on the other thread were strictly to point out that some pure bubble gum pop has more pure technical music depth than some classics.  Another example of the latter- the Monkees' "Day-Dream Believer"; an octave an a half of range, a lot of movement, full octave jumps, a lot of different chords, not our circle of fifths at all, much more complex than Beethoven's angel-inspired "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee" from the 9th Symphony.

A song is, as you say, much more than just the musical score.

Ah, but the relief is knowing that Steyn approves!  (because his buddy Tim Rice does....)

Not "one time signature" wmartin- I was referring to rhythm guitar,  where 3/4 or 6/8 simply don't work without sounding inane: bop-strum-strum, bop-strum-strum.

A very good lead player can handle anything that any other single note (horns) or two note (violin) instrument does.  The guitar, though, like a piano, is a natural chord instrument, and in its configuration, it is lacking, just as the piano lacks the guitar's benefit of portability.

To cover all the keys, the guitarist has to be able to play the specific isolated strings- as you point out, very good rock guitarists have skills similar to classical guitar.  Most don't-and don't even try.  I was at a concert a couple of years ago featuring Buddy Guy and Jonny Lang, they were doing their style, but certainly could do what they wanted to.  The virtuosos can do a lot.  Hendrix was quite creative and capable.

But playing chords on 6 strings- in any flats key- are a fundamental problem when you have 5 fingers.  That's why, as I said, the alternate tunings are used, and why arrangements almost never move in half step key changes.

Be fair, folks.  Huma's part time State Dept job, 100% accomplished while staying home and changing diapers, paid only $135,000 of US taxpayer money.  Those other gigs had to somehow make up the difference.  Living in Manhattan is expensive.

Tommy, your argument has flipped here to the opposite of your earlier "human life begins at fertilization" assertion.

KC, I think I agree with most of what you say here.  And I would never justify abortion- I've been strongly pro-life and anti-abortion my entire life.

Where we disagree is in one small area- I don't believe that I know- or can know- whether God-breathed life begins at fertilization or when the zygote implants.  There are reasons to believe that fertilization is the definitive event.  I think the questions of very high rate imperceptible miscarriage, and viable cryopreservation, speak against that interpretation. 

But unlike a bunch of theologians who seem to need to make definitive pronouncements when God Himself is silent except for Psalm 139, which hints favorably of implantation-  I am OK not legally dictating my answer.  Instead, I devote my resources to reducing abortion as opposed to propagating its definition.

That's not intended to be a slam- just a statement.  And, yes, I tend not to value the singing of people who can't sing, be they Satchmo or Tyler.  They can be entertaining, even significant artists in their expression.  Their expression as vocalists may be compelling, but for reasons other than good singing.

And some of the most catchy and sing-along songs every created are wildly simplistic; that makes the popular phenomena, not great music.

Trombones are natural Bb instruments, but their best practitioners play in any key, and enhance any style.  Classical guitar, because it doesn't require picking every string, overcomes the inherent flaw by moving up the frets, and a great lead guitar player can certainly do more than a rhythm player.  But any instrument where you can't change keys phonetically as part of the arrangement has inherent limitations, no matter how great its artists are within their acceptable boundaries. 

That's why a great pianist is the most versatile instrumentalist.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Clapton, Hendrix, et al are "inferior to ABBA".  I said that ABBA' songs have more musical (melodic) content than most rock offerings

Clapton sings better than most rock singers- I think that "Rock 'n Roll Heart" is a bit of a classic, partly because it goes against type.   And those guys are guitar virtuosos for their style.  The point I was making was that for the most part, guitars are limited by their configuration- that is precisely why you see so many alternate tunings (e.g., double-drop D); unless we are talking Segovia's clean picking, they tend to be limited to the open string keys and 4/4 time; different keys and 3/4 time don't work.

Like it or not, Tommy, you can't create this bright line- otherwise, set up a government entity that protects every fertilized ovum in every fertility clinic freezer across the land. 

Without an ultimate moral authority- your cop-out about covering atheists with the "random chemicals" bit is on-point denial of the Creator in the Declaration; sorry- you simply cannot make the distinction.  You must outlaw the IUD and the morning-after pill.  This issue will not cooperate in pretending to be simple and clear bright line for the reasons Tom Meyer  notes.

KC- I am saying that we do not know, and cannot know, what you claim to know to support the simple answer.   We will never know the simple answer- God did not choose to share it with us, as is often the case. 

If that is wrong, then you had better be providing a good Catholic burial for the expelled product of every miscarriage.

Franco, I was pretty clear that Abba is pop.    You are quite correct that I don't keep a "rock catalogue".   But, if you read the above, there was no assertion that the comparison was between rock and pop.  What I am comparing is the stuff on the radio, familiar songs, etc. 

And Freddy Mercury could sing- so could the guy from Styx.  But Steven Tyler?  Are you kidding me?  I judge vocal quality by classic standards- Pavarotti was a fine benchmark.  Pitch, range, control, vibrato, tone, precision of attack, etc.  Not screaming.  Chuck Negron could sing, Mick Jagger could not.  Harry Connick Jr is far better than James Taylor. And so on.

Yep.  The daycare issue is the usual scam, not unlike the game played in Michigan, where a secret deal between SEIU and the state had the state deducting union dues from state-paid daycare payments to individual home operators who didn't know how to spell "union".  The newspaper account on Sunday was pretty open that this was a payoff to the unions for political purposes and would bring in more campaign support to Democrats.

1) Ronald Bailey is 100% utilitarian.  There are ways in which you cannot tell his views apart from those of Peter Singer, except that he is also economically libertarian.  Regarding life issues, he favors every kind of cloning that has ever been hypothesized.

Tom's question brings up the point that is never satisfactorily addressed by any on our pro-life side; from Pope Whoever to Robby George to Tommy, the assertion is simply made that fertilization equals soulish life. 

We do not know that- and we cannot know that.  Stop the arbitrary assertions and focus on the real issue: stopping murder of babies where there is clearly no question about soulish life, and acknowledge that where the heart is on the matter- the motive for which view, attitude- is the individual issue between a person and God. 

We cannot, nor do we have to settle whether human soulish life begins at fertilization or implantation in order to change the societal pro-abortion dynamic. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2471386/posts

http://emp.byui.edu/MarrottR/101_Fair%20Tax%20Problems_Ponnuru-NR.pdf

I appreciate James's point, I also think that metaphor has its place. 

The widespread intoxication of Chinese society at that time- you only appreciation it by touring around the country and noting the remaining number today of formal opium-smoking establishments, even special furniture designed for the purpose.  The percentage of the country's formerly productive people in permanent drug-induced stupor reminds one of the zonked out hippies in Amsterdam.  You don't need a majority of the population rendered mostly useless to pay a large price.

You can make a good case for legalizing MJ for adults, provided that 1) you have worked out a fool-proof way to enforce the laws against intoxication without a breathalyzer, and 2) you can ensure that it will be kept away from minors to the maximum extent possible.  Medical marijuana ought to be available by prescription today, with a small  number of regulated suppliers licensed to produce.

It's important that we not rush (we're conservatives!) into major changes ("End the expensive, useless, counterproductive drug war!") that we cannot undo without first seriously considering all of the inevitable unintended consequences. 

Thus far, the "legalize!" arguments have been unimpressively hyperbolic.