Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 June 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 13

Japanese football players arguing with the referee

Hope this question isn't mistakenly somehow perceived as racist. Last night, I was watching Japan play a game of football (soccer, if you prefer), against Australia. At various points, the Japanese players took issue with the referee's decisions in a quite direct, assertive, and forceful fashion. Now this behaviour is totally commonplace amongst "western" football players - but seeing Japanese behave this way surprised me. I thought Japanese culture placed a lot of emphasis on avoiding direct confrontations and arguments? What gives (culturally speaking)?

(I have no bone to chew with their behaviour, it was just surprising and puzzling to me). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say that a certain mindset is needed to play football, which somewhat differs from the attitude you describe of Japanese culture. You cannot score a goal by constantly being deferential.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Japanese culture placed a lot of emphasis on avoiding direct confrontations and arguments? Obviously you've never heard of Pearl Harbor. I'm not exactly equating a football game with a murderous war of aggression, but in any society manners apply in certain circumstances but not in others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor is not a good counter-example, since the Japanese were deferential to the authorities over them (their admirals, emperor, etc.). StuRat (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that the classic Japanese virtues of being "deferential to authority" and "sacrificing for the good of the many" have fading with time and exposure to Western culture, where individualism rules. (Unfortunately, the tradition of committing suicide whenever they "lose face" seems alive and well.) StuRat (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Music

Can a music expert please explain to me the purpose of this kind of music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmXNDYlNJM&feature=related

I know atonal music tries to make all notes sound evenly so there's no notion of tonic. Is this type of music atonal? It sounds more like random noise to me. What exactly is it trying to achieve? And how did John Cage get SO famous with this kind of stuff? Money is tight (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Music doesn't necessarily have to have a purpose, you know. At the end of the day it's all just entertainment. You may find it hard to believe but a lot of people (including me) do actually enjoy listening to this stuff. I never listen to classical music from the 18th and 19th centuries, I find it boring. Stuff like this on the other hand makes me listen closely and intrigues me.

The other thing about Cage is that he was an ideas man and prankster as well as a composer. His music was a reflection of his ideas and is part and parcel of his whole thinking. He was also closely associated with the pianist David Tudor, who is the performer in that clip. So his life and work are very closely bound up together, and by listening to the music you get closer to an understanding of his life. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There's much more music than just classical music... Are you saying you dislike tonal music and would rather listen to this type of atonal-like stuff? Money is tight (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I like a lot of tonal music by modern classical composers, e.g. Part, Gorecki, Tavener, Glass. I like atonal music like Cage and Stockhausen as well. I also love rock, folk and jazz. Pretty much the only music I don't like, in fact, is Beethoven, Mozart and their ilk. Go figure. --Viennese Waltz 20:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We have pages on John Cage and prepared piano. Even a short bit about this particular piece at Works for prepared piano by John Cage#Concerto for Prepared Piano, which says it uses the techniques Cage developed in String Quartet in Four Parts (specifically "gamuts"). And that page has some info about what the "purpose", or at least some of Cage's goals might have been. Quote, ...Cage's interest [at the time] was in composing music to "sober and quiet the mind, thus rendering it susceptible to divine influences", rather than music to express feelings and ideas... Personally I had not heard this piece before. It reminds me of some of George Crumb's music. Calling this kind of music atonal, while not incorrect, sounds a bit beside the point. It seems to me this kind of music is more about extended techniques than tonality/atonality. You can find a lot more info by googling john cage gamut technique. Pfly (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In the words of one "music expert", in Aaron Copland's:

"How one reacts to Cage's ideas seems to me largely to depend on one's own personal temperament. Those who envisage art as a bulwark against the irrationality of man's nature, and as a monument to his constructive powers, will have no part of the Cagean aesthetic. But those who enjoy teetering on the edge of chaos will clearly be attracted." (Elie Siegmeister (ed.), The New Music Lover's Handbook, Harvey House, 1973, p 542, ISBN 978-0817851514) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"One may listen to noise for an hour, a day or a year, and it remains just noise. But musical tones heard in a certain kind of succession produce a different result—the human ear and brain integrate them into a new cognitive experience, into what may be called an auditory entity: a melody. The integration is a physiological process; it is performed unconsciously and automatically. Man is aware of the process only by means of its results.

"Helmholtz has demonstrated that the essence of musical perception is mathematical: the consonance or dissonance of harmonies depends on the ratios of the frequencies of their tones. The brain can integrate a ratio of one to two, for instance, but not of eight to nine. . . ." - Ayn Rand

If you have to argue that something is music I would suggest you read con artist, fake, fraud, mountebank, phony, sham,bluff, charlatan, crook, hypocrite, impostor, poseur, quack, scam, shyster and wannabe.

μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That Ayn Rand quote seems a little confused. A frequency ratio of eight to nine (or 9:8) is a major second, a rather consonant, very common interval. The brain has no problem "integrating" 9:8. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hip hop Italy ethnic groups

Which hip hop musicians or groups are consistently Arab or Somali? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.3 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You may find Italian hip hop and Category:Italian hip hop musicians to be helpful. I have no idea which ones are of Arab or Somali decent (if any indeed are), but that would give you a place to start your research. If you read Italian, you may find more information on the Italian Wikipedia, located at http://it.wikipedia.org Good luck! --Jayron32 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you writing some huge book about ethnic and linguistic affiliations? You've asked like 50 questions on these matters... 92.80.24.210 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

::K'naan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Missed the section header. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)