<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Combinatoriality in &#8220;Loser&#8221; by Beck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/</link>
	<description>popular music theory, analysis, and criticism</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: trevordeclercq</title>
		<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-3150</link>
		<dc:creator>trevordeclercq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:18:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-3150</guid>
		<description>Good point, Diego.  Rhythm is certainly one of the central elements in making a successful song.  But of course, there are other elements, too, like harmony, melody, texture, etc.  Exactly how many specific parameters exist has never really been pinned down.  Moreover, how to quantify each one is still mostly a mystery.

Whenever we focus on one specific domain (in this case, texture), it is almost always at the expense of every other domain.  This is not to say that those other domains are not important, or even less important.  I think we can all agree, however, that no matter how important any given element is (say, rhythm), there are other factors that are also crucial to the success of a piece of music.  I think it is thus worth discussing many factors - even those that are arguably not the primary ones - in our search for musical understanding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point, Diego.  Rhythm is certainly one of the central elements in making a successful song.  But of course, there are other elements, too, like harmony, melody, texture, etc.  Exactly how many specific parameters exist has never really been pinned down.  Moreover, how to quantify each one is still mostly a mystery.</p>
<p>Whenever we focus on one specific domain (in this case, texture), it is almost always at the expense of every other domain.  This is not to say that those other domains are not important, or even less important.  I think we can all agree, however, that no matter how important any given element is (say, rhythm), there are other factors that are also crucial to the success of a piece of music.  I think it is thus worth discussing many factors - even those that are arguably not the primary ones - in our search for musical understanding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diego</title>
		<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-3126</link>
		<dc:creator>Diego</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-3126</guid>
		<description>Like Jimmy Webb says in Tunesmith the rhythm is taking more importance each day. The same world that we live is more practical, more essential. In the beginning was the rhythm, it´s said in Songwriting for Dummies. I think the more the rhythm is understood by producers the more communication with people, in pop music. In this understanding is not only the hit but also current art.
Thanks,

Diego Rengifo
Bogotá, Colombia</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like Jimmy Webb says in Tunesmith the rhythm is taking more importance each day. The same world that we live is more practical, more essential. In the beginning was the rhythm, it´s said in Songwriting for Dummies. I think the more the rhythm is understood by producers the more communication with people, in pop music. In this understanding is not only the hit but also current art.<br />
Thanks,</p>
<p>Diego Rengifo<br />
Bogotá, Colombia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trevordeclercq</title>
		<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1761</link>
		<dc:creator>trevordeclercq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1761</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Ollie.  What does "Gerf" mean, btw?  Is that like "Gulp?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Ollie.  What does &#8220;Gerf&#8221; mean, btw?  Is that like &#8220;Gulp?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: O-Face</title>
		<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1745</link>
		<dc:creator>O-Face</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1745</guid>
		<description>Gerf.  I think I just learned something.  Nice blog, Trev!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gerf.  I think I just learned something.  Nice blog, Trev!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee Stirling</title>
		<link>http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1621</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee Stirling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midside.com/2007/12/27/combinatoriality-in-loser-by-beck/#comment-1621</guid>
		<description>Enjoying your blog. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enjoying your blog. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
