Tango with Different Effects
Tango is a dance style which we cannot think independent from the word passion. Last night, I attend a concert which justified the relationship between tango and passion. I flied away from the concert hall and found myself between the clouds with my darling who I imagined (!) Although this impact arouses on me, there are a lot of opinions on my head about the performers and content of the concert.
It was a special event which includes Tangos throughout the history in Turkey. The orchestra was Band-O-Neon, “Orchestraz Tipica de Tango. The concert began with the song El Once, which was composed for a graduate day of a medical faculty. Then Ertuğrul Sevsay who is the chairman of Viana Music University Orchestration Department, make a speech and mentioned about the Tango. He said Tangos have various themes such as love, nature, poverty and so on and then, he explained the program of the concert. Throughout the concert, in some breaks, he also shortly narrated the stories of each song. As an instance of these stories the following can be given; one night, E. Saborido plans composing something and he says no to his wife who wants to go outside with him. After that, the wife gets angry and the following day she does not even prepare the breakfast for her husband. But E. Saborido softens her heart by composing the Fellici for her. There is other interesting stories about each performed song and during the concert I paid attention to note them not to forget and so the songs seem more meaningful for me. I listened to them in a different manner.
In concert, there were songs which are performed by the soloist Bağdasar Bayvertyan. They were Tangos which has Turkish lyrics. Although the performance of Bayvertyan was great, some questions were aroused in my head. In my opinion, much Western music which is performed in Turkish lyrics, there are some incompatibilities between lyrics and the orchestra, they are heard artificially and in some parts they may be disturbing the ear. Of course, this point which I thought is argumentative and may be another essay subject.
The questions which arouse in my head did not end up during the concert. In the songs which are performed by the dancer made confused me by new things. In the concert, there are two couples which are well-known and successful all around the world and their dances are exactly compatible with the music and although Tango dance movements are quite hard to perform, they did it successfully. But, my confusion is about the content of the dance. What is the dramaturgy of Tango? There is a man a woman in all Tangos and the performances have specific beginnings and endings (for example, men always makes way for the women after performance) or there are movements which requires the ‘’power” of men and they never performed by a women (for example, lifting the women performer by embracing.) Namely, in fact, I want to questionnaire, what the relationship between gender roles and Tango is but this may be another essay subject (!)
As a result, however the fascinating atmosphere of Tango, I leave from the concert hall with all of my questions, and that made me happy, because I found new questions to answer. Shortly, the concert affected both my head and my heart, but affected them differently.
27 Aralık 2007 Perşembe
25 Aralık 2007 Salı
Different Melodies from Different Lands
In this paper, I will try to explain a classical music concert which I went beginning of the fall term in the Albert Long Hall classical music concerts. This concert was an extremely wonderful; although I lose its program booklet, I want to mention all feeling which concert aroused on me.
To begin with, it was a multicultural performance which includes composers from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia. Although it is performed with only Turkish musicians, I could catch the cultural differences and interaction in the concert. However there were slide shows which support the cello and piano as a third element of the performance. The performers were Ozan Tunca and Zöhrap Adıgüzelzade. Ozan Tunca began its music life in 1984 in Hacettepe University State Conservatoire and in this performance, he played cello. The piano was played by Adıgüzelzade who is a professor in Eskişehir Anadolu University, he is also a piano virtuoso. As far as I know, they come together with some other performances, namely this is not their first work together.
As I mentioned above there were Turkish, Russian and Azerbaijani. They are Kamran İnce, Alexander Ğlazunov, Ahmet Adnan Saygun, Fikret Amirov, Kara Ebulfezoğlu Karayev ve Sergey Vasil'yevich Rachmaninov. İnce and Saygun are Turkish ones, former was born in 1960 and his compositions were performed by famous orchestras and the latter is an ethnomusicolog and named a state artist first in Turkey. Amirov and Karayev are Azerbaijani composers; former has compositions influenced by Azeri folk music and the latter made compositions which has a traditional impact and western style. Ğlazunov and Rachmaninov are Russian composers; former
grows in a family which is closely connected with music and he wrote several works in several genres, and the latter is most influential pianist in 20th century. Namely, in short all composers whose compositions performed in concert were successful ones in their country and they are also well-known around the world.
I was very curious before the concert began because I wondered how music from different cultures comes together, however I had been thinking that they were independent from each other and it is not so complementary performance, it will be pert by part, but the performance was not as the way I thought, the pieces were linked by the visual things.
In conclusion, I want to say this concert fly away me from the seat I sat. Too many times I found myself dreaming. The concert’s this impact on me aroused, I think mostly by the great performance of the performance.
In this paper, I will try to explain a classical music concert which I went beginning of the fall term in the Albert Long Hall classical music concerts. This concert was an extremely wonderful; although I lose its program booklet, I want to mention all feeling which concert aroused on me.
To begin with, it was a multicultural performance which includes composers from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia. Although it is performed with only Turkish musicians, I could catch the cultural differences and interaction in the concert. However there were slide shows which support the cello and piano as a third element of the performance. The performers were Ozan Tunca and Zöhrap Adıgüzelzade. Ozan Tunca began its music life in 1984 in Hacettepe University State Conservatoire and in this performance, he played cello. The piano was played by Adıgüzelzade who is a professor in Eskişehir Anadolu University, he is also a piano virtuoso. As far as I know, they come together with some other performances, namely this is not their first work together.
As I mentioned above there were Turkish, Russian and Azerbaijani. They are Kamran İnce, Alexander Ğlazunov, Ahmet Adnan Saygun, Fikret Amirov, Kara Ebulfezoğlu Karayev ve Sergey Vasil'yevich Rachmaninov. İnce and Saygun are Turkish ones, former was born in 1960 and his compositions were performed by famous orchestras and the latter is an ethnomusicolog and named a state artist first in Turkey. Amirov and Karayev are Azerbaijani composers; former has compositions influenced by Azeri folk music and the latter made compositions which has a traditional impact and western style. Ğlazunov and Rachmaninov are Russian composers; former
grows in a family which is closely connected with music and he wrote several works in several genres, and the latter is most influential pianist in 20th century. Namely, in short all composers whose compositions performed in concert were successful ones in their country and they are also well-known around the world.
I was very curious before the concert began because I wondered how music from different cultures comes together, however I had been thinking that they were independent from each other and it is not so complementary performance, it will be pert by part, but the performance was not as the way I thought, the pieces were linked by the visual things.
In conclusion, I want to say this concert fly away me from the seat I sat. Too many times I found myself dreaming. The concert’s this impact on me aroused, I think mostly by the great performance of the performance.
24 Aralık 2007 Pazartesi
A Journey to A Mass from Baroque
On 18 December Tuesday, with an invitation of one of my friends, I went to a classic music concert second time in this year, in this paper I want to mention about this concert in which my friend sang in choir part. The concert was Austrian Culture Office which is located in Yeniköy.
In fact I do not go classical music concerts so much but I could not forget the concerts which I went. Especially the spectators, who are in the concert, arouse interest on me. In my point of view, they attribute special attention for this kind of concerts and they went them with their best clothes and especially women went by dressing their hair. This special care on spectators make excited me every pre-concert time, and a magical atmosphere is created by this way. But in this time, I faced with two people which got me angry and broke my excitement. One of them is a middle-aged woman who continuously spoke during the concert and the other is a man who began to speak with me during the cocktail and disturb me with some mathematic questions (!). The cocktail was quite rich; there were various kinds of cookies, white/red vine and fruit juice.
After an half hour cocktail, the concert was started. It was performed by Boğaziçi University Music Club Classical Music Choir and the Kopuz Orchestra. The program includes Antonio Vivaldi’s Konzert für Cello in F- dur (RV 411) and Gloria in D-dur (RV 589).
Before evaluating performance, I want to give some information about Vivaldi and about the composition. Vivaldi is one of the Baroque Music composers, borned in Venice in 1968 and firstly educated by his father in music. He composed several concertos, sonatas and some operas. The composition, Gloria is a popular piece from Vivaldi’s choral and sacred music, and it was actually written for female voices.
The performance of choir and the orchestra was quite good. On one hand, I really affected from it, but on the other, in some parts there were incompatibilities between choir and the orchestra. I do not know so much about technical information about music, but it is heard so for me. The composition was performed in the middle of the spectators and this created an intimate relationship between watchers and being watched.
I want to also say some observations about the hall, which concert performed. It was reflecting the atmosphere of the churches from the baroque. It was very huge and there was an ostentatious ceiling lamb and there were balconies up. I felt during the concert as if I am in a church and attending a mass.
In conclusion, it was a different experience for me. The performance consisted of several elements (the design of the performers in the middle, the structure of the hall and so on) and they were completing a whole. I like this whole and leave happy from there with my friends.
On 18 December Tuesday, with an invitation of one of my friends, I went to a classic music concert second time in this year, in this paper I want to mention about this concert in which my friend sang in choir part. The concert was Austrian Culture Office which is located in Yeniköy.
In fact I do not go classical music concerts so much but I could not forget the concerts which I went. Especially the spectators, who are in the concert, arouse interest on me. In my point of view, they attribute special attention for this kind of concerts and they went them with their best clothes and especially women went by dressing their hair. This special care on spectators make excited me every pre-concert time, and a magical atmosphere is created by this way. But in this time, I faced with two people which got me angry and broke my excitement. One of them is a middle-aged woman who continuously spoke during the concert and the other is a man who began to speak with me during the cocktail and disturb me with some mathematic questions (!). The cocktail was quite rich; there were various kinds of cookies, white/red vine and fruit juice.
After an half hour cocktail, the concert was started. It was performed by Boğaziçi University Music Club Classical Music Choir and the Kopuz Orchestra. The program includes Antonio Vivaldi’s Konzert für Cello in F- dur (RV 411) and Gloria in D-dur (RV 589).
Before evaluating performance, I want to give some information about Vivaldi and about the composition. Vivaldi is one of the Baroque Music composers, borned in Venice in 1968 and firstly educated by his father in music. He composed several concertos, sonatas and some operas. The composition, Gloria is a popular piece from Vivaldi’s choral and sacred music, and it was actually written for female voices.
The performance of choir and the orchestra was quite good. On one hand, I really affected from it, but on the other, in some parts there were incompatibilities between choir and the orchestra. I do not know so much about technical information about music, but it is heard so for me. The composition was performed in the middle of the spectators and this created an intimate relationship between watchers and being watched.
I want to also say some observations about the hall, which concert performed. It was reflecting the atmosphere of the churches from the baroque. It was very huge and there was an ostentatious ceiling lamb and there were balconies up. I felt during the concert as if I am in a church and attending a mass.
In conclusion, it was a different experience for me. The performance consisted of several elements (the design of the performers in the middle, the structure of the hall and so on) and they were completing a whole. I like this whole and leave happy from there with my friends.
22 Aralık 2007 Cumartesi
priority of actuality over potentiality
As we look at Aristotle views on metaphysics and read his Metaphysics, we can simply conclude that one of his main questions is what being is and what the things that are. Trying to answer this question; to make clear his understanding, he draws a broad perspective about the subject by using some certain and also key terms. In this essay, I will mainly focus on two of these terms which are actuality and potentiality, and their positions in the universe/in the nature.
Because both potentiality and actuality have various aspects; it is, in fact, not so completely true to give certain definitions for these terms; instead, they can be understood extensively with the examples or with certain cases. To illustrate, we can go on with this sentence: bricks has the potentiality to become houses (actuality). By this example, maybe it can be concluded that; potentiality is an aspect, which refers to beings (the bricks), that have the capacity, capability or power to be actuality (houses). Namely with potentiality, beings produce a being (or it may be also an action) which may considered as an ‘end’, and refers to the actuality. But by saying ‘end’, it must NOT be understood as a certain result which will not be a new beginning (or which will not has a potentiality for any other actuality) , or the actuality, the house, must not be seen as the unchangeable result of bricks, rather being actual of a potentiality is only a change in process.
Aristotle has a conception of world as a process.[1] According to him, there is a process in the world and this process includes changes with beings which have potentiality or actuality. The idea of process, in fact, a distinctive notion which determines Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics and make both Aristotle and us ask further questions: what has priority in this process? In Aristotle’s point of view, the answer is: actuality is prior to potentiality.(Metaphysics,272) He explains his theses in three ways, by claiming it in thought, in time and in substance.
To make clear Aristotle’s claim on priority of actuality over potentiality in time we can suppose that, we have a circular material thing, but we have not seen it before, we do not call it even with a name. It is something which is given us in some way (by not questionnaire how it is given). For one last thing, also the knowledge of this thing is given that it is a potential being. Can we know what this thing will be in actuality?
In Aristotelian perspective, because actuality precedes potentiality, we cannot answer this question with an answer like that it will be a man or it will be an apple. Because, we do not see its actuality in advance. There is no thought in our minds about that thing.
Now, we assume that the thing which we mentioned above is an egg. If we ask repeatedly the same question that how we know it will be what, this time we can say it will be a chicken, because we saw a chicken before, namely before see the potential thing (egg), we see the actuality (the chicken). Actuality must be prior, because we have the thought of it in our minds to say for a thing that it is a potential being.
To explain actuality in time we can go on with the same example: chicken-egg. As we mention above, there is a process in the world. Aristotle says in his book Theta 8 that: “In all cases, there is some primary initiator of the process, and this process-initiator already is in actuality.” (Metaphysics,272) By this citation, we understand the initiator of the process must be the egg, but how? The priority of actuality in time is thought by species rather than individual chicken by Aristotle. He suggests that the species of chickens has a priority over a chicken.
One more explanation is given by substantial priority of actuality. He raises two reasons for this. One of them is that substance includes also form and it must be a model for the potential being. (For example a chicken has its form/its substance, so it has the priority.) Secondly, he mentions about coming to an end (actuality). In relation to this, he says purpose of potentiality. It is not in order to possess sight that animals see, but in order to see they possess sight.[2] With this sentence we can see that the determining thing is the actuality in the causation, so it is prior.
By the way, Aristotle establish his theses with three kinds of different based arguments, it can be clearly seen some interrelated points behind them. Firstly, the notion of process is the dominant theme in all of these arguments. Priority of actuality is in time, in substance and in thought is explained around the process. Secondly transition from potential to actual is another determining and common characteristic of Aristotle’s arguments. Thirdly, we can say that there is priority of existence in all three arguments.
To make clear this intersection points, I want to explain them in our example: the initiator thought of a chicken before egg and chicken species’ priority in time, and knowing substantial/formed thing, chicken, first direct us towards the idea of process. We can conclude that actualization realized in process, and also the actuality initiates it. We can also see that there is a transition from potential to actual in every argument, this also give sufficient argument for diversity of these terms. Lastly, the existence is another factor which determines the priority. The actual thing must be in existence all in time, in substance and in thought firstly.
Now, in the following of the paper, I will disscuss about Aristotle’s argument in terms of strengths and possible weaknesses. Initally, it is said that this is strength argument which effect the metaphysical thought even today, we study not only some basic metaphysical questions, but also Aristotle’s arguments which is constructed many years ago.
Similar to all philosophical arguments, it can be objected in some way. For example by philosophers who are close to platonic thought, accepts, the form of ideas, namely some eternal beings or also monists could be reject the ideas of Aristotle.
In my point of view, Aristotle’s metaphysics depends on the experiences of him, especially on his observations, as a result of this, he sees a causation and so he generalize it and also he make a unity between philosopher which are prior to him. According to me, the diversity between potentiality and actuality may not be accepted, and also the idea of substance. Because same thing can be both actual and potential, but they are so in the process, what is the initiator, if it is actuality how it is reveal? I could not answer this question at the end of the argument. And also several arguments about possibility of beings, we may be dreaming now everything around us may only images not materials. Or there are arguments about the knowledge of things and their perception. So we cannot trust our observation or reality of thing around us.
Eventually, according to Aristotle, there are actual and potential beings in the world and they are n process. In this process, actuality has a priority over potentiality, it can be seen by thinking it in relation to time, thought and substance. There are several intersection points between them and there are some objectoins to this argument.
[1] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
[2] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
As we look at Aristotle views on metaphysics and read his Metaphysics, we can simply conclude that one of his main questions is what being is and what the things that are. Trying to answer this question; to make clear his understanding, he draws a broad perspective about the subject by using some certain and also key terms. In this essay, I will mainly focus on two of these terms which are actuality and potentiality, and their positions in the universe/in the nature.
Because both potentiality and actuality have various aspects; it is, in fact, not so completely true to give certain definitions for these terms; instead, they can be understood extensively with the examples or with certain cases. To illustrate, we can go on with this sentence: bricks has the potentiality to become houses (actuality). By this example, maybe it can be concluded that; potentiality is an aspect, which refers to beings (the bricks), that have the capacity, capability or power to be actuality (houses). Namely with potentiality, beings produce a being (or it may be also an action) which may considered as an ‘end’, and refers to the actuality. But by saying ‘end’, it must NOT be understood as a certain result which will not be a new beginning (or which will not has a potentiality for any other actuality) , or the actuality, the house, must not be seen as the unchangeable result of bricks, rather being actual of a potentiality is only a change in process.
Aristotle has a conception of world as a process.[1] According to him, there is a process in the world and this process includes changes with beings which have potentiality or actuality. The idea of process, in fact, a distinctive notion which determines Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics and make both Aristotle and us ask further questions: what has priority in this process? In Aristotle’s point of view, the answer is: actuality is prior to potentiality.(Metaphysics,272) He explains his theses in three ways, by claiming it in thought, in time and in substance.
To make clear Aristotle’s claim on priority of actuality over potentiality in time we can suppose that, we have a circular material thing, but we have not seen it before, we do not call it even with a name. It is something which is given us in some way (by not questionnaire how it is given). For one last thing, also the knowledge of this thing is given that it is a potential being. Can we know what this thing will be in actuality?
In Aristotelian perspective, because actuality precedes potentiality, we cannot answer this question with an answer like that it will be a man or it will be an apple. Because, we do not see its actuality in advance. There is no thought in our minds about that thing.
Now, we assume that the thing which we mentioned above is an egg. If we ask repeatedly the same question that how we know it will be what, this time we can say it will be a chicken, because we saw a chicken before, namely before see the potential thing (egg), we see the actuality (the chicken). Actuality must be prior, because we have the thought of it in our minds to say for a thing that it is a potential being.
To explain actuality in time we can go on with the same example: chicken-egg. As we mention above, there is a process in the world. Aristotle says in his book Theta 8 that: “In all cases, there is some primary initiator of the process, and this process-initiator already is in actuality.” (Metaphysics,272) By this citation, we understand the initiator of the process must be the egg, but how? The priority of actuality in time is thought by species rather than individual chicken by Aristotle. He suggests that the species of chickens has a priority over a chicken.
One more explanation is given by substantial priority of actuality. He raises two reasons for this. One of them is that substance includes also form and it must be a model for the potential being. (For example a chicken has its form/its substance, so it has the priority.) Secondly, he mentions about coming to an end (actuality). In relation to this, he says purpose of potentiality. It is not in order to possess sight that animals see, but in order to see they possess sight.[2] With this sentence we can see that the determining thing is the actuality in the causation, so it is prior.
By the way, Aristotle establish his theses with three kinds of different based arguments, it can be clearly seen some interrelated points behind them. Firstly, the notion of process is the dominant theme in all of these arguments. Priority of actuality is in time, in substance and in thought is explained around the process. Secondly transition from potential to actual is another determining and common characteristic of Aristotle’s arguments. Thirdly, we can say that there is priority of existence in all three arguments.
To make clear this intersection points, I want to explain them in our example: the initiator thought of a chicken before egg and chicken species’ priority in time, and knowing substantial/formed thing, chicken, first direct us towards the idea of process. We can conclude that actualization realized in process, and also the actuality initiates it. We can also see that there is a transition from potential to actual in every argument, this also give sufficient argument for diversity of these terms. Lastly, the existence is another factor which determines the priority. The actual thing must be in existence all in time, in substance and in thought firstly.
Now, in the following of the paper, I will disscuss about Aristotle’s argument in terms of strengths and possible weaknesses. Initally, it is said that this is strength argument which effect the metaphysical thought even today, we study not only some basic metaphysical questions, but also Aristotle’s arguments which is constructed many years ago.
Similar to all philosophical arguments, it can be objected in some way. For example by philosophers who are close to platonic thought, accepts, the form of ideas, namely some eternal beings or also monists could be reject the ideas of Aristotle.
In my point of view, Aristotle’s metaphysics depends on the experiences of him, especially on his observations, as a result of this, he sees a causation and so he generalize it and also he make a unity between philosopher which are prior to him. According to me, the diversity between potentiality and actuality may not be accepted, and also the idea of substance. Because same thing can be both actual and potential, but they are so in the process, what is the initiator, if it is actuality how it is reveal? I could not answer this question at the end of the argument. And also several arguments about possibility of beings, we may be dreaming now everything around us may only images not materials. Or there are arguments about the knowledge of things and their perception. So we cannot trust our observation or reality of thing around us.
Eventually, according to Aristotle, there are actual and potential beings in the world and they are n process. In this process, actuality has a priority over potentiality, it can be seen by thinking it in relation to time, thought and substance. There are several intersection points between them and there are some objectoins to this argument.
[1] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
[2] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)