I am right and all of you are wrong.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

So I got this test back right?

And I got this answer wrong because I put string quartet instead of piano trio.

Now...

Obviously it was the right answer because...  You know, I'm always right.  Right? 

And I'm talking to the professor, and she's like, 'No it's wrong...'.

And I'm like, 'a piano trio is three pianos!'


So we had this LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG debate about what was the right answer.  Now of course, I won because...  You know, I always win.  And I'm always right, so I got the point back.

Who ever made this up is a stupid person.  Cause someone told me that a piano quintet would be a string quartet with a piano.  What kind of stupid bullshit is this?!  That's just a string quartet with a piano!  Wanna know why?!  BECAUSE IT'S 4 STRING INSRUMENTS!!! 

People are freaking stupid.  A piano trio should be three pianos.

And if you disagree with me, you're wrong.  And shame on you.

[zezhyrule]

Try telling that to any composer of Piano Trios/Quartets/Quintets 

ITT: "Piano Trio" is redefined

[hfmadopter]

Now you can think you are correct if you wish but I bet the result remains exactly the same !

Been there done that, just a different subject matter. You won't win !

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Try telling that to any composer of Piano Trios/Quartets/Quintets 

ITT: "Piano Trio" is redefined

All of those composers don't know what they're talking about.

It's a stupid definition.

[iansinclair]

Oh lovely!  Brings up a question which one never really thinks about -- just which class of instrument does the piano belong to?  Strings?  Well, it does use strings.  Percussion (often cited)?  Well, it does create its sound by striking something with something else.

Or all by itself!

[j_menz]

Oh lovely!  Brings up a question which one never really thinks about -- just which class of instrument does the piano belong to?  Strings?  Well, it does use strings.  Percussion (often cited)?  Well, it does create its sound by striking something with something else.

Or all by itself!

There's actually a system for categorising musical instruments called the Hornbostel–Sachs system.

The piano in this system is categorised as a "Board Zither with Resonator Box", a part of the chordaphone group that includes most stringed instruments.

[j_menz]

People are freaking stupid.  A piano trio should be three pianos.

And if you disagree with me, you're wrong.  And shame on you.

HumptyDumptyism at its worst. And remember what happened to that poor egg.

A piano trio is a violin, a cello and a piano. A piano quartet is a string trio and a piano, a piano quintet is a string quartet and a piano.  Rail against it all you like, but usage establishes language, not your personal view of what is logical.

[faulty_damper]

Haha!  Rach4, you just insulted yourself and was too stupid to realize it. Minus 1 point = Rach3.  But, since you successfully fed up your teacher for one measly point, you get that point back +1 = Rach4.  Bwahahaha.  You're stupid, Rach4.   And yeah, Jmenz is right about what a piano trio is.  A piano+violin+cello.

[faulty_damper]

Now go back to your professor to apologize for your stupidity.

[faulty_damper]

My god.  If I were your professor, every time I see you, I'd think, "What an idiot. I can't believe I caved in to giving this idiot that lousy point. Because I hate arguing with idiots. They always win, not because they're right, but simply because they out experience me on idiocy.  I will never be an experienced idiot.  Rach4 is such an idiot.  God.  Well, he'll probably fail the final anyway.  Oh dear God... that means he'll have to take this class again... Oh. My. God.  I better just give him the answer key for the final now."

[rachmaninoff_forever]

  Rail against it all you like, but usage establishes language, not your personal view of what is logical.

The language is stupid.

[j_menz]

The language is stupid.

It is what it is.


Your "railing" appears to have lost some of it's oomph, btw.

[Bob]

Interesting.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumptyism

Truthiness is the 21st century Humpty Dumptyism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Haha...   "'Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true.'"


Just deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_trio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_quartet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_quintet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_sextet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_trio
It doesn't have to make sense.  It just is and you have to live with it.

At least the pianist gets included in the title and it's not just an accompanist role. 


What will you do when you run into others?   Partitura?   Fantasia and sonata changing their meanings.

[nanabush]

Haha taking definitions literally in every sense will lead to trouble...

It's the same reason why when people say "I'm in a band", they are not wrapped up in a rubber band... duh.

'I'm a violinist in a piano trio' is normal; hearing "I'm the third pianist in a piano trio" is just awkward... how many piano trios in the second sense have you heard of?  I've heard of piano duos... but having three pianos/pianists? Awkward...

[Bob]

Why would a string quartet have a piano in it?  I guess I see... but no.  Haha.  That's weird.

Three pianos would be a little unusual.  It would "____ for three pianos" I think.

[Bob]

Haha!  Shame on you Oprah...

"When this classical piano quintet of brothers and sisters..."
https://www.oprah.com/own-where-are-they-now/The-5-Browns-Personal-Playlists

Another site just calls them a quintet or piano ensemble.  

I remember something about 'monster' and a piano ensemble.


Just search for five Browns piano quintet.  Lots of incorrect usage.  Piano trio is pretty standard though I think.

[j_menz]

Three pianos would be a little unusual.  It would "____ for three pianos" I think.

Unusual, but not unheard of:

(Mozart Concerto for Three Pianos K242)

[outin]

Your "railing" appears to have lost some of it's oomph, btw.

The establishment is getting to him

R4, you must fight! Otherwise you'll lose your powers to end the world and become a tame beast!

[mjames]

All of those composers don't know what they're talking about.

It's a stupid definition.

Even Chopin, Mendelssohn,  Beethoven etc?  

[chopin2015]

There was a piece of nasty chewed up dog poop wood and a dried puddle of spit on one of the pianos in the practice rooms, here...   

[Bob]

There was a piece of nasty chewed up dog poop wood and a dried puddle of spit on one of the pianos in the practice rooms, here...   

How are you sure that's what it was?  *Bob is not sure he wants to know.*

[chopin2015]

How are you sure that's what it was?  *Bob is not sure he wants to know.*

Because it is a new piano and the only people who spit on pianos are the wind players.

[Bob]

What's chewed up dog poop wood?  A clarinet?  Haha.  *Bob is still not sure he wants to know.*

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The establishment is getting to him

R4, you must fight! Otherwise you'll lose your powers to end the world and become a tame beast!

Sorry I was out of it for a while.

But now I'm back and stronger than ever!!!

[ahinton]

HumptyDumptyism at its worst. And remember what happened to that poor egg.

A piano trio is a violin, a cello and a piano. A piano quartet is a string trio and a piano, a piano quintet is a string quartet and a piano.

Indeed - and, of course, a string quartet qua string quartet is almost always two violins, viola and cello and there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of examples to prove this (although the fourth quartet of Bernard van Dieren, himself a violinist, substitutes cello with double bass and the second of Schönberg's quartets and the fourth of Ferneyhough's include a soprano with the conventional quartet ensemble). Likewise, a string trio qua string trio is always violin, viola and cello. A string quintet, however, is more of a moveable feast in which the conventional string quartet line-up is added to by a second viola (in all of Mozart's and some others) but more often a second cello (although Dvořák has one which adds a double bass and it's not the only example of this).

Best,

Alistair

[snoa]

Oh lovely!  Brings up a question which one never really thinks about -- just which class of instrument does the piano belong to?  Strings?  Well, it does use strings.  Percussion (often cited)?  Well, it does create its sound by striking something with something else.

Or all by itself!

What class an instrument belongs to depends on how the sound is created, not what it's made out of. This is why a harpsichord is a string instrument (plucks the strings) and the piano is a percussion instrument (strikes the strings)

[rachmaninoff_forever]

What class an instrument belongs to depends on how the sound is created, not what it's made out of.

Well that's dependent on the system.

For the system we use, I think we're given our own class right?  Keyboard!

We're so cool!

[falala]

The language is stupid.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of language.

Language isn't, and never has been, a thoroughly logical system in which the most straightforward and consistent way of defining things is how they are defined. Language is a reflection of culture which develops over historical time, and definitions are determined by convention and usage.

Perhaps you should go back to your teacher and argue about how "stupid" it is that rough doesn't rhyme with bough. Or that cow DOES rhyme with bough. Or that a person can be ruthless but they can't be ruthful. Or that people say it's raining cats and gods when there is not a single quadruped falling from the sky...

One day if you pass your exams you might have to be out working with and talking about piano trios and piano quartets. It's your choice whether you learn to understand the language the way other people do (without which understanding, there is no such thing as language anyway). But you'll find life easier if you do.

[emill]

All of those composers don't know what they're talking about.

It's a stupid definition.   

hehhee

In the development of language, usage takes precedence even if the meaning does not seem quite so or may be confusing or misleading.

So over the years it has become ordinary and usual in medical school to refer to one's BACK as the posterior chest ... now that would really sound awkward and funny for the new medical student and I can imagine him thinking, why the hell complicate things when everyone knows what and where the BACK is rather than what and where the posterior chest is. 

Now there is also an anterior chest!!!

Oh well, whether we like it or not, or whether we feel it strange, weird or funny, in medical parlance the BACK now is the posterior chest!!

[falala]

What class an instrument belongs to depends on how the sound is created, not what it's made out of. This is why a harpsichord is a string instrument (plucks the strings) and the piano is a percussion instrument (strikes the strings)

I agree with your first sentence, but not your second.

It's important to remember that we classify things into categories for REASONS, not just because we do. So a category is only as valid as it is useful.

One of the main reasons for classifying instruments in families is to express the similarities of technique and sound production between them. This is crucial for a composer or arranger, for example, to know how to write for them. You wouldn't for example write a slow unaccompanied melody in long notes for the piano (a percussion instrument) and expect it to be effective in the same way as it would on the cello (a stringed instrument).

The defining characteristic of stringed instruments in this sense is not that they have strings, it's that they can control the volume envelope of each note from beginning to end, like the voice or like woodwind and brass instruments. The defining characteristic of percussion instruments - and this is really important because it's what sets them apart from ALL others - is that the player's control is limited to the initial attack of the note (notwithstanding mechanical add-ons extraneous to the note production itself, like the piano pedal).

In this sense the harpsichord is most definitely a percussion instrument. So is the guitar - and that's what I was taught as a child doing music theory. Guitar and piano were in percussion.

In a practical playing sense too, you don't see pianos among string sections, written as part of the string section, or being doubled on by string players the way violinists and violists can sometimes play both instruments with minimal extra training. The piano in an orchestra usually sits with the percussion section. The guitar in a big band sits with the rhythm (ie percussion) section. There are reasons for this, because the roles that the instruments play are derived from the way they make sound, and thus related to those of the other instruments that make sound in a similar way.