Do oral traditions exist?

[wvwvw]

Here's the thing. Homer ( and other authors of the Iliad) simply knew the basic story and improvised as they went. It isn't different from Rembetes in 1900's Smyrna or free-style hip-hop artists in New York today. What part of this concept is so hard for you to get ?????

So says an idiot that doesn't have the remotest clue about history and thinks that two historically accurate poems of about 12,000 and 15,000 verses each, both of which are backed up by thousands of other independent historical texts corroborating the events they describe and the written histories of over 200 Greek city states spanning over 800 years of history to the time of Homer and hundreds of years after him, were not actually written down but all of them, the poems and the histories of these 200 Greek city states, were composed and passed down to Herodotus orally with no use of writing whatsoever, despite the existence of an uninterrupted tradition of writing in ancient Greece dating back to 1900 BC with the invention of Linear A and Cypriot Linear Script (which of course was used to write in Greek up until 400 BC in Cyprus when it was replaced by Attic-Ionic script).

It's like claiming that Shakespeare composed all of his plays orally and that we only know them today from oral accounts from the 1800s. But not only that, all the history of Britain since the time of William the Conqueror was passed down only by oral composition and repetition also.

ORAL TRADITIONS DO NOT EXIST BY DEFINITION AND HAVE NO PLACE IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE.

Not a single Historian believes the works of Homer were passed down orally. Oral tradition of Homers work were invented by people who wanted to degrade the culture of Greece because the refused to believe that written Greek history could date back 3800 years. Archaeologists have since proven them wrong since Linear B goes back exactly that far.

Wolf proved how the works of Homer were written based on earlier texts
passed on from generation to generation before Homer and how they were changed though the centuries by later copyists including Homer and his
successors up until the texts were standardised by Peiseistratus. There is
not even the remotest suggestion of oral transmission. Wolf's analysis
clearly ruled that out.

[Scholarios]

Yet another ignorant comment. The only way you are able to memorize something is because you saw it somewhere written first.

It's like actors who have memorised texts since the invention of drama. The only way they could did this is because they could re-read the text as many times as they needed to to learn it.

Only a completely ignorant millennial bitch who grew up on iPhones and instant connection to internet could desecrate our ancestors by claiming they couldn't memorise their own language. Every song from your youth that you heard at bazoukia or on the radio was memorised without the aid of a lyric sheet. That equals tens of thousands of lines, plus the tune. Please drop this idiotic topic before you are laughed out of university. It's gone too far...

[Longbowman]

Before writing, memory didn't exist. Got it, thanks Raine.

[wvwvw]

Only a completely ignorant millennial bitch who grew up on iPhones and instant connection to internet could desecrate our ancestors by claiming they couldn't memorise their own language. Every song from your youth that you heard at bazoukia or on the radio was memorised without the aid of a lyric sheet. That equals tens of thousands of lines, plus the tune. Please drop this idiotic topic before you are laughed out of university. It's gone too far...

THAT IS NOT ORAL TRADITION!

Something has to have been practiced for generations without the use of or access to writing to be called an oral tradition.

Tradition means ACCURATE dissemination beyond living memory. Writing is what offers 99.9999% reliability of accurate transmission.

These songs are all copyrighted and written down or recorded. There is no evidence of an oral tradition in their propagation. Songs are part of a written tradition because they had go be composed first. And even if they were an oral tradition they would be impossible to prove. The songs date no earlier to the time they were first written down. There is no way you can verify if there were any changes to the original concept before then, unless you have a time machine.

And how would you preserve these for posterity without writing them down? You can't memorise something that has not even been composed. If songs could be passed down orally then we would have known what music in Ancient Greek sounded like.

Everyone in their right mind with the option of writing something down for posterity or attempting the impossible of trying to pass it on orally would write it down. Today there is also the option of recording the piece so you argument goes out the window.

Even the lyrics to the songs chanted by the monks in the middle ages were WRITTEN DOWN. Only the keys they were supposed to be sung in were not written because there was no notation at the time in the west. In Byzantium there was and Kassia of Byzantium was writing multipart harmonies centuries
before they were even imagined in the west because without music nation these were impossible top set out.

Its possible to memorise SHORT pieces of music orally and short phrases but is it IMPOSSIBLE to even compose something as long as Oliver Twist or Beethoven's 9th Symphony except with the use of writing.

Try learning an entire opera from just one preference, complete with instrumental arrangements with every thing sung in the right key with deviation. Operas did not exist before the invention of western musical notation. It was impossible to even contemplate composing multi-part harmonies without such a notation let along teaching people to sing them correctly.

Oral composition of something the size of the Iliad or Beethoven's 9th orally is IMPOSSIBLE. Homer and Beethoven both had writing at their disposal and the both used it.

Shakespeare like Homer composed his plays from written histories that went back over 1000 years not oral traditions. He composed them in writing and the actors were told to write down their parts and learn them like that because it would have been impossible to randomly access anything stored in someone else's mind. Shakespeare couldn't multitask with 20 actors learning 20 different parts at the same time.

Anyone can read a book several times and memorise parts of it. That's how actors learn their lines by reputedly reading and reciting the written script. Try doing that when you don't have it down in writing and how the hell are you supposed to know if you are wrong or right. Who the hell is going to tell you what line 1 act 2 scene is.

On top of that how the hell can you possibly compose a story as long a the Iliad except in writing. There is NO WAY anything longer that a few verses could possibly composed except using pen and paper.

How about you prove your stupid theory and go out on Friday an buy a Harry Potter book like order of the Phoenix and tell your mum to read it out to you aloud and then come back here on Saturday and type it all out. I bet you wouldn't even be able to remember the plot twist. This book was set out in
writing as part of a 7 book series and it took years to complete. I bet that even the author had to refers back to written summaries of her previous books to make sure the continuity was accurate.

You just try memorising the works of Mozart, Beethoven and Prokofiev including the parts for every instrument by just listening to them. These works would have been impossible to even compose if it had not been for the invention of western music notation. With out stave notation music would
have been limited at most to one part harmonies (which is not a harmony at all) and the pentatonic scale. Homer and Hesiod were to literature is what Mozart and Beethoven were to music. None of their work would have been possible except in writing.

[Myanthropologies]

Yes.

One must make sure they took a shower beforehand and don't have a bush of pubes (women don't like to suck on a hairy cock).

As for the woman, she must grab and fondle the balls as she is performing the oral. She must be very creative when she swallows the cum too. Maybe get some on her fingers and lick it off her fingers while saying "yummy."

[wvwvw]

Yes.

One must make sure they took a shower beforehand and don't have a bush of pubes (women don't like to suck on a hairy cock).

As for the woman, she must grab and fondle the balls as she is performing the oral. She must be very creative when she swallows the cum too. Maybe get some on her fingers and lick it off her fingers while saying "yummy."

Degenerate low life Afgan quit polluting my threads with your crap.

[Myanthropologies]

Degenerate low life Afgan quit polluting my threads with your crap.

You asked, I answered.

[Wrong]

Scholarios is legit here, Raine is not being genuine.

- My two cents

[GoneWithTheWind]

I dont know. But what I do know is that oral sex exists. Now the real question here is when was it first recorded?

[wvwvw]

I dont know. But what I do know is that oral sex exists. Now the real question here is when was it first recorded?

The day the Ottomans got your mom.