PDA

View Full Version : What Constitutes music.



JazzMick
01-29-2008, 10:27 PM
Just a random question for anyone who wants to give their opinion.

What, in your opinion, constitutes music. Can any sound be music? if so... are birds more musical than say... the woman next door who is allways screaming at her kids? why?

Also, above that, what constitutes good music. What qualities must it have.

I dont exactly want this to become a comparison of guitar players thread. It doesnt have to have anything to do with great guitar players. However if you choose to use them as examples go ahead.

I had a few minutes free and im on smoko, for some reason I started thinking about this. I would share my opinion on it but I havn't quite made up my mind yet :)

In short though. Music to me can be just about any sound i hear(thats not to say its good music). I find the strangest things musical though, and yes even the woman screaming next door sometimes has a musical quality. Although its more rhythmically pleasing than melodic.

jade_bodhi
01-29-2008, 10:52 PM
I understand the wishful logic that would prompt someone to say that bird "song" is music, one runs the risk of letting words mean whatever one wants them to mean. Things start blurring together, and then what's the use of having words if we don't distinguish ideas clearly.

I rather think music is a human activity, an art and a science of arranging sounds to delight, consciously and thoughtfully composed or unconscously and spontaneously performed. Aside from that, I'm willing to accept music as equally important and valuable across all cultures.

Malcolm
01-29-2008, 11:45 PM
I went to the Music dictionary I have bookmarked to see what they said.

Music:
Any rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic grouping of sounds that is specifically composed and that forms a unity so as to convey a message, to communicate, or to entertain.

Any rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic grouping of sounds that is specifically composed --- so this would take in those bird songs as they are composed to convey a message -- this is my territory, or to communicate --- come look me over.

And in the strictest sense of the word that woman's screams are sounds composed to convey a message or to communicate with her kids.

The bird's song may or may not be pleasant - we have a blue heroin that fishes off our dock and makes the most hideous sound when I interrupt her feeding. Not unlike that woman's scream.

So when do those sounds become music?

JazzMick
01-30-2008, 02:33 AM
Well thats up to you Malcolm :)

Interesting point.

I also find it interesting that you can make a case for a woman screaming at her child to be 'music' :D

Jed
01-30-2008, 02:36 AM
So when do those sounds become music?

IMO as soon as they start to manipulate or direct our emotions.

cheers,

Chim_Chim
01-30-2008, 03:14 AM
I went to the Music dictionary I have bookmarked to see what they said.

Music:
Any rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic grouping of sounds that is specifically composed and that forms a unity so as to convey a message, to communicate, or to entertain.

Any rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic grouping of sounds that is specifically composed --- so this would take in those bird songs as they are composed to convey a message -- this is my territory, or to communicate --- come look me over.

And in the strictest sense of the word that woman's screams are sounds composed to convey a message or to communicate with her kids.

The bird's song may or may not be pleasant - we have a blue heroin that fishes off our dock and makes the most hideous sound when I interrupt her feeding. Not unlike that woman's scream.

So when do those sounds become music?
As soon as Beck samples them.

Cheers :D

Blutwulf
01-30-2008, 09:23 AM
Sounds are music as soon as we anticipate the next sound.

Of course, "anticipate" has about 10 different definitions. I am talking about the moment of regarding the sound and then the state of mind wherein we await the next. Basically, the sounds are nonmusical until we seek to regard them. At that point, the even random sounds are elements we anticipate and experience as input.

A tree falling in the forest is not music unless someone is listening to that which makes up "forest sounds" to them, and is anticipating the next tree fall, squirrel squack, creek burble, or leaves rustle. These sounds could be a pleasant aire to some, and a dirgelike march for others, depending on the person. A man on a smoke break, for instance, might find himself listening to the music of his smoke break, and enhance his experience thereby.

Having said that, music becomes increasingly personal as we stride away from the mainstream. But then, we already knew that, eh? What is important is that we realize that the next odd recording we hear of seeming "noise" may indeed be quality music to another listener.

jimc8p
01-30-2008, 10:53 AM
Hi. I think music's definition should be constricted to that which can more or less be of universal perception. Bird song and other non-human noises may have a positive aesthetic quality, but without human intent they are likely to only convey subjective 'meanings' if any at all. For instance, a schizophrenic mind may perceive all sorts of analogies within the ambient sound of an environment, but that is a subjective 'music'. However, the slicing of dissonant tones and timbres in a horror movie scene casts a universal analogy. The tones needn't be organised, tempered or progressive, but we all make that simple analogy. It's music in its most fundamental of states. Amazing that something as simple as a couple of sound frequencies can have a huge effect on human perception. It may seem obvious that consonance = good and dissonance = bad, but there is absolutely no logical connection. Analogy is one of the weird enigmas of human consciousness.

Blutwulf
01-30-2008, 03:03 PM
"but without human intent they are likely to only convey subjective 'meanings' if any at all."

What objective meaning was there to the last instrumental you heard?

jimc8p
01-30-2008, 03:26 PM
All instrumental music expresses a purposeful and absolute 'meaning'. Objective isn't really the right word. But we can all experience the same or very similar experiences from listening to music. IOW music creates subjective yet universal analogies, for example, film music used to set the mood of scenes.

Blutwulf
01-30-2008, 06:01 PM
But if I heard a Kyrghizstani wedding processional song, it might sound less like a happy wedding song to my Western ears and more like a funerary song. Both will be slow, stately, and ponderous. If we limit "music" to just that which has universal meaning, we are left with zero music, unless you can name an example that does indeed have universal meaning.

Not that you cannot. I am not arguing with you so much as simply questioning. I am willing to be proven wrong, here. For example, an Irish hornpipe... I daresay that any human who hears it will regard it as a "happy" song. Well, unless their beloved uncle was killed while playing one. Association makes the requirement that it be "subjective yet universal" a bust, right? Is there such a song that is universally regarded the same way subjectively?

JazzMick
01-30-2008, 09:15 PM
your a hard kid to play with Blutwulf :D

I think its easier to explain the feelings certain music might evoke when put in context with some kind of animation or flim. The actions you are seeing will be unconsciously related to the sounds you hear and I think its safe to say in most cases people will feel the same ways when put in this situation.

For example;

A short clip of George.W.Bush walking toward the white house while playing the Circus March. Most people might giggle and think of what a bumbling fool he is.

On the other hand.

The same clip with say.. one of Dimitri Shostakovitch's symphony works will possibly lend people to think of all the hurtful and 'evil' things he has caused.

I don't mean to start a political debate here with any Bush supporters but you get the point.

Anyway, when you take the music away from the screen the feelings would definitely be much more subjective and might vary much more from person to person, Like you said.

Personally I hate circuses and feel sick listening to that music, so heard on its own I would much rather Shostakovitch.

jade_bodhi
01-30-2008, 10:08 PM
A tree falling in the forest is not music unless someone is listening to that which makes up "forest sounds" to them, and is anticipating the next tree fall, squirrel squack, creek burble, or leaves rustle. These sounds could be a pleasant aire to some, and a dirgelike march for others, depending on the person. A man on a smoke break, for instance, might find himself listening to the music of his smoke break, and enhance his experience thereby.

You always take the resident relativist point of view, Blutwulf. Did you train as a rhetorician? Just to be your devil's advocate, I think you blur the line between music and random sound. Though some sounds are pleasing and anticipated in a certain time and place, they aren't necessarily music. People often refer to natural sounds as "music," but don't you agree they are simply expressing a pleasing metaphorical interpretation of sound? I know you will whittle away on my sophomoric response and come out on top, at least on paper. But I have to offer my somewhat more absolute view on this. Touche, mister.

jade_bodhi
01-30-2008, 10:14 PM
What objective meaning was there to the last instrumental you heard?

I don't wish to speak for Jimc8p, but perhaps "meaning" is not the right word. There is objective "beauty" to much music, and I think the example Jim used of dissonance as a music of terror is possible an objective example of an anti-beauty. Blutwulf, don't you believe things can be truly knowable? I will admit to some blurring of truth around the edges but the basic form is knowable. Are you really artistically bankrupt as you claim? I bet your not deep down.

Blutwulf
01-31-2008, 04:33 AM
Well, Hell, I gotta do this as quote responses...


You always take the resident relativist point of view, Blutwulf. Did you train as a rhetorician?Trained to simply teach lit and philosophy. Naturally, choosing a cogent counter became an automatic thing, at the expense of friendships. ;-) Another natural extension is that I am employed as a database analyst. Funny ol' thing, life...


Just to be your devil's advocate, I think you blur the line between music and random sound. Though some sounds are pleasing and anticipated in a certain time and place, they aren't necessarily music. People often refer to natural sounds as "music," but don't you agree they are simply expressing a pleasing metaphorical interpretation of sound?You here are implying that the source of the sound sequence requires a plan or directive to be music, as opposed to my calling any sequence music. You are disallowing random or undirected sequences to be called music.

That is valid and fair, of course, since we're cultivating a definition here, and your plow is as big as anyone else's. However... by your definition, much of rock music cannot be termed "music" by virtue of the fact that the instrumental improv is random. An immediate response may be, "random? are you mad?" But randomly choosing notes within a predefined set of black dots on a fretboard (I am just cynical enough to accuse 90% of guitarists of playing drums with the pentatonic scale) is random. That is, while one may argue that it is not random since a given key center and choice of scale provides direction, the argument breaks down when we get to the point of randomly choosing within that subset.

But, one could argue that random selection from a subset, given even the most rudimentary selection criteria, is not actually "random." Okay, then within the forest sounds of my example, a random beep from a '74 Pinto station wagon would be "random." A sound from an apple falling would not be. We're breaking down on the definition of "random," here...


...but don't you agree they are simply expressing a pleasing metaphorical interpretation of sound?I agree, but a) the fact that it is interpreted as music makes it in sooth music, and b) people do this for AC/DC music so it must be allowed for the forest too. ;-) You get my point.


I know you will whittle away on my sophomoric response and come out on top, at least on paper. But I have to offer my somewhat more absolute view on this. Touche, mister.I was just run out of bed by an after-hours call from work. But you know, a chick referencing me as being "on top" and offering a "touche" are making things look up.

But seriously, your assertion is quite valid, and far more widely accepted than my own. You adding a caveat that "music" requires conscious direction is cheerfully cogent, testable, and valid. ...unless one posits the existence of a divine being. Then you gotta explain to God why his planned sounds are random. I am a Hellbound atheist, and to prove your point you need only join me.


Blutwulf, don't you believe things can be truly knowable? I will admit to some blurring of truth around the edges but the basic form is knowable. Are you really artistically bankrupt as you claim? I bet your not deep down.For every post of mine you see wherein I respond with my cynicism and nihilism, just remember that the primary reason I read this board is the desperate attempt to regain the common magic my world has lost. It ain't no fun being the guy who doesn't believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, or higher meaning in sound sequences. It is my hope that some 17-year-old guitar junkie will kickstart my passion again. You have no idea how bad it is deep down.

jimc8p
01-31-2008, 10:08 AM
But if I heard a Kyrghizstani wedding processional song, it might sound less like a happy wedding song to my Western ears and more like a funerary song. Both will be slow, stately, and ponderous. If we limit "music" to just that which has universal meaning, we are left with zero music, unless you can name an example that does indeed have universal meaning.

Not that you cannot. I am not arguing with you so much as simply questioning. I am willing to be proven wrong, here. For example, an Irish hornpipe... I daresay that any human who hears it will regard it as a "happy" song. Well, unless their beloved uncle was killed while playing one. Association makes the requirement that it be "subjective yet universal" a bust, right? Is there such a song that is universally regarded the same way subjectively?

Conscious association is very separate from musical intuition. As you said, a Kyrghizstani wedding processional song will sound 'slow, stately, and ponderous' to whoever hears it. This is the 'meaning' I was referring to. (Jade, you're right about it not being the right word, Blutwulf, sorry if that threw you off what I was meaning to communicate).

In film music for example, we can all sense whether it is pensive, sombre, upbeat, whimsical or sinister due to some simple analogies. Fast and rhythmic consonant frequencies, with a rasping timbre will sound like a very bright, happy and alert mood. Slow, more dissonant and soft tones will sound serious and sad. And so on.

However, I can think of happy songs that I listened to at university that now make me feel a little sad and nostalgic. That subjective association I think should be dissociated from normal musical perception. And that includes other cultured interpretations such as the Kyrghizstani funeral example. Also, I think subjective tastes in music should even be separated. IOW, a minor second with a major third phonically and perceptually has the same 'quality' to all of us (of course excluding the tone-deaf, alexithymic or whatever). For the people who hear 'Spanish' and for the people who just hear regular music, the fundamental perception of sound is the same. And that also goes for the people that like it and the people that don't.

So my main point is, 'music' must follow its natural conventions to an extent to which it is interpretable by the majority. That is very unlikely to come about without human intent.

JazzMick, interesting example of using music to change perception.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVePD_Nv1aE
This isn't the best example I've seen, but it illustrates how powerful an idea it can be.

Blutwulf
01-31-2008, 12:17 PM
Well, now you are very close to what I had originally said. It becomes "music" when it is interpreted as such by the listener.

What we disagree on is whether or not the sound sequence needs to follow conventions in order to be interpreted. Since the interpretation is personal and subjective, then no, it need not follow convention, else the "happy songs you listened to at university" would forever remain happy. The fact that they have changed makes it a personal and subjective interpretation.


"That subjective association I think should be dissociated from normal musical perception."Ain't gonna happen. It is part and parcel to what/who we are, and an underpinning for the existence of music. The exercise of interpretation you mention holds hands with the exercise in association.

Personally, I am happy with an objective definition such as: "any sequence of sounds which are deliberately and consciously patterned by relative pitch, meter, and timbre." Kinda like what you're after. However, JazzMick's original post was asking us to wax a bit philosophical...

UKRuss
01-31-2008, 12:25 PM
What's good for the forest is good for ac/dc. I'm with you on that.


As Malcolm will tell you, there are only two types of music.

Country and Western.

The rest is all noise.

Blutwulf
01-31-2008, 12:29 PM
What's good for the forest is good for ac/dc. I'm with you on that.Oh, good lord, you read all that? I thought you hate long, bombastic posts.

jade_bodhi
01-31-2008, 01:05 PM
Well, Hell, I gotta do this as quote responses... Trained to simply teach lit and philosophy. I studied and study literature too.



You here are implying that the source of the sound sequence requires a plan or directive to be music, as opposed to my calling any sequence music. You are disallowing random or undirected sequences to be called music. We agree to disagree on that. Good.



However... by your definition, much of rock music cannot be termed "music" by virtue of the fact that the instrumental improv is random. An immediate response may be, "random? are you mad?" But randomly choosing notes within a predefined set of black dots on a fretboard (I am just cynical enough to accuse 90% of guitarists of playing drums with the pentatonic scale) is random. That is, while one may argue that it is not random since a given key center and choice of scale provides direction, the argument breaks down when we get to the point of randomly choosing within that subset. Your lit/philosophy degree is showing in your deconstruction of the term "random." The logical extension of your statement above implies that all action is random. For example, you must think that I don't plan my day; instead, I "randomly choose" things to do within a predefined set of times and places in my town. I don't believe that. One can't "randomly choose." Choosing denotes discernment, which is not random, by definition. You're not on top of this one.



But seriously, your assertion is quite valid, and far more widely accepted than my own. Thank you.



You adding a caveat that "music" requires conscious direction is cheerfully cogent, testable, and valid. ...unless one posits the existence of a divine being. Then you gotta explain to God why his planned sounds are random. I am a Hellbound atheist, and to prove your point you need only join me. Now you're just playing with me. That's okay.



For every post of mine you see wherein I respond with my cynicism and nihilism... It ain't no fun being the guy who doesn't believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, or higher meaning in sound sequences. It is my hope that some 17-year-old guitar junkie will kickstart my passion again. You have no idea how bad it is deep down. Now you have me feeling sorry for you, Blutwulf. Come on! You know you don't feel that way. Remember. You liked the song "Going Home"; that means there is life yet to live! Sing, Blutty. Sing joy.

jimc8p
01-31-2008, 01:33 PM
It becomes "music" when it is interpreted as such by the listener.

Actually, here is where I disagree rather than on the conventions line below. People can hear 'music' in anything, like my schizophrenic example. I would definitely want to narrow off that meaning via objective consensus.


Since the interpretation is personal and subjective, then no, it need not follow convention, else the "happy songs you listened to at university" would forever remain happy. The fact that they have changed makes it a personal and subjective interpretation.

Music can have varying interpretations from person to person, or from time to time for one person. However, these variations are only by association.


[association] is part and parcel to what/who we are, and an underpinning for the existence of music. The exercise of interpretation you mention holds hands with the exercise in association.

Yes, it would be impossible to separate natural perception and our own conscious and unconscious associations of music. But I was not meaning to suggest it as an exercise, just saying that they are distinct parts of musical interpretation. The associative aspect clouds the definition or constitution of 'music' with subjectivity. It would broaden a definition beyond real meaning as Jade first mentioned. However, the conventions of the physical phenomenon of music are objectively interpreted in the same way by basically everyone. That provides a better basis for a neater definition I think. Although, neater and more restricted, but it does also encompass sounds that are not based on coordination, meter or tempered scales, like the horror movies etc. I wonder whether you could extend it to gameshow's 'uh uhh' for wrong, and 'ding' for right?...hmm, probably too far.

Michael. A
01-31-2008, 02:48 PM
I would say anything can be music. Any sound which is purposefully shaped by man is music. It means its been part of a creative process. I guess sounds which just are (the ocean, Footsteps, Wind) are similarly musical but reflect maybe the order of our universe. e.g The physics of the ocean's movement and gravity.

I would then separate music into 2 types. Tone music and melodic/rhythmic music. Tone music is just sounds that are interesting which can be used in a musical way. Tone is apparant within melodic and rhythmic music too of course but i think it deserves its own subclass.

You could easily not include that in the definition of music but I would say this is perhaps a little narrow minded. If you've really developed an ear for sound regardless of harmony or melody then you imagine that sound musically as part of an arrangement or whatever really. You buy an instrument for its tone afterall. Its the thing that describes its character.

Blutwulf
01-31-2008, 02:55 PM
Your lit/philosophy degree is showing in your deconstruction of the term "random." The logical extension of your statement above implies that all action is random. For example, you must think that I don't plan my day; instead, I "randomly choose" things to do within a predefined set of times and places in my town. I don't believe that. One can't "randomly choose." Choosing denotes discernment, which is not random, by definition. You're not on top of this one.
Oh, no degree. I quit. Anyway, the actual logical extensions of my statement is that all events are random or none are random. Thus my illustrating the futility of underpinning the definition on a term that itself is poorly defined. Personally, I hold that random events are impossible, since all events are a predetermined result of prior events. For argument's sake, I covered the possibility that randomness does exist, as well. Either way, a definition based on the sound sequence requiring directive has holes. That is all I was illustrating. If you include randomness or a lack thereof in the definition, you end up with a definition begging for, "yeah, but...."


I would definitely want to narrow off that meaning via objective consensus.I understand. You agree that anyone can regard anything as music, but that would be a wholly useless definition. You would prefer if we had a definition a bit more objective than "anything someone want to call music."

But who am I to arbitrarily determine the yardstick? You use the expression "consensus," and I agree that would be darned handy, but you aren't going to get one any time soon. So, instead of "consensus," we'd have to change it to "consensus of those whose opinions are more valid than a nut who thinks leaf rustling is music." As soon as that happens, I leave the party unless someone can tell me why Person A's opinion is more compelling than the Leaf Nut's opinion.


The associative aspect clouds the definition or constitution of 'music' with subjectivity. It would broaden a definition beyond real meaning as Jade first mentioned. Ah. I feel vindicated in my above paragraph, then. I am right then, in that you find the "any damned thing people call music is music" definition to be useless.


However, the conventions of the physical phenomenon of music are objectively interpreted in the same way by basically everyone. Can you support that assertion? Right now, all I have to do is say, "wrong." Off the top of my head, I'll toss out there the fact that people have varying degrees of proficiency in keeping meter, varying degrees of facility in pitch clarity if they don't clean out the ol' wax, etc., etc. Each human interprets the exact same objective physical elements differently. That is why my wife is still beautiful at 49, my daddy was taller than he actually was, and <holds out fingers> this is 7 inches.


That provides a better basis for a neater definition I think. You realize that "better" and "neater" are why I can stay in this thread forever, right?

JazzMick asked for each of our own personal definitions. You and Jade are trying to cultivate a definition that will work for all of us. I need only say, "nuh huh" every time. Until you can explain why that would be a better basis and a neater definition, we'll get nowhere (but have fun doing it... at least I enjoy this sort of thing... your mileage may vary).

jimc8p
01-31-2008, 04:04 PM
You use the expression "consensus," and I agree that would be darned handy, but you aren't going to get one any time soon. So, instead of "consensus," we'd have to change it to "consensus of those whose opinions are more valid than a nut who thinks leaf rustling is music."

I think a consensus is there. Music is primarily the artistic use of relative tones. Throw in timing, structure and timbre to modify those possible aesthetics, and there is a system of innate analogies I believe we all share.


Can you support that assertion? Right now, all I have to do is say, "wrong." Off the top of my head, I'll toss out there the fact that people have varying degrees of proficiency in keeping meter, varying degrees of facility in pitch clarity if they don't clean out the ol' wax, etc., etc. Each human interprets the exact same objective physical elements differently. That is why my wife is still beautiful at 49, my daddy was taller than he actually was, and <holds out fingers> this is 7 inches.

:D ..I suppose I can support it by using the example of Eastern music's light (major) and dark (minor) scales being comprised of consonant and dissonant intervals, as you would expect. Western and Eastern music developed fairly separately, and I therefore can't see that 'meanings' (for want of a better word!) have been consciously assigned to intervals and nurtured coincidentally by different cultures. The fact that music has been disovered for its pleasing effects across all cultures, throughout history, shows that there must be a consensus about what particular effects come from particular sounds.

Also, there are such things as innate, illogical analogies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Booba-Kiki.png


You realize that "better" and "neater" are why I can stay in this thread forever, right?

Clearly and objectively neater and better, though.


JazzMick asked for each of our own personal definitions. You and Jade are trying to cultivate a definition that will work for all of us. I need only say, "nuh huh" every time. Until you can explain why that would be a better basis and a neater definition, we'll get nowhere (but have fun doing it... at least I enjoy this sort of thing... your mileage may vary).

atm I have a job in front of computer doing nothing except what I can find to entertain me on the Internet. So unless I crack and sign up for a 'second life' account, my mileage is pretty good!

Blutwulf
01-31-2008, 04:43 PM
The fact that music has been disovered for its pleasing effects across all cultures, throughout history, shows that there must be a consensus about what particular effects come from particular sounds.First of all, there is no consensus going to happen. Do you actually mean "consensus?" Because on this planet, you can't get a consensus opinion that pain hurts, pleasure is fun, or the sky is up unless we exclude counteropinions. If so, then I have to ask how we decide whom to exclude.

Secondly, even though music has pleasing effects in every culture, the meter, intervals, physical bits you're after, etc., used to create the pleasant music is different. Witness our earlier examples of some loser getting married in Kyrghizstan. But you're on to something here. We finally have argued our way into the first element of what constitutes "music..." It must be regarded as such by the listener. D'OH. Damnit, back where we started...

My definition can be supported (no huge trick, since I essentially included "any damned thing you regard as music"). Yours, however, assumes that there are universally agreed-upon elements. If we begin the task of putting yours into words, our first hurdle is the exception cited by elements of Carnatic music. Once past that, we have the exception voiced by Pali monks. Etc. As we broaden your definition to include every form of currently recognized music, we discover that, "damn, it is almost as big and useless as Blutwulf's. May as well include the forest crap those pretentious weenies call 'music' too."


Imagine for a moment that there is no connotative meaning to the term "music." Imagine that there is no perceived status and no assumption that something outside the definition is unmusical crap. Would you care as much about what is called "music?" Your definition, mine, and Bob's Uncle's definition are a simple means of including what we like, and excluding what we do not. We include what we deem "worthy" to be called music, rather than what we prosaically catalog as music. After our exercise, we are annointing some music as "real" music, and dooming other music as "not music, and you know what that means as far as the value of this not music thing goes..."

So, for my answer to JazzMick's "what constitutes music," I use as broad a definition as possible, while requiring a human to hear it. Who am I to tell that nutjob in the forest that the sounds he is listening to and which are altering his mood and invoking association and imagery is not music?

jimc8p
02-01-2008, 10:08 AM
First of all, there is no consensus going to happen. Do you actually mean "consensus?" Because on this planet, you can't get a consensus opinion that pain hurts, pleasure is fun, or the sky is up unless we exclude counteropinions. If so, then I have to ask how we decide whom to exclude.

Excluding the minority still gives us a valid consensus. Imagine if we gave equal weight to minority opinions when it came to labelling things. 'Hurt', 'fun' and 'up' would lose their useful meanings. 'Red' might just mean 'colour'...or even more. Does 'left' constitute 'right' just because a few people think so? We let the majority perception rule.


Secondly, even though music has pleasing effects in every culture, the meter, intervals, physical bits you're after, etc., used to create the pleasant music is different.

As you know I disagree. No culture would use dissonant intervals to create joyous feelings, a slow pace to create alert/excited feelings and consonant tones to create uneasy feelings. All of the variables in music represent simple, universal analogies. Music clearly sounds different from continent to continent, but it is still adhering to these analogies. A Kyrghizstani wedding song may sound sombre. But a New Orleans funerary song sounds joyful. You can't be telling me these exemplify differences in perception - they are differences in culture!

Either way, I think those variables must be used to constitute music. Carnatic music, Pali monks, Ghanan drumming and the rest uses them to enough of an extent for us all to perceive musicality.


"damn, it is almost as big and useless as Blutwulf's. May as well include the forest crap those pretentious weenies call 'music' too."

Come on, some nut who sees music in his cornflakes should not be given the power to single-handedly blow up 'what constitues music' out of all proportion. It may constitute music to him, but is it really music? You have to generalise, or else concepts will snowball into oblivion.


After our exercise, we are annointing some music as "real" music, and dooming other music as "not music, and you know what that means as far as the value of this not music thing goes..."

And we have a valid power to do that by consensus.


Who am I to tell that nutjob in the forest that the sounds he is listening to and which are altering his mood and invoking association and imagery is not music?

If we find that for a colourblind person, red constitutes green, do we say that 'red constitutes red and green'?

UKRuss
02-01-2008, 11:03 AM
All music has cowbell. simple.

no cowbell, no music.

LaughingSkull
02-01-2008, 11:16 AM
Was that zen, Russ?

wonderdog
02-01-2008, 11:38 AM
No culture would use dissonant intervals to create joyous feelings, a slow pace to create alert/excited feelings and consonant tones to create uneasy feelings. All of the variables in music represent simple, universal analogies.

Nothing about it is universal. Remember that in the middle ages, only perfect fifths were considered consonant; ever other interval was seen as dissonant. Over time, our cultural norms have changed and we now accept more intervals as consonant. So dissonance itself can be seen as the product of culture, not an inherent property of music.

Film music doesn't affect the audience's perceptions because of some "universal" language, but because the audience are immersed in a culture and have a shared understanding of what the symbols signify -- an understanding that is as much the product of film soundtrack conventions as of any inherent properties of music.

I think music is best defined as "sound organized according to aesthetic principles."

That definition takes into account that sound can be organized by whoever is producing it, and is also organized by our perception. It also takes into account that aesthetic principles aren't constant.

jimc8p
02-01-2008, 12:35 PM
Nothing about it is universal. Remember that in the middle ages, only perfect fifths were considered consonant; ever other interval was seen as dissonant. ...
So dissonance itself can be seen as the product of culture, not an inherent property of music.

What I'm saying agrees with this (apart from "Nothing about it is universal"). Cultures have used different intervals, different structural conventions, different representations and so on. Western music has become more dissonant, like upping the dosage of an overused drug. However, the basic principles remain universal..As indicated by the devil's tritone, evil represented by dissonance in films, the dissonance of other culture's 'dark' scales, the major/minor spectrum in western theory, and so on. I'd find it difficult to believe that these were simply random and coincidental labels that we have been taught.

In any case, I'm not relying on this assertion, I'm just saying (like your definition) music has finite principles of aesthetics. Flowing water definitely doesn't follow them!

Blutwulf
02-01-2008, 01:42 PM
Excluding the minority still gives us a valid consensus. No, it gives us a majority. My question is that since we are dealing with a multivalue definition (not a simple yes or no), what yardstick should we use to exclude people and get that majority?


No culture would use dissonant intervals to create joyous feelings, a slow pace to create alert/excited feelings... Yours would. For instance, "Sweet Child in Time" uses a slow pace and almost dolorous melody to create a mood of alertness. Wait for the ricochet, and what have you. (And a most excellent song, by the way.)


Come on, some nut who sees music in his cornflakes should not be given the power to single-handedly blow up 'what constitues music' out of all proportion. It may constitute music to him, but is it really music? You have to generalise, or else concepts will snowball into oblivion.Why should the nut not have that opportunity? If it constitutes music to him, why is it not music?


And we have a valid power to do that by consensus.Oh, we can get a majority opinion that Brittney Spears is pretty. However, this would not make her so to someone who does not find her to be so.

Well, to be honest, I am cheating and inserting a variable term there. "Music" is not a variable term. But what is it? It is a term that is used as an identifier post-knowledge. That is, after you experience something, you then label it as music (or not). You feel that we should all use the same rules when labeling something as music.

I pretty much stopped agreeing or disagreeing with you on the fundamental point a few posts back. Now, I am genuinely curious why you feel that the term "music" should have a more definite definition than does, say, "table." (Try defining that one without being broad.)

To be clear, you definition falls within mine. Anything you define as music would indeed fit my definition. However, there are things I'd allow to be called music which you would not. What is your reason for wanting the definition narrowed? What makes mine too broad? (Hint: I have boldfaced the only actual thing you need to respond to in this entire, bombastic post.)


If we find that for a colourblind person, red constitutes green, do we say that 'red constitutes red and green'?No, we'd say that light frequency X is called 'red' by most, but called 'green' by a few others if in juxtaposition to light frequency Y because the frequency is objectively resolved as a different frequency - no decision is made. You're using a false equivalency here. The names of primary colors have objective definitions based on metrics. Math don't lie, and one cannot decide to see a color as a different color.

Babsi
02-02-2008, 01:27 AM
Music... sound/s which inflames my emotion, my passion, my otherworldly. It does not matter how long it is, I can always replay it in my head. From the steady notes pouring from the rain to the complexities of the pieces of Minus the Bear to the roar of a train, I take in all of them. Music does not need to be objective - I think it must just be THERE, or rather, HERE. This is just my definition, my perception of what music really is.

There should really be no argument about what music really is. I mean, people have different perceptions and definitions about it. Its like religion, only better. :D

Earth
02-14-2008, 03:00 AM
I really consider any sound to be music. From a burst of noise, to a squeak. It can all be used in a piece, it's limitless. I think music is a subjective experience, and your perception has a lot to do with it.

In a similar way, John Cage's work (whether you like him or not) really opened the possiblities for what can be done in a musical setting.

jade_bodhi
02-14-2008, 06:00 PM
I really consider any sound to be music. From a burst of noise, to a squeak.

Here we are back to the beginning of the discussion.

By the way, after watching the word "consensus" tossed around, I looked it up: it means general agreement, not unanimous agreement. A strong majority would be consensus, like a 4 to one ratio or greater, I would think.

I like the definition someone gave: music is sound organized according to aesthetic principles. Anyone, even the cornflake nut, has a right to his own set of aesthetic principles. But one has to acknowledge that when a consensus of people share the same aesthetic principles (even if they can't name them), then they have achieved a codified definition that limits the parameters of the subject, i.e. music (a very broad subject I hasten to add). Maybe the inherent breadth of this subject is why we have trouble defining it. And maybe this isn't an argument about the definition of music as much as it is an argument about semantics.

I respect the way everyone here has offered views while respecting others'. I felt it was a safe discussion to enter. Thank you.

Jade

ragasaraswati
02-14-2008, 07:01 PM
Sound that communicates feelings.

Good music is music you carry with you.

MorningStar
02-16-2008, 01:25 AM
Please excuse me for joining this discussion so late.
Music is vibration, ordered sounds. It is harmony of our souls with God.
Everything is composed of vibrations therefore everything is music.
Pythagoras had written extensively on the subject of 'The Harmony of the Spheres'.

jade_bodhi
02-16-2008, 02:01 PM
Please excuse me for joining this discussion so late.
Music is vibration, ordered sounds. It is harmony of our souls with God.
Everything is composed of vibrations therefore everything is music.
Pythagoras had written extensively on the subject of 'The Harmony of the Spheres'.

I like what you wrote. You added the spiritual element, which is a way to define it. "Ordered sounds." That's a clarification. Do you think that the sounds of the world are ordered by God? I wonder about that. Is there inherent sublime divine order in existence or is it chaotic. Or could it be both at the same time, like in chaos theory, about which I know so little I can't even write one sentence?

MorningStar
02-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Thank you Jade Bodhi,

The Mother of God 'is' vibration!
The science of Cymatics, which studies the effects of sound waves, has proven how vibrations create order out of chaos, the Egyptians called this principal Ma'at.

Watch how our Universe was created . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0

Ken Valentino
02-20-2008, 05:42 AM
The first thing I do when I listen is to hear connections. Whatever name you give for my experence when I find them is cool. Whatever name you give for when I don't is cool also.

jimc8p
02-20-2008, 03:12 PM
By the way, after watching the word "consensus" tossed around, I looked it up: it means general agreement, not unanimous agreement. A strong majority would be consensus, like a 4 to one ratio or greater, I would think.
...Anyone, even the cornflake nut, has a right to his own set of aesthetic principles. But one has to acknowledge that when a consensus of people share the same aesthetic principles (even if they can't name them), then they have achieved a codified definition that limits the parameters of the subject, i.e. music (a very broad subject I hasten to add).

Jade, thanks for summing up so eloquently :)

Blutwulf
02-20-2008, 07:39 PM
I looked it up: it means general agreement, not unanimous agreement. A strong majority would be consensus, like a 4 to one ratio or greater, I would think. Is there a consensus on how much of a majority constitutes a consensus? If the task at hand is determining an objective identification of music, a "general agreement" is a pretty weak means of going about it.


But one has to acknowledge that when a consensus of people share the same aesthetic principles (even if they can't name them), then they have achieved a codified definition that limits the parameters of the subject, i.e. music (a very broad subject I hasten to add). Why on Earth would I acknowledge that a codified definition has been created when your example consensus cannot name the principles? How will I know that the people share the same aesthetic principles, when no two people actually do share all the same principles.

You mean to reduce the definition of music to "that set of principles which is shared among a majority of people?" That is the definition for "beauty" or any other variable term disguised as a noun. Alas, I now know only one or two beautiful people if I am contstrained by the limits of a poor attempt at a denotative definition.

For "music," the connotative definition (which is just as valid for purposes of communication, by the way) allows one to engage in all the metaphor their bored little mind can muster.

Grab the current consensus denotative definition for music (from, say, a dictionary). Now then... What is this thread about? Was JazzMick incapable of scaring up some denotative definition? Or was he fishing for out individual definitions?

The fact that the overwhelming majority of people will cite their own definition for music (read this thread as a microcosm) when confronted with such a question, the majority of which will involve elements related to inspiration, pleasing sound, etc., is rather telling. You see... if a majority define it that way, the the "consensus" opinion is not the denotative model you and Jimc8p imagine it to be. Are you sure you want a simply majority opinion on the denotative definition?

jimc8p
02-21-2008, 11:44 AM
Does the sound of nature constitute music?

The question requires definition of both 'music', and the effect of the sound of nature. Definition, as it literally implies, requires the cutting away of the hazy outlines of concepts, to reveal clear-cut and useful meanings to labels. Or a consensus of opinion/perception. For examples, see the dictionary!

'Music' denotes an aesthetic organisation of sound with certain variables in pitch, time, volume etc.

Although pseudo-musical effects can be experienced by some from other sound sources, they are, by definition, pseudo-musical effects.

Musical experience is variable, but music is not.

wonderdog
02-21-2008, 01:26 PM
Music does not exist until it is experienced, so that definition falls flat on its face. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to hear it, it makes no sound, because sound is a perceptual phenomenon. Music has no existence of its own absent the mind and ear of the listener.

The listener's mind, as much as any composer's intent, organizes sound into music, whether the sound is a Miles Davis recording or the clicking of a turn signal light.

However, the aesthetic principles that the listener's mind applies to organize said sound are much more universal than our contrarian Blutwulf likes to pretend. We are all products of a culture and are much less individual than we like to think.

jimc8p
02-21-2008, 01:37 PM
Music does not exist until it is experienced, so that definition falls flat on its face. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to hear it, it makes no sound, because sound is a perceptual phenomenon.

No. Sound is a physical phenomenon. Only its perception doesn't exist in the absence of a perceptor. Music is still music whilst noone is listening to it.

wonderdog
02-21-2008, 02:16 PM
No. Sound is a physical phenomenon. Only its perception doesn't exist in the absence of a perceptor. Music is still music whilst noone is listening to it.

We have physical adaptations that allow us to sense vibrations within a certain range of frequencies. Those vibrations are physical phenomena; sound is our experience of them through our sensory systems -- a product of the ear and mind. If you had different sensory organs for sensing vibrations -- such as a fish's lateral line -- you would not experience sound with them.

The same holds for colour: "red" is the product of our perception, not a physical reality. The physical reality is the wavelength of the light. The vision of deer and fish extends into the ultraviolet range, allowing them to see "colours" for which we don't even have names.

If "sound" is a physical phenomenon, what noun would you use to name "its perception?"

jimc8p
02-21-2008, 02:43 PM
I do take your point. 'Sound' describes both the physical phenomenon and its perception, since there is never an ordinary need to distinguish the two.

The effect of music, like the effect of sound, is a perception rather than anything concrete. However, 'music' itself is not so much of an abstract noun that only individual perceptions may define it. Music can be objectively recognised without reference to perception. Ie. the dictionary definition...'Music' is semantically finite. I guess that's the basis of my take on the question, but I do see where everyone is coming from.

jade_bodhi
02-21-2008, 08:34 PM
Is there a consensus on how much of a majority constitutes a consensus? If the task at hand is determining an objective identification of music, a "general agreement" is a pretty weak means of going about it.

I said general agreeement, i.e. a consensus, is about 80%. Do you want to argue that a consensus should be more or less? I happen to think if you get 80% of people to agree to a definition, then that's a strong agreement. If those 80% agree on what makes something beautiful, then you begin to have a dependable definition. It may not work for everybody, but I see four out of five a good start.



You mean to reduce the definition of music to "that set of principles which is shared among a majority of people?"
I said "consensus" which is different from "majority." I concede that there can be different definitions of music (cultural differences would posit that much) but I don't believe the cornflake nut can claim his idiosyncratic principles can define music for anyone but himself, and a definition, by definition, if you will, requires a consensus of people to believe it and make it a useful term. Otherwise, I might pass you a fork every time you ask for the salt. That's pure relativism to me.

dmsstudios
02-21-2008, 10:48 PM
Folks, here's your very first music lesson:

*Sound is a vibration.

*Music is a combo of sound & silence and must contain elements of:
-Rhythm
-Pitch
-Dynamics
-Structure
-Timbre
-Texture

On some level, sound contains all of these elements (except for silence), but more specifically, sound is just as chaotic as the universe itself.

Music is controlled and has parameters, specifically rhythm. Raindrops are sound, because even though they have rhythm, there is no intentional rhythmic consistency.

Can I get a concensus?

UKRuss
02-24-2008, 10:44 AM
Thank you Jade Bodhi,

The Mother of God 'is' vibration!
The science of Cymatics, which studies the effects of sound waves, has proven how vibrations create order out of chaos, the Egyptians called this principal Ma'at.

Watch how our Universe was created . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0

Don't get him started...:rolleyes:

Padawan
02-24-2008, 10:58 AM
go back to practising guys! :D

Michael. A
02-24-2008, 11:25 AM
I image that in the end it just comes down to taking sides and a definition that is accurate can not be found. We build our truths on ideology thats already in place and from there what do we do? Everything we can conceive is tainted by our circumstance. I think in the end we know nothing and that should be the thing that humbles us.

After that have a party :) because it doesn't really matter anyway.

JazzMick
02-24-2008, 01:41 PM
Just in response to MorningStar's post about vibrations creating order. Very cool youtube link.

However, and call me ignorant, but using those changing patterns as an example. Who is to say that they are any more orderly than the scattered (flour?) on the plate. Just because we see it as random one moment then as some kind of geometric pattern the next. Why should we assume one to be orderly and the other chaotic?

Also using the raindrop's as an example. Sure they may not be thrown down with any intentional pattern or rhythm. If we isolated certain groups of drops though, we could surely allow them to fall in a way that we find rhythmically pleasing or at the least. In a pattern that we recognize in some way.

Think of it as 5 orchestras all sitting together playing 5 different movements, of unfamiliar peices, at once. Assuming we didn't know certain groups were actually playing together. At a glance it, would appear to be a wave of horrible noise with no order what so ever.

With some carefully analysis though, the right strings and horns and percussion could be separated and placed in seemingly coherent groups.

Is it then coherent? or is it that we are accepting it as coherent because it reminds us of things we have heard. Or contains pleasing harmony's.

Anyway, looking forward to your descent :) I will be looking up Cymatic's after this. If anyone has any interesting information on it please send it my way.

MorningStar
02-24-2008, 03:39 PM
Does the sound of nature constitute music?
The sound of Nature 'is' music. The Primordial Vibration lives within everything, we just need to listen for it. The music made by Man is only the Earthly manifestation of the music of our Earth and Universe and ultimately the Divine Primordial Vibration from where everything was created.

jimc8p
02-25-2008, 08:38 AM
But isn't music just the art of sound? In other words about perception of aesthetics and analogy. In that case, what about nature's alarms such as babies crying, piglets screaming, cats fighting?...They're natural sounds that purposefully go against any conceivable forms of sonic aesthetics.

edit--In fact, I made a bad point here. These sounds are basic analogies right...even in the natural world? hmm..

JazzMick
02-25-2008, 10:29 AM
What exactly IS this divine primordial vibration??? Do boss make it in pedal form? or does it come in some audio sample pack like garritan instruments ;)

MorningStar
02-25-2008, 12:30 PM
LOL :D Boy, would that make a great product name or what??

jimc8p: Pythagoras in his treatise called Music of the Spheres along with many Sufi teachings and other Thoesphical writings the sounds all around us here on the Earthly plane are all made up and part of the Primordial Vibration. We have kust lost the ability to hear them speak to us. There are tiny symphonies all around us we just need to learn again how to hear them.

JazzMick:The Primordial Vibration is what happened the instant our Universe was exploded into being. This vibration is what made order out of what was chaos, the Egyptians called this principal Ma'at. Cymatics is the science that studies vibrations and wave forms. Everything is vibrations.

JazzMick
02-25-2008, 01:07 PM
Interesting. So God is a primordial vibration??

I wonder, do you have something a bit more substantial to support this theory?

The goddess Ma'at as I understand it was considered along the same lines as the Christian God or Allah or many other creators. I don't recall ever seeing this name and cymatics coming together? She sustained order in the universe but how does this relate to sound?

I guess I'm willing to concede that everything exists as some kind of wave form or vibration. Only because I'm ignorant and read a few Michio Kaku books once ;) it all sounds nice in theory.

Entirely convincing though? not sure. Supposedly these ideas support the big bang theory. Also something I don't quite agree with. For there to have been a beginning there had to be something to start it...big bang or otherwise. A big bang caused by some sound from another dimension? sounds like God to me and I wont agree to that.

It seems more logical to me that everything has always existed as it is. Sure things move and change, but I'm supposed to believe some supernatural being made all this? Some spaghetti monster from beyond the stars?

MorningStar
02-25-2008, 02:15 PM
Interesting. So God is a primordial vibration??
God was created from the Primordial Vibration

I wonder, do you have something a bit more substantial to support this theory?
The entire Hindu religion
Every book on Theosophy
Egyptian Hermetics
Sufiism
many other belief systems suppert this theory, even Christianity
'In the beginning there was the word (vibration) and the word became God'

The goddess Ma'at as I understand it was considered along the same lines as the Christian God or Allah or many other creators. I don't recall ever seeing this name and cymatics coming together? She sustained order in the universe but how does this relate to sound?
Before Ma'at became a deity she was a principal as were all the Egyptian Gods & Goddesses. Ma'at is Order as is the science of Cymatics. Vibrations put chaos into order.

I guess I'm willing to concede that everything exists as some kind of wave form or vibration. Only because I'm ignorant and read a few Michio Kaku books once ;) it all sounds nice in theory.

Entirely convincing though? not sure. Supposedly these ideas support the big bang theory. Also something I don't quite agree with. For there to have been a beginning there had to be something to start it...big bang or otherwise. A big bang caused by some sound from another dimension? sounds like God to me and I wont agree to that.

It seems more logical to me that everything has always existed as it is. Sure things move and change, but I'm supposed to believe some supernatural being made all this? Some spaghetti monster from beyond the stars?
That, my friend is another whole discussion :D

jimc8p
02-25-2008, 02:29 PM
Did you know that some people, whether naturally or through the use psychoactive drugs, perceive abnormal spiritual or religious saliency in the world around them? Like a disposition for the perception of ultimate significance. (I read due to excess dopamine coarsing through their temporal lobes or something.) Anyway, it often leads to strange and wholly encompassing spiritual belief systems, usually based on scraps of evidence here and there (much like delusions). MorningStar, I'm not presuming that your beliefs are like this, but I just wondered whether you realised that they come over as that sort of 'new age' mumbo jumbo?

MorningStar
02-25-2008, 05:24 PM
Ha! Ask me if I care?
What did Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Sibelius, Liszt, Stockhousen and I'm sure others have in common besides being great composers?
They were all Freemasons and some of them Illuminati. They all knew, studied and understood the 'Music of the Spheres'.
New Age? Very funny!

UKRuss
02-26-2008, 08:14 AM
I told you not to get him started.

JazzMick
02-26-2008, 10:11 AM
so what is there to learn from the 'music of the spheres' ? will the Illuminati make me a better musician?

MorningStar
02-26-2008, 11:53 AM
Most musicians it would, you . . . maybe not
lol Kidding!!!:D

UKRuss
02-26-2008, 12:43 PM
so what is there to learn from the 'music of the spheres' ? will the Illuminati make me a better musician?

Definitely, please make donations to my paypal account and you're in.

heh hehhh, morning star is like one of those guys you meet at a party, "hey I play guitar too!", perfectly normal conversation ensues for five minutes before he starts to wierd you out with talk of the cosmos and spirituality...i can feel it coming..i can feel it..."Music is Gods voice"...and there it is.

Nice to meet you, see you later.

:D

Sorry morningstar, just having a dig.;)

JazzMick
02-26-2008, 12:48 PM
*chuckles*

So what were the details for this paypal account? ;)

UKRuss
02-26-2008, 12:49 PM
illuminatigodmusic@hotmail.com

UKRuss
02-26-2008, 12:56 PM
I wonder, do you have something a bit more substantial to support this theory?

The answer MorningStar was searching for was:

No.

However, not to worry "Faith" is enough. Then, if you get enough people to have this "faith" in something you cannot prove you can start to use your pressure group to co-erce special tax status from the government and to leech public money for whatever purpose you see fit. You can own millions of dollars of assets without the worry of taxation, in fact in some cases you can get grants to upkeep these assets. In some countries, including the UK, if you have enough of this faith you can even assist in running the country with a complimentary place in the parliament. Purely based on your say so! It's like winning the lottery!


...Unless you are a hindu, who are all clearly mad, and are not afforded any of these priviledges. Clearly your god must resemble a human to some degree to have any credibility.

MorningStar
02-26-2008, 01:21 PM
Egads . . . the cruelty! LOL
And all I did was answer the original question 'Does the sound of nature constitute music?'

UKRuss
02-26-2008, 03:56 PM
Just breaking balls.:D Could easily have been some other unsuspecting IBM member.

Blutwulf
02-26-2008, 06:14 PM
Quote fest!

"A strong majority would be consensus, like a 4 to one ratio or greater, I would think." - Jade Bodhi
Followed by...
"I said 'consensus,' which is different from 'majority.'" - Jade Bodhi

You cannot redefine your terms in mid-argument after someone attacks the definition you chose initially. That is against the rules, and gives me the opportunity to say, "ipso farking facto" at the end of my immediate counterattack. Alas, I am far too lazy to reread this entire thread, and cannot recall what my stand was on it. I probably was building up to this sort of thing:

Music has a denotative definition, as does 'murder' or 'beautiful,' but the denotative definition exists only for illustrative purposes. A consensus, unanimous, or simply a majority agreement as to the defining characteristics of music is well and good for a dictionary, but is still not a compelling label until applied by someone to an event.

That is, something is not 'murder' unless deemed so. Even though a dictionary has a nice, tight, and consensus definition of 'murder,' we must all still make a decision as to whether an event was indeed murder. It is rather revealing when one considers that even though there are countless dictionaries with a definition for murder, those definitions do not exactly match the definitions in legal statutes. Also, even armed with the veritable plethora of consensusly-derived denotative definitions, we routinely (like, every time) have judicial oversight of arguments for and against an act being a 'murder.'

Whether or not a series of sounds is 'music' is similar in this regard. After the event, we must each decide if what we just heard was 'music.' All of the denotative definitions in the world will not make us agree. There is no judiciary to make that final arbitration; you are the judge.

As a better example, have 100 intelligent adults read the dictionary definition for "beautiful," and then have them both evaluate a series of 100 photographs. The variance of opinion will illustrate the value of a dictionary definition for a subjective appellation.


As far as the MorningStar stuff goes, I promised UKRuss that I'd stop harrassing people. Oddly, it looks like UKRuss himself could bear it no longer and had to comment. Whatever. Surely by now, MorningStar has developed a thick skin and is used to being roundly mocked. I mean... surely.

MorningStar
02-27-2008, 02:10 AM
If I read any Sirius rebuttle or semi-intelligent diatribe pointing out my folly as interpreter of the Primordial Vibration then I might feel mocked
Of which I don't . . . :)

UKRuss
02-27-2008, 08:31 AM
You are protected by god and who can argue with that eh?;)

Me? I have the FSM to turn to. (Touched by His noodly appendage)

BTW, Do you know where I can get a reconditioned "Sirius Rebuttle" stomp box? I find using them in series with the "Primordial Vibration" expression pedal really gives me that hendrix tone.

JazzMick
02-27-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm yet to hear any real definition of this Primordial Vibration.

All I have so far is "it is God"

UKRuss
02-27-2008, 12:52 PM
That's because it's utter nonsense...:D

Primordial Vibration my arse.

jimc8p
02-27-2008, 01:48 PM
If I read any Sirius rebuttle or semi-intelligent diatribe pointing out my folly as interpreter of the Primordial Vibration then I might feel mocked
Of which I don't . . . :)

many other belief systems suppert this theory, even Christianity
'In the beginning there was the word (vibration) and the word became God'
Don't think I need to point out the interpreter's folly there! It's this kind of assumption that produces these self-fulfilling hypotheses. It would be interesting to take a step back and ask yourself how rational each of your separate assumptions and leaps of faith are...

MorningStar
02-27-2008, 02:06 PM
I think it makes sense, all of physics points towards vibrations as the make up of everything, every belief system has pointed towards this Divine utterence or word. Pythagoras understood it, everyone from Fripp to Bowie to Mozart & Beethoven to Wagner, McLaughlin, Shankar . . . they all get it and acknowledge it.

jimc8p
02-27-2008, 02:46 PM
Vibrations do make up the Universe. All matter is just energy as far as we know. It's these kinds of way out facts that hint at spiritual significance and become the basis of weird minority belief systems. DNA is another classic.

Just remember that the insignificant becomes significant in light of a hypothesis. This couldn't be better exemplified by "In the beginning there was the word (vibration) and the word became God". If you can make these sorts of obviously unsubstantiated presumptions, then imagine how susceptible you are to people promoting such (apparently supported) claims about Pythagoras, Mozart, Freemasons etc. Always question..blind faith is no good.


Music has a denotative definition, as does 'murder' or 'beautiful,' but the denotative definition exists only for illustrative purposes...That is, something is not 'murder' unless deemed so...we must all still make a decision as to whether an event was indeed murder.
'Beautiful' is too abstract to be a useful analogy, and 'murder' is one of the few examples of a concept that must be decided upon by consensus! I think the best analogy is 'art' (specifically visual-conceptual art). It is a similarly wide and subjective term. When someone watches a sunset, feeling an emotional response, is that sunset art? I think it's slightly clearer in this analogy that the concept of art does require some form of human intention, despite us consensually appreciating the scene. This, by analogy, can be taken a step further. Somone gazing wistfully at a dog turd may be experiencing all sorts of emotions, but does that make it art? Much less so IMO, simply due to the fact that most people would see no significance in the object. If it was in an art gallery, then it's a different story. Human intention is key I think.

UKRuss
02-27-2008, 03:44 PM
I am vibrating musically as we speak.

Blutwulf
02-28-2008, 10:03 AM
Human intention is key I think. We're getting pretty close with our assertions, here. My claim is that the intent of the beholder makes it music/art/beauty/murder/etc. Yours is that the creator of the piece must be attempting to produce art/music/yada.

But by your scale, we must then give at least a tiny investment of serious (Sirius?) regard to Morningstar's diseased ramblings as "considered thought," for surely that is his goal and packaging. I just cannot do that. We'll have to live with us being as close as we are, with the dwindling delta being inconsequential.

Besides, I have now been attracted to the derailment...


I think it makes sense, all of physics points towards vibrations as the make up of everything, every belief system has pointed towards this Divine utterence or word. Pythagoras understood it, everyone from Fripp to Bowie to Mozart & Beethoven to Wagner, McLaughlin, Shankar . . . they all get it and acknowledge it.
1) The unified theory points to waves and particles losing exclusive distinction. If one buys the current prevailing unified model, then one can assert that everything physical is made of "vibrations." So far so good. Kind of. That is, if one is only concerned with the physical and wants to exclude metaphysics (which would be an odd thing to do if one were a barmy loon infatuated with quasi-Eastern mysticism).

2) No, not every belief system points at a divine utterance or word, much less the positing of the divine. Go back to your manuals. Write on the chalkboard 1000 times: "I am a victim of my limited study of comparative religion."

3) Pythagoras wouldn't eat beans, and refused to cross a doorway if it had a feather in it. The Pythagoreans were a pack of nutcases, really. In a study of Western philosophy, they are a comical note brought in to lighten moods.

4) Robert Fripp is a pretentious weenie who finally found a smallish niche in the market by appealing to those who value "difference for difference's sake." But damn, he can play a guitar. Frippertronics are an element of cosmological understanding? Please.

5) David Bowie was fantastic at releasing album after album with whatever marketable, disposable musical style was demanded by pop radio at the time. As the market changed, so did he. He has money 10 miles up a bull's arse right now, because his philosophy of composition is "they want that? This'll sell then."

6) Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner were great composers. Slimebags as people, not noted for their thoughts, but damn, they could write orchestrated pieces.

7) John McLaughlin sure can play fast. In the late 60's, when all other styles of popular, marketable music was going through the transformation brought on by coast-to-coast television, drugs, and the youth movement, he decided to package jazz as some pretentious, pseudointellectual balm for youth seeking anything other than boring ol' lame Western inagery. Like many, many, of his contemporaries, McLaughling hit a bong, and went with "The Mahavishnu Orchestra." Yeaaaaah, man... far out. It is all Easterny and stuff. Surely gotta mean some heavy ****. But damn, he can play fast.

8) You would never have heard of Ravi Shankar were it not for some pretentious pop act trying to wear a different imagery from pageboy haircuts. Popularization does not equal greatness.


Hint: If you want to buttress an assertion, you should try something better than appeals to authority. Try regailing us with some sort of reasoning behind your assertions, rather than simply sating, "The fountain is magical - Galadriel says so."

Blutwulf
02-28-2008, 10:18 AM
I am a big fan of McLaughlin's guitar playing, by the way. "Birds of Fire" is in my car for my commutes, even as we speak. But the guy is from where? North Hampton? Isn't that where they made "Keeping up with Appearances?" Did Mrs. Bucket (Bouquet...) have a shrine for Ganesh in her back room? What would the vicar think?*

Okay, maybe he wasn't from North Hampton. Perhaps he was from some place in England where Hindu mythology has a larger role in the local culture, and he was not just some kid at the time just trying to be different. Maybe it wasn't just a fashion statement. But even if it were not, perhaps you should learn Eastern mysticism from the real deals and not from New Age proselytes? Surely you can find better sources?

*Yeah, I am American. But thanks to P.G. Wodehouse and Monty Python's Flying Circus, many Americans became enamored with "British Comedy." The geniuses at the networks decided that Americans would like ANY comedy from the BBC. So now, when we want to see John Cleese, we get to see Mrs. Bucket. God, how I hate the networks.

MorningStar
02-28-2008, 12:10 PM
I concede, obviously the vernacular verbosity here is of the highest grade and silly little 'new age' terds like myself have no business coverting with such advanced minds as yourselves . . . I leave in peace.

Blutwulf
02-28-2008, 01:44 PM
I concede, obviously the vanacular verbosity here is of the highest grade and silly little 'new age' terds like myself have no business coverting with such advanced minds as yourselves . . . I leave in peace.What? Oh, come on. You take a break when people try to act like modern, marketable recordings are more significant than they are. Don't quit when people make fun of tastes.

I am listening to "Fool for the City" by Foghat, right now. I found an old copy of Black Oak Arkansas' first Atco album yesterday, and giggled all the way through "Lord Have Mercy on My Soul." The last song I recorded was a heavily-distorted version of "Key to the Highway."

Shoot back, dude. Don't leave.

MorningStar
02-28-2008, 02:26 PM
Actuall I am listening to Charley Patton here at work myself! :D

jade_bodhi
02-28-2008, 11:07 PM
MorningStar, I'm not presuming that your beliefs are like this, but I just wondered whether you realised that they come over as that sort of 'new age' mumbo jumbo?

Hinduism is hardly "new" age mumbo jumbo. I'm with MorningStar on this.

Jade

jade_bodhi
02-28-2008, 11:14 PM
However, not to worry "Faith" is enough. Then, if you get enough people to have this "faith" in something you cannot prove you can start to use your pressure group to co-erce special tax status from the government and to leech public money for whatever purpose you see fit. You can own millions of dollars of assets without the worry of taxation, in fact in some cases you can get grants to upkeep these assets. In some countries, including the UK, if you have enough of this faith you can even assist in running the country with a complimentary place in the parliament. Purely based on your say so! It's like winning the lottery!


...Unless you are a hindu, who are all clearly mad, and are not afforded any of these priviledges. Clearly your god must resemble a human to some degree to have any credibility.

Russ: You are usually so cool and impartial. I am surprised you are taking a stand, however tongue in cheek, on this. Why so dismissive of spiritual tendencies, especially the blessed Hindus. In my experience, they aren't hypocritical as the charlatans of American evangelism. Cut the Hindus, and MorningStar, a break.

Jadie

jade_bodhi
02-28-2008, 11:19 PM
Quote fest!

"A strong majority would be consensus, like a 4 to one ratio or greater, I would think." - Jade Bodhi
Followed by...
"I said 'consensus,' which is different from 'majority.'" - Jade Bodhi

You cannot redefine your terms in mid-argument after someone attacks the definition you chose initially. That is against the rules, and gives me the opportunity to say, "ipso farking facto" at the end of my immediate counterattack. Alas, I am far too lazy to reread this entire thread, and cannot recall what my stand was on it.

I'm going back to calling you Mister Blutwulf. I don't see why you pick on my language. You just want to pick. That is what you do. I adhere to logic; you do not. A consensus is a majority, but a majority in not a consensus. Please treat my language with care. Give it your attention. You are starting to "boor" me, if you will.

jade_bodhi
02-28-2008, 11:30 PM
But by your scale, we must then give at least a tiny investment of serious (Sirius?) regard to Morningstar's diseased ramblings as "considered thought," for surely that is his goal and packaging. I just cannot do that.

If you're not willing to grant Morningstar's "ramblings" as real and credible interpretations of what consitutes music, then why do you grant the cornflake nut his theory of what constitutes music. You contradict yourself, Mr. Blutwulf. Your relativism is not pure philosophy but caprice.

jimc8p
02-29-2008, 08:58 AM
Hinduism is hardly "new" age mumbo jumbo. I'm with MorningStar on this.

Jade
Jade, are you saying that the beliefs expressed by Morningstar reflect a Hindu philosophy? Did you miss the bits about tiny symphonies and the Illuminati? Bowie a Pythagorean? Egyptian cymatics? I understand you siding with Morningstar on the basis of him bringing a spiritual element, and he is entitled to an opinion. But if he's going to bandy around irrational mysticism, he has to take the discussion that may follow. (Which he has done well, despite it only highlighting the irrationality.)

Blutwulf
02-29-2008, 10:01 AM
Hinduism is hardly "new" age mumbo jumbo. I'm with MorningStar on this.Indeed, one cannot call Hinduism "New Age mumbo jumbo." I doubt anyone would disagree with you. So from your point, I am guessing that you imagine that Morningstar is Hindu. He is no more Hindu than is Jerry Fallwell.


Why so dismissive of spiritual tendencies, especially the blessed Hindus. In my experience, they aren't hypocritical as the charlatans of American evangelism. Cut the Hindus, and MorningStar, a break.UKRuss was dismissive of Morningstar, who is proseletyzing like some teenager who read the first chapter from the Gita. I work with about 80 people and have 8 working for me who are the real deal. Morningstar's babblings are an insult to people I care a great deal about.


I'm going back to calling you Mister Blutwulf. I don't see why you pick on my language. You just want to pick. That is what you do. I adhere to logic; you do not. A consensus is a majority, but a majority in not a consensus. Please treat my language with care. Give it your attention. You are starting to "boor" me, if you will.If I "boor" you, the solution is to skip any posts with my name off to the left, over there. This forum may even have an "ignore" feature. If you don't ignore me, then you may want to read up on ontology so you'll understand that the universal identity of music you seek is simply a manifestation of the Platonic modeling which has been ingrained in you as an undeniable model itself. As hard as it might be for you to imagine, there is supportability in eschewing universals. I can readily see the luxury in adhereing to them, but I cannot make myself do so. Alas. My model of existence goes beyond the online Webster's.


If you're not willing to grant Morningstar's "ramblings" as real and credible interpretations of what consitutes music, then why do you grant the cornflake nut his theory of what constitutes music. You contradict yourself, Mr. Blutwulf. Your relativism is not pure philosophy but caprice.Morningstar asserted nothing more, musically, than agreement with me. I was mocking his limited understanding of Eastern religion. I did not contradict myself.


Jade, are you saying that the beliefs expressed by Morningstar reflect a Hindu philosophy? Did you miss the bits about tiny symphonies and the Illuminati? Bowie a Pythagorean? Egyptian cymatics? I understand you siding with Morningstar on the basis of him bringing a spiritual element, and he is entitled to an opinion. But if he's going to bandy around irrational mysticism, he has to take the discussion that may follow. (Which he has done well, despite it only highlighting the irrationality.)Check out her posting name, Jim. Nothing you say will reach your intended target.


Jade, as hard as it may be to believe, one can mock another's pseudointellectualism and butchering of philosphy without mocking that tool's ostensible source material. One can indict someone for their babblings without indicting the religion(s) to which they are claiming adherence. Like I say, whenever I hear Morningstar carrying on with his nonsense it insults, say, my friend Shalini who is a Mallu from Kerala who is openly and unashamedly pious in her religion. Why? Because she is actually Hindu and knows what she is talking about. He is some dork who finds it all "neato," "coooool," and imagines he can seem a bit esoteric if he carries on about it.

It will be absurd if this thread gets closed due to religious concerns, since the only religion in the thread is the quest of dumbarses to "Be Different."

UKRuss
02-29-2008, 10:25 AM
No need to make excuses for me. :D

Just to clarify I don't think I said hinduism was New Age Mumbo Jumbo. I just pointed out that in a society where religions are afforded many benefits and previledges simple based on faith (read: not having to actually prove their position is correct, faith is enough apparently) Hinduism is excluded.

Why? because for those religions whose god/s appear to have some kind of human form, Hinduism is not a real religion and is therefore not given the same previledges as Christians, Jews and Muslims. At least that is how it is here in the UK.

But from a personal stand point I make no excuses that my personal belief is that all things spiritual and supernatural including all religion, of any type, is utter nonsense.

I respect other people's right to believe whatever they wish to believe, but I do not have to respect the beliefs themselves, and I don't.

That, to me, doesn't make me a bad person although i understand that most of these religions have me down as the veyr definition of a bad person simply because i don't believe what they believe. Couldn't care less as long as they afford me the same respect for being allowed to believe what I believe.

Unfortunately, they don't.

Morningstar is upset because I have mocked his beliefs. I believe that it is my right to do so.

After all, he did just turn up in this thread and begin to throw his beliefs around as undeniable truths, which I felt obliged to point out that I find utter nonsense and more than that, offensive to my intelligence.

Religion is an insult to human dignity.

Blutwulf
02-29-2008, 10:40 AM
After all, he did just turn up in this thread and begin to throw his beliefs around as undeniable truths, which I felt obliged to point out that I find utter nonsense and more than that, offensive to my intelligence.Ooooooh, can I go derail the guys talking about synesthesia?

I wasn't making an excuse for you, per se. I was pointing out that Morningstar was your target for doing exactly what you said. Sure, you could easily create a post mocking religion, but I bet money that if someone had intelligently posted and their religion were merely apparent rather than hawked like a stolen watch, you'd have let it pass.

I've been an atheist my whole life. It wasn't because I sussed anything out, or because I "became" one. I just am me. I grew up oddly. Most people through socialization are steeped in a religion, and it sticks (for instance, most Western atheists believe there is only one God, and he don't exist, hahahha). I missed out on that. You think I wouldn't love the comfort of a religious belief?

Wow, what an amazing turn this thread hath taken. I blame Pythagoras and Robert Fripp.

Padawan
02-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Yeah, I'd just play phrygian dominant over it, or maybe some diminished licks :rolleyes:

UKRuss
02-29-2008, 11:11 AM
It's really quite different here in the UK. Religion really is a fringe hobby that no-one really pays much attention to (even with the demonisation of islam, it's still really a minority of people of the whole population who engage in any religious activity at all.)

So most of us grow up atheist but respectful of religion, now it is changing where people are becoming less tolerant of religion as they try more and more to impose themselves on the normal lives of everyone else.

If they just shut up and got on with it in their own time and with their own money (not my tax pound) I wouldn't bat an eyelid. But come knocking on my door with your pamphlets and your pseudo-intellectual religio-babble and your gonna get both barrels (I mean that in the UK sense of a vocal hammering rather than a US sense of actually blasting them with a shotgun), right back up the street.

East Grinstead, a nearby town to where I live, passes through some "laylines" whatever the hell they are. So we've got all manner of cults set up around the place. Scientologists, 7th day Adventists, Jehova's crew, you name it, they all come a-knocking. And they all get the same "donation":eek:

I suppose my "attack" in this thread is based on a previous Morningstar excursion, I felt a quick slap down was the best approach.;)

It's tedious to have to wade through his ramblings which merely demonstrate a life spent smoking too much dope and formulating alternative realities in which he chooses to live.

Blutwulf
02-29-2008, 11:16 AM
East Grinstead, a nearby town to where I live, passes through some "laylines" whatever the hell they are. So we've got all manner of cults set up around the place. Scientologists, 7th day Adventists, Jehova's crew, you name it, they all come a-knocking. And they all get the same "donation":eek: AHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Ley lines! Hey, you know, that is real, and stuff. They have proven it.

Man, we really need to drink a beer together. I'll try to get work to send me over to England this year. It'd be worth putting up with Jonathan to get to meet you.

UKRuss
02-29-2008, 12:27 PM
Never say no to that! Let me know if you're coming over.:D

MorningStar
02-29-2008, 02:44 PM
Gee there Bluntwulf, you certainly assume quite alot don't you? We must go waaaay back being that you know me so well. I don't mind discussing things and you can ridicule my beliefs but until I get an apology for all the name calling you have done to me I will consider this forum unusable, grow up. I don't believe I deserved that at all. Thanks Russ Mr. Mod for looking the other way as Bluntwulf berated me for no reason, perhaps you need to re read your own posting rules and netiquette.

jimc8p
02-29-2008, 03:02 PM
Morningstar, you gotta take the sh*t if you keep on about this stuff. The berating was light-hearted or part of the discussion and there was no name-calling anyway. You'll find the rest of society is a lot less accommodating!

Blutwulf
02-29-2008, 03:07 PM
I don't believe I deserved that at all.Who chose to truck out their nonsense in a bulletin board for all to remark upon? Who chose to proclaim to know the "truth" and who chose to crow it in a forum dedicated to responses? Who chose to display themeselves for public critique? You posed; I critiqued. You don't like the critique, then stop posing. You deserved it completely.

If you do not want to invite comment, then I suggest avoiding such proclaimations in a bulletin board. If I apologize to anyone, it will be to the admins and moderators of this board for potentially running off a poster. If they lose you, Morningstar, they may never forgive me. Please stay. I'll be nicer, I promise.

MorningStar
02-29-2008, 03:17 PM
Jade, are you saying that the beliefs expressed by Morningstar reflect a Hindu philosophy? Did you miss the bits about tiny symphonies and the Illuminati? Bowie a Pythagorean? Egyptian cymatics? I understand you siding with Morningstar on the basis of him bringing a spiritual element, and he is entitled to an opinion. But if he's going to bandy around irrational mysticism, he has to take the discussion that may follow. (Which he has done well, despite it only highlighting the irrationality.)
Many of the beliefs I stated are from Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan

MorningStar
02-29-2008, 03:34 PM
It's tedious to have to wade through his ramblings which merely demonstrate a life spent smoking too much dope and formulating alternative realities in which he chooses to live.

Now, WE go way back huh? I don't do drugs.

MorningStar
02-29-2008, 03:41 PM
Morningstar, you gotta take the sh*t if you keep on about this stuff. The berating was light-hearted or part of the discussion and there was no name-calling anyway. You'll find the rest of society is a lot less accommodating!
You really need to re read the posts, there was plenty of name calling.

elmariachi
02-29-2008, 09:22 PM
Yeah was a bit harsh at times. Its one thing debating over something but no need to call the guy a dumbass.

JazzMick
03-02-2008, 11:55 AM
Don't make me turn the hose on you lot!

I started this thread to provoke some intelligent discussion, not a scrap.

UKRuss
03-03-2008, 08:18 AM
Intelligent "design" discussion;)

UKRuss
03-03-2008, 08:34 AM
Well, I for one apologise for any direct personal insult. I only mean to mock belief systems, which I believe I am still entitled to do in what is left of our democracy.

We must all remember, the internet is serious business.

carriestar44
03-04-2008, 10:02 PM
Just two words creativity and originality!