Members droolmaster0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Again, to be repetitive...Definitions are made to be definite...which is why they're frequently re-thought and re-written. Trying to carve something in stone just makes you have to re-carve later.On the other hand, if we look at precedent--what actually is being done, the way music is made and taught today (at least at the educational level) it is grounded in a system that does not allow for Noise creations. This was only my point all along. In terms of opinion, it's YOUR opinion that this way of classifying music is somewhat arbitrary and leaves room for interpretation. I actually agree with you. But, in the reality of professional music today, internationally, the western system of notation is the foundation of musical compositions.This is YOUR opinion. This is YOUR definition of music. I'm not sure if I've arrived there, yet...which is why I've been trying to get a conversation about things being "musical" and whether or not that inherently makes them "music". Noise seems to come from a separate approach to music-making than, to my knowledge, ALL other music. What other music exists today without a time signature? That's a real question. I'd love to know. Please quote me - where did I say that the definition of music that you used was "arbitrary". I did not say this. First rule - quote people correctly, and if you infer, make sure that you're correct. You still don't get it, and obviously you're not educable. Your last statement is an indication that everything that's being said is either being willfully ignored, or just not understood. Music need not be noise to exist without a time signature. I can use pitched tones, and algorithmically place them in time so that they can be enjoyed as music, but without a time signature. Or would you say that this is noise despite the fact that it uses pitched tones? Whether something uses a "different approach" really depends on how fine a granularity you're using in your differentiation. You could say that all composers have used different approaches, or you could encompass all of the traditional European composers under your definition and say that this defines a single approach... on the other hand, what is relevant here is whether the composer, or 'composer' is organizing the sounds (whatever they might be) in time (however this is done - even if it's only choices made on a very macrocosmic level) to be listened to... Yeah - I've done the academic thing myself (not in music), but you have to be able to step away from it, and see how ludicrous it can be sometimes. I'd guess that in your case you haven't gotten that far yet, because you have something to gain by brainwashing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 "Unity and Continuity"...I'd love to know where the unity and continuity in the clip Pighood posted is.Some have questioned Cecil Taylor's shows in a similar manner. I thought he played randomly until my friend pointed out his repeated quotes of a piece with which she was familiar (no it wasn't by John Cage, ya smartashes ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Here's Webster's definition of music:http://www.webster.com/dictionary/musicLooks like Merriam-Webster took a diplomatic tact with #1 above, in offering a and b versions of #1. The b version is there for keeping folks like akliner, Audacity Works, Bonso, etc. happy and the a version is there for keeping folks like Allerian, Autechre, Merzbow, etc. happy. Definitions aren't prescriptive. They're descriptive. For such a complex AND simple topic like what music is, why in the bloody hell would you care about what a short dictionary definition is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 You still don't get it, and obviously you're not educable. Your last statement is an indication that everything that's being said is either being willfully ignored, or just not understood. Music need not be noise to exist without a time signature. I can use pitched tones, and algorithmically place them in time so that they can be enjoyed as music, but without a time signature. Or would you say that this is noise despite the fact that it uses pitched tones? Can it be counted in time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 "Unity and Continuity"...I'd love to know where the unity and continuity in the clip Pighood posted is.I'm a little weird...I also liek teh girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I'm a little weird... I also liek teh girls. AN ABOMINATION AGAINST GOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Don Solaris Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Saying that one interprets sound on the quantum level is nonsense. I don't think it's nonsense at all. First, our ear is not a receiver - it is just a converter. It takes gas pressure differences as "input" and gives electrical current as output. Current is made of electrons. Electrons (along with the photons) are the heart of modern quantum mechanics. Therefore, whatever is happening with the "listening", is happening on the quantum level, NOT on the level of the size of our ear or the eardrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 AN ABOMINATION AGAINST GOD! Denim God or Gingham God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Can it be counted in time? ? Well, I don't see why it would be a requirement, unless by your decree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I don't think it's nonsense at all. First, our ear is not a receiver - it is just a converter. It takes gas pressure differences as "input" and gives electrical current as output. Current is made of electrons. Electrons (along with the photons) are the heart of modern quantum mechanics. Therefore, whatever is happening with the "listening", is happening on the quantum level, NOT on the level of the size of our ear or the eardrum. You don't understand. Music isn't descriptive of something that happens on the subatomic level, and the differentiation that our mind makes about music, versus, say, the smell of a meatloaf, doesn't take place on the subatomic level. That is not the same thing as saying that there aren't 'events' occurring on this level, but the differentiation into our concepts doesn't exist there, and isn't possible to be derived from there. This is NOT a discussion about what might be taking place on the subatomic level when music is being played, but whether, in isolation, the interpretation of something AS music takes place on this level. Obviously it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 ? Well, I don't see why it would be a requirement, unless by your decree. That's not the question. If what you've programed comes out as tones coming out in time, then it has a time signature. Therefore, yes! It is music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Denim God or Gingham God?PVC God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Definitions aren't prescriptive. They're descriptive. For such a complex AND simple topic like what music is, why in the bloody hell would you care about what a short dictionary definition is? After pages of arguments over the definition of music, I just thought I'd take a look at Webster's. I don't care as much as you think, bro. Just chillin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 That's not the question.If what you've programed comes out as tones coming out in time, then it has a time signature.Therefore, yes! It is music. So, you're saying that BY DEFINITION, if the tones exist in time (which of course, would have to be the case. If they existed in an omelet, we wouldn't hear them) they are music. So, why did you ask if it had a time signature? And if, then, everything has a time signature by definition, then so would noise composition. In which case, the only thing which violates your ethics is the fact that it isn't pitched? What if, then, someone put in ONE pitched tone amongst the noise? Would it be music then? What about 25%? 50%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 So, you're saying that BY DEFINITION, if the tones exist in time (which of course, would have to be the case. If they existed in an omelet, we wouldn't hear them) they are music. So, why did you ask if it had a time signature? And if, then, everything has a time signature by definition, then so would noise composition. In which case, the only thing which violates your ethics is the fact that it isn't pitched? What if, then, someone put in ONE pitched tone amongst the noise? Would it be music then? What about 25%? 50%? Time being a countable measure. Not just counting in space. In terms of Pighood's clip, no...I cannot count a countable measure. I would not consider that music. In terms of Allerian's work, for the few tracks I've heard I've been able to count a beat and discern tones. I would consider that music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 After pages of arguments over the definition of music, I just thought I'd take a look at Webster's.I don't care as much as you think, bro. Just chillin... Webster's Schmebster's. I'm into fringe sounds. Personally, I'm happy when someone comments that my music annoys them. At least it's being listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Webster's Schmebster's. I'm into fringe sounds. Personally, I'm happy when someone comments that my music annoys them. At least it's being listened to. I'm asking you seriously: How do YOU approach songwriting? When you work, how do you build your tracks? p.s. the Pighood's clip I was referring to was the "Dylan of Noise" YouTube vid...not any of YOUR work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 Webster's Schmebster's. I'm into fringe sounds. Personally, I'm happy when someone comments that my music annoys them. At least it's being listened to. I just thought it was funny that Webster can't even agree with itself on what music is, but looks like I'm the only one. No biggie though. You play shows at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I just thought it was funny that Webster can't even agree with itself on what music is, but looks like I'm the only one. No biggie though. You play shows at all? I thought it was funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I'm asking you seriously:How do YOU approach songwriting? When you work, how do you build your tracks?p.s. the Pighood's clip I was referring to was the "Dylan of Noise" YouTube vid...not any of YOUR work I don't write songs...I assemble sounds from nature with artificial sources, and spice the lot up with my huge spice rack of AU effects. Totally intuitive process. Results are minimalist, surreal & atmospheric. Organum/Lustmordic. Used to do more traditional prog electronic...but gravitated towards more improvised, unduplicatable works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 You play shows at all? Nevah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members akliner Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I don't write songs...I assemble sounds from nature with artificial sources, and spice the lot up with my huge spice rack of AU effects. Totally intuitive process. Results are minimalist, surreal & atmospheric. Organum/Lustmordic.Used to do more traditional prog electronic...but gravitated towards more improvised, unduplicatable works. Where can I find your work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 ...I also liek teh girls. this quote next to your avatar made me giggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pighood Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 3.8% of it is here:www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=283765 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 you could fist {censored} those nostrils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.