Page 1 of 2
#1
Music and noise are both sound. But quite different from each other.

Where does noise end and music begin?

Is it possible for music to occur without people creating it?


I'll start off with those two questions.
I think they'll provide enough of a frame for an interesting discussion.
No need to answer either of them specifically. They just provide a place to launch.


EDIT:
Concepts introduced during discussion:
- Patterns and organization
- Pleasant / unpleasant
- Individual perception?
- Intent of creator?
- Communication?
- Art?
- Evokes emotions, triggers abstractions?
- Natural occurrence possible?
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
Last edited by SomeoneYouKnew at Dec 22, 2009,
#2
"Noise" is a pejorative term used by elitists (like me) to describe rap "music".

The creation of music is not dependent on people: birds.
Last edited by bangoodcharlote at Dec 20, 2009,
#3
Quote by bangoodcharlote
"Noise" is a pejorative term used by elitists (like me) to describe Metal "music".

Music is not dependent on people: birds.


Fixed
#4
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Music and noise are both sound. But quite different from each other.

Where does noise end and music begin?

Is it possible for music to occur without people creating it?


I'll start off with those two questions.
I think they'll provide enough of a frame for an interesting discussion.
No need to answer either of them specifically. They just provide a place to launch.

people tend to think of sound as noise when there doesnt seem to be a pattern or any sort of organization they can follow. but really, its the listener who decides what music is or isnt. really any sound can be used to create music.

people dont need to create it, but they are needed to interpret it as music.

Quote by bangoodcharlote
Music is not dependent on people: birds.

no. birds dont make music on purpose. they are just communicating with one another. its we as humans who see this as "music". its kind of like how john cage finds traffic noise to be as musical as anything else. its just how we view it.

basically, music or art isnt art or music until we say it is.
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Dec 20, 2009,
#5
My post has been fixed. If we're going to argue that people are needed to interpret sound as music, then music depends on people, yes. But the creation of the sound does not!
#6
Each person can defines music differently. If you look at a lot of 20th century music, you'll notice that it's nothing like the normal symphonies you're used to hearing. Such as John Cage. One of his scores says for one of the movements to do something like scoop your left eye out with, then for the next movement, wait 5 years, and do the same to your right. Check it 4'33" and The Threnody for the Hiroshima Victims (Penderecki, not John Cage). The definition of music is becoming very vague.

And as much as I dislike rap, technically it's still music in a sense. A lot of people like to consider music to be "organized sound."
Quote by obeythepenguin
You win this thread. Pipe organs FTW.


Quote by ShadesOfGray
Let's take it one step further and add a slogan:

Big Bach is listening you!
#7
More questions just arose...

Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
people tend to think of sound as noise when there doesnt seem to be a pattern or any sort of organization they can follow.
What constitutes a "pattern"? How defined does it have to be?

Speech is highly patterned. That isn't really music, is it?

Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
basically, music or art isnt art or music until we say it is.
Who is "we"?
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#8
I'd say music is art using sound as a medium, and noise is unpleasant sound. There are some sounds which are both noise and music (such as rap music for some [not me]), and other things which are neither music, nor noise (such as the sound of a beach).

Quote by bangoodcharlote
"Noise" is a pejorative term used by elitists (like me) to describe rap "music".


Wouldn't you also say it has more of a universal (maybe with the odd exception like John Cage), meaning, for things like nails on a chalkboard, or alarm clocks, or the sounds of power tools?
#9
Music is noise and noise is music. The way we, as humans, define music is in the eye of the beholder.
no. birds dont make music on purpose. they are just communicating with one another. its we as humans who see this as "music". its kind of like how john cage finds traffic noise to be as musical as anything else. its just how we view it.

basically, music or art isnt art or music until we say it is.


It is the same thing with this
Call me Andrew. It's my name.

Quote by theogonia777
i fond God too, man! i sat next to him on the bus once. he told be the meaning of life and then gave me a pretzel. i can't remember what the meaning of live was, but it was a good pretzel, man!
#10
Quote by GoIrish668
Music is noise and noise is music. The way we, as humans, define music is in the eye of the beholder.



I think you mean in the "ear" of the beholder Okay, silly joke.

Anyway, I agree that music is relative. I think it's in each person to say whether they consider something as music or not. For some, birds chirping may be just a regular sound, but for others, music. And I think noise is just annoying sound, something that it's not pleasant for the individual hearing it. And sound... well everything the ear can perceive? I go with the cientific definition of sound. Music is a set (pattern was mentioned above, maybe that's more accurate) of sounds, and so is noise. Both are sound, but how a person perceives them is what defines whether they are music or noise, IMO.
#11
Quote by isaac_bandits
I'd say music is art using sound as a medium, and noise is unpleasant sound. There are some sounds which are both noise and music (such as rap music for some [not me]), and other things which are neither music, nor noise (such as the sound of a beach).
interesting, but perplexing. the word "art" is poorly defined anyway, so it isn't gonna help us much.

you've introduced another factor pleasant/unpleasant.

I get how something might bridge the gap between music and noise. But other than speech, I kinda have a difficult time of thinking of something as neither.

Why is the sound of the beach neither?
what keeps it from being music? what keeps it from being noise?
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#12
Music is an abstract term. We use it most often when referring to things we listen to for entertainment. Some people use the term for things that other people might not include in their definition (i.e. things like 4' 33", etc). There are things I wouldn't call music that other people would, and vice versa. Honestly, there is no concrete way to differentiate between 'music' and 'noise' because neither of those things can have precise definitions that apply to everyone.
#13
If it's meant to be music, it's music.

How is the sound of the beach NOT noise? As far as I know, any kind of sound can be classified as noise.
#14
I think the important factor is the listener.

Not the "hear"-er, but the listener. I think anything listened to as music is. I find lots of speech, ambient noise, etc, musical in nature and open to imitation and enjoyment.
#15
Quote by Freepower
I find lots of speech, ambient noise, etc, musical in nature and open to imitation and enjoyment.

Speech can be made hypnotisingly musical if you manipulate it the right way.
#17
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
interesting, but perplexing. the word "art" is poorly defined anyway, so it isn't gonna help us much.


I've always thought of art as something which is designed to be that way to be beautiful or pleasing. So something human made for our enjoyment.


Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I get how something might bridge the gap between music and noise. But other than speech, I kinda have a difficult time of thinking of something as neither.

Why is the sound of the beach neither?
what keeps it from being music? what keeps it from being noise?


Well, considering music as sound-art, and defining art to be human made, the sound of the beach (as in the waves, not the people on the beach) is not human made, and therefore is not music.

I assumed that people don't find the sound of the beach unpleasant, and therefore it wouldn't be noise. If you were trying to write an exam though, the sound of the beach would probably be noise.

So that makes me think: Noise is based on what people think of that sound. Where they like it or not. And, its also dependent on context.
#18
Quote by isaac_bandits
I've always thought of art as something which is designed to be that way to be beautiful or pleasing. So something human made for our enjoyment.

But this definition excludes a lot of art. Much art that expresses suffering ("The Garden Of Earthly Delights" by Bosche, for example) or that acts as ridicule or protest (Punk Rock or No Wave) isn't meant to be beautiful or pleasing.

My problem with this is that many people on this thread assume that no one would want to listen to noise, or at least that no one would want to classify their music as noise. But when I listen to one of Gregg Ginn's solos to J. Mascis's early work, or to Thurston Moore's guitar freakouts, I recognise that it is noise, and I recognise its unpleasantness; however, I also feel that through these moments of noise, or of auditory unpleasantness, the artist is able to relate feelings (frustration, pain, anger, confusion) that could not be expressed through a more pleasant sounding passage. So in a sense, though it is unpleasant to the ears, I can relate to it, and it is pleasing in a more psychological/intellectual sort of sense.
#20
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
What constitutes a "pattern"? How defined does it have to be?

Speech is highly patterned. That isn't really music, is it?


I think speech is most definitely musical! It's patterned, and it creates melodies. In the same way music is made, the way our voice sounds (without us knowing (or knowing)) can create tension and release it, as well. The only thing missing from a voice is harmony, but it's not that needed (but it's nice to have).
#21
I think we should start with a definition of music.

mu⋅sic
  /ˈmyuzɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoo-zik]
–noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

Speech seems to fit pretty much all of those categories so I would consider speech; music, in that sense.

But where does sound end and music start?
When I shuffle some papers and turn on my amp, that creates sound. When I start strumming some chords or playing some notes I have (roughly) created music. The difference is I didn't put emotion or express ideas into the amp or paper. So I believe once you put emotion into the sound you are creating, you can consider it music.
#22
Quote by toyboxmonster
But this definition excludes a lot of art. Much art that expresses suffering ("The Garden Of Earthly Delights" by Bosche, for example) or that acts as ridicule or protest (Punk Rock or No Wave) isn't meant to be beautiful or pleasing.

My problem with this is that many people on this thread assume that no one would want to listen to noise, or at least that no one would want to classify their music as noise. But when I listen to one of Gregg Ginn's solos to J. Mascis's early work, or to Thurston Moore's guitar freakouts, I recognise that it is noise, and I recognise its unpleasantness; however, I also feel that through these moments of noise, or of auditory unpleasantness, the artist is able to relate feelings (frustration, pain, anger, confusion) that could not be expressed through a more pleasant sounding passage. So in a sense, though it is unpleasant to the ears, I can relate to it, and it is pleasing in a more psychological/intellectual sort of sense.


If its pleasing to your psyche its still pleasing. I never said it had to be pleasing to your ears. It just has to be pleasing.


I would say that whether or not something is music is not up to the listener. If it was made to be music, it is music, regardless of whether or not the listener likes it.
#23
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew

Where does noise end and music begin?


Sonic Youth
"My name is Forrest, Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump"
#24
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
What constitutes a "pattern"? How defined does it have to be?

Speech is highly patterned. That isn't really music, is it?

its up to the person. i thought i made that clear actually. patterns in music usually refer to some sort of rhythmic structure that repeats. melodic lines follow the rhythm and also have a pattern of there own. obviously though it doesnt need to have these though. again, its up to the person to define what music is to them. if you are john cage, perhaps a table falling off a building is music to you while to others it lacks any repeatable structure to be called music.

Who is "we"?

people obviously.

Quote by Ssargentslayer
I think we should start with a definition of music.

mu⋅sic
  /ˈmyuzɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoo-zik]
–noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

Speech seems to fit pretty much all of those categories so I would consider speech; music, in that sense.

But where does sound end and music start?
When I shuffle some papers and turn on my amp, that creates sound. When I start strumming some chords or playing some notes I have (roughly) created music. The difference is I didn't put emotion or express ideas into the amp or paper. So I believe once you put emotion into the sound you are creating, you can consider it music.

sounds dont contain the emotions though. once you put the emotion into the sound you are making, it doesnt stay "in" the notes. once the notes or sound is in the air its up to the listener to define as music or not. they may or may not have an emotional response to the sounds even if you put emotion into it.
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Dec 20, 2009,
#25
Quote by Ssargentslayer
I think we should start with a definition of music.

mu⋅sic
  /ˈmyuzɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoo-zik]
–noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

Speech seems to fit pretty much all of those categories so I would consider speech; music, in that sense.

But where does sound end and music start?
When I shuffle some papers and turn on my amp, that creates sound. When I start strumming some chords or playing some notes I have (roughly) created music. The difference is I didn't put emotion or express ideas into the amp or paper. So I believe once you put emotion into the sound you are creating, you can consider it music.

What if the papers were some failed essays, and instead of shuffling them, I slammed them out of frustration, and my friend, who just so happened to have been recording some riffs on his mp3 player, recorded the sound.
Is it music?
#27
The problem is, that inherently the term that is music is incorrect.

What SSargent quoted from the dictionary is an objective term for something that is proven to be subjective throughout the evolution of music.

They should have made it like;

mu⋅sic
  /ˈmyuzɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoo-zik]
–noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour in a way that conveys an idea, thought or feeling to the listener.


Wouldn't you guys agree?

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 21, 2009,
#28
Quote by Freepower
I think the important factor is the listener.

Not the "hear"-er, but the listener. I think anything listened to as music is. I find lots of speech, ambient noise, etc, musical in nature and open to imitation and enjoyment.
I tend to agree with this more than some of first conclusions I came to about making distinctions between noise and music. It's not only hearing the sounds but also what our minds do with what we've heard.


Quote by isaac_bandits
I've always thought of art as something which is designed to be that way to be beautiful or pleasing. So something human made for our enjoyment.

Well, considering music as sound-art, and defining art to be human made, the sound of the beach (as in the waves, not the people on the beach) is not human made, and therefore is not music.

I assumed that people don't find the sound of the beach unpleasant, and therefore it wouldn't be noise. If you were trying to write an exam though, the sound of the beach would probably be noise.

So that makes me think: Noise is based on what people think of that sound. Where they like it or not. And, its also dependent on context.
Your distinctions exclude much of what I would call natural music. Birdsong and other animal noises, water sounds, rain falling on certain surfaces, wind in some cases, even a train or industrial sounds. None of those sounds were both made by humans and intended as enjoyment.

There are a lot of sounds that your definitions can exclude from both music and noise. I think I'm pretty average in that I tend to like putting labels on things. But I don't see an easy label for these things that are not music, not noise.

I'm curious on your opinion of wind chimes. The chimes themselves are designed in a way to make the sound pleasing. But the "performance" is left to chance and the wind. Somewhat random, but not entirely so. Is this art? Is it music?

Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
people obviously.
Not "obviously" at all. I was looking for you to define whether it's strictly on a every man for himself basis or if there is some convention as to how the decision is made.


Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
its up to the person. i thought i made that clear actually. patterns in music usually refer to some sort of rhythmic structure that repeats. melodic lines follow the rhythm and also have a pattern of there own. obviously though it doesnt need to have these though. again, its up to the person to define what music is to them. if you are john cage, perhaps a table falling off a building is music to you while to others it lacks any repeatable structure to be called music.
What I was hoping to extract was an examination of some of the elements involved in sound.
- waveform
- frequency
- amplitude
- duration
- multiplicity

I have an image in my mind regarding patterns that goes from bare-bones simple -to- so complex that any patterns become unfathomable. Perfection in order -to- random.

On one end of the continuum, we have:
A simple sine wave.
Fixed, unwavering frequency.
Fixed amplitude.
Never ends.
Singular.

This tone might be perceived as "music" but only for a very short time. It is so ordered that there really is no interest in the pattern. It's too simple. Even though there is perfect order, it functions much the same as noise.


At the opposite end of the spectrum:
Waveform changes.
Frequency changes .
Amplitude changes.
Starts/stops at varying intervals.
Nearly infinite number of these tones, each with different characteristics.

Since there are so many of these tones occurring simultaneously, the pattern of any one of them becomes obscured by the others. The cumulative pattern is so complex that it's simply white noise.

From the standpoint of patterning, I view noise as being sound that is either too simple to generate interest or too complex to comprehend. For me, music is somewhere in the middle. I don't know if that description has any usefulness to anyone else, but it works for me. At least to some degree. Far from a perfect definition, but it's a start.


Noise --------> | <--------- Music ----------> | <-------------------------------------- Noise
Simplicity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Chaos
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#29
That is all interpretation my friend. Music can be anything.

an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
2. the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.
3. musical work or compositions for singing or playing.
4. the written or printed score of a musical composition.
5. such scores collectively.
6. any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound: the music of the waves.
7. appreciation of or responsiveness to musical sounds or harmonies: Music was in his very soul.
8. Fox Hunting. the cry of the hounds.
—Idiom
9. face the music, to meet, take, or accept the consequences of one's mistakes, actions, etc.: He's squandered his money and now he's got to face the music.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#30
Quote by Bluesy...
That is all interpretation my friend.
Of course it is. It's a highly subjective topic. But I think there's a lot of value in comparing how each of us comes to our own conclusions on a subjective matter.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#31
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Of course it is. It's a highly subjective topic. But I think there's a lot of value in comparing how each of us comes to our own conclusions on a subjective matter.


Sure there is, just like there is value in arguing pointlessly until the other person gives up and we all agree to disagree.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#32
Quote by Bluesy...
Sure there is, just like there is value in arguing pointlessly until the other person gives up and we all agree to disagree.
That's borderline spam. If you think it pointless, don't post.

It's a foregone conclusion at the outset of a discussion like this that there won't be widespread agreement at the end. Only an opportunity to look at a highly subjective topic from differing points of view. Some opinions will change, others won't. Anyone actually taking the time to read will at least gain a wider perspective on how others form their opinions.

If you'd like to get back on-topic, stick around and post. I'd like to hear any actual thoughts you might have about this subject that go beyond copy/paste from dictionary.com or wherever you lifted the bulk of your post. If you're satisfied with just using that reference as the beginning and end of your opinion, that's fine. We have your opinion. But if you're here to argue with the validity of the discussion itself, that stops here.

Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#33
It takes some time for me to load videos, so I went back and listened to the ones linked here

Quote by Rikki DeMartini
Speech can be made hypnotisingly musical if you manipulate it the right way.
I got a chuckle out of this for several reasons. Sagan always spoke with a melodic emphasis even outside of an intended musical presentation. Also there was a section of that song which resonates well with some of what is being discussed here:
But the brain does much more than just recollect
It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes
it generates abstractions

The simplest thought like the concept of the number one
Has an elaborate logical underpinning


The other part I found amusing:
At the top of the related videos list -- a Billy Mays infomercial. lol
Quote by Freepower
Ouch. That is all.

Quote by DiminishedFifth
I think speech is most definitely musical! It's patterned, and it creates melodies. In the same way music is made, the way our voice sounds (without us knowing (or knowing)) can create tension and release it, as well. The only thing missing from a voice is harmony, but it's not that needed (but it's nice to have).
There are some interesting overlaps between speech and music. But I see them as being different and neither being a subset of the other.

Speech is more "defined" than music. In that form of communication, specific facts and ideas are conveyed. Without the use of lyrics, music tends to evoke moods or create images, but beyond that the communication is more interpretive. This allows each listener more freedom to create his own unique abstractions.

Music and speech occupy similar territory in terms of complexity in patterning.
But the way our minds process them and the results of that are generally quite different.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#34
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Your distinctions exclude much of what I would call natural music. Birdsong and other animal noises, water sounds, rain falling on certain surfaces, wind in some cases, even a train or industrial sounds. None of those sounds were both made by humans and intended as enjoyment.


And my idea of music is different from yours.

Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
There are a lot of sounds that your definitions can exclude from both music and noise. I think I'm pretty average in that I tend to like putting labels on things. But I don't see an easy label for these things that are not music, not noise.


How about sound? Eitherway were categorizing things into huge categories, where there's a very wide range between opposite ends of what's accepted.

Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I'm curious on your opinion of wind chimes. The chimes themselves are designed in a way to make the sound pleasing. But the "performance" is left to chance and the wind. Somewhat random, but not entirely so. Is this art? Is it music?


I wouldn't consider it music. In fact, I'd often consider it noise, as those things get annoying awfully quick.

Noise --------> | <--------- Music ----------> | <-------------------------------------- Noise
Simplicity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Chaos

That's an interesting way to look at it. So would you say there is NO overlap between the two?

Quote by Bluesy...
That is all interpretation my friend. Music can be anything.

an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
2. the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.
3. musical work or compositions for singing or playing.
4. the written or printed score of a musical composition.
5. such scores collectively.
6. any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound: the music of the waves.
7. appreciation of or responsiveness to musical sounds or harmonies: Music was in his very soul.
8. Fox Hunting. the cry of the hounds.
—Idiom
9. face the music, to meet, take, or accept the consequences of one's mistakes, actions, etc.: He's squandered his money and now he's got to face the music.


That brings up a good point. Music doesn't have to be sound. It could be a paper score. It could be an .mp3. It could be CD. It could be just an idea in one's head.
#35
Quote by isaac_bandits
And my idea of music is different from yours.
Sure. Even if we stay with a narrow definition of what defines music, our personal taste would still have us in disagreement in a few instances.

I'm advocating a view that allows a wider inclusion. You're advocating a more rigid definition. Neither method works perfectly. They each have gray areas. Just in different places.

Quote by isaac_bandits
How about sound? Eitherway were categorizing things into huge categories, where there's a very wide range between opposite ends of what's accepted.
Sound is the auditory universe, isn't it? Not very descriptive.

Quote by isaac_bandits
I wouldn't consider it music. In fact, I'd often consider it noise, as those things get annoying awfully quick.
I can't argue with the possibility of noise. I had a neighbor with a set that was horribly tuned. I wanted to strangle her. Even the best sounding chimes can be irritating after a while of hearing patterns that are unpleasant.

The reason I brought it up...
A few years ago an acquaintance made a recording of beautiful set of wind chimes. Just set up a microphone, turned on the recorder and let it go unattended. Out of 3 hours of recording, he found a sequence almost 10 seconds long that was quite beautiful. He copied that sequence onto another tape and asked opinions the beginning of "his composition". Invariably the response was: This is lovely. You should definitely continue. Only afterward did he mention that it was an unintentional sequence.

- Did music occur during those 10 seconds while the recording was made?
- Was what the listeners heard music?
- If he were to play the same sequence himself on a set of chimes or a vibrophone, would that be music?

Quote by isaac_bandits

Noise --------> | <--------- Music ----------> | <-------------------------------------- Noise
Simplicity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Chaos


That's an interesting way to look at it. So would you say there is NO overlap between the two?
To be honest, I haven't given this all that much thought. I was in a conversation that just began to touch on this topic, just before starting this thread. That visual just kinda popped into my mind. I haven't looked closely at the boundaries. I thought I'd just toss it out and see if it meant anything to anyone else.

Certainly, for different people the boundaries will be in different places. If music becomes highly complex, I'm probably quicker than most to perceive it as noise.

Quote by isaac_bandits
That brings up a good point. Music doesn't have to be sound. It could be a paper score. It could be an .mp3. It could be CD. It could be just an idea in one's head.
Wow. This is a direction I hadn't even thought to go. Up til now we were looking at a several variables. Human intent, patterning, pleasant or not. One thing that was constant was the presences of sound.

Music is definitely an auditory experience. But what happens if we replace actual sound with recollection of sounds and ideas of sounds?

I'm more inclined to say it's music when you're just hearing sounds inside your head. The printing on the page isn't music. Just a representation of it. A map of sorts. Assuming you have the skills to read it and translate that into sound in your head, music does occur. But your visual pathways are tied up translating what's on the page to a recollection of sound. This is not like the experience most listeners have. More like the music the performer himself experiences. Music, but definitely a different sort and limited to only those who can translate. Music conveyed by sound can be music to anyone with relatively normal hearing.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#36
If it was possible to objectively determine what music is from noise, then in theory, one could compose the perfect song.

Too bad it's all subjective.
#37
Quote by xxdarrenxx
The problem is, that inherently the term that is music is incorrect.

What SSargent quoted from the dictionary is an objective term for something that is proven to be subjective throughout the evolution of music.

They should have made it like;

mu⋅sic
  /ˈmyuzɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoo-zik]
–noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour in a way that conveys an idea, thought or feeling to the listener.


Wouldn't you guys agree?

That sounds more accurate.
Quote by toyboxmonster
What if the papers were some failed essays, and instead of shuffling them, I slammed them out of frustration, and my friend, who just so happened to have been recording some riffs on his mp3 player, recorded the sound.

The slamming of frustration doesn't contain a melody, harmony or rhythm of any sort so it wouldn't fit the specifications according to that definition.
#38
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Sure. Even if we stay with a narrow definition of what defines music, our personal taste would still have us in disagreement in a few instances.


My definition (which isn't necessarily any better or worse than yours) doesn't based on who is listening, as it is based on why it was made. If it was made to be music (as in, a person made it and intended to make music), then it is music. Personal tastes play no influence. It seems kind of silly for someone to say that rap isn't music just because they don't like it. That would be like if I were to say "(edible) mushrooms aren't food, because I don't like them."

My definition of noise, on the other hand, does allow for who is listening, why they are listening, where they are listening, etc...

Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Sound is the auditory universe, isn't it? Not very descriptive.


Music is the artistic auditory universe, isn't it? Not very descriptive.
Noise is the unpleasant auditory universe, isn't it? Not very descriptive.


Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
The reason I brought it up...
A few years ago an acquaintance made a recording of beautiful set of wind chimes. Just set up a microphone, turned on the recorder and let it go unattended. Out of 3 hours of recording, he found a sequence almost 10 seconds long that was quite beautiful. He copied that sequence onto another tape and asked opinions the beginning of "his composition". Invariably the response was: This is lovely. You should definitely continue. Only afterward did he mention that it was an unintentional sequence.

- Did music occur during those 10 seconds while the recording was made?
- Was what the listeners heard music?
- If he were to play the same sequence himself on a set of chimes or a vibrophone, would that be music?


I'd say that the sound of the chimes, as it was made by the wind was not music, since it wasn't created to be music. It was just a by-product of the sun heating air, which caused winds, due to density differences, which in turn hit the wind chimes.

Then, when buddy put it onto a tape, and used it in a composition, it become music, as a person was using it as a sound, which was a part of some music, and it was then created, to be music.

Quote by Ssargentslayer
That sounds more accurate.
The slamming of frustration doesn't contain a melody, harmony or rhythm of any sort so it wouldn't fit the specifications according to that definition.


If he slammed them more than once there would be rhythm.
The papers would produce a sound, and all sound has frequency, so there would be pitch. So if he smalled them more than once, there would be a melody too.
#39
Quote by isaac_bandits
My definition (which isn't necessarily any better or worse than yours) doesn't based on who is listening, as it is based on why it was made. If it was made to be music (as in, a person made it and intended to make music), then it is music. Personal tastes play no influence. It seems kind of silly for someone to say that rap isn't music just because they don't like it. That would be like if I were to say "(edible) mushrooms aren't food, because I don't like them."

My definition of noise, on the other hand, does allow for who is listening, why they are listening, where they are listening, etc...

I agree with this.

Quote by isaac_bandits
If he slammed them more than once there would be rhythm.
The papers would produce a sound, and all sound has frequency, so there would be pitch. So if he smalled them more than once, there would be a melody too.

If his intention was to create music, then yes.
#40
I agree with isaac on the first part.

But let's retrofit it.

What if I record wind chimes in the wind, but the rare occurrence happens that it make a perfect loop of a melody, I give it to you, and you like the melody. Is this music?

What about an random algorithm set to either a scale option or filter option on a synth? Does adding a beat make it music?

What about a 4 bar loop; Is this music?

Quote by isaac_bandits


I'd say that the sound of the chimes, as it was made by the wind was not music, since it wasn't created to be music. It was just a by-product of the sun heating air, which caused winds, due to density differences, which in turn hit the wind chimes.

Then, when buddy put it onto a tape, and used it in a composition, it become music, as a person was using it as a sound, which was a part of some music, and it was then created, to be music.


Isn't music the bi-product of human brain tissue formed by evolution of nature, powered by the sun heating the earth?

So ur saying that only sentient choices on sounds is music?

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 21, 2009,
Page 1 of 2