Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

The question has come up many times here as to what is music.

Isn't that questioned answered by what you compose?

Isn't what you write a reflection of what you believe music is

and/or should be. Or are you merely imitating the efforts and

precedents established by others. This is not to suggest that

imitation and following an established form is a bad thing.

Compared to the number of composers, revolutionary innovators

are few and far between from an historical perspective.

Regardless, there are certain elements of sound and sounds that

seem to separate music from 'noise', and acceptance can be

both individual and regional.

Is there any one common characteristic, across the globe, that

qualifies and separates music from noise?

Views: 8323

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, not even close. I think we both agree that those basic elements of physics

are immutable.So what else might have changed? What other factor would have

to be present for that phenonenon to appear across the sky?
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Roger, in order for your implication to be valid the physics of light refraction have to change after the "biblical flood". Is that what you are suggesting?

Mr. Z,     the only logical factor that is missing was the moisture content in

the atmosphere. The same prism effect you get from a crystal creates a rainbow.

It's not a miracle, it's simple  basic physics. Just like sound can't be heard in a vacuum,

there has to be a 'medium' that carries the frequencies of both sound and light

wavelengths. But you knew that.

The 'flood' was not just a 'biblical' event. It is recorded and mentioned in many

other ancient texts. The odds are, by the numerous accounts, that it happened.

The so called 'Hebrew' account is only one of many variations on a theme.

It is merely a subset of recorded history, and yet within the text, there are some fascinating truths

that have resonated throughout time. In that sense, the message is the 'medium'.

Scholars and intellectuals will forever fall short of understanding that message.

You can't prove it, but you can live it.  There's the rub.           RS
 
Fredrick zinos said:

none

no Dave, not at all.

Dave Dexter said:

Are you arguing that rainbows violate physics? Is that what this has come to?

roger stancill said:

No, not even close. I think we both agree that those basic elements of physics

are immutable.So what else might have changed? What other factor would have

to be present for that phenonenon to appear across the sky?
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Roger, in order for your implication to be valid the physics of light refraction have to change after the "biblical flood". Is that what you are suggesting?

Dave, your problem is that you actually believe that there is one universal reality

and that you have a bead on and an insight into it through science.       I'm not selling anything here.

I do find it interesting though, how quickly the scoffers descend.

You do not seem to comprehend what belief and faith are all about. Your's is a big club.

Granted, it is not science... yet.

The main problem is that your belief system doesn't explain my experiences.

I wish it did, but in fact, it doesn't. Stick that in your mud,..... brother.             RS
 
Dave Dexter said:

Is there anything to stop people saying/believing the most asinine twattery and simply dismissing criticism with this mealy-mouthed phrase? I can understand why the perspective of scholars and intellectuals, those old empirical stick-in-the-muds, would be frustrating in this situation.

roger stancill said:


You can't prove it, but you can live it.  There's the rub.           RS

Fred, was it(enough moisture) there prior to the flood,  in that region of the earth or before that time in history?

I don't know. If you lived in the desert and never experienced a thunderstorm, you

would never have seen a rainbow. That is a fact, and my point.

Rainbows don't happen in arid skys ,and people couldn't call London at the time, either, to compare

experiences of the day.


 
Fredrick zinos said:

"the only logical factor that is missing was the moisture content in

the atmosphere"

Was the "moisture content" there, in the atmosphere, or was it not?

Well damn, that proves it. The earth is 2/3rd's water due to dinosaurs piss. Case closed.
 
Kristofer Emerig said:

Further scientific evidence, for the recalcitrant skeptic:

Interesting term   that 'irrefutable evidence' isn't it.

In some cases it reminds me of another phrase,,,, 15 minutes of fame.

Science is an attempt. Worship it as you will.      RS

Fred, that is probably the shallowest , most inane statement I have

ever read from you. There were many era's in history that have been

considered 'dark ages'. Each of them followed a societal collapse.

In my view, there is no friction or disagreement between science and

faith. You must have faith confused with religion.

Religion is about  80% scam mixed with 20% truth..... same as our

mainsteam media. :>}                 RS

Fred, it's probably best to leave it at that.

I'm a firm believer in the idea of 'live and let live'.

There is a bridge over that chasm, but you have to

find it for yourself. Debate is futile.                RS

Damn Kris, you are one sick puppy. Is everything a combat zone to you?

Kristofer Emerig said:

Hmm, yes. Especially after fighting viciously for a futile argument and losing handily.

roger stancill said:

I'm a firm believer in the idea of 'live and let live'.

Dave , I have no 'religious view'. There are no miracles, only knowledge to be

discovered and understood. This does suggest tho' that science has a lot to learn.

That is why I said earlier, science is an attempt.

What's the 20% truth?   Here's a clue, but you need to show me you have

some grasp of the nature of it. If you are a dinosaur brain living in the dark ages,

then it would be a waste of words.

Please tell me what is meant by the term 'reciprocal equity,' and how it relates to

fractal consciousness.

enjoy your journey of change Dave. I know you are intelligent. It's just that those of you who still

grapple with the 'chasm' as Fred put it, are still living in the dark ages, in my view.

You suggest an absurd view of some antiquated view of religion, and assume that it is also my

view. Your programmed connotations are blinding you.

Actually faith is not the issue. We all have faith in our car or truck brakes, even if some don''t

know or understand the mechanics or 'science' of them, they risk their lives daily based on a faith

and a belief and a trust. You could even say 'blindly'. 

Dripping pathetic?..... sorry, wrong answer. Care to try again? It's not a game, it's a give and take.

Answer the question if you can. Most likely you can't.       RS
 
Dave Dexter said:

Of course science has a lot to learn. That's the point - science adapts theories based on new evidence. It updates. Which is why, out of the two of us, I am the one far more likely to change my mind on a subject. Kind of funny.

No, sorry, I'm not playing your game. Much as you would like to believe otherwise, I'm extremely intelligent. You can't use "dinosaur brain" as an excuse to entirely fail in providing me with some of this 20% truth. "I will answer you when you have proved your worth" is, as sidesteps go, drippingly pathetic.

roger stancill said:

Dave , I have no 'religious view'. There are no miracles, only knowledge to be

discovered and understood. This does suggest tho' that science has a lot to learn.

That is why I said earlier, science is an attempt.

What's the 20% truth?   Here's a clue, but you need to show me you have

some grasp of the nature of it. If you are a dinosaur brain living in the dark ages,

then it would be a waste of words.

Please tell me what is meant by the term 'reciprocal equity,' and how it relates to

fractal consciousness.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2021   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service