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: 8319

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mr. Zinosaurus, thanks for the laugh..... you have to be joking.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

yes "Science" has a lot to learn. But of the two, science and faith, only science has the ability to learn. Science has multiple built in mechanisms for self correction whereas faith has none.

Kristofer, I only offer this response as irony, - and for fun's sake .. ( for having taken the bait - knowingly)

Dave, too.  :)

From page 1:

Reply by Kristofer Emerig on October 27, 2016 at 11:22am

My thoughts, exactly. Thank you.
 
Dave Dexter said:

Don't.

There once lived a gnu

That knew a guru

Who showed him a new 'higher view'.

Doe's that help, asked the seer?

Have I made things more clear,

And proved my worthy career?

No, you've doubled my trauma

Said the gnu- and the drama...

Now my wife thinks I'm a damn Llama.


Fred, here's a possibly novel idea. What if human consciousness is capable

of a multitude of existential frequencies, much like what we call 'bandwidth'?

Pure speculation on my part, (well, not totally)  there is the old notion

of transcendence,as in transcendental meditation.

I think a great majority of the arguing with regards to the subject of

'human spirituality' comes from a huge 'chasm' of clear terminology.

For instance, the word god. This is a word that has been 'personified'

by mythology in an effort to 'grasp' the abstract unknown.

Actually the word is a title, more than it is a name. But even the idea

of 'title' is ill focused.

I see no reason why science and faith will not come to one accord.

( but you guy's probably think I mean 'religion')   Totally WRONG! - Dave

Much like the 'discovery' of electricity, for example, an entirely new set of

terms and language had to be developed to explain in words, and to communicate

this unseen force and all of it's dimensions. ( and there is still more to understand)

IN THAT SENSE...... science is the lesser 'god'. Because, it only knows in part.

I'm not saying that science is not valid, or it's methodology is not a solid means

towards understanding. I love good science. We have benefitted much from science.

But if that knowledge is not coupled to wisdom, we might just annihilate ourselves.   RS

Bob, I agree; this thread, like others in the past, shouldn't continue to be listed at the top

of the home page. I'm not sure what the solution is... obviously there are people interested

in stupid semi provocative bantering. Honestly, it's actully educational :>/
Fredrick zinos said:


"Nobody ever says anything new"   That's almost as difficult as writing a "new" piece of music. The fact is there are only so many contradictory ideas, or ideas of any kind a person can hold at any given moment. There is a sort of cranial pressure to open the valve and let some of these ideas out, in the hope, I suppose, that their expulsion will make room for something "new". Alas, it seems it is not to be. The same old prejudices congeal in the same old ways to produce the same old results. I only thank gosh that my ideas are the exact right ones..what luck! 

ob Porter said:

Oh but I have participated in "this discussion" many times. You weren't on the forum the last two times I participated in the "science vs religion" discussion. Nobody ever says anything new. That's what I would ask. Come up with something new. I'm not judging the discourse. Or trying to cut it off. I'm only trying to hone it a bit. As are we all.

You believe freedom of speech means saying whatever you want whenever and however you want to say it. That seems shallow to me. I view freedom of speech as more a responsibility than a right. The responsibility to say what needs to be said, good or bad, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manor.

I'm sorry you find someone who doesn't hold your views to be indignant and childish.

 


Kristofer Emerig said:

Conversations, and even arguments happen, and evolve quite naturally in forums. It's best to allow them to take their natural course. The point at which threads get derailed beyond redemption is usually when someone who has not participated in the discussion seizes the opportunity to grandstand and express their profound indignation toward an exchange to which they could only be voluntarily subjected.

No member has to view, read, or participate in any thread against their will; each and every member has the power to promote any chosen thread by simply responding to it. The reality is that some of you don't really like democracy, nor freedom of speech, although you'd never admit it. You only enjoy taking credit for supporting those principles, but can't truly stomach the manifest realities; that others might express opinions intolerable to your cherished beliefs, and that conversations you prefer may not garner as much interest as those in which you think others "should" take interest.

Go ahead now, hurl childish insults because I have spoken the plain truth.

Dave, Until you stub your toe, you really don't know what it feels like.
I can only tell you my experience. Intelligence is not a 'structure', though

knowledge can be structured. Fathom that.    RS
Dave Dexter said:

There was once was a guru who confused talking shite with showing people a "higher view" and then resented the people's insistence on evidence for this higher view to the point that he insulted them. I know this doesn't rhyme but perhaps it doesn't need to

Over that hill is a new day, he said
With fresh knowledge ripe on the tree
But I cannot retrieve it to show you
Or prove that it, hey
hey hang on a minute
where are you going, I've got new knowledge for you
close-minded children

roger stancill said:

There once lived a gnu

That knew a guru

Who showed him a new 'higher view'.

Doe's that help, asked the seer?

Have I made things more clear,

And proved my worthy career?

No, you've doubled my trauma

Said the gnu- and the drama...

Now my wife thinks I'm a damn Llama.

At first glance, there often seems to be a problem of Science versus Religion.  I often find that people who judge Science using the criteria of "theology," based on narrow readings of religious texts. simply don't understand science.  This happens often in connection with Evolution.  On the other hand, people who criticize theology, spiritual beliefs, and religions (on the basis of science) make a similar mistake.   There are two different realities under examination: the material reality of the physical world and spiritual realities of the transcendent world, i.e. God, Tao, Brahman, Shang Di, and so on.  

Of course, some will say, the spiritual realities cannot be "accessed" or be proven to exist, by any logical or verifiable means.  But this again, is the same mistake.  The techniques of standard logic and science (designed only for the study of material reality) cannot apply to other types of reality, which are semi-material, material or transcendent, even eternal and infinite. 

I inevitably find that people who cannot grasp this last point simply have not read, or studied widely within the domains of theology, comparative religion or spiritual teachings by the founders of great religions.  This applies to people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, who don't seem (from their writings and public statements) to know or understand even the basic facts of religion, the history of religion, comparative theologies and so on.  People who grasp nothing of these disciplines do not appear to have tried to cultivate anything remotely akin to "religious experience," and so they shun it.  

This is all understandable.  Hitchens and Dawkins do expose a number of the stupid and highly erroneous beliefs attached to traditional religious dogma (mostly within the rather narrow field of Christian orthodox theology).  But their arguments are made at a very basic level.  They may as well say, children's literature is stupid, therefore all literature is stupid.  The flaws in a puerile fiction cannot be used for the basis of an argument against Tolstoy's War and Peace, or Dostoevsky's Brothers' Karamazov (on a literary or a religious level).   The idea that you are stupid if you believe in "talking snakes" is a straw man argument, since no sophisticated Christian or Jewish religionist believes in such things.  I have yet to see Hitchens, Dawkins or similar public "atheists" take on the theology or philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant or Hegel.  They seem even less able to take on moderns or non Western thinkers, including Buber, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin, Bergson, Thomas Merton, the Dalai Lama, or the Upanishadic Philosophers and Sophisticated Indian Metaphysicians.  Islamic philosophers, like Rumi, Al-Farabi, Averoes or other non-Western philosophers of religion from the Middle East are unknown to them, hence the ease with which they slip into Islamophobia and stereotyping. They ignore anyone who above the run of the mill idiot preacher in the boondocks.  

Hitchens and Dawkins simply do not comprehend religion or theology because they have not studied it in sufficient detail.  I get the impression they encountered unintelligent pastors or 'believers,' and concluded without reason that all "spiritually minded" people were stupid.  It's a grave logical error.      It's also common, in these sorts of discussions to attack the person making the argument, rather than confront or discuss the issue itself.  It goes without saying that such approaches also fall below the level of the thinking of very young children.

Fred, where did you get that definition. You can have faith in a myriad of things,

but in 'spiritual' terms, faith is the 'substance' of things hoped for.

And, I want to thank you. You previously mentioned the dark ages.

That got me to do a bit of research. That research led me to a video

that was enormously informative and answered some questions that have

helped me fill in some of the pieces of a puzzle.  Syncronicity? ( probably a

foreign concept to you) ... but timely and real to me.

If interested, I will share the link. I think you would like it.

It's a scientistists research and view on the dark ages and some statistical

facts that reshape the commomly accepted views on the subject. Right down

your alley. 44 min. of some really good stuff                          RS


 
Fredrick zinos said:

The word "faith" means absence of objective evidence so how can you have faith based objective evidence? its like dry water, or new antiquity. 

Thank you OO for a well articulated post. Depth of understanding is often limited by

many things. Mis info, dis info, lack of personal experience, and individualism, to name a few.

You are much more well read than I am. But that is not the proof.

Empirical proof certainly has it's place in the 3D world of knowledge, but when it comes to

the realm of human consciousness and spirituality we enter a new set of 'language of understanding'

where it is often difficult to transfer concept and meaning.

Anyway, thanks for adding something intelligent to the discussion.   

 I get the impression they encountered unintelligent pastors or 'believers,' and concluded without reason that all "spiritually minded" people were stupid.  It's a grave logical error.      

exactly Fred. it's a verb, not a noun. Believing that  with time, something will manifest.
 In reality, the past is a memory and the future is a hope. You exist in an eternal present.

You perceive motion,but each moment of that motion is different. You can actually test and prove this.   RS
Fredrick zinos said:

the biblical "faith is the thing hoped for, the reality though not beheld" is saying faith is the absence of objective evidence.

Really? Do you have faith in your car brakes when you start out down the road?

Fredrick zinos said:

The word "faith" means absence of objective evidence so how can you have faith based objective evidence? its like dry water, or new antiquity. 

Whip that spin dude, whip that spin.

I, quite scientifically correct,  said that there had to be a medium to manifest that prism effect.

Rainbows do not appear in a clear blue sky.

That 'flood' has been found to be recorded in a multitude of ancient texts.

I did not say the 2 were connected. I only suggested that there was a missing

element in the statement that it was merely refracted light.

The point being, something had to refract it.  ergo, a medium.

Your obvious preferred bias blares like a foghorn.
 
Kristofer Emerig said:

Yeah, I know. When RS went to the wildest reach of actually suggested that the very properties of refraction of light magically differed before some folklorish flood, this became too tempting to resist.

Bob's schoolmarmish lecture only offered more fodder for sardonic glee. This thread might just persist through 20178 now.
 
gregorio X said:

Kristofer, I only offer this response as irony, - and for fun's sake .. ( for having taken the bait - knowingly)

Dave, too.  :)

From page 1:

Reply by Kristofer Emerig on October 27, 2016 at 11:22am

My thoughts, exactly. Thank you.
 
Dave Dexter said:

Don't.

Actually Mr. Brainiac, I know precisely how brakes work and the hydraulics that

are involved. I have actually restored an old sports car from 'the ground up' as they say.

Man does it purr,and with the top down.... a nice ride. ( 1960 Corvette by the way)

Most people don't even think about their brakes, you blathering egotist, they take them

for granted and hope that the radio works. Man you are full of yourself.   RS
 
Kristofer Emerig said:

Not really. You have faith in your car's brakes. Most of us in the real world estimate a very small probability of catastrophic failure, weighed against the benefit and necessity of driving.
 
roger stancill said:

Really? Do you have faith in your car brakes when you start out down the road?

Fredrick zinos said:

The word "faith" means absence of objective evidence so how can you have faith based objective evidence? its like dry water, or new antiquity. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

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

Store

© 2020   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service