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

Yo Dave, what was poorly defined?  and let's keep it light.... too much

tendency here for the drama queens to take root.

It's a discussion, an exchange of perspectives and ideas, not an

F-in fight to the death.

Kris says. who me, no I'm not at all combative, and ends the sentence with

hahaha, you got shot down.  What up w/ that?   RS

53 pages, keep up the good work guys.

Spin that spin dude- spin that spin. Faith in your brakes and confidence in your

brakes, AT THAT LEVEL and mentality, are about the same thing. Semantics?

Colloquially, the two words are somewhat similar, but as Fred suggests, there

may be a difference in definitive meaning.

Bottom line tho', people do not think about their brakes, but you, like most

trolls , love to make mountains out of mole hills every chance you can get.

Yawn.

Yougot to admit though Greg, when was there ever 53 pages of , er ah, let's call it

'interest' in someone's composition? It is a curious phenomenon.
 
Greg Brus said:

53 pages, keep up the good work guys.

Sorry Dave, I"m still learning this forum/internet savvy crap. What I said to you was about the

conversation between us. What I said to Kris, was relative to him.

Should I instead, see you all as one group and unified mind and/or personality?

Come on, be a sport, what are you afraid of? Answer my question.

Or at least take a stab at it.

What could I possibly mean by 'reciprocal equity'?

I think OO might know what I mean, but I'd like to hear from you and

your perspective.

Bob, it's pointless . You are dealing with a juvenile menality that has not yet

learned how to contain their testosterone. He obviously still has something to prove.

Freedom of speech was not meant to be interpreted 'literally'. There was an

accepted and understood 'spirit' and context to that expression and rule.

Somehow, that meaning has been lost.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with being a smart-ass or mouthy punk.

Just as the right to bear arms has nothing to do with street gangs and guns.

Understanding the terms goe's back to a different world, but the essence

still stands.

Damn boy, do you have any' real' friends? What a shit hole you are. Suck that.

You are a fucking hemoroid, but with less class. 'Class Dismissed' should be

your motto and license plate.

What kind of puny punk, with such an intellect ,would waste his time here

shooting down others for their own gratification ? How's that for free speech?
 
Kristofer Emerig said:

Good grief, more shameless sucking up.


roger stancill said:

Sorry Dave, I"m still learning this forum/internet savvy crap. What I said to you was about the

conversation between us. What I said to Kris, was relative to him.

Should I instead, see you all as one group and unified mind and/or personality?

Come on, be a sport, what are you afraid of? Answer my question.

Or at least take a stab at it.

What could I possibly mean by 'reciprocal equity'?

I think OO might know what I mean, but I'd like to hear from you and

your perspective.

Kris, Dave has potential, you are a lost cause.

The thought of having a casual  conversation never crossed your mind.

I'll bet on it.

I have not seen a hint of that in anything you have ever posted here.

Granted, you have made some insightful and thought provoking posts

in the past- eslewhere.

but exactly why you are here on this thread, if you are so disenchanted with

the main topic,  (which is now long forgotten, but still my main interest)  is

a testimonial to your mentality.

Again, I've got to ask, what are you trying to prove?

Thanks again guys for the continuing education. It's interesting to watch and observe

the almost comical subliminal support system that manifests itself in these

'unique' conversations. Today I learned that some composers are 'Quacks' 

hahahahahahahahaha             sufferin' succatash                   
 
Kristofer Emerig said:

Coincidentally, I actually read this in Daffy Duck's voice, making it even funnier than otherwise.


Fredrick zinos said:

How is that for free speech?

Frankly my dear, not very good. It lacks wit, and originality. It is sophomoric in the extreme relying as it does on an adolescents view of words and phrases that one supposes are intended to shock but bore instead. This little soliloquy of yours would be only slightly more effective if you were to do it in a Daffy Duck voice with saliva spraying from mouth rather then running down you chin.

apparently Fred, the 'we' in the title is the ambiguous element.

I hereby withdraw the question and end the intent of the thread/post.

My thanks to those who tried to develop a constructive dialog.

No telling what could have progressed if not for the trolls and snipers

that have nothing better to do than disrupt and discourage.

 


 
Fredrick zinos said:

The title of the thread is ambiguous. "How can we define music?" can be a call for attempts to define music perhaps by differentiating it from other sounds. Of equal validity, the title could be question about the methodology for defining music. Who is the "we" in the title?

An analogical relationship between the questions, “How can we define music,” and “how can we define ‘faith,’ or God,” may be constructed.

WORD DEFINED: ‘The word "faith" means absence of objective evidence ...” This might be considered one definition of faith. But the problem is that “faith” like music, has a multitude of definitions. An insistence on any one of them will simplify and reduce an otherwise complex psychological, religious and spiritual phenomenon. Even basic dictionaries have a more complex definition than the one provided here. Faith can be defined, in dictionary fashion, as: “complete trust or confidence in someone or something; strong belief in God or in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”.

Of course, a great many priests or designated authorities, in virtually all traditional religious systems, don’t like such terms as “spiritual apprehension.” Such phrases are anathema because “authorities” like to believe that only they have the corner on what constitutes valid belief. Hence, the justifiable rejection by intelligent people of priests, priesthoods and dogmatic theologies. Still, I don’t think the formulator of the above definition of “faith,” or people using the phrase “objective evidence,” really understood the point I was making in my last post. I saw no substantive reply. I am speaking about Christopher Hitchens’ and Richard Dawkins’ inability to speak in any detail about religion, in a profound way. Their dearth of understanding appears due to their lack of study, or direct knowledge of religious experience, or what even a simple dictionary definition calls “spiritual apprehension.”

When Carl Jung was asked whether he had faith in God, or believed in God, he said, “I don’t believe; I know.” An understanding of Jung’s psychological system and analysis of the psyche makes his statement easier to understand. But people who use the methods of empirical science (as they are used in geology, chemistry and biology) will fail to grasp this point if they believe such a techniques can be used encompass all facets of total reality. An understanding of a wide variety of philosophical, metaphysical, psychological and non-Western systems of thought can be useful, or even indispensable for an intelligent conversation about these issues.

I notice what happens when people (like Hitchens and Dawkins) encounter the arguments of intelligent or learned religionists, theologians and spiritually minded thinkers. Such authors are prone to balk, or dodge the issue. Dogmatic atheists seem to be oblivious to the insights contained in the Upanishads, the Tao te ching, and even in Christian tradition, when they rise above the level of Sunday school blather. One can quote: “ ... faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” But that will not have any meaning to people who only rely ONLY on the physical sciences for all knowledge and wisdom concerning the whole of reality. I believe it is fair to say, as Galileo did, that religion and religious texts are useless for helping us discover the laws of nature, and the characteristics of material reality. But he also added that religion can provide knowledge of things of the spirit, God, moral verities and other truths, which science cannot penetrate. Science is for the study of matter; theology is for the study of God. Such disciplines cannot each cover the domain of the other, and must rely on distinct methods.

As far as the musical question goes, the issue is similar. We can’t expect a serious question such as, “How can we define music” to be answered easily. It cannot be done by people who are not familiar with various musical traditions throughout history, or across many cultures. People who judge religion and philosophical beliefs, or define them, by reference to what passes as “popular theology,” are like those who define music only by reference to the top forty songs on AM radio.

“Jesus christ, this is catnip”

Whether any discussion about the philosophy of music, or the philosophy of religion is “catnip” to this or that individual seems irrelevant. It’s easy to fall into the error of talking about people making a particular argument rather than the argument itself. It’s a very common error. Recently it seems to have cropped up several times.

“Ran away from issues of science but this now, this is gravy.”

Galileo’s attitudes towards science, and the scientific method (as employed in geology, chemistry and biology) were mentioned, in contrast to methods used in the arts, philosophy, psychology and the study of comparative religion and religious experience. So as it is, the brief remark seems incomprehensible or irrelevant.

“What have we done
 …”

I don’t know who constitutes this proverbial “we,” in this specific instance. It seems as though each individual has done something or said something different.

I am sure some people will tire of insulting each other, and eventually address some of the actual content HAVING TO DO with issues being brought up on this thread. I look forward to that.

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