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: 7861

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting hypothesis Fred, your question seems to be self explanatory.

The objectivity of science proves the intelligent design- the deeper we go

into being able to discover and define all facets of Nature and the nature

of the universe.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Tell me how the phrase "intelligent design" does not imply an intelligent designer?

roger stancill said:

Fred, I said intelligent design -  not intelligent designer.

You'd have to have a diploma to qualify for that position.

Fredrick zinos said:

Mathematics is a language that allows intelligent beings to describe and understand the phenomena of nature. There is no requirement to bring  a supernatural "intelligent designer" into the equation.  The "innate harmony" of the universe may or may not be real but one thing is certain, the universe operates in conformance with principals that can be quantified mathematically. One does not get to quantum mechanics and the discovery that most of the universe is missing and other counterintuitive realities without speaking the language of mathematics.


The objectivity of science proves the intelligent design.

How so? Your statement is unsupported and is mere conjecture or wishful thinking on your part. The objectivity of science eliminates the need for an intelligent design. Embedded in the intelligent design is the intelligent designer. The intelligent designer or "god" is not a requirement of the universe we see and that part of it that science understands.   


roger stancill said:

Interesting hypothesis Fred, your question seems to be self explanatory.

The objectivity of science proves the intelligent design- the deeper we go

into being able to discover and define all facets of Nature and the nature

of the universe.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Tell me how the phrase "intelligent design" does not imply an intelligent designer?

roger stancill said:

Fred, I said intelligent design -  not intelligent designer.

You'd have to have a diploma to qualify for that position.

Fredrick zinos said:

Mathematics is a language that allows intelligent beings to describe and understand the phenomena of nature. There is no requirement to bring  a supernatural "intelligent designer" into the equation.  The "innate harmony" of the universe may or may not be real but one thing is certain, the universe operates in conformance with principals that can be quantified mathematically. One does not get to quantum mechanics and the discovery that most of the universe is missing and other counterintuitive realities without speaking the language of mathematics.

Mr. Z, this is pointless... we've been here before.

You obviously require concrete proof for everything. And I agree,

but that is only one level of understanding.... a limited

understanding in my view. A safe box to call home, that

no one can refute... because you can 'prove' it.

I don't deny any of those proofs, I simply find them to be limited

and finite. The big bang, string theory, god or gods... all theories.

I appreciate facts as much as you do.

I just don't deny a possibility because it is yet to be proven by science.

BTW  Dutchsinse has a science background. He recently 'predicted' another

earthquake, and even the magnitude. It happened about 3 1/2 hrs. after his forecast.

He was spot on target.( not the first time either)

He is showing people how to see the early warning signs so they can be prepared.

You live just west of the San Andreas faultline. I'm telling you, something unusual is

stirring and that if you take some time, and give the guy a chance, you will see that

he has a clearer grasp, of what is happening worldwide, than the 'diploma' backed experts.

Gee, you mean this guys is predicting an earthquake will occur somewhere near the San Andreas fault line at sometime in the future? Well, that's all I need.  Likewise I'd be fascinated to know what he thinks about the sun rising tomorrow.

As far as the example you cited, would you mind being a little more specific? When and where did he make the prediction and which specific earthquake proved him "right"?

What are you trying to prove with this youtube selection?

Gee I dunno Fred... that graphics are fun toys to play with.   meh

Hello Roger, you said,

'A bird is a 'manifestation' of Nature working according to Natural Laws that are in harmony with mathematics.'

I am not sure that a bird is something that always, and in every way, "works in accordance with Natural laws in harmony with mathematics."  Unless you are speaking of a mechanical bird in a cuckoo clock. If what you have said about birds is true, then we could predict a BIRDQUAKE, that is, a "sudden and violent shaking of the surface of the bird's skin, sometimes causing destruction or molting of that surface, as a result of movements inside the bird analagous to volcanic action."   But I doubt that is possible.

"Mathematics is a language that allows intelligent beings to describe and understand the phenomena of nature."

 

Agreed.

 

'There is no requirement to bring a supernatural "intelligent designer" into the equation.'

 

Not only is there "no requirement," but it would be impossible to bring "an intelligent designer" into something so limited as an equation. If the so-called "intelligent designer" is a designer of a universe, or universes, it doesn't make sense that any equation could encompass, explain or describe that Being. ... on the other hand, even though there is no "requirement," that does not mean the discussion of the Absolute, God, or the Tao need be avoided.

 

The "innate harmony" of the universe may or may not be real but one thing is certain, the universe operates in conformance with principals that can be quantified mathematically.

 

I think you mean the physical universe operates that way, not necessary the total universe and all aspects of it. If we consider the whole of the Total Cosmos, or the Multiverse, or Complete Reality, there are certainly parts of it that cannot be described or "quantified" by mathematics alone. To say everything operates in accordance with mathematics would be to exaggerate the role that that one discipline plays in the construction of knowledge. "History" would be one area where the application of mathematics is almost useless to determine what is of value. Other areas would be philosophy, literature, art, sociology, psychology, ethics, aesthetics, politics and many more. Not to mention:  metaphysics, ontology, theology, and the study of humor. These disciplines, and the objects of study connected with them, are "part of the universe." Still, mathematics can add little or nothing to elucidate the finer points of their study.

 

"One does not get to quantum mechanics and the discovery that most of the universe is missing and other counterintuitive realities without speaking the language of mathematics."

 

That much is true, and the value of purely physical sciences, such as quantum mechanics and cosmology (and other math dependent disciplines) should not be underestimated. But given the large number of disciplines that do NOT rely on mathematics, its value need not be overestimated either. Music is fairly unique amongst the arts, in that mathematics is an essential part of its scaffolding and construction and an indispensable tool in much of musicology.

On concrete proof:  The statement was made, "you require concrete proof for everything."  That does not appear to be true.  There are a tremendous number of propositions and assumptions that all people believe, without their having to be proved.  That is the case with every human being who is alive and who thinks.  Certain apriori truths, postulates, axioms and assumptions about the nature of time, space and causality are never proven, and usually cannot be proven.  Yet people believe them any way.    Even the strictest logicians, epistemologists and philosophers of mathematics know this is the case.  The statement "Music has value" cannot be proven.  But I think most members of Composers Forum believe the statement to be true.

 

 

Reply by Dave Dexter on December 9, 2016 at 12:23pm:

"Would you like to listen to some various possible reasons? You could ignore them afterwards if you like."

Serenity Laine said:  "What's the point?"

---------

Members of the Forum could listen to "various possible reasons," as to why,

"the much less gifted occasionally try to "sound like Bach" '

But my main point, you may recall, was to question the notion of the "less gifted" as opposed to the "more gifted," in general, as the symptom of an excuse to "imitate" rather than to create.   If the computer can simply generate "Bach sounding music," as seems to have been proven, then "what's the point" is a question to be answered. 

The reasoning behind the question can be reviewed here:

http://tinyurl.com/earlierpointaboutimitatingbach

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Chris Merritt.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service