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: 8235

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sure Dave, All you had do do was ask. Why would I post a link I thought no one was interested in.

Just go to You Tube and type in 'Dutchsinse' . This guy tops the USGS by leaps and bounds.

I've been following his vid's for 2 yrs. and he is good. You will be amazed at what mainstream

is not telling you. Pretty good graphics too. You won't believe the present global activity.

Then again attitude boy, I owe you nothing. You could at any time set a positive example

and be the 'bigger man' which might actually favor a decent civil discussion.        RS
 
Dave Dexter said:

If it's not the real world, why should we worry about earthquakes? And please, we have our differences, but if you have access to information proving some impending earthquake apocalypse, shouldn't you be the bigger man and tell us more? Either that or teach us how to transcend our physical form through astral projection via the 7th, 9th and 53rd dimensions.

roger stancill said:

Ferd, isn't that basically the same  question I was asking Ray? Yep, that's right, I was asking Ray.

ps- your 'real world' is about to experience a smackdown in the near future. Just a heads up, but are

you following the global exponential uptick in earthquakes? No fear, just be prepared.      RS
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Roger, How do you know the "real world" to which you refer, is real?

That's totally your call and smugness. I agree, for years it seemed fearmongering and

total BS. I'm not so sure today. Take it or leave it .... I don't live on the west coast

and will only read about it in the papers. You know best.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

The real world, Roger, has been in line for a smack down "any minute now" since the 1st century. And yet we wait. Oh well, maybe by the year 3000.



Fredrick zinos said:

David L. An excellent definition.

All the Mumbo Jumbo about "we can't define music (substitute whatever word you want in place of "music") because it operates on a higher spiritual plain", is an excuse for not applying one's self to seeking an objective answer. In fact, in my thesaurus when I look up the phrase "higher spiritual plain" the definition / synonym is "lazy, easily satisfied with formulaic answers, unobservant, Neanderthal"  

Lazy indeed. Human beings feel the need to have an explanation for anything, it is our nature. How do we explain the things we do not understand? Well. . . there's when you start getting your "Higher spiritual plains! Aliens! Almighty beings!" answers. 

Fred, music is no more an "object" than a word is.

( not sheet music, the sounds)

Is a word an object, like a piece of fruit?

Right there is a difference between a thing and the word

that defines it, for communicative purposes.

What was it that Shakespeare said about a rose? you know.

Thesaurus you say, don't you mean dinothesuarus?

You seem to base everything on your 5 senses.

Wait, I'll make that 6 senses, as you do have a sense of humor.

But all that is a finite bandwidth of perception.
 Is mental telepaphy possible in your 'real' world?   RS
Fredrick zinos said:

David L. An excellent definition.

All the Mumbo Jumbo about "we can't define music (substitute whatever word you want in place of "music") because it operates on a higher spiritual plain", is an excuse for not applying one's self to seeking an objective answer. In fact, in my thesaurus when I look up the phrase "higher spiritual plain" the definition / synonym is "lazy, easily satisfied with formulaic answers, unobservant, Neanderthal"  

The source I quoted has re-written the book on your scientific 'peer' review.

No Doctorate, no PHD, just commom sense and logic and analyzing the data.

My kind of guy, as they say.

Of course you will hold dearly to your 'faith' in them, the institution. Their guidelines for

understanding what is 'real' is based on science and therefore stands, unquestionably. 
 I know you will die with your current boots on... but maybe it's time to look into getting a new pair.   RS
Fredrick zinos said:

If there has been a "recent increase in seismic activity" rather than an increase in the frequency of reports due to better instrumentation, how, if at all does this increase vary from the norm? For instance can you cite any peer reviewed scholarly articles that indicate expert opinion that the currently very minor increase in seismic activity is without precedent?

Dave and Fred, neither of you did any research into the site what-so ever. Rather shallow.

Was Gallileo peer reviewed? Or Copernicus?

Institutions have no interest in getting the truth out to the common man.

Dutchsinse has proved he is more capable of predicting earthquakes than

all government backed sources. And his history of being correct far surpasses

current assessment by the 'know-it alls' with their degrees.

I'm sure you would agree that FACTUAL data is not a conspiracy theory.

Freddie mon, actually common sense and logic tell us just the opposite.

Good try though a bit self indulgent. All past 'science ' based on egocentric

perceptions has generally proved to be false.


 
Fredrick zinos said:

Common sense and logic tell you the earth is flat. Thanks, I'll take my chances with people who know something rather than believe something.

oger stancill said:

The source I quoted has re-written the book on your scientific 'peer' review.

No Doctorate, no PHD, just commom sense and logic and analyzing the data.

My kind of guy, as they say.

Of course you will hold dearly to your 'faith' in them, the institution. Their guidelines for

understanding what is 'real' is based on science and therefore stands, unquestionably. 
 I know you will die with your current boots on... but maybe it's time to look into getting a new pair.   RS
Fredrick zinos said:

If there has been a "recent increase in seismic activity" rather than an increase in the frequency of reports due to better instrumentation, how, if at all does this increase vary from the norm? For instance can you cite any peer reviewed scholarly articles that indicate expert opinion that the currently very minor increase in seismic activity is without precedent?

Suit yourself, I've tuned in to his video's for almost 2 years and say he is more credible

than anyone else that is 'only honestly attempting' to read data and 'size it up'.

Where do you get 'conspiracy theory'? The guy only shows raw data from

numerous sourrces and countries, and then quite accurately, predicts where new

quakes will hit. Hardly conspiracy- and lately, spot on.

ps- and you ask why I don't share the source up front ...it's because of

people like you who don't appreciate the concept of 'for what it's worth'.

Obviously it's worth nothing to you, so it was a waste of time and effort.

I had nothing to gain.... It was a heads up, and something that IS really going on.
 
Dave Dexter said:

Makes incorrect assertion about Earth's structure and quote-mines an official, both to support his various conspiracy theories. And that was what I found without really trying.



roger stancill said:

Dave and Fred, neither of you did any research into the site what-so ever. Rather shallow.

Was Gallileo peer reviewed? Or Copernicus?

Institutions have no interest in getting the truth out to the common man.

Dutchsinse has proved he is more capable of predicting earthquakes than

all government backed sources. And his history of being correct far surpasses

current assessment by the 'know-it alls' with their degrees.

I'm sure you would agree that FACTUAL data is not a conspiracy theory.

Dave says;Two years eh? Well! If it's two years it MUST be credible

Two years is plenty of time to establish a proven or a provable track record.

I only said that he was the most credible that I have found anywhere covering the field so far.

He even finally got the USGS to admit that fracking was a contributing

component. particularly in Oklahoma. (not as a cause, but more as a 'breakpoint' along a

plate boundry.)

If I thought it was as feeble a scenario as 'chicken little' or 'crying wolf', I wouldn't have

even mentioned it.

A 6.5 quake just hit near Oregon and the progression/procession lines generally head

south from there. Fred lives around San Diego, I believe he mentioned.

Just watch a couple of the recent videos and you'll see what I mean.

I merely offered it as a 'heads up', for what it's worth, might be a good idea to be

prepared . For you Brit's, there was just a small but rare event in the English Channel.

Actually, I don't worry about them much at all, but my sister lives just north of the

New Madrid faultline, which 'they' say is long overdue for a hit, so I keep an eye on

it for her sake. It's what older brothers do :>}                          RS

For a long time I resisted answering this question, as interesting as it is to me, and I even just attempted to take a stab at my own definition, but found it faulty. Admittedly I have not read the 715 replies here, but I think there are multiple definitions that are valid in different senses, and not valid in each other's senses. There is the common understanding of what music is, there is the attempt to encompass all sound which some might consider to be music, there is the definition which tries to define music as the sound which has the most humanly-cognitive information and organization, which in my opinion would be that sound which has perceivable rhythm, harmony, melody, and form (though I would never argue that other music should be looked down upon; I've composed a-melodic music, and even rhythm-only music), there is the definition which attempts to define what music is most superior, and that either intellectually or aesthetically or meaningfully. So I think it is impossible to give one satisfactory definition; the sense in which it is to be defined must first be given. I am happy to accept anyone's understanding of what music is to them. One man's noise is another man's music, and one man's music is another's noise.

Fred, all I gave was a 'heads up'. and twice said... for what it's worth.

I made no claim. Dutchsinse is the show and the statisics. Take it or leave it.

He offers a much better analysis and by far, a better coverage and presentation

than the USGS.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Roger you have to provide statistical evidence that the current spate of seismic activity is a meaningful variation from the norm. To do that, you'd have to show me Tuva erupting in central Michigan or thousand mile long lava fields in France.

Joel , spot on... and I totally agree with your assessment.

This is the nature of my original intent, and then to try to also determined

if by use of 'cymatics', even better separate the idea of music from noise.

Thanks for diving in.    RS
 
Joel Becker said:

For a long time I resisted answering this question, as interesting as it is to me, and I even just attempted to take a stab at my own definition, but found it faulty. Admittedly I have not read the 715 replies here, but I think there are multiple definitions that are valid in different senses, and not valid in each other's senses. There is the common understanding of what music is, there is the attempt to encompass all sound which some might consider to be music, there is the definition which tries to define music as the sound which has the most humanly-cognitive information and organization, which in my opinion would be that sound which has perceivable rhythm, harmony, melody, and form (though I would never argue that other music should be looked down upon; I've composed a-melodic music, and even rhythm-only music), there is the definition which attempts to define what music is most superior, and that either intellectually or aesthetically or meaningfully. So I think it is impossible to give one satisfactory definition; the sense in which it is to be defined must first be given. I am happy to accept anyone's understanding of what music is to them. One man's noise is another man's music, and one man's music is another's noise.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

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

Store

© 2019   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service