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: 8236

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dave, I think the guy has 2 channels. Sounds like you watched/read the one

I don't.  He has an almost daily livestream report on You Tube under the same

name. Dutchsinse.   Over 175,000 subs and growing. He has added to the science

and is, on a week to week basis, refining that science into an art.

He has left the USGS in the dust. He is on to something, and it proves out.      RS

Fred, I am surprised at your take on this.

A supposition based on apparent denial, with nothing to validate your

claim, and- play on words? You attempt to negate a provable record of

predictions and analysis using a bovine brained statement like, 'he must

be doing drugs'?Well... Prove it.  Then again, if he is doing drugs, yet is spot on

right, with his predictions and 'new concept' analysis, then that factor would be

irrelevant. The USGS is incompetent (IMO) and just a government institution. The information

they provide is a fraction of the reality of what is really happening around the globe.

They report some events, but with no overview. That overview is key to understanding the

dynamics of what is going on. Earthquakes are not isolated events, and along with

volcanoes, tell a different story than we hear from mainstream sources.

"a little like asking if Galileo or Copernicus ever rode on airplanes."

I think it's more to the point to ask, which airplanes did Galileo and Copernicus ride, how fast did they go, and what were their specific routes?

Consider this quotation:

Leonardo da Vinci:

"A bird is an instrument working according to a mathematical law."

I am still trying to find out whether a bird is a MUSICAL instrument, working according to a mathematical law, and if so, does it "sing" in accordance with the principles of harmony established by Bach, Beethoven or Schoenberg? 

Is a birdsong actually "music" in any meaningful sense?   If it is, in what way does that help us with the question, "How can we define music?"

I predict that the genuine free thinking scientists will far surpass the clowns with

the institutional degrees. You didn't even give the guy a chance and yet you

catagorize him as 'woo woo'. That says a lot about you.... not him.      RS

Kristofer Emerig said:

I predict the rational will triumph over woo-woo, yet again, and then another eruption will ensue.

                                           - The Prescient Pest

"A bird is an instrument working according to a mathematical law."

Yo OO, where ya been, I thought you might have gotten caught in an

identity complex.... never mind.

I would rephrase that to say, A bird is a 'manifestation' of Nature working

according to Natural Laws that are in harmony with mathematics.

As far as accordance to harmony, it entirely depends on which leg you pull.

... and once again, the idea is that we can't define music in the same way we

define objects like... birds.     RS

Fred, are you suggesting that there is an intelligent design that structures our 'reality'?

This would, of course, include music.

I like to say that 'Physics is the bones of everything, and mathematics is the bones of

Physics'.  There is an innate harmony to the Universe. We ... are innately connected to

that subliminal design. Connected does not imply 'controlled by' though.

Free will is the fascinating aspect in all this.   i.e.  you and I can choose not to obey those laws.  RS



Fredrick zinos said:

Natural Laws and Mathematics are the same thing

Fred, that's kinda the point. You seem to value institutional accreditation as if it was

 legit proof of comprehensive knowledge. A diploma proves nothing to me.

A diploma proves that you have learned to think like the program wants you to think.

You pass their programed tests, you owe them scads of money, and you get a diploma.

This is truly a major problem in the world today. The system you so whole heartedly believe in

is a manipulated , controlled and programed system. In a word, it is not 'honest'.

Thank goodness for the internet .


 
Fredrick zinos said:

Are the words "genuine free thinking scientist" pasted or crayoned on to their diplomas or is there an actual credential tucked in there somewhere?

Dave, how many degrees did Tesla have?  How many degrees did the Wright Brothers have.

How many unique discoveries happened because of innovative people who pursued things

on their own? You don't need a frickin' diploma to be intelligent. That is a sales pitch. Get real !
 
Dave "THE BEST" Dexter said:

Those clowns, with their knowledge!

roger stancill said:

I predict that the genuine free thinking scientists will far surpass the clowns with

the institutional degrees. You didn't even give the guy a chance and yet you

catagorize him as 'woo woo'. That says a lot about you.... not him.      RS

Kristofer Emerig said:

I predict the rational will triumph over woo-woo, yet again, and then another eruption will ensue.

                                           - The Prescient Pest

Sure it helps. Any and all studying and research helps in any given field.

I wasn't suggesting that it didn't. I was implying that a diploma was not the

'end all' qualifier, and the only path to expertise.
 
Dave "THE BEST" Dexter said:

But it helps.

roger stancill said:

You don't need a frickin' diploma to be intelligent. That is a sales pitch. Get real !

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.

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.

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