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: 8327

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dave to use your language, what the fuck, shit ,turd, smell do you think I am

trying to do with this post and thread???????????????

Expand my ego? Or, expand a shared understanding of music and the

future direction of music. It's something we could all learn from.

.... but then again , we could discuss syntax

It's difficult to tell, honestly. But defining music probably isn't in it.

Dave said,

"Speaking of tax. At my old job we had a phrase used when someone really lavishly f**ked something up. .... [etc. etc.]"

I thought we already discussed the unnecessary use of obscene, degenerate and degrading curse words (on this and other threads) long enough to discourage this sort of verbiage.

Could you please just cut it out, and stop using the "t-word?"

It's already been thrashed out, for it's comic value, ages ago, by Groucho Marx, once again, in his Role as Firefly, the Dictator of Freedonia, in the film "Duck Soup," which so often seems worth quoting here:

Minister:     GENTLEMEN, ENOUGH.  HOW ABOUT TAKING UP THE TAX ?                             

Groucho:   -HOW ABOUT TAKING UP THE CARPET? 

Minister:    -WE MUST TAKE UP THE TAX !                              

Groucho:   YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE UP THE TAX BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE UP THE CARPET.

 

What I was suggesting originally was that we can't , by popular demand for

a dictionary styled definition, define music as a static, confined by definition,

concrete commodity, so to speak. Sorry if my articulation is not the best.

But, if you actually took the time to read the full post , I thought I qualified that.

I asked 'How 'can' we define music'.... which , out of the full context, is indeed a worn

out effort here. So why would I bother to bring it up again?  I wasn't.

( for those of you who might get it.... not craw.... 'craw')

I was attempting to take another approach by suggesting that actually, music is

defined by what we write, and what we write is what we as individuals believe

music is or should be. Mozart had one view and interpretion, Cage had quite another.

How much of an innovator was Mozart, or did he just 'master' the craft of his era?

To my mind, there is a difference.

But at what point does innovation become no more than organized noise?

Are there any characteristics that separate music from noise, and if so are they

based on individual preferences that have evolved regionally, or is there a

common thread that unites all music?                      RS ( re- stating)

"No one remembers M. Ghandi  ...  "

Absolutely correct. But a great many people remember M. Gandhi.

And many also remember his favorite song:

Vaishav  Jan to Tene Kahiye - Gandhi Ji favorite hymn. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMofYZEmyTA

Hey Ray, thanks for your concise response.

I'm not sure if you are trying to negate the entire post

or were addressing a specific point.

Are there any characteristics that separate music from noise?  No?

Is there any common thread that unites all music?  No?

I think this subject is not worth pursuing ? Yes?

Do you think it's worthwhile to simply write music, or should

your efforts have some purpose and direction?

Are you mimicing current trends just for the money?

Are you cloning the past masters because you believe the

public wants and needs more of that?

If you go to antique stores, there are boxes and boxes of

sheet music written by 100's of people . Some of it is very good.

But, now it sits in a box collecting dust. So why bother composing?

Ah yes, the ep-i-tome of dualism. And quite right.... from an egocentric perspective.


I had forgotten about Eddie. I haven't heard much about him since my stitches healed

from the last encounter. Was he forced off stage?

 
Kristofer Emerig said:

So true. The most crucial attribute is the ability to kill people and break their stuff. All other philosophical virtues, once cultivated by the meek, can be confiscated by force.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

OH I don't know. Seems to me the meek will inherit the earth - once they get enough money and weapons.

Three cheers for man's inhumanity to man Mr. Z.

History has proven that your philosophy is dominant and thriving.

Quite sad actually, but practical and realistic. That's what counts

in the long run. Survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

I Agree Kristofer. No one remembers M. Ghandi, a person who probably killed not more than a few hundred people, a pacifist pussy, but  everyone remembers with fondness, Uncle Joe, a real man, whom I personally regard as the Johann Sebastian Bach of brutality.  And don't we today see growing pockets of admiration for the guy who taught Uncle Joe the value of a mustache? Genocide seems to be the price to pay for having the trains run on time, and I for one think its a good deal.

I only wonder if the phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth" was meant in the sense that the meek all die and inherit enough dirt to cover their ineffectual, rotting corpses.  

Kristofer Emerig said:

So true. The most crucial attribute is the ability to kill people and break their stuff. All other philosophical virtues, once cultivated by the meek, can be confiscated by force.
 
Fredrick zinos said:

OH I don't know. Seems to me the meek will inherit the earth - once they get enough money and weapons.

Oh Dave, the debased one, How is trying to maintain some focus on the

subject egotistical? I have no reason to justify my metaphysical beliefs to

you or anyone. You want to pursue a tangent to the focus of the original post.

That is not relevant or productive. The conversation shifts mostly because of

what you( not just you) focus on and address. That seems to be the reason

most of these threads fall apart.

If the topic of discussion is too mundane and beneath your intellectual

prowess, then click the F' ing  don't follow bar. It's that simple.

What do you have against those who might want to explore this

and enjoy a civil conversation. Obviously it must be something.

ergo- get a life                                   RS


 
Dave "NO STANDARDS" Dexter said:

Honestly, I think you're trying to synthesise an environment where everyone agrees with you. If your ego wasn't a concern you wouldn't be reacting with such bewildering venom to people asking for clarification of your metaphysical truth-claims.

I didn't want to discuss syntax. But should I remind that you shifted the conversation to attack books and learning garnered thereof? It was too delicious an opportunity to pass up!

roger stancill said:

Dave to use your language, what the fuck, shit ,turd, smell do you think I am

trying to do with this post and thread???????????????

Expand my ego? Or, expand a shared understanding of music and the

future direction of music. It's something we could all learn from.

.... but then again , we could discuss syntax

All relative to the fear of being dominated over.

That is merely a 'truth' of dualism, which has dominated

the psychology of mankind since you were 5 years old. (maybe longer)

And guess what, nothing will change.... until you do.



Fredrick zinos said:

"and enjoy a civil conversation"

History and several other disciplines have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that civil conversation is not possible unless and until both sides are armed.

Right you are, and on par. ( but they were all pencil pushers)
 
Fredrick zinos said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg... An example of a CF discussion.

Of course you are right, and history is on your side- therefore you can prove it

and believe in it. No one can discount the established fact that dualism has ruled

and dominated life forever. So of course, that will never change.

It is only mystics, visionarys and sissy pants milk drinkers that see a

greater potential and hope for better.

I've always liked Roosevelts philosophy. Talk softly but carry a big stick.


 
Fredrick zinos said:

"And guess what, nothing will change.... until you do."  Well, If I changed then I would be wrong. But I'm right so no need to change. And if you don't agree I shall taunt you a second time.. you drinker of expired milk!



roger stancill said:

All relative to the fear of being dominated over.

That is merely a 'truth' of dualism, which has dominated

the psychology of mankind since you were 5 years old. (maybe longer)

And guess what, nothing will change.... until you do.



Fredrick zinos said:

"and enjoy a civil conversation"

History and several other disciplines have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that civil conversation is not possible unless and until both sides are armed.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

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

Store

© 2021   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service