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

Thanks for all the attention Dave . Your sense of fun says a lot about you.

Do you know the difference between 'action and reaction'?

I didn't open those doors, but have no problem fighting fire with fire.

The most fitting  I think was, 'you are a punk'.    RS  (real sure)

Maybe it's not our real goal to define music, but the music we favor to define us.
Thank ya!

Hi Rodney, good to hear from you.

This is what I was trying to get to and bring out in an effort to find

a more inclusive and encompassing idea of a definition of music.

Previous discussions have all dead-ended by attemping to arrive

at a 'dictionary definition' so to speak.

By allowing music to define itself, either by individual compositional

effort and by what others are willing to listen to, we keep the definition

fluid and evolving. As oppossed to having to meet some restrictive set of words.
 This lead to the other question. Is there any acceptable way to draw a line between

music and noise, or is that too something only defined by personal preference.

In essence, it may be the same question, tho' I did bring up the idea of fingernails

raking across a chalkboard as an example of where most might draw that line. :>}      RS
Rodney Carlyle Money said:

Maybe it's not our real goal to define music, but the music we favor to define us.

OK Dave, I'll try again.

Fred stated early on in this noise-fest that 'Music is the organized absence of silence'.

That is one opinion from one person. But that definition while worth considering, could

include all the sounds of setting a table or a choreographed series of ' burps'.

Do you consider either to be music?

Once you define something with words, that is what it is... No?

No one to date in any of the past discussions has come up with a

general definition that is all inclusive yet separates music from noise.

There really is no need to get so dramatic about it

So I disagreed with Fred , and I said so. So what?

I guess I could have said, Thanks, that's great. Now let's wait to see what

some others think.

But you are somewhat correct in suggesting that I had a preconceived idea

already in mind before I wrote the OP.

Regarding your last sentence, which by the way was not a complete sentence,;>/

isn't a definition, by definition, a restriction?

Webster's:(1959)    definition-

1-the act of defining

2-a statement of meaning

3-clearness of outline

4-distinctness of form

There are 2 ways to read the Title of the Post.

I was not asking FOR a definition of music.

I was asking ' how CAN we define music', by the use

of words when it is a language of it's own-especially if

the words put music in a finite box, exclusively restricting

it to the dimensions of that box.

Does that help?                                 RS
 
Dave "NO STANDARDS" Dexter said:

But you're being restrictive. People have answered your question earlier and you've essentially said "no, I don't think so" to a lot of them.

As an example: FZ said "music is the organised absence of silence." Your response was:

"Wait a minute Fred, that would include setting the table for a State dinner. I think we need to qualify the subset a bit. and, can chaos be considered as organized when it is written down on paper and repeated by others? Or is this just a gimmick devised by clever composers who can't come up with viable harmonies and melodies?"   

Essentially dismissing the opinion raised and changing the boundaries of the question in response to a point you don't agree with. It's worth noting there are musicians who have used table setting as part of their music. In fact, FZ's post more or less addresses your latest: "Is there any acceptable way to draw a line between music and noise, or is that too something only defined by personal preference." I'd say so. What FZ calls organisation and I would call intent. Don't keep asking the question until you only get answers you like.


You'll note I'm not swearing in an effort to make you take seriously what I believe to be a valid problem with, if not the question itself, then your method of exploring it. Please don't just mindlessly call me a punk because I'm disagreeing with you. Read what I'm saying. You cannot meaningfully posit keeping "the definition fluid and evolving. As oppossed to having to meet some restrictive set of words" when you set restrictions on definitions.

roger stancill said:

Hi Rodney, good to hear from you.

This is what I was trying to get to and bring out in an effort to find

a more inclusive and encompassing idea of a definition of music.

Previous discussions have all dead-ended by attemping to arrive

at a 'dictionary definition' so to speak.

By allowing music to define itself, either by individual compositional

effort and by what others are willing to listen to, we keep the definition

fluid and evolving. As oppossed to having to meet some restrictive set of words.
 This lead to the other question. Is there any acceptable way to draw a line between

music and noise, or is that too something only defined by personal preference.

In essence, it may be the same question, tho' I did bring up the idea of fingernails

raking across a chalkboard as an example of where most might draw that line. :>}      RS
Rodney Carlyle Money said:

Maybe it's not our real goal to define music, but the music we favor to define us.

Come on Dave, your last sentence was;

'As oppossed to having to meet some restrictive set of words" when you set restrictions on definitions.'

I still read and understood what you were trying to say... despite the grammatical error. (er ah 'syntax' you

postured and whined)

Why should I have used a different word, and a page and a half to clarifying each word I chose to use?

I started with a general, but specific title.( dave says... oh no, you can't do that, it's ambiguously confusing.

Hey, if you don't get, then you don't get it. Am I supposed to cater to your lack of understanding and inability

to comprehend what is printed right under your nose? You seem to be almost pathologically focused on an

effort to discredit me and this thread. once again, ergo- get a life (of your own).     Isn't that what trolls do?

Then you accuse me of anger and venom for returning fire. I'm only sparring and learning ... and laughing

all the way. I'm actually learning a lot from you and Emerig and Mr. Z. The challenge is great sport.

Y'all are really helping me to hone my skills with 'life on the internet'.

But, in real life, I am truly interested in music and it's purpose and especially it's direction.

It's a shame that combative egotists have to constantly try to torpedo and sabatage the discussions.

I wonder how many others would participate, if that was not the case.  RS

Freddie mon, vague is wishy washy and not a definition- but you know that.

If you don't give 'a piss' why not click on the line provided and opt out of the

discussion? Surely you must have better things to do.

There actually could be someone watching this discussion 'in the wings'

that might have something profound to add to the discussion,

yet they might be a bit or slightly intimidated by the 'wolves and vultures'

that insist on dominating any and all discussions.

Your poem is wonderful, the meter and flow is sublime.

If not for the fact that it's mockery, it might be 'right on time'.

Dave, I now consider you a blathering idiot, no matter how profound your

vocabulary and your pseudo insights.

I honestly don't care a rat's ass about syntax or grammatical perfection.

What a perverted folly it is. You want to claim  superiority and yet you

try to condemn superiority. Honestly, you are wasting my time, and everyone

elses. I for one would like to hear from someone with a brain that is not

dominated by his tender ego and a need to trash a discussion. 

Well then, I stand corrected Mr. Z., you must not have anything better to do.

Artificial intelligence computing will become a huge force in our lives soon, and many see that as a threat, which it may well be. But to me it is just another tool, just like the fortepiano was. The challenge is to be creative with it, make it sing.

I'm sure many of us can remember writing music without Sibelius, but I wouldn't want to go back to that, so I'm ready to try something new.
 
Bob Porter said:

I like the original question of where music is going. Computer composition has no soul. Art has always been man made. The man and (or vs. ) the medium. Man in direct connection with the medium. 

Bob, there is no need to worry about computers taking over anything.

We imperfect humans will always own the main URL ( Utility Room Lever)

to there life support.... the electric panel .
 
Bob Porter said:

I suppose that would leave us more time to do.......something.

But what if the music acquisition computer (MAC) has a chip on its shoulder, and argues with the performer computer (PC). That would really byte. Then the computer designated for listening ( listening computer designate or LCD) might display confusion over whether it should monitor the situation, or tell them to go to dell.

Great idea, but a bit antithematic to the CF credo. Composers Unite.
 Wow man, you are the proverbial 'tiger by the tail' you claim to be.

It's kinda like a redneck entrusted with some power and a couple of

sticks of dynamite. You waste your talent here, yet you choose to waste

your talent here. Seems like a 'small potato's' mentality to me.

Do you also get your kicks throwing logs in front of wheel chairs?

You are not a tiger, in my view, you are a piss ant. Waste away 'buddy'.    RS
Kristofer Emerig said:

There's no wisdom in so many words crafted only to win the favour of others; that's the stuff of politicians. I'll wait to see whether your inquiry here results in better composing, or merely more posing.

Meanwhile, if I wish to be entertained by philosophical jousting, Nice Peter does it with so much more intelligence..

"While we use precise strikes, to disrupt your concentration, hand you an ass whipping our descendants will honour for generations"

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