It's obviously a topic with lots of room for discussion. Music is a concept like 'religion' or 'culture', in that it's so broad that many different things could be included under it.

I think of music as 'organised sound', like Varese. Natural sounds can certainly be very musical (Bartok used to transcribe birdsong and use melodic themes from it), and could very well be described as music, but I think the distinction is to do with the "frame". Works of art normally have frames round them, which is the composer / artist's way of saying "Here's my artwork - what do you think?" That doesn't happen with, say, the sound of a car crash.

I suppose it's perfectly possible to imagine that a bird proudly launching into song is doing so as a kind of artistic expression, so that might be closer to what we think of as music than say, a thunderstorm, which doesn't have apparently conscious thought behind it.

Still, I can certainly understand the view that every sound is a kind of music. David Toop's book 'Ocean of Sound' is a good one to read if you like the idea of ambient sound appearing in organised music. A foetus can hear before it can do just about anything else, and our early exposure to our mother's heartbeat surely helps explain our lifelong response to rhythm.

With all our other senses, we have to direct them to the source of their stimulus: to see something, you have to be looking that way; to smell something you have to stick your nose there etc. But sound is around us all the time. True silence is (I would think) impossible for us to experience.

Cut the music...

Noise to some, music to others:

The sweeeeet sound of TIE-Fighter engines! I wonder if they're turbo-charged.

I disagree with this. Ernst Gombrich doesn't have the final say on aesthetics. This is only one of many definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomusicology

"in the last analysis, it is a human being who decides what is and is not musical, even when the sound is not of human origin."

- Jean-Jacques Nattiez

If you want to play some sort game with semantics in order to classify every possible audible phenomenon as either "an interesting sound" or "music", than have at it. You'll just have your own quirky definition that can easily be refuted or contradicted by someone else.

Roivas' definition of music:

Whatever the hell I say it is because I'm an American. This is God's country and I'll bomb your face off if you stand in my way.

You can quote me on that.

Wasn't that George Bush's 2004 campaign slogan?

It's a multi-purpose definition.

JUMP IN THE FIRE!!!



but in all seriousness (the pretentious kind), i still think it all goes back to influence. with the examples of nature, the bird chirps to influence a mate to get closer, the ice cracks to influence travelers to avoid it. and in modern times (whether we like it or not) pop songs influence the procreation of the species.

basically my whole kick on influence revolves around the idea that the only true conflict a human being faces is that of want vs. need for control of the individual. where the challenge to reach adulthood is not to live to be over 21 but to develop the mental fortitude necessary to grasp the simplicity and unbearable lightness of being. to recognize the perpetual conflict for what it is and to acknowledge that the individual they are is the one who controls both the wants and the needs and that their body will not live forever or learn everything while it lasts.

whatever ones intention towards anything becomes irrelevant as soon as it's judged by the free will of another leaving only the desire to influence another as the force behind any action. good / bad / right / wrong, all irrelevant to me, which in turn makes the idea of good / bad music irrelevant to me as well. there's LOTS of stuff i hear that i don't care for but i really don't think my shit smells so nice that i should be dictating to others what they should and should not listen to (that doesn't mean i'm going to say everything is great just because you like it either).

so for me, i guess music is the most basic form of influential language available, capable of touching absolutely anyone in one form or another.

Satchmo8101:

You want an answer. No.
I have no idea who he/she is, and I'm not copying/pasting/plagiarizing anything. I really can't understand why would you think that, because I haven't given you any reasons for make a comment of that kind.

The Zola:

You are saying that I'm not capable of listening to a thing. You really made my day with that statement.

Ok, well let me tell you something, I may not be capable of that, but at least I respect everyone's opinion. I am also capapable of not judging them with a couple of posts I have read from them. And if I may, just because I believe the sounds of nature aren't music, it would necesary means they are not beautiful to me or can't enjoy them, you know?

I am not trying to pull an official definition or something, the idea of this thread was only to listen to everyone's personal opinion about music, and then make a discussion. I'm not trying to convince anybody to believe what I believe.

1. A she....at least she claimed to be a she.

2. I didn't say you had copy/pasted/plagiarized any of your posts. I would have known if you had.....and I would have said straight out said so.

3. What makes me think so? I just find it unusual that two completely different people would start the identical threads and only limit almost all if not all their posts to that one subject/theme. You both also have similar writing styles....what little original writing katelynndevere actually made, that is.


Only you and the Big K could really know for sure.


4. Since you haven't copy/pasted/plagiarized anything as of yet.....I could care less either way if you are or not her.