Had to write a discussion board response detailing my opinions of what sound is vs what music is, and now I want your thoughts. And btw, I redroomed this so that when sex noises and such were brought up, it would still be appropriate. And if that isn't good enough, fuck you, yo couch, and yo mama's couch!
Meh, to an extent probably subconsciously true, though it really was not in the initial thought process.
Fuck you, Volp. I was going to make a parody thread on that line. Music: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Nationalistic, Minimalism, Early/Late 20th Century, Jazz, Blues, Oldies, Rock 'N Roll Sound: Mid 20th Century (fuck John Cage!), Rap, Hip Hop, yo mom last night... Debatable: The harpsichord, Country I'll get you a more serious answer later.
All music is sound but not all sound is music. Music has a mathematical tonal structure to it that not all sound has. But setting up a precise definition of that structure is pretty near impossible, as there is a huge "gray area" that some will call sound and some won't. 'Bout the best I can do. I'm no musician. Not by a long shot.
Sound really has a limited purpose while music is meant to convey a emotion, a feeling, in a rhythmic compilation of sounds.
HA! A Love Supreme is a classic, no doubt. He was at the top of his game there. BTW what's even better is Coltrane's "Ole". It has a Spanish feel (duh with that title) and totally rocks.
Of course, I'm not all that high-brow. I've got a lot of stuff that makes my musically snooty wife's nose turn right up. Alan Jackson and Wolfmother can, indeed, coexist on an iPod with Coltrane.
Why do geniuses like Coltrane die young, yet The Jonas Brothers will very likely still walk among us for all eternity? There is no God!
Not really. What you like is what you like. Simply because you can't grok a musical style or composition does not negate it's musicality. An old bandmate of mine, a brilliant bassist and jazz composer, hated some of the music that I loved. I burned him a few discs of Rick Wakeman and Michael Oldfield. He hated them. He acknowledged their talent and ability, but said, "There's just nothing in there that touches my black man's soul." As far as personal preferences go, Bock's quote isn't a bad one, but it's a far cry from being the "best definition of music".
I think, though, that you have to include the personal preference angle to have a complete definition.
I don't think so. One's personal preference angle can define "listenability", but it can't really make a pronouncement on what is or isn't "music".
No, music is what I like. I've seen some of the shit you clowns put in the "great song lyrics" thread.
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.....there's nothing in there that touches my white man's soul either. My take is if you're going to play sophisticated, complex music requiring a high degree of musicianship, play jazz. Or hell, even classical. But the whole "progressive rock" Rick Wakeman kind of thing just doesn't swing. It leaves me cold. I tried to give it a listen, but couldn't get into it. White people can TEAR UP the blues guitar (and rock offshoots) like nobody's business, and compose melodic piano-based pop (Elton John, Randy Newman) that borders on perfection.
That's why I said "include" rather than a more definite statement. You seem to be implying that there's a standard out there for what is and is not music that is somehow absolute. I can't buy that.
I'd dare say that there probably is, at least one that's better than one person's personal preferences. If you want to define music, that definition should have it's roots in music theory, and related disciplines, otherwise, you're simply defining what is and is not subjectively listenable. For the sake of argument, if you're going to include such a positions, whose should be chosen? Do we choose the best conductor or composer? The best guitar player? The most astute music critic? Do you find someway to create an abstract of all personal preferences to use to define music? Do we ask Dick Clarke? Simon Cowell? It may not be possible to arrive at an objective definition, but I don't think that rank-and-file personal preference gets us that much closer. Insofar as the board goes, I'd probably trust Bick's definition, but I don't know if even he'd consider his personal preferences, as influenced by the disciplines of music as they are, to be that much closer to the last word.
FTFY Oh, and Jamey? "It's" = contraction of "it is". "Its" = possessive form of "it." You're driving me crazy with that shit.
Its official. To Red Room is now a verb. Oh, and here's my abnormally schoolish answer I had to submit for the discussion board. On a scientific level, sound and music are similar. They have pitch, they have amplitude, they have dynamics, and they have timbre. Music builds on sound. Music combines sounds to create rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. But beyond the science, sound and music could not be more different. In the interview with John Cage, he says something about loving sound because sound does not have to talk; it does not have to tell him anything. Sound just is. I completely agree with him. Looking at it scientifically, a sound occurs when sound waves vibrate against the eardrum and are then perceived by the brain as something audible. Sounds happen, regardless of whether we want them to or not. Music, on the other hand, involves a choice. We can choose to listen to music, we can choose to let it impact us mentally and emotionally. Music does not just happen the way sound does. Music happens with intent and attention to detail. It ignites emotions and passions and illusions. In Cage's piece "4'33"" Cage forces people to take a break from the music they choose to hear and listen to the sounds that constantly surround them. Cage sees sound as beautiful, and wants others to see that beauty. Regretfully, I cannot say that I see the beauty in hearing people breathing and coughing and fidgeting and lights buzzing for four and a half minutes. In my opinion, sound is; music is more.
