A small rant.

[HanafiH]

[pHz]

thats odd because i kind of always try to come off a bit post-structuralist actually ...

slainte rob

[griels]

aha, but according to some it can't be, because the bird was not intending to make music.. it was intending to say "bugger off this is my patch", or "over here for a shag".

And they say romance is dead Seriously, I don't like that definition... A lot of accidental stuff happens to fit into what we perceive as music (under whatever arbitrary criteria we choose), and we're all the richer for it... Found sounds can be beautiful to even the most rigid classical ear. Some of the best music to my mind is unintentional, and may not be recognised as music by some. But others will pick up on those factors and make them more accessible to the more rigid adherents of theory.

Somewhere I have an mp3 of people cancelling stamps at the University of Lagos. They keep breaking into rhythms, and it'll just sort of accidentally build up, then someone will sing or whistle over it. It has an honesty and lack of contrivance which is quite universal in its appeal I think.

[dover666]

perhaps music is sound that is listened to with intention... ?

[ianweb123]

ian ... that all depends on whether youre an intentionalist or subscribe to some more audience-centred theory ...
slainte rob

I think that the existence of the intent can only be conceeded in a situation where there is a receptive force. The physics of sound is that waves are created in the air - these are only realised when thay meet a surface that is capable of being affected by those waves.. A tree falling in a forest has the potential to create a sound but that sound is only realised at the point of reciept, before that point it has a physical form but not an audible.. Unless of course the tree lands on your head in which case all bets are off on what the f**king intent was, and you'd know all about the physical form.

[VicDiesel]

so's mine!

And mine! And my wife's too!

Victor -- always looking on the bright side

[nBeat]

Hm...
Well, I seen some very broad definition here of what is music.
Consider speech then. It consists of rhythm, pitch, timbre and phrase.
Would that make the human speech music ?
When I talk in an ordinary situation, is my intent then to make music ?
Who would know the difference ?

What if I scribble down a few sentences and then decide to "perform"
the piece as music:
"Hello folks. Listen to this tune I wrote. ...and then I start ramling.

I mean, come on.

Argh, it's all in the ear of the receiver.
Without a receiver there's no detection.
And without detection there's no sign of intent.

Not too vague I hope.

[sposey1969]

Hm...
Well, I seen some very broad definition here of what is music.

I remember taking classes in college on the philosophy and aesthetics of art & music. MOST of the class time was spent having debates such as this thread. These kinds of debates have been going on for hundreds of years.

Just take a look at http://www.aesthetics-online.org/.

Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics_of_music (granted, it's also debatable whether Wiki material comes from reputable sources).

Thank you, all, for this entertaining thread. It's taken me back to a time over 15 years ago when we used to debate whether computers could be used to make quality music.

[nBeat]

It's taken me back to a time over 15 years ago when we used to debate whether computers could be used to make quality music.

Just out of curiosity.
What was your opinion back then ?

Computers have been involved at some level
in music longer than that, albeit simpler and maybe less powerful.
But I guess that debate was about standalone ones (PCs and MACs)
not associated with a specific instrument such as the Fairlight.

Me ? Well, I saw it coming.

[sposey1969]

Me ? Well, I saw it coming.

Oh, I saw it coming, too. I tried to get my school to create a Computer Science/Music degree (we could create our own majors if we presented the documentation to the faculty as to why it should be done). I was in college in the late '80s/early '90s (graduated in '91). We had Macs in the computer lab, and I would take my Roland D-10 in there to do sequencing and would get all kinds of stares. One of my music professors actually tried to say I cheated on a music theory assignment because I printed the score I wrote using the computer instead of hand writing on staff paper.

In the end, they failed to see the value of creating the new major, citing lack of evidence that computers would ever be used seriously in music.

Funny how time changes things.

[the_nihilist]

Wow, I was expecting a lot of replies, but this has actually evolved into something rather interesting. I'll see if I can add anything insightful here.

First of all, I don't think that my descision to not use subtractive analog and virtual analog synths has anything to do with the actual aesthetic definition of music.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the point I was making is to link to this page:

http://www.synthmania.com/Famous%20Sounds.htm

There are quite a few sounds that most posters here can agree about being overused. Most of them are on that page. The "cher vocal" effect, acid basslines, DX7 e-pianos, gated snares... You get the idea.

In the same way those sounds are played out and annoying to most everyone here, analog subtractives are to me. I don't enjoy the actual act of music creation when I use them. It happens sometimes, to all sorts of musicians. What I'm doing is no different than a guitarist putting down his guitar and saying "I want to try something different, like an instrument that doesn't sound like a guitar."

I'm certainly not trying to challenge the very assumptions that we have about the nature of music... I just want to have fun making songs. Tastes change, and musicians don't go anywhere interesting if they don't experiment.

I don't wan't to create 4/4 trance music using supersaws and VA's and simple minor scales, so I'm not going to. Just like Bones is never going to pick up an acoustic guitar. It's choices like these that define artists, and make their music unique and worth listening to.

[diverdee]

Somewhere I have an mp3 of people cancelling stamps at the University of Lagos. They keep breaking into rhythms, and it'll just sort of accidentally build up, then someone will sing or whistle over it. It has an honesty and lack of contrivance which is quite universal in its appeal I think.

Damn sounds just like that TV program, documentary I think, about the performing arts school where they'd spontaneously break into a song & dance routine in the mess hall using whatever implements came to hand.
Damn it was some interesting stuff - universal in it's appeal also .... it was called fame I believe.

[griels]

it was called fame I believe.

LEROY!!

[Barnadine]

I've recently discovered a talent for picking my nose with my thumb, so I've decided to chop off a finger or two.

[x_bruce]

For the sake of, well, f**k it, I don't need any sakes...

Most people would need to have their heads in the sand to think that VA is all that people talk about these days.

A month ago there was a conversation on when new synthesis would come out, but that was under the context of several unique designs and 2005s trend to keep redoing so-called exotic synths. But for the sake of remembering the newest scourge of synthesis (though I don't dislike it.)

1) Sample based synths in complex, unique synth engines that lots of people's daddies would have given their left nut for.
2) Future retro synths put out inexpensively by none other than Korg with their complete versions of the digitally reproduced sample playback M1 and much more exotic Wavestation for $150
3) FM based mult-synth engine synths
4) Symptohm:Melohman, or the end of the world if we're calling it VA
5) great semi-modular synths like the brand spankin new TERA 3 and the even newer, soon to be available Zebra 2

The better question is whether we gain anything from some of the newer technology synths coming out. To know me over the years, that might seem like time to get an exocist out.