What is the difference between music and noise? [years-dead slappyfight revived]

[Numanoid]

Music is sound you want.

Noise is sound you don't want.

Music can be Music Saturday night, but when your neighbour blasts it Sunday Morning, the same Music becomes Noise because then it is unwanted.

[aciddose]

Unfortunately that definition does not work as it is subjective. If you say "in the subjective sense, ..." this is okay but there are issues you need to take into account.

For example when we define "music" in terms of copyright eligibility, is something you consider "noise" not eligible? So if I don't like your tracks they suddenly become ineligible, right?

The fact is even a baby banging a toy on a wall is music. The infant didn't need to be doing anything specific or even intend to produce music. The only requirement is that (human) information is encoded in some way; The beats and their position in time create a rhythm.

All the infant needed to do was take the abstract "I like banging things with this" and turn it into the concrete "I am banging the wall with this".

They get copyright.

Someone might have thought "hey, I like how that sounds" and recorded it, "this recording is awesome".

They get copyright!

The same thing doesn't apply to a monkey or a bird as they have no rights.

[Kevin Deas]

ALL music is noise, but all noise is NOT music.

[The_Hidden_Goose]

ALL music is noise, but all noise is NOT music.

Only if you consider "sound" is the same as "noise".

Not sure I agree with that, however just doing a quick dictionary search online, it appears some dictionaries apparently do.

[whyterabbyt]

Unfortunately that definition does not work as it is subjective.

No, the definition does work because the difference in perception between noise and music is entirely subjective.

For example when we define "music" in terms of copyright eligibility, is something you consider "noise" not eligible?

Exactly why would we define music in terms of something fairly arbitrarily connected to it like that?

Notwithstanding that copyright applies to any audio recording as equally as it does to anything deemed a recording of music.

So if I don't like your tracks they suddenly become ineligible, right?

As sound recordings? Nope.

The fact is even a baby banging a toy on a wall is music.

Under what definition?

The infant didn't need to be doing anything specific or even intend to produce music.

Says who?

The only requirement is that (human) information is encoded in some way; The beats and their position in time create a rhythm.

Who dictated that 'requirement' then?
And what makes you think that something which is pretty likely to be arhythmic creates a rhythm in the absence of a concerted effort to do so?

All the infant needed to do was take the abstract "I like banging things with this" and turn it into the concrete "I am banging the wall with this".

They get copyright.

Im pretty sure they dont, but feel free to quote the specific laws that state that. Either way, though, it doesnt define it as music.

Someone might have thought "hey, I like how that sounds" and recorded it, "this recording is awesome".

They get copyright!

Yes, they would. Making a sound recording gives you copyright over the sound recording. It doesnt inherently redefine the thing that was recorded as music though.

The same thing doesn't apply to a monkey or a bird as they have no rights.

Which thing? You just stated several things. For the record, though, if I was to record a monkey or a bird, I'd have copyright on that recording just as much as if it was a recording of a child banging a toy on a wall.

[whyterabbyt]

Amusingly, despite the absolutely bloody endless recycling/looping of the same arguments over and over again over its lifetime, Im pretty sure this thread is mostly pretty much noise.

[aciddose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Art: A work produced by a human through the process of creativity; Transformation from the abstract to the concrete in various forms.

If you do not define music as a sub category of art, what is it?

See Music:Philosophy and aesthetics, Music:Psychology.

Unfortunately there haven't apparently been many authors who have taken my stance regarding music and information theory.

If you read the article on creativity, particularly Creativity:History of the concept, you will find a description of the history of our understanding of this concept and its evolution over time.

Ultimately my definition of creativity and its products in an objective manner is a rejection of these ancient religious beliefs. Creativity is an emergent phenomenon, an expression through the creator of the sum of his influences.

[trimph1]

Amusingly, despite the absolutely bloody endless recycling/looping of the same arguments over and over again over its lifetime, Im pretty sure this thread is mostly pretty much noise.

It is on an endless loop.

[robogone]

Amusingly, despite the absolutely bloody endless recycling/looping of the same arguments over and over again over its lifetime, Im pretty sure this thread is mostly pretty much noise.

It is on an endless loop.

That statement is music to my ears.

...erm...hang on...

[Numanoid]

Locked groove like side D of Metal Machine Music.....

....wait a minute, was that really Music, rather than Noise, Lou Reed was tinkering with?

[aciddose]

Which thing? You just stated several things. For the record, though, if I was to record a monkey or a bird, I'd have copyright on that recording just as much as if it was a recording of a child banging a toy on a wall.

You're focusing only on the rights to the recording and ignoring the rights to the source material. No matter what you do, your recording is a derivative.

If you record a baby banging a toy against a wall, this is derivative of a human work and therefore you need to get permission from the infant's parents in order to secure the right to distribute that recording, or, you might argue that the public has a right to access this information although you can still be held liable.

For instance see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_D ... ht_dispute

Because King's speech was broadcast to a large radio and television audience, there was controversy about its copyright status. If the performance of the speech constituted "general publication", it would have entered the public domain due to King's failure to register the speech with the Registrar of Copyrights. However, if the performance only constituted "limited publication", King retained common law copyright. This led to a lawsuit, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., which established that the King estate does hold copyright over the speech and had standing to sue; the parties then settled.

Just think of it this way, you argue the piano player was merely "tapping a few keys" and not producing music. So therefore your recording belongs solely to you? Why does this suddenly sound different than the baby does? There is no difference.

[whyterabbyt]

Which thing? You just stated several things. For the record, though, if I was to record a monkey or a bird, I'd have copyright on that recording just as much as if it was a recording of a child banging a toy on a wall.

You're focusing only on the rights to the recording and ignoring the rights to the source material. No matter what you do, your recording is a derivative.

So in one post you say a monkey has no rights, and the next post you argue i'd be ignoring the monkey's rights if I recorded it?

You might want to try and be consistent with your own posts.

If you record a baby banging a toy against a wall, this is derivative of a human work

I asked you before to quote the specifics of the law, which, of course, you ignored. Despite that, I'm definitely asking for you to back this up with actual proof.

In essence what you're claiming is that all human activity is a 'work' that is copyrightable. The fact that copyright law specifically delimits the classes of work which are copyrightable is immediate and incontrovertible proof that not all activities are covered.

The particular restricted works covered by UK copyright law are

Literary, dramatic and musical works.
Databases
Artistic works.
Sound recordings.
Films.
Broadcasts.
Cable programmes.
Published editions.

Each of those is clearly defined, and, sadly for your argument, there's no twisting of the facts which could coherently fit the actions of a baby into one of those definitions.
And if you're going to go for the obvious 'twisting' attempt and try arguing that a baby banging its toy is a literary, dramatic or musical work, the law clearly states that none of those have copyright status until they are recorded in some form.
Oh and 'artistic works' covers concrete artistic constructs; real things in other words.

You're basically claiming any and all random action is covered by copyright. That's a nonsense.

However, any talk of copyright in this discussion is pretty much all smoke and mirrors. Your original argument was confusing cause with effect; that an activity should be considered 'music' because you claim it would be covered by copyright law. In actuality its the other way round; if an activity is considered music, it would, as a result of that be protected by the relevant copyright laws.

[trimph1]

Locked groove like side D of Metal Machine Music.....

....wait a minute, was that really Music, rather than Noise, Lou Reed was tinkering with?

What if it was both?

[Numanoid]

I'm just happy I didn't live in the apartment below him at the time of recording

[trimph1]

Which thing? You just stated several things. For the record, though, if I was to record a monkey or a bird, I'd have copyright on that recording just as much as if it was a recording of a child banging a toy on a wall.

You're focusing only on the rights to the recording and ignoring the rights to the source material. No matter what you do, your recording is a derivative.

So in one post you say a monkey has no rights, and the next post you argue i'd be ignoring the monkey's rights if I recorded it?

You might want to try and be consistent with your own posts.

If you record a baby banging a toy against a wall, this is derivative of a human work

I asked you before to quote the specifics of the law, which, of course, you ignored. Despite that, I'm definitely asking for you to back this up with actual proof.

In essence what you're claiming is that all human activity is a 'work' that is copyrightable. The fact that copyright law specifically delimits the classes of work which are copyrightable is immediate and incontrovertible proof that not all activities are covered.

The particular restricted works covered by UK copyright law are

Literary, dramatic and musical works.
Databases
Artistic works.
Sound recordings.
Films.
Broadcasts.
Cable programmes.
Published editions.

Each of those is clearly defined, and, sadly for your argument, there's no twisting of the facts which could coherently fit the actions of a baby into one of those definitions.
And if you're going to go for the obvious 'twisting' attempt and try arguing that a baby banging its toy is a literary, dramatic or musical work, the law clearly states that none of those have copyright status until they are recorded in some form.
Oh and 'artistic works' covers concrete artistic constructs; real things in other words.

You're basically claiming any and all random action is covered by copyright. That's a nonsense.

However, any talk of copyright in this discussion is pretty much all smoke and mirrors. Your original argument was confusing cause with effect; that an activity should be considered 'music' because you claim it would be covered by copyright law. In actuality its the other way round; if an activity is considered music, it would, as a result of that be protected by the relevant copyright laws.

He enjoys moving goalposts...