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

[Ogg Vorbis]

2 a : the combination of simultaneous musical notes in a chord

Arpeggios are out I guess...

Nope.

Uh..."simultaneous"

sounds like harmony to me.

Yeah!!!

[jopy]

there is 2b from the definition of harmony that clearly refers to the progression of chords without requiring simultenaity. of course, most of these definitional battles are between people using the same word to refer to substantively different things that are both referenced by the same common language word.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Ogg, you don't honestly believe dictionaries prescribe meaning, do you? They collect and display common usage. You'll never prove anything about music / noise using only dictionaries. Never prove anything at all except "it's all opinion" but that won't stop people argu^H^H^H^Hdiscussing it.

So yeah, Meffy. I kind of think that the discussion and exploration is of higher value than static definitions. Subjects like "music" "noise" and "harmony" or "reality" are like wet watermelon seeds...when you try to put your finger on them - BOIP! (ode to Don Martin) they fly away!

Definitions are clumsy attempts at using a waffle iron instead of a finger on the seed. It keeps the seed from sailing off, but it only does so with lots of semantic "surface area" and hence, a lot of collateral damage.

In the spirit of "the exploration is of higher value than the waffle iron definitions, I usually want to take the position of trying to keep the disscussion going in the assumption that by challenging all our assumptions about something, that some glint of insight is possible.

However, I am not very good at being a polemic or even by just starting some shit and trying to rouse a discussion...but sometimes I still try because it's stimulating. (But so's peeing into an electrical socket, which IS something I am good at.)

[vurt]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

[Ogg Vorbis]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

I think this is great....This moves the POV from the "organizer" back into the realm of the "perceiver" where I think it belongs.

[vurt]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

I think this is great....This moves the POV from the "organizer" back into the realm of the "perceiver" where I think it belongs.

how so? either can apply it, the organiser would be first to do so no? therefore establishing said "thing" as "music". the perceiver i suppose then has the option to argue against said decision of organiser, but he better be ready to make a decent argument and not just "i dont like it, therefore it is noise". all the perceiver is describing there, is his or her own taste, nothing defacto about the piece or thing the organiser declares as music.
i would argue the orgnaiser has more understanding of the piece in question than the listener.
you could of course argue against me, but you would be wrong

[eduardo_b]

Even the use of the term noise in relation to music someone doesn't like is negative. About the only "neutral" use of the word is if someone says they heard a noise. I don't think noise is commonly, if ever, used as a positive term.

So where does that leave music? Is it anti-noise?

I was actually talking more about the physical aspect of noise (not the definition of the quality of sound), and in that sense music is noise and noise not necessarily music.

This sums up my input !

For me, if it's only a definition of quality it becomes more of a personal perspective, or if you like an "a priori" one most of the time, which in our discussion becomes the "common sense".

(That's a reply from page 10...a little time ago already)

I don't see a practical way to separate noise from perceived musical "quality." It's a positive or negative emotional reaction to what is deemed pleasant or unpleasant.

[robogone]

I don't see a practical way to separate noise from perceived musical "quality."

Why not try something like this then?

It's a positive or negative emotional reaction to what is deemed pleasant or unpleasant.

[Ogg Vorbis]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

I think this is great....This moves the POV from the "organizer" back into the realm of the "perceiver" where I think it belongs.

how so? either can apply it, the organiser would be first to do so no? therefore establishing said "thing" as "music". the perceiver i suppose then has the option to argue against said decision of organiser, but he better be ready to make a decent argument and not just "i dont like it, therefore it is noise". all the perceiver is describing there, is his or her own taste, nothing defacto about the piece or thing the organiser declares as music.
i would argue the orgnaiser has more understanding of the piece in question than the listener.
you could of course argue against me, but you would be wrong

Can a thing be more than one thing at once? In other words, can a composer organize sounds by "very educated means" (I'm thinking about Milton Babbit or someone) and say, "It's music and it's very advanced. If you don't get it, it's because you are a mere audience member. Who cares if you listen?" http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html and the "receiver" doesn't receive and only hears noise...

Which person is right? Is the composer by default right because he taught at Princeton? Or can a thing be both music AND noise depending on the POV? To me, there is a difference between the physical reality of sound waves traveling through the medium of air and what perception does in active response to that physical reality. One thing is not the other.

[eduardo_b]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

I think this is great....This moves the POV from the "organizer" back into the realm of the "perceiver" where I think it belongs.

how so? either can apply it, the organiser would be first to do so no? therefore establishing said "thing" as "music". the perceiver i suppose then has the option to argue against said decision of organiser, but he better be ready to make a decent argument and not just "i dont like it, therefore it is noise". all the perceiver is describing there, is his or her own taste, nothing defacto about the piece or thing the organiser declares as music.
i would argue the orgnaiser has more understanding of the piece in question than the listener.
you could of course argue against me, but you would be wrong

The organizer (read expert?) can make judgments about how music is categorized, and even assert that which is better than others in each category. For most of the categories, listeners can simply say they like or dislike what each category contains, but for some categories, which are outside this dominant mainstream of categories, the term music itself may be in dispute. Organizers will give it a name and rank the contents, but most listeners will call it noise and dismiss the organizer's efforts. Neither is right...or wrong.

[robogone]

For most of the categories, listeners can simply say they like or dislike what each category contains, but for some categories, which are outside this dominant mainstream of categories, the term music itself may be in dispute.

Why only outside of the dominant mainstream? There's no reason someone can't say "This isn't music" when listening to country and western if they hate it.

Anyone can say what they want. Period.

[vurt]

ok try this, music is a human invention and therefore doesnt exist beyond the word "music. leaving you free to apply the word to whatever you see fit.

I think this is great....This moves the POV from the "organizer" back into the realm of the "perceiver" where I think it belongs.

how so? either can apply it, the organiser would be first to do so no? therefore establishing said "thing" as "music". the perceiver i suppose then has the option to argue against said decision of organiser, but he better be ready to make a decent argument and not just "i dont like it, therefore it is noise". all the perceiver is describing there, is his or her own taste, nothing defacto about the piece or thing the organiser declares as music.
i would argue the orgnaiser has more understanding of the piece in question than the listener.
you could of course argue against me, but you would be wrong

Can a thing be more than one thing at once? In other words, can a composer organize sounds by "very educated means" (I'm thinking about Milton Babbit or someone) and say, "It's music and it's very advanced. If you don't get it, it's because you are a mere audience member. Who cares if you listen?" http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html and the "receiver" doesn't receive and only hears noise...

Which person is right? Is the composer by default right because he taught at Princeton? Or can a thing be both music AND noise depending on the POV? To me, there is a difference between the physical reality of sound waves traveling through the medium of air and what perception does in active response to that physical reality. One thing is not the other.

the composer is by default correct because he made the piece and therefore understands what it means better than some mere person at the other end, who for all we know may have cloth ears
whereas even if the composer has cloth ears, the piece will match his expectations. whereas the listeners expectations may not be met, but what if a listener only has a limited experience with music and expects all music to sound like what they have heard.

also, which one is necassary for music to exist? the composer or the listener?
only the composer, the listener is merely an afterthought

[eduardo_b]

I don't see a practical way to separate noise from perceived musical "quality."

Why not try something like this then?

It's a positive or negative emotional reaction to what is deemed pleasant or unpleasant.

Yes, another way of saying it. An emotional response to "music" that could also be deemed noise seems very much like the reactions one sees in museums of modern "art." Unlike traditional museums, modern art pushes the boundaries so much that many refuse to accept it as art. My emotional reaction might be negative, but my intellectual response is often that I just don't get it...but the museum director and staff obviously see merit.

[Ogg Vorbis]

also, which one is necassary for music to exist? the composer or the listener?
only the composer, the listener is merely an afterthought

Does this means that the listener is a passive observer rather than an active participant?

[eduardo_b]

For most of the categories, listeners can simply say they like or dislike what each category contains, but for some categories, which are outside this dominant mainstream of categories, the term music itself may be in dispute.

Why only outside of the dominant mainstream? There's no reason someone can't say "This isn't music" when listening to country and western if they hate it.

Anyone can say what they want. Period.

True, and many do. But some categories -- such as opera, jazz, chamber music, etc. -- are readily accepted as music by people who don't like these genres. For more experimental (as a general term) music, they don't just simply dislike it but now also don't consider it to actually be music.