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

[robogone]

Worth hearing would seem to extend the meaning of the term music. Sitting in field or forest listening to the sounds of nature can be pleasurable and worth hearing, but not fit music as an organized effort. It's not music but still good. Noise that's unpleasant, however, wouldn't be good and wouldn't be music.

Still trying to force rigid definitions around things to without reference to anything that anyone else has said?

8. a. Sound produced naturally which is likened to music in being rhythmical or pleasing to the ear, as the song of birds, the sound of running water, etc.

[eduardo_b]

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

So the composer doesn't need listeners, the painter doesn't need viewers, the author doesn't need readers? I would think most of these creators of art want and expect their work to be accessible to others. It seems an essential aspect of the impetus to create.

I guess you're not a creator then.

I'm not saying one has to have an audience to be creative, but it's the interaction of creator and audience (which includes other creators and critics as well as consumers of art) that takes the art to it's ultimate level.

But, you don't even make a case in support of that opinion. (And you just contradicted yourself, it *was* 'an essential aspect of the impetus...', and now it isn't.)

I think it is essential for most creators because they want the interaction and reaction from others. As social beings, it's natural to want to share accomplishments with others. Some may be content with not doing so, but that might simply be from a lack of confidence in what they've created.

Why is that 'the ultimate level'? Do you think someone needs to see a critique to find something she missed about what she has done?

Not at all. But validation and appreciation from others can be important. Even negative reactions make artists happy because they've entered into some sort of dialogue with the person or persons who dislike the work. I think people on kvr both like music and like to talk about it...positively and negatively. It's part of being involved in the arts.

(An audience can be a factor in the energy of a performance, that's clear to me from experience. But in the realization of a recorded work, it's a non-issue. Input from a band can be a factor in decision-making even for a person who never involves them in the initial impetus. But to assert that this is the way to achieve the ultimate ignores too much reality, too much music history. Beethoven did not require the band or the journalist to help out in *the composition*. In fact a poorly prepared orchestra could give one a bad idea compared to what's in one's head.

Well, I did include other creators and also critics because they can be important participants in the discussion of the arts. If one assumes appreciation isn't always easily done because there's insufficient knowledge and information to understand some works, then reviews, feedback and audience reaction are all part of the process. This is true for music, plays and so on. The discussion is integral to art.

By this argument, 'art by commitee' is the best move to make. Which is quite problematic.

I certainly don't think art by committee will often result in anything of lasting value. This is why public art can be so problematic...it often is by committee. It's a creative effort without a strong voice.

At the same time, a lot of art is, and has to be, a team effort due to complexity and varying skill sets needed to bring it to fruition. The result can be crap, but it can also be excellent.

[eduardo_b]

Worth hearing would seem to extend the meaning of the term music. Sitting in field or forest listening to the sounds of nature can be pleasurable and worth hearing, but not fit music as an organized effort. It's not music but still good. Noise that's unpleasant, however, wouldn't be good and wouldn't be music.

Still trying to force rigid definitions around things to without reference to anything that anyone else has said?

8. a. Sound produced naturally which is likened to music in being rhythmical or pleasing to the ear, as the song of birds, the sound of running water, etc.

Sound can be pleasing to the ear but not be music per se. The sound of a stream might be appreciated for any number of reasons, but does that make it music?

[robogone]

I think it is essential for most creators because they want the interaction and reaction from others. As social beings, it's natural to want to share accomplishments with others. Some may be content with not doing so, but that might simply be from a lack of confidence in what they've created.

Why is that 'the ultimate level'? Do you think someone needs to see a critique to find something she missed about what she has done?

Not at all. But validation and appreciation from others can be important. Even negative reactions make artists happy because they've entered into some sort of dialogue with the person or persons who dislike the work. I think people on kvr both like music and like to talk about it...positively and negatively. It's part of being involved in the arts.

(An audience can be a factor in the energy of a performance, that's clear to me from experience. But in the realization of a recorded work, it's a non-issue. Input from a band can be a factor in decision-making even for a person who never involves them in the initial impetus. But to assert that this is the way to achieve the ultimate ignores too much reality, too much music history. Beethoven did not require the band or the journalist to help out in *the composition*. In fact a poorly prepared orchestra could give one a bad idea compared to what's in one's head.

Well, I did include other creators and also critics because they can be important participants in the discussion of the arts. If one assumes appreciation isn't always easily done because there's insufficient knowledge and information to understand some works, then reviews, feedback and audience reaction are all part of the process. This is true for music, plays and so on. The discussion is integral to art.

By this argument, 'art by commitee' is the best move to make. Which is quite problematic.

I certainly don't think art by committee will often result in anything of lasting value. This is why public art can be so problematic...it often is by committee. It's a creative effort without a strong voice.

At the same time, a lot of art is, and has to be, a team effort due to complexity and varying skill sets needed to bring it to fruition. The result can be crap, but it can also be excellent.

11

[robogone]

Worth hearing would seem to extend the meaning of the term music. Sitting in field or forest listening to the sounds of nature can be pleasurable and worth hearing, but not fit music as an organized effort. It's not music but still good. Noise that's unpleasant, however, wouldn't be good and wouldn't be music.

Still trying to force rigid definitions around things to without reference to anything that anyone else has said?

8. a. Sound produced naturally which is likened to music in being rhythmical or pleasing to the ear, as the song of birds, the sound of running water, etc.

Sound can be pleasing to the ear but not be music per se. The sound of a stream might be appreciated for any number of reasons, but does that make it music?

Which part of the above quote don't you understand? I could try to re-write it in words of short syllables if that would make it any easier?

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

[vespers75]

I think it is essential for most creators because they want the interaction and reaction from others. As social beings, it's natural to want to share accomplishments with others. Some may be content with not doing so, but that might simply be from a lack of confidence in what they've created.

Are you speaking from personal experience and circumstance here, perhaps?

[Ogg Vorbis]

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

I guess getting the thread locked would be one way of settling this...

[tcsoka]

Right, time to settle this once and for all. This is THE answer.

Music is green with orange polka-dots. Noise is lovably spicy.

What? That's absurd? So is any attempt to define the difference IMO. I'd rather make either than try to define them, particularly if defining generates more (figurative) noise than music, more heat than light. :-}

I think Meffy makes a good point here. Any discussion of differences between noise and music (when noise is taken in the context I presume it is, i.e. acoustic noise), is going to be purely subjective.

However when we think about noise in the audio sense, we can define what we mean, and not argue, white noise having a flat frequency spectrum in linear space, pink flat in log space etc. These are defined as being derived from a random signal. Now, can they be musical? In themselves, independently, I don't think so. That's not to say they cant be pleasant to listen to (think waves splashing on a shoreline, which has a characteristic pink noise spectrum). Of course, these noises can be used to create music. By definition though, they are noise. Are they music though? That's also subjective. Of course I've only discussed here noise that has a power law distribution, as soon as you deviate from a power law, you introduce (in my opinion) structure, that means you are no longer really dealing with noise...

[robogone]

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

I guess getting the thread locked would be one way of settling this...

And we probably shouldn't. It's just really frustrating to take part in a discussion when there's one person constantly taking it two steps back when everyone else is trying to take one forwards.

[dodokvr]

Noise is presets
Music is starting from scratch

[debra1rlo]

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

I guess getting the thread locked would be one way of settling this...

sorry, but i have to laugh at your hopes of settling this issue definitively.

[eduardo_b]

Worth hearing would seem to extend the meaning of the term music. Sitting in field or forest listening to the sounds of nature can be pleasurable and worth hearing, but not fit music as an organized effort. It's not music but still good. Noise that's unpleasant, however, wouldn't be good and wouldn't be music.

Still trying to force rigid definitions around things to without reference to anything that anyone else has said?

8. a. Sound produced naturally which is likened to music in being rhythmical or pleasing to the ear, as the song of birds, the sound of running water, etc.

Sound can be pleasing to the ear but not be music per se. The sound of a stream might be appreciated for any number of reasons, but does that make it music?

Which part of the above quote don't you understand? I could try to re-write it in words of short syllables if that would make it any easier?

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

If any discussion with you requires personal attacks from you -- or anyone else, I'm not responding to them.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

I guess getting the thread locked would be one way of settling this...

sorry, but i have to laugh at your hopes of settling this issue definitively.

No, I don't think that it could really be settled. I was being facetious. I still think that the exploration is of higher value than someone pasting a definition (or a funny .jpg).

It's funny to read this thread and listen to Chuck Ives "The Unanswered Question."

[eduardo_b]

Or is it just that you're working up to your next argument: "What's the difference between good solid dictionary definitions and Eduardo's mindless meanderings through illogical thoughts and phrases"?

I guess getting the thread locked would be one way of settling this...

I don't think settling this is actually an attainable goal. Discussion for it's own sake is. Anger, while totally punk, serves no purpose in this regard.

[debra1rlo]

It's funny to read this thread and listen to Chuck Ives "The Unanswered Question."

I hear it syncs up to the Wizard of Oz (or Dark Side of The Moon, I can't recall) if you play it backwards.