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

[Kriminal]

EDM is noise, everything else is music*

*except radiohead and coldplay, they fall into a diff catagory.

[whyterabbyt]

bugger : deleted because i meant to edit not quote.

[whyterabbyt]

You seem confused about what the purpose of copyright is. It has nothing to do with music other than by the fact it was defined in such a way as to encompass all works of art regardless of medium.

No, Im not confused by the purpose of copyright. That is just your inability to remember your own position in action; an attempt to shift the goalposts so much the pitch rotates.

You brought copyright up to claim something about the definition of music. Ive been saying copyright has nothing to do with that.

Please dont turn around and present my position as though its yours and Im the one on the wrong side of it. You've changed your position, not me.

Copyright still has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Im tired of saying that.

All works are considered music if they meet the definitions pertaining to the medium.

No shit Sherlock. Anything else utterly obvious you want to bring up?

You had noticed that its the definitions which are the point of contention all along hadnt you?

You have to look at things from the abstract "art" to the slightly more concrete "music" and ignore the wholly concrete in order to understand this.

Gee thanks. Its nice that you've finally joined this particular party, but please dont try and tell the people who've been here all along what they already knew.

You seem to be concerned with whether music is good or not

Not in the slightest, and its a ridiculous stretch to take anything Ive said and portray it thus. Your straw men wont fly here.

, whether it is considered subjectively "noise" or not.

Ive made no connection between 'noise' and quality of music. Please dont try and shift the goalposts in yet another direction.

This is as you have admitted yourself a wholly subjective issue and so can not be defined objectively. It can not be agreed upon!

Well, yes any instance of a subjective opinion can be agreed on, actually. It can't however be universally agreed on, which is a slightly different thing.

Im glad that you finally agree with me though.

I'm here pointing out the simple fact that this is all long settled by our society.

Except it hasn't, actually, so that's not a fact Notwithstanding the fact that there's no 'society', singular, in the first place.

There have been great minds dedicated to understanding the subjective difference between music and noise and they have come up with conclusive, objective definitions in the abstract.

Feel free to go ahead and support that with hard facts, then. References.

You'll need to prove that no other great minds have dissented from those allegedly conclusive, objective definitions, though. You know, by all of them explicitly denying that there's any subjective quotient whatsoever.

Because otherwise, this is just 'Im right because some guy I say is right is right'

Your evidence will be interesting to see, because, for example, Paul Hegarty's book 'Noise Music, A History' doesnt really support your position whatsoever.

Ive only been mentioning it in this thread for half a decade, Im sure once youve Googled it you can pretend you know it inside out.

I feel often like I'm talking to a schizophrenic who can't deal in anything other than the concrete.

Given the constant shifting of your own position, the constant redress to matters which are utterly unconnected to the subject, the appeal to imaginary authorities, the resolute reliance on strawmen and the refusal to provde hard references, that's probably psychological projection.

[aciddose]

Wrong, I brought copyright up to point out that the definition of music which is eligible for copyright protection matches the definition that I had provided previously.

How do you manage to go shooting off on such wild tangents and missing the point entirely?

I'm not going to dance along with you on this pointless side-track while you avoid accepting the fact you merely were incapable of understanding my original post with which you disagreed.

I'm convinced you are not mentally healthy.

[whyterabbyt]

Wrong, I brought copyright up to point out that the definition of music which is eligible for copyright protection matches the definition that I had provided previously.

Its a pity, then, that you made such a hash of it by displaying complete ignorance of what was covered by copyright law, then.


eg

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.

And making so many logically flawed claims on that basis.

I notice that for all your multiple posts of wrangling whilst defending that definition of copyright, you never once stopped to mention this alleged point you were making.

And I notice you still haven't provided a reference for a single appeal to authority on the definition of music that you've made. It doesnt make a compelling argument.

And that, as one of the many requests Ive made for you to back up what you're saying, you refused to subsequently provide your definition for music. ( Like youve refused to provide any proof of anything youve claimed. )
Well, except for that Wiki link, which includes a 'great mind' saying exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming, amusingly enough

Musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez summarizes the relativist, post-modern viewpoint: "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus

Wow, I think he's saying it might be.... subjective. Pretty much at odds with your own claim, that.

But do feel free to reiterate your 'definition that I had provided previously' (with the link to the post where you defined it previously) side by side with 'the definition of music which is eligible for copyright protection'. That would be simple enough, yes?

I'm curious how you'll manage, though, because there isn't a 'definition of music which is eligible for copyright protection'....

From the relevant UK law

“musical work” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music.

ie no definition of 'music'.

and Section 101 of US law ('Definitions') doesnt include a definition for music or 'musical work' at all. Which part of which copyright law exactly are you claiming makes the same definitions as you? Please quote it, with section references.

How do you manage to go shooting off on such wild tangents and missing the point entirely?

Ah, on your planet, saying something is a wild tangent and missing the point is a wild tangent that misses the point. Of course.

I'm not going to dance along with you on this pointless side-track

Oh good, you finally admit your attempt to sidetrack things onto copyright law was pointless. Ive only said that about eight times.

I'm convinced you are not mentally healthy.

Pot, kettle...

[trimph1]

@aciddose...

Are you feeling well?

@kevin...

Pain and suffering is reading posts that deal with the same loop that was looped before...

[Kriminal]

This thread is noise

[sfd]

[vurt]

This thread is noise

yo mama!

cushione!!!

[trimph1]

This thread is noise

Signifying nothing.

[Kriminal]

This thread is noise

Signifying nothing.

...many things. Mainly bullshit.

[trimph1]

This thread is noise

Signifying nothing.

...many things. Mainly bullshit.

[vurt]

This thread is noise

Signifying nothing.

...many things. Mainly bullshit.

thats almost zenlike of you.

[crazyfiltertweaker]

Oh sorry, I have missed that this thread is a discussion between two persons....

[RunBeerRun]

look I appreciate your problems, but this is serious-does anyone have any discount vouchers for pancake mix