The most underestimated synths...

[sjm]

Edit: I only just saw Hink's post after submitting this post. I hope this post - while being somewhat off topic - is tolerable. I'm hoping Hink is objecting more to the unnecessary bickering than posts like this that refer to parallel discussions spawned from the topic in the OP.

I want to thank all those who keep trying to keep this on topic, those who aren't need to please stop now

Glad to see I am now the KVR equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus by general consensus.

Does this make me KVR's official voice of reason?

Sure, if you say so. Hypothetical average by general consensus. Fine, I sez. What you said stands for mediocre? Here's your badge.

I wasn't going to reply to this - I've been on holiday and the thread seemed to have died - but seeing as it's been bumped here goes.

I'm assuming you weren't intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote earlier, so I'll try and clarify. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is a hypothetical person (i.e. not actually me) that is used in British law to represent a reasonable standard of expectation. So when you talk about a $3 umbrella that falls apart and doesn't protect you form the rain, you are invoking the Man on the Clapham Omnibus - the reasonable average person - who would agree that the purpose of the umbrella is to protect you from the rain. By not doing so, the $3 umbrella does not meet these criteria, and any reasonable person would thus conclude that the product is not fit for purpose. The creator of the product may call it an umbrella and sell it as such, but it is apparent that it is not actually a good umbrella.

My analogy of random typing not being music was appealing to that same standard of quality. It matters not what you or I think of the random typing being or not being music. What matters is whether the average, reasonable person (the Man on the Clapham Omnibus) would agree that it is music. Of course, this is somewhat harder to gauge for music than for an umbrella. My position is simply that the average person would not qualify random typing as music. And I then went on to say that IMVHO, the same hypothetical construct would not qualify hitting a keyboard key with a constant pulse and meter - which are common qualities found in music - as enough to elevate the sound of a keyboard to the realm of music.

Just like with the shitty umbrella, calling your 4/4 masterpiece played on a typing keyboard "music" doesn't make it more or less music than it was before in the eyes of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus. In this context, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus represents a cultural barometer that can change over time and is obviously different from culture to culture, and from sub-culture to sub-culture. What is seen as avant garde noise today may be the cultural mainstream of the future. So like any reasonable person, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus is willing to change his opinion in the light of new evidence.

Now there is a fine (and highly subjective) line between exciting avant garde and boring artwank that is probably also largely irrelevant to this discussion. However pushing the boundaries of any artform is what drives cultural evolution and - over time - results in shifting perceptions of what that artform can be. The cultural barometer changes over time. The further away something is from what we are cuturally attuned to, the less likely we are to consider it music, both as individuals and society as a whole. Some individuals will be ahead of the cuve, some will be behind it. While some individuals may find random typing on a keyboard exceptionally mindblowing, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus will hear it and say "that's not music". But maybe in 50 years keyboard typing will be considered mainstream - I just doubt it

So like with the Case of the $3 Umbrella, I was trying to make the point that while defining what "good music" is can be very difficult, we can maybe use the Man on the Clapham Omnibus to make the case that "good music" must at the very least be "music" - i.e. fulfill the minimum basic standards required for it to be labeled music by the average reasonable person. Anything that fails to meet that standard is "bad music", or the musical equivalent of a bad umbrella that does not fulfill its purpose. Whether the creator calls it "music" is not going to change the opinion of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, just like selling the $3 umbrella as the ultimate rain protector doesn't make it any less of an umbrella fail.

If you take exception to the fact that I don't think the average person is going to find a 4/4 pulse played on the space bar is really music, then why do you think they would call it music? Or if you told them it was music, why do you think the average person would find it "good music"? I would expect that most people would acknowledge certain musical qualities; and that in context as part of a bigger composition they would agree that the complete work is music. But not on its own in isolation. Is that such an unreasonable supposition?

[wagtunes]

@sjm

:sigh: What is music?

Here's the old Webster's definition.

vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

Guess what? Doesn't help me in the least.

Beauty? Boy, if that isn't subjective I don't know what is. No offense, but I've seen some fashion models that I'd have zero interest to be with on a purely physical basis. To me, there is nothing beautiful about some of them.

Form? Well, that's at least a physical thing. But what kind of form? Does music have to conform to a certain way of putting those sounds together in order to be considered music at all, let alone good music?

Harmony? So music that is just single notes is not music?

Expression Of Emotion? What the hell does that even mean? There is nothing emotional about a mallet striking a bell or whatever. The emotion comes from how the human being responds to that striking of the bell.

Point is, if you take the "accepted" definition of music. it's meaningless. There are too many holes in it to have any actual tangible value.

Unlike the definition of a car.

a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

That's something tangible. You can put your hands on it. You can easily determine if it's a car or not. It may not be a very good car (might break down every 10 miles) but at least you know it's a car.

Music? My definition of what music is and the next person's definition of what music is may be totally different, forgetting about whether either is good or bad.

Having said all that, I understand that humanity has, over the years, established guidelines, rules or whatever you want to call them. For the most part, generally speaking, two people will hear something and agree that it is or isn't music based on those established guidelines. Man made guidelines, by the way. Not handed down by some divine being. Kind of like how we decide anything on our planet.

My problem is with the guidelines and how they're applied based on what side of the fence you happen to fall on. As I said earlier, most classical musicians that I know do not acknowledge pop music as music. Most hard rock fans that I know do not acknowledge rap as music, let alone good music.

And this goes on and on based on our prejudices, which we all have.

These prejudices are not based on any science or law. They're based purely on emotions. Emotions, by definition, are not objective. They are completely subjective.

But of course we're going to have those who will point to constructed music with a time signature and a tempo and a key as being the bare standard minimum for being called music to which we then add harmony, performance technique and so on. If the "music" doesn't conform to these "rules" it isn't good music and may not even be considered music at all.

That's pretty much what we, as human beings, have. I don't agree with it. But it is what it is. I'm tired of fighting it. And honestly, I don't even care anymore. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the music I listen to and the music I personally create.

To answer your question, no, it's not an unreasonable supposition.

[sjm]

So in short, music is like pornography? You know it when you hear it?

Edit: That said, the car definition is interesting in that it is patently false and out of date. It could be solar powered, for example. And what about pedal cars?



So I don't think things are always as clear cut as the dictionary would lead you to believe. But I do agree with your general sentiments.

[wagtunes]

So in short, music is like pornography? You know it when you hear it?

I guess.

[sjm]

Having re-read your longer post and thought about this a bit more, I'd love to hear your definition of music too. Be that your personal definition, or what you think the dictionary definition should be, or even your proposal for a minimum baseline we can all agree on.

My original baseline suggestion was "organised sound", which while not being strict enough a definition of what music is, at least clearly defines some sounds (those with no organisation) as not beind music. As ghetto pointed out, not all organised sound is music, but I think all music is always some form of organised sound.

Btw I edited my previous reply while you were posting - I thought it very interesting how the dictionary definition of a car is one I would not agree with because of how advances made since the first cars were developed have redefined what a car is.

[EnGee]

Damn! Another topic to unsubscribe!

[wagtunes]

Damn! Another topic to unsubscribe!

I'm sorry you feel that way.

sjm. as much as I'd love to answer you, I'm bowing out of this one. It's totally off topic and needs to be dropped.

[jancivil]

Glad to see I am now the KVR equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus by general consensus.

Does this make me KVR's official voice of reason?

Sure, if you say so. Hypothetical average by general consensus. Fine, I sez. What you said stands for mediocre? Here's your badge.

I wasn't going to reply to this - I've been on holiday and the thread seemed to have died - but seeing as it's been bumped here goes.

I'm assuming you weren't intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote earlier, so I'll try and clarify. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is a hypothetical person (i.e. not actually me) that is used in British law to represent a reasonable standard of expectation. So when you talk about a $3 umbrella that falls apart and doesn't protect you form the rain, you are invoking the Man on the Clapham Omnibus - the reasonable average person - who would agree that the purpose of the umbrella is to protect you from the rain. By not doing so, the $3 umbrella does not meet these criteria, and any reasonable person would thus conclude that the product is not fit for purpose. The creator of the product may call it an umbrella and sell it as such, but it is apparent that it is not actually a good umbrella.

My analogy of random typing not being music was appealing to that same standard of quality.
[...]
Is that such an unreasonable supposition?

In itself, I suppose not. However it spins off from me saying that an objective discussion of compositional quality as impossible doesn't have the ring of truth as long as we recognize that composition is construction.

So it's a failure on my part to have considered fully what your remark was actually supposed to do, I guess. Why did I have at you in that quality, I just wondered.
AHA. I'm getting old and it seems like I skim. HERE:

there is a fine (and highly subjective) line between exciting avant garde and boring artwank...

I imagine I said so, but I'm put in mind here of Cecil Taylor. There is objectively a difference between what Cecil Taylor does and idiotic banging. It may not register to 99.99% of listeners, but it can be known (because CONTENT, because FORM).

I def. admit to doing little to no thought regarding your Clapham Omnibus remark there. I was irritated, and reading back I recognize why. I apologize.

I had quite forgotten what set me off there, I had to refresh my memory. It was wagtunes saying all quality is subjective. In a series of specious arguments, one of which was I needed a metric like miles per gallon with an automobile; another person demanded data. I don't remember where random typing entered into it... *

And certain of us do believe that a synth can be objectively shite or objectively good, but music, never.

(*: There is absolutely moronic music with scarcely a thought involved, and there is music which is obviously well-crafted. So: music is never craft, anybody can make any noise and as long as someone says it's good, it's as good as anything anyone ever said was good, was essentially that argument. Whatever, but I think that's absurd. If that makes me a snob, fine. I guess 'snob' is subjective . )

[jancivil]

I don't think <purposing> is a good metric for 'makes music better', however.
In fact, I think the career of Shostakovich may demonstrate the opposite.

[kurodo]

If that makes me a snob, fine. I guess 'snob' is subjective .

Snob or not you know your stuff.
I took the time out to listen to some of your youtube offerings and imo you are on top form.

[jancivil]

My original baseline suggestion was "organised sound", which while not being strict enough a definition of what music is, at least clearly defines some sounds (those with no organisation) as not [] music. As ghetto pointed out, not all organised sound is music, but I think all music is always some form of organised sound.

Btw I edited my previous reply while you were posting - I thought it very interesting how the dictionary definition of a car is one I would not agree with because of how advances made since the first cars were developed have redefined what a car is.

- music or not music is a philosophical question. I've said before, we can listen to anything and in that moment decide that 'this is music', by essentially placing that frame around it.

It may follow that the organizational sense of some noise is said to promote 'quality'. To my view, at the point where we exceed experiencing the thing strictly for ourselves and present it to others, present it to a community of people expecting music, we are probably crafting it.

So, if that argument, wagtunes' arguments are true,
This:


has to be equal to this:

[jancivil]

If that makes me a snob, fine. I guess 'snob' is subjective .

Snob or not you know your stuff.
I took the time out to listen to some of your youtube offerings and imo you are on top form.

Thank you for saying so!
Many would disagree, of course.

[jancivil]

n/m

[wagtunes]

My original baseline suggestion was "organised sound", which while not being strict enough a definition of what music is, at least clearly defines some sounds (those with no organisation) as not [] music. As ghetto pointed out, not all organised sound is music, but I think all music is always some form of organised sound.

Btw I edited my previous reply while you were posting - I thought it very interesting how the dictionary definition of a car is one I would not agree with because of how advances made since the first cars were developed have redefined what a car is.

- music or not music is a philosophical question. I've said before, we can listen to anything and in that moment decide that 'this is music', by essentially placing that frame around it.

It may follow that the organizational sense of some noise is said to promote 'quality'. To my view, at the point where we exceed experiencing the thing strictly for ourselves and present it to others, present it to a community of people expecting music, we are probably crafting it.

So, if that argument, wagtunes' arguments are true,
This:


has to be equal to this:

Well, you posted this and brought up my name besides so I'm going to respond. Don't worry. I'm going to keep this very civil and professional.

Let's take the first piece.

Pretty silly and at times even annoying when they kept going on about the drums, the drums, the drums. Not my favorite Ting Tings track. In fact, it's one of their worst. Still, it had me tapping my foot and parts of it I did like. No comments about whether this is good or bad music just yet.

Now let's take the second piece.

At the 3 minute mark, I hovered over the video to see how far into it we were, wondering if it was going to go anywhere at all.

This choral/orchestral piece could have been just about anything. There was no distinct melody that stood out. Certainly nothing like Beethoven's 5th which was so recognizable that it was adapted into at least two rock songs that I know of. In short, the 2nd piece made me feel absolutely nothing. And I grew up listening and loving classical music with a mother who was an opera singer and concert pianist. Again, I'm not going to say this is good or bad music. It just did nothing for me, whereas the first piece at least evoked some kind of emotion in me.

Where I have my problem is with people categorically stating that the first piece is bad music and the second piece is good music, because I'm sure that was your point in posting the two pieces that you did.

And yes, I was able to tell that piece one was the "stereotypical bad" music while piece two was the "stereotypical good" music because that's how we, as a civilization. have been programmed. At least for the most part with some exceptions depending on where you were raised.

But I can assure you that there will be just as many people who will like track 1 and track 2 and depending on your geographical location, maybe even more people liking track 1. And yes, if I had to choose between the two pieces, I would choose track 1. Again, it at least made me feel something whereas track 2 bored me to tears.

It is with the labeling of music as good and bad that I take exception to.

I would much rather listen to "Cherry Blossom Clinic" by The Move than that 2nd piece by leaps and bounds. Granted, they did "borrow" a well known classical piece in the 2nd part of the song, but what they did with it was, IMO, inspirational and quite interesting. And even that isn't the reason why I love the piece so much.

And that's just one example of a rock song that I'd take over a good percentage of the classical music, or the music that has been properly written according to our "laws", any day of the week.

But if you're a classical purist, all that "rock" music is bad music and all that "classical" music is good music, no matter how boring it is to listen to.

I don't want to be associated with people like that. It gives those of us who just appreciate music for what it is, regardless of the form, a bad name. So you will never hear me say "that's good music" or "that's bad music". I will, at most, say "I love that song" or "I hate that song" as opposite ends of the spectrum. But I will never say either one is good or bad music.

My favorite operatic piece

The Drinking Song from Cavalleria Rusticana



My favorite Prog Rock piece

Ocean Gypsy by Renaissance



My favorite Hard Rock piece

Lonely Soldier by Lonestar



My favorite disco tune

Mary Hartman Mary Hartman by the Deadly Nightshade



My favorite Bubble Gum song

123 Red Light by the 1910 Fruitgum Company



My favorite Country song

Spring by Tanya Tucker



I could keep going but I'll stop there.

Every single one of the above tracks that I posted I can honestly say I loved infinitely more than that bore fest that I subjected myself to. No discernible melody. No dynamics. Just some voices and instruments playing for 4 minutes. At least that's what I heard.

Does that mean it was bad music? Of course not. It's just music that I didn't appreciate and didn't like. But I'll never say it's bad music.

But I can guarantee you that I can find at least one classical purist on this planet who will say that every track I posted is either not music at all or bad music at best.

I was listening to WNEW one day and they had, of all people, Tony Randall on the show. The gist of the interview was how he felt that rock music wasn't music. Well, they played for him Jacksons, Monk and Rowe by Elvis Costello and the Brodsky Quartet to see if they could change his mind.



They didn't. His comment was that it was repetitive and some other stuff. In short, he didn't like it.

To Tony Randall, and I loved him as Felix Unger, if it wasn't classical music, it wasn't music.

These people do exist whether anybody wants to admit it or not.

That is my problem with all of this. The deciders of what's good and bad, dismissing everything that doesn't fit in their world.

I know we will never agree on this. I've come to terms with that. It's kind of like religion in a way. Those who believe there is a heaven and those who don't. Unfortunately, it's only after we die that we find out the truth.

Is there good and bad music?

According to some, yes.

Just not according to me.

[fluffy_little_something]

Topic