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

[toothnclaw]

Incorrect. Noise is not random at all, but the result of something you didn't know happened having happened and therefore producing that result. That's called determinism. Unless you want to go all the way down to quantum physics, you can't escape it. Even then hidden variables are the best answer to these issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole ... on_paradox

You need to understand that your mind is simply incapable of resolving the information encoded in this signal. This proves nothing however and it is critical that you accept the fact without capability to decode the data you lack the ability to make any statement about the signal whatsoever, apart from statistical observations.

If you had any experience in cryptography and signal processing you might understand as I do, in a sort of intuitive way, that all signals carry data. A system in a state of maximum entropy carries the maximum amount of data. Low entropy systems carry less data.

Bullshit!

Why did you write this message using the words and rules of English language? Couldn't you've just used random characters to convey this meaning?

Please demonstrate what musical rules are contained in white noise, and how these rules are ordered.

If there are no musical rules in it, it ain't music. And what musical rules are is defined in the textbook on music theory.

END OF STORY!

[Lotuzia]

Maybe ..... and admitedly rather quick thought :

Music includes noise (and also is a container that always includes a *minimum residual noise*. Maximum or only noise beeing only an extreme case ). Opposite beeing false.

( Sorry no *define noise* or *define music first* here, so probably weak argument ....... )

[tanabarbier]

And what musical rules are is defined in the textbook on music theory.

Hi!

Do you mean by that that in order for sound to be music it has to have a kind of organisation based on notes, bars, and so on? That is has to be "transcriptable" (probably not a word, I mean it as "something that can be put in a music sheet")
If so then I respectfully disagree, there is music outside the textbook. It also has organisation, indeed, but of an other type. EG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music

Have a good day!

[Musicologo]

easy: The whole is sound. Sound that has meaning/is pleasant to the listener is called "Music" the sound that bears no meaning/is unpleasant is called "noise". They are disjointed concepts of a bigger one.
There are no objective boundaries since it relies on individual perception. Some sound that to me is noise might be music to others, some sound that to me is music might be noise to others, and even some sounds that to me are music during the day might be noise during the night. Or in other contexts, or times of one's life, since perception and valuation of those perceptions is constantly changing...

[tanabarbier]

Yes, I agree, that is how I see it too. And it helps me a lot to compose: less boundaries, more fun.

[aciddose]

clap clap clap

[aciddose]

Here is a rather simple demonstration of these facts of reality that you'll never escape, no matter how sour you believe the grapes are.

http://xhip.net/temp/poyon_8b.wav
http://xhip.net/temp/poyon_7z.wav

You will find that "poyon_7z.wav" is 81992 bytes and includes redundant data in the RIFF header wrapping the 7z binary chunk.

The original file, "poyon_8b.wav" is 104705 bytes. This demonstrates the data is only at a concentration of less than 79% at best.

If you listen to "poyon_7z.wav", you will most likely find you are unable to distinguish the data from noise.

However, if you extract the raw binary data from the RIFFwave chunk and decode it using 7-zip, you will find it is in fact the same data as in "poyon_8b.wav".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%2 ... _theory%29

Data packed with maximum entropy will always be indistinguishable from noise if you lack the ability to decode it.

This is a simple statement of fact with so much backing it is laughable I would even bother to argue it with an uneducated fool.

[tanabarbier]

With all due respect I don't get your post. You mean that noise is basicaly what you "dont get" ?
The ability to decode is on the receptor side isn't it? Or it is a variant of "noise is what isn't the message"?
If so, well, yes, I agree with you on that, not that I find the distinction interesting (I am a composer, not an engineer).

Have a good day!

[aciddose]

Ah my post wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at anyone who seems to be in denial of facts. I thought I should have added a little content to the post to clarify that.

I'm referring to the discussion of my previous post.

The only distinction between "music" and "noise" is that the listener is unable to decode the data. This statement is absolutely correct and can not be denied. It allows for the observation that what constitutes "music" for one listener may constitute "noise" for another.

It lays this out in mathematical terms however rather than subjective.

[tanabarbier]

Ah, ok, got it.
Well that is pretty obvious, isn't it?
A friend told that his mother use to say to him "Noise is what you don't want to hear." I like it, even though it is maybe not valid, or whatever, it is a nice and unobtrusive way of putting it, to me.

Have a good day!

[aciddose]

I also like the "noise is what you don't want to hear", a very simple way of putting it although it is still technically accurate as it says exactly the same thing.

It is often useful to remember that music is not always about how much data and not even which data is present. "Sometimes it isn't about which notes you play, but which notes you don't play."

The reason we can successfully decode the data is entirely due to the fact it is not packed with even near maximum efficiency.

When it comes to music, gaps left unfilled in the data we do present to the listener can allow for the listener to fill them. It reminds of the difference between a book and a movie. Both may tell the same story but the information presented and its format are very different.

[zethus909]

ummmm...noise is random frequencies, and music is a consiously arranged set of whole/half tones

[hibidy]

Noise



Not noise

[jancivil]

The only distinction between "music" and "noise" is that the listener is unable to decode the data. This statement is absolutely correct and can not be denied. It allows for the observation that what constitutes "music" for one listener may constitute "noise" for another.

It lays this out in mathematical terms however rather than subjective.

The difference between one person's assessment and another's of the same object is 'subjective'. The means of describing the object can't change that.

[aciddose]

Mathematics are based upon a particular set of axioms, without which, the entire system collapses.

If you can count you can also see the undeniable truth of the explanation I gave for music vs. noise regarding entropy.

Nothing here is subjective.

As far as I can understand, what you mean to do is to point out that when applying mathematics in the concrete, any result is inherently subjective. I agree.

While that is true however, it is also true that when mathematics are applied in the abstract, nothing is subjective. This is because there is nothing concrete, no 'object' to observe. Alternative interpretations can not be made as no interpretation is ever made.