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

[TiUser]

For humans one generation is about 25 years.

Maybe it's less when the DNS has mutated...

[Meffy]

For humans one generation is about 25 years.

*shrug* For us anthro mephits it's closer to a third of a century than a quarter. But the duration in years is irrelevant; it's the musical effect that is important.

[vurt]

music is barely two dimensional, noise has all of the four dimensions we live in.

[Km7]

I prefer to go with the notion that music is organized sound and this should be apparent to the auditory system in some way or another. Cognitive researches show that listening to music leads to activation of many of the same brain centers as when participating in conversations, which explains why semantics are important and hence the popular connection between language and music, as well as the prevailing organization of material in motives, phrases, sentences, usage of caesuras and so on. Basically, it shouldn't sound to you like noise, like random stuff (which I don't claim is something absolute and it also depends on the listener's keenness). Yeah, sure, the second half of 20th century kinda changed that, but modern music, IMO, produced a lot of crap among some interesting works, considering that our cognitive capacity remains the same genetically. But some charlatans ignore that and go into mental masturbation that sometimes results in 'noise' that they are bold enough to call 'music'. I personally don't and would never call these works of these 'composers' music, though, just as some unrelated texts might seem interesting for a while and give you some fun, but then turn into boring jibberish. (I won't list names and works here, since my aim is not to get into polemics on that or insult someone's taste.)

[vurt]

(I won't list names and works here, since my aim is not to get into polemics or insult someone's taste).

you cant do that!
how in hell are we supposed to argue against a stance like that?

the "music is organised noise" is a very modern and western approach, in essence much of what you are dismissing probably has more historical basis and a wider world view than most of what you consider to be music.

the only difference is intent, it has naff all to do with the listener, the listener only has the qualification to like or dislike, not to dismiss something without understnading.
the same goes for art, the whole "its art if i like it" stance is complete bollocks, its art if the artist intends it to be.

elvis is/was shit!

[whyterabbyt]

Basically, it shouldn't sound to you like noise, like random stuff

why not, exactly?

[Km7]

Elvis? Geez, I am not talking about Elvis, but some modern, 'classical', art 'music'.

[Km7]

why not, exactly?

Because it's noise then. Of course, this doesn't mean it cannot lead to beautiful sonic experiences.

[vurt]

so why shouldnt we listen to it?

[Km7]

And? I already said it.

[whyterabbyt]

why not, exactly?

Because it's noise then.

music shouldn't sound like noise because that makes it noise?

no, that's not sufficient. more reasoning required, less circular argumentation.

[vurt]

ps: i like your sig, varadin

[Km7]

so why shouldnt we listen to it?

You said that. I never said you shouldn't listen to it. I like listening to the mountain streams, too, they produce beautiful, relaxing noise.

music shouldn't sound like noise because that makes it noise?
no, that's not sufficient. more reasoning required, less circular argumentation.

You are the one who treated my words like that.

[vurt]

Elvis? Geez, I am not talking about Elvis, but some modern, 'classical', art 'music'.

but, this seems to suggest that because "some" composers have created "some" not so great compositions, that we should avoid "noise".
you suggest that because of a few charlatans all music/audio in that vein of thought is "unlistenable".

are you also suggesting that other musical modes havent had their charlatans onboard? or that even some of the great composers didnt also compose some less great stuff?

[vurt]

so why shouldnt we listen to it?

You said that. I never said you shouldn't listen to it. I like listening to the mountain streams, too, they produce beautiful, relaxing noise.

But some charlatans ignore that and go into mental masturbation that sometimes results in 'noise' that they are bold enough to call 'music'. I personally don't and would never call these works of these 'composers' music,

but again, you do not have that right.
you can only like or dislike it, the intent of the composer is what makes it what it is, not your preference.