Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Makes Music Music?

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A pattern of sounds. A pattern of sound at certain frequencies?

What is music? When you think about it, music is just a series of sounds played at a certain tempo.

Is it that we can predict the next note in a dance tune and can coordinate our bodies to react simultaneously with the sound?

Is it the feeling of beauty when an underlying theme comes into blossom in a classical piece?

Is it those lyrics which drag a tear from you eye?

There are some people who cannot recognize music. To them it is just noise, (literally). What gives music, this auditory art, such power over us?

http://bigthink.com...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 1:21:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 11:23:06 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
What gives music, this auditory art, such power over us?

Warlocks.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 2:21:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are several dimensions to music. Even though people may be repulsed by the sound of what other people call music, all genres are basically made up of the same chemistry. Some have more emphasis and different methods for certain of those characteristics.

Melody:
This is generally considered the most basic part of a song. It's the part you whistle or get stuck in your head.
Melody differs through "pitch" and certain pitches tend to sound better with one another than others. Groups of well-working pitches are called "modes" or "scales" and decide which kind of emotion a song will portray.

Harmony:
This is very similar to the melody yet different and plays in the background in sync with the melody. It's generally deeper and is less pronounced.
Harmonies tend to have a different pitch than their melodies but use the same mode.

Rhythm:
This is the measurement of starting and stopping or varying emphasis in a song. Rhythm can expressed through strum patterns, drums and lyrics.
In some genres, such as rap, the rhythm is more important than the melody.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 2:45:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Music is simply this.

Organized sound.

And I use the word "organized" very loosely.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 2:45:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In fact, humans perceive reality entirely through music. Music is everything, and music is the best.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 2:57:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You still suck at trolling.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.

As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 8:53:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 2:21:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There are several dimensions to music. Even though people may be repulsed by the sound of what other people call music, all genres are basically made up of the same chemistry. Some have more emphasis and different methods for certain of those characteristics.

Melody:
This is generally considered the most basic part of a song. It's the part you whistle or get stuck in your head.
Melody differs through "pitch" and certain pitches tend to sound better with one another than others. Groups of well-working pitches are called "modes" or "scales" and decide which kind of emotion a song will portray.

Harmony:
This is very similar to the melody yet different and plays in the background in sync with the melody. It's generally deeper and is less pronounced.
Harmonies tend to have a different pitch than their melodies but use the same mode.

Rhythm:
This is the measurement of starting and stopping or varying emphasis in a song. Rhythm can expressed through strum patterns, drums and lyrics.
In some genres, such as rap, the rhythm is more important than the melody.

I strongly disagree with this post. You say "melody... is generally considered the most basic part of a song" and then go on to insinuate rhythm is some subordinate factor. I actually got this question wrong in my Survey of Western Music class, embarrasingly enough (as I am an amateur musician)... The most basic part of music is rhythm. All other factors are subordinate to this. It's easy enough to demonstrate, as percussion is music without any need for harmony or melody. If you rap your fingers against a table, you are using rhythm to create music without any other components.
kfc
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 9:13:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.


As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...

I don't think you're understanding what "natural progression" is which probably isn't your fault since it seems to be erased from any reference today. Although a six year old can understand it, but it does imply objectivity which defies our current group think. Much music will sound like music to all people who can hear music with in the norm of humanity. No average person, is walking down the street with a piece of atonal music stuck in their head, because of natural progression, because it isn't musical in the classic sense. Natural progression may result in a mathematical, or formulaic composition, but the composer wasn't using an algorithm to create music. Whereas, atonal music is mathematically symmetrical (not always), and may have some sort of logic behind it, but the bulk of atonal music does defy natural progression.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 9:13:22 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.


As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...

I don't think you're understanding what "natural progression" is which probably isn't your fault since it seems to be erased from any reference today. Although a six year old can understand it, but it does imply objectivity which defies our current group think. Much music will sound like music to all people who can hear music with in the norm of humanity. No average person, is walking down the street with a piece of atonal music stuck in their head, because of natural progression, because it isn't musical in the classic sense. Natural progression may result in a mathematical, or formulaic composition, but the composer wasn't using an algorithm to create music. Whereas, atonal music is mathematically symmetrical (not always), and may have some sort of logic behind it, but the bulk of atonal music does defy natural progression.

I don't understand what you mean by natural progression, and I have a strong suspicion that this is something entirely cultural.

The reason why the average person isn't going to walk down the street with an atonal piece in there head has to do with a couple things.. Most people are not consumers of classical music nowadays. The ones who are, most have have not had a proper exposure to music that is free from a tonal center.

If people actually listened to it, they'd have it stuck in their heads. I know I do. Of course, when I try to get someone else to listen to the type of music I like ,they dismiss it as noise.

Listening to music is a very personal thing for me though, it isn't something I enjoy doing with other people. The times I have tried to get people to listen to free-tonal music in the real world usually ended with a person listening to it for 10 seconds, and saying that it sounds like a bunch of noise.

I don't care what anyone says, this type of music can be very beautiful, and it is music. Anyone who calls something like the "Pierrot Lunaire" noise, and can't see how it is musical is an idiot.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 3:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 10:53:07 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 9:13:22 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.


As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...

I don't think you're understanding what "natural progression" is which probably isn't your fault since it seems to be erased from any reference today. Although a six year old can understand it, but it does imply objectivity which defies our current group think. Much music will sound like music to all people who can hear music with in the norm of humanity. No average person, is walking down the street with a piece of atonal music stuck in their head, because of natural progression, because it isn't musical in the classic sense. Natural progression may result in a mathematical, or formulaic composition, but the composer wasn't using an algorithm to create music. Whereas, atonal music is mathematically symmetrical (not always), and may have some sort of logic behind it, but the bulk of atonal music does defy natural progression.

I don't understand what you mean by natural progression, and I have a strong suspicion that this is something entirely cultural.

The reason why the average person isn't going to walk down the street with an atonal piece in there head has to do with a couple things.. Most people are not consumers of classical music nowadays. The ones who are, most have have not had a proper exposure to music that is free from a tonal center.

If people actually listened to it, they'd have it stuck in their heads. I know I do. Of course, when I try to get someone else to listen to the type of music I like ,they dismiss it as noise.

Listening to music is a very personal thing for me though, it isn't something I enjoy doing with other people. The times I have tried to get people to listen to free-tonal music in the real world usually ended with a person listening to it for 10 seconds, and saying that it sounds like a bunch of noise.


I don't care what anyone says, this type of music can be very beautiful, and it is music. Anyone who calls something like the "Pierrot Lunaire" noise, and can't see how it is musical is an idiot.



I know you do not understand the phenomenon of natural progression, and again it's not really your fault because it has been erased. No, it's not cultural. The piece that you posted, can you imagine anyone getting that stuck in their head? How about just remember a few phrases?

An arpeggio is naturally pleasing to the ear, it isn't a cultural thing, but it just is. A chord sounds good, not because we learn it to sound good, but because it resonates pleasingly to us, whereas discord does not.

Chocolate tastes good, not because it's a subjective cultural adaptation, but because we have receptors that interpret it pleasingly. Now i know you can raise the pedantic objection that there are people who don't like chocolate, but my meaning is that there are universals where people naturally like sweet (of some form). The same is true with sounds, and music in particular, and it is these universals that make music music.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 3:20:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 3:10:42 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 10:53:07 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 9:13:22 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.


As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...

I don't think you're understanding what "natural progression" is which probably isn't your fault since it seems to be erased from any reference today. Although a six year old can understand it, but it does imply objectivity which defies our current group think. Much music will sound like music to all people who can hear music with in the norm of humanity. No average person, is walking down the street with a piece of atonal music stuck in their head, because of natural progression, because it isn't musical in the classic sense. Natural progression may result in a mathematical, or formulaic composition, but the composer wasn't using an algorithm to create music. Whereas, atonal music is mathematically symmetrical (not always), and may have some sort of logic behind it, but the bulk of atonal music does defy natural progression.

I don't understand what you mean by natural progression, and I have a strong suspicion that this is something entirely cultural.

The reason why the average person isn't going to walk down the street with an atonal piece in there head has to do with a couple things.. Most people are not consumers of classical music nowadays. The ones who are, most have have not had a proper exposure to music that is free from a tonal center.

If people actually listened to it, they'd have it stuck in their heads. I know I do. Of course, when I try to get someone else to listen to the type of music I like ,they dismiss it as noise.

Listening to music is a very personal thing for me though, it isn't something I enjoy doing with other people. The times I have tried to get people to listen to free-tonal music in the real world usually ended with a person listening to it for 10 seconds, and saying that it sounds like a bunch of noise.


I don't care what anyone says, this type of music can be very beautiful, and it is music. Anyone who calls something like the "Pierrot Lunaire" noise, and can't see how it is musical is an idiot.



I know you do not understand the phenomenon of natural progression, and again it's not really your fault because it has been erased. No, it's not cultural. The piece that you posted, can you imagine anyone getting that stuck in their head? How about just remember a few phrases?


Do you honestly think that people don't get this kind of stuff stuck in their head? Do you honestly believe that people don't remember a few phrases from music like this?

I don't understand what you mean by "natural progression", because it is a completely meaningless statement.

An arpeggio is naturally pleasing to the ear, it isn't a cultural thing, but it just is. A chord sounds good, not because we learn it to sound good, but because it resonates pleasingly to us, whereas discord does not.


You obviously have not heard a lot of authentic world music.

Chocolate tastes good, not because it's a subjective cultural adaptation, but because we have receptors that interpret it pleasingly. Now i know you can raise the pedantic objection that there are people who don't like chocolate, but my meaning is that there are universals where people naturally like sweet (of some form). The same is true with sounds, and music in particular, and it is these universals that make music music.

Yeah, you know, go to a foreign country with food drastically different than what you are used to eating, and tell me the same thing.

Culture plays a bigger role in these things than you might realize.

But I am not saying it is just culture. Read the "Art of Noise". The sounds today that you take for granted in music at one time where considered ear grinding dissonances.

Look up the "emancipation of the dissonance" concept.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 3:20:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 3:10:42 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 10:53:07 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 9:13:22 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 2:10:40 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/10/2011 2:08:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Actually, there is something called natural progression in music. This is where a melody or tune is dependent on a certain formula in order for it to sound like music. You cannot have a random note follow another random note, because that would just be noise. It's really very interesting if you think about it. It's also very mathematical in the variables that are allowed in natural progression, there is a finite number of notes that can follow another notes so that it is considered music. There is no inherent reason for us to find favor in the progression of notes following what is called natural progression, but it exists. Atonal "music" defies natural progression, but it's intentional, sort of like modern art.

Yeah, most music does TEND to be formulamatic, but this is not necessary for it to sound like music.

At the same time, atonal music does not defy progression. Atonal music, especially of the 12-tone method is highly mathematical, and serialism in general has produced some of the most structured music ever created.


As for why certain music will sound like noise to some people and not others.. The Futurist composer Luigi Russolo wrote this thing called "The Art of Noise" that I think might be worth reading. It's pretty short.

http://120years.net...

I don't think you're understanding what "natural progression" is which probably isn't your fault since it seems to be erased from any reference today. Although a six year old can understand it, but it does imply objectivity which defies our current group think. Much music will sound like music to all people who can hear music with in the norm of humanity. No average person, is walking down the street with a piece of atonal music stuck in their head, because of natural progression, because it isn't musical in the classic sense. Natural progression may result in a mathematical, or formulaic composition, but the composer wasn't using an algorithm to create music. Whereas, atonal music is mathematically symmetrical (not always), and may have some sort of logic behind it, but the bulk of atonal music does defy natural progression.

I don't understand what you mean by natural progression, and I have a strong suspicion that this is something entirely cultural.

The reason why the average person isn't going to walk down the street with an atonal piece in there head has to do with a couple things.. Most people are not consumers of classical music nowadays. The ones who are, most have have not had a proper exposure to music that is free from a tonal center.

If people actually listened to it, they'd have it stuck in their heads. I know I do. Of course, when I try to get someone else to listen to the type of music I like ,they dismiss it as noise.

Listening to music is a very personal thing for me though, it isn't something I enjoy doing with other people. The times I have tried to get people to listen to free-tonal music in the real world usually ended with a person listening to it for 10 seconds, and saying that it sounds like a bunch of noise.


I don't care what anyone says, this type of music can be very beautiful, and it is music. Anyone who calls something like the "Pierrot Lunaire" noise, and can't see how it is musical is an idiot.



I know you do not understand the phenomenon of natural progression, and again it's not really your fault because it has been erased. No, it's not cultural. The piece that you posted, can you imagine anyone getting that stuck in their head? How about just remember a few phrases?


Do you honestly think that people don't get this kind of stuff stuck in their head? Do you honestly believe that people don't remember a few phrases from music like this?

I don't understand what you mean by "natural progression", because it is a completely meaningless statement.


An arpeggio is naturally pleasing to the ear, it isn't a cultural thing, but it just is. A chord sounds good, not because we learn it to sound good, but because it resonates pleasingly to us, whereas discord does not.


You obviously have not heard a lot of authentic world music.


Chocolate tastes good, not because it's a subjective cultural adaptation, but because we have receptors that interpret it pleasingly. Now i know you can raise the pedantic objection that there are people who don't like chocolate, but my meaning is that there are universals where people naturally like sweet (of some form). The same is true with sounds, and music in particular, and it is these universals that make music music.

Yeah, you know, go to a foreign country with food drastically different than what you are used to eating, and tell me the same thing.

Culture plays a bigger role in these things than you might realize.

But I am not saying it is just culture. Read the "Art of Noise". The sounds today that you take for granted in music at one time where considered ear grinding dissonances.

Look up the "emancipation of the dissonance" concept.

KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:10:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

There may be general trends in what humans subjectively like (music with more 'natural progression', chocolate or other classic sweet things, etc.), but they shouldn't be classified as a universal in any significant sense - even in the weak sense you are using it in. And the only reason why I bring this up is to object to your basis that we can ground definitions of music on the basis of this 'natural progression'.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:34:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:10:11 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

There may be general trends in what humans subjectively like (music with more 'natural progression', chocolate or other classic sweet things, etc.), but they shouldn't be classified as a universal in any significant sense - even in the weak sense you are using it in. And the only reason why I bring this up is to object to your basis that we can ground definitions of music on the basis of this 'natural progression'.

So you honestly don't believe that a chord that is struck, is more naturally pleasing to the ear, than a few notes randomly struck? And that these pleasing sounds, that are then put in an order, such as an adagio, if interrupted midway, and a few random notes are put in that are dissonant it doesn't objectively sound just wrong to the human ear?

You're just wrong on that.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:41:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is indeed a universal that sweet is pleasant to the tongue and that every culture has some version of a sweet dish. Our bodies need carbohydrates so it craves sweet, and it craves salt and it craves fat - these are universals, although we can train ourselves to veer away from these natural tendencies. Why should the ear be any different than the tongue? We define food, yes?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:16:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Arguing over the 'correct' definition of a label is an exercise in pointlessness. 'Music' is just a convenient label for a loose class of sound based activities. When we start arguing over what music really is, we're arguing over something that no longer has a meaningful answer.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 10:29:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 7:16:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Arguing over the 'correct' definition of a label is an exercise in pointlessness. 'Music' is just a convenient label for a loose class of sound based activities. When we start arguing over what music really is, we're arguing over something that no longer has a meaningful answer.

That's part of the point of the discussion. Someone steeped in subjectivism would say there are no parameters on what makes music music, and i am attempting to disagree with that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 12:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If our hearts had a different beat we learn in our womb, would the rhythms of our music be drastically different? How about the overtones in sound of the natural wind, would our harmonies be different?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:09:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM, innomen wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

You really gotta stop trollin' in this thread, it isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion. I'm not living in a grey world. Music is all around me, and it is really quite bitchin'. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and I find your arrogance astounding.

I'm saying the concept is absurd because a progression can't be anything other than natural.

Whether I'm playing the blues, or composing an experiment in ugliness, it is natural. How can it be anything but? Everything you are speaking of is cultural. It's the kind of mind rot that the aristocracy and church believed back in the days when they would have chopped your d!ck off for playing a diminished fifth(a very cool sounding interval that summons SATAN... apparently..), considered the slide trombone a vulgar sounding instrument, when every composition had to end in a corny as hell authentic cadence...

Hell, the entire classical period is filled with banal and insipid horse sh!t, and it is because of the fact that anything that wasn't white washed, plastic, and culturally defined as being "correct" by the establishment didn't gain support.

The kind of stuff you are talking is the kind of stuff that non-composers have tried to enforce on composers since the beginning of time.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:24:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 1:09:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM, innomen wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

You really gotta stop trollin' in this thread, it isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion. I'm not living in a grey world. Music is all around me, and it is really quite bitchin'. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and I find your arrogance astounding.

I'm saying the concept is absurd because a progression can't be anything other than natural.

Whether I'm playing the blues, or composing an experiment in ugliness, it is natural. How can it be anything but? Everything you are speaking of is cultural. It's the kind of mind rot that the aristocracy and church believed back in the days when they would have chopped your d!ck off for playing a diminished fifth(a very cool sounding interval that summons SATAN... apparently..), considered the slide trombone a vulgar sounding instrument, when every composition had to end in a corny as hell authentic cadence...

Hell, the entire classical period is filled with banal and insipid horse sh!t, and it is because of the fact that anything that wasn't white washed, plastic, and culturally defined as being "correct" by the establishment didn't gain support.

The kind of stuff you are talking is the kind of stuff that non-composers have tried to enforce on composers since the beginning of time.

But we musicians are not the majority.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 1:24:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/12/2011 1:09:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM, innomen wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

You really gotta stop trollin' in this thread, it isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion. I'm not living in a grey world. Music is all around me, and it is really quite bitchin'. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and I find your arrogance astounding.

I'm saying the concept is absurd because a progression can't be anything other than natural.

Whether I'm playing the blues, or composing an experiment in ugliness, it is natural. How can it be anything but? Everything you are speaking of is cultural. It's the kind of mind rot that the aristocracy and church believed back in the days when they would have chopped your d!ck off for playing a diminished fifth(a very cool sounding interval that summons SATAN... apparently..), considered the slide trombone a vulgar sounding instrument, when every composition had to end in a corny as hell authentic cadence...

Hell, the entire classical period is filled with banal and insipid horse sh!t, and it is because of the fact that anything that wasn't white washed, plastic, and culturally defined as being "correct" by the establishment didn't gain support.

The kind of stuff you are talking is the kind of stuff that non-composers have tried to enforce on composers since the beginning of time.

But we musicians are not the majority.

Nah, but you don't have to be a musician to appreciate something more complicated than a 7th chord, or a time signature that isn't consistent.

When the Rite of Spring premiered, there were riots! Possibly the most eerily beautiful piece of music ever written, and people flipped out over it! Seriously, what the fvck?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:40:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 1:09:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM, innomen wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

You really gotta stop trollin' in this thread, it isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion. I'm not living in a grey world. Music is all around me, and it is really quite bitchin'. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and I find your arrogance astounding.

I'm saying the concept is absurd because a progression can't be anything other than natural.

Whether I'm playing the blues, or composing an experiment in ugliness, it is natural. How can it be anything but? Everything you are speaking of is cultural. It's the kind of mind rot that the aristocracy and church believed back in the days when they would have chopped your d!ck off for playing a diminished fifth(a very cool sounding interval that summons SATAN... apparently..), considered the slide trombone a vulgar sounding instrument, when every composition had to end in a corny as hell authentic cadence...

Hell, the entire classical period is filled with banal and insipid horse sh!t, and it is because of the fact that anything that wasn't white washed, plastic, and culturally defined as being "correct" by the establishment didn't gain support.

The kind of stuff you are talking is the kind of stuff that non-composers have tried to enforce on composers since the beginning of time.

It's fine you're not understanding natural progression, and of course it doesn't apply to classical music only; you're really not getting it. Do you think i made it up? - I've never been accused of trolling before.

Let's go at it this way; if any sound can be considered music, then music really has no meaning as a word other than something with a modifier 'subjective'.

It is my personal contention that the meaning of music has been modified for consistency's sake; subjectivity's sake.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:40:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seriously, man. Listen to the whole thing(it is broken up). People were stupid to not respect this as music at the time.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 1:49:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 1:40:18 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/12/2011 1:09:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/12/2011 5:04:44 AM, innomen wrote:
KK, got it. No such thing as natural progression. You live in a gray world my friend.

You really gotta stop trollin' in this thread, it isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion. I'm not living in a grey world. Music is all around me, and it is really quite bitchin'. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and I find your arrogance astounding.

I'm saying the concept is absurd because a progression can't be anything other than natural.

Whether I'm playing the blues, or composing an experiment in ugliness, it is natural. How can it be anything but? Everything you are speaking of is cultural. It's the kind of mind rot that the aristocracy and church believed back in the days when they would have chopped your d!ck off for playing a diminished fifth(a very cool sounding interval that summons SATAN... apparently..), considered the slide trombone a vulgar sounding instrument, when every composition had to end in a corny as hell authentic cadence...

Hell, the entire classical period is filled with banal and insipid horse sh!t, and it is because of the fact that anything that wasn't white washed, plastic, and culturally defined as being "correct" by the establishment didn't gain support.

The kind of stuff you are talking is the kind of stuff that non-composers have tried to enforce on composers since the beginning of time.

It's fine you're not understanding natural progression, and of course it doesn't apply to classical music only; you're really not getting it. Do you think i made it up? - I've never been accused of trolling before.

Let's go at it this way; if any sound can be considered music, then music really has no meaning as a word other than something with a modifier 'subjective'.

It is my personal contention that the meaning of music has been modified for consistency's sake; subjectivity's sake.

Music is in the ear of the listener.

It's the truth, you can either accept it, or delude yourself in vain pretension. I don't care. Go ahead and draw out what you think are objective the special rules that must be followed in order for something to be considered music.

Objectively, music is vibrating air. Subjectively, it is perception. Some people might not consider the cars driving down the road, and the birds chirping music, but it is to some.

Music is organized sound. It doesn't have to even be organized by a person, it is organized by nature. It is organized by muthafuggin GOD. Yeah, I went there. Now, I'm out.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 12:14:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If our hearts had a different beat we learn in our womb, would the rhythms of our music be drastically different? How about the overtones in sound of the natural wind, would our harmonies be different?

Have you heard how the majority of music matches the heart rate of someone dancing?