Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:61-81|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are the Sounds of Nature "music"?

Nac
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

I would say that it was music only if I could identify within it elements of music like melody and rhythm. I think that music is more than just a collection of sounds, so I feel the need use this standard to evaluate what is and is not music. Without it, I do not see how I could claim that the definition of music extends to the point where I can call a pair of sounds music.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here.

Very recognizable seems quite vague. Do you mean that it is difficult to see, or that you cannot see it at some points? If it is the latter, are you saying you are sure that the music within the sounds is there? I would argue that you should not call it music unless you are sure that it possesses this structure.

I kind of view this standard like the burden of proof. The structure needs to be shown before I can call something music, because I see the the claim that something is music as the positive claim.

Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.
Vaarka
Posts: 10,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM, Nac wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

I would say that it was music only if I could identify within it elements of music like melody and rhythm. I think that music is more than just a collection of sounds, so I feel the need use this standard to evaluate what is and is not music. Without it, I do not see how I could claim that the definition of music extends to the point where I can call a pair of sounds music.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here.

Very recognizable seems quite vague. Do you mean that it is difficult to see, or that you cannot see it at some points? If it is the latter, are you saying you are sure that the music within the sounds is there? I would argue that you should not call it music unless you are sure that it possesses this structure.

I kind of view this standard like the burden of proof. The structure needs to be shown before I can call something music, because I see the the claim that something is music as the positive claim.
Sorry, but being the extremely passive person I am, my answers can be kinda vague. By that, I meant that in a mixture of both senses. It can be difficult to recognize both in general and for me. Part of that is simply because we don't always pay attention to the sounds around us. We get focused on whatever is on our minds, whatever we have in our hands, whoever we're with, and we don't pay attention to the background noise, to the nature around us.

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
jilnaan514
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:23:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I believe there is music patterns in the vibrations that are all around us in nature and the universe. Its very interesting . Here is an article about it that I think you will love..check it out :) http://adf.ly...
Nac
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM, Nac wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

I would say that it was music only if I could identify within it elements of music like melody and rhythm. I think that music is more than just a collection of sounds, so I feel the need use this standard to evaluate what is and is not music. Without it, I do not see how I could claim that the definition of music extends to the point where I can call a pair of sounds music.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here.

Very recognizable seems quite vague. Do you mean that it is difficult to see, or that you cannot see it at some points? If it is the latter, are you saying you are sure that the music within the sounds is there? I would argue that you should not call it music unless you are sure that it possesses this structure.

I kind of view this standard like the burden of proof. The structure needs to be shown before I can call something music, because I see the the claim that something is music as the positive claim.
Sorry, but being the extremely passive person I am, my answers can be kinda vague.

No need to apologize. I was just unsure what you meant.

By that, I meant that in a mixture of both senses. It can be difficult to recognize both in general and for me. Part of that is simply because we don't always pay attention to the sounds around us. We get focused on whatever is on our minds, whatever we have in our hands, whoever we're with, and we don't pay attention to the background noise, to the nature around us.

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

I think might have been unclear in my question as well. I was attempting to ask if you were saying that nature is music even when you cannot see this structure, because I wanted to introduce a possible point of contention that we could discuss.

Are you saying that the music of nature is always there, even when you do not notice it? If so, then I suppose that would be a possible cause for confusion.

Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.
Vaarka
Posts: 10,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 8:41:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM, Nac wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM, Nac wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

I would say that it was music only if I could identify within it elements of music like melody and rhythm. I think that music is more than just a collection of sounds, so I feel the need use this standard to evaluate what is and is not music. Without it, I do not see how I could claim that the definition of music extends to the point where I can call a pair of sounds music.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here.

Very recognizable seems quite vague. Do you mean that it is difficult to see, or that you cannot see it at some points? If it is the latter, are you saying you are sure that the music within the sounds is there? I would argue that you should not call it music unless you are sure that it possesses this structure.

I kind of view this standard like the burden of proof. The structure needs to be shown before I can call something music, because I see the the claim that something is music as the positive claim.
Sorry, but being the extremely passive person I am, my answers can be kinda vague.

No need to apologize. I was just unsure what you meant.

By that, I meant that in a mixture of both senses. It can be difficult to recognize both in general and for me. Part of that is simply because we don't always pay attention to the sounds around us. We get focused on whatever is on our minds, whatever we have in our hands, whoever we're with, and we don't pay attention to the background noise, to the nature around us.

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

I think might have been unclear in my question as well. I was attempting to ask if you were saying that nature is music even when you cannot see this structure, because I wanted to introduce a possible point of contention that we could discuss.
Are you saying, in a more simple way, that if we were deliberately listening for music in nature, and could not find any, that there is still music?

Are you saying that the music of nature is always there, even when you do not notice it? If so, then I suppose that would be a possible cause for confusion.

Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Nac
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 12:36:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/29/2016 8:41:59 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM, Nac wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM, Nac wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

I would say that it was music only if I could identify within it elements of music like melody and rhythm. I think that music is more than just a collection of sounds, so I feel the need use this standard to evaluate what is and is not music. Without it, I do not see how I could claim that the definition of music extends to the point where I can call a pair of sounds music.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here.

Very recognizable seems quite vague. Do you mean that it is difficult to see, or that you cannot see it at some points? If it is the latter, are you saying you are sure that the music within the sounds is there? I would argue that you should not call it music unless you are sure that it possesses this structure.

I kind of view this standard like the burden of proof. The structure needs to be shown before I can call something music, because I see the the claim that something is music as the positive claim.
Sorry, but being the extremely passive person I am, my answers can be kinda vague.

No need to apologize. I was just unsure what you meant.

By that, I meant that in a mixture of both senses. It can be difficult to recognize both in general and for me. Part of that is simply because we don't always pay attention to the sounds around us. We get focused on whatever is on our minds, whatever we have in our hands, whoever we're with, and we don't pay attention to the background noise, to the nature around us.

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

I think might have been unclear in my question as well. I was attempting to ask if you were saying that nature is music even when you cannot see this structure, because I wanted to introduce a possible point of contention that we could discuss.
Are you saying, in a more simple way, that if we were deliberately listening for music in nature, and could not find any, that there is still music?

I was attempting to ask you if you believe this, yes. The talk about structure was just my attempt to say under what circumstances I would say that music was "there."

Are you saying that the music of nature is always there, even when you do not notice it? If so, then I suppose that would be a possible cause for confusion.

Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.
Vaarka
Posts: 10,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:12:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/30/2016 12:36:20 AM, Nac wrote:
At 10/29/2016 8:41:59 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM, Nac wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM, Vaarka wrote:

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

I think might have been unclear in my question as well. I was attempting to ask if you were saying that nature is music even when you cannot see this structure, because I wanted to introduce a possible point of contention that we could discuss.
Are you saying, in a more simple way, that if we were deliberately listening for music in nature, and could not find any, that there is still music?

I was attempting to ask you if you believe this, yes. The talk about structure was just my attempt to say under what circumstances I would say that music was "there."

Then in that case, I believe there is still some kind of musical element there. We can't always recognize it, and that may be due to it being too quiet, or being too slow. However, our inability to recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there. I guess it can depend on perspective, as to what some people consider to be music, but it can still exist.

Have you heard this sounds of the planets? This conversation kinda reminds me of it: https://www.youtube.com... <-- and some people do consider this music
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Thoguth
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2016 2:56:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
To define music requires an understanding of art. And to define art is tricky in itself, right? Most of us would just say "I know it when I see it" but then when you get into "found art", someone might find something kind of mundane, but by placing it into an artistic context, recognize the reality of actual art from the originally non-art.

That's kind of the question here, if I understand it. Can natural sounds be considered "found art" in the same sense?

My hunch is ... no, for the most part probably not. To pick a single dividing factor that separates art from non-art, I'd say it hinges on meaning. To be art, whatever it is must have a meaning that is more than the sum of its parts. (It's a really freaking low standard, right?) For a painting, this is easy; instead of merely canvas and pigments, the painting can contain shapes, a scene, etc... and within those shapes or scenes, there could be even more elements of deeper meaning.

With music as well ... in my "meaning that is more than the sum of its parts" scenario, pretty much any sound at all (including nature sounds) could be valid elements of music--if they are placed in a way that means something more than just the sounds. Walking around the house makes noise, maybe even with a rhythm that could be called musical; but it is not music. An intentional tapping of feet in a rhythm --maybe even the same rhythm as a walk, or a deliberately-paced walk even--could be fairly called music.

I guess there are some nature sounds that could be called music. When a bird sings, it is intentionally arranging notes to communicate something (even if that "something" is just "I know some notes that go this way"). Other creatures with a "call" might be said to make music as well; a croak, creak or chitter might sound meaningless to a casual observer, but to someone who knows what's going on, it might be saying something deeply useful to know.

There could also be room in the realm of nature sounds to, by recording at a specific place and time, encapsulate a particular intended meaning... such as recording near a nest in spring when the baby birds are hatching, or recording with purpose the soft padding of a predator through a jungle. Each of these may be meaningless if just heard as ambient noise, but when a recorder intends to capture something meaningful and does so, it's an entirely different effect.

So I guess my answer as it stands is a little more complex than I thought at first. I would still say that plant-based nature sounds such as the wind rustling through the leaves etc. are not music at all (unless by recording them, an artist intends to capture and emphasize a specific reality; that choice of what and how to emphasize something can be musical). Other animal sounds, like a calling bird or howling coyote, could be seen as a song; seems clear they are intended as expressions to communicate something.

But more generally, just kind of ... sitting around listening to "nothing" doesn't strike me as particularly music.
Dialogue is the air that clear thinking breathes.
GrimlyF
Posts: 876
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2016 9:14:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 10/30/2016 3:12:30 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/30/2016 12:36:20 AM, Nac wrote:
At 10/29/2016 8:41:59 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM, Nac wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM, Vaarka wrote:

My point was that I recognize something as music if it has a clear rhythm, beat, and/or melody to it. It may not be noticeable, too quiet, or passed off as background noise, but nature does make it's own rhythms, beats, and melodies, and they're pleasant when actually noticeable.

I think might have been unclear in my question as well. I was attempting to ask if you were saying that nature is music even when you cannot see this structure, because I wanted to introduce a possible point of contention that we could discuss.
Are you saying, in a more simple way, that if we were deliberately listening for music in nature, and could not find any, that there is still music?

I was attempting to ask you if you believe this, yes. The talk about structure was just my attempt to say under what circumstances I would say that music was "there."

Then in that case, I believe there is still some kind of musical element there. We can't always recognize it, and that may be due to it being too quiet, or being too slow. However, our inability to recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there. I guess it can depend on perspective, as to what some people consider to be music, but it can still exist.

Have you heard this sounds of the planets? This conversation kinda reminds me of it: https://www.youtube.com... <-- and some people do consider this music

"May not be noticeable". Perhaps the "music" is subliminal. Who hasn't gone to a beach, sat down, and felt the cares of the day fade to the sounds of wind and wave or walked in a park or forest and felt content.
Maybe the true "music" is beneath our normal range of hearing and harks back to a kind of racial memory that tells us we are safe, we can relax our guard and enjoy the moment.
HEALTH WARNING!. Contact with WYLTED can damage your brain.
ShabShoral is beneath notice.
Perussi
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2017 2:22:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:21:46 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 4/5/2016 4:07:03 AM, Briannj17 wrote:
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?
Yes.

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable. Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

^^exactly so.

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes sounds in nature are music. What do you think what we do to make music? We whistle, sing, use instruments well so does nature. We also use nature and imitations of nature to make music.

yeah if you call out to the birds on a consistent beat - they answer on your rhythm, I have a bird who sings the "feel good" notes of "feel good inc." by the Gorillaz and I sing the bass or in the summer play it on the piano with the bird nearby and get it to respond on beat. Other birds rhythmically join in for back up.

This is one of the most awesome things i have ever read.
The Official DDO Precedent

jesus loves you

DO NOT TAKE THIS LINK: http://www.debate.org...
PureX
Posts: 3,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2017 5:06:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Teaching an elephant to slosh paint onto a canvas with a brush may be "painting", but it's not art. In which case, who cares?

Artifice is the product of human intent, as expressed through design. Animals can't do this. Nature doesn't do this apart from us.

Whether or not natural sounds are "music" is, to me, a pointless question, because frankly, who cares? The important question is not whether sounds are music, but whether they are 'artifice'. That is whether or not the sounds are organized by a human mind, to express some sort of intent.

Now, if you sit around listening to the sounds of nature, and you are organizing them in your mind so as to perceive them as expressing some sort of intent, then perhaps those sounds are becoming artifice in your head. But until you express that artifice to other humans, via some sort of organized re-presentation, then again, it remains a pointless designation.
THsea
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 2:46:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 2/13/2017 5:06:12 PM, PureX wrote:
Teaching an elephant to slosh paint onto a canvas with a brush may be "painting", but it's not art. In which case, who cares?

Artifice is the product of human intent, as expressed through design. Animals can't do this. Nature doesn't do this apart from us.

Whether or not natural sounds are "music" is, to me, a pointless question, because frankly, who cares? The important question is not whether sounds are music, but whether they are 'artifice'. That is whether or not the sounds are organized by a human mind, to express some sort of intent.

Now, if you sit around listening to the sounds of nature, and you are organizing them in your mind so as to perceive them as expressing some sort of intent, then perhaps those sounds are becoming artifice in your head. But until you express that artifice to other humans, via some sort of organized re-presentation, then again, it remains a pointless designation.

Are you implying that there is no intent behind how animals (other than humans) may create, produce or interact? Barring human interaction, that is... Or are you saying that "what humans make intentionally as music" is the only music there is?

https://www.amazon.com...

This is a book I was made aware of by a mentor of mine in a past career path (its a mediocre read tbh, but the idea is interesting)... My mentor actually referred to birds by what tonal intervals they used, quite an interesting guy!

After hearing about it, I actually started playing jazz (on flute and whistling) with a friends parrot. Within a week, it would actually "trade 8's" with me. He (the bird) would improvise lines, taking into account what I had just played. I think that bird was an artist. You can hear birds rifting off each other in the wild, without human interaction... Not all are as beautiful musically, but its the same with humans.

Many composers have gained inspiration from being in nature, they can reproduce what they hear because they know how to communicate sound and rhythms... And have an understanding of the nomenclature to express those things on paper. So I do think the sounds of nature are music... At least when people are there to make it so. It seems like your position is that of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound".

I'm not trying to insult how you view this, I just want some clarity. It sounds like if its not humans, its not music. But I'm a few beers in and who knows how well I'm reading at this point!
PureX
Posts: 3,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 1:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 3/3/2017 2:46:14 AM, THsea wrote:
At 2/13/2017 5:06:12 PM, PureX wrote:
Teaching an elephant to slosh paint onto a canvas with a brush may be "painting", but it's not art. In which case, who cares?

Artifice is the product of human intent, as expressed through design. Animals can't do this. Nature doesn't do this apart from us.

Whether or not natural sounds are "music" is, to me, a pointless question, because frankly, who cares? The important question is not whether sounds are music, but whether they are 'artifice'. That is whether or not the sounds are organized by a human mind, to express some sort of intent.

Now, if you sit around listening to the sounds of nature, and you are organizing them in your mind so as to perceive them as expressing some sort of intent, then perhaps those sounds are becoming artifice in your head. But until you express that artifice to other humans, via some sort of organized re-presentation, then again, it remains a pointless designation.

Are you implying that there is no intent behind how animals (other than humans) may create, produce or interact? Barring human interaction, that is... Or are you saying that "what humans make intentionally as music" is the only music there is?

Animals do not design sounds (or anything else) to express the unique way they perceive or experience the world, to us. Thus, they do not engage in the activity of making art.

This is a book I was made aware of by a mentor of mine in a past career path (its a mediocre read tbh, but the idea is interesting)... My mentor actually referred to birds by what tonal intervals they used, quite an interesting guy!

You need a new mentor, if you want to be an artist. If you want to be a zoologist, then maybe this guy can help.

After hearing about it, I actually started playing jazz (on flute and whistling) with a friends parrot. Within a week, it would actually "trade 8's" with me. He (the bird) would improvise lines, taking into account what I had just played. I think that bird was an artist. You can hear birds rifting off each other in the wild, without human interaction... Not all are as beautiful musically, but its the same with humans.

I think you projected intent onto what the bird was doing. And I think the bird was mimicking what he was hearing, with variation, including what you mistook as improvisation.

Many composers have gained inspiration from being in nature, they can reproduce what they hear because they know how to communicate sound and rhythms...

Artists can be inspired by anything. That does not make the things that inspire them, art.

So I do think the sounds of nature are music...

You can think what you like, but the medium is not the art. And in this case, if there is no artifice, there is no music. There are only bird sounds.

At least when people are there to make it so. It seems like your position is that of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound".

No, my position is that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, no one cares whether it made a sound or not.

I'm not trying to insult how you view this, I just want some clarity. It sounds like if its not humans, its not music.

I object to labeling sound, "music", when it has no artistic intent. To me, "music" is art made with sound. No art, no "music". Nature doesn't make art. It makes sound. Only we humans make art for we humans. Thus only we humans make "music".

But I'm a few beers in and who knows how well I'm reading at this point!

Bottoms up!
THsea
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2017 8:44:12 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 3/3/2017 1:30:17 PM, PureX wrote:
At 3/3/2017 2:46:14 AM, THsea wrote:
At 2/13/2017 5:06:12 PM, PureX wrote:
Teaching an elephant to slosh paint onto a canvas with a brush may be "painting", but it's not art. In which case, who cares?

Artifice is the product of human intent, as expressed through design. Animals can't do this. Nature doesn't do this apart from us.

Whether or not natural sounds are "music" is, to me, a pointless question, because frankly, who cares? The important question is not whether sounds are music, but whether they are 'artifice'. That is whether or not the sounds are organized by a human mind, to express some sort of intent.

Now, if you sit around listening to the sounds of nature, and you are organizing them in your mind so as to perceive them as expressing some sort of intent, then perhaps those sounds are becoming artifice in your head. But until you express that artifice to other humans, via some sort of organized re-presentation, then again, it remains a pointless designation.

Are you implying that there is no intent behind how animals (other than humans) may create, produce or interact? Barring human interaction, that is... Or are you saying that "what humans make intentionally as music" is the only music there is?

Animals do not design sounds (or anything else) to express the unique way they perceive or experience the world, to us. Thus, they do not engage in the activity of making art.

This is a book I was made aware of by a mentor of mine in a past career path (its a mediocre read tbh, but the idea is interesting)... My mentor actually referred to birds by what tonal intervals they used, quite an interesting guy!

You need a new mentor, if you want to be an artist. If you want to be a zoologist, then maybe this guy can help.

He is an excellent flutist, from New England Conservatory, he recommended a book (which wasn't a good recommendation I already said) and you gotta put him down? He was teaching me mechanical overhaul classes.

After hearing about it, I actually started playing jazz (on flute and whistling) with a friends parrot. Within a week, it would actually "trade 8's" with me. He (the bird) would improvise lines, taking into account what I had just played. I think that bird was an artist. You can hear birds rifting off each other in the wild, without human interaction... Not all are as beautiful musically, but its the same with humans.

I think you projected intent onto what the bird was doing. And I think the bird was mimicking what he was hearing, with variation, including what you mistook as improvisation.

Many composers have gained inspiration from being in nature, they can reproduce what they hear because they know how to communicate sound and rhythms...

Artists can be inspired by anything. That does not make the things that inspire them, art.

So I do think the sounds of nature are music...

You can think what you like, but the medium is not the art. And in this case, if there is no artifice, there is no music. There are only bird sounds.

At least when people are there to make it so. It seems like your position is that of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound".

No, my position is that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, no one cares whether it made a sound or not.

I'm not trying to insult how you view this, I just want some clarity. It sounds like if its not humans, its not music.

I object to labeling sound, "music", when it has no artistic intent. To me, "music" is art made with sound. No art, no "music". Nature doesn't make art. It makes sound. Only we humans make art for we humans. Thus only we humans make "music".

But I'm a few beers in and who knows how well I'm reading at this point!

Bottoms up!

You made some points I agree with. I think this is also a perspective issue. Idk. Someone could argue maybe we just think we have intent, so none of it's art (but that would be a lil asinine, lol the interwebs).

What art do you make? I'm curious, since you feel like your opinion is so valid... And important enough to be rude... Over irrelevant things like someone recommending a book (that says nothing of his artistic credentials)? I'm not upset, just found sticking in the "WELL HE SHULDNT TEECH U ARTZ LOL"... Kind of silly.

I like how you present your side other than that. It was pretty clear once you explained it.
PureX
Posts: 3,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2017 3:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 3/6/2017 8:44:12 AM, THsea wrote:
At 3/3/2017 1:30:17 PM, PureX wrote:

You need a new mentor, if you want to be an artist. If you want to be a zoologist, then maybe this guy can help.

He is an excellent flutist, from New England Conservatory, he recommended a book (which wasn't a good recommendation I already said) and you gotta put him down? He was teaching me mechanical overhaul classes.

Good craftsman are not, by definition, artists. If you want to be an artist, you need to learn what art is, and what it isn't, so that you'll know if you're doing it or not. If this guy thinks bird songs are art, and therefor music, you need a new mentor if you want to become an artist. Because birdsongs are not art. And if there is no artifice involved, sound is not, by definition, music.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply pointing out that art is a specific activity, not whatever activity one wants to proclaim. And music is an art activity primarily using the medium of sound. When we define that art activity, we understand that it is a specifically HUMAN endeavor. Birds do not engage in art activity, as we define art, so birds do not make music, as we define music.

We wouldn't claim that a monkey's antics that makes us feel good is practicing medicine. So why should we claim that a bird that makes melodic sounds is practicing music?

After hearing about it, I actually started playing jazz (on flute and whistling) with a friends parrot. Within a week, it would actually "trade 8's" with me. He (the bird) would improvise lines, taking into account what I had just played. I think that bird was an artist. You can hear birds rifting off each other in the wild, without human interaction... Not all are as beautiful musically, but its the same with humans.

I think you projected intent onto what the bird was doing. And I think the bird was mimicking what he was hearing, with variation, including what you mistook as improvisation.

Many composers have gained inspiration from being in nature, they can reproduce what they hear because they know how to communicate sound and rhythms...

Artists can be inspired by anything. That does not make the things that inspire them, art.

So I do think the sounds of nature are music...

You can think what you like, but the medium is not the art. And in this case, if there is no artifice, there is no music. There are only bird sounds.

At least when people are there to make it so. It seems like your position is that of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes no sound".

No, my position is that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, no one cares whether it made a sound or not.

I'm not trying to insult how you view this, I just want some clarity. It sounds like if its not humans, its not music.

I object to labeling sound, "music", when it has no artistic intent. To me, "music" is art made with sound. No art, no "music". Nature doesn't make art. It makes sound. Only we humans make art for we humans. Thus only we humans make "music".

But I'm a few beers in and who knows how well I'm reading at this point!

Bottoms up!

You made some points I agree with. I think this is also a perspective issue. Idk. Someone could argue maybe we just think we have intent, so none of it's art (but that would be a lil asinine, lol the interwebs).

What art do you make? I'm curious, since you feel like your opinion is so valid... And important enough to be rude... Over irrelevant things like someone recommending a book (that says nothing of his artistic credentials)? I'm not upset, just found sticking in the "WELL HE SHULDNT TEECH U ARTZ LOL"... Kind of silly.

I like how you present your side other than that. It was pretty clear once you explained it.

I didn't intend to be rude, but I have been an artists (sculptor) for many years, and I have a BFA and MFA in fine art from two top art schools in the country. I have made art objects for many years, and shown and sold them. It was a lot of work, and not an easy life. So I am not quick to excuse people who think anything they "like" or any degree of proficiency is "art". Because it's not. Nor is any activity that animals or natural forces exhibit. Art is an activity for humans, by humans. And I know this to be so because I've been engaging in that activity for many years, and have studied it with others at the top of that profession.

I agree that art is not always an easy endeavor to identify or understand, as it often explores the boundaries of human perception, and conceptualization. So it's not at all unreasonable that your mentor, being essentially a craftsman, would misunderstand it. But just as a doctor would not stand idly by while someone referred to monkey business as "medicine". I couldn't allow your mentor to call birdsongs, "music".
CosmoJarvis
Posts: 1,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2017 6:06:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Music: Vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

The sounds that come from nature, such as the tweeting of the birds or a snapping of a branch, is not music.

Music is a form of auditory expression that requires a definite tempo and rhythm. The sound of a squirrel pitter-pattering across a forest is not "music" simply because it has sound.
"fake and gay" -Vaarka
"Submit to the soy or be annihilated." -Thett3
Ubik
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2017 3:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The birds aren't singing. They're screaming.

They're screaming GIMME THAT! IT'S MINE! MINE! I'LL KILL YOU!

We perceive it as song. It isn't. Unless it's avian death metal.
CodingSource
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2017 5:05:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable. Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.

It has similarity to ambient music, you know. Spotify has nature genre, and Spotify is a digital music streaming application.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
CodingSource
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2017 5:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
You can also find remixes with this kind of sounds in YouTube, and remix..according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a variant of an original recording (as of a song) made by rearranging or adding to the original.

So yes, it's music :)
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2017 2:11:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 4/4/2016 6:32:52 PM, Vaarka wrote:
For anyone who reads this, would you consider the sounds of nature to be music? Let's say you're leaning against a tree in the woods, away from the sounds of cars and other stuff, and all you can hear is the wind, the trees, the birds, and whatever other natural sounds come to you. Is that music?

To me, it is, but sometimes it's not very recognizable. Again, I point out that my opinions on something being music fall along the lines of beat, rhythm, and/or melody (http://www.debate.org......). Sometimes, when I hear the birds chirp, I hear a melody, as they repeat themselves over and over. I hear them sing, and it's the same rhythm, and they always time it perfectly, making a silent "beat". The same goes with the wind. I hear the melody of the whistling wind, the melody of the leaves in the trees, and the beat of it as the wind goes on, and the trees slowly stop moving (the time it takes for them to stop moving being the beat).

I mentioned this in my previous thread, "What makes music 'music'? (What is music)", http://www.debate.org......

Now, this is just some of my thoughts on the matter. I want to know what you guys think.

Yes, this is the second thread, but the last one's title was kinda confusing, so I made a new one.

Of course the birds and whales singing is music by pretty much any definition. But the winds and the other natural sounds I don't think they can be labeled music (outside of poetry), because they have random wave forms/lengths, random frequency, random tempo, and so on. Imo these elements make them noise, not music, although natural noises can be very pleasant, like the wind, the leafs, the sea waves, the rain (we all love the sound of the rain don't we), some people even enjoy thunder sounds.