Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:61-69|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are the Sounds of Nature "music"?

Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:49:26 PM
Posted: 3 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: 8,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 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: 3 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: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 2 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: 8,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 8:41:59 PM
Posted: 2 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: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 12:36:20 AM
Posted: 2 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: 8,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:12:30 PM
Posted: 2 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: 4 weeks 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: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2016 9:14:03 AM
Posted: 4 weeks 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.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
I was being economical with the truth. Sir. R. Armstrong. 1986.