the topic of topics: MIDI vs AUDIO ("what is music"?)

[crofter]

AUDIO is not music, it can't be. MUSIC is the code, AUDIO is a phenomenon.

(fourth of four http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3zANfvo ... re=related )

bollocks

[mbird21]

AUDIO is not music, it can't be. MUSIC is the code, AUDIO is a phenomenon.

(fourth of four http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3zANfvo ... re=related )

bollocks

Seriousky audio is not music, then what fuck are the waveforms on a wav file,? they are some unexpected paranormal activity that we dont know about, so technially the whole world or 98% of it or wrong and you know the real 'phenomenon' behind music, surprised you get any of this 'phenomenon' down into action the amount time you spend studying where the thing comes from, you be better doing science in psychoacoustics then creating music imo.

[9V]

waveforms are a representation of sound (a phisical phenomenon, like light, wind, temperature etc.). "AUDIO" in a sequencer contains these (non musical) events. MIDI represents, in digital format, THE MUSIC CODE, that is a human language, not a "phenomenon". That is why SOUND and MUSIC are two different things, and, in a sequencer, MIDI is for music and AUDIO for sound. Of course audio "transports" music, but it isn't music in itself. Music is in the human mind and, to become a musician, the rules must be learnt, otherwise you remain a naive listener (or an amateur composer). So, when you listen to music, it is not important whether the music comes out from a real performer or from an audio device as sound (because you perceive it as "music" in your mind, being just a listener). This difference is important for the electronic music composer which uses the sequencer as a tool. He must understand music is the code, audio just the mean to "transport" this code outside. Trevox and Stringtapper's mistake is that they make confusion between the mean (sound) and the code (music).

here another example for synth and dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUALKpAIs_o

[trevox]

i wrote (not on purpose): When you can percieve errors (in language or music) you understand the performer is following rukes.
I guess everyone here can find the mistake. So is music. The rest is sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-MIDDfckw

THE "CODE" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLIhLv8LuY

As you can see, same CODE, same music. For Trevox: no code, different "sound" (timbre), two different compositions. Here is their (trevox' and stringtapper's) mistake, musically speaking.

There is no mistake. You see, we understand what music is. You have your own definition. And that is fine. Just don't try to attempt to ram your definitions down our throats. We don't do that to you - we simply are arguing with you for....fun. You are so abundantly wrong, it is hilarious to see you dig deeper and deeper into ignorance and lack of understanding or listening to what we are trying to say to you. It is funny and we are laughing at your expense. As I said in a previous post, keep it coming!

In terms of your comment, I actually agree in a way. But you totally missed the point. You see, I can choose what sound I want audio to trigger. So I can play a drumkit or a piano using the same "code" I am generating FROM AUDIO. You really do not understand what I am saying and refuse to ask relevant questions to gain the understanding you would need to comprehend what I am trying to say. THIS is why I would call you an arrogant fool. That is not meant as an insult - it is just constructive criticism.

And you STILL have not answered stringtappers questions or responded to my post explaining how you can make a sequencer FROM AUDIO. Seeing as you are such an expert in music, I thought you would be interested in learning things about it that you currently do not know. I learn new things every day about music and am not too arrogant or proud to admit when I do not know something like you seem to be. But no, you are happy to play by outdated rules. Maybe you should live back in the 1600's where you belong.

[trevox]

(hope you listened to the two different "arrangements" of the SAME music...). I hope you understand WHERE is the MUSIC (neither in the violins sound, nor in the distorted guitar noises).

Now i explain you why MIDI is still MUSIC in a sequencer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWiRylwPjw

(if you don't understand where is the music in this three different videos, just ask me... )

Different renditions of the same music. So what?

Using one of your examples - the Beatles. As you claim, the Beatles never wrote their music down in score or any other format. So some young band does a cover version - they also do not write and music down on paper or otherwise. Then a third band does the same. Where is the music?

[trevox]

waveforms are a representation of sound (a phisical phenomenon, like light, wind, temperature etc.). "AUDIO" in a sequencer contains these (non musical) events. MIDI represents, in digital format, THE MUSIC CODE, that is a human language, not a "phenomenon". That is why SOUND and MUSIC are two different things, and, in a sequencer, MIDI is for music and AUDIO for sound. Of course audio "transports" music, but it isn't music in itself. Music is in the human mind and, to become a musician, the rules must be learnt, otherwise you remain a naive listener (or an amateur composer). So, when you listen to music, it is not important whether the music comes out from a real performer or from an audio device as sound (because you perceive it as "music" in your mind, being just a listener). This difference is important for the electronic music composer which uses the sequencer as a tool. He must understand music is the code, audio just the mean to "transport" this code outside. Trevox and Stringtapper's mistake is that they make confusion between the mean (sound) and the code (music).

here another example for synth and dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUALKpAIs_o

Rules do not need to be learned to become a musician. See previous post from YOUR example. Are you saying the Beatles are not musicians? They did not learn the rules - they picked up their instruments and did what seemed natural to them. Which was creating music.

[9V]

it is hilarious to see you dig deeper and deeper into ignorance and lack of understanding or listening to what we are trying to say to you. It is funny and we are laughing at your expense. As I said in a previous post, keep it coming!

"We" who? Because this is trolling, and it is against the forum rules. It is bullying, too, actually...

[9V]

Rules do not need to be learned to become a musician. See previous post from YOUR example. Are you saying the Beatles are not musicians? They did not learn the rules - they picked up their instruments and did what seemed natural to them. Which was creating music.

Infact "the Beatles" are not musicians, i guess they did not call themselves "musicians", but just "songwriters"...

[trevox]

it is hilarious to see you dig deeper and deeper into ignorance and lack of understanding or listening to what we are trying to say to you. It is funny and we are laughing at your expense. As I said in a previous post, keep it coming!

"We" who? Because this is trolling, and it is against the forum rules. It is bullying, too, actually...

How is it bullying? We are not breaking rules or trolling. We are providing concise arguments against your archaic views on music. It just so happens this EVERYONE disagrees with you and that is where the humour lies. You are in effect bullying yourself by continually responding with comments you KNOW everyone disagrees with. So you keep this thread going by stirring up reaction - that is kinda what trolling is. Why do you respond at all? Why don't you accept you are alone in your thinking? Do you think after almost 70 pages of forum posts that even one person will all of a sudden agree with you? All you need to do is to stop responding and the fun ends.

Please report me to the Ableton mods if you think I am bullying you.

[trevox]

Rules do not need to be learned to become a musician. See previous post from YOUR example. Are you saying the Beatles are not musicians? They did not learn the rules - they picked up their instruments and did what seemed natural to them. Which was creating music.

Infact "the Beatles" are not musicians, i guess they did not call themselves "musicians", but just "songwriters"...

But songs are structured pieces of music?

[9V]

why you keep on calling "everyone" just five or six users in a forum?... As far as i know, every musician out there knows the difference between music (the code) and sound (the mean that transports music) except you two and the other three (who are not musicians, as i can read)... It is like saying that human language and phonetic organs are the same thing... one is a code, the body is the phisical mean to express intentions or needs. If two persons tell the same concept, the concept remains the same, it is not different because the timbre of their voices is different. This is your mistake, musically speaking. You make confusion between "code" and "mean".

[trevox]

why you keep on calling "everyone" just five or six users in a forum?... As far as i know, every musician out there knows the difference betwheen music (the code) and sound (the mean)... except you two and the other three (who are not musicians, as i can read)...

We are the only people who have bothered responding. Has anyone agreed with you? I haven't seen one post saying "Yes, categorically, MIDI is the music and audio is just sound". It is not as black and white as that. I think you know this but are too pig-headed to admit it.

[9V]

it is just because for the majority this difference is obvious. Why should they write "9V is right"? As you can notice, i can defend the "cause" alone. Maybe Is it you who needs "mates", to convince people of your weird confusion?

[stringtapper]

Well, no-one agreed with galileo when he said "it's the earth moving, not the sun", no-one agreed with darwin when he said "i am sorry, but those bible's tales are BS" etc. Now these are obvious things for everyone (apart some funny american religious fanatics). Usually the crowd is conservative, so i am not that surprised "the majority" is "against my theories" here (i write "here" because out there every musician knows the difference between a code and a phenomenon, that is to say the difference between music and sound...).

But wait, in this case "the crowd" are the progressives and YOU are the conservative.

[9V]

Rules do not need to be learned to become a musician. See previous post from YOUR example. Are you saying the Beatles are not musicians? They did not learn the rules - they picked up their instruments and did what seemed natural to them. Which was creating music.

Infact "the Beatles" are not musicians, i guess they did not call themselves "musicians", but just "songwriters"...

But songs are structured pieces of music?

yes, they are, but the difference between a musician and the beatles is that the musician can read and play every beatles song just reading it or listening to the theme, while mccartney & C. could play only songs, not music. But i understand "pop songs" writers and complex music (chopin, zappa, rachmaninov etc.) performers can be considered "musicians" in a common sense. For me the musician is the one who can read, write, compose, edit, teach and perform music.