On Music

[myrnova]

Here plural Scott is "trolls"

Troll as in fishing technique or troll as in under-the-bridge-type-troll.

[scott nathaniel]

Hey, mry-
I made some music for you:

Code: Select all

music

[myrnova]

[scott nathaniel]

The code has nothing to do with the score.

[myrnova]

The code has nothing to do with the score.

[rote fahne]

If you spell LHOOQ in french you get: she got a hot pussy.

"elle a chaud au cul" (She feels heat in ass). It is a french idiom, it means: "she's hot" (she is horny).

she has heat AT ass. (ha caldo al culo)

[regretfullySaid]

If a hero sneaks into a mental hospital in the middle of the night and strangles a raving italian, will the birds celebrate?

fyp

[myrnova]

TOPIC "On modern Music" (in brief)

(in red: OT and trolling)

Stringtapper: The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days. This makes traditional music theory useless. Discuss.

Bagatell: I don't see any symphony orchestras abandoning notation any time soon. I can't think of any electronic musicians who would want their work reproduced exactly, apart from selling you one of their CDs.

Myrnova: that is because in Europe music is the code (a language: notes). In the U.S. on the contrary people call "music" even the sound, noises, effects, etc. For them there is no difference between music (the code) and audio (the sound).

The finn: I don't think it has anything to do with the difference between Europe and the U.S. With the advent of electronically produced music other aspects of the musical experience (timbre, spatial characteristics) are much more manipulable.

Myrnova: Timbre and spacial characteristics have nothing to do with music code. They are just elements of the sound. That is why so called "modern music" can be called "art of manipulating sounds", but not music.

The Finn: I absolutely disagree. Music is the sound.

Myrnova: No, musc is not "the sound", music is a code. The difference between music and sound: music is a human activity, like language, writing, maths etc., it is a matter of mathematic relations; the sound is a natural phenomenon (you can think music, you cannot think sound).

Stringtapper: Of course myrnova's contention that sound-based music is a US phenomenon is complete and utter nonsense, Pierre Schaeffer (French) was arguably the first to introduce the concept of music that lies beyond traditional note-based conventions.

Myrnova: infact I never claimed that. I just consider modern music "experments with sound", not music. Musicians don't sculpt sound, they create relations (between given tones). The ones who sculpture sound are called "audio engineers", not musicians. Unless you consider "timbre" a musical element.

Crofter: you are entitled to shut the fuck up.

Myrnova: Music has more to do with communication (language) and math relations/ratio than with sound. While sound is a physical phenomenon, music just runs on sound, but sound is not strictly necessar for music. Here starts the confusion between "american concept of music" (music is sound: no sound no music) and "european" (music is a human code: music is BEFORE sound).

The finn: I am getting bored and we are going off topic, and round in circles.

Myrnova: it is not off topic at all, infact the topic is: The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days: discuss. Now, 99,9% of music worldwide is actually still based on notation, even nowadays. What Stringtapper calls "modern music" is a niche '900 avant-guard conceptual art based on "manipulation of timbre". Interesting. BUT: it is not music. The proof? Children won't recognize it as "music".

Scott Nathaniel: I guess I just am not getting your point. I feel as if I feel as if you're saying the music is in the method and not the result?

Myrnova: Yes, music is an objective method and does not necessarily need sound (the result). The result (sound of music) is important for the listener, not for the composer. Music is the objective code, not the subjective feeling. As a code, it is made of relations (between notes). Sounds are important, but not always essential (infact music works even within our mind: you don't think "sounds", you think intervals between notes. That is music). "musique concrete" is "conceptual" art, based on manipulation of sound. It is not music. It is "conceputal art" and needs a cultural background to be understood. Infact children (pre-linguistic and a-cultural) won't percieve it as "music". Music contains a universal code, pre-linguistic and a-cultural. That is why even 1 y.o. children recognize it.

shadx312: fuck the children.

The Finn: Myrnova, what you are doing is rude. It can be forgiven were you a boy of 13-18 years old, because those are all gonads and no sense. stringtapper, I suggest you either abandnd the post, start another thread, or, you know what, let's pm each other about the issue

Stringtapper: Yeah it's a shame. Another thread spirals into the shit house because of the Autistic Italian.

crumhorn: The vast majority of working musicians still rely very heavily on notes. I feel the distinction is not between modern or (ancient?) but between tonal and non tonal, a distinction which has always existed. If you creating the musical equivalent of sculpture then maybe any kind of codification scheme - beyond what is necessary to work in a quantized, digitized world - would be against the very spirit of what you are doing. It is only possible to reduce something to a code if it has some kind of guiding structural principles. If musicians working in this field (which I agree with myr9Vnova is a very minority interest) want a system to codify their music then they first need to make a theory pinning down the structural concepts that are represented by the symbols in their system of notation. But then it starts to resemble architecture more than sculpture.

myrnova: you could even create a new code for sound manipulation, yet it is not possible to call it "music". the code is something OBJECTIVE, because universal and pre-cultural. 1 y.o. children can perceive the difference between "music" and "sound" because of the code. It is even "pre-linguistic".

Stringtapper: Utter nonsense. Go to a tribe in Africa and they will know fuck all about your "code." This is basic ethnomusicology 101. The idea of a universal musical language intrinsic to humans is a long outmoded idea that only extreme conservative or ethnocentrist minds would still believe. Please stop using the "universal code" line unless you can provide some compelling peer reviewed research that supports this strange, old fashioned, conservative belief of yours.

myrnova: (1) A tribe in Africa will produce "chants" and rhythms which follow the universal human code (music). No matter if they don't know it is a "universal" process. (2) "Universal code" has nothing to do with a conservative belief, it is related with human characteristics. The proof: childre (black, white, whatever) naturally recognize music, language, faces and such: no matter if they can conceptualize them: it is something "pre-cultural". "Ethnocentrism" is when fascists claim "ours are the real arts, the most complex and perfect" etc. It has nothng to do with "universal code". Fascists and ethnocentric iditos deny there is a "universal code", they believe in "human races". By the way, I suggest you to change the title, e.g. "on timbre" (in order to avoid shadx, the finn and the others trolling)

rozling: false, ture, false, troll, true, false.

scott nathaniel: it seems some are using "traditional music theory" and "Western Tonal Harmony" interchangeably. Tonal Harmony breaks "all the fuck up" when attempting to apply it to modern music. Applying Myronva's childish rant that music is just "notes in time" is the same as saying words are just letters across a page.

myrnova: For your information, the definition of "notes in time" implies a universe so complex that an entire life is not even enough to understand it. And even nowadays Tonal Harmony is more than enough for 99,9% of music. The fact it cannot be applied to "modern music" is the proof "modern music" is not music, but "manipulation of sounds". The difference is not between "tonal harmony" and "modern music". The difference is between "music" (a human code which does not need sound to be an instrument of creation) and "sound" (a phisical phenomenon which can only be recorded and manipulated with modern technology, it does not belong to human thought). See "musica humana".

docprosper: call me a bully, but what exaclty is myrnova contributing? If anyone around here deserves the interwebs equivalent of a black eye it's myrnova.

scott nathaniel: no, we need him to enter and stay! Call myrnova "a douche always available"!

rozling: I am doubtful of his mental well being at this stage. If all that represents his true opinions etc he may need professional help.

rote fahne: it's all very clear what he is trying to tell, i dont have any difficultie to understand cause i already understood decades before i met him here on this forum. I am just trolling him because I don't like people that are too serious about themselves.

scott nathaniel: he has shown that he knows nothing.

the finn: do you think myrnova's a bot? I am thinking a kind of reverse Turing test here.

Scott nathaniel: I think he is an impetuous and eternal teenager who has mistaken being confrontational and contrary as traits of strength.

H20nly: I have a question. Please, myrnova don't answer because i'm not asking you, so there is no need to directly ignore you; since indirectly works just fine.

TomViolenz: I'm much closer to a biology major with a PhD in biochemistry. He sounds like my mother that one time I made the mistake to take her to a Modern Art exhibition: "Oh this is not art! I can't even recognize the shapes (code). Just give me a bucket of paint, and I make you 10 of this in an hour. So where are my millions...? Yada yada" It was quite cringe inducing! Just like your persistence to know it all... I'm out.

Myrnova: back to the topic: music is prelinguistic and precultural. Of course we don't know every aspect of its "code". Anyway, "Modern music" is just manipulation of sounds and/or recordings or conceptual provocation. Can be interesting, cool, whatever, but it is not music, because:
(a) it needs a cultural background to be understood (on the contrary, music is a-cultural)
(b) it has no universal codes (on the contrary, music has a universal code)
(c) once sounds disappears, even "modern music" ceases to exist. Music, on the contrary, exists even without the sound.
This does not mean "modern music" is not an art. Only, it is "art of sound", conceptual. See all '900 avant-guarde conceptual artistic movements (not only musical, but figurative, too: Piero Manzoni, Duchamp, etc.).

Shadx312: "artist's shit? That pretty much sums up your presence here really well! Feel free to open up the tins and enjoy the poop fight!

Myrnova: it is not my fault if you don'even know the connections between modern music and the rest. My suggestion: open a book and read it, section "'900 avant-guard artistic movements: figurative, music, literature, cinema", learn and understand the connections between Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" and Stringtapper's "idols'" works, then come back and start writing something more interesting and serious for the matter ("on modern music"), rather than insulting bull(y)shit.

[crofter]

TOPIC "On modern Music" (in brief)

(in red: OT and trolling)

Stringtapper: The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days. This makes traditional music theory useless. Discuss.

Bagatell: I don't see any symphony orchestras abandoning notation any time soon. I can't think of any electronic musicians who would want their work reproduced exactly, apart from selling you one of their CDs.

Myrnova: that is because in Europe music is the code (a language: notes). In the U.S. on the contrary people call "music" even the sound, noises, effects, etc. For them there is no difference between music (the code) and audio (the sound).

The finn: I don't think it has anything to do with the difference between Europe and the U.S. With the advent of electronically produced music other aspects of the musical experience (timbre, spatial characteristics) are much more manipulable.

Myrnova: Timbre and spacial characteristics have nothing to do with music code. They are just elements of the sound. That is why so called "modern music" can be called "art of manipulating sounds", but not music.

The Finn: I absolutely disagree. Music is the sound.

Myrnova: No, musc is not "the sound", music is a code. The difference between music and sound: music is a human activity, like language, writing, maths etc., it is a matter of mathematic relations; the sound is a natural phenomenon (you can think music, you cannot think sound).

Stringtapper: Of course myrnova's contention that sound-based music is a US phenomenon is complete and utter nonsense, Pierre Schaeffer (French) was arguably the first to introduce the concept of music that lies beyond traditional note-based conventions.

Myrnova: infact I never claimed that. I just consider modern music "experments with sound", not music. Musicians don't sculpt sound, they create relations (between given tones). The ones who sculpture sound are called "audio engineers", not musicians. Unless you consider "timbre" a musical element.

Crofter: you are entitled to shut the fuck up.

Myrnova: Music has more to do with communication (language) and math relations/ratio than with sound. While sound is a physical phenomenon, music just runs on sound, but sound is not strictly necessar for music. Here starts the confusion between "american concept of music" (music is sound: no sound no music) and "european" (music is a human code: music is BEFORE sound).

The finn: I am getting bored and we are going off topic, and round in circles.

Myrnova: it is not off topic at all, infact the topic is: The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days: discuss. Now, 99,9% of music worldwide is actually still based on notation, even nowadays. What Stringtapper calls "modern music" is a niche '900 avant-guard conceptual art based on "manipulation of timbre". Interesting. BUT: it is not music. The proof? Children won't recognize it as "music".

Scott Nathaniel: I guess I just am not getting your point. I feel as if I feel as if you're saying the music is in the method and not the result?

Myrnova: Yes, music is an objective method and does not necessarily need sound (the result). The result (sound of music) is important for the listener, not for the composer. Music is the objective code, not the subjective feeling. As a code, it is made of relations (between notes). Sounds are important, but not always essential (infact music works even within our mind: you don't think "sounds", you think intervals between notes. That is music). "musique concrete" is "conceptual" art, based on manipulation of sound. It is not music. It is "conceputal art" and needs a cultural background to be understood. Infact children (pre-linguistic and a-cultural) won't percieve it as "music". Music contains a universal code, pre-linguistic and a-cultural. That is why even 1 y.o. children recognize it.

shadx312: fuck the children.

The Finn: Myrnova, what you are doing is rude. It can be forgiven were you a boy of 13-18 years old, because those are all gonads and no sense. stringtapper, I suggest you either abandnd the post, start another thread, or, you know what, let's pm each other about the issue

Stringtapper: Yeah it's a shame. Another thread spirals into the shit house because of the Autistic Italian.

crumhorn: The vast majority of working musicians still rely very heavily on notes. I feel the distinction is not between modern or (ancient?) but between tonal and non tonal, a distinction which has always existed. If you creating the musical equivalent of sculpture then maybe any kind of codification scheme - beyond what is necessary to work in a quantized, digitized world - would be against the very spirit of what you are doing. It is only possible to reduce something to a code if it has some kind of guiding structural principles. If musicians working in this field (which I agree with myr9Vnova is a very minority interest) want a system to codify their music then they first need to make a theory pinning down the structural concepts that are represented by the symbols in their system of notation. But then it starts to resemble architecture more than sculpture.

myrnova: you could even create a new code for sound manipulation, yet it is not possible to call it "music". the code is something OBJECTIVE, because universal and pre-cultural. 1 y.o. children can perceive the difference between "music" and "sound" because of the code. It is even "pre-linguistic".

Stringtapper: Utter nonsense. Go to a tribe in Africa and they will know fuck all about your "code." This is basic ethnomusicology 101. The idea of a universal musical language intrinsic to humans is a long outmoded idea that only extreme conservative or ethnocentrist minds would still believe. Please stop using the "universal code" line unless you can provide some compelling peer reviewed research that supports this strange, old fashioned, conservative belief of yours.

myrnova: (1) A tribe in Africa will produce "chants" and rhythms which follow the universal human code (music). No matter if they don't know it is a "universal" process. (2) "Universal code" has nothing to do with a conservative belief, it is related with human characteristics. The proof: naturally recognize music, language, faces and such: no matter if they can conceptualize them: it is something "pre-cultural". "Ethnocentrism" is when fascists claim "ours are the real arts, the most complex and perfect" etc. It has nothng to do with "universal code". Fascists and ethnocentric iditos deny there is a "universal code", they believe in "human races". By the way, I suggest you to change the title, e.g. "on timbre" (in order to avoid shadx, the finn and the others trolling)

rozling: false, ture, false, troll, true, false.

scott nathaniel: it seems some are using "traditional music theory" and "Western Tonal Harmony" interchangeably. Tonal Harmony breaks "all the fuck up" when attempting to apply it to modern music. Applying Myronva's childish rant that music is just "notes in time" is the same as saying words are just letters across a page.

myrnova: For your information, the definition of "notes in time" implies a universe so complex that an entire life is not even enough to understand it. And even nowadays Tonal Harmony is more than enough for 99,9% of music. The fact it cannot be applied to "modern music" is the proof "modern music" is not music, but "manipulation of sounds". The difference is not between "tonal harmony" and "modern music". The difference is between "music" (a human code which does not need sound to be an instrument of creation) and "sound" (a phisical phenomenon which can only be recorded and manipulated with modern technology, it does not belong to human thought). See "musica humana".

docprosper: call me a bully, but what exaclty is myrnova contributing? If anyone around here deserves the interwebs equivalent of a black eye it's myrnova.

scott nathaniel: no, we need him to enter and stay! Call myrnova "a douche always available"!

rozling: I am doubtful of his mental well being at this stage. If all that represents his true opinions etc he may need professional help.

rote fahne: it's all very clear what he is trying to tell, i dont have any difficultie to understand cause i already understood decades before i met him here on this forum. I am just trolling him because I don't like people that are too serious about themselves.

scott nathaniel: he has shown that he knows nothing.

the finn: do you think myrnova's a bot? I am thinking a kind of reverse Turing test here.

Scott nathaniel: I think he is an impetuous and eternal teenager who has mistaken being confrontational and contrary as traits of strength.

H20nly: I have a question. Please, myrnova don't answer because i'm not asking you, so there is no need to directly ignore you; since indirectly works just fine.

TomViolenz: I'm much closer to a biology major with a PhD in biochemistry. He sounds like my mother that one time I made the mistake to take her to a Modern Art exhibition: "Oh this is not art! I can't even recognize the shapes (code). Just give me a bucket of paint, and I make you 10 of this in an hour. So where are my millions...? Yada yada" It was quite cringe inducing! Just like your persistence to know it all... I'm out.

Myrnova: back to the topic: music is prelinguistic and precultural. Of course we don't know every aspect of its "code". Anyway, "Modern music" is just manipulation of sounds and/or recordings or conceptual provocation. Can be interesting, cool, whatever, but it is not music, because:
(a) it needs a cultural background to be understood (on the contrary, music is a-cultural)
(b) it has no universal codes (on the contrary, music has a universal code)
(c) once sounds disappears, even "modern music" ceases to exist. Music, on the contrary, exists even without the sound.
This does not mean "modern music" is not an art. Only, it is "art of sound", conceptual. See all '900 avant-guarde conceptual artistic movements (not only musical, but figurative, too: Piero Manzoni, Duchamp, etc.).

Shadx312: "artist's shit? That pretty much sums up your presence here really well! Feel free to open up the tins and enjoy the poop fight!

Myrnova: it is not my fault if you don'even know the connections between modern music and the rest. My suggestion: open a book and read it, section "'900 avant-guard artistic movements: figurative, music, literature, cinema", learn and understand the connections between Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" and Stringtapper's "idols'" works, then come back and start writing something more interesting and serious for the matter ("on modern music"), rather than insulting bull(y)shit.

Crofter: you are entitled to shut the fuck up.

That's not what I wrote, why have you changed it ?

[myrnova]

You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up.

[crofter]

You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up.

So, why did you change it then ?

[myrnova]

You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up.

So, why did you change it then ?

I did not change it. I just underline your trolling (unless in your family or at work you tell your parents, relatives, collegues etc. "now shut the fuck up"? )

[crofter]

So, why did you change it then ?

I did not change it. I just underline the trolling (unless in your family or at work you tell your parents, relatives, colleques etc. "shut the fuck up"? )

Yes you did,

"you are entitled to shut the fuck up"
"You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up"

not the same, or can't you read.

[rozling]

rozling: false, ture, false, troll, true, false.

[myrnova]

So, why did you change it then ?

"you are entitled to shut the fuck up"
"You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up"

not the same, or can't you read.

You are just trolling, in this case, too. If I were you I would just write "sorry"

The same for rozling.

The trolling is in that "shut the fuck up". Read: "You are entitled to (your opinion now) shut the fuck up"

Again, I consider "shut the fuck up" an offensive insult. Now, the fact you try to justify your trolling with this lame excuse... is "trolling" in my opinion. But of course this is a matter for mods, i just underlined the trolling and why the thread derailed.