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

[Broccoli]

I don't know, i cannot see counterpoints. Some here say "your's just an opinion" or "you have a narrow view" etc. But these are only emotive answers, IMO. That is when people, rather thant giving nice, strong arguments, tell names or tend to insult, as a defence. I wonder how can audio be considered "music" (unless in a naive, commonsense definition). Music is not the sound, it is the code. You can call the tolling bells of a church or the singing of the birds, or the voice of one you love "music" if you are a poet. But what i meant was something techincal, not emotive.

You know what I think, you just made this topic up to invalidate Propellerheads.

Rewire is only audio, so you decided that audio is not music, cause then it would be obvious for you that Rewire really sucked, cause it had nothing to do with music.

Took me a while to understand, but now it is all perfectly clear to me.

Careful now! You'll be accused of being a Propellerhead fanboy even if you've never posted on their forum boards before...

[drewbixcube]

I can't even bring myself to read this whole thread. The basic argument is being used over and over from what I can tell. "Audio cannot be manipulated musically, and therefore isn't music." Nonsense. By that logic, none of the songs you hear on the radio can be considered music. None of the records you own are music. You cannot manipulate them musically, therefore they are not music. What a load. When you get a new album, do you tell your friends you got a new collection of audio? Or, do you say you got some new music? Be real.

Since music is audio, are you saying music isn't music? Just what are you saying?

MIDI is a means of communication between musician and computer, but it is not a complete system. Without audio, there would be nothing. Silence.
Without the musician, there would be nothing. Anyone else remember the player piano? Without the piano roll (sound familiar?) it will not play, unless it has a live musician. But, you can't listen to the piano roll without the piano, just like you can't listen to MIDI without the audio. You can't listen to a score sheet, just like you can't listen to the pen it was written with. None of this is music, but the actual music it produces.

Is a paintbrush art? Or better yet, is paint considered a painting. I'm willing to bet dimes to doughnut holes that 9V believes it is. I mean, after all, a painting is merely a collection of paint.

Don't confuse the tools with the product.

[9V]

macmurphy you say you are trying to have a serious discussion but then you say that audio is not music.

well, audio is not music. Infact deaf people know what music is and many of them can percieve it. If music was audio, every sound would be music. Music is not the sound, music is the code. Some say music is a universal code (before human perception), some other say it is a human defence. Anyway, all say music is different from sound. If audio tracks are made of sound, audio tracks cannot be music, but only sound (that does not mean your ears don't percieve that sound as "music"!). MIDI tracks are not made of sound, they are only "numbers", instructions. So they are MUSIC, because of the corrispondence with music rules.

Working with samples is like building one of those prefab furniture. You can say: "i made it", but you know you just assemblied it. Music is when you take a piece of wood and build the furniture, because you know how to do that, and you can do it again if requested. The musician is the carpenter, the furniture maker. The modern home computer music maker playing with prefab loops is not a musician, is a collage maker, or an IKEA costumer, a fake musician. But this does not mean he cannot be considered "an artist", "original", "interesting" etc. But he is not making music: he is just playing with sounds.

[crofter]

9v, I don't think you are for real, this is trollish in the extreme, no body in their right mind could seriously hold the views you purport to you're either mad or a wind up merchant.

[9V]

9v, I don't think you are for real, this is trollish in the extreme, no body in their right mind could seriously hold the views you purport to you're either mad or a wind up merchant.

again with this "young generation" terms... The new form of censorship, the so-called "ban because of trolling".

"i told you not to bring your vendetta from audio to kvr" etc. The reason is simple: "music" industry for "young home computer music makers" is 80% with prefab loops and samples made. So, better pretending to forget the ABC of music rules...

[crofter]

9v, I don't think you are for real, this is trollish in the extreme, no body in their right mind could seriously hold the views you purport to you're either mad or a wind up merchant.

again with this "young generation" terms... The new form of censorship, the so-called "ban because of trolling".

"i told you not to bring your vendetta from audio to kvr" etc. The reason is simple: "music" industry for "young home computer music makers" is 80% loop and samples made. So, better pretend to forget the ABC of music rules...

you're seriously fucked up, you need help.

[9V]

i am not "fucked up" etc. i am simply too old for your young generation terminology, And you cannot explain why audio is music, apart "well, it is music because my brain calls it music" (very tautologic as an argument).

[antarktika]

I'm fairly sure that once you take the same argument, and the same inflexible stance that yours is the correct way, and that anyone disagreeing with it is "naive" or a "fanboy", to a third forum, after having been banned from 2, for exactly the same sort of behavior, constitutes trollish behavior. Are you saying that all the participants, moderators, and such of these various forums that you are posting in, are all confused, and that only you are correct in thinking that this is not trolling? because that would fit with the inflexibility you have shown in the argument that is getting you banned from those forums.

[crofter]

i am not "fucked up" etc. i am simply too old for your young generation terminology, And you cannot explain why audio is music, apart "well, it is music because my brain calls it music" (very tautologic as an argument).

I'm very probably older than you are and probably have played music longer than you've been alive sunshine.

[9V]

I'm fairly sure that once you take the same argument, and the same inflexible stance that yours is the correct way, and that anyone disagreeing with it is "naive" or a "fanboy", to a third forum, after having been banned from 2, for exactly the same sort of behavior, constitutes trollish behavior. Are you saying that all the participants, moderators, and such of these various forums that you are posting in, are all confused, and that only you are correct in thinking that this is not trolling? because that would fit with the inflexibility you have shown in the argument that is getting you banned from those forums.

it is not "inflexibility", it is just logic. If you say "1+1 = 2" i can say "ok, true". But if i say "you are a troll, because this is just your opinion and for me 1+1=3" i am the troll. So, IMO the troll here is the one who moves the question to sentences like "you're fucked up", "you are a troll" etc. As I said, i cannot read strong arguments (i mean: technical, musical arguments), only emotive answers.

So, again: if "audio tracks" are "music", why not to call "music" a cd, a radio, a bird singing, a factory, a car engine, a tolling bell, the noise of water etc.? Music is a code, a SILENT code. The sound is the consequence of music, not viceversa.

Regarding the "ban" it is because i was discontent of Propellerhead policy, not because of me "trolling" (nice excuse and new form of censorship IMO). I wrote that in the KVR forum, but one of the KVRs is a propellerhead employee, and so they banned me at once.

[crofter]

[antarktika]

hehe, I know, right! I'm sure plenty of people have expressed criticism of propellerheads, and somehow managed not to be banned, you might consider consulting a behavioral psychologist, as they might be able to shed some light on your constant need for attention. Perhaps it is these "other trolls" that have grown tired of engaging in observational discussions with somebody who is, without fail, going to say, "no, that is wrong, because my view is the correct one"

[drewbixcube]

macmurphy you say you are trying to have a serious discussion but then you say that audio is not music.

well, audio is not music. Infact deaf people know what music is and many of them can percieve it. If music was audio, every sound would be music. Music is not the sound, music is the code. Some say music is a universal code (before human perception), some other say it is a human defence. Anyway, all say music is different from sound. If audio tracks are made of sound, audio tracks cannot be music, but only sound (that does not mean your ears don't percieve that sound as "music"!). MIDI tracks are not made of sound, they are only "numbers", instructions. So they are MUSIC, because of the corrispondence with music rules.

Working with samples is like building one of those prefab furniture. You can say: "i made it", but you know you just assemblied it. Music is when you take a piece of wood and build the furniture, because you know how to do that, and you can do it again if requested. The musician is the carpenter, the furniture maker. The modern home computer music maker playing with prefab loops is not a musician, is a collage maker, or an IKEA costumer, a fake musician. But this does not mean he cannot be considered "an artist", "original", "interesting" etc. But he is not making music: he is just playing with sounds.

Not all audio is music, but that doesn't take away from the fact that music is audio. What deaf people perceive in music is the vibration of the air pressure around them while the music is playing. Since sound (audio) is made up of these same vibrations then it is simple to deduce. Can you look at a piece of sheet music or arrangement of MIDI notes and determine if you'll like the piece? Maybe if you're a virtuoso, but I'd say close to 90% of all musicians would need to hear it first. Factor in the rest of the population and you're left with an extremely small amount of people that can do this. Does this mean only they can enjoy music? Would a piece written specifically for strings sound as good when played by brass? By your logic, the sound would not matter, it would still be the exact same music in every sense. Sure, sure, music is a mathematical code. Math is a universal language. But how universal is our sheet music? Do you think an alien race would have an easier time deciphering sheet music or the audio frequencies produced by that sheet music?

No one is arguing that a DJ mixing two songs is a musician. However, what if that same DJ were mixing two songs that he wrote himself? The delivery method is arbitrary. What is perceived remains music. Not some sort of esoteric "collage". Even modern day carpenters take shortcuts. Are they less of carpenters because they didn't cut down the tree? Or maybe they should start growing the trees too. Yeah, that'd show 'em.

Your analogies are weak. Say you have two chairs. One was crafted by a carpenter and one was assembled from a department store. Aren't they still both chairs? Or is the one from the store a collage of materials which resembles a chair?

If everyone thought like you 9V, there would be no music.

[crofter]

I find it all rather amusing but I shouldn't gain glee from the retarded.

[docprosper]

The argument really falls apart when one considers the grey area of people making actual music with other tracks/samples/records - think Kid Koala or DJ Shadow. If you think DJ Shadow's 'Endtroducing' isn't music since it is composed entirely of samples then you, good sir, are a patent fuckwit.