trevox wrote: But where is the code written? Surely not in the audio recording? Oh, and I will decide what I find funny. Or do you have a "code" for that too that you can share?
The code CAN BE written, but it is not necessary. Infact you can use MEMORY, thought, gestures, midi etc. For sure the code is IN OUR BRAIN, both as musicians and listeners. NOT in the "audio", which is just a phisical mean. I already made an example for you, talking about human language: language as a code is different from the phonetic organs (tongue, chords, mouth etc.). Your mistake is to believe that language (code) and the mean (phonetic organs) are the same thing. They aren't. When you sing a tune, you just
use your voice (sound) with phonetic organs (audio), to express somethin "coded" in your mind. Understand the difference: the tune is before the action, not together.
So, what you find "funny" and hilarious (the fact music can be composed even by naive composers, like the beatles, a child, an illiterate etc.) is just the proof music is a human faculty, not a phisical phenomenon. And, as every human faculty, can remain "basic" (see the beatles, supamonsta, a child etc.) or become an art (see: chopin, zappa etc.). That is why music as an art must be learnt, but as a basic faculty can be played even without knowing the rules. The same for paintings, poetry, literature etc. The fact i can draw a tree does not make me Leonardo... The fact you can speak english does not make you Shakespeare. The fact supamonsta can put together simple tunes does not make him Chopin... and so on. The key concept is "levels of comprehension".
