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

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
trevox
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:58 am

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

Post by trevox » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:05 pm

9V wrote:
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".
The code is contained within the audio. If it is not written in score or some other "coding" format, what you are saying is it simply does not exist. What I am trying to tell you is that given humans can decipher sound into it's musical components, audio can be (but not always) music. End of. The listener can hear the notes, understands the timing and converts that back to some format they can reproduce. That code is IN THE AUDIO you fool. And we as humans (as you say) can decipher that - just like some of us can read music.

As someone said before, this thread (though not the topic) is killing the joy and pleasure us real musicians get out of the art called music. So as much as I have enjoyed this, I am now going to opt out and stop giving you more ammunition to be wrong.

crofter
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: The foot of our stairs

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

Post by crofter » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:07 pm

9V wrote:the only interested people about the topic in this thread are just five, actually. The rest is "background noise" :roll:
I'm not interested in the topic at all, it's a load of bollocks mate, I just come on here to wind you up, twat.
Core2 quad q660, 4gig ram, Win 7 home premium SP1.
P4 2.8 ghz, Gigabyte GA- 81E2004P, 1.5 gig ram,XP Home, SP3.
dual core pentium laptop 2 gig ram Win 8.
MOTU 8Pre,Tascam FW-1804,Zoom R16, Ableton live 8.4
Cubase 7

9V
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: utopia

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

Post by 9V » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:12 pm

trevox wrote:
9V wrote:
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".
The code is contained within the audio. If it is not written in score or some other "coding" format, what you are saying is it simply does not exist. What I am trying to tell you is that given humans can decipher sound into it's musical components, audio can be (but not always) music. End of. The listener can hear the notes, understands the timing and converts that back to some format they can reproduce. That code is IN THE AUDIO you fool. And we as humans (as you say) can decipher that - just like some of us can read music.

As someone said before, this thread (though not the topic) is killing the joy and pleasure us real musicians get out of the art called music. So as much as I have enjoyed this, I am now going to opt out and stop giving you more ammunition to be wrong.
the fact the listener hears a sound source and gets the "code" does not mean the code is in the source. The code is within the listener. See the studies in neuroscience (music brain areas, rhythm and heartbeat feedback, melody and mathematical ratio etc.) or what we (psychologists) call "pareidolia".


example of acoustic pareidolia :arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM
Last edited by 9V on Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lord toranaga
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:46 am
Location: New Orleans

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

Post by lord toranaga » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:18 pm

LOUD NOISES
Peace & Love, Lord Toranaga

9V
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: utopia

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

Post by 9V » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:19 pm

example of acoustic pareidolia :arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM

as you can see, the "code" is not in the "sound" (the dog barking), but in your mind. The same for music.

Mom: I love you!

Mishka: I love you too.... my gosh.

Mom: are you pretty?

Mishka: Of course i'm pretty

Mom:? are you a pretty girl?

Mishka: i am a pretty girl.

Mom: Do you love me?

Mishka: Of course i love you mum.

Mom: Are you stupid?

Mishka NOOOOOOOOO!

:arrow: http://youtu.be/gRw-lfXy_tQ

crofter
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: The foot of our stairs

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

Post by crofter » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:21 pm

9V wrote:example of acoustic pareidolia :arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM

as you can see, the "code" is not in the "sound" (the dog barking), but in your mind. The same for music.
There's very little going on in your mind.
Core2 quad q660, 4gig ram, Win 7 home premium SP1.
P4 2.8 ghz, Gigabyte GA- 81E2004P, 1.5 gig ram,XP Home, SP3.
dual core pentium laptop 2 gig ram Win 8.
MOTU 8Pre,Tascam FW-1804,Zoom R16, Ableton live 8.4
Cubase 7

9V
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: utopia

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

Post by 9V » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:25 pm

this is another example, so you can understand where is "the code" :arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi8bxkL57ZQ

stringtapper
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

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

Post by stringtapper » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:41 pm

But "the code" is not universal, as much as you want to believe it is. Musicological studies have long rejected the idea of a single musical "universal." The field of ethnomusicology is virtually based around the precept. There are cultures across the globe that use music as part of the social structure in ways that we simply don't have a direct analog in Western societies. For many cultures the idea of someone being a "musician" is completely foreign to them. They would say, "We call those 'people,'" because in their culture everyone is a musician. You can find tribes making music passed down through oral traditions and it is in no way "tonal" (9V still hasn't grasped the modern definition of "tonal" btw) and doesn't follow your "code."

This is why it is virtually impossible, even for a top musicological professional like Bruno Nettl to give one all-encompassing definition of music, and why 9V's type of rigid thinking has long been put in the past by those great minds who think the hardest about these issues and is currently gathering dust in the shit house of outmoded ideas.
Unsound Designer

drewbixcube
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:37 am

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

Post by drewbixcube » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:53 pm

It all makes sense now! Code... Italian... The Da Vinci Code!

Templars.

That is all.

Okay, maybe not. Seriously, the code is all well and good, but to say that the code only exists in the mind would mean that music only exists in the mind. Again, we have breached the tangible, and entered into the philosophical. Hmmm... Philosophical Music. Sounds too pretentious for me. Let's not examine the fact that in order to have a code you must adhere to a set of rules, and we (bar 9V, of course) have already concluded that music does not need rules to be created. Understood, yes, rules will be set to explain technique, but they are entirely unnecessary to the artist with a vision.

Go ahead, say "Italy doesn't consider music made without rules to be music." You have just discredited any of the revolutionary music that has been implemented by Italians. In fact, since tonal music had no rules in the beginning, anything resembling tonal music is no longer music. The only thing that exists, according to 9V, is sound. Then, now, and forever.

9V, You should just let it go. No one agrees with you, and it is much more than 5 members on this board. How many agreed with you at Propellerheads before you got banned? How many at KVR? You make some interesting points for your case, however your failure to site any of the statistics you list renders you incredulous. Your insistence in a dogmatic approach to music alienates you. Your overzealous youtube crusade is downright laughable. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? It is for these reasons you are being labeled as either a troll or a crackpot. You have the power to silence a lot of voices in this thread by simply posting some music, yet you decline, then have the audacity to claim arbitration over all that is music. What an ego.

That's my perspective, anyhow.

H20nly
Posts: 15836
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

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

Post by H20nly » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:57 pm

so in summary: music is in the ear of the beholder.

except for 9V, for whom music is in the creation of a Fruity Loops pattern.
LoopStationZebra wrote:it's like a hipster commie pinko manifesto. Rambling. Angry. Nearly divorced from all reality; yet strangely compelling with a ring of truth.

trevox
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:58 am

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

Post by trevox » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:16 pm

drewbixcube wrote:It all makes sense now! Code... Italian... The Da Vinci Code!

Templars.

That is all.

Okay, maybe not. Seriously, the code is all well and good, but to say that the code only exists in the mind would mean that music only exists in the mind. Again, we have breached the tangible, and entered into the philosophical. Hmmm... Philosophical Music. Sounds too pretentious for me. Let's not examine the fact that in order to have a code you must adhere to a set of rules, and we (bar 9V, of course) have already concluded that music does not need rules to be created. Understood, yes, rules will be set to explain technique, but they are entirely unnecessary to the artist with a vision.

Go ahead, say "Italy doesn't consider music made without rules to be music." You have just discredited any of the revolutionary music that has been implemented by Italians. In fact, since tonal music had no rules in the beginning, anything resembling tonal music is no longer music. The only thing that exists, according to 9V, is sound. Then, now, and forever.

9V, You should just let it go. No one agrees with you, and it is much more than 5 members on this board. How many agreed with you at Propellerheads before you got banned? How many at KVR? You make some interesting points for your case, however your failure to site any of the statistics you list renders you incredulous. Your insistence in a dogmatic approach to music alienates you. Your overzealous youtube crusade is downright laughable. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? It is for these reasons you are being labeled as either a troll or a crackpot. You have the power to silence a lot of voices in this thread by simply posting some music, yet you decline, then have the audacity to claim arbitration over all that is music. What an ego.

That's my perspective, anyhow.
If there was a clapping emoticon, I would use it. That summed up the 70 pages in a nutshell and was far more concise than my summary. I also thoroughly enjoyed the use of the word "crackpot". I tip my hat to you sir!

aisling
Posts: 2640
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:58 am
Location: 50 miles north of SF

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

Post by aisling » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:17 pm

H20nly wrote:so in summary: music is in the ear of the beholder.

except for 9V, for whom music is in the creation of a Fruity Loops pattern.
How can we be sure since ninsey volts won't play nice and let us hear the fruity loops pattern....
Wouldn't it be funny if he turned out to be yngwie malmsteen :)
I remember another one of these long drawn out ridiculous oxygen wasting debates a few years ago, and the guy turned out to be somebody who has an international name and presence...heck I even have an album of his stuff.....and he is pretty good to!
Last edited by aisling on Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://soundcloud.com/aislingbeing


Live, Reason, Moog sub phatty, Moog sub 37, Ozone 6, guitars, Pedals, proper ergonomic sitting posture, french pressed coffee with a pinch of cardamon.

9V
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: utopia

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

Post by 9V » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:18 pm

stringtapper wrote:But "the code" is not universal, as much as you want to believe it is. Musicological studies have long rejected the idea of a single musical "universal." The field of ethnomusicology is virtually based around the precept. There are cultures across the globe that use music as part of the social structure in ways that we simply don't have a direct analog in Western societies. For many cultures the idea of someone being a "musician" is completely foreign to them. They would say, "We call those 'people,'" because in their culture everyone is a musician. You can find tribes making music passed down through oral traditions and it is in no way "tonal" [...] This is why it is virtually impossible, even for a top musicological professional like Bruno Nettl to give one all-encompassing definition of music
This is just a cultural aspect, ("cultural antropology"), but I was talking about the neurophisiological aspects (brain areas). I guess you too believe all humans are created equal. I work with disabled kids as a psychoeducator and for sure I test every day music (the "code") is in our brain as a defensive/adaptative primary function, before language and cognitive development (in particular rhythm and intervals, that is to say the "core" of music language).

trevox
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:58 am

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

Post by trevox » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:25 pm

Anyone ever seen "The 9th configuration"? Sorry, couldn't resist!

stringtapper
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

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

Post by stringtapper » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:32 pm

9V wrote:
stringtapper wrote:But "the code" is not universal, as much as you want to believe it is. Musicological studies have long rejected the idea of a single musical "universal." The field of ethnomusicology is virtually based around the precept. There are cultures across the globe that use music as part of the social structure in ways that we simply don't have a direct analog in Western societies. For many cultures the idea of someone being a "musician" is completely foreign to them. They would say, "We call those 'people,'" because in their culture everyone is a musician. You can find tribes making music passed down through oral traditions and it is in no way "tonal" [...] This is why it is virtually impossible, even for a top musicological professional like Bruno Nettl to give one all-encompassing definition of music
This is just a cultural aspect, ("cultural antropology"), but I was talking about the neurophisiological aspects (brain areas). I guess you too believe all humans are created equal. I work with disabled kids as a psychoeducator and for sure I test every day music (the "code") is in our brain as a defensive/adaptative primary function, before language and cognitive development (in particular rhythm and intervals, that is to say the "core" of music language).
Cite some studies to back this up or give up and go away. Your choice, but a youtube video is not going to suffice. Neither is saying "it is obvious." Sorry that's not how science works and if you really are a researcher then you would already know that. I need some citations of some articles from peer reviewed journals to back up what you're saying about this "universal code," because the literature that I have read seems to indicate that while there are certain inherent rhythmic and intervallic "instincts" within humans, that the particulars of such instincts and how they may vary across cultural and geographical lines paint a different picture than this "universal code" you keep yammering on about.
Last edited by stringtapper on Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unsound Designer

Post Reply