On Music

[stringtapper]

But we've heard myrnova's opinion (and heard it, and heard it…), we know what it is and we don't need to hear it anymore.

Thank you for sharing myrnova and unless you have anything new to share then you may feel free to remain as a spectator in this thread.

The Finn has made some good points that I will address when I have more time.

[myrnova]

"common sense" because of SENSE: the fact 99,9% of people recognize music (notes in time) is the proof music is a human code, like language. What you mean for "modern concept of music" is just the art of manipulating timbres, but has nothing to do with music. It is "art of sounds", "sci-fi cool effects", "recording and reproducing suggestive sounds and noises". Music is the code, and even a 1 y.o. child can differ between it and noises/sounds (because of the ratio among events in time: a mathematical perception of our brain). In my opinion, music is a sort of pre-language instinct. It has more to do with relations than with sounds.

[stringtapper]

"common sense" because of SENSE: the fact 99,9% of people recognize music (notes in time) is the proof music is a human code, like language. What you mean for "modern concept of music" is just the art of manipulating timbres, but has nothing to do with music. It is "art of sounds", "sci-fi cool effects", "recording and reproducing suggestive sounds and noises". Music is the code, and even a 1 y.o. child can differ between it and noises/sounds (because of the ratio among events in time: a mathematical perception of our brain).

All your opinion. Not shared by all musicians.

And you're repeating yourself. Please add something new to the conversation or stop posting. Thanks.

[myrnova]

it's science. Music has to do with communication and math relations/ratio. Sound is a phisical phenomenon. Music runs on sound, but sound is not strictly necessar for music, once learnt it (the code). Language runs on sound, too, and sound is not strictly necessar for language, once you learnt it (you can write it, think it etc.).

[stringtapper]

You have made your opinion clear. Now we're going to move on.

[myrnova]

"opinion"...

As already claimed years ago in the notorius "midi vs audio" topic, americans tend to consider audio tracks "music". In Europe only midi tracks are considered music, audio tracks are called AUDIO.

Let's say I record a singer and put the track in a sequencer. Americans will call that audio track "music" (because it sounds like "music"). Europeans call it "sound" (because it is a soundwave of something that was MUSIC while performed).

But again, I guess it is a cultural gap: in Europe music is the code (the language) or its performance (live). In America, on the contrary, you call "music" both the performance and the recorded music (in a sequencer: audio tracks). In America people don't differ between a performance live (present: music) and the same performance recorded (past: sound).

[stringtapper]

As already claimed years ago in the notorius "midi vs audio" topic, americans tend to consider audio tracks "music". In Europe only midi tracks are considered music, audio tracks are called AUDIO.

Let's say I record a singer and put the track in a sequencer. Americans will call the audio track "music" (because it sounds like "music"). Europeans call it "sound" (because it is a soundwave of something that was MUSIC while performed).

But again, I guess it is a cultural gap: in Europe music is the code (the language) or the performance (live). In America, on the contrary, you call "music" both the performance and the recorded music (in a sequencer: audio tracks). In America people don't differ between a performance live (present: music) and the same performance recorded (past: sound).

All false.

Has nothing to do with US vs. Europe as evidenced by the fact that these conceptions of music originated in Europe. But you just want to ignore that and force me to repeat myself, right?

Your own countrymen such as Luciano Berio, Teresa Rampazzi, Pietro Grossi, Fransesco Giomi, Laura Zattra, etc. would not share your opinion.

[myrnova]

Luciano Berio, Teresa Rampazzi, Pietro Grossi, Fransesco Giomi, Laura Zattra

It's avant-guarde art for experts, normal people won't recognize it as "music". Music is something natural, in my opinion: based on melody and rhythm. But I agree with you: musicians can play with sound and perform "art of sound", playing with noises, electronic sounds etc. This does not mean all they do is "music" just because they are musicians or because they claim "it is music". It isn't. It is "art of sound", "playing with timbre", whatever you want to call it. Music as percieved by our brain is "notes in time and their relations", the rest is sound.

[re:dream]

I understand well why you disagree. You are american, right?

Wrong. Not even close.

(I find that assumption slightly insulting, but never mind. )

No, musc is not "the sound", music is a code, made with particular sounds (instruments). Otherwise, even spoken language could be called "music", birds singing, thunders, noises etc.

That does not follow. To say that music is sound is not to say that all sound is music. Some sounds are music, some are not.

The difference between music and sound: music is a human activity, like language, writing, maths etc., it is a matter of mathematic relations

I can see that this is your opinion. A lot of people would disagree. Another common generally accepted definition would say that music is the artistic organization of sounds and silence in time and space. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica To mention just one example. There are others.

The pleasure for music is not due to the sound, but it is a consequence of ratio (elements in different relatinships).

Hmm, that's a very narrow, and dare I say, quite eurocentric take on the experience of music. I don't think it is culturally universal. Certainly for a lot of people there are very powerful other timbral and sensual components. And the stuff I have been reading on the neuroprocessing of music does not emphasise the mathematical relationships and ratios; rather, it stresses the way in which musical experience is about playing with (always genre and culturally specific) musical expectations.

[myrnova]

I think you are wrong: even deaf children (born deaf) can percoeve music. Because of mathematical relations, no need of percieving sounds.

[re:dream]

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

Mr stringtapper, methinks you are right. It's like talking to a robot. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your further thoughts...

[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.

Modern music is actually still based on notation (99,9%). What Stringtapper calls "modern music" is a niche avant-guard discipline ("manipulation of timbre") for ultraexperts or wannabe "alternative" ones... 0,001% listen to it, because it is conceptual art, and regards sound, not music. The proof: children won't recognize it as "music".

In the rest of the world music is what it is and will ever be: 5-7-12-24 notes in time, based on a scale and played by a human being. Nothing else.

[scott nathaniel]

"common sense" because of SENSE: the fact 99,9% of people recognize music (notes in time) is the proof music is a human code, like language.

You are indirectly and unknowingly making Strintapper's point for him.

You keep referring to the term note. A note is a container for a pitch. A4=440Hz, for example. 440 itself is a generalization for a pitch because, depending on the instrument, the note will have a different series of overtones. So the note A4 is an abstraction of the pitch at 440Hz, which itself is only the root of the overtone series. So what those who developed the code you refer to as music have done is create an idealized naming system for pitches and they have termed these idealized nuggets "notes.". So creating a class of genaralized and idealized notes or components derived from "sounde designed" sounds is exactly what one would do. That's what the code you call music is. What is the difference beteween naming a discrete bell hit as C3 or naming a discrete sample of sound as whatever variable one might choose? There is no fundamental difference.

EDIT: the only concise defining element of a note would be time duration. That is an element that can be applied to any new naming systems.

[myrnova]

"common sense" because of SENSE: the fact 99,9% of people recognize music (notes in time) is the proof music is a human code, like language.

You are indirectly and unknowingly making Strintapper's point for him.

You keep referring to the term note. A note is a container for a pitch. A4=440Hz, for example. 440 itself is a generalization for a pitch because, depending on the instrument, the note will have a different series of overtones. So the note A4 is an abstraction of the pitch at 440Hz, which itself is only the root of the overtone series. So what those who developed the code you refer to as music have done is create an idealized naming system for pitches and they have termed these idealized nuggets "notes.". So creating a class of genaralized and idealized notes or components derived from "sounde designed" sounds is exactly what one would do. That's what the code you call music is. What is the difference beteween naming a discrete bell hit as C3 or naming a discrete sample of sound as whatever variable one might choose? There is no fundamental difference.

EDIT: the only concise defining element of a note would be time duration. That is an element that can be applied to any new naming systems.

Well, in music ONE single note is just a sound, it is not called music (whatever pitch it is). Music is the result of relationships of events called "notes" (notes in time). But I understand what you mean... that one can build a very elementary melody with two notes, or call "music" a single repeated sound, the silence (Cage), a continuous sound... strange noises changing because made with harmonics... that cannot be written as "notes" on sheet and such mental masturbations. Actually, music is built on a scale (at least 5 notes) and created by relations in time (no matter the Hz... this is for audio engineers, not for musicians!). The scales are not "conventions", but the elements on which you can create music (infact every culture have scales). Otherwise it is just cacophony, "collage of sounds"... whatever you want to call it.

Factors as timbre and overtones just give "color", they are not needed for music. They are elements of the sound, not elements of music.

[scott nathaniel]

"common sense" because of SENSE: the fact 99,9% of people recognize music (notes in time) is the proof music is a human code, like language.

You are indirectly and unknowingly making Strintapper's point for him.

You keep referring to the term note. A note is a container for a pitch. A4=440Hz, for example. 440 itself is a generalization for a pitch because, depending on the instrument, the note will have a different series of overtones. So the note A4 is an abstraction of the pitch at 440Hz, which itself is only the root of the overtone series. So what those who developed the code you refer to as music have done is create an idealized naming system for pitches and they have termed these idealized nuggets "notes.". So creating a class of genaralized and idealized notes or components derived from "sounde designed" sounds is exactly what one would do. That's what the code you call music is. What is the difference beteween naming a discrete bell hit as C3 or naming a discrete sample of sound as whatever variable one might choose? There is no fundamental difference.

EDIT: the only concise defining element of a note would be time duration. That is an element that can be applied to any new naming systems.

Well, in music ONE single note is just a sound, it is not called music (whatever pitch it is). Music is the relationships of events called "notes" (notes in time). But I understand what you mean... that one can build a very elementary melody with two notes, or call "music" a single repeated sound, the silence (Cage), a continuous sound... strange noises changing because made with harmonics... and such mental masturbations. Actually, music is built on a scale (at least 5 notes) and created by relations in time (no matter the Hz... this is for audio engineers, not for musicians!). The scales are not "conventions", but the elements on which you can create music (infact every culture have scales). Otherwise it is just cacophony, "collage of sounds"... whatever you want to call it.

Factors as timbre and overtones just give "color", they are not needed for music. They are elements of the sound, not elements of music.

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