What does a stone sound like?

[Davo]

A stone sounds like a buzz.

[Machinesworking]

Incorrect. You posted in this thread because, like the majority of us, you can not resist the urge to spout off your opinions.

Incorrect. reasons are not always one dimensional.
I do not get why people bother feeding threads like this, and am curious as to why?
So I wanted to voice my opinion, but I am genuinely curious. Thanks for your answers and I hope it helps with your shyness.

[Forge.]

: (2) 80-90% of the american users here think that music is sound, that is why they call music "sound" and viceversa, and talk about sound manipulation art as "music"; (3) most of them were not really interested in the music/audio debate, they were just trolling.

80-90% of you is a dick

[myrnova]

UPDATE

angloamericans 14

moderator: USA
H20nly: USA
docprosper: USA
strongtapper: USA
shadx312: USA
scott nathaniel: USA
Seriously: USA
Machineworking: USA
lowshelf: UK
cmcpress: UK
crofter: UK
the finn: South Africa
Davo: New Zealand
Forge: Australia
myrnova: Italy
bagatell: Spain

TOTAL: 14 angloamericans out of 16 users



in a situation like this (social conformism + heavy nationalism + similar cultural background + same mother tongue), guess who becomes "the enemy"...

[Forge.]

80-90%

dick.

[Forge.]

...who goes on an English speaking forum and complains about English speakers...

[myrnova]

...who goes on an English speaking forum and complains about English speakers...

It is not "an english speaking forum". It is an international forum. The problem in my opinion is that english is not good for being an international language. I would prefer a real international language, like esperanto or such, tought in schools worldwide. English is "international" only because the U.S. rule the world through expansionism, colonialism and imperialism. that is why, even in (supposed?) international forums like this, after a while not english mothertongue people go away. Because native english speakers tend to write in real english (not "international english").

[crofter]

...who goes on an English speaking forum and complains about English speakers...

It is not "an english speaking forum". It is an international forum. The problem in my opinion is that english is not good for being an international language. I would prefer a real international language, like esperanto or such, tought in schools worldwide. English is "international" only because the U.S. rule the world through expansionism, colonialism and imperialism. that is why, even in (supposed?) international forums like this, after a while not english mothertongue people go away. Because native english speakers tend to write in real english (not "international english").

Your opinion counts for nothing.

[myrnova]

...who goes on an English speaking forum and complains about English speakers...

It is not "an english speaking forum". It is an international forum. The problem in my opinion is that english is not good for being an international language. I would prefer a real international language, like esperanto or such, tought in schools worldwide. English is "international" only because the U.S. rule the world through expansionism, colonialism and imperialism. that is why, even in (supposed?) international forums like this, after a while not english mothertongue people go away. Because native english speakers tend to write in real english (not "international english").

Your opinion counts for nothing.

Exactly. Not only it counts for nothing, it is considered "trolling" (because of group conformity: in psychological terms, conformity refers to an individual's tendency to follow the unspoken rules or behaviors of the social group to which he or she belongs).

[regretfullySaid]

There's a difference between being different and being difficult, just like the kid in the picture.

But at least the kid in the picture is keeping his ass to himself.

it is considered "trolling" (because of group conformity: in psychological terms, conformity refers to an individual's tendency to follow the unspoken rules or behaviors of the social group to which he or she belongs).

That isn't trolling.

troll

2.
informal
submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response.
"if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"

You take pride in "being rebellious", but if you were truly a rebel then you wouldn't be here anymore.

[Forge.]

.. I would prefer a real international language, like esperanto or such, tought in schools worldwide. .).

I wholeheartedly endorse your plan to go and find an esperanto forum to bore to tears with your inane and idiotic bullshit and statistics.

[re:dream]

myrnova, just one point.

I am completely in agreement with you that discussions in the lounge appear to be dominated by Americans.

I don't think there is much point in arguing with that fact

(If you say Anglo-americans, you are however pushing it. As an earlier post has pointed out, the USA is a culturally diverse country, and the fact of being American does not make you anglo)

But more to the point

so what?

You appear to think that the reason why people differ with you is that you are not American.

i don't see how that follows.

This whole thread started when stringtapper, over in another thread, wanted to talk about a set of musical ideas that come from Germany and France. You derailed that thread, and when people disagreed with you, you said that stringtapper's ideas were American. Which they demonstrably were not.

You now have a whole lot of people hurling abuse at you because of this kind of strategy.

My main observation is that you appear to be enjoying this.

Each to his own. De gustibo...

[TAINTLICK]

I ONCE BANGED A CHICK THAT WAS PRETTY SLIM BUT HAD AN ENORMOUSLY FAT SNATCH.

BELIEVE THAT SHIT.

[myrnova]

myrnova, just one point.

This whole thread started when stringtapper, over in another thread, wanted to talk about a set of musical ideas that come from Germany and France. You derailed that thread, and when people disagreed with you, you said that stringtapper's ideas were American. Which they demonstrably were not.

Each to his own. De gustibo...

Wrong.

(1) As already explained, the whole thread started years ago with 9V topic "music vs audio" in which I claimed music is not sound. Then I doscovered americans consider "music" everything which has a sound. In Europe, on the contrary, music is a (silent) code and the sound is a consequence of music (not the cause)
(2) I derailed nothing, since stringtapper asked "is the conception of note still important nowadays? Discuss" (in a thread called "on music"). Everyone can see who were the trolls and why they enterd the thread.
(3) It's "de gustibus" (not "de gustibo")

[myrnova]

you can see the trolls here:

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.

Stringtapper's question was: The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days: discuss. So, it is not my fault if he started a thread called "on music" in which he wrote "discuss" while meaning "let's now talk about how beautiful and interesting so called modern music is!" (in a topic called "on music"?)

The solution, in my opinion, was this (already suggested there): modify the title (from "on music" to "modern avant-guard music, musique concrete etc.") and avoid asking people "are notes still important in modern music?" in a thread called "on music"