Why, man, why?

DJ_Bach · Post by **DJ_Bach** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:09 pm

Someone wrote a composition that was one minute of silence. He was sued by John Cage for copyright infringement and won the case.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:09 pm

oh, and one last comment...heres some food for thought,

(edited to prevent digatalex's brain from hemorrhaging)

in reply to stale bread:
rules are ALSO subjective. everyone may be different, and also everyone has their own set of rules. only a fucking sample/loop monkey ass-fuck-munch-pig says music has no rules.

theres no way anyone thinks every single sound they listen to is music.
if you refute the universal laws of music, you can hardly refute that. Unless you have a really excellent supply of lsd you're constantly taking.

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:14 pm

b0unce wrote:oh, and one last comment...heres some food for thought,

rules are subjective. everyone may be different, and also everyone has their own set of rules. only a fucking sample/loop monkey ass-fuck-munch-pig says music has no rules.

So if you are saying music has rules, and rules are subjective, it seems like you are saying everyone is free to make up their own rules. Is that what you mean?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:16 pm

no - thats simply a reply to stale bread and his meanderings on subjectivity somehow ruling out my statement that music has rules, even by his own theories - music has rules - unless every single thing he hears is music to him.

how likely is that ?

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:17 pm

All probability aside, it seems like you are saying music is subjective then. In other words, what you perceive as music IS music.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:18 pm

<pre-emptive reply to stale bread>
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright
</pre-emptive reply to stale bread>

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:21 pm

digitalex wrote:All probability aside, it seems like you are saying music is subjective then. In other words, what you perceive as music IS music.

nope. I've -CLEARLY- stated my opinions. and I made it perfectly -CLEAR- that I was only replying to stale bread, and his logic, and my statements on music & rules. Its merely a pleasureable coincidence that even when some peon pulls the subjective/existential card, rules still do apply - subjective rules - .....UNLESS, every single thing they hear is music.

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:25 pm

So consider this. A person listening to jazz, who is not musically educated in jazz, and doesn't understand the rules behind jazz, can still appreciate it as music, and agree that, yes, that is music, even though it doesn't make "sense" to him in terms of rhythm, progressions, etc. In the same way, might not a person listen to a bird singing, and appreciate it as music, even though she may not understand the "rules" behind it? In this sense, it seems that the "rules" of music and the universe are one and the same. What do you think? I am not "pulling a card" as you put it, just trying to find the truth by way of dialogue. It's hard to have a dialogue when you are inflexible in your opinions.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:29 pm

digitalex wrote:So consider this. A person listening to jazz, who is not musically educated in jazz, and doesn't understand the rules behind jazz, can still appreciate it as music, and agree that, yes, that is music, even though it doesn't make "sense" to him in terms of rhythm, progressions, etc. In the same way, might not a person listen to a bird singing, and appreciate it as music, even though she may not understand the "rules" behind it? In this sense, it seems that the "rules" of music and the universe are one and the same. What do you think?

if he can appreciate it, it makes sense to him - thats what I meant by 'making sense' - I did not mean one would have to know how to translate what they're hearing into notation, or words. appreciation/sense - the same thing.

re:bird singing - this is what I have been saying all along.

the rules exist, you dont have to perceive them directly/consciously for them to exist.
I happen to be surrounded by trees, and I'm woken up each morning by birds singing - tho its quitened down now its winter.

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:31 pm

By the way, did you call me a peon?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:32 pm

thats one question you're going to have to figure out yourself.

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:34 pm

I will assume you are mature enough to have a dialogue without engaging in childish insults. So do you agree that musical rules and universal rules are one and the same?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:35 pm

and I'll pretend you actually have opinions - I'll even pretend you share them with others

edit: why do you edit your post after I reply to your initial statement ?

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:41 pm

Just thought I'd add the question to the same post, instead of typing another one. Sorry if it seemed confusing.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:42 pm

digitalex wrote:So do you agree that musical rules and universal rules are one and the same?

that question doesnt make sense to me, and I'm sick of your questions now anyways. You should re-read my previous posts in this thread - everything you may ask of me has been answered already. and maybe add something to this discussion, instead of constant questions.
and by the way, you should still let us all know where 4'3" has been referred to as music, for something you claim to be widely regarded as music - it shouldnt be too hard to find 3 examples. if you're pressed for time, one will do.

now, I'm really out.