Ableton Forum

I didn't force you to stay. You seemed to agree with me about the birdsong analogy, and if you didn't get my last question, I meant, for clarity, "rules" or "laws" of nature, the universe, which put the bird here in the first place. There are natural, universal laws or rules, physical, biological, etc. that account for birdsong. One may be able to appreciate birdsong as music, even though they don't understand the "rules" behind it, right? Regarding your last post, you can easily look it up yourself. I don't know who "us all" refers to. Like I said, if there had not been a "controversy" over the piece, it would probably not have been famous. So it's safe to say it may be equally regarded and disregarded as music.

no - lets say you said it was widely regarded as music, but cant even provide one example of such a reference.

Ya don't know it but this is what you dudes are taliking about. It's all connected. At the end, there is a rule for everything.




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... eory&hl=en

b0unce wrote:no - lets say you said it was widely regarded as music, but cant even provide one example of such a reference.

Why else would there be a controversy? Tell me then, why do you think the piece is famous? Is it not because it challenges the definition of music? Meaning, challenges people's opinions of what music IS? So some people must have changed their opinions, otherwise, it would not have made for a very challenging piece, would it? Look up Cage's wiki or something if you need to see it in writing. I think the BBC symphony orchestra performed it as well.


edit> By the wiki reference, I mean to point out that he believed strongly in challenging the definition of music, not to "prove" the piece was music.

knotkranky wrote:Ya don't know it but this is what you dudes are taliking about. It's all connected. At the end, there is a rule for everything.

Something like that

fame is not music.

as machinate stated, its conceptual art. John Cage is a musician, but that does not mean every single thing he puts out is music by default.

ANNNNNNYYYYWWWAAAAYYYYSSS

you said it was widely regarded as music, thats a pretty bold statement. and fairly pivotal in this discussion - and now it comes to light that you have no reference - only that its a famous piece. I wonder what other wacky theories you extrapolate with such shoddy mechanisms.

is it any wonder your questions are tired ?

I'll gladly wiki anything to add weight to my statements, you're the one who should wiki and cut & paste the references on this one, not me - or anyone else.

"widley regarded" my ass.

b0unce wrote:fame is not music.

as machinate stated, its conceptual art. John Cage is a musician, but that does not mean every single thing he puts out is music by default.

ANNNNNNYYYYWWWAAAAYYYYSSS

you said it was widely regarded as music, thats a pretty bold statement. and fairly pivotal in this discussion - and now it comes to light that you have no reference - only that its a famous piece. I wonder what other wacky theories you extrapolate with such shoddy mechanisms.

is it any wonder your questions are tired ?

I'll gladly wiki anything to add weight to my statements, you're the one who should wiki and cut & paste the references on this one, not me - or anyone else.

"widley regarded" my ass.

Do you think no one regards it as music? Do you think everyone sees it as conceptual art, or nonsense, etc? The fact is it challenges the definition of music, because it asks the question, "Is this music?" The fact it was performed by the BBC symphony orchestra, a prestigious group of musicians, who turned the pages of the score, should make you wonder. Saying it is widely regarded as music is not saying it is not widely disregarded, only pointing out that people can have an opinion about what music is, regardless if the rules are rigid, or universal, in the case of birdsong. So if it is a matter of opinion, and we are able to appreciate birdsong as music, even though we cannot hope to know what rules, if any, govern it, can you not also say that at that level, there may not be any rules at all regarding what music is? I am asking questions because I am trying to find out what the truth is. I don't claim to know. You do. What is it, exactly, that you know?

Well, as hard as one can argue about the significance, one would have to agree on its insignificance.

No matter what, It's no big deal.

It's so subjective it means nothing.

digitalex wrote:What is it, exactly, that you know?

I know you bolster your questions with blanket statements based on shoddy conjecture.

I know you evade questions, by replying with more questions - cushioned with questions.

well, at least we did get to the bottom of your 'widely regarded as music' statement.

eg, it was bullshit.

How is it bullshit? And what questions of yours did I evade? I'm not arguing here, you are. I don't have an opinion, either way. It's not even about opinions. If you can appreciate the piece as music, then it seems you agree that it is music. So it's not about "belief", but understanding the rules, or lack thereof, governing the piece in question. If the statement, "widely regarded as music" seemed biased, then so be it. But perhaps I could ask you to prove that it is NOT widely regarded. Where are your references? And by the way, you didn't respond to the bulk of my last post. You're not evading the question are you? Look at it this way. I am not expounding an opinion, just trying to point out the futility of having one. FNM fan, I take it?

digitalex wrote:If you can appreciate the piece as music, then it seems you agree that it is music.

Nope. I've clearly stated my opinions, and thats not one of them. For the second (or possibly third) time - I merely addressed stale-breads argument based on subjectivity - EVEN in that logic there are rules, unless every single sound you hear is music.

digitalex wrote:But perhaps I could ask you to prove that it is NOT widely regarded.

go fuck yourself, first you tell me to wiki it - now you tell me to prove its NOT widely regarded AS MUSIC (your statement, not mine). The onus is on you to bolster your statements, something widely regarded as music should be easy-peasy to provide a couple of references stating 4'3" to be music. I'm not even saying you're wrong strictly [ I did already reply to that statement ], I just want you to provide some references. One will do.

digitalex wrote:And by the way, you didn't respond to the bulk of my last post. You're not evading the question are you?

b0unce wrote: what you sow, so shall you reap

digitalex wrote:FNM fan, I take it?

lucky guess ? ? ? ? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Haha...Yes, I mentioned the wiki thing not to prove anything, but to point out what Cage was most concerned with was challenging music's definition. What would you like me to find? A bunch of people's opinions on the net, calling the piece music? Or would you prefer I leave it at "The piece is controversial"? Same thing, really. Implies people believe it is and isn't music. There is controversy, argument, between people over its nature. Forgive me PLEASE if I wrote that it is widely regarded, and did not include the fact that it is also widely "disregarded" as music. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!!! And I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find a reference. But I'm not your bitch, so go find it yourself.

digitalex wrote: What would you like me to find? A bunch of people's opinions on the net, calling the piece music?

yep, one will do. you can start by providing any one source, bonus points for providing a source of some credibility.

digitalex wrote: And I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find a reference. But I'm not your bitch, so go find it yourself.

hoho, quick edit...

well done - this is only the Nth time you've flaked out.

digitalex wrote:

b0unce wrote:
well done - this is only the Nth time you've flaked out.

Why, is an edit to you "flaking out"? Seems to me easier to add to a previous statement than extend the thread.

flaked out, as in refused to hit us up with some references on the 'widely regarded' tip, not the edit.

Useless. What good would it do? You know it's regarded as music because it's controversial. The ironic thing is that Cage approached music like Buddhism, sort of like the "music of non-music". Who knows even if Cage himself regarded it as music?