Ableton Forum

hey sweetjesus, I believe that the rules were derived from the music not the music derived from the rules, somebody heard this intonation and that intonation, eastern/western scales and the like and decided to repeat them, write them down and so forth. but these intonations were already being repeated before man wrote them down. so I would say that 'music' is mans own interpretation of something that already existed. i'm sure that the birds didn't learn to create music from humans, so .. who invented it? nobody probably which means that imho our understanding of it is nothing more than an interpretation. as a species we have alot of ego and think we made rules for everything. it's kind of like saying we invented math when we just noticed it. anyway it's just an opinion.

bounce you are a fuckin idiot rules or no rules.

stale bread wrote: it's kind of like saying we invented math when we just noticed it. anyway it's just an opinion.

.

reminds me of that track on Sixtoo's Duration

i guess he obviously sampled a movie.
some old dude was like "do you think you invented the number two? no, it was here before we existed."

b0unce wrote:

art doesnt have rules. art is all about expression. it doesnt have to make sense. I can record my dog barking, and mangle it and run it through reverbs and create some kind of lush soundscape with it - which people might like, but its not music. but it is art.


only a fucking moron would say music has no rules.

I'd beg to differ.
What bout linearity , form , chiaroscuro , perspective , balance of positive and negative space , the interplay or incorrect use of warm vs cool colours , texture , communication , effective communication , various techiniques used for photography , printmaking , etching techniques , impasto mixing and mixed medium texhniques etc ....
Anyone who's studied , design , painting , printmaking , drawing , fineart etc will tell you there are many rules that govern effective communiction and in essence differentiate good art from bad art.
Master the rules and then bend them at will and use your own spin on things to create effective and evocative new forms of artistic expression.
If i just did crap all willy nilly in a charcoal sketch it would look pretty much like a piece of crap also.
Both artforms do have certain rules and boundaries all of which can be explored and pushed to the extreme.
Art ...well IMHO good ART is more than just mere expression.
Much like poetry , literature or anything else of that ilk.
Really you seem to be grossly oversimplifying the issue IMHO of course.

stale bread wrote:hey sweetjesus, I believe that the rules were derived from the music not the music derived from the rules, somebody heard this intonation and that intonation, eastern/western scales and the like and decided to repeat them, write them down and so forth.

hoho - dude, you have some negative conotations attached to the word 'rules' - as if its something imposed. and now you're paraphrasing things I've already said.

stale bread wrote:so .. who invented it?

hoho - who invented music ? the same guy who invented gravity, probably. (pleb)

stale bread wrote:as a species we have alot of ego and think we made rules for everything.

hoho - there you go with your strange understanding of the word 'rules'. school yard understanding at best.

stale bread wrote:t's kind of like saying we invented math when we just noticed it.

haha

lol, you fucking shmuck.

the very fact you say things like 'who invented music' makes you a bigger idiot than I can ever hope to be.

and, I dont know if you realise it - but you're agreeing with me. and as I predicted - you still wont concede. surprise surprise. and all it took was sweetjesus to say exactly what I said.

digitalex wrote:I don't think it would be famous controversial piece if only idiots were arguing over it.

But would it be a famous controversial piece if it were made by an unknown? Like, say if Cage had never made that piece, and someone who's never been heard of, and just as importantly, someone with absolutely no musical background had made that piece would it be s popular, controversial, and debated?

Of course not. What did Jon Cage have that made that piece what it was? his name, and his reputation as a composer. I don't know much about the man, but I would assume he was already an established composer, someone who knew the rules, and he had a reputation. That is what gave the piece whatever power it has, because it was made by John Cage and accepted/rejected, and debated by his equally influential peers.

It's something to think about.

I don't think the car analogy is a bad one either. Again, it comes down to the difference between banging your fist on a keyboard versus playing a melody. Or beating randomly on pots and pans as opposed to playing a rhythm on them. Like sweetjesus said, there are certain rules and science that makes something musical.

But at the same time it is still subjective and can be entirely dependent upon the individual. A lot of factors come into play, the listeners level of sophistication (understanding of the rules), a more musically educated person would be more likely to understand a Philip Glass piece then would someone who listens entirely to top 40.

What kind of expectations do we place on music, what do we hope to get out of the listening experience. My wife is an intelligent, well rounded person. I remember I had just picked up Autechre's Confeld cd and we were listening. She could not stand it and insisted that I take it out. To her it is not music at all, and to me, though I do not really understand it, I am fascinated by it. We have different expectations I suppose.

I don't know, I believe there are most certainly rules. Some are very base and natural, what makes rhythm rhythm, and melody melody. What makes it jove with us, what made it stand out to whatever ancient people first recognized it.

Then there are the rules that have been developed by society and are constantly evolving and changing. Why are all popular songs 3-4 minutes in length? Why do some people expect that all songs should have words?

I don't know, maybe the key is understanding the difference between those base, natural laws and the rules created by humans, and the expectations imposed by society?

FaX-01 wrote:

b0unce wrote:

art doesnt have rules. art is all about expression. it doesnt have to make sense. I can record my dog barking, and mangle it and run it through reverbs and create some kind of lush soundscape with it - which people might like, but its not music. but it is art.


only a fucking moron would say music has no rules.

I'd beg to differ.
What bout linearity , form , chiaroscuro , perspective , balance of positive and negative space , the interplay or incorrect use of warm vs cool colours , texture , communication , effective communication , various techiniques used for photography , printmaking , etching techniques , impasto mixing and mixed medium texhniques etc ....
Anyone who's studied , design , painting , printmaking , drawing , fineart etc will tell you there are many rules that govern effective communiction and in essence differentiate good art from bad art.
Master the rules and then bend them at will and use your own spin on things to create effective and evocative new forms of artistic expression.
If i just did crap all willy nilly in a charcoal sketch it would look pretty much like a piece of crap also.
Both artforms do have certain rules and boundaries all of which can be explored and pushed to the extreme.
Art ...well IMHO good ART is more than just mere expression.
Much like poetry , literature or anything else of that ilk.
Really you seem to be grossly oversimplifying the issue IMHO of course.

I said art, a fairly general term, doesnt have to make sense. those are all fine disciplines you listed off, but forgive me for being so stupid.....I dont see your point. Perhaps you could simplify it for me ? As far as I can tell....you just listed off a load of artistic disciplines, I dont see how it relates to my post. If anything it strengthens my argument that music has rules. I guess you're hanging onto the 'doesnt have to make sense' part.....well, thats another discussion. and while I disagree with alot of the shit that makes it into the 'art' category (especially modern artists like tracy emin) - I still acknowledge that pretty much anything can fit into the art category, an empty box labelled 'air' could make it into the tate gallery providing your spiel was up to scratch.

anyways, lets try and stay on topic shall we ? (which at this stage is about MUSIC and if it has rules or not)

stale bread wrote:I would say that 'music' is mans own interpretation of something that already existed.

I think that's an interesting point. Kind of what I was talking about with the difference between those "base laws", our human additions to them, and societal expectations.

smutek wrote:

stale bread wrote:I would say that 'music' is mans own interpretation of something that already existed.

I think that's an interesting point. Kind of what I was talking about with the difference between those "base laws", our human additions to them, and societal expectations.

I've said this already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. But we have already agreed that we agree right?

Anyway, I started to get lost in all of the name calliing and fighting....

Time for bed I think.

peace!

I'm refering to stale breads post, the guy who refuted everything I said is now paraphrasing everything I said

stale bread wrote:hey sweetjesus, I believe that the rules were derived from the music not the music derived from the rules, somebody heard this intonation and that intonation, eastern/western scales and the like and decided to repeat them, write them down and so forth. but these intonations were already being repeated before man wrote them down. so I would say that 'music' is mans own interpretation of something that already existed. i'm sure that the birds didn't learn to create music from humans, so .. who invented it? nobody probably which means that imho our understanding of it is nothing more than an interpretation. as a species we have alot of ego and think we made rules for everything. it's kind of like saying we invented math when we just noticed it. anyway it's just an opinion.

bounce you are a fuckin idiot rules or no rules.

i believe we locked to specific tunings because they sound good to us

they sound good to us because they follow certain rules of science and nature.

Within the limits of hostorical and archeological knowledge, we know that theres certain rules applying to intervals, overtones and harmonics which we have derived from nature. They exist across al cultures and races irrespective of their cultural influences and have

Rhythm and measures we have also derived from nature and science (mathematics) ...

It's very hard to disassociate what we define as music from these structures, because everything we define as music does fall within these structures and still leaves room for what these structures define as artistic input.

The mathematics and the way that the scales that exist all around the world actually do all work together using the same theory and rules despite having grown out of different environments and cultures is either a massive fluke or that there are inheirant properties to music.. and that these properties are defined by means other than our perception.

digitalex, my point is that people enjoy jazz without knowing the rules because it follows natural rules defined by physics.

Stale bread, yes you are right in that music is our interpretation of things which existed before man. But my addition to that is, music follows rules defined by physics. But where I differ is that music would not exist without man.

Applying the interpretation of physics to sound is music.

b0unce wrote:haha

lol, you fucking shmuck.

the very fact you say things like 'who invented music' makes you a bigger idiot than I can ever hope to be.

and, I dont know if you realise it - but you're agreeing with me.

if i'm agreeing with you then
I think you are laughing at yourself and calling yourself a bigger idiot than I think you are , man you are a fucking idiot..... just my and apparently your opinion though.

stale bread wrote: if i'm agreeing with you then
I think you are laughing at yourself and calling yourself a bigger idiot than I think you are , man you are a fucking idiot..... just my and apparently your opinion though.

hoho what did I say about the school yard?, did you drop out of school ? did you even pay attention while you were there ?

those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

good night fuckjaws

hugs & kisses all round, except stale bread.

naaa na nana naaaaaaa

sweetjesus wrote:

stale bread wrote:hey sweetjesus, I believe that the rules were derived from the music not the music derived from the rules, somebody heard this intonation and that intonation, eastern/western scales and the like and decided to repeat them, write them down and so forth. but these intonations were already being repeated before man wrote them down. so I would say that 'music' is mans own interpretation of something that already existed. i'm sure that the birds didn't learn to create music from humans, so .. who invented it? nobody probably which means that imho our understanding of it is nothing more than an interpretation. as a species we have alot of ego and think we made rules for everything. it's kind of like saying we invented math when we just noticed it. anyway it's just an opinion.

bounce you are a fuckin idiot rules or no rules.

i believe we locked to specific tunings because they sound good to us

they sound good to us because they follow certain rules of science and nature.

Within the limits of hostorical and archeological knowledge, we know that theres certain rules applying to intervals, overtones and harmonics which we have derived from nature. They exist across al cultures and races irrespective of their cultural influences and have

Rhythm and measures we have also derived from nature and science (mathematics) ...

It's very hard to disassociate what we define as music from these structures, because everything we define as music does fall within these structures and still leaves room for what these structures define as artistic input.

The mathematics and the way that the scales that exist all around the world actually do all work together using the same theory and rules despite having grown out of different environments and cultures is either a massive fluke or that there are inheirant properties to music.. and that these properties are defined by means other than our perception.

digitalex, my point is that people enjoy jazz without knowing the rules because it follows natural rules defined by physics.

Stale bread, yes you are right in that music is our interpretation of things which existed before man. But my addition to that is, music follows rules defined by physics. But where I differ is that music would not exist without man.

Applying the interpretation of physics to sound is music.

I see where you're coming from its very interesting, but why do you think it wouldn't exist without man.

b0unce wrote:hoho what did I say about the school yard?, did you drop out of school ? did you even pay attention while you were there ?

b0unce wrote:naaa na nana naaaaaaa