Do you hear noise or a story?

Haha sorry. I can't help adding to this ongoing list of bull. But it's fun now knowing that Yagan inspired you to mull over all of this.

I'm just here, sittin' and going "What the scraggy!?" So I try to find some possible explanations for it. The stuff I found though, well. Let's say I'm going to go do something better with my time. If he wants to defend his opinions, that's his business. But oh wow.

From his blog: "With few exceptions, no matter what music we listen to, tonal implications are present." Two hours and 50 pages worth of wall-text just trying to get that to mean anything is not worth it. He doesn't even bother to define implications, he's just spewing historical evidence, etc etc. I don't mean any offense with any of this, honest, but wow.

I really, REALLY, wonder what are all these books he keeps talking about.

I didn't want to argue, I never wanted to argue. I stated the accepted truth and left it at that. You started an argument I never wanted. Stop trying to push it onto me. I don't need backup, do some research yourself it is all over the net. Try asking some lecturers as well.

Two hours and 50 pages worth of wall-text just trying to get that to mean anything is not worth it. He doesn't even bother to define implications, he's just spewing historical evidence, etc etc. I don't mean any offense with any of this, honest, but wow.

Actually I did explain a few. Try actually reading the three articles.

To stray the thread off the current little feud going on and back to the initial question (momentarily, I swear, when I am done you guys can go back to your little dance :D):

IMO, it is a little of both in that it kind of depends on the song and the mood I am in when I listen to music. If the song "evolves" within its self then yes I hear a story. After all, what is a story?: A beginning, a climax, and an end (and all the other sauce between the noodles). If it doesn't flow like I story, I don't really hear a story. Like some rap (if you want to concider it music... but I am not going to touch that subject), musically wise it is the same measure or two of back ground music, and somebody spewing out their definition of poetry. But for the most part, I don't hear a story, just noise.

This ties into my current mood. I don't like rap, whenever I hear it, I generally begin to tune it out. Whether this degree of intollerance inhibits my ability to hear the story or not, I don't know. It also depends on if I am looking for "music" or if I am looking for "noise". I will plug in my iPod just to have something stimulating my brain; I am not actually listening to it.

Also, I think that the way you here music plays a little bit into the way you write music, at least for me. My first impression of a song is how it makes me feal; I focus on the emotion I get from the song. When I write music, more so my piano stuff, I generally do it to explore an emotion, usually the dominant one at the time. I try to convey that emotion. I try to work into the emotion (beginning), then reach its strongest presence (climax), then work my way out of the feeling (ending).

So really, to see how you hear music, you might be able to work backwards from how you write, or feel about, your own music.

my 76 cents

I didn't want to argue, I never wanted to argue. I stated the accepted truth and left it at that. You started an argument I never wanted. Stop trying to push it onto me. I don't need backup, do some research yourself it is all over the net. Try asking some lecturers as well.

Actually I did explain a few. Try actually reading the three articles.

I'm not trying to push an argument onto you. I'm trying to get you to actually expose why is this "The accepted truth", since I clearly don't see it that way. If you're going to dismiss it saying "Look around" then I suppose the argument isn't strong enough to make a simple clear point as to its validation.

Moreover, you never establish a real argument. Saying "tonality is natural" or "Most [music] has tonal implications" is at the very least too vague and at worse it's just plain wrong. How can me throwing a chair on the floor have tonal implications? How about John Cage's work altogether? How can his silent piece have "Tonal implications"? How can the Concert for a Door from Pierre Henry have any tonal implications at all?

You fail to use actual examples, and you're using tons of weasel words in your articles. I'm not going to read a book on this nonsense, because right now I don't think there's a real argument here at all. Once you're able to properly link tonality with the examples above, and all the many, MANY other problems this argument poses, then maybe I'll consider.

Accepted truth my donkey. Tell me silence is also tonal now, eh? So either I'm understanding the argument wrong, or it's actually wrong. Explain yourself, don't push it off to some book.

For one thing, the equal temperament tonality that we are used to is just an approximation to the actual overtones of a note. If you'd like to listen to some real "tonal" music that sounds "more natural", then spectral composers who work with overtones (as far as the 30th and 40th partials of a tone) will do it for you, although I doubt such high overtones can actually be heard by the human ear, so again the "naturalness" of that kind of music is again doubted.

Tonality is far from natural. SSC's posts cover that part. If you mean that *some* of the intervals that happen to be present in tonality (or at least, approximations of those intervals) are found in nature, then yes, you are right. The perfect fifth plays an important role in tonal music, but on the other hand, so does in Indian, Chinese, Balinese, Japanese, African and Australian music. But you wouldn't call an indian raga "tonal", would you?

I've only found two people here who bother thinking.... and I can't remember their names.

Well, I'll try to forget your name - I wouldn't like my idea of this forum to be of arrogant, ignorant people who can't be bothered to remember the two names they are interested in in a forum.

I've always hated telling people the basics of music. And this is as basic as you can get in this stream. I could never teach people what a crotchet means, it bores me too much. I like having conversations with slightly advanced people, or more advanced... now they are stimulating.

Well, SSC is quite "advanced", and in fact he's probably much more advanced than you and me, so I think it's more of a case where you are less advanced (but more arrogant) than him, and thus you just degrade him in the hopes that you'll prove right.

I stated the accepted truth and left it at that.

Firstly, since SSC and me (among other people) do not agree with that statement (and we're not just random people), I don't quite think that it's an "accepted truth". Moreover, never in my life (until now) have I seen someone state so boldly and confidently that tonality is natural, and that this is a fact, not an opinion.

Well, then, since you like talking about books, tell us about the books that speak of that "truth". I haven't seen you name a single one. Also, SSC supports his arguments quite a lot (and he has quite a few arguments too), while you, on the other hand, keep babbling about the "truth" that SSC is unaware of (and which, of course, is crystal-clear in the books you've read), and that considering tonality unnatural is only out of ignorance and stupidity. I bet those books don't just say "tonality is natural. this is a fact"; I am fairly sure that, if they are worthy books, they will have some arguments behind that statement, which you have yet to present to us.

And also, how come the music of other cultures other than western classical one are not "tonal"? Is western classical "tonality" the only way the "naturalness" of acoustics can be materialised, and thus we wrote "true" music, whereas Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Indonesian people wrote "false/wrong/invalid/unnatural" music?

What about Harry Partch? Is his music tonal? Is it natural? I think his scale is much more natural than the equal temperament scale with which 90% of the "naturally tonal" pieces you're talking of were written. And if "tonality" is all so natural and all, why did it only last approximately 300 years in the whole history of time and music? Also, I assume you *do* agree that Cages 4'33" *is* the most natural piece that could ever be written? Since the sounds (and thus overtones) that are included in the piece are 100% natural, the piece itself can be nothing else other than natural, but it's not tonal in any way.

If you're going to dismiss it saying "Look around" then I suppose the argument isn't strong enough to make a simple clear point as to its validation.

Not saying mine can't be proven, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your 'argument'.

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moreover, you never establish a real argument. Saying "tonality is natural" or "Most [music] has tonal implications" is at the very least too vague and at worse it's just plain wrong. How can me throwing a chair on the floor have tonal implications? How about John Cage's work altogether? How can his silent piece have "Tonal implications"? How can the Concert for a Door from Pierre Henry have any tonal implications at all?

You obviously don't like reading words even if you quote them twice. It is a tiny little word called "most", you obviously missed it.

You fail to use actual examples, and you're using tons of weasel words in your articles. I'm not going to read a book on this nonsense, because right now I don't think there's a real argument here at all. Once you're able to properly link tonality with the examples above, and all the many, MANY other problems this argument poses, then maybe I'll consider.

Again, this argument only works if you ignore the word "most" which you so charmingly managed to do on every occasion.

Tell me silence is also tonal now, eh? So either I'm understanding the argument wrong, or it's actually wrong.

Horse? Dead?

But you wouldn't call an indian raga "tonal", would you?

Absolutely. Pentatonic music also has strong connections with traditional tonality. (not saying Indian music is Pentatonic - always). But pentatonic music can be found world over without any historical connection. Australian music fore example.

I wouldn't like my idea of this forum to be of arrogant, ignorant people who can't be bothered to remember the two names they are interested in in a forum.

I never remember names, not even in book I'm reading. I recognise names and I recognise signatures and avatars, but I don't memorise a name and its spelling.

you just degrade him in the hopes that you'll prove right.

I never hoped to prove me right. He is the one who wanted to argue.

Firstly, since SSC and me (among other people) do not agree with that statement (and we're not just random people), I don't quite think that it's an "accepted truth". Moreover, never in my life (until now) have I seen someone state so boldly and confidently that tonality is natural, and that this is a fact, not an opinion.

Well, if you are religious, you don't believe in evolution (for example). Same thing here.

Well, then, since you like talking about books, tell us about the books that speak of that "truth". I haven't seen you name a single one. Also, SSC supports his arguments quite a lot (and he has quite a few arguments too), while you, on the other hand, keep babbling about the "truth" that SSC is unaware of (and which, of course, is crystal-clear in the books you've read), and that considering tonality unnatural is only out of ignorance and stupidity. I bet those books don't just say "tonality is natural. this is a fact"; I am fairly sure that, if they are worthy books, they will have some arguments behind that statement, which you have yet to present to us.

Supporting his arguments? By saying that Cage's 4:33 isn't tonal? Well duh, I never said it was. Either way it is arguably natural but in a different way, a way that I do not associate with music.

Book: Tuning of the world - R. Murray Shaefer

Try checking up on Bartok and Holst.

I also have a short bibliography in the article.

And also, how come the music of other cultures other than western classical one are not "tonal"? Is western classical "tonality" the only way the "naturalness" of acoustics can be materialised, and thus we wrote "true" music, whereas Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Indonesian people wrote "false/wrong/invalid/unnatural" music?

1: Read my articles, I address this and I do not say what you are suggesting I do. 2: false? wrong? invalid? When did I say that? They are are strictly not synonymous with "unnatural". Never have I said that, and in any case it is a completely different argument.

And if "tonality" is all so natural and all, why did it only last approximately 300 years in the whole history of time and music?

1: Read what I say. 2: It has lasted from... when was the first music?? Well... then to .... now! Pop music obviously isn't tonal.... not at all. Rutter NEVER writes in tonal language. Messiaen neither.....

Also, I assume you *do* agree that Cages 4'33" *is* the most natural piece that could ever be written? Since the sounds (and thus overtones) that are included in the piece are 100% natural, the piece itself can be nothing else other than natural, but it's not tonal in any way.

Yes I agree it is natural. But it is different because it is not pitch and intervals that are appreciated in this piece. But it is still natural, but in a different way

Figured you'd still refuse to actually answer. If you like quoting wikipedia, there's a part you missed of what I said: Weasel word - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using "Most" in this argument is nonsense. You have to provide punctual examples to actually show that your argument can stand in face of the obvious problems presented by it.

I wasn't the one "who wanted to argue", you are the one who says things and doesn't bother to elaborate. Again, if you can't be bothered to defend what you say, don't bother saying it. If you aren't prepared to actually stand behind what you're saying, then again, don't say it.

There isn't place for "most" in a serious argument, since "most" requires a source. How much is most? In this case, "most" is VERY relative. In your usage, you say that "Most music is . . .", which implies there is a source to a percentage, or a study that establishes that OUT OF ALL THE MUSIC THERE IS, a big percentage is in accordance to what you claim.

Is this the case? Can you show the sources, studies, and otherwise where did you get this information?

Now that I'm not "charmingly ignoring" the word "most", as you wished, care to explain what it's doing there in the first place?

Moreover, my observation as to the validity of your argument was in light to your insistence in avoiding the problems presented with it. You're saying Cage's piece 4'33" is natural, but in a different way. Care to elaborate?

Now, I can sort of see where you're getting your opinion. There are elements in tonality which occur naturally and surely these things had a part in creating tonality. Therefore, tonality is created from natural elements is unarguable, as it is based after all on physical principles (acoustics, etc) which are all perfectly provable and understood.

However, Cage's piece, and numerous other examples also stem from natural elements and also work in the same realm as tonality. Therefore, a parallel CAN be drawn, but it has less to do with tonality and more to do with the nature of sound and its production. You state in your article:

"(...)Finally lending to my argument that tonal music, its extensions and variations are more natural than any version of Atonality. This is not to say that all atonal music is unnatural, nor is it to demean atonal music, it is merely to illustrate tonalities consistent part in music. Tonality has always been with music, consciously or not, has survived the tonal crisis of the early to mid twentieth century and is sure to survive as long as we could imagine."

This is taking into account that atonality is a different thing from tonality, which it clearly is not (In this sense.) Atonality (Schoenberg, etc) came to be because the tonal system of functional harmony was falling apart. It was falling apart because despite the theory invested pointed to a particular sound basis, the actual practical sound became so full with passing-notes and such other aggregates, that it began sounding nothing like what was analyzed. If there are 5 "leading notes", which one is the most important? If they all behave in chromatic manner, which one is the "real" one? How can you really analyze this, is it really just a I-V-I cadence if it sounds more like a cluster?

This is a problem that already plagued Wagner, Liszt, and such people before Schoenberg. Atonality is not anti-tonal, as much as it is a different direction of sound organization. It can be said, that tonality and atonality are the same thing as the notes themselves haven't changed, just the way they're organized.

Atonality also marks a change in the way consonance and dissonance are treated, making such distinction vanish. By doing so, functional harmony vanishes and so does the forms based on it.

But take something like Berg's Violin Concerto, written partially in 12 tone system. There are sections which have a very tonal character, yet the piece floats in uncertainty.

To first claim anything about "tonality" you have to spend a good while what is to be understood as tonality. Tonality as what, a tone organization system, a tuning system? the relationships between the intervals? The actual functional harmonic? All of these things have different implications and most of them cannot vanish by virtue of being things that pertain to all music and, indeed, sound.

How? As Cage called "Harmony" in his later years, it was only the concept of two (or more) sounds heard simultaneously. This concept doesn't go away because the nature of sound, as a physical reaction, is that it is temporal. Sound exists so long as force moving the air exists.

After you establish what tonality is supposed to be understood as, you have to explain what is understood by "nature". Like I said, in a broad sense, anything and everything we do can be understood as natural, as we are born from this earth and everything we are made of and produce is based on resources that have existed millions (huge understatement, really!) of years before us. In a philosophical sense, there are millions of possible interpretations of what "to be natural" means, as well.

You fail on both these accounts, and for that, I'm asking that you please explain yourself. Never assume that anyone knows what "nature" or "tonality" is automatically, as these terms, PRECISELY these are very complicated to explain and agree on a specific meaning or set of meanings.

I don't mean to be annoying or beat the dead horse, but if you're serious about these subjects (which I find oh-so-interesting), then you should be more thorough.

The approach you're using in your articles, specially the third, is a historical based one. However, you fail to establish why is history in this case relevant. Simply because people have being doing something for a long time doesn't establish grounds from which to claim things which history itself doesn't prove. History supports an argument like this solely if the history being used details a previous discussion, findings and other things related to the argument being presented.

Failing to address Cage's experiments, and such other composers when talking about the nature of music is fallacy in terms of research. Instead of trying to "sell" the point by saying other people have done this and that in the past, provide examples where this same argument has been approached in ways favorable by your argument/statement.

And even then, this doesn't fully cover it. The quote from Bartok and Hindemith are two very specific examples. Both are known for their neo-classical periods (Bartok at the beginning, Hindemith later on.) You only provide evidence that supports your argument, and fail to remain objective as there is clearly a whole other side of opinions which you are ignoring.

In the end, you can do much better. MUCH better than this. If you really insist on not participating in the discussion, then that's a shame because it is interesting and I would like to hear if your argument really has any ground since it's an interesting opinion.

That's all.

PS: Tuning of the world - R. Murray Shaefer appears to be an opinion piece on aural pollution, I have not personally read the book, so I can't comment. However, from what I'm seeing, care to actually point out what in it is of importance? Also, same with Holst and etc, that you mention.

here isn't place for "most" in a serious argument, since "most" requires a source. How much is most? In this case, "most" is VERY relative. In your usage, you say that "Most music is . . .", which implies there is a source to a percentage, or a study that establishes that OUT OF ALL THE MUSIC THERE IS, a big percentage is in accordance to what you claim.

All modal (and Messiaen's modes), 12 tone, pentatonic (and variants), traditional tonality, some quarter tone styles are considerably more common in the musical canon than the styles of pieces you provided as examples. it doesn't take much effort to work this out. You are just arguing for argument sake, you are not picking on a point.

You're saying Cage's piece 4'33" is natural, but in a different way. Care to elaborate?

I explained why it is not in this argument, and I don't want to get into a different discussion.

"(...)Finally lending to my argument that tonal music, its extensions and variations are more natural than any version of Atonality. This is not to say that all atonal music is unnatural, nor is it to demean atonal music, it is merely to illustrate tonalities consistent part in music. Tonality has always been with music, consciously or not, has survived the tonal crisis of the early to mid twentieth century and is sure to survive as long as we could imagine."

This is taking into account that atonality is a different thing from tonality, which it clearly is not. Atonality (Schoenberg, etc) came to be because the tonal system of functional harmony was falling apart.

Ahh, thankyou muchly. That is an erratum on my part. When I mean atonality I do mean the 4'33" "atonality", not 12 tone.

Therefore, a parallel CAN be drawn, but it has less to do with tonality and more to do with the nature of sound and its production.

I have not finished the articles (more to come), but I will be adding that Humans (as with most animals) are pattern recognising machines, it is how we function. It is nigh on impossible to undercover subconscious patterns in Cagean styles pieces. While it is natural in origin, it doesn't hold a true pattern with nature. (I will deliberate on this further in my future article, I have not formulated my arguments with this yet. It is on the beta side of an hypothesis, though it does have a fundamental structure).

It was falling apart because despite the theory invested pointed to a particular sound basis, the actual practical sound became so full with passing-notes and such other aggregates, that it began sounding nothing like what was analyzed. If there are 5 "leading notes", which one is the most important? If they all behave in chromatic manner, which one is the "real" one? How can you really analyze this, is it really just a I-V-V cadence if it sounds more like a cluster?

This is easily analyzed if you take everything into context. But a different story. The tonal crisis had to happen only because of the severity of the complexity tonality became. Yet tonality still survived (in the "Classical" world), and 12tone system waned. Passing notes are to connected with a complex V-I. And regardless of the music, if it is tonal it the chords fall into subdominant, dominant or tonic. (or several).

To first claim anything about "tonality" you have to spend a good while what is to be understood as tonality. Tonality as what, a tone organization system, a tuning system? the relationships between the intervals? The actual functional harmonic? All of these things have different implications and most of them cannot vanish by virtue of being things that pertain to all music and, indeed, sound.

Tonality is anything that utilizes the naturality of a "tone" to produce consistent patterns in reference to tension and release. These include, Pentatonic, Modality and the accepted Traditional Tonalmusic. Simply, music that creates a "tonal center", through the relationship between notes. 12tone music does not get a center this way.

As Cage called "Harmony" in his later years, it was only the concept of two (or more) sounds heard simultaneously. This concept doesn't go away because the nature of sound, as a physical reaction, is that it is temporal. Sound exists so long as force moving the air exists.

I'm not really into semantics and changing the meaning of a word so it suites your idea of music.

I'm talking about acoustically natural within an audible pattern.

The approach you're using in your articles, specially the third, is a historical based one. However, you fail to establish why is history in this case relevant. Simply because people have being doing something for a long time doesn't establish grounds from which to claim things which history itself doesn't prove. History supports an argument like this solely if the history being used details a previous discussion, findings and other things related to the argument being presented.

It isn't just historical, but geographical. The history and the geography suggests and underlying structure tying music together. There is no way that cultures seperated by thousands of kms and years established a similar if not same system by coincidence.

Failing to address Cage's experiments, and such other composers when talking about the nature of music is fallacy in terms of research. Instead of trying to "sell" the point by saying other people have done this and that in the past, provide examples where this same argument has been approached in ways favorable by your argument/statement.

I don't wish to address the different naturality of Cage's works.

You only provide evidence that supports your argument, and fail to remain objective as there is clearly a whole other side of opinions which you are ignoring.

Generally there isn't much of an "other side".

In the end, you can do much better. MUCH better than this. If you really insist on not participating in the discussion, then that's a shame because it is interesting and I would like to hear if your argument really has any ground since it's an interesting opinion.

I do not insist, you keep drawing me back. I merely posted a generally accepted truth among musical academia, not expecting such opposition for a non intrusive statement. I have never once said that atonal music is "wrong" or "bad", that is a different argument anyway.

Tsk.

Again with the "accepted truth" among musical academia. Source this.

Don't wish to address Cage's work? Then how can anyone take the argument seriously, if you're ignoring one of the major figures related to the nature of sound of the 20th century.

And there's plenty of "other side", perhaps not in comparison to historical accumulation, but that's logical. Taking that into account, there is considerable opposition to this idea.

I don't see how you can claim to know that cultures such as the Incas had music which was similar to the Chinese traditional music, for example. There's also a great fundamental problem with your point about modes (In the article), which is that we have no current way of really knowing how modes sounded like at all, as the tuning system was different and there's no documentation on its reproduction so an accurate reconstruction can be made.

Moreover, the same can be said for many cultures' music.

Your definition of tonality begs even more questions than it answers. What is "release"? What is "tension"? How is this objectively related to the physical aspect of sound and thus, applicable to music?

Tonality has not "survived" as much as it's simply not going to go away by virtue of its popularity due to many factors not related to the music itself.

If you want an interesting approach to it, think about the concept of the evolution of a person's senses. That is to say, the sense of smell and the sense of taste evolved to instinctively cause rejection to certain smells/tastes and attraction to other tastes. This much is also true for things such as the Valley of the Uncanny theory in visual perception (the sense of sight.) It is also established that the sense of tact developed in such a way that pain is representative to damage or something undesirable.

All these developments influence what we perceive through these senses, and it's the reason that we really won't be cooking a vomit-stew or poop-hotdog without having our respective senses throw a fit. This is due to goal-oriented evolution, such as the need to stay alive, maintain organization skills, etc etc.

Now, when it comes to the sense of hearing, things become very difficult. Like sight, hearing couldn't have evolved on a practical basis partially due to the fact sound itself has a dynamic nature of meaning. That is to say, some sounds in different contexts can mean different things, so out of all the senses, it is the only one with relatively little development in the way of instinctive bias (such as smelling or sense of taste, etc.)

Therefore, the aesthetics of sound are very difficult to pin down as being something belonging to the human condition and not simply a result of tradition and cultural pull. In fact, I'd say the above argument shoots a rather big hole in the concept that tonality, or any given system's "survival", popularity, or any other such measure of success has in any way to do with "pleasing" aesthetics.

All that as an aside, though. It does also incur a problem of probability and validity of the argument that "most" music is not a variable. If "most" in your argument were to change for any given circumstance, it will also affect your argument greatly since it depends on a statistical majority.

If there is no human-physical factor that indicates a preference towards "tonality", or 440 tuning system such organization systems, the preference itself is subject to factors such as culture and popularity which can be heavily fluctuating. Indeed, that Cage, Boulez, Henry, Reich, etc exist indicate a change in popular aesthetic preferences. It is a question of probability, if such aesthetics will be more prevalent in the future.

In such way, the argument of "Most music . . ." is completely irrelevant, as "Most", even if sourced, can be proven to vary entirely as the elements that dictate what music is produce themselves are variable. When atonality was in full swing, many people wrote atonal works, etc etc etc.

Another thing, back to tonality not "surviving", has to do with the objective reality that composition systems cannot "die" or otherwise be forgotten or abandoned entirely. They can become unpopular, but that too is fluctuating, as the "return" of old techniques show during the 20th century, as well as the introduction of many new ones.

About "Tonal center" that you mention, this can mean numerous things. An atonal piece which has a prevalent tone, that through repetition signals its importance, can be said to have a "tone center", as the piece revolved around a specific tone. That's one meaning, and it can be applied to many different types of music, atonal or tonal, or not even using traditional musical instruments or tone systems. (Stravinsky's Sacre, the famous Bassoon beginning is said to be neither tonal or atonal, but "in between", having a central tone as a point of reference.)

Plus, there's a lot to be said about the concept of tonality which you haven't mentioned, such as monodies (Like the Stravinsky example). A single melody (by itself) can imply harmony, but just like Schumann does in many of his Lieder, it can also cloud harmonic clarity. A single melody cannot be tonal or atonal, it can imply either, but by itself there isn't enough there to establish anything as there isn't a counterpoint of any sort.

You don't want me to go into semantics and change the meaning of things to work for my argument, then don't use words that have to be explained to explain something in the first place (your definition of tonality doesn't say anything to me, you don't define what you mean by tension and release. Furthermore, what is the "naturality of a tone"?)

I was merely citing Cage's usage of the word "harmony" to illustrate how these things have to be defined before anything can be said about them, or they can be used to actually formulate coherent ideas.

PS: Sure, there are many other reasons for the argument against "most", and such above. But because I really don't want to type 6 pages worth of it, I think the one I provided is pretty simple and efficient.

I am bored. I can't keep arguing about tonality and nature if we don't define tonality first. Pentatonic music is not tonal in the way Mozart, Bach, Palestrina or Britten is. Unless the definition of "tonal" music is music "concerned with tones", then I don't see how they are related. But then again, "tones" is a human concept. So, Feldman's music, which isn't about tones, is more natural than Bach's music. So is Cage's. Which is why I am confused.

edit:

To people claiming that art is natural, well, there's a very simple question to ask yourselves: would "art" exist if humans didn't? And if yes, then what's the point in claiming that something *is* art, while something *isn't* art, if everything is art? :(

I was thining of reading that debate, but I've come to the conclusion that I can't be bothered. Looks like most of it's verbal abuse anyway :happy:

Noise.

I was thining of reading that debate, but I've come to the conclusion that I can't be bothered. Looks like most of it's verbal abuse anyway :happy:

Noise.

Your loss.

well, a note from an idiot - or art is natural and its works are natural, or - art is not (only) natural and its works doesn't need to be natural in any strict sense.

i see art as a non-natural thing, as if coming out of nothingness, of course its (arts) media is natural - sound, paint, grapheme - yet, its source or point of origin (why the gently caress create art, who really gives a scraggy and cares?) is not natural. so, by using natural media artist is an animal species, by using it 'out of the blue', he is not. he is human in not being human enough.or not just being human species.

note - this is idiot speaking, so beware.

It only matters that A: I like the noise I'm hearing, B: I'm getting something from what I'm hearing. Be it inspiration, ideas, feeling, whatever.

So, I can as well stop and listen to traffic just as I would stop and listen to Bach. It's no different to me, it's just noise, organized differently by different parameters.

I think this is one of the reasons why there's really nothing I'm technically "against for" when it comes to music. If I don't like something, I don't tend to view that as a flaw in the thing I'm seeing, because it's just my opinion.

I tend to find things boring rather than not liking them outright.

So, the entire tonal/atonal thing to me is rather irrelevant.

But because it's such an extreme, I find the result much more interesting.

So, yeah. I'm not kidding about that piece for dog whistle and garbage truck. You heard the sound those trucks make? Awesome stuff.

The whole thing about context and attached meaning is very, very, prevalent in almost everyone's judgment.

The reason why this isn't considered "proper music" is pretty much because of a majority that doesn't really think it's proper music, because a majority before them didn't, and so on. I want to kill that dying tradition, at least where I have a say or when it comes to the matter of me~

Sorry I chopped your post all up. but I got here late, and that thing was huge! :)

I agree with all of this. (At least the parts I left...)

Music is just sound. That's the only criteria we can all agree on, and that's how we define things as a species. Individually it may be different. I think music is sound intended for listening.

All of the other ideas feelings, science etc. that we add to that is based on our own value judgments and preferences. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

We should attach those things to music (or not, as we see fit), because it's what helps us write and enjoy listening to music.

Music can communicate the most deeply felt beliefs and emotions, or just exist as the specific noises contained therein. It can be a glorious and perfected example of scientific study and practice, or a fist slamming on random piano keys. It can be all of those things, none of those things or anything in between.

An age old question, as a metaphor:

Q: Is the glass half full, or half empty?

A: Glasses of water are for DRINKING!!!!

Hahahahaha. That really is pathetic. There is so much literature on the subject. Try reading. You clearly don't know the basics of the science of music. And I don't wish to tell you, if you want to dream up some crappy story to fit your unhappy life then do so. But it is pathetic.

There is music that has no regard for pitch. Only a 'sense' of high and low. The entire concept of pitch, or tonality is completely irrelevant, unless you decide to take it into consideration for yourself.

Music is just sound. That's the only criteria we can all agree on,

I disagree.

...

I disagree.

...

How come?

I should have left the word 'just' out.

[re: "music is just sound"]

I should have left the word 'just' out.

Absolutely.

Sound/noise/vibrations-in-air are only the physical medium in which music exists.

Music is so much more...

...

Absolutely.

Sound/noise/vibrations-in-air are only the physical medium in which music exists.

Music is so much more...

...

i agree

To answer the OP's question: I'm not really one for stories. I don't spend a lot of time reading fiction, or watching movies, or watching TV, mainly because I feel like I don't get as much out of any of these things as do other people. So naturally, I don't really view music in terms of stories. At least, not in the sense that I think you mean. I don't look for meaning in the music I listen to; I never relate it to extra-musical things.

That said, while I don't think of music in terms of stories, a piece of music is a lot like a story in that it's a series of events organized in time. However, I would prefer to think of it as a journey. When I listen to a piece of music, I get sucked into this imaginary world created by the music, and then the progression of the piece takes me on a trip through it. I find that closing my eyes is essential for this to happen; when I do this, I see abstract patterns of light and color dancing around in my mind's eye, representing the different sounds in the music. So there's definitely a drama going on in my head, but it's purely abstract and not tied to anything non-musical.

I hear neither. I hear popsicles and lollipops. I think all music can be reduce to Shirley Temple when you think about it.

YouTube - Shirley Temple - On The Good Ship Lollipop

Absolutely.

Sound/noise/vibrations-in-air are only the physical medium in which music exists.

Music is so much more...

...

I understand what you're saying, and in a way, I agree. But, what really is the 'so much more' you're talking about?

All of the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual 'information' you find in a piece of music is from you, not the music. Sound does not carry information in and of itself. It's the learned responses to certain sounds that we have that carry that information, within the context of the music.

Example: Which is sadder, the key of A or Dm?

Why?

All of the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual 'information' you find in a piece of music is from you, not the music. Sound does not carry information in and of itself. It's the learned responses to certain sounds that we have that carry that information, within the context of the music.

You're right....'sound' does not carry 'information' - music does. At what point does a sound become music? I don't know.

Giant Steps, Coltrane's solo performed by a robot

Giant Steps, Coltrane's solo performed by Coltrane

What's the difference? They're both producing the same sounds, the same notes....How can Coltrane's version convey such emotion and power through mere sounds? Why does the robot's version sound sterile and lifeless - despite being 'the same'?

Well, no, they aren't actually producing the same sound. It's the fine differences in nuances that make the difference between the robot and the human here. Now assume a robot capable of playing the solo sounding exactly like Coltrane, and assume there's no video, just a sound file. You'd have exactly the same digitalised data in both files, they would sound identical. There would be no way for you to hear which one is played "with emotion", and which one is mechanical. There is no information music can carry to us that doesn't come in the form of sound. (Well, you can "hear" music with your inner ear, I suppose, but that's a different matter.)

Nevertheless I agree that music and sound aren't just the same. And I also agree that there's more to music than just the physical phenomenon. But this additional quality lies in a common musical or cultural experience the musician shares with the listener, in connotations, symbols, references, but also the ability of our mind to recognise structures. All of these transform the sound we hear into music. How else could you "hear emotion" in a digital sound file, where surely every information except pure sound is lost? What's the required sampling rate for transporting emotion?

Of course these are rather "technical" arguments. The concept that music "transports" something besides pure sound may be "false", but it can still make a lot of sense if we talk directly out of our musical experience. Metaphorically, if you want.

Well, no, they aren't actually producing the same sound. It's the fine differences in nuances that make the difference between the robot and the human here. Now assume a robot capable of playing the solo sounding exactly like Coltrane, and assume there's no video, just a sound file. ...hey would sound identical. There would be no way for you to hear which one is played "with emotion", and which one is mechanical.

No...then the robot would be playing music. It's the fine differences in nuances that distinguish sound from music. Coltrane injects passion and emotion into the sound, creating music. The mechanical replication of that would be no different than listening to a record or CD.

The "sound" isn't the notes. Surely a midi file produces a different sound than a human musician, even when playing the same notes. The sound is, so to speak, the waveform of the music, where all nuances you hear are present. Yes, this is no different than listening to a record or CD, which is exactly my point. A CD contains nothing but sound, yet what you experience is still music. Nothing your ears receive distinguishes sound from music. This distinction happens afterwards (and before, inside the musician).

But maybe we're simply stuck on a question of terminology?