Do you hear noise or a story?

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?

I do see what you're getting at...and tend to agree. Though, I wouldn't consider a CD or the 'waveform' to be sterile representations of sounds. They're reproductions of the music. A slight difference, but one that is quite important to me.

Bear in mind, we have drastically different perspectives on 'music' ... ;)

i think it is very easy do get lost, when one thinks to separate music and sound from it's history and so many factors that seem to be non-sounding, yet making a huge impact on music. so to say - there some guts that are more musical than some voices. i do not know what is music and what is just sound. i think any sound could possibly become music, but it is not to conclude that any sound is (already) music. and i hope it stays open forever, unless the inhuman in human stops thinking.

I do see what you're getting at...and tend to agree. Though, I wouldn't consider a CD or the 'waveform' to be sterile representations of sounds. They're reproductions of the music. A slight difference, but one that is quite important to me.

Bear in mind, we have drastically different perspectives on 'music' ... ;)

I quite agree with you when talking about how we generally experience music, be it live or on a CD. I certainly hear a CD with a recorded Coltrane solo as music and not just as sound. My point is therefore rather technical and pedantic, by asking what sampling rate was needed for a CD to be able to transport more than sound.

If we have a Coltrane CD at normal CD quality, with 44.1 kHz and 16 bit resolution it will sound to us pretty much like a live concert, and most of us will hear it as music. If we store the same digital audio with just one single sample and 1 bit resolution, there will be either a "one" or a "zero" stored on the CD, nothing else. We have reduced Coltrane to a single bit of information, and it will be impossible to hear any difference to the robot version. (We won't hear anything anyways in this case.)

Unless the idea that the CD still contains Coltrane's music is what truly matters, the question whether the CD contains reproductions of music or just sound becomes rather irrelevant in such a case. I'm not saying it isn't music anymore, just that it has lost all audible properties which we could take into account for deciding whether it is music or merely a sound. Aspects as liveliness or sterility simply don't matter anymore, and a random generator could very well have produced exactly the same result. Deciding whether what we hear is sound or music then is reduced simply to what we are willing to accept as music. Can we appreciate a single "pop" as music, or can we not?

The higher the sampling rate and resolution you choose for the recording, the more nuances you will hear, the more differences to the robot, the more "humanity", the more "music". Many aspects that define Coltrane's human interpretation will still be lost however. Not merely hidden, but completely absent from the string of bits that makes up a CD. I'm of course consciously talking of CDs, and not tape or vinyl records, as the concept of digital data serves my point better.

As I said, out of listening experience I completely agree with you, as well as by a metaphorical view on music. And this view isn't less valid than a technical/physical view. They just need to be looked at as independant models.

No...then the robot would be playing music.

Who says the robot isn't playing music?

I assume we disagree.

The robot isn't playing music very well, but it is playing music.

The point at which sound becomes music is when you listen to it as such. It has nothing to do with the sounds. It has to do with your perception of those sounds.

They just need to be looked at as independent models.

Or co-dependent, how ever you want to hear it.

That is the point, after all.

Music isn't about "what music is all about".

It's about Listening.

The one thing I'm confused about is...if music isn't emotional, then is it not music? What about videogame music? Is that not music because it's played by machines and rarely sounds emotional, espically during the NES era? If I listen to a MIDI file of a Mozart piece, is that not music?

Who says the robot isn't playing music?

...The point at which sound becomes music is when you listen to it as such. It has nothing to do with the sounds. It has to do with your perception of those sounds.

The one thing I'm confused about is...if music isn't emotional, then is it not music? What about videogame music? Is that not music because it's played by machines and rarely sounds emotional....If I listen to a MIDI file of a Mozart piece, is that not music?

Very good points.

*wanders off to think*

My own personal view is that music is what you make of it.

I'll take Free jazz as an example, to me it's just sounds and noises, nothing musical at all while to Robin it's a kind of expressive and free-from-boundaries-type-of music. So what's music or not is just a matter of personal taste.

just my two cents

actually you don't need to go extreme for this case. for me 80 percent of mozart works is just organised sound without any meaning. music as any language is a code (codes), and as any code it has its history. subjects (like you and me and M is D) hold many codes in them due to their extra-musical conditioning. codes, again, are not of some extra-terrestrial origin, but socially, ideologically and etc. conditioned. so, it is quite normal that there will be codes that are recognised and shared by ones, but not by others. and it is quite alright to guess that as history gets richer codes pile up in number. and as it happens,there could be less and less musical languages that are common to big numbers of people, unless its (music's) codes are the ones pop music use - these of vulgular body understanding. even if there are codes that are universal its highly unlikely that they will be encoded in the same musical language, meaning that we have two obstacles that do not allow us to hear a story and leaving us hearing noise/sound. so, essentially, everyone of us hears both: story and sound/noise. and sometimes story with much noise or noise with some story.

I don't make a distinction between sound and music. I just hear sound, some sounds I like, some I don't~ If that's called "music", though culture would disagree a washing machine is "musical" so be it.

I don't make a distinction between sound and music. I just hear sound, some sounds I like, some I don't~ If that's called "music", though culture would disagree a washing machine is "musical" so be it.

I love the rhythms of a washing machine

I think of music as a window into the human soul. I don't think of it as just a series of noises unless it was meant to be so. This, by the way, is exactly why I so respect Bach; he so perfectly combined the two. Anyway, many of the romantics are also my great favorites, especially the later ones: Sibelius, Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Elgar, Dvorak, and others are among my favorites because they have so many moments that transcend anything that can be experienced otherwise.

SCC:

You don't know much about what your talking about. Tonality is based on the harmonic series(fundamentally at least).

The harmonic series is a physical phenomena of vibrating waves. If you open any physics book and turn to its chapters on sound(or hell, even electromagnetic theory or fluid mechanics or just about anything else) you'll see some of the theory behind it.

That is, everything that vibrates, even a tunning fork, emit overtones. These have to do with the fact that a physically vibrating medium is not perfect(else it could vibrate without any overtones).

Now, different things vibrate differently but everything has overtones(to some degree or another). A drum has a somewhat more random and chaotic overtones that don't seem to have any relationship... this is what makes a drum sound like a drum(or ears do harmonic analysis and this is exactly how we know its a drum and not a guitar).

A vibrating string, like a guitar string, has a very precise relationship(more or less) between its overtones. (they approximately occur in integral multiples except when you get into the upper ones). A ideal string will vibrate with exactly integral multiples for all harmonics. This is a fundamental fact of physics and just because real strings don't behave exactly like it doesn't mean much.

The overtone series gives us the notes of our major scale. That is natural and fundamental. This is why we don't play random notes in music(this is why its called music and not noise. Noise is very complicated but music is very simple). Sure some cultures chosen to vary there derivation of the overtone series differently but they all derive it from the overtone series in some way or another. The minor mode is more of an artificial manipulation of the overtones than not.

Also, the ear itself works on overtones. If you could hear a perfect sine wave your ear will add overtones to it similar to how a string vibrates. Look up Helmholtz for more info on this. It's simply because the ear is a membrane that vibrates and is not ideal. So humans cannot escape the the harmonic series(and here I mean the one that is like that of a string) and probably why stringed instruments were the first to be used to start the "pursuit" of music. Human voices also have a very similar harmonic structure as a string.... after all your vocal chords are like strings.

So no matter what you think or what to believe, the *natural* harmonic series is fundamental to music. It is natural cause its all we know and we cannot understand it any other way. Even if we heard sound from, say, an alien culture, it would still be manipulated into this series by our ears by adding harmonics.

Its not that much of a step to see that tonality is based on the natural harmonic series. No matter what you or anyone else wants to believe, no human was ever born predisposed to atonality. The concept of hearing itself must have been developed with the natural harmonic series as its base which evolved over billions of years when "hearing" was developed.

The thing to realize is that the natural harmonic series is physical and most creatures that "hear" use them in some form or another to distinguish sounds. Its really a way to compare two sounds and is called fourier analysis. Sure some creatures may use radically different harmonic series than us to hear but we are not talking about other creatures music but our music... which is basic on what we call the "natural" harmonic series which is really the physics of an ideal vibrating string. Tonality is basic on it.

Other cultures that do not have our type of tonality derived different relationships than we did for whatever reason but it's a fact that western music has a more sophisticated development of this. This does not necessarily mean the other cultures music is more inferior and does not mean all of CPP tonality is completely derived from relationships on the harmonic series. The minor mode is probably an example of this as its probably more artificial than not(although it can be derived from the natural harmonic series too it seems that it originally did not come about that way).

----------

About the original question: Obviously sound itself cannot in any way generate imagery and when it does is just a human thing. Play a symphony to a rock and it means nothing.

The point is that some humans might associate sounds with imagery for whatever reason and others don't. Some might associate emotions with sound. Some people associate emotions with imagery. Humans rely much more on sight than sound. Would you rather be blind or deaf? (if your a musician of course you might not care about being blind but take the rationality out of it)

The part of the brain that deals with imagery and visual concepts is much more developed than that which deals with sound... although both are extremely developed at there most basic level. Here what I mean is more of how we use them in our conscious than our subconscious(which they are probably on par with each other).

In our culture sound is subservant to sight. So its no wonder that many people will try to turn music into a visual thing. I personally think that is wrong because it's not what music is about. To me music is about connecting directly to that "module" in our brains that deals with sound and tries to understand it instead of passing it on to the visual part.

Obviously that music is ultimate for the emotional part of the brain. I guess it doesn't really matter how it gets there but probably the shortest path possible is the right one.

JonSlaughter: One fundamental mistake you seem to be making is to take the relationship tonality has to natural principles such as the harmonic series as it's defining characteristic. Yes, our tone system has to do with the harmonic series, as have the tone systems of other cultures. Culture always is, at some point, derived from nature. This doesn't mean however that it is natural. The actual core of cultural development is the gradual change of natural phenomenons towards something clearer, more defined, more "sophisticated", more directed. It is rather irrelevant that the major scale has something in common with the harmonic series, as exactly the elements that truly give common practice tonality its unique characteristic are the ones that aren't natural: Harmonic gravity, leading tones, a mobile bass and being able to modulate and transpose (natural harmonics always sit firmly on their base), polyphonic structures, divisive rhythms, equal temperament, and so on.

You mentioned different degrees of "sophistication", but actually it's exactly "sophistication" that moves music away from natural phenomenons. A piano is a lot more sophisticated and a lot more typical of our musical tradition than an alphorn, but it is the alphorn that produces the harmonic series, whereas a modern piano carries in itself centuries of "bending nature to the will of humans", resulting in a system 12 tones per octave with exactly the same distance, and the same number of tones per octave in every register (which is -very- unlike the harmonic series).

I'll admit that in our "western music culture" it has been a typical trend to develop instruments that strive for a very "clean" overtone series, that comes close to the mathematical optimum, unlike, say, gamelan music, which is dominated by instruments that have very unharmonic spectra (such as gongs). But this again is not actually a development in the direction of "nature", but away from it: Instead of leaving the instruments in their more natural form, i.e. with slightly unharmonic spectra, we bend them towards a mathematical formula, which we declare as our cultural ideal.

And your comparison with other cultures is only very vaguely accurate anyways. We can't really summarise which one is the most "sophisticated" or the most "natural", since they all have different aspects which may be either more or less developed. Common practice rhythm is rather crude, and the focus on creating instruments that come close to the theoretical harmonic series seems a bit one-dimensional, gamelan music is way ahead in this respect.

And also on the side of "naturality", there are certainly many cultures that come much closer to that. Even the very sophisticated Indian music culture is with its steady bass in a sense much more natural than CPP harmony (and yet again has other aspects which are less natural, and more sophisticated, than our music).

Or to summarize everything I said: Sophistication isn't naturality.

I don't make a distinction between sound and music. I just hear sound, some sounds I like, some I don't~ If that's called "music", though culture would disagree a washing machine is "musical" so be it.

I understand what you mean very well and I certainly can hear a washing machine as musical too, but for me there's still a slight difference whether I listen to something "merely" as a sound, or as music. I think I would explode if I heard -every- noise around me as music, it would simply be too much. I can hear a washing mashine just as sound or as music, all depending on the circumstances and in the end on how I -want- to hear it. Generally I consider sound which I don't listen to consciously simply as sound, even if it's a Mozart symphony. The same goes for sound I -do- listen to consciously, but for a pragmatic reason that has nothing to do with how it actually sounds, such as listening to someone talking to me. The moment I actually listen to how it sounds and hear it with a "musical disposition" however, it becomes music, be it speech or a washing machine.

Of course, the more often you listen to how a washing machine actually sounds, the more this "musical listening" will start to happen without intention. But I certainly don't hear like that all the time.

For me, sound becomes music when someone decides certain sound should occur here and there. Even if those sounds occur naturally at those intervals, when a guy says, hey wait, let me get this recorded or let me get other people to notice these sounds, that's music.

But the question was: "Do you hear noise or a story".

A story is more about imagery or visual than sound. If I say "Do you hear the military band marching" you first think of a military band then you connect the sound to it and not the other way around.

If you hear some "noise" then think "Oh, that sounds like a marching band" then you are trying to associate two "sounds"(well, memories).

But if the "noise" moves you emotionally without rationalizing it(something like "Oh thats interesting that he used a series of dim7th chords resolving to the subdom of the neapolitian") then it is music. Sure music has been intellectualized and theres definitely nothing wrong with that(and actually it is a good thing as it lets one understand how music works) but ultimately it is for the emotional side and the part that deals with hearing music and not seeing it. (Although to each his own, this is how I feel music should be but I could be wrong)

Although, maybe the part of the brain that processes imagery also works on sound so there is a connection?

For me, I just like music that I like. Those sounds that make me like it are the ones I like. I cannot explain why and I do not associate those sounds with anything. It just does what it does and if it doesn't then I don't like it. (sure I might associate sound with imagery as we all do but music is about music(unless its program music/imagery music but even that is stretching it)).

Of course, the more often you listen to how a washing machine actually sounds, the more this "musical listening" will start to happen without intention.

And the better your ear will be when listening to the music you're writing, performing etc.

But if the "noise" moves you emotionally without rationalizing it then it is music.

What if it makes me want to rationalize it, without emotional involvement? What if it moves my friend, but makes me want to burn out my ear drums? What if 99% of the world calls it noise, and the other 1% become a 'cult' based around concepts found in the piece?

All of these things have happened, in a manner of speaking. And they've happened to works you would call music.

Example: Get a recording of Schoenberg's 5 pieces for orchestra. Collect three groups of people: A group of 'street thugs', a group of 50 year old grandmothers, and a group of Music Majors. Play the music for them. Record their responses. You'll generally find the only a small part of the Students call it music. The rest of that group, and the entire other two groups will call it crap.

Yet Schoenberg is considered a Musical Genius, and called so rightly. He was a genius.

Then why do we get these results? Is it because a group of gang bangers and old ladies don't have the unintellectual capacity and musical knowledge to appreciate Schoenberg? You could argue yes until you're blue in the face, and to be honest I'd want to be on your side, but we'd both be wrong.

The fact is that most people have been culturally trained to think of "in" music as the only "Music". We're all enrolled in a class. It's called Life.

The experiences we have teach us how to think, act, and what to believe. That applies to our musical lives as well.

Whatever we learn to call Music, be it from others, or from personal experience: Is Music.[/i]

You fail to separate the various "types" of music. There is intellectually composed music that really has very little to do with what most people think music is. Atonal music is largely part of this as is a lot of baroque such as by Bach. (none the less it doesn't mean it can't sound good or that it isn't music. Bach was a genius at combining intellectual music with emotional music)

But also you are forgetting that music is not absolute. What is music to me is not necessarily music to you. Some people might find farting sounds a wondering musical experience while most people do not. But when we speak of music we do so for the "average person", "average musician", or "average student" or maybe even "average genius composer". It depends on context and what one is trying to discuss.

The problem with most musicians and composers is that has the become more understandable of music they intellectualize it.... some overdo it way to much believing that it must be music because it is sound. Of course this is not science so it doesn't hurt anyone if they get it wrong... and ultimately it might be worth it because they might get it right.

Music started as a purely emotional thing. As people tried to understand it they intellectualized it. They tried to "distill" the emotional aspect as to make it stronger. There is nothing wrong with that... just some people loose sight of it. Although, again, ultimately maybe thats not a bad thing but I just feel that sometimes people are too willing to call anything music.

Again, its hard because music is a personal thing... so if only 1 person in the world says it's music and the rest says it isn't does it mean its music?

I say let that one person call it what he wants but use what the rest say. If everyone says its not music is it not music?

You assume that there is an uniform "rest" of people. How many people are needed to determine what "we should call music" then? For many people even Stravinsky is just noise. For many people Rap is not music. And not too long ago Jazz wasn't considered actual music by large parts of the "civilized middle classes". And I'm sure a lot of people would call original Flamenco singing just noise, which sounds a lot more like arab muezzin calls with a coarse voice than what we commonly call "singing".

All of this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of emotion, or intellectualisation. It is merely a question of what one is used to and what one is willing to accept and listen to.

It's impossible to "use what the rest say", as there is no "rest". There are larger groups, smaller groups, and groups maybe consisting of a single person. And even within these groups there is a lot of ambiguity.

Personally I have no problem with people "too willing to call anything music". I find it much preferable to people who only call music what they've listened to all their lives and disregard everything else.

You fail to separate the various "types" of music.

In the context of the question: "What is Music/What does Music mean to you?" There is only one kind of Music: The kind you listen to.

But also you are forgetting that music is not absolute. What is music to me is not necessarily music to you. Some people might find farting sounds a wondering musical experience while most people do not. But when we speak of music we do so for the "average person", "average musician", or "average student" or maybe even "average genius composer". It depends on context and what one is trying to discuss.

Actually that is very close to the end point of my argument.

Music is what ever 'you' listen to as music. Regardless of whether you are discussing the average person, or you in particular.

Music is what everyone calls music, regardless of their agreement.

In fact, it's that very disagreement that allows the definition of 'what music is', to develop and grow, leading to new music, the defeat of creative stagnation, and breakthroughs into new musical territory.

The problem with most musicians and composers is that has the become more understandable of music they intellectualize it.... some overdo it way to much believing that it must be music because it is sound. Of course this is not science so it doesn't hurt anyone if they get it wrong... and ultimately it might be worth it because they might get it right.

According to what we just said, regardless of composers over intellectualizing, or not even thinking about it, they are right. Always.

Music started as a purely emotional thing. As people tried to understand it they intellectualized it. They tried to "distill" the emotional aspect as to make it stronger. There is nothing wrong with that... just some people lose sight of it. Although, again, ultimately maybe thats not a bad thing but I just feel that sometimes people are too willing to call anything music.

History doesn't say why people began making music, and I'd be willing to bet most people alive today wouldn't call Og's 'Concerto for Hollow Log', music... but it would be. Obviously Og thought it was music.

People should be willing to call anything music. As long as they are willing to listen to it as such.

Again, its hard because music is a personal thing... so if only 1 person in the world says it's music and the rest says it isn't does it mean its music?

I say let that one person call it what he wants but use what the rest say. If everyone says its not music is it not music?

Yes, to that one person, and that's all we need.

If everyone says 'it's not music', it isn't music.

Why?

Because no one is listening to it as music.

As long as someone somewhere listens to something as music, and therefore defines it as such, it is music. If you don't agree with that someone, and do not define it as music, that does not invalidate it as such. It just means you aren't listening to it as music. If no one is listening to it as music, then no one is defining it as music, and it isn't music.

I would honestly think of music as sounds meant to be aesthetically or intellectually pleasing to whomever it pleases... tentatively, that is, please correct me if you feel differently.

Although, maybe the part of the brain that processes imagery also works on sound so there is a connection?

With some tone poems (R. Strauss and Sibelius, for example), the composer does make use of musical effects to induce an image, for example the grand climax of Sibelius' Tapiola (in which upper-register tremolo strings play fortissimo as the brass blare out the (somewhat modified) main theme; a storm) or the end of Strauss' Till Eulenspiegel, in which the title character seems to be joking with the executioner. At least with Tapiola, though, one doesn't need program notes, and that, I think, is the whole point of this discussion...

@rwgriffith: I completely disagree. If you allow music to be defined by one person then that person can call what ever he wants music and by your logic it must be. Because we don't know really know if that person hears it as music or is just lying it doesn't make it right. If someone said the moon was made of cheese we must believe them even if all the scientists said it wasn't? If someone said they say fairies then we must believe them?

That means, any composer must be able to create music because they themselfs can just call it music. I could just down random notes on a page and say its music and sell it at the music store(end inevitably someone will buy it).

Since music is composed for others and not for oneself it is up to those others to judge it for better or worse. I know a lot of composers just want there listeners do have orgasmic reactions to there "music" no matter what they right even if it is just a bunch of random notes. But this is not what music is about or at least the way it came about.

If you leave it up to one person to decide what is music the its all inclusive and you'll end up with everything being called music just cause there is some retard that is deaf and got confused what the word music is. He'll call a flashlight sitting on a desk "music" and by your logic it must be music. Music of what? Music of the cosmos? Music of the atom? music of intermingling of plastics and metal? Music of the human genius? That stuff isn't music because music requires sound! But what is sound? Its just vibrations of atoms! So a nuclear bomb is music as is someone jerking off and everything else in life.... hence music is everything! But whats the point then?

Violist: haha, I doubt that. I doubt that you would know the imagery going on in those poems if you didn't read or wasn't told before hand at some point. Sure you might guess in some cases and be right but music is abstract and can't convey imagery very well. In fact its pretty bad at it. Act 100 people what some musical sound byte means and you'll get 88 completely different answers.

Sure if you listen to some composer a lot and learn his methods and sounds he uses for certain imaginary you might get pretty good at figuring it out for those pieces you did not hear before but thats not a musical thing. Thats just your brain doing what it does best. If it was the case that music could express ideas and such very clearly then very few people would get it wrong.

If I say "Look at the red balloon floating away" then you understand exactly what I mean. If I compose some music that I think means the same think then chances are no one will have a clue and get it "right". (which, in reality is the allure of music for most people... you can read into it what you want/feel)

The point being, is that any pure logical creature would not need music. It is an emotional invention of humans. Bird song is not music but calls. We hear it as music because, after all, we are humans. Now maybe birds hear it as music too and then it would be music, atleast, for us and them. But it most likely wouldn't be music to a rock or a bee and chances are these creatures do not have music because they don't have emotions(AFAWK).

To some degree I do understand where you come from with your distinction between "hearing something as music" and something actually "being music". Yes, bird song never was intended as music, lacks any objective criteria that make it music, yet we can very well hear it as music. But you are too fixated on the idea that there must by an "objective" distinction between music and non-music, without naming any clear criterion between the two (or is it that it was written with emotion? In which case we quickly will get stuck on questions such as "do birds have emotions").

You keep saying one person is not enough to define if something is music. But how many -are- enough? What is a sufficient reason for something to become music?

The point is not that if somebody thinks something is music then it objectively becomes music for everyone. No, only for her or himself. One person may call something music, and it actually -becomes- music for her or him, but it can still non-music for me. The whole point is that's it's merely subjective, which distinguishes it from your "moon made of cheese" example, which we most would agree on is a question on an objective fact.

Or would you also try to find objective criteria for beauty?

I do not per se have any problems with trying to find an objective criterion for what music is (even though I personally don't think it exists). But you haven't really named any. You seem to be switching between defining something as music which a lot of people regard as music (which would make it a statistical criterion, but not objective), and its origin in emotions. But how do you objectively verify whether something was created with emotion? And is it even possible to do -anything- without emotions?

You can very well put a flashlight on your desk with emotion, would that make you call it music?

Or to summarize: If you disagree with a subjective definition of music, what exactly is your definition of music?

@rwgriffith: I completely disagree. If you allow music to be defined by one person then that person can call what ever he wants music and by your logic it must be. Because we don't know really know if that person hears it as music or is just lying it doesn't make it right. If someone said the moon was made of cheese we must believe them even if all the scientists said it wasn't? If someone said they say fairies then we must believe them?

You're forgetting something very important. We do allow one person to define music. That one person is each and every individual on this planet.

That means, any composer must be able to create music because they themselvs can just call it music. I could just down random notes on a page and say its music and sell it at the music store(end inevitably someone will buy it).

And in fact that exact scenario has already happened. Not only do people buy it, but it is considered a large part of recent musical developments. It's called Indeterminism.

Since music is composed for others and not for oneself it is up to those others to judge it for better or worse. I know a lot of composers just want there listeners do have orgasmic reactions to there "music" no matter what they right even if it is just a bunch of random notes. But this is not what music is about or at least the way it came about.

If you leave it up to one person to decide what is music the its all inclusive and you'll end up with everything being called music just cause there is some retard that is deaf and got confused what the word music is. He'll call a flashlight sitting on a desk "music" and by your logic it must be music. Music of what? Music of the cosmos? Music of the atom? music of intermingling of plastics and metal? Music of the human genius? That stuff isn't music because music requires sound! But what is sound? Its just vibrations of atoms! So a nuclear bomb is music as is someone jerking off and everything else in life.... hence music is everything! But whats the point then?

What's the difference between banging a pencil on a cardboard box, and playing a drum? The fact that a 'musical instrument' company made you pay $300 for the drum and I got the box out of a dumpster. They both make sounds...

And a flashlight on a desk would be music in that scenario. Just as blending carrots and tomatoes and drinking the juice as in Cage's 0'0" (Any 'life' action would do.) And you're right, a nuclear bomb going off and the sounds produced by jerking off have both been featured in pieces of music.

Music is not everything. Everything is Music. If you listen to it as such. If you don't, but say you do, you're only lying to yourself. The rest of us don't listen and define music the same way you do anyway.

The point? Listening is the point.

It is an emotional invention of humans. Bird song is not music but calls. We hear it as music because, after all, we are humans. Now maybe birds hear it as music too and then it would be music, atleast, for us and them. But it most likely wouldn't be music to a rock or a bee and chances are these creatures do not have music because they don't have emotions(AFAWK).

#1 As I said before, no one knows how Music began. In fact, it has been hypothesized that Early Man created music by imitating animal calls. In that regard, how is birdsong not music? It very well could be where music came from!

And what is to be done about Messiaen, and his 'musical interpretations' of birdsong???

#2 The majority of animals do have emotions, and emotional response patterns. They do not have the range of human emotions, but chimps come really damned close.

#3 There is plenty of music that has nothing to do with emotions. There is plenty of Music that is deliberately nothing but a 'bunch of sounds'.

But still, the point is in telling a story, not necessarily in conveying imagery. The story doesn't have to be totally fleshed out with razor-sharp images and colors and such (unless, of course, you're synesthetic...). I doubt many people would listen to the ending of Mahler's sixth and say, "Oh, it obviously ends happily!" as the rhythm of fate thunders over an a minor chord... Many would probably say (if indeed they think it's a story at all; not entirely necessary) that it ends with the abstract "protagonist's" death.

This is, after all, only thoughts and passing opinions on my part. Sometimes I agree, sometimes not. I'm young, I have an excuse!

I think I would explode if I heard -every- noise around me as music, it would simply be too much.

That's why you're not a HARDCORE composer! ... ... ... Well, the only moments I don't treat all I'm hearing as "Music" is when I'm... not really treating them as music. I don't have an on-off switch really. It just... uh, happens. I can be in the middle of an animated conversation with someone about bowling balls and suddenly become fixated on some car noise or something and inspire me to write music (hours later, if I could only stop talking about goddamn bowling balls!)

Technically, I think I'm quite capable of spending days thinking all I'm listening to is music. I think I have, actually. Without the aid of any substances. Except candy. The regular type. Not an euphemism for something potentially illegal.

And:

@rwgriffith: I completely disagree. If you allow music to be defined by one person then that person can call what ever he wants music and by your logic it must be. Because we don't know really know if that person hears it as music or is just lying it doesn't make it right. If someone said the moon was made of cheese we must believe them even if all the scientists said it wasn't? If someone said they say fairies then we must believe them?

Because the BEST THING TO DO when talking about ART is compare it to SCIENCE. I mean, can't go wrong there! It's not like ART is subjective or anything.

Hey wait a minute...!

Thankfully I've been busy and haven't seen all this crap about the over-tone sequence. Didn't I already tear holes in that theory pages back? Rwgriffith (hi, I have NO IDEA who you are but you say things that are cool) and Gardener to the rescue tho, much appreciated.