What is true originality (later, what music IS)

As a side note: he has a valid point, though it's not language that brings the number ten into existence.

It sounds more like his ragument was that we can't conceptualise the quantity ten (or any other quantity, for that matter) unless we have means to describe it.

For example:

pre-concept of ten 'I have fingers'

post-concept of ten 'I have fingers and there are ten of them'

pre-concept of numbers 'my clan need food, so I'll hunt some deer'

post-concept of numbers 'my clan need food, so I'll hunt two deer'

Not that I'm saying I neccessarily agree with the argument: though it does have some thread of sense.

The guy I was talking to literally meant that the very CONCEPT of ten does not exist (even OUTSIDE our minds) until it appears in language. He does not accept the idea that we OBSERVE we have 10 fingers; he apparently believes our perception and language have decided how many fingers we have. ::laughs:: What a moron. Thank God my sister dumped that dweeb and married a man who has his feet firmly grounded in reality.

How can you prove that 10 exists without language? How can you imagine what it is like to be a human without language? We would probably have to turn here to experiments performed on some poor chap with brain damage incapacitating language. But I don't know of any. Any cognitive scientists?

I have done a small amount of research into matters relating to psychology and particularly cognition. This was a while ago, though, but I still remember some basic principles:

One important one is that the brain, in the cognitive process, will readily group or order multiple objects but will not so readily quantise them. Language, as you have pointed out many times, is all about labels. We have to label things in order to understand them. Would you understand what is and isn't music without terminology to express your opinions? One way to investigate this is to observe how you think. Do you talk to yourself in your head or do you just non-communicatively 'think'? The latter is not how our brains work. You feel hungry, so you say to yourself 'I'm hungry'. 'I think I'll have a piece of toast'. Of course, there are some involuntary things that we do that requires little or no thinking. It's the same with muscles: the heart is involuntary and we don't need to think about it. Any reaction to an outside event, however, does need thinking about (however quick it is). Braking in a car for a person that's walked out infront of you does need you to think about it: which is why there's a time allocated in the emergency braking time for 'thinking'.

Pub's opening in a few minutes... must go!

The quality of our thoughts are only as good as the quality of our words. David makes a good point.

Even when you shout at the man and thrust 10 fingers in his face, your gesture is a form of language.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the guy, but I find your simple "what a moron" attitude unhelpful, and indeed far more moronic. How does this persuade anyone? How does this persuade him? What, exactly, is the point in saying this, other than to make you look macho?

I'll have to admit, calling that particular guy a moron is mainly for personal reasons. I'm sure there are nice relativists/weirdos out there, but this guy was *insert germanic expletive here*. He treated my sister like *insert germanic expletive here*. As a result, I despise the man.

Still, that doesn't exactly help to strengthen your point. Try to refrain adding personal attacks in your arguments. But actually your "friend"'s point can't actually be disproven, since it is one of the two major schools of thought on the nature of human language. Specifically, the "Linguistic" approach - which says that says one is only able to have meaningful thoughts because he or she has learned a language to frame those thoughts in (as opposed to simply existing because the speaking/writer/signlar has extension to express that meaning - after all, we can't communicate telepathically :)). Both sides have good points, but neither which can significantly uproots the other, so it can't really be proven either way.

It's not the language itself. Is is the way we think. Language symbolisis the way we thing.

Some people never learn any language because if they don't before the age of 13 they generally will not be able to learn any language afterwards. Does that mean these people can't think? Can't experience a number 10?

No, every human thinks in human 'grammar'. All language is based on this 'human grammar'.

Also, I think the guy missed the point when he picked the word '10'. Because 10 is pretty clear. Something like the concept of 'water' or 'river' is very complex. The way we think of 'water' or 'river' only exists in our brain. The number 10 is very straightforward and clear, so the same thing doesn't apply to that.

We don't think of water as H2O, since water isn't ice. When H2O is absorbed by rice or something we don't say that we are eating water and rice. When we have a cup of tea we basicly only have H2O. But we call it tea nonetheless. If we order tea in a restaurant we don't expect to get a cup of water, these things are different. Etc.

Lets take the river. What is this? You can look in the english dictionary and you will find it. Very helpful, only if you already know what a river is but don't know what it is in english.

Lets look at what makes a river a river and lets take the Rheine. Is it the individual molecules? No, because there are more than one rivers and each is made out of their own individual molecules. Is it the position that makes it what it is? No, if we change it's course it is still the same river, under some conditions. If it goes to a lake instead of the sea it will still be the same river. If we dump so much chemical waste in the river so there is no longer any H2O in it it would still be the same river, the river Rheine What if we reversed the flow?

But this doesn't mean that the object we call the Rheine doesn't exist. Surely it does exist. But if we were to describe it the way it exists we would have a list of all the particles that make up the Rheine plus the position in space-time of every particle. And then we still have problems, where does it stop?

The number ten has this in some respect. Surely if we have 10 objects in some sense we also have 10. But why not 1 x 10 or 2 x5? Or 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1.

But all this doesn't mean that 10 for one can be 9 for someone else, even if we chance the names of the same concepts. For river and water this is possible in some sense. We cannot disagree about what 10 is? We can disagree about what makes a river or what water really is.

I'd like to join the discussion, but can someone summarize where we're standing now? :D

That's probably not all that easy. If you skim the majority of the posts you will get the general idea. However, the debate spans far too many opinions and ideas that to summarise them would take someone about as much time to write a summary as it would you to read it all!

It also makes a slightly amusing read, which you probably wouldn't have in a summary.

Here's a brief synopsis of the entire thread:

1) What is true originality? Is it devising some sort of revolutionary harmonic scheme? Is it saying that "music" can mean total silence or noise? Or is it in fact a recognition that the sounds we use are part of an unchanging, physical universe and true originality must lie in craftsmanship and uniquely personal fingerprints (musical ones)? At this point the conversation turned into:

2) Can Cage's 4' 33" be said to be music? What, indeed, IS music?

In parts I bring up the fact that Rachmaninov is not so much as mentioned in a survey textbook of Western Music History and how this is an indication of hypocrisy on the part of authors who no doubt believe in the doctrine of "inclusion."

I have very strong opinions about this and some of my posts were intended to be humorous. I received some not so humorous replies to these. Have fun, and tell us what you think!

It's not the language itself. Is is the way we think. Language symbolisis the way we thing.

Some people never learn any language because if they don't before the age of 13 they generally will not be able to learn any language afterwards. Does that mean these people can't think? Can't experience a number 10?

No, every human thinks in human 'grammar'. All language is based on this 'human grammar'.

Also, I think the guy missed the point when he picked the word '10'. Because 10 is pretty clear. Something like the concept of 'water' or 'river' is very complex. The way we think of 'water' or 'river' only exists in our brain. The number 10 is very straightforward and clear, so the same thing doesn't apply to that.

We don't think of water as H2O, since water isn't ice. When H2O is absorbed by rice or something we don't say that we are eating water and rice. When we have a cup of tea we basicly only have H2O. But we call it tea nonetheless. If we order tea in a restaurant we don't expect to get a cup of water, these things are different. Etc.

Lets take the river. What is this? You can look in the english dictionary and you will find it. Very helpful, only if you already know what a river is but don't know what it is in english.

Lets look at what makes a river a river and lets take the Rheine. Is it the individual molecules? No, because there are more than one rivers and each is made out of their own individual molecules. Is it the position that makes it what it is? No, if we change it's course it is still the same river, under some conditions. If it goes to a lake instead of the sea it will still be the same river.

I agree that we can't give a universal meaning to music... and if we can't... maybe we shouldn't assume we are right.... we could make a BIIIIIIIG mistake.

You are talking about something different. It is going to take some time before you can learn someone who knows 'nothing' what '10' is. You call this concept language, I don't because I don't think it is per se. But the fact that learning something what language is without the use of other concepts is hard doesn't mean that '10' is pretty clear.

I was just saying that while the concept of some things are highly complex while we experience them as every day common sense stuff, other definitions are relatively clear or even universal to some extent.

The guy Derek is talking about probably talked about the human experience of 'ten' rather than the mathematical concept of 10. I am not sure if he was aware of the difference.

As far as I know every human is born with the knowledge of human language. They just need to activate it and then learn the paticulary way their culture uses the language.

You are talking about something different. It is going to take some time before you can learn someone who knows 'nothing' what '10' is. You call this concept language, I don't because I don't think it is per se. But the fact that learning something what language is without the use of other concepts is hard doesn't mean that '10' is pretty clear.

I was just saying that while the concept of some things are highly complex while we experience them as every day common sense stuff, other definitions are relatively clear

Heh, I think you actually managed to tie those two topics with that last post (sorta, anyways :D). Geoff appears to be of the notion that perception is everything - what we cannot experience in anyway simply cannot exist - which, as absurd as it may sound, really can't be disproven, either; there really isn't anyway to verify the existance of something without first experiencing it - example in point, how can a blind and deaf man (at birth), whose perceptions of the world are quite slim, be able to understand such a concept as say, "millions". Perhaps he can get a understand of small numbers by feeling numerous distinguishable objects, but in his world, numbers more that what he can feel simply does not exist. What is not perceived does not exist.

Public language is used to reach a consensus between individual perceptions - to verify them. Also, many people argue that private languages cannot exist, that perceptions of our (perhaps accidental, in the cases of the first few men) utterances and signs ultimately shape our mind into the generally accepted state that is is now. Of course, this really can't be verified one way or another, until technology advances enough, and our morals soften up a bit for the sake of knowledge ;).

However, I still don't understand why you insist that music is an

universal constant - ultimately, it is a man-made definition, sufferable from the wild variations that is man himself. If by some freak occorance in the distant future our ears and minds end up evolve, and sounds such as "nails on chalkboard" causes immense pleasure, while "stable" sounds such as diatonic triads creates droning headaches, would music still be what it is now? Short of God coming down to earth himself and dictating what music really is (and even then, there will probably be dissenters ;)), it simply cannot be just "is".

However, I still don't understand why you insist that music is an

universal constant - ultimately, it is a man-made definition, sufferable from the wild variations that is man himself. If by some freak occorance in the distant future our ears and minds end up evolve, and sounds such as "nails on chalkboard" causes immense pleasure, while "stable" sounds such as diatonic triads creates droning headaches, would music still be what it is now? Short of God coming down to earth himself and dictating what music really is (and even then, there will probably be dissenters :D), it simply cannot be just "is".

Yes. At this point in the conversation, everything is speculative. If human nature becomes drastically different in some distant point in the future, perhaps we will, as you imply, lose the ability to hear pleasant intervals and rhythms that make sense to our ears. I can't predict that this will happen, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Even if human nature were to deteriorate to that level, music would still be as it is now, we just wouldn't be able to hear it or make it. Wouldn't that be sad? What you're suggesting would be somewhat akin to our eyes becoming such that they could only see in black and white.

You see, I actually believe music is as real as mathematics. It is not something that can be derived logically, but it has a similar aspect to it in that it was already a part of the universe, it was not something we created.

"I don't believe in Art. In that sense, I am not an artist. I believe in Music to the extent that it was here before we were. In that sense, perhaps I'm not a musician. - Keith Jarrett

Yes. At this point in the conversation, everything is speculative. If human nature becomes drastically different in some distant point in the future, perhaps we will, as you imply, lose the ability to hear pleasant intervals and rhythms that make sense to our ears. I can't predict that this will happen, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Even if human nature were to deteriorate to that level, music would still be as it is now, we just wouldn't be able to hear it or make it. Wouldn't that be sad? What you're suggesting would be somewhat akin to our eyes becoming such that they could only see in black and white.

You see, I actually believe music is as real as mathematics. It is not something that can be derived logically, but it has a similar aspect to it in that it was already a part of the universe, it was not something we created.

"I don't believe in Art. In that sense, I am not an artist. I believe in Music to the extent that it was here before we were. In that sense, perhaps I'm not a musician. - Keith Jarrett

And it will probably be sad for us that the music we were used to is no more, but new concepts will appear as crazy as they may sound to us (or not understandable) These music changes are often infuenced by the times we live in. If Bach rose from the grave and heard stravinsky's music influenced by the bloody 20th century, don't you think he would kill himself on the spot?

So, if music is not something we created then we can't explain it either.

And it will probably be sad for us that the music we were used to is no more, but new concepts will appear as crazy as they may sound to us (or not understandable) These music changes are often infuenced by the times we live in. If Bach rose from the grave and heard stravinsky's music influenced by the bloody 20th century, don't you think he would kill himself on the spot?

No, I don't think he would. Bach loved incredibly complex, clashing, thick harmonies (not often, but some of his larger organ works suggest that he liked it and found it fascinating). I think he would have loved stravinsky.

And yes I'm aware bach didn't deliberately use polytonality or anything like that, but some of his more chromatic fugue subjects did some pretty weird things.

No, I don't think he would. Bach loved incredibly complex, clashing, thick harmonies (not often, but some of his larger organ works suggest that he liked it and found it fascinating). I think he would have loved stravinsky.

And yes I'm aware bach didn't deliberately use polytonality or anything like that, but some of his more chromatic fugue subjects did some pretty weird things.

But now i was reading about John Cage's 4'33 in a musical encyclopedia, a it is thought that he wrote it after a study of zen culture. He wanted people to focus on what they hear even though it may not come from human minds. Maybe i should do a little more study on zen budism before saying something.

Yeah, but i think he might have use chromatics just to add to virtuosity of the piece.

But now i was reading about John Cage's 4'33 in a musical encyclopedia, a it is thought that he wrote it after a study of zen culture. He wanted people to focus on what they hear even though it may not come from human minds. Maybe i should do a little more study on zen budism before saying something.

You really think Bach added chromatic notes just for virtuosity? This is of course a matter of opinion, but I really doubt that is the case. Chromatic scales have a very strong and fascinating musical effect, Bach no doubt liked it so much that he used it in his own compositions.

Anyway, thats great Cage studied Zen Buddhism. Good for him! But that doesn't mean four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence is music! ;) Might as well call it:

"INSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR MEDITATING FOR 4' 33" : JUST DO IT ...JEEZ."

Here's another synopsis of this thread for those who are now joining us:

What is true originality?

Some believe it has to do with revolutionary new harmonic schemes.

Others believe it has to do with craftsmanship and the absorption of as many styles as possible.

Where do you stand?

and this eventually led us to:

What is music? Is total silence music? Is random noise?

Some believe that anything can be music. If a composer says it is music, then it is music.

Others believe that music is a distinct category of sound, that of sound deliberately organized by the human mind for the purpose of entertainment of some kind, but which is distinct from speech because it can stand alone from speech.

Where do you stand?

Here's another synopsis of this thread for those who are now joining us:

What is true originality?

Some believe it has to do with revolutionary new harmonic schemes.

Others believe it has to do with craftsmanship and the absorption of as many styles as possible.

Where do you stand?

and this eventually led us to:

What is music? Is total silence music? Is random noise?

Some believe that anything can be music. If a composer says it is music, then it is music.

Others believe that music is a distinct category of sound, that of sound deliberately organized by the human mind for the purpose of entertainment of some kind, but which is distinct from speech because it can stand alone from speech.

Where do you stand?

But an idea came to my head recently... can talking said to be music? A dialogue or a monologue... or maybe a speech? It is a set a sounds created and organized by a human, in purpose of entertament, pleasure, or a thought sharing. Just like music!!!

Note: no i'm not a raper...

About John Cage - Here is a quote from that encyclopedia:

"Resistant to anything that smacked of goal-directedness, in 1952 john Cage produced 4'33'', a piece of four minutes and 33 seconds of silence during which the audience is invited to listen to enviormental sounds or contribute some noises of its own."

Sure, why not? One piece that comes in mind is Steve Reich's Different Trains, where he overlays the voices with very close approximations of their tone in equal temperment - speech melodies, he calls them. He also believes that the development of a culture's language is closely tied with their music (ie, the classic Italian bel canto voice was a natural consequence of the language, Chinese (and asian) music in general tends to be strongly melodic due to the many distinct accents that serves as a mechanism in the language, etc).