What is true originality (later, what music IS)

Seems to me we reached the top of the discussion, since the only queston that remains is: 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."

Speech cannot be said to be music because it is distinct from it. That is to say, there is a difference between a song read aloud, and a song sung with the melody and with the instrumental accompaniment. Since there is a clear distinction, it cannot be said that speech alone can be music. Speech can accompany music, but speech all by itself is not music.

This thread is fast becoming embarassing. Imagine all the normal people reading our thread and thinking how insane we are for having any trouble at all understanding what music is.

Speech cannot be said to be music because it is distinct from it. That is to say, there is a difference between a song read aloud, and a song sung with the melody and with the instrumental accompaniment. Since there is a clear distinction, it cannot be said that speech alone can be music. Speech can accompany music, but speech all by itself is not music.

This thread is fast becoming embarassing. Imagine all the normal people reading our thread and thinking how insane we are for having any trouble at all understanding what music is.

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

Why would it need any proof? This is like saying that a tree that falls down in the forest doesn't make any 'sound' because there is no one to hear it. There is nothing special about us humans. The universe will go on the same way without us. You will notice that people who claim that the tree doesn't make sound define 'sound' not as vibrations in air but as a human experience, whenether they realise it or not.

Science has taught us that there is no special case or point of view. It's stupid that these 'relativists' fail to understand relativity. There is nothing special about the huma n perspective. It's not the human perspective that makes the universe what it is.

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".

Just as we can. There are ways to get around this handicap. I don't see what the point of this is. Humans need communication, social interaction, language, yes they need it. They are supposed to have it. It is what a human is, a social animal using language for communication.

but in his world, numbers more that what he can feel simply does not exist. What is not perceived does not exist.

Did you ever experience a million? No. Nether did I. Our concept of a 'million' is just as abstract as the one of the guy thats blind and deaf.

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

universal constant

Music is partly an universal constant because it is goverened by the universal rules of physics.

ultimately, it is a man-made definition,

Every man made definition is a man made definition, obviously. What do you mean?

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?

No. But this is stupid. It's not some pure coincidence that we like stable sounds. It's not just a matter of changing '0' into '1' and we prefer chalkboard sounds over constants. It is very questionable if that what you propose is even possible. Humans evolved in a world with these particular rules of physics. Thus the brain adapted to these rules. It is because of these rules that the brain liked what it does.

It will be impossible to like nails on a chalkboard as music. It is not an organisation. A constant triad is. You can try and reprogram a brain to ignore organisation and the laws of physics and just create enjoyment when a particular sound is heard. But this is extremely superficial and is in no way comparible with the musical experience humans now have.

When people claim that music is universal enough not to be totally relative this comes from music being the result of three things.

Firstly, the laws that govern sounds.

Secondly, the way the typical human brain percieves sounds, and processes them because it may be language, thus resulting in both spoken language and music being analysed and organised.

Thirdly, the cultural basis, experience.

So the first will be universal to all the places where the rules of the universe hold, which is as far as we know everywhere (in this universe).

The second point will be, with marginal differences, be universal to all humans, excluding those with major neurological disorders, which are rare.

It is very hard to tell if the first or second point is more important. It is impossible to know if an alien culture can develop music, if they even do which is unlikely, based on the same sonic principles but that is totally unenjoyable for us.

The third is the only subjective element. And it is very subtle. If you look at the differences between music in different cultures, or even the different languages, you will see they are very very small. To an alien, or an observer unfalimiar with human culture, all our languages and all our music will seem the same. It will take them a lot of time to realise we have more than one language. And music they may never figure out.

Compared to moral ideas in different cultures, for example about social relations or sexual matters music is extremely universal, since social and sexual morals can be completely revesred in one culture compared to another. Imagine a culture having music that is a mirror image of ours. Impossible and absurd, beyond imagination.

Short of God coming down to earth himself and dictating what music really is (and even then, there will probably be dissenters :ninja:), it simply cannot be just "is".

Uuuh, the idea that God exists and created the universe totally flips around everything I said, and not for the better. If God exists then there is a universal beauty, universal morals, universal truth, etc. And that means that that what is most beautiful will also be experienced as most beautiful by men, since we are created in his image.

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

Sure we can. The fact that we are both posting messages here proves you are wrong. Do you know how much physical processes are depended upon for our computers to function? Surely we didn't create the universe.

About speech being music, this is interesting, since it is an organisation of sound. It is based on rhythm and melody, but it does not have harmony. To an alien or an observer totally unfamiliar with our culture the difference is probably very small. Seems that this proves how strong a definition the one I use is. It seems I can apply it without thinking and I will get the right answer. Surely it is very effective and helpful.

Sure we can. The fact that we are both posting messages here proves you are wrong. Do you know how much physical processes are depended upon for our computers to function? Surely we didn't create the universe.

About speech being music, this is interesting, since it is an organisation of sound. It is based on rhythm and melody, but it does not have harmony. To an alien or an observer totally unfamiliar with our culture the difference is probably very small. Seems that this proves how strong a definition the one I use is. It seems I can apply it without thinking and I will get the right answer. Surely it is very effective and helpful.

We can always try to explain music. But as you said it has a universal meaning, and through a human mind music can get a subjective meaning, and not subjective in a way of an individual, but a human-race subjective. The very thing that the definitions for speech and music mach is prooves it.

Does anyone else have a different definition of speech (or music)?

Ok, I can see you don't want to use to word 'right'. We can explain things we didn't create ourselves very well. Saying we explain it the 'right' way is kind of strange because there is no right way.

But surely we can explain things, make sense out of it and use that knowledge effectively. Our explanations work. I don't see why music should be an exception. Saying that our models or physics are 'right' is strange. We cannot prove we have the 'right' model because such a thing doesn't exist. We can say it is accurate or that they agree with what we observe or that they make accurate predictions. I am not comparing music directly to science. I am just saying we can explain things we didn't create ourselves.

I never said music has an universal meaning, I don't think it can have any meaning at all, unless you add words/lyrics. I did say music has universal properties.

*Stuff* (I'm abbreviating for the sake of space)

I'm assuming from your replies you believe something like The Matrix could never exist :lol:.

The way I see the world is that while it might be easier to believe the more obvious solutions, it does not automatically make them "right". Generally speaking, humans need a certain level of stability in their world, simply to exist with peace of mind - whether or not if such views can be held in absolute "truth" is irrelevant (ironically, even my disposition that complete relativity is possible is a testament to this fact - a want for stability through instability, if that makes any sense - I feel the need to reassure my views by trying to convincing you of my points :P). Such has been achieved with religion and superstition for the greater part of our existance, and in the recent centuries, with science and logic. Of course with the latter, it is much easier to accept things as is, because the pieces fall easily into place - or at least it does with our set of logic, which by the way, is usually done through PROOFS.

About the blind/deaf man example - which was a rather rushed example - I forgot to include qualifers which would prevent the man to communicate socially at all (abandoned in the wild and raised by animals, let's say ;)), nor be able to perceive much of what we take for granted. Also, by "experiencing" a million, I mean through practicality - he'll only need to keep count of what he can keep track of, and his relatively dulled sense would prevent much mental excitation through curiousity (though this is not guarenteed, I suppose). A million still probably would be more abstract to him than "10", which most normal people would instead hold at equal levels, in terms of abstraction.

But anyways, the point I was trying to make with that one is that a social language IS needed for many concepts to form in our minds at all - if you were born with a certain colorblindness (personal perception), the concept of that certain color is impossible for you to conceive without the help of others (communal perception). There are arguments (forgive me if I don't post such here, as it is quite extensive) that language can only exist at a social level - ie, we are NOT born with a "private language", which can later be adapted into the social language of "choice". Connect the two together ("relativity" and "linguistic" viewpoints), and you arrive at the conclusion that language is needed for objects such as "10" to exist. Note that this isn't my particular point of view - I was just trying to guess the logic that Geoff may have been purporting.

Now back to music: I'd say "organization" is as subjective as "music", which isn't surprising seeing how most of you believe that "organized sound" is a big qualifier for music. So the question arises: "Organization by whose standards? Ours, or the universe's?" Though our current laws of physics are stout, it is by far a be all and end all in explaining organization. What one presumes as "chaotic" (either through intuitive or "scientific" means) may simply through one's own mental limitations - maybe "nails on chalkboard" creates an marvelously complex, but resolute form which we simply cannot perceive as of yet. Add in the enjoyment factor as proposed previously, and the "requirements" you guys have for music are furfilled, no?

Your comments on aliens viewing our activities have me thinking about communication and language again. Our race of man could be considered as a singular entity, having it's own perceptions of the world and such. But as long as we do not know any other sentient races, we shall be ultimately be "left in the dark", as the blind/deaf man is. Perhaps we are "colorblinded" to certain facts in the universe that can only be revealed to us through an external eye. Maybe all of our different languages and music may be seen by others as an indistinguishable whole - or as an intricately organized process resembling a great piece of music itself, with enjoyable melodies, harmonies, counterpoint, structure, etc. Or maybe not. But who are we to say ;)?

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

I don't know if that was an attempt at putting words in my mouth, but if so, please don't. I have in no way intended for such a disposition. I do, however, feel that we can't explain it without reservations, for reasons that I've gone through above. Heck, that probably even applies things that we supposedly do create (after all, what does it mean to "create" something?).

As a side note, I'm actually enjoying this discussion quite a bit (despite the increasingly hostile replies ;) I seem to be getting) - whether or not it is ultimately pointless or "embarrasing" is easily countered by the great amount of mental stimulation I'm getting (which I must admit to being deprived for quite a while) :).

Ok, I can see you don't want to use to word 'right'. We can explain things we didn't create ourselves very well. Saying we explain it the 'right' way is kind of strange because there is no right way.

But surely we can explain things, make sense out of it and use that knowledge effectively. Our explanations work. I don't see why music should be an exception. Saying that our models or physics are 'right' is strange. We cannot prove we have the 'right' model because such a thing doesn't exist. We can say it is accurate or that they agree with what we observe or that they make accurate predictions. I am not comparing music directly to science. I am just saying we can explain things we didn't create ourselves.

I never said music has an universal meaning, I don't think it can have any meaning at all, unless you add words/lyrics. I did say music has universal properties.

Now back to music: I'd say "organization" is as subjective as "music", which isn't surprising seeing how most of you believe that "organized sound" is a big qualifier for music. So the question arises: "Organization by whose standards? Ours, or the universe's?" Though our current laws of physics are stout, it is by far a be all and end all in explaining organization. What one presumes as "chaotic" (either through intuitive or "scientific" means) may simply through one's own mental limitations - maybe "nails on chalkboard" creates an marvelously complex, but resolute form which we simply cannot perceive as of yet. Add in the enjoyment factor as proposed previously, and the "requirements" you guys have for music are furfilled, no?

Your comments on aliens viewing our activities have me thinking about communication and language again. Our race of man could be considered as a singular entity, having it's own perceptions of the world and such. But as long as we do not know any other sentient races, we shall be ultimately be "left in the dark", as the blind/deaf man is. Perhaps we are "colorblinded" to certain facts in the universe that can only be revealed to us through an external eye. Maybe all of our different languages and music may be seen by others as an indistinguishable whole - or as an intricately organized process resembling a great piece of music itself, with enjoyable melodies, harmonies, counterpoint, structure, etc. Or maybe not. But who are we to say wink.gif?

A new example - what do you think a newborn baby would distinct as speech and music? are those baby lullabys all for nothing? If we don't know that aliens exist..... well we could try and look at sound through a babys ears. What are the first songs they learn? Little rhymes i guess... precise rythm, and a simple melody. But is it all influenced by the mothers lullaby or the noise toys produce?

P.S. spc1st - i wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but i was trying to make an absurd, just to show darek he was wrong. Bad move though, sorry....

Actually, it's my mistake - I didn't realize that quote was actually from you (though you should try to distinguish quoters, Prometheus). As for the baby psychology, it's pretty hard to say. New studies have shown that babies aren't as simple- and chaotic-minded as we've thought of them - for example, they are very capable of expressing such complex emotions as jealousy and empathy. In fact, in many respects, they have stronger cognitive/perceptive abilities than adults, especially in terms of memory (ie, being able to recognize greatly distored pictures of faces they know, being able to read one's emotions by looking at their subtle facial expressions) -but that might also make them very impressionable as well, especially in matters of taste. Perhaps we'll know more about this once more long-term experiments (ie, raising a baby with a strict "diet" of atonal/avant-garde music).

Actually, it's my mistake - I didn't realize that quote was actually from you (though you should try to distinguish quoters, Prometheus). As for the baby psychology, it's pretty hard to say. New studies have shown that babies aren't as simple- and chaotic-minded as we've thought of them - for example, they are very capable of expressing such complex emotions as jealousy and empathy. In fact, in many respects, they have stronger cognitive/perceptive abilities than adults, especially in terms of memory (ie, being able to recognize greatly distored pictures of faces they know, being able to read one's emotions by looking at their subtle facial expressions) -but that might also make them very impressionable as well, especially in matters of taste. Perhaps we'll know more about this once more long-term experiments (ie, raising a baby with a strict "diet" of atonal/avant-garde music).

Ok now we are going totally off track...

I'm assuming from your replies you believe something like The Matrix could never exist :lol:.

You have to make a difference here. I don't assume it can't exist. But since there is nothing to suggest that we actually live in a Matrix I assume we don't. Even considering the fact that if we live in a matrix we won't be able to observe anything suggesting the truth. Occam's Razor.

The way I see the world is that while it might be easier to believe the more obvious solutions, it does not automatically make them "right".

That's true, using Occam's Razor can lead to incorrect assumptions. I don't like to assume anything. But if I do I like to assume the least, so I use Occams Razor.

Generally speaking, humans need a certain level of stability in their world, simply to exist with peace of mind - whether or not if such views can be held in absolute "truth" is irrelevant

Actually, I think it is more important to bind societies together. People live in groups and they need to have something that gives them identity. So things like religion are based on this. Sure, there is some wishful thinging invloved when we are talking about afterlife and being reunited by your parents etc.

ironically, even my disposition that complete relativity is possible is a testament to this fact - a want for stability through instability, if that makes any sense - I feel the need to reassure my views by trying to convincing you of my points :P

I only get the second part. ;)

Such has been achieved with religion and superstition for the greater part of our existance, and in the recent centuries, with science and logic.

I don't think you can compare the two, science and religion, in that way.

because the pieces fall easily into place - or at least it does with our set of logic, which by the way, is usually done through PROOFS.

You would think so. But to my experience this is not the case. It is a lot harder to accept evolution than to accept creationism, so it seems. The human mind seems quite flexible. It can believe what it wants.

And something like quantum mechanics is beyond imagination. You can't really understand it, you just have to accept that it works the way it does. There is no analogy with every day events.

About the blind/deaf man example - which was a rather rushed example - I forgot to include qualifers which would prevent the man to communicate socially at all (abandoned in the wild and raised by animals, let's say ;))

That's true. But I have heard of no case of a 'wild child' where the mind was really 'empty'. The brain seems to suck up everything. And when we are born your brain isn't a clean sheet. Babies already dream in the womb for example. What do we dream about in the womb?

But we do know very little about things like these. When a wild child is discovered scientists all jump on this child because it can help them prove their theories. And the last thing such a child needs is to be in experiments.

and his relatively dulled sense would prevent much mental excitation through curiousity (though this is not guarenteed, I suppose).

It seems that the brain can feel these holes. But it is interesting how it does that and what they are filled with. I don't want to assume that someone who is extremely limited in her or his senses also has an extremely limited image of the world, though there is no way to be sure.

A million still probably would be more abstract to him than "10", which most normal people would instead hold at equal levels, in terms of abstraction.

Actually, I don't think that a million is less abstract to normal people. Have you ever experiences a million? Say you where to count to a million and then to half a million. Would you experience the first count is exactly twice as much? Or an even stronger example. Say we have two tables. One with a million 1 cent coins and the other with 3/4 million coins. Would you realise how much coins would be on both tables. Would you be able to accuratly experience a million?

I know I would have no clue at all. We don't expience numbers like that, ever. Our brains can't because they don't have to. The ability to do this never gave an evolutionary edge.

Maybe with a number like 50 there would be some difference. But a person both blind and deaf can still be taught how to count to 50 and I think that person would still be able to accurately estimate when 50 minutes of time have passed.

I do see we passed the point intirely. We were talking about someone with an empty mind. But there is no such a thing. Let me try to follow your point closely though.

But anyways, the point I was trying to make with that one is that a social language IS needed for many concepts to form in our minds at all - if you were born with a certain colorblindness (personal perception), the concept of that certain color is impossible for you to conceive without the help of others (communal perception). There are arguments (forgive me if I don't post such here, as it is quite extensive) that language can only exist at a social level - ie, we are NOT born with a "private language", which can later be adapted into the social language of "choice". Connect the two together ("relativity" and "linguistic" viewpoints), and you arrive at the conclusion that language is needed for objects such as "10" to exist. Note that this isn't my particular point of view - I was just trying to guess the logic that Geoff may have been purporting.

I am quite familiar with this point. It seems that these views are well liked by literature intellectuals and philosophers. I have a friend who also studies stuff like this. I understand what they are doing but I don't understand why they do it.

I can see how you can make a difference between 10 objects existing somewhere and the number 10 existing. But I don't see what difference it makes, does it really matter? Whats the point?

Then they always point to the past and blame mistakes of the past, often racism and sexism, on lack of this relativation of human experience and language. But I don't think that is fair at all. It's like saying that music is no good because Bach made music and Bach was a human and humans do bad things.

Now back to music: I'd say "organization" is as subjective as "music",

Actually, order can be pretty objective. The subjective element is: What kind of organisation is most important.

Obviously they aren't all equally experienced by humans. Take Cages ASLSP. This piece is so slow any organisation is irrelevant to the persons observation. It's not percievable.

Another example could be Shakespeare. Lets say we play a tape with Shakespeare in morse. A person not knowing morse won't be able to hear the difference between shakespeare in morse and random short and long blips.

One will soon notice the blips aren't natural but ordered. But to know if there is a code hidden inside, that's hard to figure out.

If we hear Shakespeare in a foreign language we won't know what to make of it. If its binary decoded by using some kind of 32 bit key it will take supercomputers years to figure it out.

The good thing about music is that everyone seems to be born with knowledge about the 'language' of music. In the west we only have 12 notes. We also have those notes on only 1 dimention, namely time.

This comes from using organisation in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm. It may be hard to know which kind of harmonic organisation is more ordered than the other, but what harmony is and what order is is pretty clear.

I do remember someone claiming that people who enjoy atonal music imagine organisation and get enjoyment from their own imagination, inspired by the sound. I thought that was a funny thing because one could say all music works like that.

"Organization by whose standards? Ours, or the universe's?"

Obviously the one of human experience. The universe tells us what order is, the human brain knows what kind of order is important.

maybe "nails on chalkboard" creates an marvelously complex, but resolute form which we simply cannot perceive as of yet.

Yes. But that is because this kind of order cannot be percieved. We can perceive melodic, harmonic and rhythmic order. Thats why those are in the definition of music.

I am not saying that this definition of music is 'right'. I am saying it is the best.

Add in the enjoyment factor as proposed previously, and the "requirements" you guys have for music are furfilled, no?

What do you mean?

Your comments on aliens viewing our activities have me thinking about communication and language again. Our race of man could be considered as a singular entity, having it's own perceptions of the world and such. But as long as we do not know any other sentient races, we shall be ultimately be "left in the dark", as the blind/deaf man is. Perhaps we are "colorblinded" to certain facts in the universe that can only be revealed to us through an external eye. Maybe all of our different languages and music may be seen by others as an indistinguishable whole - or as an intricately organized process resembling a great piece of music itself, with enjoyable melodies, harmonies, counterpoint, structure, etc. Or maybe not. But who are we to say :lol:?

I don't know if that was an attempt at putting words in my mouth, but if so, please don't. I have in no way intended for such a disposition. I do, however, feel that we can't explain it without reservations, for reasons that I've gone through above. Heck, that probably even applies things that we supposedly do create (after all, what does it mean to "create" something?).

About your last bit. Yes, if we ever meet a totally different race then that will help answer what humans actually are. Sure, we can compare ourselves to animals but that is not very satisifying. It is often said that humans are terrible creatures. But we might be very peaceful compared what is out there. It will also give increadible insights in how our brain 'humanises' the way we perceive realitiy.

But it is very unlikely to happen.

About all music and all languages being very similar. We already know this. Take a human face. They all are almost the same, though we perceive them as totally different. Have you ever heard people say that all asians or all africans look alike? This is an illusion. We just focus on the very subtle differences.

Actually, there is also a brain disorder that makes it impossible for that person to recognise faces, even those of partner and children. There is also one that makes perceiving music impossible. And about those wild childs. When they don't get enough language exposure until they are 13 then in general language in their brain seems to turn off, completely and permanently.

I may be a bit harsh, aggresive or authoritive in discussions, its nothing personal and I am quite capable to reflect on this.

I had to post this in two parts, for some reason. My quotes wouldn't turn on and I was left in the dark as to why but I figured it out. Seems there is a cap on them.

About all music and all languages being very similar. We already know this. Take a human face. They all are almost the same, though we perceive them as totally different. Have you ever heard people say that all asians or all africans look alike? This is an illusion. We just focus on the very subtle differences.

You bring up a fascinating point I had not thought of, which makes my overall case (and yours) stronger. The fact that the human mind is capable of discerning these subtle differences, as per your example, is a very striking one. This is exactly where true originality lies in music---not in revolutionizing the harmonic scheme, but in hearing and enjoying these subtle differences. So hundreds of composers use the same chords? We can detect the creative ways these composers organize their music through time. The number of possible compositions with normal sounds that are ALSO interesting and original is vast, and I would say that it is infinite.

Actually, I don't think that a million is less abstract to normal people. Have you ever experiences a million? Say you where to count to a million and then to half a million. Would you experience the first count is exactly twice as much? Or an even stronger example. Say we have two tables. One with a million 1 cent coins and the other with 3/4 million coins. Would you realise how much coins would be on both tables. Would you be able to accuratly experience a million?

I know I would have no clue at all. We don't expience numbers like that, ever. Our brains can't because they don't have to. The ability to do this never gave an evolutionary edge.

Maybe with a number like 50 there would be some difference. But a person both blind and deaf can still be taught how to count to 50 and I think that person would still be able to accurately estimate when 50 minutes of time have passed.

I do see we passed the point intirely. We were talking about someone with an empty mind. But there is no such a thing. Let me try to follow your point closely though.

I am quite familiar with this point. It seems that these views are well liked by literature intellectuals and philosophers. I have a friend who also studies stuff like this. I understand what they are doing but I don't understand why they do it.

I can see how you can make a difference between 10 objects existing somewhere and the number 10 existing. But I don't see what difference it makes, does it really matter? Whats the point?

Then they always point to the past and blame mistakes of the past, often racism and sexism, on lack of this relativation of human experience and language. But I don't think that is fair at all. It's like saying that music is no good because Bach made music and Bach was a human and humans do bad things.

Now the point about 10 - what matters here isn't the differance between the number 10 and 10 objects. The point was to show how languages affect our view of lots of things (such as "10"). That is to say when we add a language to our perception it can make it colorful and make us devide things not only by shape and mathematical proportions (color-blind percepton), but also to make out the colors of it (like devide "10 objects" into "10" and "objects").

You bring up a fascinating point I had not thought of, which makes my overall case (and yours) stronger.

But normal? I have a problem with defining music, or normality, in terms of the Western musical tradition. It's true that most cultures' musical traditions use all or part of the same 12-note scale, but there are notable exceptions that immediately call into question whether or not one can call it "normal".

Let's go back to the question that started this thread.

I don't think originality is to be defined in terms of craftsmanship, but I also don't think it's to be defined by breaking norms. The surest sign of originality, I think, is that the work unmistakably belongs to the composer who wrote it. A wonderfully-crafted symphony that sounds like Haydn could have written it isn't very original - but a symphony in the Classical tradition that sounds different from any of the well-known Classical composers is original. Even within the Classical era, arguably the least diverse of all the musical eras, it's not that hard for the trained ear to tell the difference between Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven.

Hey, Derek, havw you been thinking about a new deffinition for music that will make a differance between speech? I'v been blowing my head off, and i can't come up with anything!

You bring up a fascinating point I had not thought of, which makes my overall case (and yours) stronger.  The fact that the human mind is capable of discerning these subtle differences, as per your example, is a very striking one. This is exactly where true originality lies in music---not in revolutionizing the harmonic scheme, but in hearing and enjoying these subtle differences. So hundreds of composers use the same chords? We can detect the creative ways these composers organize their music through time. The number of possible compositions with normal sounds that are ALSO interesting and original is vast, and I would say that it is infinite.

Like Wolf_88 said, doesn't this put less emphasis on the craftsmanship of the composers and more onto the perception and nuances of the listener ("hearing and enjoying")?

Music is sound organised in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm.

Applying this definition everything you want to call music is music and everything you don't is not.

At least, I have not been able to find an example where this definiiton fails.

Music is sound organised in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm.

Applying this definition everything you want to call music is music and everything you don't is not.

At least, I have not been able to find an example where this definiiton fails.

But that definition begs for the definition of 1.) melody, 2.) harmony, and 3.) rhythm, which are just as debatable as music, if not more so.

Of course they do. But do you mean that when a definition can only be defined by another definiiton no definition is possibe?

If not, physics gives a pretty clear definition of all three. I don't see the problem.

Surely those terms are much less debateble as music since music is foremost a human concept and the other three are physical phenomenon.

But what do you mean when you say they are debatable? Surely everyhing that is not obviously and bluntly wrong is debatable. So the fact that this is debatable is a good thing about this definition.

By debatable, I simply mean that at some base level, all of these are definied in terms of "organization" and "sound" - and falls into the same dilemma as music, which is the problem with "organization," as outlined in previous posts. I feel that order can exist in at least in these three ways: 1.) The commonly accepted viewpoint where there is a clear distinction between order ("normal music") and chaos ("nails on chalkboard"), 2.) Everything is ultimately ordered, though we are lacking in perception ("nails on chalkboard" actually do have some patternistic characteristics, though not readily perceivable by current means") 3.) Everything is ultimately chaotic, and order is an uniquely human conception for sake of simplification (12/8 music ambigiously dividable into 3 beat or 4 beat rhythms).

I'm not too sure where you stand right now - "Surely those terms are much less debateble as music since music is foremost a human concept and the other three are physical phenomenon" expresses 1, "The universe tells us what order is, the human brain knows what kind of order is important." expresses 2, and "Applying this definition everything you want to call music is music and everything you don't is not" seems to say 3 (though the wording is a bit confusing, so I'm not sure).

:lol: :) :lol: :lol: :lol: