The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 8th April 2010
  #451
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=steelyfan;5287427]
Quote:


That's just it right there. Some people have read about how it's supposed to work, and some just understand.
You've quoted only a snippet, and I really don't feel like researching it unless you provide some context.
Old 8th April 2010
  #452
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Read my ****ing posts. I've already addressed this, and you are not paying any attention anyway.
You've just denied that music is communication.
Which is rather silly seing the bulk of work done over the centuries.
Old 8th April 2010
  #453
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
It would all be random if it hadn't.
Ok that was too much.

This thread has turned into a freakin' trollfest
Old 8th April 2010
  #454
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
Ok that was too much.

This thread has turned into a freakin' trollfest
indeed..,
Old 8th April 2010
  #455
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
You found it hilarious that the work can communicate events without spoken words or you actually automaticly understanding what it ment.

If not then please explain what you did mean.
Sigh. I asked you a question, and you didn't answer it. If you didn't know what the piece was 'about', and there are no lyrics, and you didn't know the composer's background - would you be able to determine precisely what events he was referring to? Obviously not. If you can't understand the point, smoke some more.
Old 8th April 2010
  #456
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
It would all be random if it hadn't.
My God, you're actually saying some of these things....
Old 8th April 2010
  #457
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
If you think that you can be a good biologist without knowlege of physics these days they you are decades behind my friend.
Who is this friend? He must be pretty old.
Old 8th April 2010
  #458
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 

It's a complete waste of time, Drool...
Old 8th April 2010
  #459
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Sigh. I asked you a question, and you didn't answer it. If you didn't know what the piece was 'about', and there are no lyrics, and you didn't know the composer's background - would you be able to determine precisely what events he was referring to? Obviously not. If you can't understand the point, smoke some more.
If i gave you a text in chinese and you would not know anything about the context or the writer, would you still expect to understand it?
I presume not.
And would you not still consider that text a language or communication?
Old 8th April 2010
  #460
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

For a soloist on any musical instrument to make the instrument 'speak' on a musical emotional level ( which ever emotion that might be ) the performer has to have achieved a standard where the instrument is an extension of themselves...they no longer think about the buttons and keys they're pressing and moving, they don't consciously think about their breathing.. they sing and speak through their instruments and the instruments speak with them as one.... Just like speaking a native tongue.. there is very little thought about what you're going to say and how... you just do it.

To get to this level of connection with a musical instrument is a hard and long journey but a wonderful one to make.

It doesn't happen over night nor does it happen by chance or by by lazy attitudes just time and dedication.
Old 8th April 2010
  #461
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
You've just denied that music is communication.
Which is rather silly seing the bulk of work done over the centuries.
My God (again) can you really think this way. If music isn't in fact communication itself, but can be used to communicate in various ways some of the time, how in the ****ing hell does that imply that no one has ever written a piece of music. This is what's under contention. No one denies that music has been written.
Old 8th April 2010
  #462
Lives for gear
 
piotr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
So, if there are no vocals in the work, and you know nothing about it at all, you can listen to it and determine which battles are being 'described'? This is really rather hilarious.
I think the hilarity of this idea is maybe less apparent when you think of the possibility, that such compositions were being played for people who were directly involved in these events (such as it was the case with Shostakovich)...

Do you think that there is a possibility, even if very small, that someone who experienced first hand a particular situation, might be able to recognize the dynamic of a composition as one corresponding with the events they have witnessed?

You don't have to answer my question.
I just think it's important o consider that possibility.

Sincerely,
p.
Old 8th April 2010
  #463
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
For a soloist on any musical instrument to make the instrument 'speak' on a musical emotional level ( which ever emotion that might be ) the performer has to have achieved a standard where the instrument is an extension of themselves...they no longer think about the buttons and keys they're pressing and moving, they don't consciously think about their breathing.. they sing and speak through their instruments and the instruments speak with them as one.... Just like speaking a native tongue.. there is very little thought about what you're going to say and how... you just do it.

To get to this level of connection with a musical instrument is a hard and long journey but a wonderful one to make.

It doesn't happen over night nor does it happen by chance or by by lazy attitudes just time and dedication.
flow...
Old 8th April 2010
  #464
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
It's a complete waste of time, Drool...
yeah. You're right. And they're throwing in the heavy hitters now...
Old 8th April 2010
  #465
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
My God (again) can you really think this way. If music isn't in fact communication itself, but can be used to communicate in various ways some of the time, how in the ****ing hell does that imply that no one has ever written a piece of music. This is what's under contention. No one denies that music has been written.
Now you are just not understanding.
I did not mean to say that you denied music, i ment to say that you denied that music has largely been written for the purpose of communicating through the musical language.
Old 8th April 2010
  #466
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
And if you scroll down to the See Also section you will find a link to Musivisual Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,amongst other interesting forms of language...
There have been lots of attempts to bring in different fields of study under the umbrella of linguistics/semiotics.

However, most of these attempts were quickly abandoned because there is no logical connection to be found.

Also note that this term "Musivisual language" is not coined by a scientist but by a film composer...
Another of these poetic metaphors that artists love so much, nothing more.
Old 8th April 2010
  #467
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
If i gave you a text in chinese and you would not know anything about the context or the writer, would you still expect to understand it?
I presume not.
And would you not still consider that text a language or communication?
But I could learn chinese, or ask someone to translate for me. And there is a correct and an incorrect translation - a right or wrong in the matter.

However, an expert in music, who didn't know the piece or the composer, could not be able to listen to it and say, 'oh, this part describes this battle, etc'.

Why am I bothering here? I don't know, actually.
Old 8th April 2010
  #468
Lives for gear
 
piotr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
First of all the title is not proper german (Correct german would be "Spiegel im (in dem) Spiegel), so someone has made a mistake somewhere.

Second - if it had no title (or was called "wild giraffe on a calm afternoon") no one on earth would be able to construct any meaning relating to mirrors from it.

All meaning that a composer can give to a piece of music is in the title - any meaning derived from a piece of untitled music is entirely the listeners creation.

The notes of this piece alone cannot in any way provoke an image of a mirror in your head - nor make your thoughts center on the concept of mirroring if you are not primed by its title.

Language is what carries the meaning, music is sound without meaning.

Falling in love with a theoretic approach that works for certain subjects and then trying to extend that approach to encompass other subjects is not very good. (See also my response to your structure argument further down).
All you are getting out of that excercise is a ****load of totally wrong conclusions.
Such as the notion that music is a form of language...



Molecules have structures - and studying these is indeed very rewarding - provided you use the right tools and especially if the molecules are proteins and you happen to be a molecular biologist.

However, just because a molecule has a structure that can be studied it does not mean that it is a language.



No.

Poetry works because words have meanings from which new meanings can be constructed through precise use of the language.

Notes have no meanings and thus any sequence or combination of notes will still not contain any meaning.

I guess, as with any form of communication (or language): there is always an element of subjectivity and interpretation present in the experience. So, while you (for some reason authoritatively) state that the image of mirror or reflections can not be gleaned from the Pärt composition ("by no one on Earth"), I would respectfully disagree.

I mean, (I am addressing the philosopher in you) how could you make a statement like this regarding "everybody on Earth"?... I am sure that even you see a fallacy in that. ;-)

I think the sequence/formation of notes and structure of that composition does speak to the particular concept of mirroring. And, as I said earlier: I do believe that a careful/critical listener would certainly be able to recognize that pattern/regularity. This is regardless of the title.

Did it ever happen to you that a work you made with specific concept or idea or statement in mind is actually "read" or experienced in exactly the way you intended it to? It did happen to me: on both sides of the equation, so my experience tells me that it is possible.

Sincerely,
p.
Old 8th April 2010
  #469
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
There have been lots of attempts to bring in different fields of study under the umbrella of linguistics/semiotics.

However, most of these attempts were quickly abandoned because there is no logical connection to be found.

Also note that this term "Musivisual language" is not coined by a scientist but by a film composer...
Another of these poetic metaphors that artists love so much, nothing more.
Scientists do not write music.

But if you'd like a more scientific approach then here you go:
Music and Language
Old 8th April 2010
  #470
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
there is very little thought about what you're going to say and how...
And now there is no need to think about what you actually want to communicate?

Stoner rock anyone?

heh
Old 8th April 2010
  #471
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
But I could learn chinese, or ask someone to translate for me.
You could learn music theory or someone could translate the work for you!
Same stuff applies.
Old 8th April 2010
  #472
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
However, an expert in music, who didn't know the piece or the composer, could not be able to listen to it and say, 'oh, this part describes this battle, etc'.
Yes, they could.
At least a classicly trained one as the language of classical music stands on its own, like most forms of musical language.
Old 8th April 2010
  #473
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Scientists do not write music.

But if you'd like a more scientific approach then here you go:
Music and Language
I take it you didn't get all the way down to his conclusion? heh

The conclusion we reach, then is that a given style of music often includes linguistic elements of symbols and grammar, but is not itself a language. It is even more untenable to say that music (independent of style) is a language, much less a "universal" language of agreed-upon symbols, grammar, and meaning. Music is not a "universal language" any more than the sum total of all vocal sounds can be said to be a universal spoken language. Whatever linguistic elements a music may possess are extremely dependent on explicit and implicit cultural associations, all of which are in turn dependent on society and the individual. Even though media and tele-communications are increasing the awareness of music of other cultures, most individuals are still no closer to knowing all music than they are to knowing all languages.
We must also bear in mind that symbolic representation is not the only means of expression. Music can, by its very form (that is, the abstractions we derive from its form), express abstract or visual concepts, or it may present a visceral, immediate appeal to our senses (our unconscious response). These are not modes of expression that depend upon language, yet few would deny their existence in music.
Old 8th April 2010
  #474
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
You could learn music theory and someone could translate the work for you!
Same stuff applies.
So again - answer the goddamn question which has now been asked in various ways, and which you have ignored. Would music theory allow someone, without knowledge of the specific composer's background, and without lyrics, to listen to an instrumental piece, and derive the events that the composer was writing about? Obviously not.
Old 8th April 2010
  #475
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Yes, they could.
At least a classicly trained one as the language of classical music stands on its own, like most forms of musical language.
Ok - this has gone far enough. This is either outright trolling, or you're in so far over your head that it's ridiculous. But I don't have time to walk through this slowly with you.
Old 8th April 2010
  #476
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
You know, I quite don't like you. You simply ooze condescension in so many ways - you'll misspell their name as a dig (first there was 'Drools', and now it's 'Droolz'), you deny that you're an elitist, but you spout the same elitist garbage over and over again. You also proudly ignore or simply don't understand any of the counter arguments that are made, which really belies this arrogance you have about your education.
I'm sorry you feel that way Mr Droolmaster. It was not my intention to mock you by abbreviating your name but to treat you as a mate.

Shostakovich is such a superb composer and one that is very apt to the discussion on language and expression in music. If you take peoples recommendations as being elitist then that is your problem.
Old 8th April 2010
  #477
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I take it you didn't get down to his conclusion? heh

The conclusion we reach, then is that a given style of music often includes linguistic elements of symbols and grammar, but is not itself a language. It is even more untenable to say that music (independent of style) is a language, much less a "universal" language of agreed-upon symbols, grammar, and meaning. Music is not a "universal language" any more than the sum total of all vocal sounds can be said to be a universal spoken language. Whatever linguistic elements a music may possess are extremely dependent on explicit and implicit cultural associations, all of which are in turn dependent on society and the individual. Even though media and tele-communications are increasing the awareness of music of other cultures, most individuals are still no closer to knowing all music than they are to knowing all languages.
We must also bear in mind that symbolic representation is not the only means of expression. Music can, by its very form (that is, the abstractions we derive from its form), express abstract or visual concepts, or it may present a visceral, immediate appeal to our senses (our unconscious response). These are not modes of expression that depend upon language, yet few would deny their existence in music.
You'd need to read the whole thing, but what is talked about here is that music is not as formaly constructed as normal language.
Meaning is not defined in a dictionary way but is rather more context sensitive.

In the paragraph "Implications for Musical Education" they state:
"Western music notation, for all its imperfections, does have the advantage of being a bona fide language. The meanings of the symbols are quite well established and agreed-upon; although meaning is often ambiguous, it is no more so than the meanings of words. The rules which govern the arrangement of the symbols are likewise standard and thorough. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that they can be successfully discussed and that notation can be a valuable tool for expressing ideas. Of course, it is important when discussing music notation, and the structures found therein, to remember that "the map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing named".[55] The ideas expressed in notation may or may not be perceptible in their sonic manifestation. "
Old 8th April 2010
  #478
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Ok - this has gone far enough. This is either outright trolling, or you're in so far over your head that it's ridiculous. But I don't have time to walk through this slowly with you.
I'm not trolling.
I'm just telling you what musical education can do for you.
Old 8th April 2010
  #479
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
You'd need to read the whole thing, but what is talked about here is that music is not as formaly constructed as normal language.
Meaning is not defined in a dictionary way but is rather more context sensitive.

In the paragraph "Implications for Musical Education" they state:
"Western music notation, for all its imperfections, does have the advantage of being a bona fide language. The meanings of the symbols are quite well established and agreed-upon; although meaning is often ambiguous, it is no more so than the meanings of words. The rules which govern the arrangement of the symbols are likewise standard and thorough. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that they can be successfully discussed and that notation can be a valuable tool for expressing ideas. Of course, it is important when discussing music notation, and the structures found therein, to remember that "the map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing named".[55] The ideas expressed in notation may or may not be perceptible in their sonic manifestation. "
Hardy har de har ... heh

Do you realize that the conclusion is ...you know, like... the result you reach after having studied something for a while?
And that all the thoughts and ideas you had during those studies are summed up in that conclusion?

He even writes it explicitly that notation is not the actual music - i have marked it in red for you.

Here is a nice youtube video just for you heh :
Old 8th April 2010
  #480
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Hardy har de har ... heh

Do you realize that the conclusion is ...you know, like... the result you reach after having studied something for a while?
And that all the thoughts and ideas you had during those studies are summed up in that conclusion?

He even writes it explicitly that notation is not the actual music - i have marked it in red for you.

Here is a nice youtube video just for you heh :
Except that their conclusion was only a premise and they continued for quite some more.
You've just taken that conclusion out of context.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump