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 9th April 2010
  #511
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Did you every consider, for a second that perhaps... just perhaps..... you might not be the center of the universe ?

I dare not spout the phrase 'Elitist' because one shouldn't make fun of people under medication. . . ." Nurse Grenader - do we have any Miltons ?"
Well, given that I'm trying to educate ya a little bit, and you are obviously immune to it....

yeah, whatever. The non elitist has suggested now to at least 2 people that they have mental issues, and assumes that somehow his admitted superior knowledge of theory makes him conversant about other issues, which is sadly not the case. And, I actually don't know whether Peter is under medication or not.
Old 9th April 2010
  #512
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Did I touch a nerve ?
Old 9th April 2010
  #513
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 



[QUOTE=grumphh;5291253]



I'll let you in on a little secret, and then I'm gone for the weekend .

Real intellectuals will never call themselves one because in general.....they're embarrassed to be one, and they certainly won't throw the word around like someone who just learnt it's meaning.

pay attention.


cheers,
steelyfan
Old 9th April 2010
  #514
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Of course you can just look at the world and explain everything you see with the lowest common denominator - "common sense" - but that view comes at the expense of discovering new stuff.

Communication is a very important aspect of our lives, so it is not surprising that some people have started thinking about it and tried to find out how it works.
Communication studies.

Amongst other things they have created some fairly solid theories on why a language works as it does and what actually constitutes a language and more importantly, what not.

Now, you can of course choose to remain ignorant about communication theory (as i choose to be with music theory), after all no man can know everything and knowledge of communication forms certainly is not important for musicians, but you should not dismiss the fact that there are people who know more about this than you do.

To make a simple analogy (yet again):
If i claimed that the note c# does not belong in the circle of fifths because i never use it and it is a boring note anyway - common sense, right? - you would know that i haven't got the faintest clue what the circle of fifths is, right?

It is the same as you claiming that music is a language.
You simply show that you have not studied communication to those that have.

The main difference between us at this point is recognizing the lack of knowledge we have.
I know that i don't know music theory but you do not seem to know that you don't know communication theory.

Explaining phenomena with "common sense" is for the intellectually lazy.
If you define communication through communication theory then i think that it largely overlaps with what we here call language.
That might explain some pages of arguments.,
Old 9th April 2010
  #515
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post




I'll let you in on a little secret, and then I'm gone for the weekend .

Real intellectuals will never call themselves one because in general.....they're embarrassed to be one, and they certainly won't throw the word around like someone who just learnt it's meaning.

pay attention.


cheers,
steelyfan
I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but i hadn't imagined that they were the sort of people where being an intellectual is something to be embarrassed about?
Or are you just in general suspicious of "dem edumacated folks"? Redneck much?

And just to split hairs - where in all these posts have i actually called myself an intellectual?
(I might be one, but in this discussion i have only pointed out differences between our educations, but not in a single post claimed that university studies somehow make me a better person than others.)


Frankly, i expected your command of the english language to be good enough to be able to differentiate between calling people "intellectually lazy" and calling one self an intellectual - quite different concepts really... heh
Old 9th April 2010
  #516
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
If you define communication through communication theory then i think that it largely overlaps with what we here call language.
That might explain some pages of arguments.,
Actually, usually i prefer to use the theories of quantum mechanics to define communication - but just for this thread i made an exception...
Old 9th April 2010
  #517
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Actually, usually i prefer to use the theories of quantum mechanics to define communication - but just for this thread i made an exception...
Hmm., now we're at it how about extreme information?
Old 10th April 2010
  #518
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Hmm., now we're at it how about extreme information?
Got no idea what that is supposed to mean - a new marketing fad for webdesigners? heh

Anyway, bedtime now.

Have a nice evening all.
Old 10th April 2010
  #519
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Got no idea what that is supposed to mean - a new marketing fad for webdesigners? heh

Anyway, bedtime now.

Have a nice evening all.
It's a subset of physical information theory.
It states that information is basicly what is real.
Anything can be seen as a certain information content.
Information being anything that differentiates itself from it's surrounding. (note the relativity! It's a possible link between einsteins world and QM)
It explains a lot, like energy and entropy.

Anyway, sleep well.
Old 10th April 2010
  #520
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
@dusk i hear you. If you were scoring a kung-fu film, and the evil master makes his entrance, you could use either a bad ass flute or bad ass synth sweep as you cut from the hero to the bad guy.

@monomer, extreme information is the future no doubt about it! communication without wires, signals or air.
Old 10th April 2010
  #521
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Did I touch a nerve ?
The one that gets inflamed when someone is extremely annoying.
Old 10th April 2010
  #522
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=steelyfan;5291329]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post



I'll let you in on a little secret, and then I'm gone for the weekend .

Real intellectuals will never call themselves one because in general.....they're embarrassed to be one, and they certainly won't throw the word around like someone who just learnt it's meaning.

pay attention.


cheers,
steelyfan
Did he label himself that? I don't think so ... he has made the quite salient point (putting this in my own way) that y'all are somehow pulling rank in all sorts of things. Like, 'we know theory' so we are better able to write, play, and appreciate all forms of music, and in addition, because we know music theory, we are also able to expound on linguistic and philosophical issues more expertly than anyone else. He's pretty much pointing out correctly where your knowledge actually applies, and where his knowledge applies. And, from this particular viewer, he certainly is much more capable of discussing these issues intelligently because, well, he's actually thought about them seriously.
Old 10th April 2010
  #523
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Actually, usually i prefer to use the theories of quantum mechanics to define communication - but just for this thread i made an exception...
Not sure how quantum mechanics can legitimately serve as an explanation for anything like communication or language. Perhaps you should pm me on this, so that the discussion can be kept on topic.
Old 10th April 2010
  #524
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but i hadn't imagined that they were the sort of people where being an intellectual is something to be embarrassed about?
The kind of folks who don't talk about being smart, but dialog about interesting things. They're pretty, and less talky.
Old 10th April 2010
  #525
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Not sure how quantum mechanics can legitimately serve as an explanation for anything like communication or language. Perhaps you should pm me on this, so that the discussion can be kept on topic.
I had hoped that the sarcasm in that post was applied in thick enough layers to make anyone realize that that is all it was. heh

I imagined that anyone could see that the obvious thing to define communication with woud be communication theory - that is what that particular body of theory was created for...
Old 10th April 2010
  #526
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
It's a subset of physical information theory.
It states that information is basicly what is real.
Anything can be seen as a certain information content.
Information being anything that differentiates itself from it's surrounding. (note the relativity! It's a possible link between einsteins world and QM)
It explains a lot, like energy and entropy.

Anyway, sleep well.
It is a dangerous path to try to apply theories from the natural sciences to the humanities and vice versa. The methodologies are quite different.

Have a nice weekend.
Old 10th April 2010
  #527
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
It is a dangerous path to try to apply theories from the natural sciences to the humanities and vice versa. The methodologies are quite different.

Have a nice weekend.
Yeah, well, 'real' might not be the right word.
What i mean by real is that which we can know/measure, without being very phylosophical about it.
And it might be difficult to explain it in simple terms as i'm in no way qualified to lecture this.

Maybe this guy will help to make my point.
Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE

PS. this thread may indeed not be the right place to discuss this stuff heh
Old 10th April 2010
  #528
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I had hoped that the sarcasm in that post was applied in thick enough layers to make anyone realize that that is all it was. heh

I imagined that anyone could see that the obvious thing to define communication with woud be communication theory - that is what that particular body of theory was created for...
(sigh of relief) - yeah - you got me on that one....only because I've seen so much of that kind of thing. But on the other hand, coming from you, I should have gotten the joke.
Old 10th April 2010
  #529
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Yeah, well, 'real' might not be the right word.
What i mean by real is that which we can know/measure, without being very phylosophical about it.
And it might be difficult to explain it in simple terms as i'm in no way qualified to lecture this.

Maybe this guy will help to make my point.
Edge: THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE

PS. this thread may indeed not be the right place to discuss this stuff heh
See, that is one of the differences between the theoretic approach of natural sciences and humanities.

The humanities have to study stuff that can not easily be quantified - if indeed it can be quantified at all.
Some would now say that things that cannot be quantified are not real, but that is not so.

An example could be communication/linguistics - just try quantifying the information there is in just one word.

We know there is "real" information in that word - but can you tell me exactly how much?

Or music: How much music is in one note? Or how much music is in one phrase?
Counting music?

But even though you can't count it or measure it - music is definitely real.
Old 10th April 2010
  #530
Gear Maniac
 

Everytime expression tools become more important than the art itself we witness substitution for the real thing. Think about it - every great thing discovered, created or implemented in the history of mankind has happened in ages considered a past relative to our age. And it happened without and despite the achievements of the modern age. I can't name a single fundamental thing of great importance born within the range of the last generations if you don't count the cassette tape. It is absolutely untrue that an artist with a palette of manny colors will create a more beautiful painting than an artist with a two color palette. Add to that that everybody today equiped with a bunch of electronic tools thinks they are artists. Since when DJs with turn tables are called artists? Nothing new has been invented in music since the Classics. Enhanced expression of music achieved by technology might be a better selling point or more digestable form of it for the masses but it doesn't contribute to the art at all. Bach and the rest were right - follow the music whereever it takes you regardless how many "theory of music" rules you have to brake and how many chord progressions you have to ignore. Melody is all! The rest is marketing triks and lots and lots of filling material...
Old 10th April 2010
  #531
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Melody is all?! Well, damn. I didn't know that. I'd say something quite different - not that anything beyond that is the result of 'marketing', but that someone who views art and music the way that you do is extremely close minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miroxp View Post
Everytime expression tools become more important than the art itself we witness substitution for the real thing. Think about it - every great thing discovered, created or implemented in the history of mankind has happened in ages considered a past relative to our age. And it happened without and despite the achievements of the modern age. I can't name a single fundamental thing of great importance born within the range of the last generations if you don't count the cassette tape. It is absolutely untrue that an artist with a palette of manny colors will create a more beautiful painting than an artist with a two color palette. Add to that that everybody today equiped with a bunch of electronic tools thinks they are artists. Since when DJs with turn tables are called artists? Nothing new has been invented in music since the Classics. Enhanced expression of music achieved by technology might be a better selling point or more digestable form of it for the masses but it doesn't contribute to the art at all. Bach and the rest were right - follow the music whereever it takes you regardless how many "theory of music" rules you have to brake and how many chord progressions you have to ignore. Melody is all! The rest is marketing triks and lots and lots of filling material...
Old 10th April 2010
  #532
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
See, that is one of the differences between the theoretic approach of natural sciences and humanities.

The humanities have to study stuff that can not easily be quantified - if indeed it can be quantified at all.
Some would now say that things that cannot be quantified are not real, but that is not so.

An example could be communication/linguistics - just try quantifying the information there is in just one word.

We know there is "real" information in that word - but can you tell me exactly how much?

Or music: How much music is in one note? Or how much music is in one phrase?
Counting music?

But even though you can't count it or measure it - music is definitely real.
I'm not sure if the problem is different for natural science and humanities.
Generally i'd say that humanities deals more often with a higher level, abstract view of the subject while science tries to relentlesly quantify it in every detail.

But there is an overlap between humanities and natural sciences.
There is no clear cut boundary where one stops and the other continues.
The separation is mostly one of methodology and approach.
When i study a subject i usually find them complementary, sometimes even continuous.

Counting music is old stuff.
Notation requires it, for instance.
Performance tho is not so well defined.
Old 10th April 2010
  #533
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miroxp View Post
Nothing new has been invented in music since the Classics.
I don't think you have heared the full extent of what is possible with modern tools.
Yes, we live in a McWorld, but that does not take away the fact that there are some things that realy stand out and have not been produced, even conceptually, in the past.
Old 10th April 2010
  #534
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Generally i'd say that humanities deals more often with a higher level, abstract view of the subject while science tries to relentlesly quantify it
in every detail.
Yes, there is an overlap of course - but fundamentally the subject matter is very different between natural sciences and the humanities, so the approaches have to be equally different.

Once again, how can you quantify the amount of information in one word?

How can you quantify musical content in a phrase? Number of notes?
Are 32 notes per beat automatically better than 16?

Quantify the quality of a phrase played on a saxophone vs. the same phrase played on a trombone?

Of course you can easily analyze it with tools from natural sciences (oscilloscopes, spectral anlyzers and what have you) and say that the differences can be found by analyzing overtones, characters of pitch changes between individual notes and so on
- but that does actually not tell you how a listener perceives the differences, and different listeners perceive it differently and even individuals can perceive the same phrase differently depending on mood and so on and so on...
Old 10th April 2010
  #535
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Melody is all?! Well, damn. I didn't know that. I'd say something quite different - not that anything beyond that is the result of 'marketing', but that someone who views art and music the way that you do is extremely close minded.

Melody is king.

It's the hardest thing to learn to write and is the one thing that makes or breaks a piece of music. It's the one thing that technology has yet to provide 'on a plate' like it has preset rhythms and paterns etc. If you don't have melody you don't have a copyrightable 'song' or piece...

If you write a track with a great melody then that piece can be translated to many different genres of music from a simple solo acoustic guitar to DnB to String quartet to Heavy rock to gamelan etc.

If you don't have melody then all you have is a set of chords or less.

Melody is the main thing lacking from much of the 'sound' music written today and I say it's this lack of melody that is the primary reason we have this debate on 'Music Versus Sound'
Old 10th April 2010
  #536
Lives for gear
 
Simonator's Avatar
 

I can't believe you guys are STILL having this argument!!?

I propose you settle it once & for all by meeting up somewhere convenient, oiling yourselves up, and having a good old fashioned wrestling match while shouting 'gaboloboboloboloboblobolboblobl'
Old 11th April 2010
  #537
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Melody is king.

It's the hardest thing to learn to write and is the one thing that makes or breaks a piece of music. It's the one thing that technology has yet to provide 'on a plate' like it has preset rhythms and paterns etc. If you don't have melody you don't have a copyrightable 'song' or piece...
Well, so you are saying then that a piece of music that is not melodic isn't music? A piece consisting only of timbral variations, etc - is not music? or is it simply inferior, my gracious sir?

Quote:
If you write a track with a great melody then that piece can be translated to many different genres of music from a simple solo acoustic guitar to DnB to String quartet to Heavy rock to gamelan etc.
But, pretty much by definition, if the piece is timbre based, then it can't be translated - so this is kind of circular. Unless your overall criterion for whether something is music, or at least good music, is that it can be played on different instruments and with different genres.

Quote:
If you don't have melody then all you have is a set of chords or less.

Melody is the main thing lacking from much of the 'sound' music written today and I say it's this lack of melody that is the primary reason we have this debate on 'Music Versus Sound'
Well, by golly, you have set the rules for music! I salute you! Much of 20th century music has now been devalued by the Beermeister. His non-elitist majesty kind of cooks the books by first saying that you really need Western music theory, and then saying that only traditional melodic pieces are really music.
Old 11th April 2010
  #538
Lives for gear
 
piotr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonator View Post
I can't believe you guys are STILL having this argument!!?

Yeah...

It's pretty amazing how circuitous the threads can be.

There is probably a way to reduce this music vs. language exchange to something like this:


The following sentence is false.
The preceding sentence is true.

(Which, incidentally, makes me think of mirrors reflecting each other)


BUT, honestly, I will take this discussion of sound / music / language any day over arguments regarding gun control laws or birth certificate of presidential candidates ... ;-)

Respectfully,

p.
Old 11th April 2010
  #539
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonator View Post
I can't believe you guys are STILL having this argument!!?

I propose you settle it once & for all by meeting up somewhere convenient, oiling yourselves up, and having a good old fashioned wrestling match while shouting 'gaboloboboloboloboblobolboblobl'
Nahhhh, that's the british repressed way of doing it.

If i really wanted to touch other men (which i can safely say that i don't) i would find a sauna or club near me, rather than meeting with a bunch of internet musicians from a message board.
But hey, whatever works for you heh

Then there is something else you might not have noticed, namely that the discussion has touched many different subjects (no not in that way you naughty brit)! on its meandering way, and is not really the same now as it was when it started.

...well, with the excepton of Beermaster who apparently still can't get away from the standpoint that his view on how music should be made is superior to all others ...
Old 11th April 2010
  #540
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Once again, how can you quantify the amount of information in one word?

How can you quantify musical content in a phrase? Number of notes?
Are 32 notes per beat automatically better than 16?
You could start by noting the relations between notes instead of their ammount...

Again, this is nothing new.
Why do you think a guitar has frets?
It's because we have quantified the relations between notes.
Scales have been developed that way.
Isn't it funny that we find simple mathematical relations between frequencies pleasing and can attach meaning to a deviation from these relations?

Quote:
Of course you can easily analyze it with tools from natural sciences (oscilloscopes, spectral anlyzers and what have you) and say that the differences can be found by analyzing overtones, characters of pitch changes between individual notes and so on
- but that does actually not tell you how a listener perceives the differences, and different listeners perceive it differently and even individuals can perceive the same phrase differently depending on mood and so on and so on...
Sure, but scopes and spectral analyzers are hardly the right tools for quantifying things like mood or feeling.
It has been said here before.
Relations, transitions, scales, harmonies etc are the tools with which music can be/is quantified.
It does not tell you exactly what the lister is experiencing but nothing in the world can, not humanities, not natural sciences, nothing.
At least, not with our current understanding of how the brain works.

That's why i mentioned the brain earlier.
The brain is a physical object, yet it (collectively) created everything we humans are today (yeah, i know, this is a bit generalizing, there is also the rest of our body and genetic heritage).
The brain made culture possible, language possible, science possible.
The fact that we are here sitting behind our computers, discussing this, is a result of brains acting on the environment.

So ULTIMATELY, to understand us understanding, we need to understand the brain.
To understand how music affects a person, you would need to understand how the music affects that persons brain.

That will be the ultimate place where natural sciences will meet humanities.
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