Okay, what if I had lied to you and said it was actually composed by Ligeti? Would you have then considered it to be music?Originally Posted by starthrower
But of course, as you can see, whether you consider it to be music or not doesn't matter in the least bit, which is why giving up on the idea of "defining music" is the only sensible solution. If you find any better ones, I'd be glad if you told me about them.
Last edited by Dodecaplex; Jan-08-2012 at 07:31.
Okay, knowing Polednice, we can get a meaningful discussion out of this. Let us proceed . . .
My initial understanding was that if our definitions for music were so specific, then there'd be no use for them in the first place. But I'm going to let that pass because, after all, a tautological statement such as "man-made music is made by humans" would indeed be redundant, but I can't think of anything that could falsify such a definition. If these definitions are okay with you, then so be it. But . . . I like to take it a level further.In that case, we should have specific (and probably tautological) definitions for all the different things that can make music (man-made music is music made by humans, animal-made music is made by animals, water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls etc.) which just makes the whole thing even more nonsensical.
This will be making things a bit too philosophical; however, if we're going to discuss aesthetics, then we're bound to run into such problems. Essentially, this is what I'm trying to say: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a God exists. In this case, would you agree that the existence of such a being would be of supreme importance? After all, since he created the universe and all the things that are possible within it, then he is the absolute judge of everything in this universe. If you disagree, then explain why. And if you agree, then I'd also agree and I'd say that it logically follows that such a being's judgment, whatever it may be, would be the "right" judgment.. . . by the way, you didn't address the point about the supreme being whose judgment of music is higher than all of our judgments . . .
That's because it didn't make sense.
Now, what this tells us is: our judgment of the facts in this universe is very limited, which leads to the conclusion that our definition of music is meaningless since we can't be certain whether it agrees or doesn't agree with the supreme being's definition. This is why I keep saying that defining music is nonsensical. What do you say?
But the converse generally argued for in this thread is a definition so vague that it also has no use. The way I would prefer to interpret things is that big-M Music is defined by sounds created deliberately by humans, while little-m musical things can include any sounds humans appreciate which aren't created by or for them. I don't know if that's any more sensical, I'm just thinking out loud.My initial understanding was that if our definitions for music were so specific, then there'd be no use for them in the first place. But I'm going to let that pass because, after all, a tautological statement such as "man-made music is made by humans" would indeed be redundant, but I can't think of anything that could falsify such a definition. If these definitions are okay with you, then so be it. But . . . I like to take it a level further.
Not necessarily. Because:
The second statement does not naturally follow the first. You are interpreting the notion of God in the monotheistic tradition, but there are an infinite number of conceivable deities that could create a universe and life, but have no interest in the affairs of life, and never intervene in those affairs, meaning that, despite its existence, it would be of little importance to life except as another little factoid to collect.
Even if I were to accept your monotheistic, omni-everything interpretation, I still have an issue with you saying that it follows that the supreme being's judgement would be "right". Its morals would be absolute if it could punish us for transgression after death (not necessarily an attribute of a supreme being), though we could still find those morals repugnant and follow them purely out of fear. Does that make them "right"? Just because an all-powerful being created the universe and allowed my existence does not mean that I owe it deference! I would challenge the notion that absolute truths ever exist in any universe with any kind of deity.
On aesthetics, the situation is even hazier. The very nature of aesthetics is about human appreciation. Would a deity even hold an opinion or a definition? Would it matter if it did? I don't think so. Appreciation of aesthetics and defining various aspects or manifestations of aesthetics is an entirely human endeavour, and the point of doing so is not to uncover any fundamental truths (which, indeed, everyone should accept is a silly thing to try), but to come to some consensus about a useful approach and a useful set of definitions to aid the human experience.
I'll repeat in other words that I don't think it matters whether there's a deity or not, and I don't think it matters if a deity gives you rules and offers reward and punishment; I do not believe that absolute truth exists anywhere in the multiverse and so I think it is an invalid criticism to say that a discussion about definition is pointless because it can't come to a conclusion of truth. It's not about being right, it's about having a conversation useful to the human experience, which I would contend is always more important than following the rules of even the most benevolent tyrant.
Last edited by Polednice; Jan-08-2012 at 14:02.
I'm not out to define music for anyone's ears but my own. I'll just decide that for myself. It's interesting to hear those sounds recorded from Jupiter, but I wouldn't buy a CD of that stuff. Ligeti may have composed a few textual pieces in this vein, but overall his body of work is obviously much more diverse. I don't expect Jupiter to produce something like his sonata for solo cello, or his violin concerto.
Rossini on the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique : " It's a good thing this isn't music ".
Some composers hate to admit that another composer wrote something that they couldn't conceive of or create themselves. Easier to throw the insults about.
Well, the problem I would have with making such a distinction is that it's in a sense degrading the little-m musical things. I don't see why we should make this differentiation in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?
I knew this was going to be your response. But think about it, what this actually does is that it simply adds another layer of uncertainty to our thinking. After all, it's not just that we have to worry that our aesthetical judgment may or may not be the same as the deity's judgment, but there's also the problem that such a deity may or may not exist and/or care in the first place. This just makes the entire endeavor more nonsensical and futile.After all, since he created the universe and all the things that are possible within it, then he is the absolute judge of everything in this universe.
Not the best analogy in the world, but can characters in novels defy or question their author? They are all merely play-things compared to the grand writer that created them. They may dislike how they've gone through murder, rape, natural disasters, and all other sorts of tragedies (perphaps because the author had already decided that they would dislike it), but they simply can't question the author's sense of right or wrong because he's on an entirely different level. If this monotheistic God exists, and if he's a massive a**hole, then there's nothing you or I could do about it. We'd be merely play-things compared to this grand deity. As you see, this introduces the philosophical problem of free-will, as well as a countless number of other problems, so I suggest we simply drop this line of argument.
I don't know whether or not the deity would hold a definition or opinion, but if it did, then yes, it would matter. And, like I said, this simply adds another layer of uncertainty. But to address your second point, hmm . . . I guess you're right there. As long as we don't try to come up with an objective definition for music and then proclaim it to be a universal definition, and as long as we actually admit that it's nothing more than a label that's there to aid our experiences, then I'd agree with you. In the end, what I'm saying is that we must acknowledge our limitations.
This is all true because of the massive cloud of uncertainty and confusion that is blurring the little amount of knowledge we have. You see, it's not that not reaching a conclusion of truth is an invalid criticism, but because it's a valid criticism, is why we should have never tried to reach a conclusion of truth in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?
It's only degrading if you are taking the word "music" to have certain judgement values attached to it. For example, when people state a metaphor like, "this poem is so musical!", what they're not doing is calling it music; what they're doing is complimenting the poem by associating it with something they like (music). Those are associations that need to be discounted in this discussion. To say that non-human little-m "musical" things are not music is not a subtle insult; it's an emotionless statement declaring that they are sounds not made by humans.
In other words, take the word "music" to be exactly synonymous with the phrase "sounds created deliberately by humans." Not something judgemental like "pleasing sounds created deliberately by humans." That way, it is not degrading to refer to little-m 'musical' things.
It makes the endeavour futile if we're comparing our judgements to a speculated supreme being, but I don't know why you brought that into the discussion in the first place! So remove the deity from the equation - what uncertainty is pointless now?
You're right that it's not the best analogy.What I would briefly say (although I agree we should discontinue this particular line of argument) is that you make an unsubstantiated leap from "things the creator has happen in its world" to "this is a demonstration of the creator's sense of right and wrong." I don't think those naturally follow, and even if we were mere play-things, what separates us from fictional characters is consciousness. That allows us to question the deity's whims and/or benevolence as much as we like, even if we can never have an impact on it.
Why?
Good!
You're just doing a 180 on me without telling me why.
Last edited by Polednice; Jan-08-2012 at 20:59.
Fair enough.
I brought it into the discussion because it's a possibility that cannot be ignored. I simply can't ignore the possibility that there might be an omni-everything God, and if such a God exists, we can't argue with his judgment. Keep in mind that, here, I'm not talking about labels that could aid us with our experiences, I'm talking about the conclusion of truth you were referring to, as well as the fact that such a conclusion can never be reached by humans, which is why I say that we ultimately can't define or judge music.
You misunderstood me here. I never said anything about any demonstration of a creator's sense of right or wrong. My entire point was to actually demonstrate that we can't know or judge a creator's sense of right or wrong. And mentioning consciousness brings in the problem of free will, so let's forget about this argument.You're right that it's not the best analogy.
The deity is what caused the music and the composers who created the music to be able to exist in the first place. I don't know what the deity's judgment would be, and I don't know whether or not it will have a judgment, but if it does and whatever that judgment may be, it is still beyond us. To summarize everything that I've said: we can't be sure about any objective values or judgments, but if there were any such things, the creator's judgment would be above everyone else's.Why?
If I were to say "not reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is an invalid criticism of our discussion", then that implies we can actually reach a conclusion about the definition of music with our discussion. For instance, take the negation of it: "reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is a valid criticism of our discussion", which is just as absurd. So, the correct form would be to say "not reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is a valid criticism of our discussion". After that, what you said in the last paragraph from your previous post logically follows, though I'd still disagree with some parts of it. I think that our main disagreement lies in what we exactly think of the two words "valid criticism".You're just doing a 180 on me without telling me why.
Whhhhyyyyyyyyyy?!?!!
Which is, word for word, precisely why the judgement does not matter to the human race.
Again why? I think we're actually talking at cross-purposes here. Let me split it up a little:
1) If there are objective measures of music, then yes, the attribute of omniscience would place a supreme being's judgement above ours.
2) If - as I have actually been talking about (though you may have got confused and not realised) - all measures of music are purely subjective, then the deity's judgement does not matter, because it has no role in subjective experience.
Cross-fire again, I think. By "invalid", I do not mean "diametrically wrong." Therefore, the negation of the sentence doesn't matter, and it doesn't imply anything. By "invalid", what I mean is that the criticism has no place in the discussion because it is accepted that no conclusion can be reached, so pointing that out adds nothing to the discussion and is not a true criticism.
Scroll down.Whhhhyyyyyyyyyy?!?!!
Yes, that's exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. And I completely agree with that statement.
No, the subjective measures of music don't interest me. I thought we were already beyond that.
Yes, it is accepted that no conclusion can be reached, which is why it has to be explicitly stated that no conclusion can be reached, which is why I believe it is a valid criticism that cannot be trivialized. Call it the fundamental axiom of music if you will.
Last edited by Dodecaplex; Jan-09-2012 at 00:25.
We're making ground, dodeca, making ground! I almost want to hug you!
On this final point, though, I must nit-pick. Yes, no conclusion can be reached. Yes, it should be stated and accepted that no conclusions can be reached. BUT, it is not a criticism of any kind because we're not trying to reach conclusions. As I said before, the conversation is meant to be more utilitarian than that - it's about coming to a consensus on a concept useful for exploring an aspect of human experience; not about finding out something that's 'right'.
If there are people trying to reach proper conclusions, then it's a valid criticism - but those people don't come under the category of those who have accepted that no conclusions can be reached.
Well, this is great. I feel like Aristotle when he first came up with his classic laws of logic and whatnot.We're making ground, dodeca, making ground! I almost want to hug you!
On this final point, though, I must nit-pick. Yes, no conclusion can be reached. Yes, it should be stated and accepted that no conclusions can be reached. BUT, it is not a criticism of any kind because we're not trying to reach conclusions. As I said before, the conversation is meant to be more utilitarian than that - it's about coming to a consensus on a concept useful for exploring an aspect of human experience; not about finding out something that's 'right'.
If there are people trying to reach proper conclusions, then it's a valid criticism - but those people don't come under the category of those who have accepted that no conclusions can be reached.
Now, to come up with a subjective and utilitarian definition for music I am going to say that music is any and all sounds that exist in this universe and that can be heard, appreciated, and/or remembered by a sentient being. For the sake of making things easier to organize, I should divide it into three categories: man-made music, animal-made music, and natural music. Each of these have tautological definitions that cannot be falsified. Finished.
The funny thing is when you realize just how little is accomplished with our subjective defining of music. The world is still the same, composers still compose what they want, birds still chirp, planets still emit electromagnetic vibrations etc. Nothing has changed aside from how we view things.
Last edited by Dodecaplex; Jan-09-2012 at 00:14.
I love how many words it takes you guys to say you can't come to any conclusion! Of course, the rest of us have no problem with doing that...
Animal made music makes me laugh though! I'm picturing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwyEg3JxwyU
Last edited by bigshot; Jan-09-2012 at 00:06.
Note the bolded part, which I would use to specify that not all sounds in the universe could be music. For example, sounds outside our range of hearing would not be music, and nor would sounds that are invariably painful. This also brings up another pointless point, which is that I think a definition for music is only useful within a single species. It must change for different species in accordance with their auditory experience.Now, to come up with a subjective and utilitarian definition for music I am going to say that music is any and all sounds that exist in this universe and that can be heard, appreciated, and/or remembered by a sentient being. For the sake of making things easier to organize, I should divide it into three categories: man-made music, animal-made music, and natural music. Each of these have tautological definitions that cannot be falsified. Finished.
My next useless conjecture would be that I think all sounds that meet the above criteria are not music until they are appreciated. They are not music on the moment of creation; they must become music on the moment of reception.
I know. I'm not gaining anything from the discussion except having a bit of harmless fun.
Posting Permissions
141Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
