Just wondering what everyone thought about the subject. Is silence really music? Does the definition of music define that it has to have a sound, or is it the interpretation one could take from silence music in itself?
If silence can be used to emphasise music, then surely without the silence the music wouldn't sound like it was originally intended, so I am still unsure whether this deems it 'music' in itself.While the silence itself is not music, it can be used to punctuate/emphasize the sound that comes before or after it.
Music is not necessarily rhythmical, nor does it have to consist of notes as such. The sound of a tree being scraped by a piece of wood is, by definition, music, but this is not rhythmical, and consists of several tones and sound waveforms overlapping each other. You couldn't picket this sound as 'middle C' for example.Where is the rhythm, where are the notes?
I agree 100%, and I think that the word 'silence' doesn't actually have any meaning at all, because it doesn't exist to human ears. I would actually prefer to call it a 'pause' in the context of music.The first thing I want to make clear is that humans will never experience true silence until they are dead.
I respect your opinion, you are clearly not closed minded in a non musical sense, given that you can respect my opinion. It's the fools that think they are 100% right that I have a problem with.Well, if there was Buddhist chanting music I would wonder why it was on, but if there was only silence I would wonder for ten seconds why there was no music and go to another station. But if you and others consider silence music I'm OK with it.
So you just contradicted yourself by saying it wasn't music, but it is part of music?This is not to say that it is not part of music
Music definately is all sounds, it was whether no sounds is was my question. Look it up, I have no more to say on this matter.Well if music is any and all sounds as well as no sound, you got me beat!
I never claimed not to know what the genuine definition of music meant! I assumed that everyone had the same idea, and I was unsure whether silence would fit into the category. I do not understand why you are being so pendantic about the situation. Instead of answering my question we have now got into a debate about the question istelf being flawed.Well, if you are asking for the definition (which you already seem to know) and not asking for people's opinions on the matter, what was your purpose for creating this thread?
He's right. All of your examples are sounds used in a musical context. If it is not used in an artistic, or musical context you can't call it music, yet.I beg to differer. I think that all sound is music because...
That is a fantastic analogy, hats off to you sir!Silence is music: as zero is a number, black is a colour, and the empty set is a set.
No it isn't.... white is. White reflects all colours back, while black 'absorbs' the colours and reflects none back. Effectively, we see no colour in black.black is a colour,
No one plays silence, they play on it and against it, but they don't play it. By default, to play is an active... erm... activity, while pauses and rests are not.And...silence can be written on a score, right? And you can play it (on whatever instrument), right? Well, so silence is music. The most universal music indeed.
Is a recording of a bird song music?So, for example, the twitter of a bird, which indeed possesses a lot of well identifiable structure (melody, rhythm etc.), is not music if it just happens without anybody driving intellectual attention to it.
On the other hand, a completely random noise is music if intellectual attention is given to it, even though it possesses no structure at all (or, rather, a very broad concept of structure).
This whole argument will continue to go in circles (much like the laptop discussion) as long as different people continue to employ different definitions for the same terms.No it isn't.... white is. White reflects all colours back, while black 'absorbs' the colours and reflects none back. Effectively, we see no colour in black.
My main point was that it was a poor analogy because of this factious poly-definition (that are both true in their respective contexts), not that what it was analogous to was incorrect.This whole argument will continue to go in circles (much like the laptop discussion) as long as different people continue to employ different definitions for the same terms.
This is just blatantly untrue. Music is not art is not 100% subjective, it is just a complex part of philosophy. The reason music is expressive can be argued scientifically with psychiatry. I hate this kind of argument, because it's just meant to restrict everyone to subjective views, which give you an easy defence.Music is an art, art is 100% subjective, therefore music is 100% subjective... Therefore silence (really any sound or lack of sound) is music.
I never said that. I said that it certainly can not ever be music without a musical context. I didn't say everything designed to be a musical context is music.Die Kunst der Fuge said:In some sense, you've already answered this question in a concise way which agrees with my view point. What you call "musical context" I call "giving intellectual attention". More or less.
What if (amazingly) someone has copied the sound of a bird call electronically. And by copy, I mean exactly; tempo, pitch, texture, dynamics etc. etc. It sounds identical to the bird. Is that music? If the bird is music and this isn't even though they are identical, there is a big problem.In some sense, you've already answered this question in a concise way which agrees with my view point. What you call "musical context" I call "giving intellectual attention". More or less.
Ah, ok: I understand.I never said that. I said that it certainly can not ever be music without a musical context. I didn't say everything designed to be a musical context is music.
That is not what I was talking about. Using a recording in music is not having the recording AS the music.Beatrice Harrison certainly thought so, when a nightingale started singing along with her 'in thirds' when she played her cello in her garden one summer evening in 1924, and many times thereafter. The BBC transmitted the phenomenon by radio, and 1 million listeners worldwide seemed to accept it was music. Several recordings were made and issued on 78s - I have some of those recordings. I've written elsewhere on this forum about it in more detail, with links to samples, here.