Militia question 1

[Earthborn]

But I can determine whether or not it's music or just random noise.

Not everything that is not random noise is music. If you want to argue that musical ability is just the ability to produce non-random noise than every mechanical clock or diesel engine has musical ability. I don't think that's what musicologists mean by it, though.

It also does not distinguish between the 'towering virtuoso' and the person who struggles making music. The difference between a virtuoso and a struggler is how good their music is, which you have claimed can be determined objectively. Now you claim otherwise.

Right. And that is their ability to make music as opposed to random noise.

I can easily make noise that is not random. Making music is a lot harder. So my ability to make music is not directly connected to ability to make non-random noise.

Absolutely incorrect. There are all sorts of objective criteria that they use.

What objective criteria can they use to distinguish music from non-music?

In many cases, no.

I don't believe you.

Did someone have to teach you how to deal with each and every challenge or decision you have made in your entire life?

No, and I did not have to teach my cats either. So I don't see the difference between my behaviour and that of other animals.

But it's not limited to the precise lessons of that enforcement. That's the point.

Your point should be that humans and animals are different in this regard. I still don't see how it is.

Not when it's cloudy.

I can think of a few other situations too. If I look out the window, the sky seems closer to orange/black to me.

You don't see any objective difference at all between learning a particular lesson and being able to apply what you've learned to new situations?

No, I don't. In my mind learning means gaining the ability to use it other situations, if I am not able to use it I have not learned it, and if I learned it I am able to use it.

This story doesn't say much. Were these moths taught to do something, or is it just reading harmonic vibrations that all moths eminate?

I'm afraid I posted a link to the wrong moth music because I didn't know where to find the original site I found it on. I meant to post this. This is about using data measured directly from nerve cells and changing them directly into musical sounds. So what you are listening to is nerve cells communicating with eachother.

The link I posted earlier is also interesting, but not as remarkable.

Again, I have pointed out all sorts of things that make music unique from other forms of "vibrating air."

There are still many forms of vibrating air that have many of those characteristics without being music, while some forms of music misses some of these characteristics. I can make a tape consisting of little more than a pounding beat similar to heavy machinery, and some people will think it is music. But the sound of heavy machinery is not something considered music. So what is the difference? Whatever it is, it is not an objective difference. It seems more likely that the difference is in how people interpret the sound.

 

[shanek]

Not everything that is not random noise is music.

I didn't say that it was. Did you not read the posts where I talked about a lot of the physical properties of music, as opposed to just any old noise?

What objective criteria can they use to distinguish music from non-music?

I've already given you several examples, and you show no signs of having actually read it.

I don't believe you.

There's a surprise...

No, and I did not have to teach my cats either.

So give me an example of how your cats applied what you had taught them in completely different situations.

Your point should be that humans and animals are different in this regard.

Well, they are.

This is about using data measured directly from nerve cells and changing them directly into musical sounds. So what you are listening to is nerve cells communicating with eachother.

Okay, but it's not under any direct will of the moth to produce something that sounds nice. It is so with the elephants.

I mean, I think cicadas make beautiful music. They have a nice rhythm and it makes a coherent phrase over time. But I don't pretend that the cicadas are deliberately producing such as music, as opposed to just the sounds they instinctually make to attract mates.

There are still many forms of vibrating air that have many of those characteristics without being music,

Such as?

I can make a tape consisting of little more than a pounding beat similar to heavy machinery, and some people will think it is music.

If it's at a regular tempo, then it could at least be considered a part of a musical piece. In essence, you have a really odd drum kit. Pretty much anything can be an instrument.

Whatever it is, it is not an objective difference. It seems more likely that the difference is in how people interpret the sound.

No, what makes the difference is how the sound is produced. You could open up your cabinets, all the pots and pans fall out and clatter all over the floor, and that wouldn't be music. But I could take those exact same pots and pans and make music out of them.

 

[Earthborn]

Did you not read the posts where I talked about a lot of the physical properties of music, as opposed to just any old noise?

I've read it and I fail to see these properties constitute 'objective music', since such properties can also be found in sounds that people do not recognise as music. You can present all kinds of objective properties of sound, but you don't show that music is not something in the ear of the listener.

Okay, but it's not under any direct will of the moth to produce something that sounds nice.

No. But that should not bother you because you believe that music is objective, so it makes no difference where it comes from or how it is made: only its physical properties are what matters to you.

Such as?

Machines pounding in a sort of rhythm for example. They don't make music, unless a listener uses his subjective mind to hear music in it. The machines only make a lot of noise, it only becomes music through the subjective mind of the listener.

No, what makes the difference is how the sound is produced.

If music is something that exists objectively it should make no difference at all how it is made, only its properties should matter.

So give me an example of how your cats applied what you had taught them in completely different situations.

The problem with that is: I haven't deliberately taught them anything. They just react to their environment and if something changes in their environment they learn from it and manage to come up with appropriate behaviour. Pretty much how I get through life.

Well, they are.

You have been claiming that for a long time now. It's time to present a teensy bit of evidence for it, IMHO.

 

[Mercutio]

But it's not limited to the precise lessons of that enforcement. That's the point.


You don't see any objective difference at all between learning a particular lesson and being able to apply what you've learned to new situations?

Um...this is precisely what I mentioned with regard to "concept formation" in pigeons and shaping creativity in both pigeons and dolphins. I am away from the office now, but could easily dig up citations for each.

Earthborn's observation stands: there is precious little difference between how our behavior is shaped, and how other species' behavior is shaped. Our anthropocentrism leads us to exaggarate what differences we see, and ignore the similarities, but there is a reason that "Don't Shoot The Dog", ostensibly a behaviorist handbook on dog training, has sold so well to people who have no intention of using it on the family pooch: (from a review)

"This delightful, clear, and utterly helpful book is for anyone who wants to understand or change the behavior of an animal--whether the animal in question is a barking dog, a nosy neighbor, a hostile cat, or you and your own bad habits."
--Carol Tavris, Ph.D., author of Anger

 

[shanek]

I've read it and I fail to see these properties constitute 'objective music', since such properties can also be found in sounds that people do not recognise as music.

I'd like to see some examples...

No. But that should not bother you because you believe that music is objective, so it makes no difference where it comes from or how it is made: only its physical properties are what matters to you.

I never said that. Again, please stop putting words into my mouth.

Machines pounding in a sort of rhythm for example.

Rhythm by itself does not make music. It's a part of it, but not the whole. You also need tonality, intonation, phrasing, etc.

Parrots can be taught to mimic certain words. That doesn't mean they're using language.

 

[Mercutio]

Rhythm by itself does not make music. It's a part of it, but not the whole. You also need tonality, intonation, phrasing, etc.

Parrots can be taught to mimic certain words. That doesn't mean they're using language.

Is the song of a lark music, then? Or just noise? (after all, the harsh rasp of a grackle is every bit as much a birdsong...) Is Tom Waits's "Big in Japan" music? Noise? Does your definition of music require it to be in a human context?

 

[shanek]

Is the song of a lark music, then?

It has some elements of music, but not all of them.

Does your definition of music require it to be in a human context?

No, it doesn't, as my reference to the elephant orchestra shows.

 

[Mercutio]

It has some elements of music, but not all of them.

Do we have to guess?

No, it doesn't, as my reference to the elephant orchestra shows.

I can't hear the sounds from that--did they give the elephants instruments (you mention harmonicas) that are already modal in nature? How much of their music is dependent on the harmonic structure of the instruments themselves? If you gave them instruments which are infinitely variable (unfretted strings, trombone (synthesizer, for elephants, of course), would they still "make music"?

How would you compare elephant music to ape or dolphin approximations to human language? Again, at least some elements are there (symbolic representation), others are debatable, with evidence for and against (generativity, grammatical structure). There is no debate that humans are far and away quantitatively better at language...but is it simply quantity, or are there qualitative differences as well? Again, I do not mean for this to lead to a language discussion again, but rather as a comparison to the music claims here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Rhythm by itself does not make music. It's a part of it, but not the whole. You also need tonality, intonation, phrasing, etc.

That's a very narrow-minded and culture-centric definition. Music is what you make of it. To me, John Cage is not music, to others, he is as close to heaven as one can get. OTOH, I enjoy Gregorian a lot, but others fall asleep to it.

You cannot merely assert that music is what you think music is, and all others are subsequently wrong.

Parrots can be taught to mimic certain words. That doesn't mean they're using language.

There is little doubt that birdsong is some form of language. The often highly complex patterns definitely plays a part in both mating and territorial defense. These patterns are learned by other birds, and can even change, if the variation works better.

Life is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be.

 

[Cynical]

"Gregorian"? As in Gregorian Chants?! LOL....no wonder you're a paranoid near-recluse, Claus Flodin.

The next thing you'll probably tell us is which mode you like.....the Dorian mode, I'll bet.

 

[Earthborn]

Shanek, if music was objective we probably wouldn't have this silly conversation. If 'music' was something objective, there would have been a scientific authority that has very narrowly defined what constitutes music and guards against using the word to refer to anything else.

The point of objectivity is that you can't invent your own objective things. There is no way I can invent a weight and claim that it is just as much a kilogram as that platinum thing in Paris. I can't invent my own sort of gravity, or my own atoms. All these things have been narrowly defined based on their physical properties. Anything that does not exactly fit that definition is not the thing refered to.

Music is made creatively. People can invent their own. Some people make instruments that cause random noises and they are allowed to call their work music. People can make music even if they include or omit any or all musical properties. There are many different genres of music and different genres are invented every day. Musicians don't follow any definition of music to make sure what they make still constitutes as music, all they do is listen to it whether it subjectively sounds good to them. Or even whether it sounds bad to them, if that's what they want to create.

Any objective definition of music would severely limit them in their creativity.

Rhythm by itself does not make music.

That's obviously untrue. Some music consists of nothing but rhythm.

You also need tonality

Also obviously untrue. From Wikipedia: "While tonality is the most common form of organizing Western Music, it is not universal"

Great, you have just defined away a lot of musical genres.

I'd like to see some examples...

You've got a lot of nerve asking for examples when you're not willing to provide any examples of your own claims. But here you go...

Spoken language has intonation and phrasing, even rhythm, but it is not music...

People beeping the car horns on a busy intersection produce many tones, but it is not music...

The sound of the men working on the chain gang is not music...

... unless someone subjectively starts to consider it music.

It seems that you know quite a lot about music, Shanek. But you know very little about what 'objectivity' means. Hint: just because something has objectively measureable properties does not make it objective. It also must be narrowly defineable and should not depend on the taste of people.

 

[shanek]

Do we have to guess?
I can't hear the sounds from that--did they give the elephants instruments (you mention harmonicas) that are already modal in nature?[/b]

Some of them, but that's beside the point.

If you gave them instruments which are infinitely variable (unfretted strings, trombone (synthesizer, for elephants, of course), would they still "make music"?

Irrelevant, as they wouldn't have the physical ability to tune them if they wanted to. Those instruments require at least two limbs to manipulate, and elephants can only use their trunks for this.

How would you compare elephant music to ape or dolphin approximations to human language?

Elephant music has much more musical phrasing and rhythmic combinations than any of the others I've heard.

 

[shanek]

There is little doubt that birdsong is some form of language. The often highly complex patterns definitely plays a part in both mating and territorial defense. These patterns are learned by other birds, and can even change, if the variation works better.

Life is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be.

Another example of your rampant dishonesty—deliberately manipulating a legitimate point into something it isn't for the sole purpose of insulting me. Typical.

 

[shanek]

Shanek, if music was objective

Not my claim.

we probably wouldn't have this silly conversation.

We're having this conversation because you apparently can't get around what you think I'm saying to what my claim actually is.

Music is made creatively. People can invent their own.

That's true, but that doesn't mean that people can just make whatever noise they like and call it "music."

Any objective definition of music would severely limit them in their creativity.

Absolute balderdash. I can tell you from first-hand experience that music theory greatly aids in composition, it doesn't limit it at all, and certainly not severely.

Great, you have just defined away a lot of musical genres.

Such as?

Spoken language has intonation and phrasing, even rhythm, but it is not music...

It can be.

People beeping the car horns on a busy intersection produce many tones, but it is not music...

I once heard a car horn concerto. Also a cell phone concerto. If you take these things and structure them in a certain way, you get music.

The sound of the men working on the chain gang is not music...

It can be if it's structured right. Just ask James Carter.

 

[crimresearch]

The point of objectivity is that you can't invent your own objective things

True...but apparently the point of libertarianism is to define one's own personal experiences as objective for everyone else.

Trust me, music isn't the only thing from which it is possible to memorize a lot of buzz words, and then draw completely erroneous conclusions, by redefining the basics to fit subjective conclusions. Self anointed 'Constitutional experts' do it all the time.

That part is easy.

Finding a drummer who can play a shuffle...now that's hard.

 

[CFLarsen]

Elephant music has much more musical phrasing and rhythmic combinations than any of the others I've heard.

And this is where you fail: You judge it from your perspective. You need to step out from your own world and try to understand that your definition is not the universal one.

 

[CFLarsen]

Another example of your rampant dishonesty—deliberately manipulating a legitimate point into something it isn't for the sole purpose of insulting me. Typical.

Instead of sulking like an immature schoolboy, inventing insults where there are none, perhaps you could address the point? Is birdsong not a form of language?

 

[CFLarsen]

We're having this conversation because you apparently can't get around what you think I'm saying to what my claim actually is.

This is a common lament of yours. Do you think it is possible that you might be having problems explaining yourself?

Why does it have to be everybody else's problem?

 

[Earthborn]

Not my claim.

I stand corrected. You claimed that 'musical ability' was objective. Can you explain to me how it is possible to objectively measure musical ability (that is the ability to make music) if music cannot be objectively defined?

That's true, but that doesn't mean that people can just make whatever noise they like and call it "music."

They can, and they do. No one is stopping them.

Absolute balderdash. I can tell you from first-hand experience that music theory greatly aids in composition, it doesn't limit it at all, and certainly not severely.

Music theory certanly helps, but an objective definition of music would not help at all, because it would limit what you're allowed to do and still call it music.

Such as?

Music not based on tonality.

It can be.

Of course it can be. That's my point: when a subjective person decides it is music, it is music.

I once heard a car horn concerto. Also a cell phone concerto. If you take these things and structure them in a certain way, you get music.

You don't need to structure them in a certain way. All that is needed is a subjective person deciding it sounds like music. That person might put more structure in so other people will consider it music too.

It can be if it's structured right.

Adding musical structure makes other subjective people consider it music.

 

[Mercutio]

Some of them, but that's beside the point.

Irrelevant, as they wouldn't have the physical ability to tune them if they wanted to. Those instruments require at least two limbs to manipulate, and elephants can only use their trunks for this.

Elephant music has much more musical phrasing and rhythmic combinations than any of the others I've heard.

Not at all beside the point--if the instruments themselves eliminate discord, they are starting their race ahead of everybody else.

Not irrelevant--one could very easily make an elephant interface to a synthesized trombone or violin (I was looking for something called a "crystal trombone", if memory serves, which is played using the body's interference with an electrical field--one does not actually touch the instrument to play it---a trunk would do just fine to play such an instrument).

Does it have more musical phrasing and rhythm than the improvisational virtuoso mockingbird that lives next door to me?