Militia question 1

[shanek]

That may be so. However:

Where is the phrasing?

It's there. The phrases are longer than most musical phrases, but they're still there. The clip you posted didn't sound like a complete phrase, but the one I found did. Note how it starts off with a dissonance, then slowly builds. It takes on more minor overtones about halfway through, and then builds on dissonance in a matter reminiscent of the start of the clip, moving to its highest pitch at the very end, a more centered resolution.

Where is the rhythm?

It's there; it's just a very slow rhythm.

In what rhythm is this? 3/4? 2/3?

Those are meters, not rhythm. I didn't notice any discernible meter. (And there's no such thing as 2/3 meter as there's no such thing as a third-note.)

Where is the tonality?

All over the place! Especially in his use of dissonant intervals.

What musical ability does this music require?

To play, it sounds like it's a pretty easy piece.

Why does it do a better job?

Well, there's the phrasing I mentioned earlier; also, the timbre of the sounds is more discernable. The clip you posted had more white noise, and also pegged the volume. But it was still tonal. Listen to that first note, for example; that's a tone. It sounds like B-flat to me, although I don't have a keyboard handy to confirm that. It's tonal, though.

 

[shanek]

The reason why the most talented performers practice is because they need to develop their motor skills. It isn't as if they don't know what key to hit, it has nothing to do with their musical skills.

Playing music is about much more than "knowing what key to hit." And physical ability plays into it greatly.

[Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

 

[Earthborn]

No, I presented characteristics that they all certainly have, just like I have with music.

Obviously untrue, and some of the characteristics are not even objective characteristics. For example you say that "Tools are also evaluated in their ability to perform whatever the intended task is". You make the definition of a tool dependent on 'intent'. So is a rock a tool, or isn't it? If the person handling it decides that it can perform the intended task, anything can be a tool, right? That means there is no way to differentiate between tools and non-tools and as a result 'tools' cannot be objectively defined.

I've given you physical reasons why it would sound better; why is this not enough?

It is not enough because measuring the better sound depends on the experience of a subjective person. The biases and preferences of that person always get in the way of measuring objective reality. It basically is a taste test and that does not change when everybody likes it.

And what would be?

An objective definition of 'better sound' and a measuring device that is not a subjective mind showing that it is better sound according to the definition.

No, that is actually its most basic and most correct definition.

Well, yeah... Sure, whatever. Shanek again knows better than the possibly hundreds of people who made that Wikipedia page, who likely are experts in their field.

If you know better than them, edit the page. There is no reason to keep incorrect information in Wikipedia, especially if all you need to replace it with is "tonality means it consists of tones".

I never said tones were exclusive to music.

You have not presented any characteristic that is exclusive of music, and you also have not shown that something is not music if it misses one or two or all of the characteristics of music.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's there. The phrases are longer than most musical phrases, but they're still there. The clip you posted didn't sound like a complete phrase, but the one I found did. Note how it starts off with a dissonance, then slowly builds. It takes on more minor overtones about halfway through, and then builds on dissonance in a matter reminiscent of the start of the clip, moving to its highest pitch at the very end, a more centered resolution.

That, shanek, is a load of baloney.

It's there; it's just a very slow rhythm.

What beat is it? You know, because you just claimed to know in what rhythm it is.

Those are meters, not rhythm. I didn't notice any discernible meter. (And there's no such thing as 2/3 meter as there's no such thing as a third-note.)

Oh, yes, there is. You can divide notes into whatever you want. "Western" classical music has it down to 1/64th of a note (at least), so don't give me that. In music, you can do what you want to do.

All over the place! Especially in his use of dissonant intervals.

Baloney. Explain where.

To play, it sounds like it's a pretty easy piece.

How so? How did the composer perform this?

Well, there's the phrasing I mentioned earlier;

How so?

also, the timbre of the sounds is more discernable.

Why?

The clip you posted had more white noise, and also pegged the volume. But it was still tonal.

Why?

Listen to that first note, for example; that's a tone. It sounds like B-flat to me, although I don't have a keyboard handy to confirm that. It's tonal, though.

Anything is tonal, then. A rock striking another rock, a piece of metal striking a rock, a string being struck by a hand.

(Yes, I am calling your bluff, because I am not impressed. Feel free to dismiss my post as "personal abuse".)

 

[CFLarsen]

Playing music is about much more than "knowing what key to hit." And physical ability plays into it greatly.

Of course it does, but it is not the means to an end. You still need to feel the music, not merely banging away mechanically at keys.

[Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

.....sigh.....you really do have a problem with that, don't you?. Anything that doesn't fit into Shanek-Universe is deemed "personal abuse".

Let go of this incredible ego you have. It prevents you from understanding reality.

 

[c0rbin]

Oh, yes, there is. You can divide notes into whatever you want. "Western" classical music has it down to 1/64th of a note (at least), so don't give me that. In music, you can do what you want to do.

Umm, no. The lower number refers to the beat. The top number refers to the number of those beats per measure.

The beat durations you have access to in notation are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64...

In order for notation to make sense, these are your only options.

It is the top number that you have the freedom to use whatever number you like.

So you could have 12/2 or 13/64 or 111/4. Though, for obvious reasons, most composers stick to 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, or 12/8 and use combinations of the odd and even meters as the piece calls for them.

You cannot have x/3 or x/6 or x/7. It is meaningless.

 

[Earthborn]

We need a better example of a musical work that misses many of the characteristics Shanek claims are what 'objectively' defines music.

How about this, Shanek? Is it music?

 

[CFLarsen]

Umm, no. The lower number refers to the beat. The top number refers to the number of those beats per measure.

The beat durations you have access to in notation are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64...

In order for notation to make sense, these are your only options.

Nope. You can do whatever you want in music, and it is still music, if you say so. Whether I like it or not, hey, that's my way of looking at things. If you say it's music, it's music.

It is the top number that you have the freedom to use whatever number you like.

So you could have 12/2 or 13/64 or 111/4. Though, for obvious reasons, most composers stick to 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 6/4, 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, or 12/8 and use combinations of the odd and even meters as the piece calls for them.

You cannot have x/3 or x/6 or x/7. It is meaningless.

Rubbish. Of course you can have 7ths of a beat. It all comes down to what we - you and I - are used to. If you want 1853/62, be my guest.

I am probably not going to listen to it, but hey....

 

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen Regarding 2/3 time

Oh, yes, there is. You can divide notes into whatever you want. "Western" classical music has it down to 1/64th of a note (at least), so don't give me that. In music, you can do what you want to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So what happens if you divide it down to thousandths of a whole note...is 1inClaus now listening to homeopathic music?

 

[CFLarsen]

So what happens if you divide it down to thousandths of a whole note...is 1inClaus now listening to homeopathic music?

If a note can be discerned, it is detectable. Ergo, not homeopathic.

 

[shanek]

Obviously untrue, and some of the characteristics are not even objective characteristics. For example you say that "Tools are also evaluated in their ability to perform whatever the intended task is". You make the definition of a tool dependent on 'intent'.

Well, isn't it?

So is a rock a tool, or isn't it?

For what use? You can't ask that kind of question in a vacuum. You also don't really specify what you mean by "rock." I seriously doubt that a 25-ton rock is much good for anything, tool-wise. If you maintain a rock is a tool for driving in nails like a hammer, you want to restrict what you're talking about since neither the 25-ton rock nor the 2-gram pebble will do you much good here.

If the person handling it decides that it can perform the intended task, anything can be a tool, right?

Not really...I don't know how you could drive in a nail with Jell-O.

It is not enough because measuring the better sound depends on the experience of a subjective person.

But again, you're going to a qualitative argument, which I'm not making any claims of objectivity about. A rock of appropriate size and a hammer are both tools for driving in nails; that a hammer is so much better at it than a rock does not alter the fact that they are both tools.

You have not presented any characteristic that is exclusive of music,

Since I have never claimed that there is any one characteristic that is exclusive of music, I fail to see why this is a problem.

 

[shanek]

That, shanek, is a load of baloney.

Not at all. Listen to it. That's the progression it follows.

What beat is it?

I haven't timed it, but it sounds like something on the order of 10 beats per minute.

Oh, yes, there is. You can divide notes into whatever you want. "Western" classical music has it down to 1/64th of a note (at least), so don't give me that. In music, you can do what you want to do.

Nice evasion of a point and avoidance of your own ignorance.

Baloney. Explain where.

They're throughout the entire clip, Claus. I described a lot of them above.

How so? How did the composer perform this?

Electronically, so it's difficult to say without seeing a video. He could have simply used a standard musical keyboard.

How so?

Already explained.

Why?

As I said, the introduction of white noise and the pegging of the sound level. Please read.

Why?

Well, for an example, I told you that the initial tone was B-flat. Are you even reading, or are you just being your usual @$$hole?

Anything is tonal, then.

Not at all. Pure white noise isn't tonal, for example.

 

[shanek]

Of course it does, but it is not the means to an end. You still need to feel the music, not merely banging away mechanically at keys.

You have no evidence that I do this, and so it's just more evidence of your own bigotry that makes you levy this accusation.

For your information, when I'm in that mood, it's usually the slower, softer pieces I go for. Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique works wonderfully when I need to be reminded that there is beauty in the world.

What you are doing IS personal abuse, and it IS the result of nothing more than your own bigotry.

 

[shanek]

Umm, no. The lower number refers to the beat. The top number refers to the number of those beats per measure.

The beat durations you have access to in notation are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64...

Exactly: powers of two. Mathematical progression. Binary math. And the fact that this division predates the discovery of binary math, this should tell you something.

 

[shanek]

We need a better example of a musical work that misses many of the characteristics Shanek claims are what 'objectively' defines music.

How about this, Shanek? Is it music?

No. It's musical dadaism.

 

[shanek]

So what happens if you divide it down to thousandths of a whole note...is 1inClaus now listening to homeopathic music?

He is if he clicks on Earthborn's link!

 

[Earthborn]

Well, isn't it?

I'd say it is, but that automatically makes it impossible to define it objectively.

You can't ask that kind of question in a vacuum.

If you claim something can be defined objectively, then you'll have to define it exclusively on properties it objectively has under all circumstances. If it is necessary to consider what a subjective person wants to do with it, you make it relative to people's intent and therefore defined as a subjective thing.

Not really...I don't know how you could drive in a nail with Jell-O.

It may be a tool for something else. Whether it is a tool is relative to the wishes of a subjective person.

But again, you're going to a qualitative argument, which I'm not making any claims of objectivity about.

Then what are you making claims of objectivity about?

Since I have never claimed that there is any one characteristic that is exclusive of music, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You have claimed that 'musical ability' is objective. If you cannot explain what objective thing someone with 'musical ability' can do opposed to to someone without it, I don't see how you can claim the ability is 'objective'.

No. It's musical dadaism.

How do you define 'musical dadaism' ? And if it is not music, why refer to it as 'musical' ?

 

[Earthborn]

And the fact that this division predates the discovery of binary math, this should tell you something.

Are you sure? The Ancient Egyptians already used binary arithmatic for both multiplication and division.

 

[c0rbin]

Nope. You can do whatever you want in music, and it is still music, if you say so. Whether I like it or not, hey, that's my way of looking at things. If you say it's music, it's music.



Rubbish. Of course you can have 7ths of a beat. It all comes down to what we - you and I - are used to. If you want 1853/62, be my guest.

I am probably not going to listen to it, but hey....

Nope.

You are correct that you can crash a car into a wall and call the sound it makes music. And you are correct that you can divide a note into sevenths.

But if you establish the meter of your piece as being "x/7", you are writing--what was your word--rubbish. And you saying that it isn't is as ignorant as BigFig claiming her perceptions as reality.

Now is this the point where I shrug my shoulders at your "I will retreat into pedantia rather than admit I am full of sh!t"? Or can you muster the sack to admit you might have learned something.

From an American, no less.

 

[Earthborn]

Wikipedia on Music and Definitions of Music.