Fw: Re: Why the music is music and the noise is noise?

[Peter Lennox <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lennox" <peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "Julian Vrieslander" <julianv@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sent: 24 April 2001 21:23
Subject: Re: Re: Why the music is music and the noise is noise?


> I think you've put your finger on it there; the music lies in the
"pattern",
> not the sound(s) per se. So the examples you quote, including the V12, are
> all potential musical *materials*, though do not necessarily in themselves
> constitute 'music'.
> So, music is that which is recognizable as such. But the idea that 'music
is
> in the ear of the beholder', so to speak, should (in my view) be treated
> with some degree of suspicion, being related to relativism. But it's a
deep
> philosophical point, metaphysical in nature and so not really open to
> proof/disproof, at this time.
> I take on board what several people have said about the cultural
constructs,
> but only up to a point. As soon as 'preference' comes into it, I have
> doubts. For instance, with music as with food, for instance, I might
> recognise 'good' music, without liking it (or conversely might like 'poor
> quality' music).
> And with territorial issues, such as someone else's music ( especially too
> loud), it's important to recognise that something can be 'noise' and
'music'
> *simultaneously* (it could be music that I would like if I was playing it,
> but don't if someone else is).
> The question does really revolve around whether there exists the
possibility
> of an 'objective' definition of music, whether definitions must be
> task-specific, or completely specific to the individual.
> regards,
> ppl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Vrieslander" <julianv@MINDSPRING.COM>
> To: <AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>
> Sent: 24 April 2001 05:50
> Subject: Re: Why the music is music and the noise is noise?
>
>
> > On 4/23/01 11:36 PM, James W. Beauchamp <j-beauch@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU>,
> > wrote:
> >
> > >A simplistic answer to the original question is to take two sound
> > >signals, one considered "noise" (e.g., "white noise") and one
considered
> > >to be "music" (e.g., "Beetoven's Fifth Symphony") and connect them
> > >to two inputs on a mixer. Then start with one fader full on and the
> > >other completely off. Gradually lower the first fader while increasing
> > >the second...
> >
> > And when the channels are balanced, the resulting mix will sound
> > remarkably like a Philip Glass composition.  ;-)
> >
> > On a more serious note...  There are many sounds which are "pleasant" or
> > "interesting" - waterfalls, purring kittens, happily babbling babies.  I
> > happen to love the sound of a Ferrari V-12 engine (no, I don't own one).
> > But only in a figurative sense do we consider those sounds as music.
> >
> > I don't have an answer to the question of why some sounds are considered
> > music.  But I suspect that we might get some interesting answers from
> > people who study ethnomusicology and music theory.  I'm guessing that
> > they will mention the familiar notions of harmony, rhythm, dynamics,
> > tempo, timbre, repetition and surprise, etc.  These qualities differ in
> > the musics of different cultures, but perhaps there are common shared
> > threads.
> >
> > Human brains have evolved a capacity for recognizing patterns in our
> > experiences.  If we are "higher" than some other animals, it might be
> > because our recognition abilities operate at many levels.  We recognize
> > harmonically repeating waves as tones.  We recognize more complex
> > patterns of sounds as speech elements and musical timbres.  We recognize
> > sequences of sounds as sentences and melodies.  Perhaps music is
> > pleasurable becuase it stimulates our brains, to exercize many of these
> > recognition mechanisms simultaneously and in novel or playful ways.
> >
> > --
> > Julian Vrieslander <mailto:julianv@mindspring.com>
> >
> >
>