Subject: Re: Why the music is music and the noise is noise? From: Peter Lennox <peter(at)LENNOX01.FREESERVE.CO.UK> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:30:49 +0100If you subscribe to the definition of music as "organised sound", then what Yadong is asking for is a "sound organiser"; if you subscribe to the definition of "human organised sound", then the device asked for is clearly one which necessarily requires a competant human interface ( thus excluding most algorithmic composition). "Noise" is obviously "unwanted signal", and clearly includes other peoples' music. Therefore, clearly, a universal 'converter' is impossible. But most 6-year olds can reach a better consensus than that; therefore there must be a more precise definition of 'music', though it might be highly task-specific (and therefore not generaliseable). Overall, it sounds like what is needed is a human. interesting, then, that you think the question is 'vague'; it seems that it is the subject matter which is actually 'vague', unsurprisingly. regards, ppl ----- Original Message ----- From: "James W. Beauchamp" <j-beauch(at)UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: 23 April 2001 22:24 Subject: Re: Why the music is music and the noise is noise? > >Can we build a system which can turn the noise to the music? > > What do you mean by "can turn ... to"? Also, what do you mean > by "noise" and "music"? This is a very vague question! > > Jim Beauchamp > >