There is no music, there’s just you and everybody else. No, I’m not drunk or anything, I just realized what always bugged me about the phrase “I love music”, that is, about how it’s often meant. Music isn’t a quantifiable resource, it’s not an event that happens by itself, it’s an activity of humans period. Just because humans most of the time don’t really know what exactly they’re doing and why doesn’t make it less so IMHO.
Now that was random huh. Thanks for your attention.
Music itself exists but what it does with people is on a “higher level”. With music, everybody created an atmosphere. The tribes in the stone-age used music to get into a trance. Sometimes music was a tool to make people angry to fight better.
Music has always been there (even with animals that sing at their courtship) - Cats sing strange noises and birds try to sing louder than other birds.
You might say: These are just some noises. And you might be true. But these are noises with a reason and so, I say: This is music and it exists
I merely said that it’s an activity (so is love btw), not an external resource.
“love makes us do weird things.”
That’s just word play though. We love. Love doesn’t make us do anything. Just like we get drunk and then do silly stuff - it’s not like the alcohol makes us do it. We drink it, our body actively takes the alcohol and puts it in places where it messes stuff up. And so on.
“So why not music, and love it?”
If that is an honest question, you can find the answer in my first post: because it’s an activity of humans, it can always be traced back to actual people/groups, and therefore it’s actually those people (or some of their actions) you love, or yourself for what you make out of those actions.
Calling one of their sides “music”, separate it from them and love it fetish style…I’m not even sure anybody does that, mind you, some pople sometimes sound like they do. It could very well be that everybody gets it intuitively right, even though they talk about it like they don’t. That sometimes got to me, so I thought about it and shared the result. Which happens to be correct.
I disagree entirely… music is a quantifiable resource. We define music as:
So we have a clear definition of what music is. Based on this definition, we can easily identify what is, and what is not music. Your statement that music is “… not an event that happens by itself, it’s an activity of humans…” is not entirely true… as other animals make music also. It also doesn’t detract from our ability to quantify music. Building cars is an entirely human activity, but cars are most definitely a quantifiable resource. Just because music isn’t physically tangible, using our sense of touch at least (even this is highly debatable), doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in the physical world. It most definitely does, and is even measurable using physical tools. The fact is, we can produce music… we can gather it… we can consume it… and just like everything else in this world, we place a value on it. It is as entirely quantifiable as anything else in our society. Value of course is related directly to the concept of “good” or “bad” … and just like good cars and bad cars(LEMONS!), there is “good music” and “bad music” … measuring how good music is, however, is another discussion entirely.
So yes, as I see it, your logic is entirely flawed, unless you’re denouncing the entire concept of quantifying ANY resource. I might then be inclined to agree.
That said, perhaps you were trying to imply that the value of music to an artist is entirely different than the value of their music to the rest of the world… and to that, I wholeheartedly agree. But that said, the same could be said of the difference in value of anything when comparing the producer to the end recipient. I could make a quilt, and that quilt is of incalculable value to me, but to anyone else, it has about as much worth as any other quilt.
Love is a chemical reaction in your brain. It DOES make you do something, often weird. Sure, you can MAKE love, but that’s a nice
way of saying ‘to fuck’. You can ‘suffer from love’, it’s the love that
causes your behaviour, like suffering from a headache can influence
Music is not per se an activity. It’s a concept that has evolved over
time, meaning different things. To some, grindcore is not music.
Are they wrong? Two hundred years ago they wouldn’t be, simply
because it wouldn’t have fit the ‘common definiton’, not because the
activity was impossible.
Music as a concept is not limited to the human race. Music is a way of
communicating, like speech. I guess from your point of view speech
doesn’t exist either? Yet birds do it, bees do it, fish do it. Raindrops on
your window can be interpret as music, or a howling wind, a crackling
fire. Why else would they be integrated in human music?
You set your own definition of music and make conclusions accordingly.
That is wordplay as well
So? It’s an activity of lifeforms then. An expression of emotion of pure vitality. Yes, the recordings are quantifiable, Captain Obvious.
That’s great, because I never did and never would claim such sillyness. I didn’t say it doesn’t exist we can’t touch it - lol. I said it’s an activity, not cake or salad. It’s like saying I love to party vs. I love marble or orange helicopters. I cannot get much clearer. Geez.
You cannot put words into my mouth and then say my logic is flawed?
I didn’t claim music is restricted to humans, I wasn’t talking about recordings, I was talking about people perceive it, not how it is defined. All except the first were kinda obvious…
You say “we define music as” and then use a definition that is obviously different from that which I had in mind in my first post, you don’t ask or care if I agree with that definition. Instead you tell me what I think, give me some generous options to pick to be correct, and also fun facts like that music can by physically measured, but not touched!
That was awesome.
“when people say “I love music” they mean they love recordings of music, silly Johann” would have been to obvious I guess.
Gah, even more word play. It could be said that “any” action is a chemical reaction. But hey, a lot of things could be said. What the f, are we going to discuss the very nature of reality next? Free will? Pull that stunt in the arranger thread or something, there it would be actually useful
I didn’t even read the rest. Seriously, when you skip over stuff I said first why should I respond to stuff you said later in response to what you made up…
Generally speaking, to many occasions:
“Look, stop. I can tell you what happened. I said something simple and correct. You misunderstood and corrected me and now you need to have the last word, so you state a lot of obvious things in flowery language. I’m out of here, enjoy yourself.”
Perhaps you should have been more clear about what you meant in your initial post … if you didn’t literally mean “there is no music” you shouldn’t have said it that way. Technically, if there is no music, there is no language… there are no thoughts… there is no universe. I understand entirely that people who say that they “love music” then denounce 99% of the music out there are uneducated/hypocrites… but your initial post referred to music as something that was not a “quantifiable resource”… which is what I took issue with.
when you say you love someone, what do you love? the photons that get bounced off of them into your eyes, or the electrons your nerves send out when you touch them? the movements of air when they speak? the idea you have of them in your head?
the melody of their voice?
the rhythm of their sentences?
see what I’m getting at?
I say a voice or a laugh is INSEPARABLE from the person. That a dictionary talks about it separately doesn’t mean anything, and a recording of that laugh, even if it evokes similar reactions, is NOT that laugh!
Now apply that to music. Voila.
And no, i didn’t want to discuss. I don’t see anything to discuss really. All “arguments” so far were against stuff I didn’t say. I’m pretty sure if you understand it how I meant it there isn’t really anything to do but nod, that may just be me.
And from that we can determine that our reality is inseparable from us and so on and so forth… now can we please get away from this metaphysical tripe and focus on the reality of our reality? When I laugh, that laugh is not me… it emanates from me… it is part of me that I send out into the world… to become part of someone else? Perhaps… or perhaps it’s just meant to float into the nothingness. It’s still part of me on one level, but on another, it’s entirely not mine at all… for those who hear it, it is now theirs…
… still the fact is, it’s entirely possible to not love someone’s laugh, whilst still loving that person. When I love someone, I love their personality… their soul… their essence… their mind. I don’t have to love their laugh… I don’t have to love their taste in shoes… I don’t have to love their bad grammer… but I can still love them. I don’t have to love their taste in music either.
Lately I’ve been believing more and more that love between two people doesn’t truly exist. I’ve noticed with friends and myself that one person in the equation will love, and the other will just tolerate and pretend. Free dinners are good I guess.
That and trying to read/predict people can be shit too sometimes. You do the same thing three separate times to the same person and you’ll get three different responses. Hence, my love for Renoise and music. “09xx” will do the same thing everytime.