Originally posted by PBE6too many undefined parameters
Everyone has 2 cents to add to a music discussion, and with the surprising volume of liquor consumption with this customer base, that means them's fightin' words.
I have a question that we can fight about first: if no one likes a piece of music, not even the composer, can that music be "good"?
Put up yer dukes!! 😵
Originally posted by shavixmirAh, now....I have a argument to that.
Music, as such, doesn't exist. It's just a description we give to something.
For example. Should I poo on a plate, you could call it disgusting. Put it in a gallery, voila, you have faecal art.
So, most silence isn't music. But as soon as someone says: "Hey. This piece of silence is music." Then that piece of silence has become music.
Did you see a week or so ago that the Tarzan cry (ahhhee-ahhhhh........etc) could not be copyrighted unless it was set to musical notes.
Surely, if there are no notes, there is no tune....and it therefore cannot be music, can it....?
Originally posted by shavixmirSo you're saying music can be measured in some way against an objective set of standards, and that having someone like it isn't a requirement of it being good. A veritable minefield of an answer. Good start!
Say Beethoven didn't like his 5th and killed himself because of it.
And you play that piece of music to a group of Spice Girl fans.
The 5th will still be good in comparison to what the Spice Girl fans would consider good.
So yes. Good music is not in the eye of the beholder. And in Beethoven's case it wasn't even in the ear of the beholder either ...[text shortened]... today to pull it off.
Perhaps someone else can take my post and make it better. Thanks.
So if no one likes it, what's so good about it?
Originally posted by ZadadkaLaw doesn't prove anything except some politicians judgement of what's right and wrong. And Iraq is a prime-example of why we should treat politicians with due disrespect.
Ah, now....I have a argument to that.
Did you see a week or so ago that the Tarzan cry (ahhhee-ahhhhh........etc) could not be copyrighted unless it was set to musical notes.
Surely, if there are no notes, there is no tune....and it therefore cannot be music, can it....?
Originally posted by ZadadkaCopyright law is ridiculous and has no place within this discussion.
Ah, now....I have a argument to that.
Did you see a week or so ago that the Tarzan cry (ahhhee-ahhhhh........etc) could not be copyrighted unless it was set to musical notes.
Surely, if there are no notes, there is no tune....and it therefore cannot be music, can it....?
1 edit
There is only one standard by which music can be judged in a way that can be said to truly represent the inherent "goodness" of that piece of music.
Does the piece of music stand the test of time?
That's it. If humans are still listening to a piece of music X amount of years from now, it is good. If not, chances are it is bad, or at least as ordinary as everything else during that time period in that it doesn't stand out above everything else.
Originally posted by shavixmirI think you will agree that there are many pieces of music which are neither particularly unique, nor particularly desirable as examples of anything, but are still considered "good" music. So what does being unique and desirable as an example have to do with being "good"?
Imagine, if you will, that you can create a song which is so bad everyone hates it. EVERYONE.
Not only have you created a truly unique piece of music, it is also desirable as example.
Originally posted by shavixmirBut is everything that is part of the song necessarily music? The lyrics are also part of the song, but wouldn't normally be called music.
Yes.
Many songs have pauses in them, when nothing is played. It's certainly part of the song.
I believe that music is to a large degree defined by the listener. You can listen to something as music. As far as I know, Cage's idea was to make people aware of the sounds around them - coughing, a bird singing outside, whatever - and have them listen to it with an intent that would create music in their head.
Originally posted by uzlessSo basically the first song to ever surpass the age of any other song while being continuously listened to (by at least one person) is the best piece of music ever written? I think that means "Happy Birthday" is on its way to the hall of fame. 😕
There is only one standard by which music can be judged in a way that can be said to truly represent the inherent "goodness" of that piece of music.
Does the piece of music stand the test of time?
That's it. If humans are still listening to a piece of music X amount of years from now, it is good. If not, chances are it is bad.
Originally posted by NordlysDid it become music then? I wonder what the people who actually saw this piece (not) performed thought?
But is everything that is part of the song necessarily music? The lyrics are also part of the song, but wouldn't normally be called music.
I believe that music is to a large degree defined by the listener. You can listen to something as music. As far as I know, Cage's idea was to make people aware of the sounds around them - coughing, a bird singin ...[text shortened]... e, whatever - and have them listen to it with an intent that would create music in their head.