...and probably Lord Shark will add that there are also patterns of formation of sentences or phrases in a language that are grammaticaly and structuraly correct but they still fail to communicate a sensible meaning because the definitions they contain are either false or not acknowledged by the interlocutor -etc etc
😵
Originally posted by black beetleand i agree with you also. i simply wouldn't like what comes out of my stroking the violing. someone might though.
My point is that I agree in full with Lord Shark. I can scratch them chords of a puir violin and I can connect a compressor with a sax in order to extablish "air flowing through it", but I 'm afraid I can neither claim I 'm musician nor that my product is music -but never mind😵
just like there was some retard labeling chris ofili's works as art.
quick questions: is randomly shaking cans of paint above a canvas art? is it art in the same degree as the years it took michelangelo to paint the sixtine chapel? is a blob of twisted metal wire art?
Originally posted by black beetlethere you go. you summarized this whole thread.
...and probably Lord Shark will add that there are also patterns of formation of sentences or phrases in a language that are grammaticaly and structuraly correct but they still fail to communicate a sensible meaning because the definitions they contain are either false or not acknowledged by the interlocutor -etc etc
😵
shark claimed there are some people that hate music. karoly said all love music. they are both correct while using their respective meanings of music.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn my opinion, for there is no such a thing as a universally accepted definition of art: no, no, probably😵
and i agree with you also. i simply wouldn't like what comes out of my stroking the violing. someone might though.
just like there was some retard labeling chris ofili's works as art.
quick questions: is randomly shaking cans of paint above a canvas art? is it art in the same degree as the years it took michelangelo to paint the sixtine chapel? is a blob of twisted metal wire art?
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow did I summarize it the way you think? To me it is obvious that Lord Shark is talking about music, whilst you define as "music" an unorganized compilation of various sounds too that definately is not "music"?
there you go. you summarized this whole thread.
shark claimed there are some people that hate music. karoly said all love music. they are both correct while using their respective meanings of music.
😵
Originally posted by black beetlesee?
In my opinion, for there is no such a thing as a universally accepted definition of art: no, no, probably😵
as long as people will call excrement (literal) paintings art, i will call the sound of rain music (and a more pleasant form of art at that)
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlewhy definetely not music?
How did I summarize it the way you think? To me it is obvious that Lord Shark is talking about music, whilst you define as "music" an unorganized compilation of various sounds too that definately is not "music"?
😵
your "definitions [...] are either false or not acknowledged by the interlocutor"
neither of them defined music. neither of them can definetely define music. there is no definitive definition of music. and they are both correct while using the meanings they intended for the term "music"
Originally posted by ZahlanziI 'm not versed in the field of music for I am not a musician, but I know that music establishes a common social ground for the people due to the fact that they share their musical culture as jaywill told us joyfully earlier. Yes, music is considered by many very vital, and our personal interpretation of the music becomes the agent regarding the meaning we may attribute to it. Since the instrumental music lacks of obvious semantic content, methinks some people can do express/ satisfy etc themselves with music, but obviously some are not -and I am not talking about people who love country and they cannot afford death metal. I am talking about people who love to express themselves with music, and about people who do not enjoy any kind of music. For example I do love many different styles of music, however I admit that music could become, and thus could be clearly considered, a major distraction -and thus it could be temporarily or permanently avoided by specific persons.
why definetely not music?
your "definitions [...] are either false or not acknowledged by the interlocutor"
neither of them defined music. neither of them can definetely define music. there is no definitive definition of music. and they are both correct while using the meanings they intended for the term "music"
We could agree that music has indeed a meaning for the ones who enjoy it, for it is a solid vessel of expressing emotions -and this agent keeps music, at least in my heart, identical to an abstract art, and an abstract art is always organised. This is the reason why I told you "...definately not music" -I cannot see how an unorganised compilation of various sounds can be indeed art, and anyway to me it is not
😵
Originally posted by black beetlebut you cannot say that all a series of sounds have to do to to be labeled music is to be organized. if that is the case, i can call a very well defined series of B and C notes music. and if you cannot give me a definitive set of characteristics sound waves have to have to be labeled a music i can say that the kettle is music to my ears. just as some find speed metal soothing.
I 'm not versed in the field of music for I am not a musician, but I know that music establishes a common social ground for the people due to the fact that they share their musical culture as jaywill told us joyfully earlier. Yes, music is considered by many very vital, and our personal interpretation of the music becomes the agent regarding the meaning ...[text shortened]... n unorganised compilation of various sounds can be indeed art, and anyway to me it is not
😵
art is not math. you cannot label art. it is a matter of taste. a person who has heard all the songs in the world and didn't like them might tomorrow hear a song of a chainsaw cutting through cheese while wind chimes dingle in the background which he does like.
Originally posted by ZahlanziFrom music I am expecting a musical setting (an organized series of notes/ sounds) that triggers my emotions, and this is how I define the expressiveness of the music in relation to myself. To me this element is itself the ontology of the music for it triggers my consiousness into distinguishing between music as I offered it earlier and music as you offered it earlier. This is the way I understand and I attribute or not the value of music to a specific musical setting -and this setting is not mechanical, ie a mindless repetition of specific notes that they cannot trigger my emotions😵
but you cannot say that all a series of sounds have to do to to be labeled music is to be organized. if that is the case, i can call a very well defined series of B and C notes music. and if you cannot give me a definitive set of characteristics sound waves have to have to be labeled a music i can say that the kettle is music to my ears. just as some find ...[text shortened]... chainsaw cutting through cheese while wind chimes dingle in the background which he does like.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
neither of them defined music.
Yes I did.
neither of them can definetely define music.
'Music' is a term that is understood by competent speakers of English. My definition is compatible with how the term is used and understood in English.
there is no definitive definition of music.
Is there a definitive definition of 'chair'? (There is a sense in which all definitions are definitive of course because one meaning of 'definitive' is 'serving to define'.)
I don't think you could come up with a definition of 'chair' that would include all chairs, reject all non chairs and deal uncontroversially with any borderline cases. The same is true of definitions of 'music' in my view. If we have a conversation and it emerges that by 'chair' you mean a species of goldfish, then some conversational repair might be necessary. But usually, being competent speakers that wouldn't happen. I don't think it happened in my conversation with karoly.
However, it does not follow that any definition is as good as any other. In particular, defining whatever sounds somebody likes as 'music' is a spectacularly bad definition. It is akin to shooting an arrow into a barn door then painting a target with the arrow at its centre.
they are both correct while using the meanings they intended for the term "music"
I think karoly was using 'music' as a competent English speaker does. So his meaning is close enough to mine for me to be able to say his claim is false.
Originally posted by black beetleBut apparently "The Ramones" can trigger some peoples emotions. I saw them. They were tapping their feet along🙂
From music I am expecting a musical setting (an organized series of notes/ sounds) that triggers my emotions, and this is how I define the expressiveness of the music in relation to myself. To me this element is itself the ontology of the music for it triggers my consiousness into distinguishing between music as I offered it earlier and music as you off ...[text shortened]... ot mechanical, ie a mindless repetition of specific notes that they cannot trigger my emotions😵
Originally posted by Lord SharkThat my claim that 99% of people appreciate music is false?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]neither of them defined music.
Yes I did.
neither of them can definetely define music.
'Music' is a term that is understood by competent speakers of English. My definition is compatible with how the term is used and understood in English.
there is no definitive definition of music.
Is ...[text shortened]... ning is close enough to mine for me to be able to say his claim is false.[/b]
I dont know about children,(well not beyond a certain age though it has been suggested that music affects foetuses), but when I was coming up with my origonal contention I had perhaps someone like the "slack-jawed-yokel" type, that one that might appreciate country AND western (as in jaywills exapmle), perhaps that 50's conservative American male streotype (you know the one?), who shows no emotion, controls the family, wins the bread but is basically boss who is terribly homophobic and ascribes to some form of fundamentalist christianity . It seems like the type of voting demographic that could change government for the better. And how to losen up these uptight coal pushers? Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers😉