Hear hear, Hey Hey!

We could argue forever about whether or not all sound is music--there's likely no definitive way to "prove" either argument. However, I tend to agree with you.

Just because every every noise, sound and vibration is part of the musical scale doesn't automatically make these elements music in and of themselves. To say that all noise is music is like saying that all words are poetry.

I like Webster's definition:
"The science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity."

Music requires order, succession, continuity and composition. Also implicit in this definition is that music is a human creation. The natural hum of the universe doesn't qualify.

If all noise is music, then why do we even have the word "music"?

Hi Warren,

Reading your information, I agree with you, especially since I have this pythagorean background.

Have you read of the way sonoluminece works?



Let's not worry about the "energy production" for now, other then, the sound and it's application there? Are you familiar?

If one holds to the bulk perspective and you would have to know what I mean by the bulk, then, such concentrations would have held perspectve to the gatherings and created the circumstances for new universe to be borne?



If one types in the "search function" at the top left hand corner the word "bulk," of the blog as I did, with the word, "sound," then a page will come up that will help explain that term. How it is used. The Picture and it's link will be most useful as well.

Ah.

Mr. Plato has a clue! ...of course. ;O)

I do thank you for the references, sir. They were new to me. I greatly appreciate them. The sonoluminesce reference was particularly interesting!!!

Sound - 'music' - impacts each of us on a very fundamental level. To deny that sound and noises can be plotted mathematically on a musical scale is to enter into the realms of pathological science. At this point, the evidence has become irrefutable. Most people will only accept what they already believe to be true...even scientists. When we study anything - conciousness - we must first examine ourselves before we examine any other.

I have work to do, so I will not be returning to this board in the forseeable future. I have learned what I needed to know.

I sincerely thank you all for your time and consideration.

Once again, what raw research that I am willing to share at this point, I'm willing to share freely and without caveat.


Warren "Bones" Bonesteel
Author and columnist
55 Crestview Drive
Rapid City, SD 57701
(605) 388-3005
wrbones@rap.midco.net

"Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
- T.H. Huxley (who was politically an elitist socialist...can you say"oligarchy"?)

" I am by nature a mild and conservative man. The problem before me was so complex, however, that I had to give up everything I knew to be true in order to derive my solution."
- Max Planck (Planck's Constant) ....Whose "constant" has proven to be...less than constant.

(To a man who can think for himself, both quotes say quite a little bit about consciousness and about how we perceive reality.)

This discussion reminds me of the "Bad Poetry Contest" begun some time ago here by Ambient Snowflake. We learned just how hard it is to write truly bad poetry. I finished well behind the pack on that one.

Perhaps what some have in mind with "non-musical sound" is "bad music." If good music is a well ordered construction, then other types of signals that are less pleasing to some human ears might be music of the "bad" variety.

Take painting for another example. Is bad art not art? How ugly can a painting get? Is one artist more skilled than another in the ability to produce ugly paintings? Why would any one want to? Is this a question that can lead to any good?

Are you trying to say that art is in the eye of the beholder?

I wasn't really saying that bad art (including bad music) isn't art. Basically, art can't be restrictive. However, if we didn't have some kind of distinction to separate art from that which is not art, then we wouldn't have art. Would we? Almost by definition, art requires an artist...at least I think so. And this may or may not require much talent or input. I once saw something on TV about a painter who did all his "work" by dipping several snails into various hues of paint and then unleashing the creatures on a canvass. As for "bad" poetry... Oddly enough, just today, I came across a website of haikus consisting of words that are selected completely randomly from a computer program that follows no rules whatsoever other than the 5-7-5 syllable structure. Yes, the slug-pic is a bona fide painting, and the compu-ku is poetry. In both cases, someone actually conceptualized and produced the end product. In this spirit, I suppose that if you made a recording consisting of nothing but traffic noise and cows burping, this would become music the minute someone--anyone--labeled it as such.

I happen to think that music is basically some noise created and/or assembled by an artist. Maybe I'm wrong. One could argue that, in the spirit if the "beholder," all noise must be music because Warren Bonesteel thinks all noise is music. No artist or distinction required. But isn't this is exactly like saying that everything we see or taste or feel or smell is art? Is everything art? The idea is growing on me...

Interesting idea. When we perceive something, it can be argued that our mind constructs the perception using the raw material of the input stimulus. Therefore we are always participating in the art, and removing the artist from the input leaves the artist of the receiver alone by herself with her perception.