Where do you draw the line on what is music and what is not?

Where do you draw the line on what is music and what is not?
What consitutes it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=p1PID91sEW8
youtube.com/watch?v=41DSVzlnB-M
youtube.com/watch?v=hUYU24ZyqFo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

knowing what melody is,not just rhythm or hving a beat

Everything is music if there's the intention of it being music behind it.

no
there we go

it isn't music without the intention of it to be or without some form of human interaction though

>without some form of human interaction
so a birb's chirp isn't music? wrong

Pic unrelated?

>excluding artificially made music

If someone records a bird's chirping and puts if it's bandcamp, it's music. If you're just hearing that outside, it's not. If that makes sense.

Intention doesn't count in any action you take in life you dumb cunt.
Don't be a mediocre musician.

To me, music is sound intentionally created as art with at least one "nonrepresentative" element (typically either rhythm or melody)
This is why talking is not music, but rapping or sprechgesang are

>If you're just hearing that outside, it's not.
wrong
birds sing. their music follows certain criteria, patterns and is passed through generations (it's culture). many ancient folk music draws inspiration from birds melodies and rhythms
no musicologist or birb nerd in the world would agree with you

right though, it isn't music without human interaction i.e. the human recording the birds chirp

a bird chirping is just a bird chirping, what's the difference between a bird's chirp and a horse's neigh?

>talking doesn't have rhythm

>people on Sup Forums think they're smarter than nearly all artists and musicians from the turn of the century onwards
color me surprised

just because people draw inspiration from things doesn't make it music. For something to be music it needs the intention to be so, birds have no intention to make music, they are just making random chirps.

>they are just making random chirps.
did you even read my post?
their singing has intention. it's cultural since it's passed on and older birbs are able to teach new ones
it follows strict patterns and so on...it has all requirements to be music

>what's the difference between a bird's chirp and a horse's neigh?
a horse's neigh has no musical elements. a bird's song has melody, rhythm, is individualized (creative) to a certain extent and is a cultural artifact, since birds teach each other new songs

>birbs
reddit is calling your name newfriend
>it has all the requirements to be music
except for intention
>their singing has intention
intention to be music? Does a bird intend to release an album? A song? Does a bird intend to create a melody pleasing to the ear?
No, it is just chirping.

I'm telling you you shouldn't have the mentality of a mediocre musician, not that I myself am a good musician.
Your intention might still be there when you try to communicate your art in a VERY abstract way, and you'll still wonder why people don't understand it, and it's because you forgot your completely subjective concept of music doesn't align with the people's concept of music.
Don't be a dumb cunt and learn to communicate, you're a social animal.

Not (usually) an intentional, consciously created rhythm
I know this definition sort of creates a blurry boundary between talking/poetry and music, but it's the best I got

...

A bird chirping can be to attract a mate, which humans have been doing for most of our existence.

So yeah, I would call a bird chirping music, the same way that would call this art.
youtube.com/watch?v=p1PID91sEW8

read it definitely has intention. they use it to court and mate and communicate.

>consciously created rhythm
so aleatoric music isn't music? got ya

you know nothing about birbs, redditor

I'm not the first guy you responded to.
I get your point, I just respond out of spite to nearly anyone who makes comments like that because 90% of them are Sup Forums shitposters.

using it to attract a mate is not the same intention as the intention to create music.

Reasonable.
Good practice.

spoken word usually has a specific cadence, designed to emphasize specific words and phrases, so I'd say that talking is indeed music

No, aleatoric music counts
Random noisemaking counts as a "nonrepresentative element"

>talking is indeed music

They deliberately create music for several purposes, just like humans. Why do you think we listen to music in parties? To entertain us. Most musicians would agree that they create music for a reason (expressing themselves, becoming famous, impressing chicks, making money, so on). Music for music's sake is the exception. Your arguments grows more feeble with each post

Again, i will repeat myself, the bird is not intending to create music. When someone creates music to impress chicks their intention may very well be to create chicks but they must also have the intention to create music otherwise they would never be able to create it in the first place. Birds do not have that initial intention, they skip straight to mating, it is just a chirp

>create chicks
*impress chicks

>the bird is not intending to create music
>birds practice, learn new songs, pass on songs from generation to generation without the intention of doing so
lol
I'm done with you

holy shit this guy is dense

It remains just as pleasing to the ear as music created by humans with the intention of making music, because that perception of music is also completely subjective. There is no difference between music with intention and music without intention. And itt's just as good. And serves the same purpose.

The bird has the intention to do all those things you just said though, I'm not disagreeing with that. They are just not intending to make music at any point during any of those actions.

Let me make it simpler. If could somehow look into a bird's brain what do you think we would see? Do you think we would see a brain telling itself that it is creating MUSIC to mate or do you think we would see a brain telling itself that it is performing its natural mating function, whatever that entails. I believe we would see the latter. Now imagine what we would see in a human brain if we did the same test.

>walking down a stairway made of pianos
>trip over my shoelace
>tumble down 10 flights
>my falling accidentally results in a beautiful 3-part neoclassical sonata, complete with development and subversion of melodic motifs
>but it's not music

>male birb sees cute female birb
>"I'll sing her the song of my people and get laid"

>male human sees cute female human
>*plays wonderwall in order to get laid*

It's literally the same thing. The fact that birds are able to communicate by chirping and choose to sing instead makes their intentionality even more evident. They sing in certain occasions by free will

but that would never happen

dumbest response ever, holy fuck

>that reddit spacing
funny, I thought I was the one from reddit birbposter?

the vaguest and most all-encompassing definition i can come up with is

>a sonic sensory experience that evokes emotion and mental impressions in human beings and some other animals

THIS you sick fuck, THIS

>They are just not intending to make music
They deliberately, unironically exert themselves in order to create the most pleasing, loudest song possible. They know their music will give them advantages, so they *choose* to do so. There's definitely intention; you haven't substantiated the opposite notion at all

monkeys on typewriters user. or in this case, idiots on piano staircases

Yeah, my definition creates some weird gaps where talking could theoretically count as music
If you make it a two-part definition in which
1. A human creates sound with the intention of it being music, and
2. The sound contains at least one "nonrepresentative element"
Then you might be able to circumvent this

>that insistence on the reddit boogeyman because his argument is basically lost
'Sup, reddit

...

>human
Remove this. Many sentient beings are able to create music

A spoken word piece can be replicated with cadences or deliveries that have nothing to do with each other, but still be called the same piece.

Cover a song with a different melody and it's a completely different piece.

You're right, this would not be music
UNLESS someone happened to be there recording it and decided to release it as music

wtf is reddit spacing
this meme gets more abstract every day i swear

Im still arguing with this guy though you just really want to prove you aren't from reddit don't you

besides that Im not saying they don't *choose* to do so. Honestly I really agree with you on almost all these points. I will just explain my point clearly and we can agree to disagree since this will probably never end.
I believe for there to be music there has to be intention for it to be music, otherwise it is just sound. It could be pleasing sound, but it still isn't music. Birds do not intend to create music. They intend to create pleasing sounds with melodies and whatnot but at no point during their creation do they have the intention of creating music as a human would.
Reading over all this and thinking about it I am aware my argument is pretty fucking thin so take that as you will, you probably convinced me otherwise

youtube.com/watch?v=41DSVzlnB-M
>this is not music

>wtf is reddit spacing
when posting on reddit, you need to type enter twice in order to get a line break

so your text

ends up

like this

when you do the same

on Sup Forums

So burping loudly in someone's ear is music?

That's very capitalistic.

I think the problem with definitions like "anything that is intended to be music" gives leeway to things like a recording of a water drop being called music, and that really annoys some people (me included, sometimes). What people don't get is that calling something music and calling it GOOD music isn't the same. Like, I would argue this

youtube.com/watch?v=hUYU24ZyqFo

is music, even though it sucks donkey dick.

>Im still arguing with this guy
that guys is also me lmao

>that guy is also me
so you just proved me right?
Honestly though even if you aren't from reddit you do type and talk like a fag

>UNLESS someone happened to be there recording it and decided to release it as music
music =/= recorded music
there's basically no difference between that example and me strumming a single, random chord on my guitar besides the intentionality meme

Merriam-Webster's definition of music: " 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". So I guess a bunch of random sounds that aren't united in some form won't be considered music.

I feel like any sound you've ever heard can be classified as music. Everything about music is subjective.

rude

Would you say that a political speech is music? No, that would be ridiculous.

What separates Kanye West from Merzbow?

The actual ability of the negro guy to make actual music.

Kanye West is hip-hop, Merzbow is noise

I think I've figured it out.

Music is a spectrum. All sound falls somewhere on this spectrum. This spectrum ranges from non-music (i.e. absolute silence) to ultimate-music (i.e. perfect, infinite sound, I wonder what this is like? probably like God or something). The different elements of music (e.g. rhythm, melody, timbre) present in an example of sound determine how strongly it is music. So, certain music is closer to the ultimate reality of music than other music. A metronome would be pretty close to non-music, a single click of something would be even closer, something consisting of every element of music would be closer to the ultimate reality of music.

In summation, all sound is music, but some sound is more music.

I speculate that music that is closer to this ultimate is actually better music.

I'd argue they are both humans

They're both aliens in disguise.

DUDE WEED LMAO

Also, perhaps some things would be closer to non-music than music, but to find that threshold doesn't seem possible to do on a rational level.
lol ya

No. You know it's never just the sound by itself, but all the context behind it. Perception of music is subjective AND things such as social interaction and culture determines wether you like to constantly hear that sound or not.