The Sounds of Nature vs Music: A Discussion

[Char. Limit]

What differentiates the sound of a tree falling from the sound of a piano playing? What differentiates the sound of a piano (near-universally classified as music) from the sound of a rapper (still argument about naming that music)?

 

[Impavid]

I guess you could say it's just vibrations in the air that evoke some sort of phenomenal response in a sentient being's supposed consciousness (generated by debatable phenomenon as well.)

A tree falling could be composed to sound like music, the quality of the music however will be up to opinion and interpretation, highly dependent on individual perception... because what is any sound, with no one there to hear it?

Vibrations my boy... vibrations... meaningless vibrations...

 

[slider142]

The definition of music is very open; it is usually defined as the intentional ordering of sound and lack thereof in time. Ie., some pieces draw upon incidental sound as part of the composition, making them uncontrollably different each time they are performed.
At another extreme, we have math rock, which tries to continually unsettle the listener by intentionally breaking standard compositional practices for pleasing intervals and timings.

 

[Pythagorean]

What differentiates the sound of a tree falling from the sound of a piano playing? What differentiates the sound of a piano (near-universally classified as music) from the sound of a rapper (still argument about naming that music)?

music is highly ordered, most of nature's sounds are not.

In the rare cases where they are, you may have found a potential source that inspired music.

 

[octelcogopod]

Music may have started out highly ordered, but nowadays there is so much different stuff released, there's practically no way to differentiate sounds from music.
So in essence, all sound is music, if interpreted to be.

 

[Pythagorean]

Music may have started out highly ordered, but nowadays there is so much different stuff released, there's practically no way to differentiate sounds from music.
So in essence, all sound is music, if interpreted to be.

All music I hear follows the standard western scaling (12 notes based on the harmonic series) and is still heavily centered around the 7 note major scale (or one of its six modes).

Indian music utilizes a 24 note scale, but its still highly ordered

The beats are still consistent, most people still use measures regardless of the odd timings.

Show me a couple examples of unordered music...

 

[octelcogopod]

There are many avantgarde, electronic and ambient artists that utilize noise and found sounds as the basis for their music..
There is a ton of music that is not musical per se.

 

[gabrielh]

The definition of music according to Dictionary.com:

–noun 1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
2. the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.
3. musical work or compositions for singing or playing.
4. the written or printed score of a musical composition.
5. such scores collectively.
6. any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound: the music of the waves.
7. appreciation of or responsiveness to musical sounds or harmonies: Music was in his very soul.
8. Fox Hunting. the cry of the hounds.

But the idea of music, like art or poetry, is a very subjective idea. What someone considers music may be drastically different than someone else's opinion on the matter. Many cultures encourage the interpretation of natural events, like the falling tree you mentioned, to be rhythmic, melodical, or otherwise a very musical thing. And it is certainly arguable that it is indeed music. The music of nature, so to speak.

To define music in a few words isn't, in my opinion, possible, but only in the narrow minded sense. I don't think a simple definition of such a broad art form would do it justice.

 

[Pythagorean]

There are many avantgarde, electronic and ambient artists that utilize noise and found sounds as the basis for their music..
There is a ton of music that is not musical per se.

Yes, but I'm asking for a specific example. I am a musician with a broad musical interest. I used to love making music with non-instrumental objects when I was in the experimental phase.

I can name a few avante-garde musicians myself, but they are still highly ordered in their composition: Kitaro, Stomp, John Cage, Pink Floyd. (By the way, none of the Pink Floyd you hear on the radio is their experimental avant-garde stuff).

There's one exception. I don't consider John Cage's 4'33" to be music. I'd hope most people would agree:


In my opinion, it was kind of joke. John Cage had a knack for trying to push the boundaries of music, and I think in this case, he ended up on the other side of the boundary. And no, I'm not missing his point.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well actually, let's define the word 'ordered' in this case.
I thought you meant harmony, melody and rhythm, but it appears it can also include noise sounds.
Basically the other spectrum of the musical scale goes from melody to noise (for this debate anyway)

All music which is created will by default be ordered, in one way or another.
My whole point was that music consisting solely of noise sounds is also to be considered music, but that noise can also be ordered.
Many people do not consider such sounds as music, just pling plong clang sounds.

An example of noise sounds is Stockhausen's work.

 

[WaveJumper]

Is trash metal music or not? If we all can agree on this question, we can agree on what music is.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well actually, let's define the word 'ordered' in this case.
I thought you meant harmony, melody and rhythm, but it appears it can also include noise sounds.
Basically the other spectrum of the musical scale goes from melody to noise (for this debate anyway)

All music which is created will by default be ordered, in one way or another.
My whole point was that music consisting solely of noise sounds is also to be considered music, but that noise can also be ordered.
Many people do not consider such sounds as music, just pling plong clang sounds.

An example of noise sounds is Stockhausen's work.

Harmony is not required. The monophonic age of music proves this. All that's required is rhythm and melody. Believe it or not "noise sounds" can still contain melody and rhythm if you arrange them properly. Listening to Stockhausen now... update coming.

update:

Yup, it's music, it even has elements of harmony in it. It's music that I don't find to be very good, personally.

WaveJumper:

Give me an example of Thrash. I've heard lots of different genres called thrash. All of the examples I've heard are still music. They have rhythm, melody, and harmony. They're probably even more interesting music than the Stockhausen example above.

 

[WaveJumper]

WaveJumper:

Give me an example of Thrash. I've heard lots of different genres called thrash. All of the examples I've heard are still music. They have rhythm, melody, and harmony. They're probably even more interesting music than the Stockhausen example above.

http://www.vbox7.com/play:d7ffdaf1&al=1&vid=

Band's name is "Shame & Disgrace" and i am afraid they are worthy of their name. They had a local event a few years ago where i live and made so much noise, the police had to disperse them with German Sheppard dogs. I was told it was quite a scene. Definitely not the usual ending for a musical performance.

Hope the vid is visible from outside Bulgaria.

 

[funkygranny]

I would say that the perception of sound as musical is concerned with our perception of order, as I would illustrate in the case of harmony.

A sound is a pressure wave. A series of pressure waves may be propogated at a regular interval, giving it a frequency.

When we consider the sources of multiple series of pressure waves, their frequencies may be related by simple numerical relationships causing them to concatenate to form a regular wavecrest signature, leading us to perceive the combination of sounds as "harmonious".

For example, the most recognisable harmony is that existing between a note and the note an octave above. This occurs when one note is exactly twice the frequency of the other, causing them to form a very regular pattern (a ratio of 1:2).

Other simple relationships between notes are a ratio of 2:3 (a fifth) 3:4 (a fourth) and 4:5 (a major third). We perceive the combinations of these intervals to be the most harmonious because they are mathematically the simplest, and therefore produce the most regular pattern of wavecrests.

By a happy mathematical coincidence the 12-tone chromatic scale is able to very nearly express all of these ratios in a scale which also allows us to change keys without re-tuning our instruments by using the special algebraic properties of exponentials. Each note is equal to the frequency of the one below it, multiplied by (2 ^ 1/12).

This works to produce regular ratios as follows. Say that middle C has a frequency of 1. Then E natural has a frequency of 2 ^ 4/12 = 1.25992105 (fairly close to 1.25, to give a ratio of 4:5). F natural has a frequency of 2 ^ 5/12 = 1.334839854 (very close to 1.33 to give a ratio of 3:4) and G natural has a frequency of 2 ^ 7/12 = 1.498307077 (very close to 1.5, to give a ratio of 2:3). And the C above has a frequency of 2 ^ (12/12) = 2 ^ 1 = 2, to give a ratio of exactly 1:2.

 

[Pythagorean]

http://www.vbox7.com/play:d7ffdaf1&al=1&vid=

Band's name is "Shame & Disgrace" and i am afraid they are worthy of their name. They had a local event a few years ago where i live and made so much noise, the police had to disperse them with German Sheppard dogs. I was told it was quite a scene. Definitely not the usual ending for a musical performance.

Hope the vid is visible from outside Bulgaria.

Naw, didn't work out. :/

Other simple relationships between notes are a ratio of 2:3 (a fifth) 3:4 (a fourth) and 4:5 (a major third). We perceive the combinations of these intervals to be the most harmonious because they are mathematically the simplest, and therefore produce the most regular pattern of wavecrests.

And it's no surprise that the most popular music has a progression that is some recursive combinations of the I, the IV, and the V, the first and simplest ratios you named. And all the standard chords are I, III, V.

Each note is equal to the frequency of the one below it, multiplied by (2 ^ 1/12).

hey, that's neat, never noticed that! This is a good relationship to know for a physicist musician.

 

[octelcogopod]

Harmony is not required. The monophonic age of music proves this. All that's required is rhythm and melody. Believe it or not "noise sounds" can still contain melody and rhythm if you arrange them properly. Listening to Stockhausen now... update coming.

update:

Yup, it's music, it even has elements of harmony in it. It's music that I don't find to be very good, personally.

What about completely abstract music with sounds that have no melody, rhythm or harmony?



I like music like this. I can show more examples but as downloadable .mp3 files.

 

[Pythagorean]

What about completely abstract music with sounds that have no melody, rhythm or harmony?



I like music like this. I can show more examples but as downloadable .mp3 files.

But that does have rhythm, melody, and harmony. You're hearing different frequencies (pitches) which is melody, and there's definitely consistency in the rhythm. The rhythm doesn't have to be constant as long as it follows a theme. In fact, there's words for changing your rhythm:

Like the Stockhausen example, it's not very rich musically, so it's very boring music to me, personally, but it's still music. The instrument being used has a tight timbre, as opposed to say, a violin which has a very rich timbre.

Even a train can be considered musical (and indeed, inspired the rhythm in a lot of blues). Hell, I hear crazy industrial jazz in the engine rooms of the boats I work on.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well then there is no argument from my side..

 

[wofsy]

I am confused by this discussion because I don't see a definition of music other than any ordered sequence of sounds. This to me is a reduction ad absurdum of the original question. In fact, any sequence is ordered - even total silence is ordered.

this reminds me of Marcel DuChamp's claim that a urinal, if viewed as art - is art. Any sequence of sounds, if viewed as music - is music.

 

[dx]

[wild speculation alert]

From the evolutionary perspective, music is an astonishing thing. Just like the first use of material objects as tools was a turning point in the evolution of man, just like the first fish were emerging from the seas onto the land, I think music is a turning point of great significance from the evolutionary perspective. In particular, I think that it points toward a kind of super-language. We all know that music evokes emotion, and emotion can be expressed in music. Emotions are a very significant part of the inner life of a human, but our language is not properly equipped to be able to describe or communicate this very effectively. I think our language is gradually being augmented or maybe even replaced by music.

 

[wofsy]

[wild speculation alert]

From the evolutionary perspective, music is an astonishing thing. Just like the first use of material objects as tools was a turning point in the evolution of man, just like the first fish were emerging from the seas onto the land, I think music is a turning point of great significance from the evolutionary perspective. In particular, I think that it points toward a kind of super-language. We all know that music evokes emotion, and emotion can be expressed in music. Emotions are a very significant part of the inner life of a human, but our language is not properly equipped to be able to describe or communicate this very effectively. I think our language is gradually being augmented or maybe even replaced by music.

The things you say here are profound.

- Can you elaborate on why you think music may be replacing language?
- What is known about the evolution of music?
- Is there not also a non-literal form of language that does not express emotion but some form of meaning based upon our inner life?Why only emotion?
- language is cultural but inner life is personal. How do these interact through music?
For instance, new music arises in a cultural matrix but also as a personal creative act.

 

[funkygranny]

I am confused by this discussion because I don't see a definition of music other than any ordered sequence of sounds. This to me is a reduction ad absurdum of the original question. In fact, any sequence is ordered - even total silence is ordered.

I don't think anyone has said that any ordered sequence of sounds counts as music. I would advance the proposition that the perception of sound as harmonious, which is an element of the perception of sound as musical, consists in the perception that it is a periodic waveform has a simple, recognisable shape. This does not lack content in the sense that you suggest simply because "any sequence is ordered"; some sounds can be divided into repeating waveforms, and others cannot. The waveform of a trumpet note is periodic, radio static is not.

As for the case of total silence, I agree that this would trivially count as an repetitive ordered waveform. However it seems reasonable to regard this as a special case, or in the alternative as the absence of sound.

In reply to wofsy / dx, perhaps an example of music replacing language would be sending someone a music recording in order to express your emotions. Obviously if is a song with lyrics then you can say those are the bearers of the content. However this activity could make sense even where the song had no lyrics, say (for the sake of argument) if someone wanted to know how you felt about someone you loved dying, and you asked them to listen to the 1st movement of Gorecki's 3rd Symphony. This could also constitute an augmentation of natural language in the sense that the music evokes (and therefore, where the recording is used as described above, communicates) an emotional state that using natural language (i.e. by speaking or writing) cannot.

 

[yama jii]

What differentiates the sound of a tree falling from the sound of a piano playing? What differentiates the sound of a piano (near-universally classified as music) from the sound of a rapper (still argument about naming that music)?

humans percieve the things with a structure-order easier.after listening a composed musical piece a few times, we can talk about some concepts like order-structure-similarity-contrast-harmony...etc..which describe the song..but what concepts pop up in our mind after hearing a falling tree? maybe contrast?

a rap song is a super-repetitive musical piece..after listening to it for an hour, it pains me a lot.it's like a way of torture..

all I'm trying to say is, a piano sonata is different from a rap-song, because it's a well-thought, composed piece of music, and a rap song differs from a natural-spontaneously occurred sound, because it is composed..

 

[loseyourname]

I don't know why this got revived at this point, but the latter two (piano and rap song) are sounds intentionally made by humans to provoke some response in other humans. Obviously, plain speech still fits that, so we'd have to narrow "music" at least to sound intentionally created to provoke a response by some means in addition to the literal content of any language that might happen to be used.

Of course, then the crying of an infant is still music, so I don't know, narrow it further from there. "An ordered sequence of sounds" doesn't seem satisfying. Vervet monkeys warning each other that a snake is approaching utilize ordered sequences of sounds.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, ordered sequence of sounds seems to simplify my statement. I didn't mean to say 'any' order of sounds. Musical structure has recursive whole integer ratios in it. The more symmetric it is, the more people will like it (just like physical beauty). This is why I, IV, V progression encompasses most pop music, because it's the simplest set of integer ratios (next to the octave which I'm considering the same as the tonic, I)

the octave is twice the frequency of the tonic
the fifth is three time
the fourth is four times

this explains why I, IV, V is so popular.

 

[disregardthat]

The question "what is music" presuppose some general principle behind music. I doubt a short definition would effectively capture what music "really" is. Ordered sequences of sound certainly exhaust whatever is musical, but is way too general to be anything but an observation.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, it's based largely on Western music theory. Isn't it a strange coincidence that we like the notes pertaining to integer ratios of the tonic? We like the beats to be integer ratios of the metric, as well.

This all has a physical basis too (Pythagoras harmonics).

One interesting fudge that humans do in music theory that offsets our perceptive alignment with physics results in what we cal the "syntonic comma", and requires us to fudge our notes around to distribute the error (equal temperment tuning, for instance.)

We also have an eerie way of interpreting twice the frequency as the same note, just "higher" (the octave) which has been the study of perceptionresearch.

So I think there's a common bias towards sounds in all humans that can be objectively measured (ie we're objectvely measuring subjective states)

 

[petm1]

Music is sound orchestrated by a living being.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

...Marcel DuChamp's claim that a urinal, if viewed as art - is art. Any sequence of sounds, if viewed as music - is music.

Agreed

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Or, differently put, perception of music is music.