# Identifying music (what?)



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

With a thread title like the present thread, what does the title mean? (I'm here making an alternate use of the title of the thread that tops this fora). (I've edited this opening paragraph after finding that my intent for the present thread-and-its-title can be badly mistaken, such that those who so mistake my intent are given a bad experience due to my reticence and my poor Theory of Mind.)

I maintain that music is a particular category of experience of sound, not a particular sub-category of sound. Witness Taylor Swift's new iTunes glitch, apparently a chart topping hit. According to http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news...econds-of-white-noise/ar-BBaCB7A?ocid=up74dhp,



> Haters might hate but once a singer scores a chart-topping hit comprised solely of white noise, it's hard to deny she's an unstoppable musical force.


If the Swift phenomenon leaves you hating her static, and, or, if my citing of her static leaves you still skeptical of my view of music, then perhaps you might prefer the very same kind of white noise that was favored by one science fictional young man in the TV series, Kyle XY.

If even Kyle's static is not good enough for you, then consider the white-noise generators that are sold in Home Appliances. I know, I know, even many non-human animals might enjoy dozing off (or laying eggs) to the sound of such generators, and this despite that such animals seem not to be moved to the recursively patterned sounds that humans spend so much effort creating, and so much time-and-mind enjoying. But, muse is muse, and even hens have some capacity for it by way of sounds.

So, to my ear, identifying recursive patterns of sounds is to identify a subcategory of music. This, despite that such music may be the most moving kind to humans, and despite that humans are the enigma in terms of the complex coherent varieties of sound by which humans are moved.

And white noise just may be the most classical sound there is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LOL. White noise is considered like an aural eraser, distracting the hearer from other sounds they prefer to avoid or not concentrate upon. It is a routine prescription for those with tinnitus, for example.

Being such a broad-spectrum sound, it is often also used for "relaxation." And... there is the rub, since most people deeply into classical find it almost anathema when people say "I like classical, _it is so relaxing._"

The majority of classical listeners are in to the music for the opposite reason: it stimulates.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

White Noise? Pfft, that's some amateur s***.

Metastasis: 




Studie II: 




Artikulation: 




Please, Taylor, stick to country and leave the noise experiments to the big boys (and girls).


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

*true majority*



PetrB said:


> The majority of classical listeners are in to the music for the opposite reason: it stimulates.


Define "stimulates".

Define, also "The majority of classical listeners".

And, while you're at it, could you _please _define "in to".

I didn't realized that classical listeners were so one-track minded as to be "in to" classical music _ever only_ for how it "stimulates". I must be in the significant minority then. 

(I'm not sure what your point(s) actually was/are, I'm just replying to words on a screen that seem a bit if-y when taken as seriously as I happen at the moment to feel toward them.)

Something Artie said in one scene of Warehouse 13.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I join those who will vote the White Noise segment as Ms Swift's greatest musical hit, and as you all know, I'm perfectly objective in my opinions.

Besides, Merzbow and the Industrial crowd (not to mention John Cage) have been doing stuff like that for years ... and better!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

For 'in your face noisy' electronic music, my favorite is Iancu Dumitrescu: Pierres Sacrées


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

violadude said:


> Please, Taylor, stick to country and leave the noise experiments to the big boys (and girls).


I assumed it was a glitch. Was it intentional? Even if it was intentional, I can imagine that the intent was that of a minor clever curiosity, such as to wonder at what might well happen to a Taylor Swift track made of static.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Basic misunderstanding: the response which vaulted the i-tunes "glitch" of 8 seconds of white noise, was due* only *to the misperception that it was a new song from her.


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

aleazk said:


> For 'in your face noisy' electronic music, my favorite is Iancu Dumitrescu: Pierres Sacrées


Ow. I myself would not put that in the "classical" category. Then again, I would say that it depends on the hearer, which I can imagine may be about the pure strangeness of the sudden changes in it.

Though even then I would suppose that this 'in your face' style is not remotely classical in the sense of European Classical being partly a product of the fact of a _vast majority of enjoyers _throughout centuries. This 'in your face' style would, I imagine, ever be enjoyed only by the rare hearer.

And, I gather than the cacophony of the animal life in the South American rainforest at night is not so whiplash-ingly 'in your face', but is much closer to white noise.


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Basic misunderstanding: the response which vaulted the i-tunes "glitch" of 8 seconds of white noise, was due* only *to the misperception that it was a new song from her.


I can imagine that you're right: that the sheer snowballed response was driven principally by that perception. But, I, not knowing better, allow that it may have been driven significantly by a perception, on the part of her fans, of its being accidental.

Like in some variety shows, where an accident of a performer gets the best laughs.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Min said:


> With a thread title like this, what does it mean?
> 
> So, to my ear, identifying recursive patterns of sounds is to identify a subcategory of music. This, despite that such music may be the most moving kind to humans, and despite that humans are the enigma in terms of the complex coherent varieties of sound by which humans are moved.
> 
> And white noise just may be the most classical sound there is.


You've quite mistaken the intent of the actual thread title. It is for those who cannot find the title of a piece, want to know a piece title, or by which composer. Straight-ahead "name that tune / composer identification, then.

White noise, it is a parallel to the color white:
"Optics:
White is the color the human eye sees when it senses light which contains all the wavelengths of the visible spectrum.This light stimulates all three types of color sensitive cone cells in the eye in nearly equal amounts. Materials that do not emit light themselves appear white if their surfaces reflect back most of the light that strikes them."

White noise is a direct parallel, "all the wavelengths (simultaneously sounding) of the audible spectrum." Sure, one could be philosophical and say "that encompasses all music and any piece ever written," just as a blank canvas then contains every art work made or yet to be made. But that little bit of esoteric observation seems basic, obvious too me, and no big whup.

As to 'defining words,' The medium of online fora is words, and for the most part, without some egocentric personal humpty-dumpty like "this word means not what it says in the dictionary, but instead what I mean it to mean," most folk are writing those common words in their most commonly accepted usage. I tend to use words in their standard meaning. Ergo, "stimulate" means _stimulate._

If you want to start a thread in what seems to be your interest in that area of "what is music?" -- well, an OP like that would more than likely elicit great results in endless interesting discussion, points of view, and run for a long time through many many pages!


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

PetrB said:


> You've quite mistaken the intent of the actual thread title. It is for those who cannot find the title of a piece, want to know a piece title, or by which composer. Straight-ahead "name that tune / composer identification, then.


Oh, no. I'm very sorry! I wasn't specific enough again.

I meant the title of my own thread. I was looking at the title of that other thread and thought, _That's going to be the title of my thread, too, as a way to illustrate the ambiguity of the concept of music, at least if the concept of music is restricted to what Philip Ball said on page 2 of his book, The Music Instinct:_



> music is not a natural phenomenon but a human construct. Despite claims to the contrary, no other species is known to create or respond to music as such


My basic response to Ball is that in order for humans to create any music at all in the first place, I should think that humans first have to have a musical sensibility by which even to know what they like to hear, and that the way in which humans can appreciate the patterns in natural sounds is what makes possible humans' ability to make sounds that refine upon the human ability to understand the coordinations of sounds. Like how a human, so much more than a dog, understands the coordinative possibilities between a long stick and a narrow vertical gap in barrier. Even dogs have some sense of dance, just not nearly as refined-and-flexible as humans' sense of dance.

So, to my way of thinking, musical hearing is your brain dancing to sounds. Hence, the title of this thread as a demonstration of the semantic analogue of both physical dance ("dance") and auditory-cognitive dance ("music").

Again, I'm very sorry for the fact that my initial incomplete explanation allowed such a bad sense as to my intent. ):


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

...and since there is no official, or otherwise expressly dedicated, place on Talk Classical for threads on the musicology, or philosophy, of music in general, but in which this Classical Music subfora has long been the home of the thread *http://www.talkclassical.com/19853-music-useless.html* (which begins by quoting Steven Pinker's views as to the nature of music), I assumed it was only natural that a Fora as diverse and European as Talk Classical would not be averse to a thread on the topic of the present thread. I may be assuming wrong that everyone reading the present thread has already read some of the thread the topic of which is a view like Pinker's.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Min said:


> ...and since there is no official, or otherwise expressly dedicated, place on Talk Classical for threads on the musicology, or philosophy, of music in general, but in which this Classical Music subfora has long been the home of the thread *http://www.talkclassical.com/19853-music-useless.html* (which begins by quoting Steven Pinker's views as to the nature of music), I assumed it was only natural that a Fora as diverse and European as Talk Classical would not be averse to a thread on the topic of the present thread. I may be assuming wrong that everyone reading the present thread has already read some of the thread the topic of which is a view like Pinker's.


Like I said, it is a topic of endless discussion, debate (usually without any agreed-upon conclusions, like that other infamous "What makes it classical" question)... and I say go for it.

You can contact a moderator, ask then to rename your OP with your newly chosen title, with wording for a clearer read if its intent / content desired, and I believe it would stay in the general 'classical music discussion,' -- no such category as musico-philosophy on TC, or elsewhere, I imagine.

Be prepared for the usual bundle of the numbers of usual supspects who 'just don't get' John Cage's 4'33'', don't at all recognize organized sound which is other than half-steps and acoustic instrumental, "as music," etc. But a fun enough time should be had by any who join in.


----------



## Min (Jul 20, 2014)

PetrB said:


> -- no such category as musico-philosophy on TC, or elsewhere, I imagine.


I'm not clear what you mean. Philosophy of music, and musicology, are going academic and professional fields, the latter having a number of subfields. For example, see, http://www.musicology.ucla.edu/, http://musicologynow.ams-net.org/2013/08/big-bad-data.html ("Computer says popular music "all sounds the same"; UCLA musicologist disagrees"), http://www.uva.nl/en/disciplines/musicology, http://www.uva.nl/en/disciplines/mu...ion-between-human-and-non-human-primates.html, http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/CSM_lab.html, and http://cms.mus.cam.ac.uk/

...and http://www.talkclassical.com/19853-music-useless.html has stayed in the CM forums for years.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Min said:


> And, I gather than the cacophony of the animal life in the South American rainforest at night is not so whiplash-ingly 'in your face', but is much closer to white noise.


Nah, it's just *Ginastera*'s _Panambí_:


----------

