Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'd like to discuss people's ideas and theories about music... Here's some of my thoughts that are floating around:

1. Music is mathematical. But real time math. There are only 12 notes in a range of octaves (not sure how many the human ear can hear) A good balanced song could translate into an extremely complex mathematical equation I'm sure. And the different equations that are involved are mindboggling. The notes relationship to each other, the speed of the song, the beats per measure, the accents and where that lies on the swing of the beat. And the oddest thing about all of this, is that it works the best when people do it real time. Several people can basically calculate math real time as a group. Remembering beats and note patterns.

2. Digital vs analog. I am a musician myself, and I often struggle between the use of digital programmed stuff and analog freeform. Digital sounds so slick and can be fine tuned to the most minute detail, but it sounds too robotic and boring. So, then I add in the analog elements guitars, real drums, vocals or keyboard. But it's awfully hard to freeform when a preprogrammed track walls me in a bit. I often have to go back and reprogram in places where my analog instruments don't sync with the programming.

3. Samples. Audio samples are priceless in keying the listeners ear & giving them something to relate to. Although in this day and age it is a very touchy thing using samples "without permission." Yet, is an amateur artist really going to pay some ridiculous licensing fee to use a few 1 second samples? Hell no. Unless the sound byte is specifically identified, I don't think the artist should be held to licensing fees or anything. I don't know the laws on that, but I know they're pretty strict.

4. Post production. The amount of time spent after the song is finished can directly affect the impressiveness of the sound. It can also completely ruin it if done wrong, of course. But the tiniest tweaks in graphics EQ's, reverberation, effects, etc can make a good sound sound outstanding. Most music fans have a hard time connecting with music that has poor post production as the guitars may be muffled, bandwidth compressed, etc.

5. Originality. No matter how good you are, if you are copying or inadvertantly sound like another main stream band... you are boring the piss out of us. Sure, the record labels like to use this ploy to sell fans on a labeled music scene... but the bands that TRULY stand out have something very unique about them. For instance, with Korn the selling schtick was the bagpipes. Everyone was so amazed about that when they first came out. The singer's odd vocal style also stood out quite clearly from other bands of the time. If a band is original enough, it can even spark it's own labeled genre and then go down in history as a great "influential" band.

To be fair in a definition, it's organized sound for the reasons AriaStarSong alluded to. The other options are more personalized. Certain kinds of music aren't pretty, pleasing, or emotional to me at all and I wouldn't call them music. That doesn't mean they aren't forms of music. But then you have to define organized? What constitutes organized sound?

I don't want to be a nitpicky jerk, but the title is 4'33".

Also, as far as my experience with music goes, and for an 18-year-old, I'd like to think it's a fair amount, music can be defined simply as sound organized over organized sound.

That, however, doesn't state what music is. Not that simply. So I'll comment on each of ochimaru's theories.

1. Nice to think about, but I don't see how it could really work. Having worked with music almost continually for the past two years, and off and on for ten years before that, I don't find patterned music much. Sure, there are simple rhythms that repeat, but that's not a mathematical equation, that's just the "organized sound" part of my definition.

2. Once again. Analog = "sound organized". Digital = "Organized sound". Although I must say that I find digitally-created music to be almost boring, even if it's lively. However, it does give me the stepping stone I need to the point where I and my band can perform it ourselves.

3. Samples...not everything can be gleaned from one sample. For instance, "Sing For the Moment" by Eminem sampled "Dream On" by Aerosmith...the sample was used well, Eminem fitted his lines in fluently...but it didn't capture the feel of "Dream On".

4. Post-pro is heavenly, I'll agree, but it's just organizing more sound over organized sound.

5. Originality is everything. Enough said.

I refuse to read any posts or vote until there is an all of the above option.

That depends on their intent, I'd say. Is their intent merely to communicate 'food here!' or 'mommy, we're hungry, feeeeed us', or are they actually singing?

And I don't mean the 'wahey, this is my turf, I'm a kick your a** if you come too close' ditty either.

I've wondered if the music you listen to is based on one's personality. And therefore, can the type of music listened to, demonstrate how a society acts as a whole.