music

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi

[b]neither of them defined music.
Yes I did.

neither of them can definetely define music.
'Music' is a term that is understood by competent speakers of English. My definition is compatible with how the term is used and understood in English.

there is no definitive definition of music.
Is ning is close enough to mine for me to be able to say his claim is false.[/b]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Beastie Boys,Cypress Hill and some other rap music is cool .
I reckon (rap) music has saved many lives, if not the whole world.
It is a very delicate balance between life and death, a balance that has been slightly tipped in the favour of life by such forces as music amongst other things.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Here is what you "did":
What I did was give a definition of music.

So in short, you didn't really define anything.
I disagree, I defined 'music'.

you said some of itz features are x, y, z but music doesn't have to have them.
No, I said "not all the members will necessarily have all the features." which is quite different.

how many do you think it has to have in order to be called music?
Does a chair have to have four legs or can it have a different number? Does it need legs at all? What about a back? Do rocking chairs count? Where is the sharp line between a rocking chair and a rocking horse?

if i make a kettle whistle by a rythm, is that music?
Sorry, if you what?

the problem with your examples is that you went too far. i am not calling chocolate cake music like you called a goldfish a chair. i am calling music any sequence of sounds that appeals to someone.
Which is like calling a goldfish a chair because you can sit on it.

it is not a matter of linguistics, it is a matter of defining art.
In order to have meaningful dialogue about 'music' we must agree what we mean thereby. I have seen no evidence that karoly was using a different definition to mine in making the claim. Karoly subsequently modified the claim from a 100% to 99%. Karoly did not attempt to wriggle by defining 'music' in an absurdly wide way.

what is art? is a picture of a carcass art? is it the carcass itself? some twist together some metal wires, slap a funky title on it and voila! it is art. who are you to say the sound a chainsaw makes is not music? did you think rap music was conisdered art the instant it got out? sure when you compare it to beethoven, an eminem song is coming out short. that just means some music is more something than other. and while we consider eminem to be "less" than beethoven, there are some others who don't like beethoven and would rather listen to slim. that is why your claim that some people don't like music is incorrect and correct depending on what you think music is.
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my £5.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]Here is what you "did":
What I did was give a definition of music.

So in short, you didn't really define anything.
I disagree, I defined 'music'.

you said some of itz features are x, y, z but music doesn't have to have them.
No, I said "not all the members will necessarily have all the f ...[text shortened]... ending on what you think music is.[/b]
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my £5.[/b]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yeah thats right, Lord Shark. I wasn't going to get into the definition of music and I suspect we generally agree on what the term means. At the same time I can see where Z is coming from. Actusally both of you are sort of agreeing that it is hard to know where to draw the line.

In my OP I was just trying to relate to that "movement" within the body ...[text shortened]... ng to something and thinking "This is crap!"...but you can always turn off the stereo🙂 )

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]Here is what you "did":
What I did was give a definition of music.

So in short, you didn't really define anything.
I disagree, I defined 'music'.

you said some of itz features are x, y, z but music doesn't have to have them.
No, I said "not all the members will necessarily have all the f ...[text shortened]... ending on what you think music is.[/b]
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my £5.[/b]

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Although I do agree that it is hard to know where to draw the line, sometimes it is easy to recognise when it has been drawn in the wrong place.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
easy to whom? you? i don't recognize it has been drawn in a wrong place. someone must be wrong then, isn't that true? who must be wrong in this case? by what reason?and can you think of the possibility you are the one wrong, that maybe you are simply overthinking something subjective that changes from decade to decade and that people can't agree 100% on what it is?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i get a slight feeling you are annoyed by something so you are resorting to some sarcasm?
You are mistaken.

didn't get it though, i have no background on humpty dumpy and why i am it
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6

and why do you want 5 pounds? would 5 dollars be enough?
I don't think the exchange rate is too bad at the moment.

you are not discussing with karoly anymore you are now discussing with me.
i claim that just because you dont understand something you can't dismiss it. i am claiming that all people like some music. whether it is beethoven or whether it is the sound of rain dropping on the hood of a car. if you claim you don't like music, i will claim you haven't found the music you like.
I think I understand your claim just fine. Just shoot the arrow anywhere in the barn door and then you'll draw the target around it. According to your definition, anything (I presume you will arbitrarily limit yourself to sound) counts as music if somebody likes it. But that is not how competent speakers use the term 'music'.

also, you must understand that some cultures don't have the difference between chair and stool, they are both refered to with the same word.
I have no beef with that. If you want to say a bench or beanbag or stool are things upon which we impose the function something-to-sit-on and other cultures do not have the same divisions that's ok with me. All of them have the requisite attributes to fulfil the function. The same is not true of your definition of music which is absurdly wide.

are you a grammar nazi in your spare time? fine.
Well, no if you had used appalling grammar but still preserved the meaning I wouldn't have mentioned it.

but then again, i can make some sequence of sounds that does have all the features and is not considered music.
No you can't. It might not be considered good music but that's an entirely different matter, that's subjective in a personal taste and cultural influence way. This has varied over time as you say.

or a drum solo that is considered music even if i am just banging an object.
Drum solos have at least rhythm and timbre and usually metrical intricacies.

you can't define music.
I did define music.

its art. its subjective. if you have a sequence of sounds that appeals to someone, its music
That's not a very useful definition because it doesn't fit with how the term 'music' is understood by competent speakers of English.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and can you think of the possibility you are the one wrong,
Backatcha...

that maybe you are simply overthinking something subjective that changes from decade to decade and that people can't agree 100% on what it is?
I agreed a few posts ago that it is difficult, let's say now, impossible to draw a line between music and non-music in precisely the right place on objective grounds. What is clear though is that you haven't even got close to the right place when you drew yours. Clear to whom? To me and any competent speaker who cares to look.

The vast majority of the subjectivity though is not about whether things are music or not. It is about whether things are any good.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]and can you think of the possibility you are the one wrong,
Backatcha...

that maybe you are simply overthinking something subjective that changes from decade to decade and that people can't agree 100% on what it is?
I agreed a few posts ago that it is difficult, let's say now, impossible to draw a l ...[text shortened]... though is not about whether things are music or not. It is about whether things are any good.[/b]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hey Lord Shark, do you think it is "desirable" to get excited? Like about music for example.
(This question is asked in relation to the "mechanics" of spirituality. But y'know, that just means in everyday life for me)

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
In meditation/life it is desirable to avoid all dualism. The excited mind emits alpha waves, the meditative/daydreamy mind emits beta waves.

I'm sure it is good for children to get excited and learn about stuff, but after the "age of reason" I'm not all that sure that they should be PURPOSEFULLY cultivating that type of mind.

Basic contention: e ...[text shortened]... y via an inbalance in brain emissions. (just thinking aloud here, not fully formulated,thnx)

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'm not convinced.

In fact, having been taught meditation and having looked into the truth claims of those who advocate it, I doubt that what you have said makes sense.

I think if you actually try to fully formulate what you have said it will be revealed as vague poorly evidenced speculation.

That's my honest appraisal, sorry.