soundian

Originally posted by Moshulu Rob:

But If I played the recording back to you, without telling you how, exactly, I recorded it, and said 'This is Music' is it?

If you believed it was music, who am I to argue. It's your creation and if anyone should know what it is, it's you.

Originally posted by Philip:

The other thing about the dictionary definition is that it has changed over time, it isn't definitive... If it was, people/philosphers/musicoligists etc wouldn't be questioning it's meaning.

The dictionary defintion is definitive for this time and this culture.

Originally posted by Moshulu Rob:

So if I record naturally occuring sounds, paying attention to how I do it, that I capture the sounds I want, and that the levels of the sounds are correct does that make the non man made, naturally occuring sounds music?

For me it's less about the method of creating the art/music, because you can only ever guess what was going on in the artist/musicians head when they created/captured whatever they did. It is the simple fact that someone says 'that is art/music' that makes it art/music

If you're choosing what to record, the sounds that you want, then yes, it could be classed as music. If you are making a choice about which sounds or the duration of the sounds, then there is conscious choice, making it man-made.(cf photography as art)

If you just turned on a recorder and recorded whatever was happening, all you would have would be a recording.(cf holiday snaps)

Originally posted by Moshulu Rob:

is the intent to create it more important or is the perception of the resulting sound more important?

I favour the latter, that by definition any sound/lack of sound that someone defines as music, is, by definiton music, because someone hears music in the sound. Be it teacups smashing or neds fighting, or that ridiculous 4 minutes of silence that was played on Radio 1 the other day, the composer defined it as music so it was.

If the intent is to create music,then it must be music.

Originally posted by Moshulu Rob:

But Photograpy is classed as an art, and that is just making a record of something someone can see at that time

Your getting confused between photography and holiday snaps.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but photography as an art relies on composition, lighting etc.

Originally posted by Philip:

The dictionary definition is to hung up about harmony and rhythm, I just think it fails to cover all aspects of music as I know it.

Some people do not hear intentional music as music, does this mean it isn't music?

I used (sound/sonic vibration) to cover both how a person who can hear perfectly and how someone who is deaf(I know it's not as straight forward as that) would experience music.

The hearing person would be more aware of hearing sound, but be less aware the vibration/feeling aspect , where as a deaf person would be more aware of the vibration/feeling of sound, but less aware of the hearing aspect.

My dictionary clearly states music is an art.

Art is man-made.

If they can't hear music as music it doesn't matter, as long as it has been created with the intention of being music, it is music.

I see why you made the distinction but all sound is vibration.

Originally posted by Philip:

I am not claiming this to be RIGHT(at least for the time being) buit this is my definition of MUSIC.

It fails, but so does the dictionary definition in my eyes, so...

Using the starting point, after some quick research in to the subject, that only humans can hear/feel something as music, this just about covers all eventualities of what music might be!

Feel free to pick away at it, pointing out what you consider to be wrong or right.

Music: A human perception of Sound, silence and sonic vibration.

1)Sound is what you would hear as a result of a physical action whether intentional, unintentional or by natural occurrence.

2)Silence is what you would hear as a result of no physical action whether intentional, unintentional or by natural occurrence.

3)Sonic vibration is what you would feel as a result of a physical action that produces sound whether intentional, unintentional or by natural occurrence.

Hmmmmmmmm!

Why is the dictionary wrong. Language is a group of symbols to get across ideas, art is the group of symbols which tells you something is made by humans rather than nature. If you want 'music' or 'art' to mean something other than that, you'll have to find other words or make some up.

And all sound is 'sonic vibrations'.

Originally posted by CliveRavensby:

art does not have to be man made, its all about perception.

hence, music is about perception.

that is my opinion.

Art:human skill and work as opposed to nature.

That's my dictionary's opinion.

Originally posted by Frosty Jack:

Evelyn Glennie (deaf percussionist) once explained to me how she hears music. Apparently she's just really sensitive to vibration, and 'hears' different notes in different areas of her body - low frequencies towards her feet, and higher frequencies up toward her head. She's so sensitive to it she can tune drums waaay better than I ever could...

She must be mega-sensitive then. I worked for her once and asked a question while her back was turned to me. She answered the question in about 1-2 seconds, before anyone who could hear answered it. She couldn't have read my lips (although I've heard people praising her for her ability to lip-read) so how did she know what I said if she's 'profoundly deaf'.

Originally posted by Philip:

But if someone hears it as music, why isn't it?

Music is an art and art is man-made.

Unless you say music isn't an art.

Originally posted by Philip:

so, with the assumption that it is purely a human perception, would this maybe be a good starting point?

Music: A humans perception of sound, silence and sonic vibration.

As I said before, you can perceive it as music as much as you like, but if it isn't man-made, it isn't music. It may sound like music,taste like music, smell like music but it isn't music.

Originally posted by Philip:

I take it you dont agree with me that music exists without human involvement of any kind?

If music relies in the person hearing it to perceive it as music or not, then it can't exist without human involvement.

Originally posted by Frosty Jack:

. A guitar doesn't make music, your brain does.

Exactly my point.

Originally posted by badger:

Personally and from great experience in the world of connecting balanced mics to unbalanced connections at the university, I would wire 3.5mm tip to pin 2 on XLR and 3.5mm ring also to pin 2. Connect the screen to pins 1 & 3 on the XLR. That will work a treat. In a run of the length you are doing, unbalanced wont matter much. I have frequently run unblanced signals well over 50 metres with no percievalble problems. Especially for recording.

Badger

If it's an unbalanced connection you don't have a ring to attach to pin 2.

What do you attach to the sleeve of the jack?

Music is a term devised by humans to differentiate between man-made and natural sounds. Other animals may think differently but since we're all human here we have to go by the human definition, otherwise words then have no meaning.

You may perceive it as music but it isn't music.

Originally posted by Philip:

I'm using this as my definition of music for the near future as I feel it covers (just about) every eventuality of what music might be:

Musc = any combination of (sound, silence and sonic vibration)

It kind of all hangs on whether or not humans are the only 'thing' that perceives something as music.

If humans are the only 'thing' that perceives something as music, then if I hear/perceive any combination of (sound, silence and sonic vibration) as music, it there for IS music, yes?

With regards to the tea cup etc, music does not have to be enjoyed.

I'll try again.

Music is an art. Art is 'human skill and work as opposed to nature'.

You're right about music not having to be enjoyed though. Don't I know it.

Originally posted by spellchecker:

definitely "that's music", because we are trying to define music. in saying "that's like music", we are comparing to a definition of music we have not yet established, and hence not identifying, clarifying or defining anything whatsoever.

No silly, I mean when you hear something naturally created or a product of randomness. Which phrase crosses your mind first?

Originally posted by Ibid:

I've not tried screenless cable. I guess the screen must have at least some effect, even unconnected.

In unbalanced cables, a small 100ohm resistor connected between the screen of the cable and the earth tag of the jack plug will reduce any induced current hum, but this method will slightly increase the risk of RF interference. In this case, connecting a 1 nanofard capacitor in parallel with the resistor will help. Going from balanced to unbalanced though, you need to prevent earth currents flowing in the cable screen and compromising common mode rejection (and letting the hum back in!)

This time you connect a series resistor of about 100 ohms in series with the screen connection at the unbalanced end. This is better than using a resistor in a completely unbalanced system because you're not relying on the screen to act as a signal return path.

Without the shield it just acts as an antenna, picking up everylittle burp, hiccough and fart from surrounding equipment. Buzztastic. I think linking the screen to the P.R. signal must give protection to the other core . Otherwise why bother connecting it at all.

Originally posted by Ibid:

To be honest I don't think the shield does much. The signal noise ratio is better though so I suppose that why it works. Anything longer than 2-3 ft and it's not worth it. Unshielded PCs tend to kick out a lot of radiation and the screen on an XLR/unbalanced jack just loves it! Hence chopping it off. Perhaps a resistor in there may be better, I must try it.

Have you tried using a cable with no shield? The shield must do something. Anyway, it sounds like for short runs, you're way may be best.

I'm led to believe a 100 micro-farad capacitor in line with the shield reduces noise.

Originally posted by Philip:

Fair enough!

hehe, say it is GOD(if there is such a thing) that is conducting everything though, but we just dont realise it?

Just a thought.

Who knows?

Well, if there is, s/he also gave us the two words noise and music. Therefore there must be a difference. They're omniscient you know.

That's the word, I knew I wasn't right.

I see what you're getting at now, you're using the phase reversed signal as the reference, giving you a signal boost. How does the shield work though? Or is it just a matter of better signal-noise ratio?

Originally posted by Philip:

If you can, throw open your window and take a listen to what's happening outside, various sounds and silences - natural music?

No, random sounds.

I consider music an art and art has to be created.

If someone was directing the flow of traffic and the different engine noises, the seagulls, the kids shouting, I would consider it art, but not music.

Originally posted by Philip:

But some humans fail to hear an intentional musical sound as music!

But that doesn't mean every unintentional sound is music and we're just not getting it.

Music is a word made up by humans, the very fact that it exists implies there is a difference, there is a point when every sane person on the planet will draw the line between the two.

Do you think 'that's like music' or 'that's music'?

Originally posted by eat your parents:

Kathrine Sawers and Amy Sawyers? Have I spelt their names correctly?

What do these two gal's sound like? And what do they play?

Website's?

They're both Sawers, being sisters it's handier having the same spelling.