Which one is music?
Think VERY carefully about this.
All of them
buyers market, duh
>>53824026
only correct answer
>>53824011
>I decide what's music
kindly fuck off
bach you fuckin idiots
radio roadmovies, pulse demon, gmgn, and the well tempered clavier
>>53824026
This
>>53824011
As far as I'm concerned, music is controlled sound, so, excluding the 2nd and 3rd albums in the bottom row (seeing as I haven't heard of them), Pulse Demon and Sachiko fit that criteria, the rest don't.
you're all fucking stupid its just fucking pop music.
theres nothing else to it.
its pop music.
>>53824011
what's wrong with symphonies of the planets? there are much less musical dark ambient records out there...
>>53824011
bach?
>>53824074
Although I guess you could argue that in Sotos' case the sound IS controlled, but imho that shouldn't qualify.
>>53824092
>Bach
>John Cage
>pop music
I hope for your sake this is bait
>>53824026
Buyer's Market isn't music. Was it even intended as music? It just used audio instead of video.
Post yfw you realize that Cage is right and it's all music
For noise to become music, it must have human intent to become music.
That's it.
That being said, one or more of those wasn't intended as music (owls, Buyer's Market). So they aren't music.
>>53824145
Yeah, I'd say Buyer's Market is the only one that isn't music, although it could be presented in the context of the music of Peter Sotos.
>>53824174
Owls sing, songs are music.
spoken word =/= music, so its not Buyers market
why people fight over buyer's market being music or not? not everything that is in a CD and comes in mp3 is music
>>53824174
okay, so imagine this: you have two cds/tapes/vinyls/mp3s/whatevers. the first is a recording of any piece of music you feel may bolster your the strength of your argument, while the second is a recording of a naturally-occurring mechanism that, in the course of its operation, yields a sequence of sound fully identical to the first recording.
but which one was the music??
>>53824219
Owls don't sing to make music. There is no intent for it to be music.
The contention is whether the CD exists to enjoy the calls of the owls (effectively music), or if its for bird watchers to learn owl calls (not music) or other uses.
>>53824277
it had human intent to be put on a cd, therefore it is music
>>53824301
Your scenario is confusing. Was the second CD created by a human being in order to be presented as music?
>>53824011
Those are all definitely music except for the WTC. Why would anyone even think that's music? Stupid plebs.
>>53824350
each was recorded for unknown purposes by an unknown entity
>>53824174
>dl mp3
>not sure if can enjoy as music
>have to google "was this mp3 intended to be music" everytime
lmao
Music, music, idea to challenge what is music, not music.
Music, not music, music, music.
>>53824392
If you cannot verify the purpose was musical, then it isn't verifiably music.
>>53824011
None of them
>>53824174
>>53824322
this is bullshit and you know it
>>53824470
My definition is academically verified.
What is your definition, and where do you get it from?
>>53824092
>Field recordings of space
>Pop music
lyl
>>53824135
Bach is not Pop. He is classical
John Cage mine as well be Pop. He is a fucking meme. The only thing he did that was worth while was give RDJ the idea to use prepared piano
>>53824497
>academically verified
you can't prove music contains intent just from listening to it
>>53824417
>>53824485
Your argument is horrendously flawed. What is on the MP3? Is it a recording of Shake it Off? Clearly that was intended as music.
Is it an MP3 of rain forest sounds? Maybe it was meant for relaxation or other utlitarian needs (AKA not musical).
I dont understand WTC
it sounds like typical classical music
>>53824330
Explain why being on CD makes something music.
>>53824531
Did I ever state that I could? I simply stated that I doubt Sorros or the Owl people intended their CD's as music. I think they intended it for amusical purposes.
>>53824562
Classical is only good for elevators and hold music on the phone.
>>53824011
>mfw literally anything can be considered music now
Does anyone else think that is a devaluation of art?
>>53824541
do you know for sure that it wasn't just an academic field recording of medical condition where the sound of one's farts happen to sound exactly like Shake It Off?
do you know for sure that it wasn't someone pouring water on a rainforest for the purpose of making music?
>>53824572
you cannot derive source of a sound from just a sound, let alone the 'intention' behind it
>>53824607
music
>ˈmjuːzJk/
noun
vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
>>53824607
There is low art and high art. Fingerpainting is art the same as a Monet. But one is obviously a higher rank.
>>53824625
You have to know the person who created the recording. Without that, it is inconclusive whether it is music.
>>53824011
Pulse Demon, Good Morning Good Night, and The Well Tempered Clavier required the use of a played instrument or synthesizer to play. they are music.
Buyer's Market, Voices Of North American Owls, Radio Roadmovies, and Symphonies Of The Planets are recordings of the space around us. Though some of them may be composed or though out, they are not created in a musical manor. If anything, the focus of them is on the landscape the audio is from and not the audio itself. They are field recordings.
4'33" contains no audio whatsoever. It is not music in any form.
This isn't that hard.
>>53824562
somebody explain this to me. Whats so absurd about it?
>>53824633
music
>ˈmjuːzJk/
noun
a type of food made from rice, raw fish, and seaweed
>>53824649
Bach is dead, therefore no recordings of Bach are actually music anymore
>>53824662
Those recordings were intended as music by humans.
Therefore, they are music.
How is that hard to grasp?
>>53824676
No, Bach clearly intended his work to be MUSIC; therefore, performances of it are music.
>>53824722
oh do you know Bach personally?
if not, please refer to >>53824649
>>53824751
Bach is recorded in writing referring to his work as music.
Your argument is ridiculous.
>>53824751
>autism
>>53824769
citations required
otherwise please refer to >>53824649 and the fact that you do not personally know Bach in order to be able to have him confirm that he ever made music
>>53824722
>Those recordings were intended as music by humans.
[citation needed]
>Therefore, they are music.
[citation needed]
>>53824504
Space pop
>sounds without melody are considered music
>recordings without any direction arare considered films
>interactive experiences without gameplay are considered games
What is next?
I don't see why it matters if the experience is still worthwhile
>>53824813
>You have to know the person
>Personally know
You do know those two are different things right? In the original quote "You have to know the person" he meant the context in which the work was released and the general intent of the creator.
>>53824864
>posts made without research or merit are considered valid opinions
oh wait
>>53824813
>>53824821
I think the problem here is that I have an education at the university level, reinforced with consistent discussions requiring human intent for it to be music; and you're just a shitposting anon.
Better luck next time.
>>53824908
>I think the problem here is that I have an education at the university level, reinforced with consistent discussions requiring human intent for it to be music
[citation needed]
>and you're just a shitposting anon.
[citation needed]
>>53824908
>he actually paid to be spoonfed shit this retarded so he could regurgitate it
when will i actually come across someone intelligent here? better luck next time indeed
>>53824908
the irony is that this post is the shitpost
>>53824947
>>53824953
>>53824987
Sorry, not falling for your b8 that easily anymore.
>>53825004
>I can't refute any actual arguments!
>No problem..
>I'll just meme my way out of this one!
lol ok pal
>>53825004
>>53824897
>In the original quote
see the actual original quote here: >>53824649
>You have to know the person who created the recording.
>>53825139
OK then, but do you disagree with: You need to know the context in which the work was released and the general intent of the creator to consider it music.
artist intent hasn't mattered since like the '60s my dude it's embarrassing that you're this bad at aesthetic philosophy why don't you go back to your shitty metal and STEM major
>>53825184
Yes, entirely. Context is non-musical information.
>>53825227
Alright so what's your definition? And which ones of those albums on the OP you consider music?
>>53825266
All sound has musical potential & the classification of something as music is entirely up to the sound consumer.
>>53825205
>he doesn't study at STEM
>he thinks he will find a decent job
Ayy
>>53825327
>>he thinks he will find a decent job
great non-sequitur my mang
>>53825325
So I can record myself jacking off and send it to you, and you can consider it music?
Good Morning/Good Night is the best album there, so that.
>>53824011
wow that is retarded
there is no sound in space so that bottom right album is bs
>>53825365
If you send me anything you're ever recorded I doubt I'll consider it music.
>>53825400
Nice dubs but i'm not the idiot from the university i was just trying to have a conversation.
>>53825432
see >>53825325
>the classification of something as music is entirely up to the sound consumer.
I don't care what sort of reduction ad absurdum you're trying but if I were indeed subjected to listening to that there could be many different reasons why I would or would not consider it to be music.
>>53825482
Alright then, that's a good definition. Sorry if i bothered you.
>>53824174
Your logic is almost right, but the intent does not need to come from the author but simply an audience's intent is enough.
>>53825365
not him, but sure
