General Music Chat

I'm not so sure, Craig. In scientific terms you can certainly record SOUND....but can you really record the music in it? That's a much more esoteric concept.

The Sufis may be on to something there.

Well, I was pondering along other lines.

Recorded sound, is almost like freezing a moment in time, that can then be replayed at will. If I am not mistaken, Einstein was the first who proposed that time can bend, hence space travel at great enough speeds, would bring the space traveller back to Earth having aged less than we ourselves who remained on Earth during the same time span. This has, of course, since been proven to be true.

Additionally, when we see an image of a star from a distant galaxy, we are not seeing that star itself, in real time, but are seeing it thousands or even millions of years ago, depending on the time it takes for the light, and therefore, it's image, to reach us.

In that sense alone, we are in effect seeing a recorded image of it. Sadly for the Sufis, that "moment" has long passed, and we are seeing it millions of years later in our time. Perhaps with that knowledge, they would consider it a sin to peer into a telescope if "musicians" were viewed on the other side? (and heard, although sound travels more slowly) I don't know. But in theory, it is a possibility.

In other words, film exposed to light, records an image, but in a sense, light that is millions of years old, travelling through space, is almost "recorded" as well, the medium being space, rather than film.

Galaxies closer to the source could see the images in thousands of years time, whereas we, in our own galaxy may see the very same thing, but millions of years later.

The difference in having images linger through millions of years in space, or recorded to a physical medium here, are negligible at best.

Also, interestingly enough, no scientific theory currently held, would negate the possibility of time travel. If it were possible to experience time travel (and it may in fact be) what would the difference be, in revisiting that "moment" in time at will, in reality, as opposed to visiting it through a recording of it, which almost accomplishes the same thing in principle?

That was a fine piece on physics...well done. But the question I am asking is a bit more murky; namely, what is the "music" in the organized sound we call music? How come we can hear one person do a rendition of our favorite song that just falls flat and leaves us emotionless or even pissed off, and another person playing the same song can bring us to tears of joy?

Clearly, something is going on there that cannot be placed on a data chart, or dealt with in a laboratory.

That was a fine piece on physics...well done. But the question I am asking is a bit more murky; namely, what is the "music" in the organized sound we call music? How come we can hear one person do a rendition of our favorite song that just falls flat and leaves us emotionless or even pissed off, and another person playing the same song can bring us to tears of joy?

Clearly, something is going on there that cannot be placed on a data chart, or dealt with in a laboratory.

Well, clearly, as you stated before, that is definitely a more esoteric concept. First though, let me say that this avenue is deeper, even spiritual in nature. However, the basic points I addressed still stands I believe. The moment in time exists, and as the light and sound travels through space, it continues to exist, but is "experienced" at differing times, depending on the listener's proximity to the origin of the sounds and images. That alone, I believe, probably negates the merit of the "sinfulness" of recording music.

But on to the much more fascinating question you proposed...

You are almost asking, what is music? What defines it? What is the nature of it? Why does it evoke differing responses? Why is it, that what is "music" to one person's ear, is garbage to someone else's. Is it considered "music" if it evokes a certain response, conforms to a certain standard? Who decides?

Is it a physical reality? A spiritual reality? Both?

It would seem to depend upon the audience. But more profoundly, it seems, at least to me, to depend upon the "relationship" between creator of the art, and it's audience.

For me, music is about making that "connection". In fact, life itself, is about making that connection. If there was a divine architect of our cosmos and the living beings that inhabit it, including ourselves, then this "architect" certainly had "relationship" in mind when it conceived, and then created all that we see and all that we are.

Being "verbose" as I am, those that are interested, will have to forgive me, but there is no short way to express the following synopsis...

I have, even since childhood, been intrigued by the nature of all that exists, and it's interdependency. For example, everyone knows that trees take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. People are the reverse. We inhale oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. There is a relationship of interdependence.

Also, for example, what about sight? There is really no such thing as "color" in an absolute sense, meaning being "fixed". Our eyes "interpret" light being reflected off objects as color. It is really our brains that make it "color". As humans, we may see that an object appears "red" whereas certain insects may "see" some shade of ultraviolet, a different color altogether. Who's right? Us? The insect? Well, both are. We each see what we see, based upon our make up and our own unique relationship to the object.

As an interesting aside, the object that we "see" as red, is not only, NOT red, but the very opposite. It is the ABSENCE of the spectrum known as red, that makes the object appear red. The object does not absorb that spectrum of light from the sun, and it is bounced off (rejected) by the object, and THAT is what we see. We assume the object is red (although it is not) and we further assume that when the lights are off, that object is still red. The reality is, that without light shining on it, that object has NO color. And without us watching it with our eyes, there is not a brain to interpret that light as "red" even when the lights ARE on.

So there is a symbiotic realtionship between not only the object itself and light, but of the observer as well. The absence of ANY one of the three, and there is no color.

Higher ancient cultures have often recognized the interdependence of all material things, and science through millenia has only confirmed what on a more primitive scale, some ancients have always known, that all life depends upon other life, in an organic miracle of interdependence.

Music is part of that scenario.

Someone who associates "soft rock" with horrible personal experiences may be repulsed by the same performer that another person gets mushy over. A conservative personality may find that thrash metal is not musical at all, whereas a more adventurous person may find it the only music worth listening to. Music evokes a "call and response". The artist expresses an idea through musical form, but that translates into the listener as either genius or folly, depending on his personality and life experiences.

So, like the example of light and color, so too, is there a symbiotic relationship between inspiration, artist, and his audience.


Without the relationship between inspiration, artist and audience, music itself may not exist.


How's that for deep?

I guess this would be a cross posting with another forum...please read what I posted on your "What is Music" thread and imagine it here.

on a grander scale. Just like a mynah bird that mimics sounds expertly (kind of like some cover bands I've heard) a synthesizer mimics sounds. It can give somebody infinitely more sounds to chose from when creating a new song. Certain forms of music can definitely benefit more from its use than other forms. It just depends what genre of music you're working with and what kind of effect you want to impart. A human playing a real instrument is certainly more "musical" than searching electronically for a sound. No two people play the same instrument the same way or get the same sound. I know that from hosting a few blues jams and hearing other people play my bass guitar. (I couldn't believe how bad my rig sounded in some other hands.) The kind of music I prefer to play really doesn't lend itself to the use of a synthesizer. Then there's the image of a grizzled veteran blues band playing in some smokey dive somewhere. When I hear a tune and I know who's playing the tune I get a visual image of it. I just can't picture B.B. King for example singing his butt off and playing a synthesizer. How about a synthesizer on a Freddie King instrumental? Is a DJ a musician? Again, not really. Kind of another type of mynah bird. Just my two cents. As always I really enjoy most of theses threads. Later...

Bob that's a good point about synthesizers but let me push it a bit. The irony of the synthesizer's existence is that it was created to mimick and morph, to "synthesize" the sounds of other instruments; yet it has grown into it's own musical realms so completely that there exist entire genres of music based on the weird noises that can only be produced by the circuits and chips behind that keyboard. Take the "trance" or "electronica" sound. The keystone of it comes from a Roland synthesizer, oddly enough quite old technology considering the history of electonic music. This keyboard sound is all its own, cannot be replicated by other instruments, and is the backbone of now several types of dance music. It is what slide guitar is to Mississippi Delta Blues.

I think it was Isao Tomita, the pioneering Japanese synthesizer composer and performer, who said "All musical sound can be traced back to two primordial sounds in nature...the sound of a volcanic eruption (percussion) and the clap of thunder".

With the birth of the MOOG synthesizer, we saw the birth of the Age of Thunder in music.

synths and all like that are so weird, a little bit of electrification can add or take away so much from a song. what Keith Emerson can do with a pipe organ and with a synth really bear comparing, holding notes with daggers and playing away on two sets of keys isn't exactly something that is doable by the accomplished keyboardist, but a few flips and button pushes and you would have a hard time trying to figure out which is "organic" and whats "synth"etic

synths and all like that are so weird, a little bit of electrification can add or take away so much from a song. what Keith Emerson can do with a pipe organ and with a synth really bear comparing, holding notes with daggers and playing away on two sets of keys isn't exactly something that is doable by the accomplished keyboardist, but a few flips and button pushes and you would have a hard time trying to figure out which is "organic" and whats "synth"etic

Huh? Maybe I didn't understand you, but playing on two keyboards at the same time is a common skill with today's professional keyboardists.

this is a cool topic...lets start at the start..human beings have been making music with whatever instruments thay could lay there hands on...drums first...voice second and just about everything since then.if drums were ok why would we need singing or piano or strings etc.
the point im making is that technology is mearly another tool for making sounds that sound good together....its that simple...its a tool,, you use it or you dont.
some people are afraid of technology..and thats fine...some people are in love with technology and that too is fine but simply saying technology is killing music is a load of bollix....i dont care what type of music you play if your ever going to record and mix and master an album of any style,even if it was an album of spoken word its gona be sent through more prosessing eq and musical swings and roundabouts than you can ever imagine....so your going to need all those flashing boxes and funny named programs to make it happen..so if you wana turn your back on technology and go and record on a shitty 8 track in a cave by candel light...be my guest