[quote="clouds"]

don't forget dissonance. That is a big musical concept that came in to play from the 60s and is still very popular today.

lol sonic youth lol number girl lol pernderecki lol etc.[/quote]

Dissonance would be categorized as a method of harmony.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="clouds"]Sheer, what separates music and art?[/quote]

Apples and oranges.

Art is [b]anything humans find aesthetically pleasing.[/b]


Edit: Music is not necessarily artistic. That is why "artful noise" is not inherently music. Otherwise, music would merely be "noise."[/quote]

Wait. Explain how any piece of music is not enjoyable to at least SOME person. Then explain why noise that is aesthetically pleasing isn't music.



Sorry, sheer, but you're looking like a major douche.[/quote]

That doesn't make any sense, Blank. I just explained it in my definitions.

Edit: I think I might get where you're getting confused. Just because all music is aesthetically pleasing and artful to someone, that does not mean that it is definitive to music.

Noise that is aesthetically pleasing is not music because it doesn't conform to what music is defined as.

just to be devil's advocate, i'd like to ask why people are defending this piece of music that is different and calling it art but we will all agree that a band like fall out boy or gackt or something doesn't create art at all? is it because fall out boy is unoriginal? why can we all agree that these bands suck?

is clouds piece original, or could it have just as easily been generated randomly? even if it was, could it be art?

I HEAR YOUR BRAINS EXPLODING ALREADY.

It makes perfect sense. I'm pointing out that one definition you make effectively shatters your other definition.

EDIT: By the way, music is just noise.



Zenkalia, falloutboy and gackt create art. We just don't appreciate it.

[quote="Blank"]It makes perfect sense. I'm pointing out that one definition you make effectively shatters your other definition.[/quote]

But [i]how[/i]? It...doesn't...at all.

Music is [b]arranged[/b] noise. That's a huge distinction.

So songs that you enjoy are music. Well, I enjoy my song. Problem solved.

Even if my song isn't an exceptional example, dizzid, what's to stop it from being called art?


Albeit,we have skewed the argument to argue that it's art when at first we were arguing whether my song was music. Which was provided for by sheer himself with his posing of a link to several definitions of music. Many of them talked about harmony, which sheer affirms includes dissonance.
Can a song not include distortion, though? Is that wrong? If the melody is harder to hear is that somehow wrongingthe musical world? Should I assume that anyone who listens to my music can't hear a melody unless it slapped them on the face? Is it wrong that you can't hum my song? That it's not catchy?
I've already mentioned, I believe, that the song was a lot of the F chord and a little of the G chord witha lot of distortion. I don't see how that's a crime to music at all.

[quote="Sheerheartattack"]Music is not necessarily artistic. That is why "artful noise" is not inherently music.[/quote]

1. Art is anything created that is pleasing.
2. Music is created and is pleasing.
3. You're making the animal fallacy. "All elephants are animals. Therefore, all animals are elephants." It's wrong.

[quote="Blank"][quote="Sheerheartattack"]Music is not necessarily artistic. That is why "artful noise" is not inherently music.[/quote]

1. Art is anything created that is pleasing.
2. Music is created and is pleasing.
3. You're making the animal fallacy. "All elephants are animals. Therefore, all animals are elephants." It's wrong.[/quote]

I never said music was pleasing (aesthetic).

But it is.

EDIT: Also, because you hadn't said it was, doesn't mean it isn't.

EDIT 2: Whoa, I didn't know stalker was 500. I was waiting to get excited near 600.

clouds has said it perfectly.

Plus it's not like a crime can be done to music. Music has done nothing to earn respect. Music is just music. Music includes good music and bad music. Sure, there are certain musicians who deserve respect. But music does not deserve respect. It's not a living, breathing organism with metabolic processes capable of reproduction. It can't do anything to earn your respect. There's no such thing as a crime against music. Quit yer whinin'.

[quote="Blank"]But it is.

EDIT: Also, because you hadn't said it was, doesn't mean it isn't. [/quote]

I said it wasn't a definitive part of it. I see you don't understand the concept, and it's not exactly an easy one to grasp, but I'll do my best to explain it.

Music is defined by certain things, and aesthetics is not one of them. All that is needed for music is harmony, melody, and rhythm. However, anything less of that is not music.

Anything pertaining to aesthetics is definitive to art, not music.

Not all. Is a sad song pleasing? Is a painting of a dead guy pleasing? Most likely only to 4channers. It doesn't matter anyway. Who cares? I can go outside, listen to the birds and the trees and the highway and hear music. Or it can be noise. It might even depend on how I'm feeling. It's a futile argument, is my point.

Also your definition of art could include a freaking comfortable shirtm sheer. Usually art is something that is non-utilitarian.

[quote="Kyoko"]clouds has said it perfectly.

Plus it's not like a crime can be done to music. Music has done nothing to earn respect. Music is just music. Music includes good music and bad music. Sure, there are certain musicians who deserve respect. But music does not deserve respect. It's not a living, breathing organism with metabolic processes capable of reproduction. It can't do anything to earn your respect. There's no such thing as a crime against music. Quit yer whinin'.[/quote]

You're making a rational argument against something I didn't even say in seriousness. It was a satirical jab at clouds' song which I found unappealing. Finally, I never said his song was not art.

[quote="clouds"]Also your definition of art could include a freaking comfortable shirtm sheer. Usually art is something that is non-utilitarian.[/quote]

If you find a comfortable shirt to be truly beautiful...then it's art to you, cloud...

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]But it is.

EDIT: Also, because you hadn't said it was, doesn't mean it isn't. [/quote]

I said it wasn't a definitive part of it. I see you don't understand the concept, and it's not exactly an easy one to grasp, but I'll do my best to explain it.

Music is defined by certain things, and aesthetics is not one of them. All that is needed for music is harmony, melody, and rhythm. However, anything less of that is not music.

Anything pertaining to aesthetics is definitive to art, not music.[/quote]

YOU don't get it. Music isn't this broken-down science that's manufactured and clean-cut. God damn, pull your head out of your ass. Just because there -are- melodies and harmonics doesn't mean that there has ever been a piece of actual music that's not been pleasing in some way.

You're saying that art is completely different from music, and you're half-right, but fail to see that all music -is- art.

I'm going to bed. Screw this.