[quote="Blank"][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]

Are you fucking kidding me? And just who the hell distinguished what harmony, melody, and rhythm is? They would be effectively meaningless if they were not organized in such a way as to be pleasing.

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.[/quote]

Just because all music is art, that doesn't make all art music. Stop making that fallacious assumption.

Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.

Point:

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

Edit: [b]Music is not necessarily artistic.[/b][/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.[/quote]

[quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

Then I don't get your point, as my entire argument was geared toward pointing out that while all music could be art, anything artistic in an aural context is not music. That is my ENTIRE argument in a netshell.

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."

I merely said that while all music could be art, that doesn't put "art" in the definition of music," and therefore, not all art is music.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][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]

No it won't. It was manufactured to be worn. It is utilitarian. Also don't backpedal back into the "it's art or not" argument

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

Then I don't get your point, as my entire argument was geared toward pointing out that while all music could be art, anything artistic in an aural context is not music. That is my ENTIRE argument in a netshell.

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."

I merely said that while all music could be art, that doesn't put "art" in the definition of music," and therefore, not all art is music.[/quote]

Look up to what I have bolded for you.

That's what I've been ranting about.

[quote="clouds"][quote="sheerheartattack"][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]

No it won't. It was manufactured to be worn. It is utilitarian.[/quote]

Art is defined by perception, not purpose.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

Then I don't get your point, as my entire argument was geared toward pointing out that while all music could be art, anything artistic in an aural context is not music. That is my ENTIRE argument in a netshell.

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."

I merely said that while all music could be art, that doesn't put "art" in the definition of music," and therefore, not all art is music.[/quote]

Look up to what I have bolded for you.

That's what I've been ranting about.[/quote]

And I clarified by stating that music, by definition, is not artistic. If everyone in the world perceived all music is artistic, that does not necessarily mean that artisticness is what defines music.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Look, it is definitive that a song be pleasing to at least someone, or used aesthetically in some way as to have a purpose. Like, religious chants, war drums, whatever.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]And I clarified by stating that music, by definition, is not artistic. If everyone in the world perceived all music is artistic, that does not necessarily mean that artisticness is what defines music.[/quote]

However, by clarifying the definition of art, you automatically include music into art gee, I dunno why, because it fits ALL of the CRITERIA.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Look, it is definitive that a song be pleasing to at least someone, or used aesthetically in some way as to have a purpose. Like, religious chants, war drums, whatever.[/quote]

If, somehow, a combination of harmonies, melodies, and rhythm ended up unartistic to everyone who has ever existed, it would still be music.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"]And I clarified by stating that music, by definition, is not artistic. If everyone in the world perceived all music is artistic, that does not necessarily mean that artisticness is what defines music.[/quote]

However, by clarifying the definition of art, you automatically include music into art gee, I dunno why, because it fits ALL of the CRITERIA.[/quote]

Anything pertaining to aesthetics is covered under art.

Anything pertaining a specific method of expression is covered under music.

Where is the confusion?

And music is defined by a guy hitting an instrument. And an instrument is defined as whatever the heck the guy wants to.

And I'm not going to argue over art anymore. It's pretty stupid that it was even brought up.

That's ridiculous. Anything that's pleasing to at least one person is art? So, uh, everything that has ever existed is art? Anything that ever will exist will be art? Just say that, then. Shit. I mean, it's fucking retarded, but it's more concise than all of this bickering.

I'm going to just ignore most of this back and forth argument, which may end up sadly getting this thread locked/derailed beyond repair and talk about clouds's song again.

Clouds. I like dissonance. Ask sheerheartattack; I tolerate more dissonance in music than he does. However, dissonance is mainly a tool used to add more texture and flavor before resolving to a consonant chord. I said that there were some very interesting parts in your song, but that it dragged on for far too long. Would you like Strange Chameleon if they repeated the first verse five times EXACTLY, then sang the chorus once, then the first verse a few times, then a bridge, then the first verse five times? Thought that's a bit of an exaggeration, it's slightly akin to what you made there. By having little semblance of structure and dragging on for so long, it makes the song uninteresting. The parts that could have been interesting and catchy are forgotten because of the sheer length and repetitiveness of the song.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Look, it is definitive that a song be pleasing to at least someone, or used aesthetically in some way as to have a purpose. Like, religious chants, war drums, whatever.[/quote]

If, somehow, a combination of harmonies, melodies, and rhythm ended up unartistic to everyone who has ever existed, it would still be music.[/quote]

It would be impossible to be completely unartistic, due to the aesthetic qualities of harmony, melody and all of that jazz.


EDIT: There is no confusion. My point is that all music is art, and that's final. We're not going to agree, so I'm going to stfu and gtfo. Kthnx bai.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Look, it is definitive that a song be pleasing to at least someone, or used aesthetically in some way as to have a purpose. Like, religious chants, war drums, whatever.[/quote]

If, somehow, a combination of harmonies, melodies, and rhythm ended up unartistic to everyone who has ever existed, it would still be music.[/quote]

It would be impossible to be completely unartistic, due to the aesthetic qualities of harmony, melody and all of that jazz.[/quote]

I'm talking about the concept, not what has happened, or can happen in actuality. It's a hypothetical explanation to explain my point that, even though music is inherently artful, music is not defined by its artfulness.

[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Blank"]Wow, you're one pretentious asshole. Edits to come showing your fallacy in action. I never said that all art was music. I even pointed it out to you.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

Look, it is definitive that a song be pleasing to at least someone, or used aesthetically in some way as to have a purpose. Like, religious chants, war drums, whatever.[/quote]

If, somehow, a combination of harmonies, melodies, and rhythm ended up unartistic to everyone who has ever existed, it would still be music.[/quote]

It would be impossible to be completely unartistic, due to the aesthetic qualities of harmony, melody and all of that jazz.


EDIT: There is no confusion. My point is that all music is art, and that's final. We're not going to agree, so I'm going to stfu and gtfo. Kthnx bai.[/quote]

I was never even seriously arguing that all music was not art. I was arguing that art has nothing to do with the definition of music.

Ok, ok, everyone. Four things must happen now.

ONE: I must quote-edit Blank.

[quote="Blank"]Edits to come showing your phallusy in action.[/quote]

done.

TWO: Everyone's just gotta drop this topic. [i]Seriously[/i]. This is getting nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. Now we're arguing semantics, and when you argue semantics with people who are diametrically opposed, nothing good can happen.My thoughts: While in the most technical, yet broad sense of the term "music", clouds' work should be considered music. He DID use musical instruments, chords, etc, and (so he says) it was intended to evoke some reaction. While the reaction [i]I[/i] had was "turn that shit off, you're breaking my speakers"...it's at least one rung above crashing pots and pans together nonsensically.

THREE: Read #2 again. Please, stop talking about this. I don't want anyone to quote this post agreeing or disagreeing with what I have to say.

FOUR: New discussion topic!

I propose this: Rhode Island is neither and road nor an Island.

Talk amonst yourselves.