Re: why "music is organized noise" & a song is a song & not a track ... ;-)
i wrote myself :
"music is organized noise !!!" ;-)
kevin replied :
Ralf's corruption of Varese's definition "music is organised sound"!
well ... maybe too , but the actual phrase "music is organized noise" goes back long before kw even existed !!! *slyest_grin* ;-)))
They "lack" such a structure in the same way that a frog lacks wings!
nope , NOT_AT_ALL , because "a song" jus' becomes "a song" due to a specific structure of rhythm & melody / verse & chorus etc. !!! fyi : u can compose "a song" out of pure noise ... when u organize it in a way that a song-like structure can be defined & also be heard !!! ;-) to use your "frog lacks wings" example : a frog is a frog by definition & a bird is a bird by definition ... & a song is a song by definition , so if it lacks the PERTINENT parts & structure , it jus' ISN'T "a song" anymore ( or never even was ;-) , but ONLY "a track of noise(s) or sound(s)" !!! that's why most so called "techno" trax are simply NOT "songs" , but "trax" , because they lack the PERTINENT structure of "a song" !!! ;-)
Like "electronica", it's Newspeak. ;-)
in other words : completely meaningless !!! *LOL* ;-))) however ... many greetinx , oh jay ;-) ~*~ jvr network program - may 2002 : http://mitglied.lycos.de/cybernetx/program.html ( incl. live stream via internet !!! ;-) studio webcam - live : http://stream.ok-bremen.de/studio.html *G+* ;-) - brand new !!! - radio show archive : http://friends.schallreflektor.com/ohjay/alien_disco ;-) *~\^/~*
Oh Jay <oh_jay@freenet.de> wrote:
to use your "frog lacks wings" example : a frog is a frog by definition & a bird is a bird by definition ...
And each are as they should be.
& a song is a song by definition , so if it lacks the PERTINENT parts & structure , it jus' ISN'T "a song"
My point was, there are alternative ("impertinent"?) structures - for animals and pieces of music! K
participants (2)
-
Kevin Busby -
Oh Jay