quote:
Originally posted by gif83
did you not read my post?
I did
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
as i said before... the telesales person (creator) still explains things coherently and believes it to be coherent him/herself. so do you believe that this is music?
reread what I said... let me say it in a different way:
1) for him it may be coherent, while it is garbage en simply mumbling to me.
2) No it is not music
for me as this hasn't anything to do with what
I call "sounds".
3) Yes it could be music
for me if I was his boss...
The definition I gave is perfectly valid...
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
where did you say beholder before? and sure having a beholder would make it subjective..... (beholders tend to have opinions)
As I said in my previous post: I edited the post right after I wrote it, before I read your reply... And creators have opinions of their own too. even by adding "creator" alone, it makes it subjective already...
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Music doesn't need to be alive at all. I can create something and call it music. For me it is music and since music is subjective, this is were it ends without discussion...
well that's your view i guess and we'll just have to agree to disagree
You misunderstood me, It's not the end of this thread aka: of our discussion we're doing atm, of course. It is the end of the "
is my own created music, music"-discussion for the creator of the "music". Because as far as he/she is concearned, it is music for him/her and since music is subjective and subjective things are things which can be discussed endlessly without getting anywhere and in the end both parties are correct....
quote:
Originally posted by mwe99
Google defines it as "organized sound"
my point exactly... organized = coherent (although I added the subjective part to it also). Without it you don't have music. All the other things are irrelevant...
quote:
Originally posted by Tasha
what the teacher calls "music". To him, it is music, to me, it is just making noise.
I have to agree with gif on all he has said, especially about the telesales person being coherent.
ermm... he said that to proof me wrong when in fact he just prooved that being coherent means nothing more then being organized, or in other words, that the individual parts having some relationship (eg: the earth sounds of your teacher's music; or whatever
you may call it). Thus exactly what I said in the first place. You may not find it coherent while it is very coherent for the other person.....
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
indeed. But now you're using the word "music" as something else, as a methafor and not literally; The bell may sound like "crazy" also, is the bell therefore crazy?
you used a poor exaple there... my one was "..is music to someone's ears" which decribes something pleasureable to hear. yes that is a metaphor, but surely the metaphor is a definition of music in itself.... think about it.
your one was "LIKE crazy" use of the word "like" implies similarity as opposed to definition
it is exactly the same.... "like xxx" or "may be xxx" is the same in this context. And thus the example I gave was exactly intended to be like that so it shows that your example _is_ a (very obvious) metaphor and shouldn't be confused with a literal definition. Let me give another one:
"the schoolbel may be music to people's ears" =>
"the schoolbel may be painfull to people's ears".
This is by no means a definition of painfull, although it can be used as an example of what it is... And if your sentence was a definition in itself, then it's wrong, cause music isn't always pleasurable...
/ 
