quote:
Originally posted by gif83
don't get me wrong, i actually like this definition. But your choice for using non-subjective adjectives is a little puzzling since this definition of yours is subjective anyway (your personal opinion).
that can be said of all the definitions in this thread... And a definition is meant to be something non-subjective, otherwise it wouldn't be a definition but an opinion. And the original purpose of this thread is to try to give a definition, not an opinion. Otherwise I would have said that in my opinion, music is stuff like the band Gjallerhorn makes and all the rest is stupid garbage.
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
btw definitions become a bit confusing when you require to define the words used to define it (for example the use of your definition of "sounds")
I explicitly didn't use the word "sound" because of that. I used "things you can hear"...
quote:
* I didn't use the word "sounds" as this might imply certain things related to music. "Music" can consist of anything you hear.
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
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...
well i WAS trying to make the point that it was subjective 
good because it was meant that way from the beginning
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
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...
once again you have picked dodgy examples. you assume that pain is only physical. pain can be defined as the grievance in this case..
I didn't assume anything as it is of no relevance for the purpose of the example...
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
and that example you gave is in fact far more similar to mine.
errrr.... yes I know, that's the point. That's because I gave it so you would be less confussed (I hoped)...
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
the bell IS the thing that inflicts the pain upon the pupil.
yes so? That isn't what I meant. Compare both definitions (yours and mine) and reread the post. My point is those metaphores are by no means definitions. The subject of the "would-be" definition isn't the bell, but it is the "pain", or in your case "music". And pain is not equal to the sound of a bell; as well as music isn't equal to the sound of a bell. Remember we try to define "music", not "a bell".
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
you say it is wrong but yet you just agreed before that definitions could be subjective.
I said it is wrong to say that those metaphores could be seen as definitions. It is that I replied upon. I didn't speak of the subjective meaning of metaphores at all. That's a totally other matter (which is actually very clear that it is a subjective matter by reading my definition; even without the "by creator or beholder" part as the word "coherent" implies subjectiveness already)
quote:
Originally posted by gif83
the most useful words are words that cannot really be described with other words.
nice, I'll remember that quote...
quote:
Originally posted by Purity
Fact: Music speeds up brain waves.
Apparently it's very healthy to listen to music. or something that has rythm.....
errm... no, not at all a fact, because it is wrong
If you would've said "it
could be healthy" I wouldn't have replied to it though, because that would be correct...
Listening to certain music can make you very ill (in any definition of "ill"). And even applying certain music types (healing music) in a wrong way to a person can conflict great emotional and even physical(!) stress and pain.
-----
[OFF TOPIC]
quote:
Originally posted by Purity
quote:
Originally posted by Veggie
Me and my mates came a across a difficult question when discussing this the other day, would you rather be deaf or blind.
I would definitly be blind, I don't care if I would never be able to see a good looking girl or anythign like that, but thats just how much music is to me, it's everything to me.
The choice for me is easy though. I would like to be able to keep seeing. Eyes are much more important then ears. If you're deaf you can still feel sounds but also see sounds. Who's thinking only about beautifull girls (and music) in a choice like this? If that is all a human being would see then yes, I don't need to see beautifull girls all the time. Think about what you'll be missing when your blind and what everyday things you aren't able to do anymore. On the other hand, when your ""only"" deaf, you wouldn't miss out on so many things in life.
(mind the quotes and also read that sentence with some common sense; as this isn't meant as degrading/minimizing the fact; it still is something very severe)
Almost everything can be made clear and possible in a visible way. But not many things can be converted to sound in the same manner.
IMHO
PS: I'm not trying to convice you though, I'm just saying what I think of the two possible choices...
[/OFF TOPIC]
/ 
