[net.music.classical] In defense of `What is music, anyway?'

gam@proper.UUCP (05/05/84)

#
I disagree that music must be in the realm of human creation and
not `automatic' or in the realm of nature.  Birdsong, the songs
of whales, and even mechanical and `natural' noises (wind, sea,
etc) are at times music to my ears, literally.

More importantly, I do not like the split between `nature' and
`Man'; human beings are natural creatures, too -- a product of
nature.

There are times I would rather hear the tricking of a stream than
<your-least-favorite-music-here>.


"Man is the animal that builds freeways."

jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (05/12/84)

iiii

This whole discussion about whether music requires human intervention is easily
solved.  If you believe that there is an objective criterion by which something
can be categorized as music, then clearly humans don't have to be involved in 
creating it.  Unfortunately, I think that there is no such objective criterion.
Since the decision is purely subjective, then obviously human intervention IS 
required -- that is, someone must subjectively say 'this is music'.  Even the 
person who said that birdsong is music is making a subjective judgement,  once
again there's a human in the selection process.  Is birdsong 'music' to the
birds?  Probably not, since most of it is mating calls and territorial declar-
ations.

Without humans, sound is merely sound.  Humans make the distinction between
noise and music.