Salami

I just skimmed over this:

Followed by....
Make some sense of that.

blastingas10

Me and Steve have come to know each other quite well. We didnt really see eye to eye at first, but from my experience he's a pretty nice guy. He can be pretty hard to understand, but there's a chance that there might be some deep wisdom in his comments that we are failing to understand, haha. Who knows. I don't know how anyone could just think of all the stuff he says without it meaning anything. Maybe I'm being too gullible. My first impression of him was "this guy is so full of ****." haha

blastingas10

I prefer tore's definition of music. What qualifies the cry of a baby as music?

starrynight

Well yeh obviously music is a deliberate artistic act, though there would still be the question of do other animals make music in that case. There is also the question of when a traditionally thought non-musical element is introduced in a piece of music and so is then seen in a musical context.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Guybrush

If (for the simple purposes of this discussion) accepting my suggested definition of music, as a deliberate artistic act using sound, then I would say that animals instinctively making noises is generally not music. Their sounds may be deliberate, but in most cases, it will be better described as language - a means of communication - and not an attempt at anything artistic. Just what artistic means is also hard to say, but it's useful even if it means it's something more than simply talking. Making a particular sound because you like listening to it is something I could consider artistic (and perhaps there are animals that do this), but probably not a mating call which is more like saying "Yo! Let's have sex!" .. In other words, language!

__________________
Something Completely Different

starrynight

It can be more than just what is said though, the invention can be in the way it is said.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Scarlett O'Hara

I'm a bit late to this thread, but Pedestrian, I disagree with his bird theories. I'm not an expert in biology but know that birds use song to court and to communicate, human brains are very different from that of birds and we use language as a way to communicate (as well as body language etc). Before I read the quotes I thought that a human hearing a bird sing or whistle may have stimulated song to a passing human in early times, well before music was evident. Thoughts?

In terms of women in music, I think there is some thought lacking in his theories. I can see how a male creating music would be considered courting in some respect because it can bring out emotion and sexual stimulation in women, but why not both ways?

Do we really know that there is more men creating music than women? Is it possible that men dominate the music industry both by record labels and performers themselves?

__________________

Paedantic Basterd

Tore: The book does mention that babies "sing" syllables as they are learning to form sounds, and the "singing" is part of exploring those sounds. I think Dave was more referring to the strings of baby babble than the crying (possibly the least musical sound I can think of).

Vanilla: I think what you've said is really valid, and haven't seen many people address women's role in music here.

SIRIUSB

Yep, babies sing 4ths & 5ths

Necromancer

Sound could refer to anything you hear: talking, whispering, noise from the Air Conditioner, etc.

Sound alone does not imply music or organized sound, music is a meaningful assembly of sound.

For example, sound is to paint, like music is to artwork.