Do I hate it when people argue til they are blue in the face on a topic they obviously know little about and are dead wrong on? Oh hell yes!. Every anti-evolution, anti-science jackass out there using a keyboard to try to retard the human race a little bit more with illogical diarrhea and an endless stream of fallacy in order to contest quite possibly the strongest scientific theory we have to date....well, it is just insane.
This music topic though, yeah, you are trying to define art. Technically music, but it boils down to defining an artform pertaining to sound, rhythm and pattern that you are trying to define. Knock that shit off, it does no one any good and I would challenge you to explain how your book is correct it its definition. Drop any arrogance and pretentiousness stemming from your higher education as that offers you no authority to appeal to when others who have such education are readily disagreeing with you here. Drop any reference to age or maturity as it makes you sound like you are grasping for something to support your stance and argument rather then trusting it to stand on it's own merit. Just answer what affords you, or I suppose the book you are citing from, the authority to define what is or is not music? As an added question, what would be the difference between that and a book on writing defining it as say, something requiring specific paragraph structures? Poor example off the top of my head, but you get the point of the analogy, yes?
Honestly every definition I can find on what music is falls back to "combination of sounds and tones as a form of artistic expression". From computer sources, to good ol pocket Websters, to a definition from a member of staff at Berklee music college. The only time I find mention of instruments is as secondary or lower definitions, and never as excluding anything else. It mentions instruments but doesn't require them ("composition rendered by instrument or singing voices"). Problem with the last one is all it implies is that it can have music, not necessarily it requires it, especially not with the first, more common and more universally accepted definition as a signifier. The definition involving instruments seems more an example "Composition with instruments as an example of music", rather then a requirement.
Hell, by the logic I read in the other thread, you would say every tune or melody in video games is not music save those recorded live and added. That is 99% of all music in games. Posting something like that in a forum on a site dedicated to electronic media and video games...well, when added to your elitism and ineptitude to address other people's arguments, well, it looks like you are just trolling very well.
This music topic though, yeah, you are trying to define art. Technically music, but it boils down to defining an artform pertaining to sound, rhythm and pattern that you are trying to define. Knock that shit off, it does no one any good and I would challenge you to explain how your book is correct it its definition. Drop any arrogance and pretentiousness stemming from your higher education as that offers you no authority to appeal to when others who have such education are readily disagreeing with you here. Drop any reference to age or maturity as it makes you sound like you are grasping for something to support your stance and argument rather then trusting it to stand on it's own merit. Just answer what affords you, or I suppose the book you are citing from, the authority to define what is or is not music? As an added question, what would be the difference between that and a book on writing defining it as say, something requiring specific paragraph structures? Poor example off the top of my head, but you get the point of the analogy, yes?
Honestly every definition I can find on what music is falls back to "combination of sounds and tones as a form of artistic expression". From computer sources, to good ol pocket Websters, to a definition from a member of staff at Berklee music college. The only time I find mention of instruments is as secondary or lower definitions, and never as excluding anything else. It mentions instruments but doesn't require them ("composition rendered by instrument or singing voices"). Problem with the last one is all it implies is that it can have music, not necessarily it requires it, especially not with the first, more common and more universally accepted definition as a signifier. The definition involving instruments seems more an example "Composition with instruments as an example of music", rather then a requirement.
Hell, by the logic I read in the other thread, you would say every tune or melody in video games is not music save those recorded live and added. That is 99% of all music in games. Posting something like that in a forum on a site dedicated to electronic media and video games...well, when added to your elitism and ineptitude to address other people's arguments, well, it looks like you are just trolling very well.
