What is music? How could you define it?

Organized sounds with the intent of entertaining.

You can make random noises but not with an intent to create music.

I'd say that for something to be considered music it needs to be organized sound that has been made with musical intent.

Is speaking music?
Any kind of sound is wiggly air
Is stand-up comedy music?

>Is speaking music?
Yes

art piece that incorporates time, sound, silence

What is musical intent and how would I know if something has it?
How
Again, what is art?

art is defined by mutual intelligibility within a community
i.e. that which people agree is "art" becomes "art"
the label itself signifies a value which transcends simple pragmatic function (e.g. a sculpture has ascribed value which transcends its use as a paperweight)
dunno if you're trying to make a point here outside of "most of Yea Forums is retarded"

did this answer satisfy you?
can we stop having this thread now, please?

>What is musical intent

If the creator of the sounds considers and calls it music, i think it should be considered music no matter what the sounds are.

>and how would I know if something has it?

Hard question. I'd assume the artist wants everybody interested to know that the sounds he created should be considered art/music.

Attached: 5d872f96.jpg (400x475, 32K)

Even in philosophy there isn't a consensus about what is art, that's exactly the problem with defining art.
Thanks for bumping this thread. >If the creator of the sounds considers and calls it music, i think it should be considered music
If I fart and claim it's music, would that make it music?

This is a terrible thread and this is fucking discussed to death already.
>if i fart and claim it's music, would that make it music?
yes, if you released it and sold it as music and claimed it as that, it is music. if not, it is just a fart. that's it. end of story. no more what ifs ands or buts

>Even in philosophy there isn't a consensus about what is art, that's exactly the problem with defining art.
this isn't an argument. I posited a completely functional definition that can, with slight modifications, satisfy any definition people care to bring up. "art" as an entirely abstract intangible concept is bound to the culture of the group which ascribes the label, and the label itself at its most fundamental means a value transcending simple pragmatic function. this definition cannot be handwaved away by posturing 200-level philosophy students
art is a social phenomena and it stands to reason that the definitions, while localized and intrinsically distinct to the cultures which employ them, can be viewed from outside the label and defined.

OP stop trying to be a smartass and accept the answers given to you ITT and promptly fuck off with your retarded underage behaviour.

>Any kind of sound is wiggly air
why are you pointing out the obvious?

but music and sound art are synonymous

Music is a form of sound art. It is characterized by at least one of the following: (1) Rhythm (2) Melody, or (3) Harmony. The musicality of sound is derived from these elements. Simply put, if something is devoid of these three, it is not music. As for what constitutes “rhythm”, “melody”, and “harmony”, that’s another discussion. (Though, I couuuuuld go further into it.)

Anyways, as for art in general, it is simply creative expression. Not everything is art, but much of what can be found in this world possesses a possible artistic nature. Sound art refers to a sonic form of such creative expression. Harsh Noise is, for instance, sound art (and art in general), but it is not music. A lack of musicality does not delegitimize its artistic value of course, but Harsh Noise (or Noise in general) simply isn’t music. Nonetheless, it is sound art.

Speech isn’t inherently music, but it possesses artistic potential, which can be realized in various forms. One of these forms is music. There tends to be an underlying musicality to speech (rhythm and melody specifically), but its presence typically isn’t consciously perceived. When the musicality of speech is made salient, music results. Singing is ultimately just musical speech.
For instance, try and say the word “hi”. Now, say “hi” again, except this time, extend the word for a few seconds. Regardless of your vocal timbre and vocal control, you have now transformed the word “hi” into a musical lyric. The rhythm behind it is ambiguous (given a lack of further context) and harmony is objectively not present, but the extension of the word leads to a note, the foundation for melody. So, speech technically can be music, but it for sure isn’t inherently so and even then, when speech “is” music, it isn’t referred to as “speech” anymore - it’s referred to specifically as singing.

There’s way more to address, but I’ll leave at that for this post.

Attached: F52A6FB8-74D5-45F5-A340-29685DB61F3D.jpg (739x415, 25K)

music is good shit

but music and sound art are synonymous

This is actually interesting and is quite satisfying, when we talk about music, though I disagree about the definition of art (I can express myself through random noises, and it would also be creative) Because he stated something obvious, duuh
Previously you stated
>that which people agree is "art" becomes "art"
That's why I said that there isn't a consensus about what art really is. There isn't just one definition.

I don’t think of it in that way, but I suppose I understand where you’re coming from. “Synonymous” does not necessarily equal “equal” (heh), but if that’s what you meant by “synonymous”, then no, music and sound art are not synonymous. However, if you simply meant “similar”, sure. Though, again, while I understand where you’re coming from, I don’t view it in that way. I find a finer distinction between the two.

Sound art is pie, while music is apple pie. All apple pies are pies, but not all pies are apple pies. All music is sound art, but not all sound art is music. Music is a specific form of sound art, which is a specific form of art. Ultimately, I view it as a hierarchy of sorts with “Art” at the top, “Sound Art” below it, and then “Music” below that. I suppose it’s more accurate to portray it in a tree-like structure in which its level ordering is based on the degree of specificity.

im telling you that what you're saying is 100% irrelevant.
a universal definition for what constitutes art in every context is neither necessary nor desirable. "art" has an over-arching definition that we can easily observe, the minutiae of arts connotations are dependent on the context in which the label is used. there is no contradiction present.
>there isn't just one definition
this is you being a pseud. what art *means* to you and me is different due to the different contexts we inhabit, but we universally agree that art has value transcending pragmatic function of an object. a book has value transcending it's physical presence as paper bound to leather, a score has value transcending it's physical presence as ink on paper, music has value transcending physical nature as sound waves, etc.

Wiggles in the air that get together. They can be short and sweet, long and strong, or both.