[Vivisekt]

Want to know if music has limits or not? See below, note the emboldened text.


www.britannica.com (Merriam Webster)
Music

Main Entry: mu·sic
Pronunciation: 'myü-zik
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English musik, from Old French musique, from Latin musica, from Greek mousikE any art presided over by the Muses, especially music, from feminine of mousikos of the Muses, from Mousa Muse
Date: 13th century
1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a : an agreeable sound : EUPHONY <her voice was music to my ears> b : musical quality <the music of verse>
3 : a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4 : the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5 : a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody -- Eric Salzman>



Euphony as a definition of Music, at first glance, suggests that anything which a person finds agreeable could be considered music. See Euphony below.



www.britannica.com (Merriam Webster)
Euphony

Main Entry: eu·pho·ny
Pronunciation: 'yü-f&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: French euphonie, from Late Latin euphonia, from Greek euphOnia, from euphOnos sweet-voiced, musical, from eu- + phOnE voice -- more at BAN
Date: circa 1616
1 : pleasing or sweet sound; especially : the acoustic effect produced by words so formed or combined as to please the ear
2 : a harmonious succession of words having a pleasing sound
- eu·phon·ic /yu-'fä-nik/ adjective
- eu·phon·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Specifically, any sound that is "pleasing" to a person's ear. See below:


www.britannica.com (Merriam Webster)
Pleasing

Main Entry: 1please
Pronunciation: 'plEz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pleased; pleas·ing
Etymology: Middle English plesen, from Middle French plaisir, from Latin placEre; akin to Latin placare to placate and perhaps to Greek plak-, plax flat surface -- more at FLUKE
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 : to afford or give pleasure or satisfaction
2 : LIKE, WISH <do as you please>
3 archaic : to have the kindness <will you please to enter the carriage -- Charles Dickens>
transitive senses
1 : to give pleasure to : GRATIFY
2 : to be the will or pleasure of <may it please your Majesty>
- pleas·er /'plE-z&r/ noun



Ergo, any sound or group of sounds that a person enjoys could be considered music. There are no limits.

The following,

Imagined harmonic boundaries, that once crossed, serve to annoy an audience who (dare I say it) cannot handle them.

is not accurate. One need only to look to the Power Electronics genre to find music that is completely composed of shrill noises, static, and other such non-harmonious sounds. There are people who are into that sort of thing, although it may not be popular.

[Darth objectionable]

I think that music doesn;t even have to follow these rules, because it is totally a matter of opinion what you like. You could like totally unagreeable sounds and they could still be music to you. I fail to see how you will win a debate with dictionary references when the debate is about something that cannot be classed; musical taste, boundaries.

[Vivisekt]

I think that music doesn;t even have to follow these rules, because it is totally a matter of opinion what you like. You could like totally unagreeable sounds and they could still be music to you. I fail to see how you will win a debate with dictionary references when the debate is about something that cannot be classed; musical taste, boundaries.

Musical taste can very easily be classed, just as language or any other form of communication can easily be classed. You don't think dictionary references are relevant? To even begin to awnser the question of "does music have limits?", one must first ask "well, what is music?". There is no better place to get that information than a current dictionary.

In understanding what constitutes music one can proport to outline it's boundaries, if any. Music is not an abstract concept like god, for instance. Further, it is impossible for people to enjoy sounds that they find disagreeable. By definition, if they enjoy a piece, then the presentation was not disagreeable to them, regardless of the nature of the sounds.

That aside, i am unsure as to why you're bothering to disagree with me when i supported your point.

[Gustav Fluffy]

It seems ridiculous to me that you say that music has boundaries. The whole idea that music is limited in any way is preposterous. Music is an expression of feelings and emotion, and because of this music cannot have boundaries.

Why haven't you given up yet Wayne?

Please learn something about harmonic rules before you continue to argue in this debate, Darth. What you have just said is born of pure ignorance.

So if Classical and Jazz music has no boundaries, if Louis Armstrong swore loudly in the middle of a song, would that be acceptable?

For once I agree with Darth. That would only have caused a social outrage, in the same way that the word 'fuck' did when it was first heard in a play and on television. You must remember that when I speak of boundaries, I do not refer to lyrics, but harmony. I consider lyrics to be unimportant when discussing the quality of a piece of music.

One need only to look to the Power Electronics genre to find music that is completely composed of shrill noises, static, and other such non-harmonious sounds. There are people who are into that sort of thing, although it may not be popular.

But that is my point - anything which stretches the 'perceived boundaries' of harmony and makes people think is not accepted in popular culture.

I believe that my last post my have been misinterpreted. I did not say that music had boundaries, but instead pointed out that most modern pop music does not use new ideas and progress from what has gone before because its audience would not be able to cope with that.

[Vivisekt]

But that is my point - anything which stretches the 'perceived boundaries' of harmony and makes people think is not accepted in popular culture.

I believe that my last post my have been misinterpreted. I did not say that music had boundaries, but instead pointed out that most modern pop music does not use new ideas and progress from what has gone before because its audience would not be able to cope with that.

Oh, i see. Please forgive my nonsensical reply, then... i am at work and did not catch that part of the thread. On this matter i would have to agree with you.

[Darth objectionable]

Sorry Vivisekt and thank you Gustav. I have just re-read my last post and realise now that it didn't really make much sense. Please excuse this post, I must have been listening to Wagner while writing it.

[Vander]

I personally feel that classical music just does this in a much more subtle and rewarding way. It all comes down to having the patience to listen to it. Modern life is so fast that not many people do unfortunately. Unfortunately for them that is - I feel they are missing out.

Yes, now I can heartily agree with that. Classical music does take patience, it is subtle, and it can be very rewarding. I enjoy it very much for those very reasons, not to mention it is just beautiful to listen to.

I think that is why reading a good book is better than watching a movie. Don't get me wrong, I watch movies and have a sizable dvd collection. But reading is my first love, I can lose myself in a well written story or in a well presented factual book of information.