[terminal pharmacy]

bird calls are considered musical by us, they whistles they do are communicative and song, humans have the abiltity to create songs and symphonys etc. bird whistles are the same as dogs barking, guinea pigs squeaking, cows mooing; is this music, i think not. humans have developed an inate understanding of melodic structures and can use these to create a feeling for a listen, yes this is communication but it is not communication in the fight or flight sense that animals communicating generally is.

[gmku]

An ape probably did Kind of Blue, like, ages ago. We just haven't dug it up yet.

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

I dunno, I think it might be a bit of a stretch to think of birdsongs in the same sense as music created by humans. Sure, birdsongs have melody but often neither a whole lot of rhythm nor structure.

i havent read the rest of the thread so i hope that this has not been said. but you are actually wrong there. the thing that makes the bird's song a song is that there is, other than melody in their singing, often a very clear musical and rythmic structure, and most importantly there is a lot of repetition, which further emphasises the "song" aspect of it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Green_mind

What do you mean by part of the soul? I think it must be solely the brain that allows us these feelings.

I have an Eastern perspective, where the life and essense of existence is not in the mind or knowledge, but in the heart or feelings which I have termed in this way "soul" but use whatever term you like..

The mind is the reaction of the soul. Logic is the result of feelings. In other words, the mental comprehension of the feeling of joy or fear, is not the source of the feelings themselves. The chemical reaction in the brain which we perceive as our feelings, is not the feelings themselves in this Eastern perspective, but rather is the material reaction to the feelings. The heart feels, and translates this experience into the mind through chemicals and math of the brain, but the experience is deeper. Music then, is not simply the chemcal reactions of the brain to the stimulus of vibrating air at a certain mathematical pattern or wavelengths, but rather the intrinsic feeling to these vibrations and the reactions there of..

[Green_mind]

that's a fair explanation. If only I could find belief in such nonentities.

[Toilet & Bowels]

surprised nobody mentioned this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Elephant_Orchestra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UMJ8qfw-4E

[truncated]

There is a multitude of points in the original post that could be debated, but most or all of them could be eliminated by the elemental question of the definition of "music," which is essentially highly subjective. Without being verbose or pedantic, over time humans have expanded/altered the traditional definition of "music" to include organizations of sounds and melodies that are, though heretofore discounted, considered dissonant or cacophonous, both meditated and 'spontaneously' occurring. Therefore, there is no concrete definition of music, rendering the original question somewhat obsolete.

I'm not sure if this is a consequence of the above rambling or a tangent, but SuchFriendsAreDangerous separates "music" and "language," and I'm not sure that's a correct presentation. In an oversimplified way of speaking (or typing), regardless of origin, complexity, or even vehicle, all music communicates something, therefore becoming a language in itself.

In an extremely rambling and simultaneously circuitous way of speaking, I suppose my point is that with the subjectivity of these terms, SuchFriendsAreDangerous's question is totally moot.

The End.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by truncated

There is a multitude of points in the original post that could be debated, but most or all of them could be eliminated by the elemental question of the definition of "music," which is essentially highly subjective. Without being verbose or pedantic, over time humans have expanded/altered the traditional definition of "music" to include organizations of sounds and melodies that are, though heretofore discounted, considered dissonant or cacophonous, both meditated and 'spontaneously' occurring. Therefore, there is no concrete definition of music, rendering the original question somewhat obsolete.

I'm not sure if this is a consequence of the above rambling or a tangent, but SuchFriendsAreDangerous separates "music" and "language," and I'm not sure that's a correct presentation. In an oversimplified way of speaking (or typing), regardless of origin, complexity, or even vehicle, all music communicates something, therefore becoming a language in itself.

In an extremely rambling and simultaneously circuitous way of speaking, I suppose my point is that with the subjectivity of these terms, SuchFriendsAreDangerous's question is totally moot.

The End.

while that is a delightful and thought provoking response, it is rather circular wouldn't you agree? Of course music is subjective, that is the very question proposed. ALso, I did not in fact separate music and language, rather I am saying that music is a form of primal language, communicating messages which are at the same time too simple and too complex for the language of words. Words and language are the communication of thoughts, music is the communication of feelings.

and the real question if music is part of the evolutionary function of communication of feelings, what is the evolutionary function of these feelings in the first place?

[truncated]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

while that is a delightful and thought provoking response, it is rather circular wouldn't you agree? Of course music is subjective, that is the very question proposed. ALso, I did not in fact separate music and language, rather I am saying that music is a form of primal language, communicating messages which are at the same time too simple and too complex for the language of words. Words and language are the communication of thoughts, music is the communication of feelings.

and the real question if music is part of the evolutionary function of communication of feelings, what is the evolutionary function of these feelings in the first place?

Of course it's circular, which is why it renders most of the questions proposed moot.

Though I would disagree with your division of the expression of thoughts and feelings. One of your earlier posts did in fact intertwine, if not equate, thoughts and feelings. I would argue that one cannot distinguish between thoughts and feelings anyhow; either can be the product of the other, and given our limits of comprehension of the (for want of a better term) "thought process" of not only other creatures we deem less sentient, but even other humans, there is no way one could definitively make the distinction between thoughts and feelings, much less understand the nature of either. Similarly, why would music necessarily be a "primal" form of communication? Would that not conflict with the notion that music is a means of communicating thoughts or emotions too complex for mere words? Which is not to say that I disagree with the idea of music being primal, but upon examination, all attempts to define and juxtapose these terms and definitions negate one another.

I would expound upon the function of feelings in evolution, but there's a werewolf movie on TV now. YES!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by truncated

Of course it's circular, which is why it renders most of the questions proposed moot.

Though I would disagree with your division of the expression of thoughts and feelings. One of your earlier posts did in fact intertwine, if not equate, thoughts and feelings. I would argue that one cannot distinguish between thoughts and feelings anyhow; either can be the product of the other, and given our limits of comprehension of the (for want of a better term) "thought process" of not only other creatures we deem less sentient, but even other humans, there is no way one could definitively make the distinction between thoughts and feelings, much less understand the nature of either. Similarly, why would music necessarily be a "primal" form of communication? Would that not conflict with the notion that music is a means of communicating thoughts or emotions too complex for mere words? Which is not to say that I disagree with the idea of music being primal, but upon examination, all attempts to define and juxtapose these terms and definitions negate one another.

I would expound upon the function of feelings in evolution, but there's a werewolf movie on TV now. YES!

by primal I implied a feeling which is felt with no accompanying thought, judgment or value. For example, what is the quantitative explanation of "happy"? How do you describe the feeling of being happy? Or the feelings which accompany thoughts or ideas? Music is a good example, what words or thoughts describe some of the feelings that you get when listening to it? That is what I meant by primal, to instinctive to describe with words or concepts, which must simply be experienced. Enjoy the werewolf flick, I am rather fond of the Howling series myself, I especially like the cheese.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

by primal I implied a feeling which is felt with no accompanying thought, judgment or value. For example, what is the quantitative explanation of "happy"? How do you describe the feeling of being happy? Or the feelings which accompany thoughts or ideas? Music is a good example, what words or thoughts describe some of the feelings that you get when listening to it? That is what I meant by primal, to instinctive to describe with words or concepts, which must simply be experienced. Enjoy the werewolf flick, I am rather fond of the Howling series myself, I especially like the cheese.

Since I am now too muddled to cohesively respond to your comment, I will merely say that your definition of "primal" is reasonable, and yes, I agree, is definitely relatable to many elements of the concept of music. I am merely saying that if you deconstruct the traditional definitions of the terms we've been speaking of, one cannot essentially differentiate between "primal" and, shall we say, "logically sentient."

I think there are better words, but I forgot them. And this werewolf movie sucks, to use colloquial terminology. I'm going to watch "Up" instead. Balloons are pretty.

[StevOK]

I remember going to see guitarist John Williams, and he played a piece that was based on the song of a particular kind of bird where he grew up in Australia.

[demonrail666]

in all sincerity, who cares?

[truncated]

People like SuchFriendsAreDangerous, who seriously need to cut back on the ganja.