3 ms·

It's up to the listener to apply whatever semantics they need to as justification. There is no purity test for music. The theory is just that theory.

mdp2021 2y ago
> The theory is just that theory. Well no, Feyerabend let himself be called an "anarchist" but clearly there is a "more scientific" and "less scientific" - they cannot give you a lecturing appointment at the LSE or elsewhere to just shrug. > the listener ... as justification As justification to what? A producer makes products for different markets: people may sell bars of sugar with appetizers and synthetic flavours, that does not make the product remotely similar to healthy food.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  Dismissing certain musical forms as lacking artistic validity because they don’t adhere to a predefined theory ignores the cultural, emotional, and contextual factors that shape artistic expression. Just as culinary traditions differ across regions and personal tastes vary, music exists in diverse forms that may not conform to classical or academic frameworks but still hold meaning and value for listeners. While food has measurable nutritional values and health impacts even the implied sugary items like candy, still provide some nutritional value, even if overwhelmed by the non nutritional ingredients.
anigbrowl 2y ago
You keep arguing about validity but you're missing the point of how music is made. I'm not talking about 'only humans can be music because they alive', it's that music is fundamentally combinatorial, even if you're combining recordings of construction equipment to make industrial noise music. If you're generating the entire thing at once rather than stems or note data, you just have an elevator music generator which inexorably tends toward the lowest common denominator.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  "you just have an elevator music generator" No one argued that one isn't of higher or lower quality. They're both music, as is evident by your choice of words. Processed foods are foods, not great for you, but they're still foods.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    And, > The [original] poster is clearly meaning "good music".

mdp2021 2y ago

> The theory is just that theory. Well no, Feyerabend let himself be called an "anarchist" but clearly there is a "more scientific" and "less scientific" - they cannot give you a lecturing appointment at the LSE or elsewhere to just shrug. > the listener ... as justification As justification to what? A producer makes products for different markets: people may sell bars of sugar with appetizers and synthetic flavours, that does not make the product remotely similar to healthy food.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
Dismissing certain musical forms as lacking artistic validity because they don’t adhere to a predefined theory ignores the cultural, emotional, and contextual factors that shape artistic expression. Just as culinary traditions differ across regions and personal tastes vary, music exists in diverse forms that may not conform to classical or academic frameworks but still hold meaning and value for listeners. While food has measurable nutritional values and health impacts even the implied sugary items like candy, still provide some nutritional value, even if overwhelmed by the non nutritional ingredients.

anigbrowl 2y ago

You keep arguing about validity but you're missing the point of how music is made. I'm not talking about 'only humans can be music because they alive', it's that music is fundamentally combinatorial, even if you're combining recordings of construction equipment to make industrial noise music. If you're generating the entire thing at once rather than stems or note data, you just have an elevator music generator which inexorably tends toward the lowest common denominator.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
"you just have an elevator music generator" No one argued that one isn't of higher or lower quality. They're both music, as is evident by your choice of words. Processed foods are foods, not great for you, but they're still foods.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  And, > The [original] poster is clearly meaning "good music".