Absolutely EVERYTHING you need to know about music is in the sound.

[MDV]

Discuss

[AndyR]

Ok, I'll bite...


Nope, disagree, unless you care to qualify your statement :D

[dave_mc]

i don't understand the title :oops:

[CaptainDesslock]

Discuss

leave it to you to make such dramatic statements :)

define sound........which part of sound? Are we simply talking tone? Does this include rhythm? harmony? lyrics? Because musically melody is more important than tone.

[MDV]

All the sound. Listening to it (any given music).

See, one can learn huge amounts of music theory, but its all derived after the fact from the development of a musical system (harmonically related sounds, which is physics), and then all the possible relationships between those sounds in layering and sequence have their own characteristics that have been retrospectively catalogued and people learn them by rote and call it theory.

I argue that that is not needed, that with sufficient attention and a good ear (and a musical instrument to experiment with) all you need to know is already in the music. The music is its own explanation.

[indysmith]

Eh? Without the sound, music would be pretty shitee don'tcha think?

Although I guess the look is important. If you're a musician you need super skinny jeans and a poodle hairdo.

[AndyR]

I think I know what he (or the statement at least) means... but I still disagree :lol:

And I think he wants us to define the scope of the statement for the purposes of this discussion... so I'm I'm not gonna :lol:

More input required sir before I waste valuable web surfing time before the missus gets home!!

EDIT: Ah he's posted.... It is what I thought you meant... still disagree

eg
- what if you want to play it rather than listen to it, there's not enough info in the sound, you need to know a lot more
- what if it arouses emotion a) in one person, but emotion b) in another, the first person will need to speak to the second to learn about emotion b)
- blah
- yaddy-yadda

:D

EDIT: You posted more while I was editing the 1st edit!! All I could see was your first line - still disagree, but I know exactly where you're coming from. It all depends what someone wants out of "Music" as to what "EVERYTHING they need" might be

[MDV]

What more do you need to know thats not in the sound? Whats the point in learning it or doing it a certain way if the effects arent not audiable? Hear sound + experiment = find way to match sound.

The matter of emotion cant and need not be learned, and the emotive intent/expression of the player is irrelevent to the emotive effect/involvment of the listener; you buy into the intended vibe, it leaves you cold, you like it, you hate it, whatever; thats the biggest subjective part and everything YOU need to know is in how YOU respond to the sound.

[AndyR]

Remember I was typing before I'd seen everything you meant :D

However, I still think the statement is far too generic, like music itself, it is open to interpretation.

I read it as

"Absolutely EVERYTHING you (anyone) need to know about music (all music, music in general) is in the sound"

I certainly won't know about the potential emotional power of a piece if it doesn't actually move me, it doesn't mean the potential isn't there though, and I need to discuss with others to unlock it - I need to learn and know something externally before I can appreciate the music fully. But on the other hand, perhaps I don't "need" to appreciate it fully...

Also (bearing in mind how I read the statement), I might "need" to know who wrote it and when they wrote it, and how it was recorded, or if it is a live performance, what make of bow is 3rd violin playing with, etc, etc...

But taking your meaning of the statement, yeah, I can agree with most of your stuff.

Except the "Hear sound + experiment = find way to match sound" :lol:. Unless you're further restricting the statement to a piece of music where I "know" exactly what the instruments are already (ie I know of their existance and what they sound like) then the experimentation will involve, um, obtaining knowledge that is not inherent in the sound itself...

EDIT: Gonna have to go soon - but I do hope you appreciate that I think this actually a pretty good thread, and nice one for starting it in this open ended fashion :D

[MDV]

Well, if you want to get to bigger picture, how I'd argue with me is to look at the cultural backstory of the music. Is that part of what you need to know about it? Does it change your perception of the blues to learn about slavery?

Hmmmm

Does it change the emotional impact of it though? Maybe the blues would be really different for you if you knew the social climate and cultural heritage. Maybe you wouldnt give a $%&#. But if the music was changed, its impact and its meaning, then is that something you need to know OR is that ALSO in the sound

Hmmmmmmm

[Lew]

[MDV]

Zappas face there is utterly priceless!

But I dont know if the pic and caption agree with me, or contradict me. Both are possible, depending whether you understand my point or not.

[Will]

Hmm, I can't say I understand every technique musically, but if there are two different ways that sound the same when recorded... I am SURE that you personally would strive to use the technique that is 'correct'. Sorry if my judge of your personality is wrong MDV :P

Now, does that actually apply to any technique :?

Do people that aren't 'tone chasers' neccesarily have shite sound?
Do those that are 'tone chasers' neccesarily play well?

[MDV]

Of course, but all techniques have a sound.

Are some good and some bad, objectively speaking? Thats another matter, but I say of course not. Thats just taste. But what youre talking about is mimicry, and while video tutorials are helpfull, its still all in the sound (and the experimenting to help you find what they did)

But, that said, this discussion is now going for tone and sonic characteristics in general, which I didnt intend or expect, but thats cool. But do try to remember when assailing the original point with ruminations on technique that it was about the raw music, the notes and beats. But I did say "EVERYTHING", didnt I :lol: Rock on, technique and production to!

[il˙ti]

I disagree. Then again, if I had a better ear I might not.