quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Tools and Tool-making is the first example that comes to mind. There is nothing beautiful in a swiss army knife.

is one of these more beautiful/ugly than the other?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I can't see how is this interpreted in more then one ways. Its simple. Someone feels melancholic (affective reason) for something (internal representation), and so he/she need to put it out of himself/herself into a piece of art such a painting, a piece of music or sculpture (external representation) that doesn't necessary correspond to the image of his/her internal representation. This could also be an abstraction. (e.g. feeling melancholic about a woman makes someone create music instead of a direct copy of the same woman).

it's simple, someone makes music (or something that sounds strangely alike to music) without a statement, without emotion, and without intention to express anything with it. either his music (and many others') isn't really music, or this requirement is null because it becomes another 'may'.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I think this is ambiquous. I think there is an objective difference between music and noise and this is that, music could be said to involve the complex temporal organisation of sound e.g. a saw-wave is spaced in more equal intervals whereas the waves of noise are all over the place. I think there must be a remarkable correspondence between what the physics demonstrate and what people would generally tend to report and between music theory and subjective perceptions. A here is a scientific explanation that tackles what we exactly have stated. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...07051.Ph.r.html (it also states that in the "broader definition" of music John Cage's can be considered as music.) and there is a experimental psychology project running right now with the purpose of investigating these matters so we should keep in touch with them...! http://www.scienceproject.com/proje...diate/IP004.asp

music (like art) is an inherently subjective term (moreso than noise and silence are), hence there can be no objective difference between music and noise.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Now because the industrial revolution happened and some lazy crackpot likes to "liberate" everything because he likes how the factories sound like, and throw centuries of thinking and contributions away doesn't mean he is right, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Music theory is well established and takes years to master it. It is astonishing how well is mathematically founded. Its beauty, elegance and complexity are second to none. [/quote nature provides even more elegance, complexity, and adherence to mathematical formulas than classical music did and does, yet you deny it the right to be called Art. [QUOTE]Originally posted by PETRAN So, thank you. I Prefer not to follow this modern notion, which in the end of the day represents a tiny minority of what music is.

err, 'this modern notion' is all-encompassing in its claim that all can be music, including everything you do agree deserves the term music. so if it's a question of how large a percentage of things a certain theory encompasses, you're on the wrong side

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN No, i can't see it lol.

how can you miss it? your entire post was full of that fallacy

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I saw that in the first link before but i still can't understand where is the "organisation". Isn't organisation about the production of meaningfull patterns? How a car's sound is organised? I can't see how the temporal seggregation between sound and silence of the current "creation" is organised since nothing can predict the appearance of sound or silence. The sound of the car is an unpredictable event isn't it? Or just because i say its "art" suddenly everything is "organised"?

as i wrote in my reply to system j, it's not the organistion of sound, rather than organisation of the piece (time? tempo? key? required instruments? players? et cetera).

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and where exactly was the pitch (melody) and the rhythm in the current musical "creation"?

in any audible sound and pattern heard througout the preformence. btw, pitch does not automatically translate to mean melody, every sound has pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes but it reflects the agreed consensus so it must hold truth right? Since it derives from centuries of agreed subjectivities it msut be objective. Surely it must have more weight then me now saying "music is the voices of aliens from from andromeda galaxy" correct?

i didn't even address its truth value
whether or not it holds truth is irrelevant to whether it is a requirement or not.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN This is a wrong argument you make. When we talk about universals we talk about properties and functions that seem to be inherent in humanity's behaviour. Examples are, language, arithmecy, music, dancing and causal thinking (there are more). What you say its just a property that results from a universal-that is "making inferences"-not the universal itself. In your example the universal is truely present in all humanity although its content varies and is context-dependent.Whilst all tribes make inferences about the world, their explanations vary. In the current case the universal is "making logical inferences" or "reason". The content of the universal COULD be "the earth is flat". The content would vary from culture to culture. Your example in the "music" case, could have been equal to "all human music is based on four-to-the-floor rhythms".In the current case the universal is music (which agrees with non-modern futuristic notions) and a potential content could be the appearance of rhythms through-out various geographic regions.

i'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying here. the last portion of my post was an analogy designed to show that just because something has quite a history of being the accepted standard does not mean that it is true.

your reply to it should ideally be accepting the analogy as valid and considering its effects on your arguments, or showing it to be an invalid analogy (if this is what you were trying to do here, please rephrase).

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It is not strange that music theory has developed on top of these primitive universals rather then the "all-is-art" interpretations you support. If that was the case then we wouldn't even have notes since we wouldn't need them. I stand by these last arguments as the strongest against these modern notions which are cool ideas but they clearly don't reflect what is really happening and what usually tends to occur.

all-is-art does not imply all art to be equal in the attention it receives and the enjoyment it brings to others among other things, notes would still have their place, and likely the same one they have had in our actual world.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes i know since this is just mine definition which i believe reflects lots of peoples notions about what constitutes art. I was discussing this with two friends, one is a professional pianist the other starts his career in composition and they completely agreed. If you ask any professionally trained musician he/she would tell you that 20th century ideas like Cage's are ok and cool but definitely thay are flawed and that they constitute biased musical philosophy.It is no starnge that even now, decades after Cage's work NO ONE has ever played "music" the way he ment. This should mean something...

and it does, it means most people don't enjoy Cage's work and the work of others inspired by his ideas. and btw, lol at the bias argument - asking the most likely proponents of the time-cherished classical movement and theories for their opinion on something that (in their minds) negates their life's work.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i didn't claim the sounds are organised, i claimed the composition is organised. and the fact that in a vacuum it would be different has no relevance to the issue since 1. vacuums only exist in hypotheticals, and 2. almost everything would behave differently in a vacuum.

I'm not talking about vacuums. If you wanted to perform 4.33 with a synthesiser and record the results, like you can any piece of written music, you'd get utter silence as your recordings. There's nothing hypothetical about it- you can record performances with absolutely no unwanted noise. No sound wave at all. Nothing.

And again, it's simple pedantry to take "organised" to its extreme. You've defined any purposefully made sounds that will cause emotional effect "music." Therefore, any form of human communication through sound is music. The only difference is context. You've been told certain sounds are music because you're sat in a concert hall.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

All this argument over four and a half minutes of empty silence.

LOL.

P.S.- Kr00t0n wins best post in the thread.

quote:

Are you asserting that art and science are so comparable? Originally posted by thoughtlessjex

No, i'm saying that they are both defined by some propositions that distinquish them from other categories. If that was not the case then anything could be labelled as "art". But, ok even if you don't like the term "science" and you find it too "lawfull" for your taste, then read again my post and substitute the word "science" with the word "art". "Posting in TA-A NEW WORK OF ART!". Amazing, i may actually be famous by starting this new artistic movement...!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T is one of these more beautiful/ugly than the other?

Emmm they are just swiss army-knives? i mean, i don't know i can't see any difference from the aesthetic side of things. Ermmm...can you?

quote:

it's simple, someone makes music (or something that sounds strangely alike to music) without a statement, without emotion, and without intention to express anything with it. either his music (and many others') isn't really music, or this requirement is null because it becomes another 'may'.

Its not simple at all because if we don't have a bloody definition of music (and silence and noise can be music...) then how the hell are we going to know that we actually experience music or that we rather feel the invasion of aliens on planet earth? Especially in the current case, where it is done without intention, emotion or expression!?!

quote:

music (like art) is an inherently subjective term (moreso than noise and silence are), hence there can be no objective difference between music and noise.

Oh ok, so the link that i've posted is crap, all the people who believe that there IS an actual distinction are wrong,it is wrong to have two words for them in the first place, all the previous centuries' composers, musicians and music theorists who played music (in wikipedia's terms) and distinquished it from noise were just stupid...i can go on...

quote:

nature provides even more elegance, complexity, and adherence to mathematical formulas than classical music did and does, yet you deny it the right to be called Art.

Yes of course i deny it and i believe it violates the assumption of what art is! So, what can the volcano be art?Is the river art? Is the sea an artistic creation? Is everything art?

And i associate the complexity with conscious and effortfull creation not with some random algorithm.

quote:

err, 'this modern notion' is all-encompassing in its claim that all can be music, including everything you do agree deserves the term music. so if it's a question of how large a percentage of things a certain theory encompasses, you're on the wrong side

Lol man, if everything IS music then what IS music? Is everything music and music is everything?lol. This sounds like an LSD-trip FGS...!(and a bad-one!)

quote:

how can you miss it? your entire post was full of that fallacy

Sorry i still can't see it

quote:

as i wrote in my reply to system j, it's not the organistion of sound, rather than organisation of the piece (time? tempo? key? required instruments? players? et cetera).

Oh, ok so now the new definition is that music occurs when there is an organisation of players and not sound...all these centuries everyone thought that music was the organisation of sound but actually music occurs when there is just a band without the need to play (ROFL). Everyone in this earth believes that music is the organisation of sound (except for a bunch of people) but they are all wrong. The only thing you need to perform music is to hold an instrument! Come on TAs lets be musicians!

Errmm does it apply to the organisation of everything or just instrument players? Is music the organisation of everything?

quote:

in any audible sound and pattern heard througout the preformence. btw, pitch does not automatically translate to mean melody, every sound has pitch.

Every sound has a pitch, but i thought that in music, you need a kind of pitch that its physical wave-pattern corrsponds to what people perceive as melody! It seems i was wrong. Breaking the monitor of my laptop can generate a beauty of a melody (let me cosnider it as art and not an act of desperation. It sounds better... ).

It seems though that there is no rhtythm in the composition...or you can get music without the need of any rhythm at all? And yes its not music, this performer-organisation is just bollocks even if you like it even if you don't!

quote:

whether or not it holds truth is irrelevant to whether it is a requirement or not.

It is true that in order to writte something comprehensable in english you need to have agood knowledge of english. It is not a pre-requisite, but if its not it wouldn't be comprehensible. So, you need good english for good comprehension.

In order to write music you first need to know what music is.
Knowing music-writing music. Not knowing music? Not writing music...(you may write something else but music its not)

quote:

i'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying here. the last portion of my post was an analogy designed to show that just because something has quite a history of being the accepted standard does not mean that it is true.

The analogy you make is WRONG from the very beginning since it is drawn between two different entities. What i, and anthropologists mean by "primitive universals", is the functional attributes that every human in the world potentially has, regardless of the enviroment he/she is grown-up. E.g. Talking is a universal primitive. Music is a universal primitive (and obeys the definition by wikipedia and mine as well). Making causal inferences (such as i walk in a flat earth hence all earth should be flat) is a universal primitive, BUT the infered that is described within the parenthesis(your argument) IS NOT. It is derived by the PROCESS of making inferences-which is a universal primitive- but the statement or belief is not a universal primitive in itself. It is rather an information that is subject to change, it would be directly influenced by the culture and environment and it would definitely not be universal and not every civilisation and tribe (as you vastly-vaguely put it) has/had the current belief.

Music is universal process. The music pieces could change from time and time and culture to culture. But music as a universal human attribute is invariant, at least this is what the world shows us until now. Actually these universal primitives may have a strong genetic component (they are governed by brain areas which are genetically defined) whereas their contents don't. (not every human is potentially born with the belief that earth is flat!He/she must learn it first-or any belief for that matter. It due to the universal primitive of abstract learning that allows him/her to learn but the acquired belief is not. Every human can be born with the potential of understanding and maing music but not all humans like to play the drums). I hope you understood...!

quote:

and it does, it means most people don't enjoy Cage's work and the work of others inspired by his ideas. and btw, lol at the bias argument - asking the most likely proponents of the time-cherished classical movement and theories for their opinion on something that (in their minds) negates their life's work.

This "modern", view negates every serious musicians life's work, destroys the notion of music, causes confusion to listeners and leaves everyone with the uncertainty of what music actually is.

Last edited by PETRAN on Feb-16-2007 at 18:52

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN No, i'm saying that they are both defined by some propositions that distinquish them from other categories. If that was not the case then anything could be labelled as "art". But, ok even if you don't like the term "science" and you find it too "lawfull" for your taste, then read again my post and substitute the word "science" with the word "art". "Posting in TA-A NEW WORK OF ART!". Amazing, i may actually be famous by starting this new artistic movement...!

I replaced science with art, and it worked. And you could certainly assert that posting in TA is a work of art. I, for one won't disagree, and would probably be able to find such posts as not only verify your claim, but could in fact be counted among the most quality works within that style.

I doubt it would make you famous, though. If the trance market is being flooded by shitty bedroom producers these days, then posting on TA is downright dominated by them. This is not a good environment for pioneering a marketable product.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm not talking about vacuums. If you wanted to perform 4.33 with a synthesiser and record the results, like you can any piece of written music, you'd get utter silence as your recordings. There's nothing hypothetical about it- you can record performances with absolutely no unwanted noise. No sound wave at all. Nothing.

if i'm not mistaken, 4'33" was composed to be strictly a preformence piece, taking it out of its context isn't too far from taking a modern project-file for a song out of its context by displaying it as binary code. take something to an avenue it's not intended to be in and it'll likely behave differently.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J And again, it's simple pedantry to take "organised" to its extreme.

extreme? it's as organised as any classical preformence, it's pure bias to judge the validity of something defined objectively by its result rather than by its accordance to the definition.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You've defined any purposefully made sounds that will cause emotional effect "music."

where did i do this?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Therefore, any form of human communication through sound is music. The only difference is context. You've been told certain sounds are music because you're sat in a concert hall.

i don't need to be told that something is music in order to believe it is music, but cheers for the vote of confidence.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Emmm they are just swiss army-knives? i mean, i don't know i can't see any difference from the aesthetic side of things. Ermmm...can you?

Yeah I agree, no way good design is in any way artistic.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Emmm they are just swiss army-knives? i mean, i don't know i can't see any difference from the aesthetic side of things. Ermmm...can you?

shapes, colours, interaction between colours, even possibly a sentiment of sorts being projected, personally i find the white/silverish one more appealing.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Its not simple at all because if we don't have a bloody definition of music (and silence and noise can be music...) then how the hell are we going to know that we actually experience music or that we rather feel the invasion of aliens on planet earth? Especially in the current case, where it is done without intention, emotion or expression!?!

by using generalisations rather than absolutes.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Oh ok, so the link that i've posted is crap, all the people who believe that there IS an actual distinction are wrong,it is wrong to have two words for them in the first place, all the previous centuries' composers, musicians and music theorists who played music (in wikipedia's terms) and distinquished it from noise were just stupid...i can go on...

there can be no objective difference between something defined only subjectively and anything else, therefore, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes of course i deny it and i believe it violates the assumption of what art is! So, what can the volcano be art?Is the river art? Is the sea an artistic creation? Is everything art?

why not? plenty of things out there i consider more aesthetically pleasing than some of the things you allow to be called art.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN And i associate the complexity with conscious and effortfull creation not with some random algorithm.

1. 'nature' uses more than a random algorithm
   
2. effort (at least under its most basic definition) is used in nature
   
3. why is consciousness required for art?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Lol man, if everything IS music then what IS music? Is everything music and music is everything?lol. This sounds like an LSD-trip FGS...!(and a bad-one!)

1. there's a difference between "is" and "can be"
   
2. if everything can be music then music can be anything.. that's the way it usually works with subjective terms

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Sorry i still can't see it

you're using your conclusion to justify your conclusion, if you honestly can't see that, i suppose it's just difficulties with language.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Oh, ok so now the new definition is that music occurs when there is an organisation of players and not sound...all these centuries everyone thought that music was the organisation of sound but actually music occurs when there is just a band without the need to play (ROFL). Everyone in this earth believes that music is the organisation of sound (except for a bunch of people) but they are all wrong. The only thing you need to perform music is to hold an instrument! Come on TAs lets be musicians! Errmm does it apply to the organisation of everything or just instrument players? Is music the organisation of everything?

it's not a definition, what you should be discussing to undermine that point if you wish to is the definition of organisation. and btw, argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum don't work really well on me, sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Every sound has a pitch, but i thought that in music, you need a kind of pitch that its physical wave-pattern corrsponds to what people perceive as melody! It seems i was wrong. Breaking the monitor of my laptop can generate a beauty of a melody (let me cosnider it as art and not an act of desperation. It sounds better... ).

you perceive 4/4 kick drum patterns (at static tempo) as melodies? awesome!

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It seems though that there is no rhtythm in the composition...or you can get music without the need of any rhythm at all? And yes its not music, this performer-organisation is just bollocks even if you like it even if you don't!

if there's no rhythm how do all the players know when to turn their notation pages?
as to the bolded segment - great, more circular reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It is true that in order to writte something comprehensable in english you need to have agood knowledge of english. It is not a pre-requisite, but if its not it wouldn't be comprehensible. So, you need good english for good comprehension.

and what have you proved with this? that 4'33" is incomprehensible (or whatever you meant to analogize that term to)? that still says nothing regarding whether it is music or not.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN In order to write music you first need to know what music is. Knowing music-writing music. Not knowing music? Not writing music...(you may write something else but music its not)

.....music is a subjective term.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN The analogy you make is WRONG from the very beginning since it is drawn between two different entities. What i, and anthropologists mean by "primitive universals", is the functional attributes that every human in the world potentially has, regardless of the enviroment he/she is grown-up. E.g. Talking is a universal primitive. Music is a universal primitive (and obeys the definition by wikipedia and mine as well). Making causal inferences (such as i walk in a flat earth hence all earth should be flat) is a universal primitive, BUT the infered that is described within the parenthesis(your argument) IS NOT. It is derived by the PROCESS of making inferences-which is a universal primitive- but the statement or belief is not a universal primitive in itself. It is rather an information that is subject to change, it would be directly influenced by the culture and environment and it would definitely not be universal and not every civilisation and tribe (as you vastly-vaguely put it) has/had the current belief.

every human in the world potentially has every 'fuctional attribute'.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Music is universal process. The music pieces could change from time and time and culture to culture. But music as a universal human attribute is invariant, at least this is what the world shows us until now.

seeing as you put an arbitrary limit on what can and can not be music, you should say it's what you see in the world, not what the world shows you.

as long as you say anything other than X can not be music, obviously you're not gonna see anything other than X as being music. surprised?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Actually these universal primitives may have a strong genetic component (they are governed by brain areas which are genetically defined) whereas their contents don't. (not every human is potentially born with the belief that earth is flat!He/she must learn it first-or any belief for that matter. It due to the universal primitive of abstract learning that allows him/her to learn but the acquired belief is not. Every human can be born with the potential of understanding and maing music but not all humans like to play the drums). I hope you understood...!

replying to that will take us on a vastly different direction and imo we have enough aspects to this discussion as it is, so unless you insist, i'll ignore it.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN This "modern", view negates every serious musicians life's work, destroys the notion of music, causes confusion to listeners and leaves everyone with the uncertainty of what music actually is.

how? (remember, subjective)

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T if i'm not mistaken, 4'33" was composed to be strictly a preformence piece, taking it out of its context isn't too far from taking a modern project-file for a song out of its context by displaying it as binary code. take something to an avenue it's not intended to be in and it'll likely behave differently.

Firstly, show me something that says it is "strictly" a performance piece. I can't see anything written on the sheet to specify. And your analogy is false. The equivalent to the binary code would surely be the sheet music- the instructions. And you can put any classical into a synth and it will "behave differently" to what it was written for, but it's still music.

quote:

extreme? it's as organised as any classical preformence, it's pure bias to judge the validity of something defined objectively by its result rather than by its accordance to the definition.

I'm wondering why you're defining music based on the organisation of people, rather than the sounds that are generating the effect. Is the organisation of lighting and seating also part of it, given as they will be part of the environment that is doing all of the "musical" work?

Now, before you reply to that, read on. Because this next bit highlights just how for-the-sake-of-it your arguments are...

quote:

where did i do this?

Actually, reading back, you didn't. You squirmed from "organised and audible sounds and silence" into "the composition is audible, but the sounds aren't". Cheeky. Let's check out that quoted definition once again:

"Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence."

Note quite clearly that "organised" is an adjective forming part of the noun phrase with the head noun "sounds". Now check out your reply:

"so far so good, 4'33" was organized, and contained both audible sounds and silence."

Nice one. You managed to seperate organisation and audible sounds into two different things. Turned an adjective into a noun. Changed the fucking semantics of the entire sentence. And what amuses me greatly is you've admitted in your next post that:

"i didn't claim the sounds are organised"

So what you've actually done is argue against yourself with some conviction, based entirely on what is either slippery debating or a simple mistake. Either way, it shows to me you're pretty much arguing a vaguely philosphical issue for the sake of it here, which is my cue to quit this discussion.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Firstly, show me something that says it is "strictly" a performance piece. I can't see anything written on the sheet to specify. And your analogy is false. The equivalent to the binary code would surely be the sheet music- the instructions. And you can put any classical into a synth and it will "behave differently" to what it was written for, but it's still music.

i can't and i'm not about to try, if you've read the sheet music, the program and whatever documentation accompanied the sheet music and the program and they didn't say anything on this matter, i guess i was mistaken, probably something i read in some aesthetics research paper.

if i'm not mistaken however, the analogy does not fail, based on the degree an object is taken out of context, in 4'33"'s case it'll be completely outside its realm, in any other piece that does not specify being designed to exclusively X it will still be within its realm.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm wondering why you're defining music based on the organisation of people, rather than the sounds that are generating the effect. Is the organisation of lighting and seating also part of it, given as they will be part of the environment that is doing all of the "musical" work? Now, before you reply to that, read on. Because this next bit highlights just how for-the-sake-of-it your arguments are... Actually, reading back, you didn't. You squirmed from "organised and audible sounds and silence" into "the composition is audible, but the sounds aren't". Cheeky. Let's check out that quoted definition once again: "Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence." Note quite clearly that "organised" is an adjective forming part of the noun phrase with the head noun "sounds". Now check out your reply: "so far so good, 4'33" was organized, and contained both audible sounds and silence." Nice one. You managed to seperate organisation and audible sounds into two different things. Turned an adjective into a noun. Changed the fucking semantics of the entire sentence. And what amuses me greatly is you've admitted in your next post that: "i didn't claim the sounds are organised" So what you've actually done is argue against yourself with some conviction, based entirely on what is either slippery debating or a simple mistake. Either way, it shows to me you're pretty much arguing a vaguely philosphical issue for the sake of it here, which is my cue to quit this discussion.

indeed you are correct, i made a mistake, however i'm not arguing against myself, rather, against what you perceived my position on that particular issue to be.

and why is philosophy for philosophy's sake your cue to leave?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)