What is "good" music?

Birds defy gravity. I guess they aren't universal.

They apply and equal and opposite force, they are not free of it, and forget the deaf guy example, once again you are to focused on judging sound from a human or even a living creature's perception. Sound is neither good nor bad, it just is. It's how it is perceived that it is given a characteristic of good or bad.

Birds defy gravity. I guess they aren't universal.

They apply and equal and opposite force, they are not free of it, and forget the deaf guy example, once again you are to focused on judging sound from a human or even a living creature's perception. Sound is neither good nor bad, it just is. It's how it is perceived that it is given a characteristic of good or bad.

Gravity is still there, even if the bird flies.

Sound is still there if the guy is deaf. But music is not.

If the guy is deaf then to him there is no sound or music. I just don't understand what you mean by "Sound is still there if the guy is deaf. But not music."

Sound is still there if the guy is deaf. But music is not.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself here, but that's my interpretation.

Even if the guy is deaf and he can't hear music, just as he can't hear sound, that doesn't mean the music isn't there.

Gravity is still there, even if the bird flies.

Sound is still there if the guy is deaf. But not music.

Are you implying the deaf can hear sounds but not music?

@homerowed: The point is that the law of gravity remains the same in spite of that which it should otherwise effect. Birds have essentially gained a tolerance to gravity, just as humans are capable of tolerating bad sounds.

[video=youtube;b7-i-D_0VIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7-i-D_0VIo[/video]

Are you implying the deaf can hear sounds but not music?

@homerowed: The point is that the law of gravity remains the same in spite of that which it should otherwise effect. Birds have essentially gained a tolerance to gravity, just as humans are capable of tolerating bad sounds.

Yes but the sounds are still not "bad", just bad so much as they are perceived by a particular human being, or in some cases the whole human race.

If the guy is deaf then to him there is no sound or music. I just don't understand what you mean by "Sound is still there if the guy is deaf. But not music."

I feel like you're contradicting yourself here, but that's my interpretation.

Even if the guy is deaf and he can't hear music, just as he can't hear sound, that doesn't mean the music isn't there.

Are you implying the deaf can hear sounds but not music?

@homerowed: The point is that the law of gravity remains the same in spite of that which it should otherwise effect. Birds have essentially gained a tolerance to gravity, just as humans are capable of tolerating bad sounds.

A deaf person can still sense the vibrations coming from sounds. He just can't appreciate them. The aftershock of an explosion would still make his body tremble, just as if the bird moves his wings wrong, it'd fall.

However, the deaf person can't still hear the music.

And again, what are bad sounds? Because if you are still with the painful ones, Lady Gaga still takes the lead.

Yes but the sounds are still not "bad", just bad so much as they are perceived by a particular human being, or in some cases the whole human race/

Sounds are universally bad, not just to humans. If I play a loud screeching sound on my computer than my cat freaks the pineapple out and doesn't want to be anywhere near it. If I play a soothing symphonic than my cat falls asleep and purrs. My old dog was the same way.

For the record my cat reacts the same to both a screeching sound and Lady Gaga.

Obviously he can't hear the music. You just made it seem like since he can't hear it, it's not there to begin with.

Beethoven still had the music in him after losing all senses of sounds. What.

Are you implying the deaf can hear sounds but not music?

@homerowed: The point is that the law of gravity remains the same in spite of that which it should otherwise effect. Birds have essentially gained a tolerance to gravity, just as humans are capable of tolerating bad sounds.

I come from a culture that drinks cow blood. I grow up drinking cow blood. There was never a point in my life where I thought cow blood was bad.

Someone comes to my town. They see me drink cow blood.

"How can you drink that?"
"I don't know what you mean, it's delicious."
"But there are so many things wrong with drinking cow blood!"
"I don't know what you're talking about. Give it a try and see what you think."

The person tries it, and, as expected, still does not like nor understand how this person can like the cow blood.

"It's horrible."
"It's delicious."
"Everyone from where I'm from thinks it's horrible, so it's an absolute."
"Well everyone here thinks it's delicious, so it's an absolute."

Is this gaining a "tolerance" for something bad, or simply just having different tastes? One example I actually brought up jokingly before was in a thread where I was reading something in Japanese and discovered other parts of the world find the thought of peanut butter and jelly disgusting.

I've never heard of that before. I thought it was a universal kid's snack for school lunches. So does this mean American children simply gain a tolerance for this horrible food? Or is it simply a part of their culture that they never even realized was "bad"?

The thread I'm talking about:
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=40691

Sounds are universally bad, not just to humans. If I play a loud screeching sound on my computer than my cat freaks the pineapple out and doesn't want to be anywhere near it. If I play a soothing symphonic than my cat falls asleep and purrs. My old dog was the same way.

For the record my cat reacts the same to both a screeching sound and Lady Gaga.

Sounds are not bad, nor universally bad, just the perception of them from a living creature's standpoint are "bad", not the sound itself. Good and Evil have been and will always be subjective and will always have very little meaning.

Obviously he can't hear the music. You just made it seem like since he can't hear it, it's not there to begin with.

But... does music exist for him? If I make him listen to a good song, how would he react? And what about Lady Gaga?

*Looks at section* Funhouse.

Not sure if serious. But eitherway.

X person not being able to perceive Y does not mean Y does not exists.

We can't see infrared rays. Does that mean that they do not exists?
If every human in the world suddenly went blind, does it mean that visible light does not exists?

Same applies to sound and anything naturally occurring that you can think of.


Personal truth =\= absolute truth.

I come from a culture that drinks cow blood. I grow up drinking cow blood. There was never a point in my life where I thought cow blood was bad.

Someone comes to my town. They see me drink cow blood.

"How can you drink that?"
"I don't know what you mean, it's delicious."
"But there are so many things wrong with drinking cow blood!"
"I don't know what you're talking about. Give it a try and see what you think."

The person tries it, and, as expected, still does not like nor understand how this person can like the cow blood.

"It's horrible."
"It's delicious."
"Everyone from where I'm from thinks it's horrible, so it's an absolute."
"Well everyone here thinks it's delicious, so it's an absolute."

Completely missing the point of what I'm saying. You're talking about preference. If you want to know whether cow blood is good or bad you'd have to look at how a body reacts to it. If it contains any nutrients and won't make you ill then it could easily be considered good, in spite of it seeming gross, which is preference.

Just as with music, if someone is off key or pitchy (yo dawg!) then they are a bad singer. If someone puts together a bunch of unpleasant sounds then it is bad music. It may still be music by definition, but it's not good music. Someone could still easily enjoy a pitchy voice or a bunch of banging symbols but that doesn't make it good.

Are you implying the deaf can hear sounds but not music?

I take it you never took psychology.
A deaf person can "hear" sounds thanks to its temporal lobe. The concept is too in depth to go into and I don't feel like explaining it. Just search it up in your own.

*Looks at section* Funhouse.

Not sure if serious. But eitherway.

X person not being able to perceive Y does not mean Y does not exists.

We can't see infrared rays. Does that mean that they do not exists?
If every human in the world suddenly went blind, does it mean that visible light does not exists?

Same applies to sound and anything naturally occurring that you can think of.


Personal truth =\= absolute truth.

Pffff, starting to get hard to think here, at 4:30 AM, doing some other work stuff.

To begin with, Nobody has answered yet WHAT makes music good. If it's THAT evident, someone should point out exactly what does it.

As for me, I'll keep believing that music is just a form of folklore made by a particular group of people or other, and that it's in no way an universal truth, because it is something created by humans, and if you say something created by humans is an universal truth, well, you think too high of us.

But... does music exist for him? If I make him listen to a good song, how would he react? And what about Lady Gaga?

Alex answered this much better than I would have been able to.

EDIT