If it were not possible to make music without influences, then music would never have been invented.

That was my point precisely.

But if we're going to go that far back, then still, anything created is a product of the things we have been exposed to...in its most basic form, music is rhythm, and rhythm can be found all around us in nature. My point is you can always trace any creation back to external influence IMO.

I'm pretty sure it's a really famous piece of philosophical writing, but I'm incredibly uncultured, so I don't know the name of it, but it was kind of along the lines of imagine a baby that is blind, deaf, and has no sense of taste, smell or touch. Now, dispite that horrific image, it raises a very interesting point of what that baby would think, and would the be capable of creating anything? ANywho, I'm rambling a bit about things I know little about, but this concept of creation and influence always intrigues me

[djskrimp]

But if we're going to go that far back, then still, anything created is a product of the things we have been exposed to...in its most basic form, music is rhythm, and rhythm can be found all around us in nature. My point is you can always trace any creation back to external influence IMO.

I'm pretty sure it's a really famous piece of philosophical writing, but I'm incredibly uncultured, so I don't know the name of it, but it was kind of along the lines of imagine a baby that is blind, deaf, and has no sense of taste, smell or touch. Now, dispite that horrific image, it raises a very interesting point of what that baby would think, and would the be capable of creating anything? ANywho, I'm rambling a bit about things I know little about, but this concept of creation and influence always intrigues me

Off-topic: Fragility, you drive me nuts. You almost have some salient thought or insightful comment to make, and yet you always say these craazy things about knowing "little" or not being very good musically. I, for one, wish you appreciated your intelligence and wealth of knowledge more.

back on topic: some years ago, there was a gold record made, and was put on the Voyager, IIRC, and this was sent into space as a means of some communication. The idea of "music", even from a scientific viewpoint, must be pretty universal. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html Now, my thinking is, even if we weren't CONSCIOUSLY aware that we are being influenced by the music around us, our "collective unconscious" has always been aware. Some of us are much better at tapping into it, (A lot of artists will tell you that the didn't "create" the piece, they brought into being from the aether), but most humans just KNOW music they like BECAUSE it resonates with their collective unconsciousness. Ergo, nothing can be devoid of influence, even if it isn't a conscious thing.

Or, I could just fuck off, eh?

Theoretically, it may be possible. But, these days everyone is exposed to so much different music, and access to it is so extremely easy, that you're going to be influenced by it no matter what. So I'd that that it's practically impossible.

If it were not possible to make music without influences, then music would never have been invented.

Music was not invented, it was discovered. More precisely: the second it was invented it became obvious it could only be discovered. First music was without a doubt a byproduct of some other activity, an accident that caught the attention of the ear which nonetheless was able to recognize it as pleasant. From that point on, it's free for all (meaning that the term "music" is a 'rigid designator').

*fucks off*

Fragility, isn't that baby named Helen Keller? Anyway, my take on that would be: it's not about the baby, it's about us judging which of our own artificial standards can the baby with all this disadvantages meet to which degree. And that is a very narcissistic mental exercise.

*fucks off again*

I must agree with Goat on this, for the most part. You guys are such existinsh...existinsi....ex.... mind trippers I have learned on thing from this thread. I beleive I've used the term influence to describe Devys ear and I am going to change that. How about 'inspired'? Yes, that sounds abit better being 'influenced' seems to suggest imitation or copy some how. When we are influenced by something we will either run with it or just bacically copy it.Inspiration can really take you in new directions.For instance, I took up the hobby of macreme. I took alot of ribbing for taking up what most people reguard as a 'hippy' 'girly' hobby. I liked it so didn't care(still don't) after awhile I wanted to start selling my work but nobody seemed interested in another hippy plant hanger or string art owl piece. I desided to really investigate the origins of macrame and quickly discovered that it is a sea farring utility practiced for hundreds of years.
Sword halbreds, pistol grips smoking pipes all manner of 'manly' goods all made with 'hippy knoting' I make a good side profit with some of my work based in part on these sensibilities. Everybody thinks I came up with this radical new twist when really I just did alittle history.

I think the precursor to music is rythme.The heart beat, the metre divine, pulse of the universe...or I could just fuque off...

lets think statistics here:

theres a finite number of neurons in your brain. Therefore, there's a finite (even if huge) number of "strings" of though you can make. Therefore, even if we still weren't at the point where it's impossible to make music without any form of influence, we'd get there eventually. It's the pidgeon house principle: if you have N houses, and N+1 pidgeons, and you had to get them all into a house, at least one house would get 2 pidgeons.

anyway, i believe music is a combination of thought and feeling. You can even get your feelings straight out of your head, but to make a whole song, you'd have to "fill the gaps" with conscious thought.

And finally: most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

lets think statistics here:

theres a finite number of neurons in your brain. Therefore, there's a finite (even if huge) number of "strings" of though you can make. Therefore, even if we still weren't at the point where it's impossible to make music without any form of influence, we'd get there eventually. It's the pidgeon house principle: if you have N houses, and N+1 pidgeons, and you had to get them all into a house, at least one house would get 2 pidgeons.

anyway, i believe music is a combination of thought and feeling. You can even get your feelings straight out of your head, but to make a whole song, you'd have to "fill the gaps" with conscious thought.

And finally: most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

I'm not entirely sure which side you're leaning to =S

lets think statistics here:

theres a finite number of neurons in your brain. Therefore, there's a finite (even if huge) number of "strings" of though you can make.

Nah. Number of neurons has nothing to do with thoughts. Thoughts are formed through language, which is symbolic, not biological. Brain is a tool, like hammer. How deep the nail goes doesn't depend on the hammer but how hard you swing it. And strings of thought are infinite simply because no two thoughts are the same. If I think "sex" and you think "sex" we as sure as hell are not thinking the same thing, because we are two different subjects.

And if indeed you have N houses, and N+1 pidgeons, and you had to get them all into a house, shoot two and you get an empty house. (Meaning I don't understand the point of the example.)

most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

Word. But their enterprise is not making musical music but precisely a stripped down unbearably plain form of music. No pathological contents, just bare structure. And that is not entertainment, that is ethics.

This is just existential exercise. music doesn't exibit any influence untill it is heard. Then the listener will say what the influence is.Musical mushin can be entertaining or not ...that's up to the listener.

*fucks off*

*fucks off again*

Or, I could just fuck off, eh?

I could just fuque off...

Where is everyone going?

I think the precursor to music is rythme.The heart beat, the metre divine, pulse of the universe...or I could just fuque off...

Yea there's a wealth of that in Sonology, I think they call it the biorhythm? Anyway way it comes down to the fact that anyone and everyone can make/play music (Now where's that Eyvind Kang quote when I need it!), it's just some are far more conscious and active in such a practice that others are just oblivious and less attentive towards sound. But Goat has it nailed, it's pretty much like a tree, meaning that influences cause progression and ..err...evolution in expression of...sound? Either way, it's the reason why we've embraced sound to such an extent; tambre, tempo, melody are just many terms used in the sound of science a.k.a Music Theory; which then stems off from "interpreted" styles (e.g. Jazz, Blues, Hindustani, Persain Classical, Classical etc...) and also "segregated" into genres (Metal, Rock, Punk, Noise, Hip-Hop, Avant Garde etc..) and then there's sub-genres, which I will not dive into as there are about a billion to mention of. The hammer has certainly postioned the nail well and truly in, perhaps even further than we intended to be. Phew.

EDIT:

Michael White proved to me that music is the “healing force of the universe.” Michael White also mentioned to me that everyone has a song, and it gives a purpose in a person’s life to hear that and learn that song.

lets think statistics here:

theres a finite number of neurons in your brain. Therefore, there's a finite (even if huge) number of "strings" of though you can make.

Nah. Number of neurons has nothing to do with thoughts. Thoughts are formed through language, which is symbolic, not biological. Brain is a tool, like hammer. How deep the nail goes doesn't depend on the hammer but how hard you swing it. And strings of thought are infinite simply because no two thoughts are the same. If I think "sex" and you think "sex" we as sure as hell are not thinking the same thing, because we are two different subjects.

And if indeed you have N houses, and N+1 pidgeons, and you had to get them all into a house, shoot two and you get an empty house. (Meaning I don't understand the point of the example.)

most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

Word. But their enterprise is not making musical music but precisely a stripped down unbearably plain form of music. No pathological contents, just bare structure. And that is not entertainment, that is ethics.

i totally get your point, especially cause i know you have a psychology background
but the fact is: if you don't consider anything but physical "wirings", even if there is a HUGE and HUMONGOUS number of possible thoughts, they're still finite. If you add spirit and other non-physical forms of forming consciousness (and unconsciousness, obviously, which probably even comes more in play here), then you're completely free to expand it to an infinite number, BUT, getting purely physical here,it's a finite number.

i get it stripped down to this "simple" point cause hell, i'm a computer sciences student and i'm used to seeing things that seem infinite actually being finite, when you stop to think about it

the pigeon-house thing was related to that: even if you put together ALL the possible ideas one after the other, if you wanted to add a little one more, you'd fall on one idea that was already been used.

Obviously, if you think about it on a human perspective, it's "infinite". But on a overall analysing perspective, it's finite.

and i won't fuck off cause i don't want to leave scoon alone here

lets think statistics here:

theres a finite number of neurons in your brain. Therefore, there's a finite (even if huge) number of "strings" of though you can make.

Nah. Number of neurons has nothing to do with thoughts. Thoughts are formed through language, which is symbolic, not biological. Brain is a tool, like hammer. How deep the nail goes doesn't depend on the hammer but how hard you swing it. And strings of thought are infinite simply because no two thoughts are the same. If I think "sex" and you think "sex" we as sure as hell are not thinking the same thing, because we are two different subjects.

And if indeed you have N houses, and N+1 pidgeons, and you had to get them all into a house, shoot two and you get an empty house. (Meaning I don't understand the point of the example.)

most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

Word. But their enterprise is not making musical music but precisely a stripped down unbearably plain form of music. No pathological contents, just bare structure. And that is not entertainment, that is ethics.

i totally get your point, especially cause i know you have a psychology background
but the fact is: if you don't consider anything but physical "wirings", even if there is a HUGE and HUMONGOUS number of possible thoughts, they're still finite. If you add spirit and other non-physical forms of forming consciousness (and unconsciousness, obviously, which probably even comes more in play here), then you're completely free to expand it to an infinite number, BUT, getting purely physical here,it's a finite number.

i get it stripped down to this "simple" point cause hell, i'm a computer sciences student and i'm used to seeing things that seem infinite actually being finite, when you stop to think about it

the pigeon-house thing was related to that: even if you put together ALL the possible ideas one after the other, if you wanted to add a little one more, you'd fall on one idea that was already been used.

Obviously, if you think about it on a human perspective, it's "infinite". But on a overall analysing perspective, it's finite.

and i won't fuck off cause i don't want to leave scoon alone here

So are you saying then that if we want more thoughts we just need a bigger brain?So one with infinite thought would also have a brain just as physically infinite total time space mass thought equation type of thing?