As far as I'm concerned, music is controlled sound, so, excluding the 2nd and 3rd albums in the bottom row (seeing as I haven't heard of them), Pulse Demon and Sachiko fit that criteria, the rest don't.
okay, so imagine this: you have two cds/tapes/vinyls/mp3s/whatevers. the first is a recording of any piece of music you feel may bolster your the strength of your argument, while the second is a recording of a naturally-occurring mechanism that, in the course of its operation, yields a sequence of sound fully identical to the first recording.
but which one was the music??
Owls don't sing to make music. There is no intent for it to be music.
The contention is whether the CD exists to enjoy the calls of the owls (effectively music), or if its for bird watchers to learn owl calls (not music) or other uses.
Your argument is horrendously flawed. What is on the MP3? Is it a recording of Shake it Off? Clearly that was intended as music.
Is it an MP3 of rain forest sounds? Maybe it was meant for relaxation or other utlitarian needs (AKA not musical).
do you know for sure that it wasn't just an academic field recording of medical condition where the sound of one's farts happen to sound exactly like Shake It Off?
do you know for sure that it wasn't someone pouring water on a rainforest for the purpose of making music?
you cannot derive source of a sound from just a sound, let alone the 'intention' behind it
There is low art and high art. Fingerpainting is art the same as a Monet. But one is obviously a higher rank.
You have to know the person who created the recording. Without that, it is inconclusive whether it is music.
Pulse Demon, Good Morning Good Night, and The Well Tempered Clavier required the use of a played instrument or synthesizer to play. they are music.
Buyer's Market, Voices Of North American Owls, Radio Roadmovies, and Symphonies Of The Planets are recordings of the space around us. Though some of them may be composed or though out, they are not created in a musical manor. If anything, the focus of them is on the landscape the audio is from and not the audio itself. They are field recordings.
4'33" contains no audio whatsoever. It is not music in any form.
This isn't that hard.
Those recordings were intended as music by humans.
Therefore, they are music.
How is that hard to grasp?
No, Bach clearly intended his work to be MUSIC; therefore, performances of it are music.
>You have to know the person
You do know those two are different things right? In the original quote "You have to know the person" he meant the context in which the work was released and the general intent of the creator.
I think the problem here is that I have an education at the university level, reinforced with consistent discussions requiring human intent for it to be music; and you're just a shitposting anon.
Better luck next time.
>I think the problem here is that I have an education at the university level, reinforced with consistent discussions requiring human intent for it to be music
>and you're just a shitposting anon.
>the classification of something as music is entirely up to the sound consumer.
I don't care what sort of reduction ad absurdum you're trying but if I were indeed subjected to listening to that there could be many different reasons why I would or would not consider it to be music.