Message? Emotion? Math?

Music is an art. Art is subjective. Differenct implementations of it will appeal to different people. Jerry Garcia, respected as he may have been, probably didn't have an attention span that was longer than 3.5 mins. The Chinese Government has a vested interest in inspiring people. So whoever you talk to is going to give you their version of what they believe music "should" be. I try to avoid such terms. I can tell you what I like and why, or what I don't like and why, but my tastes in music don't constitute a "should" by any means.

Music, by it's very nature is mathematical, you can't seperate one from the other. Same thing with painting. Mathematics is nothing more than the framework around which the art is draped. Sometimes it's draped more elaborately, sometimes more sparsely, but you'll never seperate one from the other.

Music is an expression, just like visual arts, literature, or any other art form. You've got your traditional masters (Mozart, DaVinci, Milton), your experimental folks (Glass, Pollack, Joyce), and every shade in between.

Even if I don't like the expression of the art, I often find the idea behind it appealing - or at least curious enough to make me think for a moment... which is probably what the artist intended anyway.

My favorite definition of music - and the only one I've come across that encompasses everything I've experienced - is this: the deliberate arrangement of sound within a framework of time.

I think Funeral For a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding was around 10 minutes or so, and its considered a masterpeice.

i doubt jerry garcia meant that. he practically invented the half-hour jam, and wasn't really a lyricist, besides.
although the number of musicians that have that much to say is kind of limited.

Music, by it's very nature is mathematical, you can't seperate one from the other. Same thing with painting.

Math is usefull in describing music, but I'm not sure what you mean by music being "mathematical."

If you contend that mathematics is some ontological "thing" beyond a human invented language system we happen to find usefull for describing things we observe, then ok .. everything is then mathematical, but then that isn't saying much.

But music existed long before man-kind started inventing math.

Well kingpatzer,

That is what I meant. Math is the language of the universe. But you're right, it is, when all is said and done, a human construct, that makes it convenient to describe what we observe. (and it does so much more eloquently than verbal languages do) I was thinking in terms of music as we know it nowadays. Quarter-notes, half notes, whole notes, etc... scales, chords, intervals are all expressed in mathematical terms. However, I'm sure primitive cultures didn't codify their music so much as they passed it down from generation to generation by example. Even so, the learner would have to have had some sense of timing, which implies math. As to music existing long before math, that'd be interesting to look into. Math is a pretty ancient idea. So is music.

Well kingpatzer,
Even so, the learner would have to have had some sense of timing, which implies math.

No it doesn't. As you concede, Math is a language construct that is very very useful for describing things. But just because something can be described mathematically, doesn't mean it implies mathematics.

It can be described using Russian too, but that doesn't mean it implies Russia.
As to music existing long before math, that'd be interesting to look into. Math is a pretty ancient idea. So is music.

Animals who used melodic tones and rhythms to attract mates existed before we did. Many a primate has been witnessed pounding out a rythm. Mathematics as a meaningful tool happened in pretty well understood places in history (ancient Egypt, Ancient India, Ancient China) and we have a pretty good idea of when and where they arose. Yeah, it's old, but I'm pretty confident that music is older.

The fact that birds sang and primates beat out rhythm into the darkest mists of time is not the issue. It was the conscious use of music that came much later, just as the conscious use of mathematics came much later.

The concept of sharing (one for you, one for me) is a use of maths, it's not a counscious use, but one all the same and goes back as far, or even further, than singing or beating out rhythms.

The application of math to music in terms of "here's why it sounds like that" (i.e., acoustics - octave = 2 x the frequency, etc.) has been around at least 3000 years. Since the earliest known scientific and philosophical texts explore this aspect of music, it's likely people were thinking of it long before then.

The application of math in terms of "here's how you play it" (i.e. notes for beat divisions, written scales, etc.) is only about a thousand years old. Its widespread use is only about 400 years old.

Another way to look at it is that music is a mathamatical language itself; that mathematics is also a language for expressing mathematical concepts and therefore is capable of describing the math that is also described by music. It's a very different type of language than a symbolic language, because it uses examples of what is being "discussed".
Think of it like this: pictographs are to written language as music is to math.
(440hz x 1 sec x 2) = first two concepts described by a blues shuffle in A

Mathematics is the one true absolute of the universe, the only way to describe things like sighs and sounds in a concrete way. The things you see on your computer screen, the sounds of a compact disc - all complicated mathematical operations.
Math to a musician, like whole step, semitone, so on, is a simpler computation that human beings are capable of, with a reference point provided and all

The fact that birds sang and primates beat out rhythm into the darkest mists of time is not the issue. It was the conscious use of music that came much later, just as the conscious use of mathematics came much later.

Most primate specialists will tell you that primates do a lot of things with conscious intent, including making rhythmic sounds.

Likewise, a number of parrots sing because they want to play and enjoy the sounds they are making.

I've yet to meet a normal toddler old that doesn't spontaniously bang anything together to make noise. It's primative music, but it's music, and it's conscious.
Mathematics is the one true absolute of the universe . ..

No, it's a usefull human invention for describing lots of different things. It doesn't exist as outside of the minds who invented it. It's a highly formalized semantic toolkit, nothing more.
Another way to look at it is that music is a mathamatical language itself;

An interesting idea, but one that I don't think would hold up to serious scrutiny from a semiotics perspective.

The fact that birds sang and primates beat out rhythm into the darkest mists of time is not the issue. It was the conscious use of music that came much later, just as the conscious use of mathematics came much later.

Most primate specialists will tell you that primates do a lot of things with conscious intent, including making rhythmic sounds.

Likewise, a number of parrots sing because they want to play and enjoy the sounds they are making.

I've yet to meet a normal toddler old that doesn't spontaniously bang anything together to make noise. It's primative music, but it's music, and it's conscious.
Mathematics is the one true absolute of the universe . ..

No, it's a usefull human invention for describing lots of different things. It doesn't exist as outside of the minds who invented it. It's a highly formalized semantic toolkit, nothing more.
Another way to look at it is that music is a mathamatical language itself;

An interesting idea, but one that I don't think would hold up to serious scrutiny from a semiotics perspective.

The fact that primates (other than human beings) do many things today is down to evolution and contact with humans - like the chimp who smokes. Thousands of years ago the world was very different - humans had only very primitive tools and numbered hundreds of thousands not billions. Since then, man has developed at an enormous rate - and dragged many other animals with him (e.g. any domesticated animal).
As to the toddler - he makes noise not music - there is no melody involved only rhythm and that does not constitute music (my heartbeat is rhythmic but it isn't musical).

You say about mathematics "No, it's a usefull human invention for describing lots of different things." That is all any form of human communication is, including music. However, mathematics is relevant to all cultures, whereas music is perceived in different ways by different cultures. Mathematical intervals are constant throughout the known universe, whereas musical intervals vary according to culture - just look at the Indian scales for a good example. These differing scales can be adequately described in mathematics, by the use of frequency analysis - whereas music is rather unwieldy in it's description.

"An interesting idea, but one that I don't think would hold up to serious scrutiny from a semiotics perspective." - The frequencies of notes is easily analysed mathematically - as is their relationship to one another. These values are absolute. Music abstracts the relationships - an octave above "C" is also "C" - mathematics will define the difference as a doubling of the frequency - maths is absolute, music is relative.

The fact that primates (other than human beings) do many things today is down to evolution and contact with humans - like the chimp who smokes.

We're talking about primates observed in the wild, Greybeard, not ones in cages. Your response is not topical.
As to the toddler - he makes noise not music - there is no melody involved only rhythm and that does not constitute music (my heartbeat is rhythmic but it isn't musical).

Melody is not required for music. Most music schools will give the definintion of music as "The organization of sounds with some degree of rhythm, melody or harmony." What the primates are doing is organizing sound with some degree of rhythm. It's definitionally music in most any music program in the world.
You say about mathematics "No, it's a usefull human invention for describing lots of different things." That is all any form of human communication is, including music. However, mathematics is relevant to all cultures, whereas music is perceived in different ways by different cultures.

I make no claim that music isn't culturally influenced and directed. What some cultures consider to be pleasing music isn't considered so by other cultures. No argument. I make no claim as to the utility of mathematics other than noting that it's exceedingly usefull. But it's also not the case that mathematics must exist the way it does. The concepts that are incorporated into mathematics are of human construction and are just as culturally dependent.

There are cultures that have 3 numbers -- 1, 2 and many. There are cultures with no concept of zero. The very development of the concept of zero was something that is culturally dependent on a particular way of looknig at the world.
Mathematical intervals are constant throughout the known universe, whereas musical intervals vary according to culture - just look at the Indian scales for a good example.

I'm not sure that what you're saying in that sentance makes sense to me at all. I don't know what you mean by a "mathematical interval."
These differing scales can be adequately described in mathematics, by the use of frequency analysis - whereas music is rather unwieldy in it's description.

Again, I don't dispute the utility of mathematics. I simply contend that music existed prior and that just because something can be described by math doesn't make it math anymore htan something being able to be described by any language makes it a product of that language.
"An interesting idea, but one that I don't think would hold up to serious scrutiny from a semiotics perspective." - The frequencies of notes is easily analysed mathematically - as is their relationship to one another. These values are absolute. Music abstracts the relationships - an octave above "C" is also "C" - mathematics will define the difference as a doubling of the frequency - maths is absolute, music is relative.

My claim is that the notion of music as a math based language system won't hold up to semiotic scrutiny. You're response doesn't touch on linguistics or semiotics at all, so I'm not sure in what way it's even a response to my statement.