Freesound Forums

time has pass, since Karl´s statment, now we don´t have him any more...pitty !!
i was thinking about it, and, being passionated at people like him, i wondered...
If, TwinTower was "the best ArtWork"ever, meaning human action/result/concequence... can we call:
Ayrton Senna´s may-01 deadly crash, the best Sports event ever?
I post this comment, beacause, it is known that Ayrton allwalys said that, he had not only have spirutual raptures while racing, but also, strong feelings about sounds (formula1 cars?) and their impact at audience.
there is NO room, for politic, religious, or other issues, beyond SOUNDS facts at this post, as far as i am interested about comments. thanks.

HammerKlavier, thanks for your reply, Both, Spanish and English. I think it is great to have you at FreeSound, your efforts to respond, in the natural language of others freesounders, is very much appreciated.
well…my post is not meant to open a discussion about Karl´s sayings, nor even accidents of any kind, but to propose a subject to discuss ideas, feelings, thoughts, at the matter of sounds concern, as a result of our actions.
Ayrton Sennas´s thoughts about sounds (specially car-races ones), were very criticized by organizers, TV-broadcasters, sport mates, because, he was concerned about their impact, not only at the environment, but also at the people attending to car-races.
So, what I take of Senna´s thought are
1-what is our responsibility, as humans beings, about the sounds/noises? (it is said that, noise, is “any undesired sonorous signal”) we make, into an open environment/crowd?
2-how, those sounds, are enriched or impoverished, by explaining/teaching, people the proper way to “listen” to them. ej: the use of ear protection (at a RaceTrack), the way to broadcast “on-board” takes, etc
3-the most important quote: How we play/reproduce them (sounds) NOT meaning to make them pretty or attractive, but realistic and representative of that sport, beyond people liking or disliking them.

This is an interesting thread in that it brings up more than anything the problem of context. There are no absolutes here as indeed there are none in life in general - we all absorb influences from the moment we are receptive to the external world and that starts before birth. For most humans what they compartentalise into sound/music/noise will be determined by what they are exposed to.

Personally I try not to distinguish between noise music or sound in that they are all interchangeable. To most music is sound conforming to accepted structures and rules - in the west this includes the 12 tone scale and a limited range of rhythms melodies and harmonies as well as accepted structures. This is relected by or maybe results from the relatively simple inflections of our speech patterns. Other cultures like some Asian and African ones for example have more varied, almost song like speech with microtonal inflections - I am thinking here of say Vietnamese language as an example. As sounds enter our brains they are recognised in the cortex and immediately given a context by association with previous experience - this determines how we percieve them.

So if music is structured sound, understood and recognised in different ways by different cultures, - "context" - what is noise? The simplest definition might be that noise is sound in the wrong place and of course different people will interpret different sounds as noise sound or music - think for example of loud music in a teenage party in a block of apartments - people at the party will be loving the music but neighbours will consider it noise - context again.

The point of all this is some creatives like Stockhausen refuse to accept the normal definitions and conventions and therefore the boundaries that separate music from noise. They then can create totallly new works without restriction. Nevertheless accepted "normal" music is used as a reference point. I therefore think that when Stockhausen refers to the destruction of the twin towers as art he is deliberately challenging us to consider what art means. If we were to look at the colours of the beautiful blue sky that day and the flames and towering plumes of smoke and did not know the context then we could see them as intrinsically beautiful. Some will see them that way anyway - ie those who supported the destruction. There are of course countless war films which might lay claim to being works of art but their subject matter is horrific pain, death, and destruction.

I personally do not think he meant this comment literally although I cannot prove it of course. I think he was just making a point that we should all examine our minds for the restrictions placed on us by accepted and unchallenged contextualisation. To me the images of that day are inseparable from the pain and suffering caused and I think that if he did mean it he was wrong [not impossible - he did maintain he came form Venus or was it Syrius?] as for something to be considered art it has to be created as such by the artist and those involved that day had no such intentions.

What has all this to do with freesound - well everything really. Bram wants the site to be free of music mainly in the sense that it should not be a sort of mp3 music file sharing site for complete "songs" and I fully agree - there are plenty of those already. But, given what I have just written, where do we draw the boundaries between sound, music, and noise? Do we need to?