• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Incorporating Burst Power and Slew Rate Tests for Amplifier Reviews

After doing a few art history classes, I came to the conclusion that trying to draw a line between "art" and "not art" serves little purpose and usually ends up making the line-drawer look foolish later on. So I figure if you have at least one "musician" and at least one listener willing to call something music, then it's music, and I'm willing to be convinced on the necessity of a listener. :)

My bar is much higher for "good" or even "worthwhile" music.
It is quite easy to distinguish what is art and what isn’t. If music is just random - a flow of notes and melodies with no aim but to express itself - it is music, not art. However, if it symbolizes a feeling, a real-world action, or a thing, person, animal, being then it is art - an artificial representation of reality, hence the name “art.” There is good and bad art, and, as you indicate, it is very subjective.
 
Last edited:
It is quite easy to distinguish what is art and what isn’t. If music is just random - a flow of notes and melodies with no aim but to express itself - it is music, not art. However, if it symbolizes a feeling, a real-world action, or a thing, person, animal, being then it is art - an artificial representation of reality, hence the name “art.” There is good and bad art, and, as you indicate, it is very subjective.
That's not really what I meant, I wasn't saying there is music that is art and music that is not art.

I was saying the distinction between "art" and "not art" is the same as "music" and "not music" and that any attempt to define it conclusively is likely to be wrong.

It is quite easy to distinguish what is art and what isn’t.

Here, I will half-agree. If someone makes something and calls it art, it's art. Without that piece of information, distinguishing art from non-art can be very hard.
 
Anyhow, Amir doesn’t want to incorporate these ideas, and that is fine. If people keep commenting, I will reserve the right to engage.
Seems fair. "One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" Bring as much data that you have.
 
So, there is such a thing as typical music. The risk (of error) is capriciously defining its borders.
Yes, you are right in a statistical sense. What I was really trying to say is that we've seen examples of music aimed at mainstream commercial audiences with spectra and dynamics well beyond the borders of statistically typical music. Hence the engineering-synthetic test signals based on broadly valid system-theoretical assumptions about amps are, to me, it seems, more useful.
 
It is quite easy to distinguish what is art and what isn’t. If music is just random - a flow of notes and melodies with no aim but to express itself - it is music, not art. However, if it symbolizes a feeling, a real-world action, or a thing, person, animal, being then it is art - an artificial representation of reality, hence the name “art.” There is good and bad art, and, as you indicate, it is very subjective.
I don't agree. I believe the difference between music and non-music sounds lies in the social intention of the participants of the artistic communication. So if the artist intentionally uses random sources in the creation and the audience accepts that intent, it is, whether they consider it successful or not, musical. And it is therefore not possible to determine music from analysis of a signal.
 
Here, I will half-agree. If someone makes something and calls it art, it's art. Without that piece of information, distinguishing art from non-art can be very hard.
Here, I will half agree. If someone makes something and calls it art but keeps it strictly private, is it art? I'm not sure it is. It might be work towards art. But without the risk of presenting the product of such work to a non-null audience... Idk. I feel that the social communication is a necessary part of art. Don't you? Swirls of paint on a canvas hanging on a wall are just molecules -- the art exists in the act of subjective appreciation, hence the audience is necessary.
 
it is therefore not possible to determine music from analysis of a signal.
Yep. Is there any sound horrible enough that you could say (just by listening) with 100% certainty that no human being might have intended it as music?

I think the answer is no.

If someone makes something and calls it art but keeps it strictly private, is it art? I'm not sure it is. It might be work towards art. But without the risk of presenting the product of such work to a non-null audience... I feel that the social communication is a necessary part of art. Don't you?

I think the social / communication aspect matters, but this gets sticky too. If we say "not art" because nobody has seen it, it may become "art" the second someone lays eyes on it. But this means art is created by the audience, not the artist. That's satisfyingly post-modern enough. However, we're already saying someone intending to create art creates art, by definition... which seems to be contradictory.

I guess we can say art only functions as art if someone experiences it, but I think the creator counts as "someone".

I'll put this another way. I've put together a bunch of doodles on my hard drive that I'd be willing to defend as "art". I haven't shown them to anybody yet. I do go back and look at them from time to time for tweaks. Are they just "pre-art" at this point, or what?
 
Last edited:
Is there any sound horrible enough that you could say (just by listening) with 100% certainty that no human being might have intended it as music?
My ex-wife.
 
Yep. Is there any sound horrible enough that you could say (just by listening) with 100% certainty that no human being might have intended it as music?
Researchers have "found that" the most horrible sounds for humans, statistically defined, are choleric babies and nails on chalkboards. I don't see what those or SIY's wife cannot be deployed artistically, i.e. musically.
 
Yes, you are right in a statistical sense. What I was really trying to say is that we've seen examples of music aimed at mainstream commercial audiences with spectra and dynamics well beyond the borders of statistically typical music. Hence the engineering-synthetic test signals based on broadly valid system-theoretical assumptions about amps are, to me, it seems, more useful.
I agree that synthetic or engineered test signals are more broadly useful, but mainly because their being synthetic or engineered (i.e., known) makes error detection or analysis more reliable.
 
Regarding ART:

One man's art (or artiste) might be another man's trash or trollop... or vice versa
 
Yes. Or a group delay graph. I guess we don't have those is because they don't often reveal anything interesting because our assumption is good enough, i.e. that with amps, magnitude spectrum is really where it's at.
The only place the group delay shows up regularly is in speakers.
And it is more often the case that few case about group delay or even is the phase of the driver is correct.

^That said^, I would not be surprised if some speaker with wild phase swings in the impedance can really cause some amps to have a fit.
 
Researchers have "found that" the most horrible sounds for humans, statistically defined, are choleric babies and nails on chalkboards. I don't see what those or SIY's wife cannot be deployed artistically, i.e. musically.
Just watch the first ~20 minutes of Once upon a time in the west and listen to the overture made of natural and human made noises.
 
I think the social / communication aspect matters, but this gets sticky too. If we say "not art" because nobody has seen it, it may become "art" the second someone lays eyes on it. But this means art is created by the audience, not the artist.
I don't think that's sufficient. The interpretation of art requires also the knowledge or presumption of artistic intent on the part of the creator. It is a communication from and to humans.

That's satisfyingly post-modern enough. However, we're already saying someone intending to create art creates art, by definition... which seems to be contradictory.

I guess we can say art only functions as art if someone experiences it, but I think the creator counts as "someone".
That seems to maybe approach towards my view. I believe artistic intent is necessary. "Someone" is a necessary precondition for intent.

I'll put this another way. I've put together a bunch of doodles on my hard drive that I'd be willing to defend as "art". I haven't shown them to anybody yet. I do go back and look at them from time to time for tweaks. Are they just "pre-art" at this point, or what?
That's what I described above as work towards art. Similar to when a musician does exercises and other work towards competence for performance.
 
Last edited:
One man's art (or artiste) might be another man's trash or trollop... or vice versa
I like distinguish between recognition of art and evaluation of the merit/success/value of an example of art.

The famous banana and duct tape sold at auction for $6.2M last year certainly qualifies as art to me. I'd pay no more than the price of a banana for it since duct tape isn't good for reuse.
 
That's what I described above as work towards art. Similar to when a musician does exercises and other work towards competence for performance.
We're way off topic now, but... I think this is still asking too much of the audience - artist relationship for classifying art vs. non-art.

If Michelangelo just kept David in his basement and never showed it to anyone, but still occasionally went down there and appreciated his work, that would make it "not art"?

If you want to define "art" as the communicative interaction between artist and audience I don't have a huge problem with that, but then we're completely past calling tangible artifacts art or not art. It just makes it awkward if you suddenly discover David in someone's basement.

I like distinguish between recognition of art and evaluation of the merit/success/value of an example of art.
Yes, this. Most people want to substitute their subjective judgments of art as the definition of art. "My kid could do that, therefore "not art"".

I think that's a big mistake, so I also just try to come up with the most expansive reasonable definition I can, then move on to honestly presenting my opinions as to whether it's good or not. Like you said, the banana-taped-to-wall is art, but bad.

It's not like there's some prize for making something that barely qualifies as art, so I see that discussion as very low-stakes even though people seem to get really invested in it.
 
It just makes it awkward if you suddenly discover David in someone's basement.
I don't think so. In that situation the presumption of artistic intent is hard to avoid. Anyone would reasonably deduce that someone did it intentionally as art or work towards. All I mean here is that the slice of bread that happens to come our of your toaster with a recognizable face on it isn't art because the intent is obviously absent absent. You could ofc make it your own art by framing and displaying it to others.

It's not like there's some prize for making something that barely qualifies as art, so I see that discussion as very low-stakes even though people seem to get really invested in it.
Right! People get invested in it because they are insecure and compensate by appealing to authority/tradition/consensus/etc. The responsible (existentialist?) thing to do instead is claim your opinion as yours and enjoy or suffer the social consequences.

Art is an inherently social activity. Without the social component I'm not sure we have art.

Yes, way off topic. But interesting.
 
Back
Top Bottom