[elissabowden]

Being an INFP, I am naturally an abstract thinker. I will think out side of lines and definitions. In fact, I will go as far sometimes to think that most things are relative.

I'm just wondering if, as INTJs, does the statement "sound is music" make any sense to you?

If you are perceptive and think outside the box, I would think you would be able to sit in a room and listen to the music, or as some people call it, "sound", of the room or the ambiance.

Would you agree? Or are you limited to thinking "sound is a noise. it is vibrations moving through the air." or can you say that if you hear something, your mind can produce it into a song or music.

Example: John Cage's 4'33"- a pianist comes onto the stage, sits at a piano, and waits for 4'33". The idea was the sounds in the room create music.

 

[Grey]

I don't mean to be rude, but don't be surprised if you receive some negative replies - even I thought this question was a thinly veiled 'INFPs are better abstract thinkers' at first.

INTJs are naturally abstract, as are INFPs. Ne and Ni are 'abstract-based' functions, and they perceive in less common ways over Si and Se. What makes INTJs seem less abstract and stuck in the rut of scientific terms, however, comes from our Te. Since Te is our Judging Function in the supportive function, we're always trying to relate our abstract perceptions into something practical and efficient in the outside world. While we may perceive sound as music, as per your example, what we do with it is entirely different than an INFP, who has their judging function as Fi, which is actually first and foremost for them (dominant).

 

[Kevinaswell]

*nods at Grim's post in agreement*

For sure.

I don't think it's any sort of sign that you're more abstract. And if it is, I don't think that there is necessarily any value in interpreting all sounds as "music" or thinking of that nature.

Music by definition ISN'T just sounds. A thunderstorm no matter how pleasant it sounds isn't a song. Genuine music implies intentional human composition and manipulation OF sounds. And even though humans made all the shit that's making sounds...they didn't make the air conditioner with the intent to create a rhythmic beat that appeals to the human psyche...you know?

I mean sure, if I'm chilling in a room and I hear a rhythmic siren outside or something I'll be the first one to bust out with some "BOOM BOOM BOOM" rave beat.

If anything, I'd saying interpreting things in this way is even LESS helpful than the 'abstractness' that you suggested it implies. More entertaining for sure, but it doesn't do much to reflect the awesomeness of music...

EDIT: OH YEA I didn't mean to suggest that you were actually trying to be all "wtf i'm way abstract are you guys less abstract?" like Grim suggested it'd come off as...I just kinda got stuck in the state of mind after reading his post so it's reflected in mine

 

[Grey]

Not to go off-topic, but where did Grim post in this? Did you post in the wrong thread or something?

 

[0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34]

This is a bad way of telling if someone is an abstract thinker or not. Sometimes I will make music out of sounds... nonetheless:

S's think inside of the box.

INFP's think outside of the box for the sake of doing so.

INTJ's go outside of the box and bring things back with them. We have a knack for finding objects that will fit inside of said box. Not that I don't enjoy exploring an abstract theory for it's own sake, but when an NF insists that it is true or should be applied in reality when it clearly doesn't fit, then repeats themselves instead of giving examples of how this could work in reality, is what can tick me off.

 

[Kevinaswell]

Not to go off-topic, but where did Grim post in this? Did you post in the wrong thread or something?

No I'm just retarded and meant to say you.

Oops.

 

[Kevinaswell]

There are a couple bands I know of that use mostly abstract common sounds in their music.

I'd have to think a little, but I used to know this one band that used a lot of sounds that occurred in emergency rooms.

 

[danicx]

INTJ's craft their box from scratch, not taking any conventional idea for granted. Then they can limitlessly expand the walls of their box, allowing for the inclusion of abstractly-gathered ideas, but there are strict admission standards. They do however actively search for ideas in the interest of expanding and adding to the box.

With music, I acknowledge that even the most beautiful, powerful symphonies are just sound waves - but the music still impacts me deeply, and I can react to it and think about what it means to me in a human context. To me, it would feel like thinking inside an (inflexible) box to reject the knowledge that the things that move us aren't truly spiritual or unearthly. To me freedom is knowing that and continuing to fully enjoy those things for their natural impact.

 

[Wien1938]

To me, music is made from sounds (I also find the Cage experiments ridiculous)... But sound is not therefore music - music is a particular form of shaped sound, which has an influence on the human mind.

I am quite capable of abstract thought for its own sake but when I am being serious, my abstract thinking is tested against the demands of reality or adapted to fit into reality.

 

[miro]

I find Kevin's thnking a bit strange (or just different). Why can't thunderstorms and air conditioners be music? ...and what's the definition of music anyway? Can't everyone have their own definition for music? ...and what's genuine music? What about other kind of music?

If someone records the sound of an air conditioner and gives the recording a label and title and you find it on shelf next to music CDs... would you think it's music? To me, the packaging doesn't make any difference. But still, what's music to one might not be music to others.

I'm not sure if I agree with Elissa about 4'33. I don't think the sounds in the room are part of it at all. I would try to ignore the sounds in the room when I "listen" to this one. It comes down to the question: what makes sounds music? Or actually, how would you explain music to someone who only understands sounds? You can give them examples with sounds. Examples help the conrete thinker understand ... well, the examples. By listening to sounds, at least they get the illusion of understanding music. But how many sounds (or how much sound) do you have to hear before you hear music? What about music without any sound? How can this be explained to a concrete thinker? I find it hard to come up with examples of sounds of music without any. Sound samples from John Cage 4'33 ? That's where I conclude that the examples only lead astray. They don't help the concrete thinker understand the abstract concept of music.

Give every sound a chance to be music ok?

 

[mdawn]

I do not grasp the concept or relevance of this thread.

 

[Flora]

I don't get it either?

 

[Filo]

Think out of the box and things will become clear.

 

[IncredibleMouse]

I prefer to think in the confines of the box until the box is full, then I'll get another box and continue stacking boxes until I've got a massive wall of boxes. Then I'll light those on fire and start making new boxes to think in. If I can't find some boxes to work with, I'll just use a bubble in the space of my mind, which gathers crap up until a box comes along, then the bubble pops, fills up the new found boxes, and I break my arm patting myself on the back. That doesn't happen often enough, there's usually box sitting around somewhere begging for attention, having proved itself many times over.

I could be wrong, however, since music contains sounds, you'd have to define music for an answer. Music is an arrangement of sound creating an effect. Well, crap on a stick, that sure sounds like every sound can be heard as music, since even random sounds produce an effect. The whole of the argument seems moot. Unless you bring in the element of appreciation for the sound or music. In which case, personal preference to what you hear determines your decision, and that's just genetics.

 

[NiDBiLD]

Has anyone noticed how posts made by perciever types generally make a lot of different points, like they all branch off from the same thought, while posts made by judger types (at least the NTJs) go pretty straight from point to point to get to the conclusion?

Perciever: "A, and also B, D, G and L, and by the way, W."

Judger: "A, thus B. Therefore Z."

 

[lirulin]

I don't think trying redefine words to suit one's own personal preference counts as thinking outside the box. Sure, in another world, music needn't have intentionality in the definition. But it does, so "musical" - implying simile - would be a better term. I like precision in language - using language creatively with some respect for what it actually is, rather than distorting it and calling that creative. I think it can take more creativity to work with the rules sometimes.

I do like art that plays with preconceptions to a degree, but I find a lot of the art that purports to do so is really just changing the definition - a definition that exists for a reason - and then pretends that makes it deep or perceptive. The worst part is that sheep go along with it because they are willing to doubt themselves in the face of an "authority." Of course no one ever thought of sitting silently in a room as music before - because that's not what the word means! No one will have thought of a teapot as a fingernail clipper before - but hey, it isn't. That and when they do go after preconceptions, they are pretty obvious ones so it's not original to me. I do love the Surrealists & some modern art - but where the interpretation is as much creative writing as anything & the original piece has merit beyond how "mind-blowing" this interpretation is supposed to be & it doesn't take itself too seriously. Like the lobster telephone. Cute. A lot of it is just trying to be different for the sake of being different - which can be cool, just not when there is the implication that this is somehow insightful.
That said I will sit silently in rooms and listen to the sounds and make stuff up to go along with it, pretend as if it is all meaningful in a way it isn't - I just won't call that music unless I am being metaphorical. A comparison, not a definition.

In terms of the metaphor, I think INFPs think outside the box. For INTJs the polygon is constantly adapting, something like this but always moving and altering:

 

[Trainwreck]

Yeah.. I like perusing this board because one of my good friends is INTJ and I have sort of an affinity for the type, and It seems like a lot of feeling types like to come around here and ask, "Are you guys just human computers? And if so, lawl " I'm not even INTJ and I feel slightly offended on their behalf.

 

[Trainwreck]

Music by definition ISN'T just sounds. A thunderstorm no matter how pleasant it sounds isn't a song. Genuine music implies intentional human composition and manipulation OF sounds. And even though humans made all the shit that's making sounds...they didn't make the air conditioner with the intent to create a rhythmic beat that appeals to the human psyche...you know?

If anything, I'd saying interpreting things in this way is even LESS helpful than the 'abstractness' that you suggested it implies. More entertaining for sure, but it doesn't do much to reflect the awesomeness of music...

I disagree with that. While I think it is lazy on behalf of a composer, be it an abstract artist or a musician to just sit on his ass for four minutes, or even God for that matter to just throw a bunch of chaos at you and expect you to derive some sort of order out of it to survive, flourish, and prosper, I don't think we should say that arranging one's environment is eliminating a composure, it's merely making the self the composure with the way it arranges what it senses. When dreaming do we not compose for ourselves something? Personally, I hate abstract art, but there have been times when I've arranged the cacophony of sounds in my office into something more pleasant and it's a most enjoyable experience.

Just throwin' in my rumination anyway.

 

[beth x]

I figure I can take a big splashy dump (the kind that only comes from pain meds and dehydration) arrange it with emo cat meows (alerting me to the fact he has only 3 biscuits left) mix over it with the three leaf blower (a high pitch number driven by no-neck neighbor) sprinkles of some tart blue language from yours truly and giggles too (from being entertained by Hemo and Snowguard) over-dubbed with 10 year old boy next door telling his mother to "go get fucken' fucked whilst mother tells son he is a fucken' stupid shit (in Aussie Strine dialect) and I may be on a winner.

The piece will be called Beth's Delerium.

Whaddya reckon?

 

[miro]

I see a lot of personal opinions here. But is your world defined by you? If someone else has a different idea of music, are they wrong? I think everyone is entitled to have their own ideas.

When you ask "is silence music?" I think you're getting side-tracked. Of course, music contains sounds (at least most of the time). What if you interpret music as the big picture and sounds as the details in it? I would think that INTJs can see the big picture too, because of the N, but do they need the details (because of the J)? Can music be something that you never thought that could be music? Or are you already aware of all kinds of sounds that could possibly make music? ...or would you be surprised to hear what kind of sounds someone in the world calls music because they think it's music? That might be the difference between thinking inside and thinking outside the box.... or just acknowledging that someone else might be thinking outside your box(es).