I think it's fair to say that sometimes people attempt to make music and aren't successful. That doesn't mean music that gets played on the radio that some person doesn't like isn't "real" music. I'm thinking more like a musician tries out a chord progression and decides it's not working musically so they never record it in the first place. Or if a cat walks across a piano the result probably isn't music. There will always be grey areas, but I think there are things that are almost universally regarded as music, and other things that are almost universally regarded as not-music. Some part of musical appreciation is subjective and culturally influenced, but some parts are innate and based on mathematical relationships and psychoacoustics that are the same for almost every human.
> I-V and IV-V seems to be the same with the point of reference moved to IV
I-V moves up by a 5th, whereas IV-V moves up by a major second. I would buy that I-V is the same as IV-I, but with a different point of reference.
I think it's fair to say that sometimes people attempt to make music and aren't successful. That doesn't mean music that gets played on the radio that some person doesn't like isn't "real" music. I'm thinking more like a musician tries out a chord progression and decides it's not working musically so they never record it in the first place. Or if a cat walks across a piano the result probably isn't music. There will always be grey areas, but I think there are things that are almost universally regarded as music, and other things that are almost universally regarded as not-music. Some part of musical appreciation is subjective and culturally influenced, but some parts are innate and based on mathematical relationships and psychoacoustics that are the same for almost every human.
> I-V and IV-V seems to be the same with the point of reference moved to IV
I-V moves up by a 5th, whereas IV-V moves up by a major second. I would buy that I-V is the same as IV-I, but with a different point of reference.