- This topic is empty.
- Posts
An odd little idea was brought up in the “fable” thread, where otaraxia (I think) said “music is music”. And in reply, he got “music ISN’T music”. A pretty interesting idea. Sounds pretentious? Yes, fair enough – it does. But give it a thought. I could see how there’d be an argument for both sides, maybe… I’ll be interested to see what comes of this little ponderer.
Happy brain-bashing,
>¦:o)
The JMaybe you could have a chat with Mr Oxford and his English Dictionary. :o)
At no time does he indicate that music is a lie created by the Devil to wreak havoc on society…A. n. I. Musical art, performance, or composition.
1. a. The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds to produce beauty of form, harmony, melody, rhythm, expressive content, etc.; musical composition, performance, analysis, etc., as a subject of study; the occupation or profession of musicians.
The word has often been used specifically to denote the art of musical performance, sometimes with particular reference to instrumental performance, although contextually it can denote other branches, as composition, musicology, etc.b. Chiefly poet. With capital initial. This art personified.
2. a. The vocal or instrumental sound produced by practical exercise of the art of music (whether live, pre-recorded, etc.). in (good, true) music: in tune (obs.).
broken musicb. Usually with defining word or phrase: a particular style, genre, or tradition of musical performance or composition; (also) the work of a particular composer or writer. Often treated as a count noun in later use.
For established compounds see the first element.c. Vocal or instrumental sounds put together in melodic, harmonic, or rhythmical combination, as by a composer; a composed musical setting (freq. including both melody and accompaniment) to which a poem, etc., may be sung; (also) the musical accompaniment to a ballet, play, etc.
6. The written or printed score of a musical composition; such scores collectively; musical composition as represented by conventional graphic symbols.
or possibly:
9. a. Chiefly in fig. context. Something likened to music by virtue of its beauty or charm, or the pleasure which it produces. Freq. in music to one’s ears: something which it is gratifying to hear, pleasant news (see also quot. a1585, sense 8a).
_____
(Yes, I know Oxford isn’t a man…)“If it sounds good it is good.”
The definition of what music is, has changed over the years actually.
In most definitions music is defined by “sounds” but it is the lack of sound (silence, rests) that gives music its context. So that brings me back to the opening quote by Duke Ellington; it means what it means to who thinks it, or Music is subjective.Nat
I’ll just say that music IS music, because….well, music is music. Ya know?
music=music
Blunt – Ah, the gool ol’ OED spent many a long hour together in the library. Kudos for bringing up that piece of literature…speaking of which, the “is music music?” argument can be broadened to any matter (i.e. “is cloning ‘science’ or ‘playing god?'”) You’ll never find a satisfactory answer. If it isn’t baroque, don’t fix it
-E
“is cloning ‘science’ or ‘playing god?'”
Incidentally, there was a rather enlightening composition written about that last year by Steve Reich. The last movement in “Three Tales” deals with that very issue, and it’s quite a thought-provoking piece. The CD release also contains the DVD of the work, which was conceived as a visual piece. It is my favorite modern classical piece from last year!
Nat
Interesting – I like Steve Reich, but I’ve been obsessed with clapping music for years… I need to broaden my Reich horizons – I’m a little behind with him! And here’s clapping music for all those who’ll understand it:
xxxoxxoxoxxo
xxoxxoxoxxox
xoxxoxoxxoxx
oxxoxoxxoxxx
xxoxoxxoxxxo
xoxoxxoxxxox
oxoxxoxxxoxx
xoxxoxxxoxxo
oxxoxxxoxxox
xxoxxxoxxoxo
xoxxxoxxoxox
oxxxoxxoxoxx
xxxoxxoxoxxoThat’s right… I love it so much, I can write it from memory. oh dear.
>¦:o)
The JMusic is any noise that you make on purpose.
Burt
Music is not subjective. It is not defined by whatever one thinks it is. A cherry pie is not music. A light show is not music. Three minutes and twelve seconds of silence is NOT music. Nor is music any noise that you make on purpose. Speaking is not music. Applause after a concert is not music.
*Music* is music. The OED definitions are helpful (though perhaps not absolutely definitive) in determining whether a specific instance is subsumed under that concept.
(On the cloning issue, asking whether it’s “‘science’ or ‘playing god'” is a false alternative, since science *is* “playing god.” It is reshaping nature to serve human purposes–which, incidentally, is a basic requirement of human survival. There have hardly been any scientific achievements, particularly in the field of medicine, that haven’t been denounced by some religious fanatics somewhere as “playing god”–the same “arguments” were made against anasthesia (especially during child-birth), vaccination, etc. ad nauseum, and outside of medicine against things like steamboats. But “playing god” is what human beings do, that’s how we survive. Those who denounce “playing god” are really denouncing human life as such. And if that’s the best argument that they can give against cloning, then I say we should welcome it with open arms–both therapeutic and reproductive. All of the fears against it are unfounded and ignorant. [/ends rant] )
Huh…I enjoy Steve Reich myself. “Violin Phase” (I think that’s what it’s called) is what I happened upon right after watching “Koyanisqatsi” (Philip Glass, I know it wasn’t written by Reich). Talk about a totally legal head trip! Thanks for the recommendation, Nat…
-E
Andrew:
“Nor is music any noise that you make on purpose. Speaking is not music. Applause after a concert is not music.”
So what is rap, then? And what about konnakol (sp?), the Indian classical percussion language? Or the Ramayana “monkey chant”? You need to broaden your perspective a bit, my man.
Burt
Andrew:
“Three minutes and twelve seconds of silence is NOT music.”Actually, it’s three minutes and TWENTYTWO seconds.
Everything is music. Music is everything.“This chair is music.” (John Cage)
I don’t see this thread going anywhere but down. What’s literature? Maybe one day they’ll be reading Kellogg’s cereal boxes in American literature courses – who knows! The same goes for music. This is one conversation from which I’ll excuse myself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of healthy debates – but keep the gloves on, eh? (FYI, I posed the “is cloning ‘science’ or ‘playing god?'” question as a further illustration of my point, not as a question to be answered on this board. If anyone wants to hear my opinions on the aforementioned matters, email me directly. I’m not about to go wasting Ryan’s space with my rants).
-E
Wow – this thread’s really flown off the handle! But then, what should I expect, posing a question like that… On the subject of Glass –
What’s Koyaanisqatsi about – A friend told me about it, saying it was amazing, and singing its praises to the high heavens. And I’ve heard of the sequel, but can’t remember what it’s called. Also, is Kundun any good?
Funny you should mention Glass, too… I’m listening to his music right now (…or is it music? – just kidding!) As samey as much of his music is, I think the hours is the best incarnation of his arpeggiated nature so far… unless Koyaanisqatsi really is as good as I’ve been told… is it?>¦:o)
The J“So what is rap, then?”
An ugly S.O.B quacking obscenities into a microphone while some other ugly S.O.B plays a little ditty over and over again on a little Casio with a built-in drum-machine.
Burt:
I didn’t say that rap isn’t music. I said that not *all* purposeful noise is music. I think rap certainly counts as music–although in many (most?) cases it is *bad* music (Dantz’s description is sadly often accurate).
It is possible not only for one’s perspective to be too narrow, but also too broad. For example, take the perspective stated by John Cage (and parroted by Nin Cherry). If you let a concept subsume anything and everything, all that you’ve done is completely emptied that concept of any genuine meaning in your own mind. And to be frank, anyone who would actually pay for or waste time “listening” to three minutes and *twenty two* (excuse my earlier innacuracy, but in this case, does it really matter?) seconds of silence is a total idiot.
It used to be that a philosopher could give such examples as a reductio ad absurdum of subjectivism/relativism. But of course, the danger with the reductio ad absurdum method of argumentation is that your opponent may simply accept the absurdity–as has clearly been demonstrated to be the case in this thread. But it is still a useful method to use in order to identify those who would accept an absurdity, because then you can stop wasting your time arguing with someone who has completely abandoned reason. And anyone who thinks that a chair is music has absolutely nothing of value to say on the topic of music, and so if that is the dominant opinion of people on this message board then I won’t bother participating in this discussion any longer.
“And to be frank, anyone who would actually pay for or waste time “listening” to three minutes and *twenty two* (excuse my earlier innacuracy, but in this case, does it really matter?) seconds of silence is a total idiot”
Are you guys talking about some song in particular here?
john cage is just a cock. his prepared piano is great, but that idea of “the audience’s reaction being the music” in 3:22 minutes is just a fuckin cop out
The whole idea around Gage’s silence piece (it is only know as 3 min 22 sec because that is how long it took to perform it the first time) is that it freed the audience from just being a bystander to music:
“If the composer does nothing, then the audience has everything to do.”
It’s about reversing the role of composer and audience.
For anyone interested in Experimental music, let me again refer to the 1974 book by Michael Nyman “Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond”. And for anyone who doesn’t think that the silent piece is not music because it has no notation, it does:
I.
TACETII.
TACETIII.
TACET(…and in 3 movements no less). What Cage was doing was going to an extreme (like Schoenberg did with his strict 12 tone system). Without silence there would be no music, so he wondered ‘well then, is silence music?’ Silence is used as a tool in music, just like the 12 tone system is used as a tool today. In their strictest (and purest) sense they may seem foolish and absurd, but the final product is not what was important, it was the process – a process that led to leaving the very definition of music wide open. And I believe one day it will prove to be the very building blocks of matter (check out the big TOE theory known as “Superstring Theory”.
Nat
But that’s just my opinion (and I’m always wrong, right)
Yeah, but didn’t he sit at a piano and do nothing? Making it seem like he WAS going to play something? That’s just messin with the audience. Nobody can sit there and watch that and think of how great and inspirational and beautiful it is. You sit there and think “what the hell is this?” or “this is stupid.” I do see where he was coming from, and maybe I guess somebody had to do it, but you definitely won’t see me sitting in the audience at a performance of the piece.
The fact is, it isn’t entertaining. So, that brings me to my question of what the difference is between music and just plain sound. Is music maybe considered sounds that are entertaining, or pleasing to the ear maybe? Or if it’s a sequence of sounds brought together by someone with the INTENT of being entertaining, is it music? Or if a certain sound is just an annoying, everyday sound to somebody, but to another person, it’s a beautiful, soothing melody, does that make it regular sound, or music? I hope you guys see where I’m going with this, because now the topic of this thread is starting to intrigue me.
“Yeah, but didn’t he sit at a piano and do nothing?”
He raised and then lowered the keyboard lid for each movement.
‘You sit there and think “what the hell is this?” or “this is stupid.”‘
“The fact is, it isn’t entertaining.”No, but ART doesn’t have to be ENTERTAINING? Does it?
“Is music maybe considered sounds that are entertaining, or pleasing to the ear maybe?”
Then anything that you didn’t like would not be music.
“Or if it’s a sequence of sounds brought together by someone with the INTENT of being entertaining, is it music?”
There is a lot of music that is meant for more than entertaining – Mass settings, tribal chanting, piano exercises, ect.
“Or if a certain sound is just an annoying, everyday sound to somebody, but to another person, it’s a beautiful, soothing melody, does that make it regular sound, or music?”
A good example of this would be the movie “Dancer In The Dark”.
I find this subject continually fascinating, because it’s not just the fact that someone like John Cage can write a piece consisting of silence, but that so many people have discussed a piece about silence? It sure as hell makes me think. But then again, I’ve been labeled an idiot already.
Nat
Wow, my musings are wrong then….?
Silence is very effective in music, but only for a few seconds at a time.
…How in the hell did he get the audience to not clap before the end of the silence? Do they just know the song, does he announce it before the song begins?
Who was it that recently orchestrated silence (yes… that’s right. for orchestra not piano!) and got sued?
…or something like that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.