- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I don’t know about that one… All I know is that there are several versions of 3’22” by John Cage, not only for piano but for big band and orchestra too. I’ve once listened to a radio broadcast of the Chicago Symphony playing it (conducted by Sir Georg Solti, if I remember correctly)…
That’s completely ridiculous! I can understand Cage wanting to make a point, but that’s going too far!
Cage got your attention, didn’t he? Isn’t that one – of many – purposes of music: to get the audience’s attention? I sure think so.
-E
Precisely Erika!
Nat
P.S.There is only one version of that piece by John Cage and it calls for any number of performers (from solo to large ensemble).
Hm….yes, music isn’t subjective in the sense that you can’t go up to a wall and point to it and say “This is music.” Or, any other number of inanimate objects and such, which has already been pointed out.
But, it is subjective in the context that it “varies from manifestation to manifestation” because if you think about things–anything really–it becomes relative to who and/or what it percieving it.
I mean, we have words for colors and all–like red, for example. But, how can we know that one person sees the color red the exact same way someone else does? You can’t, really. And it gets even trickier when you try and define something that’s not concrete.
So, I’m thinking Nat has hit upon the best theory, that “If it sounds good it is good” but then you’d have to add “If it sounds bad it is bad” and “If it sounds mediocre, it sounds mediocre” and an infinate number of other possibilities and such.
I mean, even the worst music ever composed is appreciated by someone–so it’s “all very personal” and all. And I really don’t know why random BeetleJuice quotes keep popping up, but there they go. Maybe the movie was really about music theory….
“Hm….yes, music isn’t subjective in the sense that you can’t go up to a wall and point to it and say “This is music.” Or, any other number of inanimate objects and such, which has already been pointed out.”
But what if the score calls for someone to erect a wall (you really must take a look at some experimental pieces sometime), then it would be music.
Nat
P.S. “If it sounds good it is good” is a quote from Duke Ellington so I can’t even imagine taking credit for that.
I thought it was a quote from Elfman.
So, uh, DANNY ELFMAN, ANYONE?
Well, I’m not talking about putting a wall up or tapping on a wall or doing anything to said wall–I mean, just a wall, in and of itself, is not music. Obviously if you do something to the wall at the time, it can be considered a form of music.
But, even if you have something directly linked to music, like a drum–if it isn’t being used, it’s just an object. Granted it has the capacity to inflict music–but a drum in and of itself is not music. Which is kinda what I was going for with the whole wall bit.
(I know the quote wasn’t straight from you, Nat, but you were the one who pointed it out and all, so I give you credit for bringing the quote to the conversation. Sorry I didn’t clarify on that bit).
“just a wall is not music”
Well, I have to “parrot” again (I’m deeply sorry, Andrew):
“Architectur is frozen music.” – Johann Wolfgang Goethe
Nice quote Nin.
Nat
Nat Said:
“But what if the score calls for someone to erect a wall (you really must take a look at some experimental pieces sometime), then it would be music.”
So, are you implying that music is something that a musical score tells you to do? In my opinion, you can go as experiMENTAL as it gets, but unless there is something at least slightly recognizeable to the listener, it is not classed as music by that listener.
Another quote… “Nothing is original” – I don’t know who said that, I’m afraid, but a mate of mine keeps saying it, and it’s quite true to a point… Music doesn’t just happen, it evolves.
So, going back to the erection of the brick wall idea…
If that was done today, the audience would want to hear some kind of rhythmic clanging, or a steady beat made by the bricks hitting together – something like that. If the sound made by erecting the wall is seemingly nonsensical, with no apparent structure of sorts (yet another quote – “Music is nothing without structure” – Igor Stravinsky), then the audience won’t be able to relate to the sounds, and therefore won’t classify those sounds as music.However, if we fast forward something like a century, there may be concerts where brick walls are erected in random ways, making nonsensical sounds without structure. The reason this could happen in the future is that the music we write today is slowly modified, and will eventually evolve into the brick wall stuff, and those “nonsensical noises” will NOT be nonsensical to the audience of the future. It will mean more to them than it would to us now.
An audience can never really accept something that is totally new to them – there must be something, however tiny, something recogniseable for their ears to cling on to.
That’s one thought, anyway…
>¦:o)
The JBut pieces like those have been written under the guise of music, so you can’t say it’s not music when a piece is written. Music is not dictated by its audience and what they want to hear. It’s what the composer wants the audience to hear (or not to hear). It is up to the audience to interpret that work. However, in a lot of experimental pieces the “music” is the audience’s reactions to the piece and the role of interpreter has shifted.
THE J: “If the sound made by erecting the wall is seemingly nonsensical, with no apparent structure of sorts (yet another quote – “Music is nothing without structure” – Igor Stravinsky), then the audience won’t be able to relate to the sounds, and therefore won’t classify those sounds as music.”
So does that mean if I write a piece that sounds nonsensical then it is not music? No, because it does have a structure, it’s just not apparent to you. When you look at the structure of a lot of Experimental music, it is really interesting (at least for this idiot
).There is a real interesting work by Cornelius Cardew called “Poem” were instruments are “-anything that can be dragged across a floor, or any other sound source” and that “their articulation, location and touch are left free; any sort of floor surface may be used and sounds may be made at any point inside or outside the performance space.”
And Carder commented on this piece saying “The work developed into a kind of ‘chamber opera’ in which any activity, not necessarily even of a sound variety could last minutes, or weeks, or aeons. In fact it was quickly realized that all being and happening from the very beginning of time had been nothing more than a single gigantic performance of ‘Poem’.”It is up to you to interpret that piece.
I Love this discussion,
Nat
I also think that it depends on if the audience is willing to participate or not.
For instance, back in the day, I grew up in a not-so-perfect neighborhood. So, when my neighbor (who liked to not only partake in narcotics, but various “clients” as well) had one of her–ahem–boyfriends over, and they kinda took turns throwing each other down the stairs at three in the morning while screaming all kinds of stuff….well, they were making noise, but I wouldn’t call it music.
So, there does have to be some kinda borderline between that which is noise, and that which is music. Now, as to telling the difference between the two, it’d be pretty damn hard. I can’t really argue all that well, because I don’t know anything about the technical aspect of music. But I could bring up stuff like extremes.
I mean, to someone who hasn’t had the capacity to hear their entire life–say they were to get their hearing corrected–well then, pretty much everything would sound fantastic to them; like music almost. So, maybe they’d dig hearing a drug-induced prostitute screaming and all–at least for awhile (it’s something that’d get old, quick, to almost anyone, I think).
But obviously, to someone who’s trying to actually sleep and all–it wouldn’t be music. So, that’s why I’m thinking pretty much anything can go with music–but it all depends upon who is judging it; there’s gotta be an audience willing to participate.
It’s almost like reading a book, really. I mean, you open up Stephen King’s From a Buick 8, and you’ve gotta make a choice pretty quick: are you willing to believe that there’s a car from another universe and/or dimension that has strange alien-type things pop out of the hood? Or, are you gonna say it’s nonsense from the start, and put it back down and find something else.
Same thing applies to music: either you’re there for the ride, or you’re not. I’ve never really thought “suspension of disbelief” applies to music–but I suppose in a way, it does; especially when you’re dealing with interpretive pieces and such.
“there’s gotta be an audience willing to participate.”
Really?
So if you play by yourself then it’s not music?
There’s a really cool project that I was shown as a composition student and I have since used it in composition lessons that I’ve taught: You give the student a recording of a snippet from real life; a busy street, a park filled with bird calls and dogs barking, ect. That student is then asked to notate what he hears, and in doing so creates a score that could then be performed (matching what they heard on the recording). What started out as “noise” easily became music.
“For instance, back in the day, I grew up in a not-so-perfect neighborhood. So, when my neighbor (who liked to not only partake in narcotics, but various “clients” as well) had one of her–ahem–boyfriends over, and they kind of took turns throwing each other down the stairs at three in the morning while screaming all kinds of stuff….well, they were making noise, but I wouldn’t call it music.”
But if they were performing this act because they were following a score that gave instructions for them to throw themselves down the stairs then it would be music.
Music doesn’t just consist of sound.
Nat
I once went to a classical concert with an African friend (he’s from Zimbabwe) who came visiting me for the first time – and it was the first time for him to listen to classical music!
They’ve played Brahms, Haydn and Debussy’s La mer (what an odd combination…), and my friend just couldn’t stop laughing! I was kind of embarrassed… When I asked him why he’s laughing he told me that “it’s extremely silly to watch how so many people in dark suits are making such strange noises!”If you’ve never listened to such stuff before, you do not necessarily consider it to be “music”…
Thanks, Nin – that’s my point exactly! I think that the difference between me and Nat’s points is becoming a matter of taste, seeing as I don’t really have an interest in experimental music – but i can’t knock it… it’s an experiment, so I suppose “normal” music learns something from it every now and then. Having said that, I still think that Nat is classifying music too “black & white”, as in “if a score tells you to do it, it’s music”.
Evil Dead brought up something very interesting, about deaf people regaining their hearing. The same thing goes for blind people regaining their sight. I recently heard that 100% (literally!) of blind people who regain their sight either commit suicide, become mentally ill, or die from the surprise and strain all this new information puts on the mind. I have very often heard stories of deaf people who get so damn annoyed by all these sounds they begin to hear – Imagine getting tinitus, but 1,000,000 times worse – it’s probably something like that (I can’t talk from personal experience, I’m afraid). I kinda relate this to the idea of hearing (back to the old example) a brick wall being erected. If we hear it before our time, then we’d probably hate it.
>¦:o)
The J (whose brain may explode any second now)But music is not all about hearing.
Nat
Eh, it’s about hearing, to me–because I can’t read music, and don’t dig vibrations in and of themselves.
If you’re all alone, and you’re creating music, and you’re playing it for yourself….well then, aren’t you the audience? I mean, you don’t have to have a huge group of people for it to be considered an audience.
(I’m going by the theory that writers write what they want to read, and composers create music they’d like to hear).
I suppose my main point in there has to be a line between music and noise is this: I know, that if anyone were to ever hear me even attempt to do anything musical what-so-ever–I think it’s a safe bet it would not be pretty, and it would not be considered music.
Although, it’d probably be rather hilarious–in the Evil Dead is an idiot kinda way….
“I know, that if anyone were to ever hear me even attempt to do anything musical what-so-ever–I think it’s a safe bet it would not be pretty, and it would not be considered music.”
But would YOU consider it music Evil Dead. People get up and dance all the time who can’t really dance, but they feel good doing it. Emphasis on FEEL! A lot of what the experimental movement in music was about was giving ‘normal’ people who didn’t have any musical training a way to participate in the creation of music.
A good example of the music not just being about what is heard is the “Farwell” Symphony of Haydn. If you just listen to the piece on CD then what you hear is the music becoming less dense as the piece comes to its conclusion, if you see a performance of this piece then you realize why it’s thinning out – because people are leaving! It was used by Haydn as a work of protest that called for members to one-by-one get up and leave after they had finished their playing. To the Royal family who employed Haydn, this “act” within the piece meant something that sound alone couldn’t produce: the protest that Haydn and the orchestra members wanted to convey for the lack of time off that they had. And it worked! (Incidentally there is a great documentary about Haydn hosted by Peter Ustinov that is excellent, that depicts this piece in an amusing way)
If you consider that you can write a piece of music that is so quite that it can’t be heard, but yet it requires an action from the performer, would you say that that person wasn’t playing? I find that the technique of producing a sound is just as interesting as the sound itself and in that lays the crux of our dilemma. I say music is feeling. And you say it is sound. That piece of silence by Cage instigated a feeling (no matter what kind, good, bad, or indifferent) from an audience, and so I say that is music. But there is never an absence of sound (so in a since you are also right).
So I put forward that the augment is no longer ‘is music music’, but is music feeling?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Nat
No, I would not consider anything I ever do considered music in the slightest. Then again, music is something I dig listening to, and not participating in (which means I don’t make an effort to make music, in first place–unless you count pushing the “play” button. That, I can do).
I see how music could be music just by being an act in and of itself, and not necessarily heard–but you wouldn’t know that, unless you were seeing it, would you? And, would the silence still carry meaning if it wasn’t surrounded by sound? I don’t know myself, I’m just thinking out loud, more than anything….
I think my main downfall in all this is that I deal with more concrete things–like written words, and sketches and such. Music is really abstract–and to me, it’s like math when I try and figure it out: it just doesn’t work.
I wouldn’t say music is feeling–because that emcompases far too much; it’s too inclusive, you dig? I mean, to say that music is feeling, would kinda be like saying people who can’t experience music don’t feel. (I’m talking people who have physical disabilities which prevent them from partaking in any form of music).
But at the same time, I would say music is a form of feeling–but again, it’s too intangible for me to hit upon. I mean, I know when I’m working with charcoals, I feel something–a form of liberation, perhaps; a sense of accomplishment–but beyond that, I’m not sure.
I’m thinking for the most part, though, music is not feeling, so much as it is the act of provoking a feeling. I mean, you can’t say, “Someone looks music today” instead of happy or sad or whatever. But, you could say “The music makes someone happy or sad or such.”
this thread has gotten so long.
No you wouldn’t say “Someone looks music today”. Just like you wouldn’t say that “someone looks a feeling today”. Instead you would say “that guy has a song in his heart” or “Man is he singing the blues”- you would have to be specific of what kind of music (feeling) you meant. I said Music is feeling, not Music is A feeling because it’s broader than that. Music incorporates all feeling – even those that we don’t have words to express. I guess that’s why the language of music had to be invented. There are some things that only music can convey (what are they? I can’t say because there are no words to describe it).
Here’s another little query: When I say music, that also refers to the written language as well. A score is a piece of music even before it is performed. I guess what I’m getting at is that music has several forms (or states). There is a Static form (a score, sheet music, lead sheet, ect.) that is like kinetic energy that is being stored, then an Active form (the actual sound that is produced or not according to the score, ect.), and then you have a Reactive form (where music has an effect upon a listener or object, ect.). So I guess the feeling part comes in the Reactive stage. Music is feeling, just not restricted by it.
Nat (the blabbing lunatic)
P.S. sorry Ryan that I’ve gotten so deep into this thread, say the word and I’ll take it elsewhere.
All I can say is “LOL”. Many thanks to The J for posing one of the most interesting off-topic threads I’ve seen here. Worth every byte of Ryan’s space.
Can I add (if I haven’t missed it) that much of Cage’s career was rooted in challenging the musical philosophies of the past, so when he comes out with quasi-metaphorical statements his attempt is to make you think rather than take at face value. His work 4’33”, for example, is so named because the number of minutes is equal to the temperature of Absolute Zero (273C), at which point all atomic (?) movement ceases. It also reflects a time in his life when he shut himself in a sound-proof room and gradually became aware of sound such as the electricity of the brain humming. So “silence” doesn’t necessarily mean silence, and, post Varese, noise can equate to music, since Cage deliberately seeks this background noise in this work.
Um, I think. I’m typing this entirely from memory and for some reason have never read Nyman’s book, which might say something completely different. Never believe everything you read on the web. Not least the OED!
Blunt
I’m doing this post in two sections, cos it doesn’t work when I do it all at once…
Yes, a pretty successful thread, I think! hehe. Well, nat – you’re certianly turning me around, here… I see what you mean about the ‘feeling’ thing. I totally agree that music is made to be emotive. I guess that “noises” or “silence” doesn’t move me. You could play a sound effect of an explosion to “frighten” the audience, but in my opinion, this still isn’t music. I believe in being able to craft the twelve tones of western music in such a way as to induce these feelings in the listener. This is related to art. I greatly admire art from the renaissance period, due to its beautiful accuracy to real life. With this accuracy, I feel I can safely say that that artist had honed his craft very well. However, when someone throws a pot of paint onto a giant canvas, everything is so accidental. I find there to be no skill to admire. They just chuck somethign down, and give it an extremely pretentious “meaning”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.