# Drawing Lines in Regards to Music and Non-Music



## pluhagr

I have always been bothered when people say that this, a particular musical work, is not music. This often happens with contemporary atonal works, and composers like John Cage. I myself have a very open mind when it comes to what is music and what is not. I take music to be organized sound. I'm wondering where others draw the line as to what is music and what is not. I also am interested in knowing what others view the definition of music is.


----------



## science

I think Edgard Varese said that music is structured sound, and I personally like that definition. 

Anyway, I share your mindset, and one of the best ways someone can advertise a work to me is to tell me something like, "It is terrible. That is not music." I really must express my only half ironic gratitude to all of the snobs who said things like that, leading me from musical discovery to musical discovery: to hip-hop and heavy metal, to free jazz, to Schoenberg, Crumb and Stockhausen.


----------



## pluhagr

Absolutely. I love so called ugly music. Anything that's gritty and grating. Threnody by Penderecki is a good example. Gorecki's 2nd Symphony is another. 
I also like Varese's definition. I think I'll use it from now on.


----------



## Xaltotun

I think I draw a sharper line between noise and music, perhaps because I'm still rather new to "music" and more familiar with "noise". But there's no value judgement there. Some years ago I listened to a lot of ambient and experimental stuff - I still like it, it's wonderful, I just don't like to put it in the same box with Brahms and Bruckner. To me, one of the most defining and fascinating features about classical music is its structure - it makes this art form so unique.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Musical philosophers might say that any sound is music. I once wrote an 800 word report on one question for homework at school that explained it. The teacher that came up with the question (which was actually "What is the difference between music and noise") hates atonality. I think she believes that it isn't music if you can't sing it in solfege.


----------



## science

I would be willing to consider that idea, but if all sound is music, then music is a useless term.

Now I am not an essentialist, meaning that I don't think music really is any such thing: it's just a concept, like "hot" or "big" or "art" or "religion" or "up" or "individual" or "planet" or "furniture" or "polite" and so on. It is what we think it is; it is nothing else. 

But anyway, it'd be strange for me to say that all sound is music. All sound could be used in music, and all sound could be analogous to music in some ways, but to me, sound is not music unless it was intentionally created to be heard.


----------



## pluhagr

Xaltotun said:


> I think I draw a sharper line between noise and music, perhaps because I'm still rather new to "music" and more familiar with "noise". But there's no value judgement there. Some years ago I listened to a lot of ambient and experimental stuff - I still like it, it's wonderful, I just don't like to put it in the same box with Brahms and Bruckner. To me, one of the most defining and fascinating features about classical music is its structure - it makes this art form so unique.


But so many of the classical structures are used so often. I find that it lacks creativity and newness. When musical structures are removed and tonality is left behind you get a much larger palette to work from. There are more emotions expressed. It becomes more intense and more musical to me at least.


----------



## pluhagr

science said:


> I would be willing to consider that idea, but if all sound is music, then music is a useless term.
> 
> Now I am not an essentialist, meaning that I don't think music really is any such thing: it's just a concept, like "hot" or "big" or "art" or "religion" or "up" or "individual" or "planet" or "furniture" or "polite" and so on. It is what we think it is; it is nothing else.
> 
> But anyway, it'd be strange for me to say that all sound is music. All sound could be used in music, and all sound could be analogous to music in some ways, but to me, sound is not music unless it was intentionally created to be heard.


Yes I agree that all sound is not music. But what about a birdcall? Is that noise or music? It lacks a creator because the birdcall from one species is the same. Why Cage's 4'33" is music to me is because he organized the concert to have no written music. That organization is key to music.

Another thing is that one can perceive noise to be music. Walk through the city one day and it's quite amazing how good things sound. Many composers take things that they hear and make it into music. Messiaen and his bird calls or Honegger and mechanical sounds.


----------



## Polednice

My working definition is that music is an exploration of any sound guided by a human hand. Thus, noise can become music if it is moulded in some way by a composer.

When people say to you that X composer didn't write music, what they're really saying is that X didn't write music to suit their aesthetic tastes. It's fine for them to like whatever it is they like, but equating "music" with "good music" is very misleading, and opens up silliness whereby "music" is a label to aspire to (like when people ask if the Beatles is "art"), when in fact it should just be a bog-standard word used to denote when sounds are exploited for their intrinsic interest.


----------



## pluhagr

Hm, I really like that.


----------



## Lenfer

I remember the first time I heard *Penderecki's* "*Threnody *". I looked at my other-half and said "Really? You like this?" but it has grown on me and I really like *Penderecki's* work now. At first I thought contemporary classical music was for type of person but not me. Now I'm starting to like more and more CC music, I still love classical music I think both types of music feed a different part of my musical appetite. I'm sorry I can't add much more to this thread I'm new to contemporary works but I'll be keeping my eye on it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

In a lecture I heard recently, the speaker said that separation of music and noise is the element of *mathematics*. Music that we recognize easily for being music is incredibly mathematical, but even modern atonal works use a kind of mathematics.


----------



## science

I think if we asked "what is mathematics" we would eventually arrive at "the study of patterns" as at least one fairly good definition. And then, it'd be hard to make something recognizable to anyone as music without any patterns whatsoever. So I'd guess that noise _can_ be patterned (and thus mathematical), but music _must_ be.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

science said:


> I think Edgard Varese said that music is structured sound, and I personally like that definition.


I'm not disagreeing with Varese, but I prefer the idea that music is _processed _sound - ie it consists of a *process *expressed in sound. I think it is important to take account of the temporal aspect and recognise that one's appreciation of a piece of music changes as we go through that process, and that is something the composer is intending to happen.


----------



## science

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I'm not disagreeing with Varese, but I prefer the idea that music is _processed _sound - ie it consists of a *process *expressed in sound. I think it is important to take account of the temporal aspect and recognise that one's appreciation of a piece of music changes as we go through that process, and that is something the composer is intending to happen.


If you don't mind me trying to translate your thoughts into my words, is it fair to say that for you "intentional sound over (or through) time" is the essence of music?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

science said:


> If you don't mind me trying to translate your thoughts into my words, is it fair to say that for you "intentional sound over (or through) time" is the essence of music?


Not really. Intention isn't enough. I could intend to write a composition which was solely 151 repetitions of a particular pitch at a consistent dynamic and regularity. And, having intended it, I could have done it. But there is no structure here, no process. If the notes speeded up, that would constitute an extremely minimal process - something has to happen for there to be any process, any structure.

(I don't object to the word 'structure', I just feel 'process' is better. It also makes improvised music much easier to describe and understand.)


----------



## Polednice

I think mathematics is a bit too broad a label to distinguish between music and noise. After all, any sound can be understood in terms of its acoustics, which is itself dependent on mathematical descriptions. Perhaps the desire to call music mathematical, as science suggests, is more to do with patterns and structures.


----------



## bigshot

The definition of what "music" is is very broad. The definition of what "good music" is isn't so much.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> The definition of what "music" is is very broad. The definition of what "good music" is isn't so much.


The definition of "music" can be fairly uncontroversial. The notion that there even exists a definition of "good music" is almost laughable.


----------



## bigshot

Everyone has a definition of what "good music" is. The criteria for judging is all that is different. If someone has no definition of what good music is, they're undiscerning.

I've worked with a few truly great artists. Every one of them had very carefully defined ideas of what made art good or bad. One of them even laughed at people who saw art as ice cream... all of it good, only different flavors. He said those people wouldn't know good if it bit them.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Everyone has a definition of what "good music" is. The criteria for judging is all that is different. If someone has no definition of what good music is, they're undiscerning.
> 
> I've worked with a few truly great artists. Every one of them had very carefully defined ideas of what made art good or bad. One of them even laughed at people who saw art as ice cream... all of it good, only different flavors. He said those people wouldn't know good if it bit them.


All of that is absolutely fine. I think people ought to be discerning, and I think every artist ought to have very serious convictions about what they think good art should be. But to say "good music" can be _defined_, suggests that there is are some general principles that ought to be widely agreed upon and, as it's a matter of taste, I don't think that's true, though it seems you don't either, so that's fine!


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Everyone has a definition of what "good music" is. The criteria for judging is all that is different. If someone has no definition of what good music is, they're undiscerning.
> 
> I've worked with a few truly great artists. Every one of them had very carefully defined ideas of what made art good or bad. One of them even laughed at people who saw art as ice cream... all of it good, only different flavors. He said those people wouldn't know good if it bit them.


 I have no definition of good music. I have no idea what good is. There is music that moves me and music that fails to do so. And I think that mathematics has some to do with music but not all. What about Cage's indeterminism? There is no intentionality in that. But is is still organized sound composed on a sheet of score paper by a composer so it is music. 
Also, noise can be very mathematical. Take mechanical sounds for example.


----------



## pluhagr

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Not really. Intention isn't enough. I could intend to write a composition which was solely 151 repetitions of a particular pitch at a consistent dynamic and regularity. And, having intended it, I could have done it. But there is no structure here, no process. If the notes speeded up, that would constitute an extremely minimal process - something has to happen for there to be any process, any structure.
> 
> (I don't object to the word 'structure', I just feel 'process' is better. It also makes improvised music much easier to describe and understand.)


Why wouldn't that composition of 151 repeated notes be music?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> I have no definition of good music. I have no idea what good is. There is music that moves me and music that fails to do so.


"Music You Like" and "Good Music" are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> Why wouldn't that composition of 151 repeated notes be music?


Philip Glass has been doing just that for decades. (With the same repeated notes!)


----------



## Guest

Add the listener in to this equation, and you won't be so troubled with intention or non-intention. At least that's what I've found to be true, anyway.

No matter what a composer intends, no matter if the sounds I'm hearing are just random traffic/construction/squirrel/bird noises, if I'm attending, if I'm listening and appreciating, then those sounds are music.

I don't quite follow the logic that if we call all sound music, then "music" doesn't have any meaning any more. But that could just be me. If "music" means "sound," then music still means something; it means what we've always meant by "sound."


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> All of that is absolutely fine. I think people ought to be discerning, and I think every artist ought to have very serious convictions about what they think good art should be.


Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected. -Oscar Wilde


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> No matter what a composer intends, no matter if the sounds I'm hearing are just random traffic/construction/squirrel/bird noises, if I'm attending, if I'm listening and appreciating, then those sounds are music.


That definition makes composers completely unnecessary. The creativity is all in your own head. Actually, that is a common opinion among hippies. They take drugs and think their distorted view of reality is art.

Personally, I prefer it if a composer has something important to say and says it eloquently. I don't consider any old thing to be music. It has to have some humanity to it.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Philip Glass has been doing just that for decades. (With the same repeated notes!)


And it's music!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

There will always be folks who have a "sound perversion" - just about anything that has a sound can be considered music to them, including John Cage (in an interview where he thought road traffic sounds were music, and even comparing that with music of Beethoven and Mozart). Good for them. I don't envy them. This concept essentially debases art music, making a damn mockery of high art developed in centuries before.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> "Music You Like" and "Good Music" are not necessarily the same thing.


I never mentioned anything about liking or disliking music. There is music that makes me feel something and music that doesn't.


----------



## Polednice

some guy said:


> Add the listener in to this equation, and you won't be so troubled with intention or non-intention. At least that's what I've found to be true, anyway.
> 
> No matter what a composer intends, no matter if the sounds I'm hearing are just random traffic/construction/squirrel/bird noises, if I'm attending, if I'm listening and appreciating, then those sounds are music.
> 
> I don't quite follow the logic that if we call all sound music, then "music" doesn't have any meaning any more. But that could just be me. If "music" means "sound," then music still means something; it means what we've always meant by "sound."


That wouldn't make "music" mean nothing, but it would make the word redundant.


----------



## pluhagr

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There will always be folks who have a "sound perversion" - just about anything that has a sound can be considered music to them, including John Cage (in an interview where he thought road traffic sounds were music, and even comparing that with music of Beethoven and Mozart). Good for them. I don't envy them. This concept essentially debases art music, making a damn mockery of high art developed in centuries before.


Yes, then I do have your so called sound perversion. I don't know who you are doling out these remarks, inappropriate and rude if I must say so myself. There is criticism of music but criticism of the listener is something much different.
Next, I would like for you to explain to me how something that I perceive to be music is not music e.g. bird calls. And how does this debase art music and make a mockery of high art. And even if it did, so what? What will happen. Composers who do this explore sound and stretch human knowledge. I find no harm in Cage's music. I'm sorry if you do.


----------



## Polednice

pluhagr said:


> Next, I would like for you to explain to me how something that I perceive to be music is not music e.g. bird calls.


I think the sonic pleasure of bird calls is wonderful, _*but*_, I think this takes my earlier point about equating "music" with "good music" to the opposite (and still false) extreme. On the one hand, we have musical conservatives who call music a language, and necessitate that it must have certain instruments and forms and governing styles, and if it does not meet these then it is not music at all (bogus). On the other hand, we have people who find pleasure in all kinds of sounds, the pleasant calls of birds, the calming sound of water or traffic, and so label all of it music (bogus).

In both of these scenarios, the word "music" is being used as a legitimiser - it is applied as a label in order to give the thing referenced some special artistic status. This is why I advocate the arbiter of the "human hand" in my definition of music, because the definition then stems from intentions rather than value judgements.


----------



## pluhagr

Polednice said:


> I think the sonic pleasure of bird calls is wonderful, _*but*_, I think this takes my earlier point about equating "music" with "good music" to the opposite (and still false) extreme. On the one hand, we have musical conservatives who call music a language, and necessitate that it must have certain instruments and forms and governing styles, and if it does not meet these then it is not music at all (bogus). On the other hand, we have people who find pleasure in all kinds of sounds, the pleasant calls of birds, the calming sound of water or traffic, and so label all of it music (bogus).
> 
> In both of these scenarios, the word "music" is being used as a legitimiser - it is applied as a label in order to give the thing referenced some special artistic status. This is why I advocate the arbiter of the "human hand" in my definition of music, because the definition then stems from intentions rather than value judgements.


I'm sorry but I just don't think that thinking that all sound is music is bogus. It is entirely up to the listener. Music is a subjective activity. You experience it entirely within yourself.

Now I must say that I tend to argue things that I personally do not believe in. I specifically don't think that all sound is music but I do think that many sounds can be perceived as music.


----------



## Polednice

pluhagr said:


> I'm sorry but I just don't think that thinking that all sound is music is bogus. It is entirely up to the listener. Music is a subjective activity. You experience it entirely within yourself.


Well there you go. By introducing subjective values into your assessment of what music is, you give up the possibility to draw lines and define music, because that requires a degree of objectivity. I'm fine with people doing either just as it suits them, but no one can have both.


----------



## pluhagr

Polednice said:


> Well there you go. By introducing subjective values into your assessment of what music is, you give up the possibility to draw lines and define music, because that requires a degree of objectivity. I'm fine with people doing either just as it suits them, but no one can have both.


How does that make the ability to draw lines impossible. I am asking about people's personal lines they draw as to what music is.


----------



## Polednice

pluhagr said:


> How does that make the ability to draw lines impossible. I am asking about people's personal lines they draw as to what music is.


OK, that's fine, but then I think the word "definition" shouldn't be used. Also, I don't see why you should be bothered by others' personal lines when they are just that - personal. It's all just arbitrary taste, so what's the use in caring if someone else doesn't like your lines?


----------



## pluhagr

Oh I'm not bothered. I'm bothered when there is judgement given to the listener based on their views. I am never offended or bothered by other's tastes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

pluhagr said:


> I never mentioned anything about liking or disliking music. There is music that makes me feel something and music that doesn't.


Elgar makes me feel like I have stepped in dog excretion.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> That definition makes composers completely unnecessary.


Well, Cage kept composing his entire life. And composers after him, even the ones who admire him and incorporate his ideas into their own compositional activity, continue composing.



bigshot said:


> The creativity is all in your own head.


Well, what's in your head is in your head. That's true. And for anything outside your head to have any effect on you, you must have a head.



bigshot said:


> Personally, I prefer it if a composer has something important to say and says it eloquently. I don't consider any old thing to be music. It has to have some humanity to it.


Listeners are humans.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There will always be folks who have a "sound perversion" - just about anything that has a sound can be considered music to them, including John Cage (in an interview where he thought road traffic sounds were music, and even comparing that with music of Beethoven and Mozart). Good for them. I don't envy them. This concept essentially debases art music, making a damn mockery of high art developed in centuries before.


This is perhaps interesting psychologically. The question-begging "sound perversion" and the reference to mockery. But I don't know that it says much about music.

Oh well. If you think you're being mocked, or even only that the things you love are being mocked, there's not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise. Everything different from what you believe will sound like mockery.

Lovely clip by the way!


----------



## kv466

I'm not a good example because I like so many different kinds of music and like to play so much of it but that has always bothered tremendously as well; what the OP said about someone calling something non-music. I feel that for those who know me here I have more than proven my classical knowledge and appreciation for it. That being known, I feel the same passion and excitement about many other styles of music and many other musicians and bands. One of my favorites throughout the 80's and into the mid-90's was Einstürzende Neubauten who have actually since become a helluva lot more 'musical'; back when they were my trip the albums were mainly a collection of sounds and screams and banging and crashes. 

Just like some jerk can paint a canvas yellow and call it art,...an equally unimaginative jerk can record one note over and over and call it a Fantasia. Whether it's good or bad, that is an entirely different question.


----------



## Sid James

pluhagr said:


> I have always been bothered when people say that this, a particular musical work, is not music. This often happens with contemporary atonal works, and composers like John Cage. I myself have a very open mind when it comes to what is music and what is not. I take music to be organized sound. I'm wondering where others draw the line as to what is music and what is not. I also am interested in knowing what others view the definition of music is.


The basic answer as to "drawing the line" is that before around 1945, it was the era of harmony. Other traditional things like tonal centres and counterpoint were in the mix as well. Leading up to 1945, Schoenberg's "liberation of the dissonance" did a lot to move music forward, if you will. After 1945 more changes happened and more plurality came to the fore (although it's not a strict line in the sand, these things had been going on for decades - eg. with Varese, Ives, Cowell, Webern, Satie, Villa-Lobos, etc.). Eg. John Cage's concept of letting in to the concert hall, to the world of high art, so-called "illegal harmonies."

So basically, the era of harmony or tonality, etc. was over by 1945. Music entered a phase of treating sound as just that - pure sound. Unencumbered by former conventions which had kind of dried up and become cliches and straightjackets to many composers. & sound includes noise.

Of course, many composers continued to compose as if nothing had happened, well after 1945. Korngold was one & there were others who I'm not that knowledgeable about, I think Paul Creston was another, so was Ferde Grofe. There's nothing wrong with these composers or enjoying them. But the "real action" was in music that did some innovation or incorporated innovation into the music. Eg. Cage influenced many composers, some of them quite different from him - eg. Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Hovhaness, our own Peter Sculthorpe. These guys did not rehash Cage's innovation and ideas, they wholistically incorporated them into their art.

Bottom line is that there's a lot of plurality now. If people don't want to embrace that it's fine. But saying things like "CAge is rubbish" and that kind of thing, or perverted or degenerate (remind you of some goose-stepping Charlie Chaplin moustached dictator?), then that's going way too far.

I personally find it better to read about music by good writers on music, be they musicologists, composers, or long time enthusiasts - esp. in books but also online. Doing that, esp. reading recent things, and not extreme opinions but balanced baseline opinions and informative things, that's more valuable for me to find out the facts, or nearer to them than some things you may come across on online forums..


----------



## pluhagr

kv466 said:


> I'm not a good example because I like so many different kinds of music and like to play so much of it but that has always bothered tremendously as well; what the OP said about someone calling something non-music. I feel that for those who know me here I have more than proven my classical knowledge and appreciation for it. That being known, I feel the same passion and excitement about many other styles of music and many other musicians and bands. One of my favorites throughout the 80's and into the mid-90's was Einstürzende Neubauten who have actually since become a helluva lot more 'musical'; back when they were my trip the albums were mainly a collection of sounds and screams and banging and crashes.
> 
> Just like some jerk can paint a canvas yellow and call it art,...an equally unimaginative jerk can record one note over and over and call it a Fantasia. Whether it's good or bad, that is an entirely different question.


I am confused by what you mean when you mentioned me. Can you clarify. Thanks!


----------



## pluhagr

Sid James said:


> I personally find it better to read about music by good writers on music, be they musicologists, composers, or long time enthusiasts - esp. in books but also online. Doing that, esp. reading recent things, and not extreme opinions but balanced baseline opinions and informative things, that's more valuable for me to find out the facts, or nearer to them than some things you may come across on online forums..


This is all true. But I'm interested in the discussion. Facts are the most important thing, but I want to know opinions too.


----------



## kv466

pluhagr said:


> I am confused by what you mean when you mentioned me. Can you clarify. Thanks!


"I have always been bothered when people say that this, a particular musical work, is not music"


----------



## science

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Not really. Intention isn't enough. I could intend to write a composition which was solely 151 repetitions of a particular pitch at a consistent dynamic and regularity. And, having intended it, I could have done it. But there is no structure here, no process. If the notes speeded up, that would constitute an extremely minimal process - something has to happen for there to be any process, any structure.
> 
> (I don't object to the word 'structure', I just feel 'process' is better. It also makes improvised music much easier to describe and understand.)


Thank you. That is a good explanation.


----------



## Sid James

pluhagr said:


> This is all true. But I'm interested in the discussion. Facts are the most important thing, but I want to know opinions too.


That's true, it's just that I'm tired of the usual cliches that get trotted out in these kinds of discussions. Of both kinds, from extreme conservative to extreme radical. It ends up being polarised just for the sake of it, with mud-slinging galore, subtle put-downs, intellectual gobbledigook, all that kind of thing. Even most musicologists today just put it straight, and they do admit their own biases and limitations of their argument. You usually won't get even an inch of that from "the usual suspects" around here. It's all or nothing. Ideology hardening into dogma. I'm a broken record now, so I'll stop...


----------



## pluhagr

Here I have remembered something to help explain myself. In Kant's Critique of Judgement he talks about aesthetics and all that good stuff  But more importantly he talks about different types of beauty. There is natural beauty i.e. nature and man-made art. These two both express beauty, but it is different they are like beauty plus another factor. What Kant calls the sublime is almost always experienced in nature. His definition of sublime, in short, is something immensely powerful or immensely enormous. 

This ties in with how I view music. There is the composed music, which is incredible and beautiful to say the least. And there is natural sound, which can be incredible too but different. Sometimes just un-composed sound can be very significant. This happens when the noises around me appear to be music. If they sound like music to me I call it music. But having noise around me affect my emotions is rare. That is why I listen to music. 

Sid James- I am sorry if I did get a bit polar in my arguments.


----------



## bigshot

Re: Glass half full


pluhagr said:


> And it's music!


Just not good.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> I would like for you to explain to me how something that I perceive to be music is not music


Perception is not reality. A lot of people claim to have seen ghosts and UFOs, but that doesn't make ghosts and UFOs real.

It is clearly disrespectful for someone to say that the music of a composer like Beethoven is the same as an automobile horn. Beethoven worked very hard to create his music, he applied all of his skills and talents, he believed in what he was saying and many listeners find what he says to be eloquent. None of that is true of an automobile horn.

However, if John Cage believes an automobile horn is music, it certainly explains the pitiful music he produces.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> I'm sorry but I just don't think that thinking that all sound is music is bogus. It is entirely up to the listener. Music is a subjective activity. You experience it entirely within yourself.


Solipsism! You're forgetting the composer and performer. What are they? Chopped liver?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> This is all true. But I'm interested in the discussion. Facts are the most important thing, but I want to know opinions too.


The best opinions are supported by facts. All opinions are not created equal. Some are ignorant and some are illuminating.


----------



## Chrythes

bigshot said:


> Re: Glass half full
> 
> Just not good.


You are wrong, he's good.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> In Kant's Critique of Judgement he talks about aesthetics and all that good stuff  But more importantly he talks about different types of beauty. There is natural beauty i.e. nature and man-made art. These two both express beauty, but it is different they are like beauty plus another factor.


I don't believe art need necessarily be beautiful. It can be terrifying, or sad or grotesque... but it has to express something that is the intent of the creator. I don't believe in random art where the creator just throws it out on the table to see what other people make of it. Thats post modernist laziness.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> I don't believe art need necessarily be beautiful. It can be terrifying, or sad or grotesque... but it has to express something that is the intent of the creator. I don't believe in random art where the creator just throws it out on the table to see what other people make of it. Thats post modernist laziness.


What if the expressive intent of the creator is an exploration of randomness?


----------



## Vaneyes

If it sells, it's music.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I don't believe art need necessarily be beautiful. It can be terrifying, or sad or grotesque... but it has to express something that is the intent of the creator. I don't believe in random art where the creator just throws it out on the table to see what other people make of it. Thats post modernist laziness.


I think every sound has expressible potential. If I go over to a piano and bang on it for a while, it's going to express _something_ at least...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

pluhagr said:


> Yes, then I do have your so called sound perversion. I don't know who you are doling out these remarks, inappropriate and rude if I must say so myself. There is criticism of music but criticism of the listener is something much different.
> Next, I would like for you to explain to me how something that I perceive to be music is not music e.g. bird calls. And how does this debase art music and make a mockery of high art. And even if it did, so what? What will happen. Composers who do this explore sound and stretch human knowledge. I find no harm in Cage's music. I'm sorry if you do.


"Whatever floats your boat" - when it comes to music/art. Firstly, my opinion is just that - my opinion. It may well be utter rubbish or rude or even insulting. As I wrote above, what you perceive as music is yours to enjoy but that doesn't change the broader reality of the particularly piece's merit, which may well be irrelevant to you ("so long as I enjoy a piece, that's all it matters"). As another TC member above said of Beethoven's creativity, why not compare LvB's music with Cage's for a reality check; afterall John Cage himself in that youtube clip compared road traffic sound with Beethoven and Mozart. It's easy for composers to have anything conceptual laid out on the table with a few words, or perform something with a cactus plant and a bird's feather, without practising to the extent that the keys of the piano are dented by his fingertips (take an up close look at Beethoven's piano in his house in Bonn when you get a chance), and then for a bunch of folks to say "it's all good because I enjoyed it, and that's all it matters". Well, when composers started using cactus plant and bird's feather to perform music, I don't know about you, but I have my alarm bells ringing. Decadence.

I'm not generalizing about all of Cage's music. I certainly have not listened to all of it, and there are indeed lovely pieces of that I enjoy written by Cage.


----------



## Chrythes

violadude said:


> I think every sound has expressible potential. If I go over to a piano and bang on it for a while, it's going to express _something_ at least...


I'm afraid it will only express your post modernist laziness.


----------



## violadude

Chrythes said:


> I'm afraid it will only express your post modernist laziness.


Yup, music doesn't leave room for interpretation regarding expression at all. My argument is totally invalid. Sorry about that.


----------



## Sid James

It's like a line drawn in the sand. People can rub it out and draw their own line. The ocean can wash it away in minutes. Forget about looking at the sand on the beach, enjoy the beach itself. Jump into the water, have a swim. Play some ball. Have a walk along the shore. There's heaps of things to do rather than drawing these arbitary lines...


----------



## pluhagr

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "Whatever floats your boat" - when it comes to music/art. Firstly, my opinion is just that - my opinion. It may well be utter rubbish or rude or even insulting. As I wrote above, what you perceive as music is yours to enjoy but that doesn't change the broader reality of the particularly piece's merit, which may well be irrelevant to you ("so long as I enjoy a piece, that's all it matters"). As another TC member above said of Beethoven's creativity, why not compare LvB's music with Cage's for a reality check; afterall John Cage himself in that youtube clip compared road traffic sound with Beethoven and Mozart. It's easy for composers to have anything conceptual laid out on the table with a few words, or perform something with a cactus plant and a bird's feather, without practising to the extent that the keys of the piano are dented by his fingertips (take an up close look at Beethoven's piano in his house in Bonn when you get a chance), and then for a bunch of folks to say "it's all good because I enjoyed it, and that's all it matters". Well, when composers started using cactus plant and bird's feather to perform music, I don't know about you, but I have my alarm bells ringing. Decadence.
> 
> I'm not generalizing about all of Cage's music. I certainly have not listened to all of it, and there are indeed lovely pieces of that I enjoy written by Cage.


You're right. I think that it is odd to be comparing car horns to Beethoven. I don't see what harm it does. Cage is trying to make a point, a bold one at that. I don't know how well it went over. For me I enjoy 4'33". Though it is not near one of my favorites. But the fact that people put it off as garbage angers me. The inner Hegelian in me believes that all creations from man are important and lead us to absolute knowing. For all we know 4'33" could have been a piece to **** people off. Cheap trick... maybe. But I think that it deserves more than being garbage.

And for those who think that Cage did this for the attention and such. Ives Klein composed a similar piece with one movement as a single sustained note for around 20 min, then silence for another.

Art for me has nothing to do with skill, intentionality, or laziness. It is about what the odd connection between the creator and the audience. I could care less if someone was banging on a piano with no skill whatsoever. I look at what it does for me and what I think was meant by it. I think that's where I am different than most people. There are many composers and pieces of music that are great pieces, works of genius, that do so little for me. I don't feel much when I listen to large scale works like Wagner. I recognize that he is a genius. But it does little for me. I find that the odd and strange pieces of the 20th century make my emotions go wild. I feel so much when I listen to atonal works. They seem more colorful and vivid. They feel more spiritual. They move me. That is the most important part of the music for me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Sid James said:


> It's like a line drawn in the sand. People can rub it out and draw their own line. The ocean can wash it away in minutes. Forget about looking at the sand on the beach, enjoy the beach itself. Jump into the water, have a swim. Play some ball. Have a walk along the shore. There's heaps of things to do rather than drawing these arbitary lines...


Wiser words have never been spoken. Beautiful. :clap:

And not to derail the thread or anything, but I believe that ends the entire discussion--a discussion that has been delving into too much nonsensicality. It irritates me when people get on their high horses and try to define what "art" or "music" is/should be, as if they were universal laws of physics that could actually be defined in the first place.


----------



## Sid James

^^Well thanks. It's okay to have this discussion, it can be interesting. It's just no good when people get personal and throw things back and forth. C'mon guys, you're better than that, kids in grade school can probably act better than that (well, maybe on a good day, not a bad chaotic one!)...


----------



## pluhagr

Dodecaplex said:


> Wiser words have never been spoken. Beautiful. :clap:
> 
> And not to derail the thread or anything, but I believe that ends the entire discussion--a discussion that has been delving into too much nonsensicality. It irritates me when people get on their high horses and try to define what "art" or "music" is/should be, as if they were universal laws of physics that could actually be defined in the first place.


I'm sorry if I offended anyone. Also, I was not ever trying to define what art should be, rather what its definition is to me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

pluhagr said:


> I'm sorry if I offended anyone. Also, I was not ever trying to define what art should be, rather what its definition is to me.


No need to apologize. You never offended anyone. It was the others who immediately started arguing and jumping into conclusions.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> What if the expressive intent of the creator is an exploration of randomness?


You don't need a composer to create randomness. It creates itself.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Yup, music doesn't leave room for interpretation regarding expression at all. My argument is totally invalid. Sorry about that.


How much room for interpretation regarding expression do you need when you bang on a piano. That is what you're talking about, isn't it?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> There are many composers and pieces of music that are great pieces, works of genius, that do so little for me. I don't feel much when I listen to large scale works like Wagner. I recognize that he is a genius. But it does little for me. I find that the odd and strange pieces of the 20th century make my emotions go wild. I feel so much when I listen to atonal works. They seem more colorful and vivid. They feel more spiritual. They move me. That is the most important part of the music for me.


If all you care about is your subjective reactions, that's fine. But those subjective reactions are only meaningful for you. They don't apply to me or anyone else, because we aren't you. Solipsism and narcissism are a huge part of post modernism too, and either you buy into it or you are someone else.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> *If all you care about is your subjective reactions, that's fine*. But those subjective reactions are only meaningful for you. They don't apply to me or anyone else, because we aren't you.


These subjective reactions are the only things that exist. What do you expect there to be aside from subjective reactions? Can you think of anything else?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

pluhagr said:


> I have always been bothered when people say that this, a particular musical work, is not music. This often happens with contemporary atonal works, and composers like John Cage.


I know people who wouldn't call this music.

Varese - Poeme Electronique


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> These subjective reactions are the only things that exist. What do you expect there to be aside from subjective reactions? Can you think of anything else?


Objective opinions?


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Objective opinions?


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> Objective opinions?


 . . . . .

How are these opinions objective? Who holds them?


----------



## bigshot

This is Logic 101... Opinions are supported by objective facts and tested against stated criteria. Your criteria might vary, resulting in a different conclusion, but the analysis is objective.

OBJECTIVE OPINION

CRITERIA: Music expresses the composer's intent, utilizes melody and harmony and rhythm, and is performed by skilled and talented musicians. SUPPORTING FACTS: Throughout the history of music up until the mid 20th century, all great music had these attributes. Masterpieces of classical music by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn and Wagner all meet these criteria. So does jazz, folk and rock music. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony fullfills all of these criteria. A car alarm fullfills none. CONCLUSION: Therefore, Mendelssohn is much more likely to be good music than a car alarm.

SUBJECTIVE REACTION

I like car alarms, therefore they are music to me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> This is Logic 101... Opinions are supported by objective facts and tested against stated criteria. Your criteria might vary, resulting in a different conclusion, but the analysis is objective.


You're so confused in your definitions that I don't know where to begin. An opinion is nothing more than a view held by a person. A person is a subject. Therefore, statements that express his opinion are subjective (e.g. "Mendelssohn's symphonies sound amazing" and "car alarms sound amazing" are both subjective statements).

On the other hand, a fact that exists in the universe that we can observe is an object. Therefore, statements about scientific data, historical documents, etc. are objective (e.g. "Mendelssohn wrote symphonies" and "cars have alarms" are both objective statements).

Finally, the analysis isn't objective if your criteria is a set of subjective opinions.



> CRITERIA: Music expresses the composer's intent, utilizes melody and harmony and rhythm, and is performed by skilled and talented musicians.


According to whom are these the required criteria?



> SUPPORTING FACTS: Throughout the history of music up until the mid 20th century, all great music had these attributes. Masterpieces of classical music by Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn and Wagner all meet these criteria. So does jazz, folk and rock music.


According to whom are these masterpieces?


> APPLYING THE CRITERIA: Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony fullfills all of these criteria. A car alarm fullfills none. CONCLUSION: Therefore, Mendelssohn is much more likely to be good music than a car alarm.


Again, according to whom is Mendelssohn more likely to be good music?



> SUBJECTIVE REACTION
> I like car alarms, therefore they are music to me.


Yes, that is subjective, but so is saying "I like Mendelssohn's symphonies, therefore they are music to me".
There's no universal law saying what is good and what is bad music, nor is there a law saying what is and what isn't music. Do you see why what you're saying is completely nonsensical?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

pluhagr said:


> Why wouldn't that composition of 151 repeated notes be music?


Because nothing new happens after the first thing that happens (the first note).

It's sound; it may be fun to play and listen to, but there is no process or structure.

You can call it music if you like but, if you do, the definition of "music" becomes so broad that every possible collection of noises would be described as music and there could be no collection of noises that wasn't music. That essentially would rob the word of any meaning and, with no meaning, it is useless (and counter to the general belief that the word does have a meaning).

So, my argument is a utilitiarian one: what is it most _useful _to do?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I hate threads that are long debates that go on for pages.


----------



## Polednice

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate threads that are long debates that go on for pages.


Yeah, too many words to read. I hate words. They're mean to me.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Objective opinions?


I'm sorry but there is so such things as objective opinions. We are confined to our own brains. I can't know what is happening in yours and you can't know what's happening in mine... unless I tell you. Which is the exact reason I started this thread-- to share subjective opinions.

And I will have you know that I am not a solopsist. For this to be true I would have to believe that all I can know is what is in my mind and that there is no clear connection between mental and physical. I'm sorry but this is not me. And solopsism is a fairly ancient belief, it's presocratic. I would say that I'm more of an Aristotelian when it comes to drama/art analysis. I analyze art based on it's effect. The relationship between the audience and artwork. And I'm sorry but that is purely subjective. I must tell you what I am feeling when I hear music. There is no other way for you to know.

CoAG- nice clip


----------



## pluhagr

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Because nothing new happens after the first thing that happens (the first note).
> 
> It's sound;  it may be fun to play and listen to, but there is no process or structure.
> 
> You can call it music if you like but, if you do, the definition of "music" becomes so broad that every possible collection of noises would be described as music and there could be no collection of noises that wasn't music. That essentially would rob the word of any meaning and, with no meaning, it is useless (and counter to the general belief that the word does have a meaning).
> 
> So, my argument is a utilitiarian one: what is it most _useful _to do?


Well, first, utilitarianism is what gives the most pain and the least pleasure. My broad view of what music is does not harm any of the earlier pieces of music written. There are different kinds of music. Some that appeal to me and some that do not. Now that we are in the strain of logic I would like to point out your fallacy. Your argument is one that employs the use of the "slippery slope fallacy". Next, all you're doing is hypothesizing. I would like to see how it really matters if i have a broad idea of what music is. I'm not prescribing my belief system to anyone, I am merely explaining it. If you find such a problem with my broad idea of music then I'm sorry.

Thank you dodecaplex for that wonderful post. It said all I wanted to say.


----------



## Polednice

Jeremy, isn't the start of the first note and its repetition process enough? What if you had 75 repetitions of a note followed by 75 repetitions of a different note? Three notes? Four notes? What's the limit? How much variation, and in which respects, are required for scored sounds to become music?


----------



## pluhagr

I truly don't feel that by having a broad definition of music defiles other music that came before. It is a large definition with smaller subgroups within. Take animals. There are squirrels and other mammals, reptiles, and many other beings. But a jellyfish is also an animal. Now it doesn't fit most of the criteria for what is an animal but it still is one. How does that affect what other animals are?


----------



## bigshot

Some arguments are like jellyfish, but that doesn't change the fact that a jellyfish is seafood.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!" -Groucho Marx


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> Some arguments are like jellyfish, but that doesn't change the fact that a jellyfish is seafood.
> 
> "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!" -Groucho Marx


Remind me to use this post of yours whenever I'm losing an argument. It sure is a life-saver.


----------



## Conor71

I try to keep an open mind about what may or may not be music but if I am being honest I think that music has to have rules and some level of craftmanship for it to be called legitimate art.

As an example I have a Disc of Stockhausens Electronic "Music" - I do enjoy this Disc but I think its a bit generous to call it music as it is really it is just someone playing with sounds from a shortwave reciever and there is absolutely no structure to it and I would supect, very little skill involved in manipulating the electronic eqipment to produce the sounds!


----------



## Conor71

Dodecaplex said:


> Wiser words have never been spoken. Beautiful. :clap:
> 
> And not to derail the thread or anything, but I believe that ends the entire discussion--a discussion that has been delving into too much nonsensicality. It irritates me when people get on their high horses and try to define what "art" or "music" is/should be, as if they were universal laws of physics that could actually be defined in the first place.


Why should'nt we try to define what art or music actually is? - There are a lot of chancers out there!


----------



## Dodecaplex

Conor71 said:


> Why should'nt we try to define what art or music actually is?


Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.


----------



## Chrythes

Conor71 said:


> I try to keep an open mind about what may or may not be music but if I am being honest I think that music has to have rules and some level of craftmanship for it to be called legitimate art.
> 
> As an example I have a Disc of Stockhausens Electronic "Music" - I do enjoy this Disc but I think its a bit generous to call it music as it is really it is just someone playing with sounds from a shortwave reciever and there is absolutely no structure to it and I would supect, very little skill involved in manipulating the electronic eqipment to produce the sounds!


I agree with you to some extent about the conservative view about what music is. But then again, it's my subjective opinion and I respect every other opinion about the definition of music. And I truly agree with Sid James' post, summing up the point of this discussion. 
I've always considered most of modern art to be experimental art - as it's main point. Thus I myself would consider art such as Stockhausens's or Cage's as _experimentation with sounds_ rather than pure music.


----------



## Conor71

Dodecaplex said:


> Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.


I'll have to disagree with you there! - I think we can come up with some pretty easy rules for defining what is art or not.
What about my ideas for level of craftmanship for a start - we can certainly rate an artists skills by how well they compare with other Artists who we have reached a concensus on, that are skillful?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Conor71 said:


> I'll have to disagree with you there! - I think we can come up with some pretty easy rules for defining what is art or not.
> What about my ideas for level of craftmanship for a start - we can certainly rate an artists skills by how well they compare with other Artists who we have reached a concensus on, that are skillful?


Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place? According to whom is skill required to make music? Is there a law in this universe that says skillful music is good and non-skillful music is bad?


----------



## Conor71

Dodecaplex said:


> Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place? According to whom is skill required to make music? Is there a law in this universe that says skillful music is good and non-skillful music is bad?


To expand a bit on that point - are you a trained musician? Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?
What do you really think of that?


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place?


Because skill allows a composer or performer to pick and choose how he is going to express himself and apply technique creatively. Without skill one's options for communicating are severely limited.

Even moms know that skill is a good thing. The only people who don't realize that are self absorbed critics who love to slather beautiful but meaningless words all over noise, and musicians who are making excuses for their own laziness.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Conor71 said:


> To expand a bit on that point - are you a trained musician? Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?
> What do you really think of that?


I do compose every now and then. Mostly fugues. But no, I don't think skill is required to be a musician since the definition of the word 'music' doesn't exist in the first place.


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.


Tell that to the centuries of great thinkers in the field of aesthetics! Making a comment saying that commenting a waste of breath is pretty nonsensical in itself.


----------



## pluhagr

Conor71 said:


> I try to keep an open mind about what may or may not be music but if I am being honest I think that music has to have rules and some level of craftmanship for it to be called legitimate art.
> 
> As an example I have a Disc of Stockhausens Electronic "Music" - I do enjoy this Disc but I think its a bit generous to call it music as it is really it is just someone playing with sounds from a shortwave reciever and there is absolutely no structure to it and I would supect, very little skill involved in manipulating the electronic eqipment to produce the sounds!


Why do we care about skill in art? What does it matter? A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular. This happens all the time.


----------



## bigshot

Conor71 said:


> Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?


There are no rules for being a CONCEPTUAL musician... but of course no one is required to listen. (Unless of course your work is programmed like ipecac to unwilling audiences who are forced to hear it. But make sure it's the first piece on the program so people don't walk out!)


----------



## Conor71

Dodecaplex said:


> I do compose every now and then. Mostly fugues. But no, I don't think skill is required to be a musician since the definition of the word 'music' doesn't exist in the first place.


We will have to disagree then because I definetely think skill is required to be a musician who produces anything of artistic worth.
Youre saying that someone who has no training in Musical notation or has no ability to play an instrument whatsoever should still be taken seriously as a Musician?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular.


By that definition, a three year old is the creative equal of Picasso. Good thing that ignorance is not really the source of great art.


----------



## Conor71

pluhagr said:


> Why do we care about skill in art? What does it matter? A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular. This happens all the time.


You are talking about different levels of skill there which still implies that (some) skill is necessary in producing a work of art!


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Because skill allows a composer or performer to pick and choose how he is going to express himself and apply technique creatively. Without skill one's options for communicating are severely limited.
> 
> Even moms know that skill is a good thing. The only people who don't realize that are self absorbed critics who love to slather beautiful but meaningless words all over noise, and musicians who are making excuses for their own laziness.


Composers who are lazy don't compose! And it should be noted that Cage and other experimental composers are skilled. Their music just doesn't express that skill outwardly. I feel bad for those who think too much about skill in art. Art is not about skill it is about expression. Skill is just a good thing to have. I find you calling composers lazy extremely offensive, and you are so vague too. Which composers are lazy and how. Do you know them personally. Did you research them. Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.

Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only subjective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.


----------



## bigshot

Conor71 said:


> Youre saying that someone who has no training in Musical notation or has no ability to play an instrument whatsoever should still be taken seriously as a Musician?


Sampling... Some argue that taking other people's music and chopping it all up in a blender counts as creation.


----------



## Conor71

pluhagr said:


> Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only objective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.


Can't we reach a definition by concensus?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.


It took Cage five years to compose 4'33'' but it only took me five seconds to compose an opera titled "Two Hours and Forty Five minutes (not including intermissions)". I'm working on a Symphony cycle right now... all done!


----------



## pluhagr

Conor71 said:


> You are talking about different levels of skill there which still implies that (some) skill is necessary in producing a work of art!


No no no. Skill is not requisite for art. Skill can be apart of art but is not necessary.

To bigshot: By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.


----------



## pluhagr

pluhagr said:


> Composers who are lazy don't compose! And it should be noted that Cage and other experimental composers are skilled. Their music just doesn't express that skill outwardly. I feel bad for those who think too much about skill in art. Art is not about skill it is about expression. Skill is just a good thing to have. I find you calling composers lazy extremely offensive, and you are so vague too. Which composers are lazy and how. Do you know them personally. Did you research them. Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.
> 
> Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only objective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.


I misspoke, I meant to say that only subjective definitions exist, that is the nature of human existence.

If we come to a consensus then the conversation is over with. I am fine having this debate and would like it to continue. What we should do is respect each other's opinions and views, and move on to discuss other things concerning these issues.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.


By your definition LOL Cats are the highest form of art that ever existed. They are admired and approved of by countless people on Facebook every day.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> It took Cage five years to compose 4'33'' but it only took me five seconds to compose an opera titled "Two Hours and Forty Five minutes (not including intermissions)". I'm working on a Symphony cycle right now... all done!


Comments like these are not contributing anything at all...


----------



## Conor71

pluhagr said:


> No no no. Skill is not requisite for art. Skill can be apart of art but is not necessary.
> 
> To bigshot: By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.


Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.

To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> By your definition LOL Cats are the highest form of art that ever existed. They are admired and approved of by countless people on Facebook every day.


Are they appreciated as art? I don't think so. By the way, we are going into extremes now which is never good.


----------



## pluhagr

Conor71 said:


> Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.
> 
> To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?


Look, Cage was a skilled composer. But 4'33" was not a piece that took the skill of composition. Okay, skill helps immensely in art, but is not required.


----------



## Chrythes

Conor71 said:


> Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.
> 
> To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?


In favour of Cage I would argue that it's not about the "musical" aspects of 4,33" but rather about its impact and meaning on music, or art in general.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> Comments like these are not contributing anything at all...


So creation of art doesn't depend on skill, but it does depend on the amount of time spent creating it? Or perhaps it's impossible to create art since it isn't art until someone perceives it as art? Or does it take a critical mass of people to recognize it as art before it becomes art? Is all art equal? John Cage's 4'33'' is as great as Michaelangelo's David or Picasso's Guernica? How can we teach art appreciation in school if everything is art and everything is equal?

Your arguments point straight down Alice's rabbit hole.


----------



## bigshot

Chrythes said:


> I would argue that it's not about the "musical" aspects of 4,33" but rather about its impact and meaning on music, or art in general.


I would argue that the only impact it had was detrimental. The same way Andy Warhol's detrimental influence has led to Jeff Koons.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> So creation of art doesn't depend on skill, but it does depend on the amount of time spent creating it? Or perhaps it's impossible to create art since it isn't art until someone perceives it as art? Or does it take a critical mass of people to recognize it as art before it becomes art? Is all art equal? John Cage's 4'33'' is as great as Michaelangelo's David or Picasso's Guernica? How can we teach art appreciation in school if everything is art and everything is equal?
> 
> Your arguments point straight down Alice's rabbit hole.


I am not trying to reach a conclusion here. I am merely discussing what art is. I myself am exploring this topic here. So yes, you could say that my arguments are going no where. I have no problem with that. And I truly doubt that 4'33" is detrimental. When you want to talk about detrimental music, look no further than some of the popular music that is produced now. If 4'33" did any damage to what music is it is very small since not many people outside the art and music world know about it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

This guy has no taste for good music. Here is his opinion on 4'33".


----------



## Chrythes

I disagree. The only case when there can be a detrimental effect on art is when it's prohibited, censured or controlled. 
The only thing that Cage and Koons did was to create another niche in the infinite spectrum of art. It doesn't make it worse or better, it makes it more diverse. I find it interesting and I truly don't care how much of it is pretentious or not.
It's in our choice to listen, see and watch what we want - and the more to choose from we have, the better it is. The "post modernist laziness" as you refer to doesn't harm anyone, especially not art itself. 
I suggest you try looking for composers and artists that match your definition of good art, instead of repeatedly insulting and being angry about what you can at least ignore.


----------



## pluhagr

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> This guy has no taste for good music. Here is his opinion on 4'33".


This brings up a wonderful notion about 4'33". I think that it is wonderful that his piece angered and roused so many people. This kind of a piece gives way to wonderful passionate discussions.


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.


I largely agree with you on this topic, but I think the above sounds a bit mystical (i.e. crappy  ).

I don't think art is in any way transcendent. It may give us the most intense reactions of transcendence, but art itself, and its creation, is fundamentally rooted in humanity. It is one of the most down to earth endeavours that exist.

Having said that, it still stands that there are no reliable arbiters for its definition, and I think definitions - except for aiding our own explorations or creations of art - are quite pointless. When our intention in defining the term, as has been the case on this thread, is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, the greats from the charlatans, I think a potentially interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of art is just being used as a vehicle for turgid ideology.


----------



## pluhagr

Chrythes said:


> I disagree. The only case when there can be a detrimental effect on art is when it's prohibited, censured or controlled.
> The only thing that Cage and Koons did was to create another niche in the infinite spectrum of art. It doesn't make it worse or better, it makes it more diverse. I find it interesting and I truly don't care how much of it is pretentious or not.
> It's in our choice to listen, see and watch what we want - and the more to choose from we have, the better it is. The "post modernist laziness" as you refer to doesn't harm anyone, especially not art itself.
> I suggest you try looking for composers and artists that match your definition of good art, instead of repeatedly insulting and being angry about what you can at least ignore.


Thank you thank you. I am getting really tired of these mean remarks that condemn something that I enjoy. As I have said earlier. Every piece of art and music that has ever been created has added to the great accomplishments of humankind. Read Hegel's theories on fine art, it might help you understand where I am coming from. He talks about how human creations lead us to absolute knowing. So every piece of human creation has value in that it brings us closer to absolute knowing. I'm sorry that you have such a passionate dislike for Cage. But I like him and I'm not the only one. You also don't see me going around condemning art and music. That is not what I do. What does condemnation do. It does not propel anything further.


----------



## pluhagr

Polednice said:


> I largely agree with you on this topic, but I think the above sounds a bit mystical (i.e. crappy  ).
> 
> I don't think art is in any way transcendent. It may give us the most intense reactions of transcendence, but art itself, and its creation, is fundamentally rooted in humanity. It is one of the most down to earth endeavours that exist.
> 
> Having said that, it still stands that there are no reliable arbiters for its definition, and I think definitions - except for aiding our own explorations or creations of art - are quite pointless. When our intention in defining the term, as has been the case on this thread, is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, the greats from the charlatans, I think a potentially interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of art is just being used as a vehicle for turgid ideology.


I would love for this to be a philosophical discussion. That was my original intention.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Conor71 said:


> We will have to disagree then because I definetely think skill is required to be a musician who produces anything of artistic worth.
> Youre saying that someone who has no training in Musical notation or has no ability to play an instrument whatsoever should still be taken seriously as a Musician?


I'm not saying anyone can be taken or not be taken seriously as a musician. I'm saying the word "music" itself has no meaning whatsoever (aside from arbitrary subjective labels), and neither does the word "musician".


----------



## Conor71

Dodecaplex said:


> I'm not saying anyone can be taken or not be taken seriously as a musician. I'm saying the word "music" itself has no meaning whatsoever (aside from arbitrary subjective labels), and neither does the word "musician".


Why do they have no meaning? - I find it pretty easy to attatch significance to them?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> I largely agree with you on this topic, but I think the above sounds a bit mystical (i.e. crappy  ).
> 
> I don't think art is in any way transcendent. It may give us the most intense reactions of transcendence, but art itself, and its creation, is fundamentally rooted in humanity. It is one of the most down to earth endeavours that exist.


Well, to clarify my point, what I mean when I say "art is transcendent" is that the definition of art and its judgment can only exist if it either a) came from a higher being whose judgment is above everything else or b) was a law that existed in the universe. Otherwise, no definition for art would exist since it would all boil down to our subjective opinions (some people consider torture to be art, others consider cheese-making to be art, and you know how it all goes). This is what makes it transcendent for me.

By the way, most of my views regarding this topic are based on the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Here's a quote that pretty much sums up everything I have to say:


Wittgenstein said:


> It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and æsthetics are one.)


Pluhagr, your wish just came true.


----------



## Polednice

Just to give you some more useless fodder, here's the OED's definition:

1a. 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.

2a. The vocal or instrumental sound produced by practical exercise of the art of music (whether live, pre-recorded, etc.).

b. 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.

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.

8a. Sound produced naturally which is likened to music in being rhythmical or pleasing to the ear, as the song of birds, the sound of running water, etc. (occas. used ironically).

9a. 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.

c. euphem. to make (beautiful) music (together) : to have sexual intercourse.

-------------------------------

Buried within the above, I see several major points of interpretation:

1) Music could be the act of arranging sounds with the use of form, harmony etc., _with the intention of beauty_ (remember that something meant to be ugly can still be beautiful in its successful ugliness).

2) Music could be whatever sounds are created when a person undertakes performance they consider musical, i.e. music is whatever musicians decide to perform.

3) Similar to 2, but instead of being based on what performance musicians do professionally, music could be defined by whatever composers choose to create.

4) Similar to 3, but more specific, music could be sound that is represented by a score.

5) Music could be too broad a term, and instead should be considered to change over time, the only useful definitions being ones that pin down individual movements and styles.

6) Music could be anything that is pleasing to the ear. Alternatively, it should be noted that referring to sonic pleasures such as bird-song as music may only give such sounds credibility by association, meaning that such sounds aren't strictly music themselves.

7) Sex.

------------------------------

*The most intriguing thing I find from these considerations is that the act of defining music seems to want to lay down some eternal principles by which any past and future compositions must compare, when perhaps what we should consider music as instead is simply a collective noun that encompasses everything that has been created to date which a composer, performer, or listener has considered music, thus meaning that music is ever-expanding in its definition.*


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> The most intriguing thing I find from these considerations is that the act of defining music seems to want to lay down some eternal principles by which any past and future compositions must compare, when perhaps what we should consider music as instead is simply a collective noun that encompasses everything that has been *created* to date which a composer, performer, or listener has considered music, thus meaning that music is ever-expanding in its definition.


What do you exactly mean by "created"? Because that's where I have the biggest problem. After all, unless one can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being, one can't make a statement like that without including volcanoes and water falls.

Also, this all-encompassing definition is still nothing but someone's opinion. For example, if a God exists, maybe he considers jazz to be the only thing that could be considered music, maybe he considers baroque music to be the only thing that could be considered music, maybe he considers bird chirping to be the only thing that could be considered music. Who knows? I don't. You don't. This discussion is pointless.


----------



## Conor71

Polednice said:


> Having said that, it still stands that there are no reliable arbiters for its definition, and I think definitions - except for aiding our own explorations or creations of art - are quite pointless. When our intention in defining the term, as has been the case on this thread, is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, the greats from the charlatans, I think a potentially interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of art is just being used as a vehicle for turgid ideology.


Music ultimately has utility like other any other human creation/activity!
Of course we have to define it and make judgements about whether it is good or bad for us otherwise how do we find Music that is useful to us in our everyday lives?
I think we can easily reach a definition of what constitutes Music by a concensus - FWIW I think some of the definitions in the OED (especially the 1st one) are pretty good!


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> What do you exactly mean by "created"? Because that's where I have the biggest problem. After all, unless one can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the universe wasn't created by a supreme being, one can't make a statement like that without including volcanoes and water falls.
> 
> Also, this all-encompassing definition is still nothing but someone's opinion. For example, if a God exists, maybe he considers jazz to be the only thing that could be considered music, maybe he considers baroque music to be the only thing that could be considered music, maybe he considers bird chirping to be the only thing that could be considered music. Who knows? I don't. You don't. This discussion is pointless.


By created, I mean sounds organised by a human, _or_ sounds perceived by a human to be musical (this second thing is more debatable). I don't think it runs into the problem you're creating, if I understand it, because if bird-song is music, for example, then it would be created by birds.

I also understand that this thread is based on opinions and there is no objectivity here, but if your desire is to just ram this point into people's faces at every turn, telling us that the thread is pointless, I think the time has come for you to leave the thread to those who might still find some point in it.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> By created, I mean sounds organised by a human, _or_ sounds perceived by a human to be musical (this second thing is more debatable). I don't think it runs into the problem you're creating, if I understand it, because if bird-song is music, for example, then it would be created by birds.


In that case, we should have specific (and probably tautological) definitions for all the different things that can make music (man-made music is music made by humans, animal-made music is made by animals, water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls etc.) which just makes the whole thing even more nonsensical. 



Polednice said:


> I also understand that this thread is based on opinions and there is no objectivity here, but if your desire is to just ram this point into people's faces at every turn, telling us that the thread is pointless, I think the time has come for you to leave the thread to those who might still find some point in it.


Pointless thread is pointless, I tell you! Well, I'll leave it to its pointlessness then. But I warn you. If anyone even tries to come up with an "objective" definition for music, I will come back and haunt them for all eternity.

Edit: by the way, you didn't address the point about the supreme being whose judgment of music is higher than all of our judgments. But never mind.


----------



## Meaghan

HarpsichordConcerto said:


>


What a thought-provoking clip. Thank you for posting it, HC, even if you and I do not react to it the same way. The bit about Mozart and Beethoven being always the same made me think of some of the cryptic and provocative things my clarinet teacher (who I'm pretty sure is brilliant and batsh*t insane in roughly equal measure, and has definitely made me a better musician) sometimes says that make me say "Hmmm...." instead of just nodding like a bobblehead like I usually do when he talks. But some other things Cage said here were rather moving to me. When he said "I love sounds. Just as they are... I don't want a sound to pretend that it's a bucket or that it's a president or that it's in love with another sound..." and then laughed, it caught me off guard and almost made me cry. Valuing sounds strictly and purely for themselves* is a concept that is hard to grasp, but also for some reason beautiful and liberating, even if it's not the way I usually operate. What interesting thoughts. Sometimes John Cage will say things that irk me, but I must say, I rather like him (without fully understanding him).

*Whether music or not. I don't know what music is and defining it is not very important to me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Meaghan said:


> I don't know what music is and defining it is not very important to me.


Yes! This is the second sensible post on this thread (the first being Sid James's beautiful post).

To put Meaghan's statement a little more eloquently:
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, aka the genius of geniuses.

Anyway, I'm outta here. Have a nice weekend, folks. :tiphat:


----------



## Meaghan

Dodecaplex said:


> animal-made music is made by animals


"We cannot doubt that animals both love and practice music. That is evident. But it seems their musical system differs from ours. It is another school... We are not familiar with their didactic works. Perhaps they don't have any."
-Erik Satie



Dodecaplex said:


> water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls


"[Sibelius] thought he could hear chords in the murmurs of the forests and the lapping of the lakes; he once baffled a group of Finnish students by giving a lecture on the overtone series of a meadow."
-Alex Ross, in _The Rest Is Noise_



I'm not trying to make a point, I just really like these quotes. If I were trying to make a point, it would be that tonal composers can be beautifully crazy too.


----------



## pluhagr

Meaghan said:


> "We cannot doubt that animals both love and practice music. That is evident. But it seems their musical system differs from ours. It is another school... We are not familiar with their didactic works. Perhaps they don't have any."
> -Erik Satie
> 
> "[Sibelius] thought he could hear chords in the murmurs of the forests and the lapping of the lakes; he once baffled a group of Finnish students by giving a lecture on the overtone series of a meadow."
> -Alex Ross, in _The Rest Is Noise_
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to make a point, I just really like these quotes. If I were trying to make a point, it would be that tonal composers can be beautifully crazy too.


Wow! these are amazing! Thanks. And I totally understand what you mean that you feel liberated. I feel liberated too.


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> In that case, we should have specific (and probably tautological) definitions for all the different things that can make music (man-made music is music made by humans, animal-made music is made by animals, water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls etc.) which just makes the whole thing even more nonsensical.


Why would that be nonsensical? It seems reasonable to me, with most of us limiting our interests to human-made music!



Dodecaplex said:


> Edit: by the way, you didn't address the point about the supreme being whose judgment of music is higher than all of our judgments. But never mind.


That's because it didn't make sense.


----------



## pluhagr

Dodecaplex said:


> In that case, we should have specific (and probably tautological) definitions for all the different things that can make music (man-made music is music made by humans, animal-made music is made by animals, water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls etc.) which just makes the whole thing even more nonsensical.
> 
> Pointless thread is pointless, I tell you! Well, I'll leave it to its pointlessness then. But I warn you. If anyone even tries to come up with an "objective" definition for music, I will come back and haunt them for all eternity.
> 
> Edit: by the way, you didn't address the point about the supreme being whose judgment of music is higher than all of our judgments. But never mind.


I think I would like to haunt them too! Haha


----------



## Polednice

I just watched the John Cage clip and thought it was very interesting. However I couldn't help but think this: if we had all grown up and developed in a society that appreciated sounds for their intrinsic sound-ness (as with traffic), not applying external meaning to them, the manifestation of avant-garde art (and John Cage's interests) would be to make an artificial sound seem like a bucket, and to make a sound seem as though it's in love with another sound. As it happens, we have all developed in a culture where those external associations _do_ abound, so what becomes interesting to boundary-pushers is where sound is stripped of those associations and is appreciated for its bareness.

There is no fundamental right or wrong in any of this - no aesthetic greater than any other aesthetic - only the question of whether you prefer reworkings of the familiar, or establishments of the unfamiliar. And, within that, how we define the familiar and unfamiliar is entirely dependent on where musical culture is at the point in time you're inquiring. So if Cage's aesthetic were to take mainstream hold in a century's time, Mozart would be avant-garde! It's all swings and roundabouts, and endless, endless circles. Whirling, whizzing, dancing, dizzying circles!


----------



## superhorn

I try not to be dogmatic about what any given work should or should not be .
Basically, my problem with John Cage that his works aren't really compositions as such , but gimmicks . Four minutes as 33 seconds of silence at the keyboard is just a gimmick .
Works made entirely of chance don't seem interesting to me . Aleatoric elements within a composition can be interesting , but what Cage produced are I repeat, gimmicks .
He was just a trendy guy who was trying to show how "different" and "with it" he was .
Cage was a colorful and amusing personality , but did he produce anything of lasting value ? Not every agrees about this, but I've never been very enthusiastic about him ..
He once claimed that "Beethoven was wrong ", and that his ideas about composition were not valid . But how was Beethoven supposed to know this 200 years ago ?


----------



## Polednice

Even if John Cage was a douchebag with the sole intention to create trendy gimmicks, can we not disregard that when considering his music, just like we don't let Wagner's anti-semitism impact on our appreciation of his operas? I think it's a display of double-standards when we accuse composers of being charlatans in this manner.

Personally, I don't find 4'33'' intrinsically musical, but I do think it adds to musical culture in a significant way and raises important questions that ought to be considered by everyone, and that's true whether I love or hate Cage.


----------



## Lenfer

I've thought long and hard trying to come up with a definitive answer to this question.

If I like it then it's music if I don't then it's *NOT* music! :devil::devil::devil:

*prepares for backlash*


----------



## pluhagr

Haha, if that's true then Mozart isn't music. :devil:


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> I truly doubt that 4'33" is detrimental. When you want to talk about detrimental music, look no further than some of the popular music that is produced now.


The self indulgent excesses and laziness of the avant garde is used to justify the self indulgent excesses and laziness in popular music. The reductionist arguments that no particular attribute or skill is required to qualify a piece as music is used to justify rap, sampling and scratching on LP records.


----------



## Sid James

Re the issue of skill and craftsmanship, I get Conor's point. But problem is that there are a fair deal of ultra conservatives out there who don't even accept much that went on after say 1900. Maybe that's even being generous. Forget Stockhausen & Cage, even earlier experiments/use of controlled chance would be beyond the pale for these dinosaurs - Eg. in Nielsen's 5th symphony where he calls for the snare drummer to interrupt the orchestra as much as possible, that's basically what he says in the score, it's left up for the drummer to improvise. Forget 2012, some peole are stuck in 1912, or maybe 1812 or 1612. I'm talking of the way they see music, which comes across to me as quite narrow & restrictive. It's okay for them to do that, it's a free world, but basically I dislike it when they claim or suggest that these hard-core rigid dogmas are the norm. I have the same truck with ultra-radical "modernist" ideologues.

But to end that rant, here are some wise words from the great Camille Saint-Saens -

"There is nothing more difficult than talking about music." ...


----------



## Sid James

& I've said this heaps of times, lots of composers didn't care much for Beethoven, not only John Cage. Many also hated the three B's altogether - that's right, including BACH!!!

Janacek - didn't have much time for all three B's, Tchaikovsky was a bigger influence on Janacek.

Ravel - hated Beethoven, called his cello sonatas "abonimable music" - in cellist Piatigorsky's autobiography.

Peter Sculthorpe - tried to steer his music away from the three B's as much as possible, his influences were music of Asia-Pacific region, Australian Aboriginal, Messiaen, Varese, and YES John Cage (new methods of notation, pushing playing techniques, etc.). Sculthorpe, along with other Australian composers, where involved in giving premieres here of things like Cage's music in the still largely conservative 1960's. The conservatives then thought music stopped with Beethoven's middle period. They obviously thought they were right. But now with about 50 years of hindsight, where these (very selective) Beethoven idolators right or where they simply dinosaurs? I think the latter, definitely.

Harry Partch - said everything between Bach & Schoenberg was ********, basically.

Xenakis - not much interested in the three B's either.

Satie - he defintely hated Wagner, was his antithesis, & I don't think he gave much of a damn about the three B's either (anyone who knows more can correct me on that).

& the list can go on and on.

Some of this is detailed in the chapter Beethoven was wrong in Alex Ross' book _The REst is Noise_.

For much of the post-1945 generation of composers, Beethoven basically was equated with the hard-core conservatives who said music stopped with him. The younger composers then didn't hate Beethoven, they really hated the ultra-conservatives, and with some measure of good reason, methinks...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

pluhagr said:


> Haha, if that's true then Mozart isn't music. :devil:


Doesn't L'enfer like Mozart then?


----------



## Sid James

Lenfer said:


> ...
> If I like it then it's music if I don't then it's *NOT* music!...


Or if I like it, I like it, but if I don't, I don't. That's it, no use intellectualising.

How many times here have we read of people not liking for example certain things that are considered across the board as masterpieces, innovative, popular, all that. Eg. Beethoven's 9th symphony. It's "sin" is usually it's banality or something, that it has a big tune at the end, that it is uplifting, that it's based on a simple tune that's drawn out to be sublime in the end, etc.

Same things are said against a lot of composers today, from both conservative and ultra-radical (extreme) ideologies. Eg. when Australian minimalist Ann Boyd's pieces were first performed here, the serialist atonal avant-garde clique literally laughed and some walked out of the hall. The reasons given against her were same as against the Beethoven above. Her piece had a tune, it had repetition, it was optimistic (or at least not dark and angsty), etc.

Now about 40 years later, she's on the senior staff at Sydney Conservatorium. & she's no longer what I'd call a minimalist. But was Beethoven the first minimalist, or one of them? A side-thought, turning negative into positive.

Times change. But unfortunately, people who are dinosaurs don't...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Dodecaplex said:


> I'm not saying anyone can be taken or not be taken seriously as a musician. I'm saying the word "music" itself has no meaning whatsoever (aside from arbitrary subjective labels), and neither does the word "musician".


:lol: Why don't we also debase music schools, their professors, tutors, students? Forget also about assessment. Any "music student" who goes to a "music school" can just do what they like, no formal assessment - ranking of their merits - upon "graduation". Just turn up, and then "graduate" as "musicians" and "composers", all of equal merit.


----------



## Conor71

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Why don't we also debase music schools, their professors, tutors, students? Forget also about assessment. Any "music student" who goes to a "music school" can just do what they like, no formal assessment - ranking of their merits - upon "graduation". Just turn up, and then "graduate" as "musicians" and "composers", all of equal merit.


As a fan and a composer of fugues I would have thought that Dodecaplex would appreciate that writing such music requires sum training and skillz!


----------



## Guest

superhorn said:


> I try not to be dogmatic about what any given work should or should not be .
> Basically, my problem with John Cage that his works aren't really compositions as such , but gimmicks . Four minutes as 33 seconds of silence at the keyboard is just a gimmick .


But you're not dogmatic about that.

(Word in your ear: repeating an assertion is not the same as backing it up.)



superhorn said:


> Aleatoric elements within a composition can be interesting , but what Cage produced are I repeat, gimmicks .


Yes. So we'd noticed.



superhorn said:


> He was just a trendy guy who was trying to show how "different" and "with it" he was .


You knew Cage personally? Not to pull rank on you or anything, but I did know him personally, and this comment is all ********. (Even if you'd only read some of his prose, you'd know that.)



superhorn said:


> Not every agrees about this, but I've never been very enthusiastic about him ..


I dunno super, I think everyone agrees that you've never been very enthusiastic about him. Or they do now.

Not sure how that lack of enthusiasm translates into a contribution to this discussion, but then this post of mine doesn't contribute to this discussion, either.


----------



## pluhagr

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Why don't we also debase music schools, their professors, tutors, students? Forget also about assessment. Any "music student" who goes to a "music school" can just do what they like, no formal assessment - ranking of their merits - upon "graduation". Just turn up, and then "graduate" as "musicians" and "composers", all of equal merit.


Why would we do that? Where does your comment logically follow? Can we PLEASE stop with extremes... I am not saying that all musicians are equal. We, the audience judge them. We, the audience define music. It's all subjective. And if enough people subjectively like a composer they become popular. As for what music is and is not, we the audience define that too. So opinions about sound being or not being music are all equally valid since there is nor ever will be the an objective definition of music that is floating around in the cosmos. Music to me is very different than it is to you. For those of you that say that Cage has no right to compare car horns to Beethoven, if Cage experiences them both as music than none of us can say that he is not experiencing music. It is his judgement about the music. And his judgement of the music is his own and no one else's. You cannot tell Cage what he ought to experience. That is just nonsense.


----------



## violadude

pluhagr said:


> Why would we do that? Where does your comment logically follow? Can we PLEASE stop with extremes... I am not saying that all musicians are equal. We, the audience judge them. We, the audience define music. It's all subjective. And if enough people subjectively like a composer they become popular. As for what music is and is not, we the audience define that too. So opinions about sound being or not being music are all equally valid since there is nor ever will be the an objective definition of music that is floating around in the cosmos. Music to me is very different than it is to you. For those of you that say that Cage has no right to compare car horns to Beethoven, if Cage experiences them both as music than none of us can say that he is not experiencing music. It is his judgement about the music. And his judgement of the music is his own and no one else's. You cannot tell Cage what he ought to experience. That is just nonsense.


I wouldn't try too hard to convince these guys of your point. They're not likely to take into account what you are really saying. Believe me, I know from experience.


----------



## Dodecaplex

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Why don't we also debase music schools, their professors, tutors, students? Forget also about assessment. Any "music student" who goes to a "music school" can just do what they like, no formal assessment - ranking of their merits - upon "graduation". Just turn up, and then "graduate" as "musicians" and "composers", all of equal merit.


This "assessment" of music is nonsensical in the first place. Students and professors may fool themselves with the false belief that they could assess or judge music, but it's nothing but the subjective opinions of people. Doesn't matter if it's done by a professor or by a large group of professors over a large period of time, it is still nonsensical because music cannot be defined or judged by humans. Of course, I'm sure that music schools are not going to be debased because the majority of humans can't rid themselves of the egotistical feeling of judging things, as if they were gods.


----------



## starthrower

Saying "any sound is music to my ears" is fine for oneself, but music composition and arrangement is a different animal. Sure, you can identify the rhythm of a dog lapping up water, but there's obviously no intellectual input on the dog's end. I'm not sure about music floating around in the cosmos? From what we know, which is far from everything, it's pretty dead in space.

As far as being a judge, I don't approach music that way. I may not be crazy about Mozart, but that's because the sound of it doesn't appeal to me personally. There's no need to judge the music on its own terms. It's perfectly valid as music whether I like it or not.

I don't consider traffic noise, barking, glass breaking to be music, but these ingredients can be incorporated into a musical piece by composers if they see fit.


----------



## pluhagr

starthrower said:


> Saying "any sound is music to my ears" is fine for oneself, but music composition and arrangement is a different animal. Sure, you can identify the rhythm of a dog lapping up water, but there's obviously no intellectual input on the dog's end. I'm not sure about music floating around in the cosmos? From what we know, which is far from everything, it's pretty dead in space.
> 
> As far as being a judge, I don't approach music that way. I may not be crazy about Mozart, but that's because the sound of it doesn't appeal to me personally. There's no need to judge the music on its own terms. It's perfectly valid as music whether I like it or not.
> 
> I don't consider traffic noise, barking, glass breaking to be music, but these ingredients can be incorporated into a musical piece by composers if they see fit.


I meant that there is no definition of music floating around in the cosmos. No objective opinion.


----------



## Dodecaplex

starthrower said:


> I'm not sure about music floating around in the cosmos? From what we know, which is far from everything, it's pretty dead in space.


Actually, Jupiter is one hell of an avant-garde composer.


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Students and professors may fool themselves with the false belief that they could assess or judge music, but it's nothing but the subjective opinions of people. Doesn't matter if it's done by a professor or by a large group of professors over a large period of time, it is still nonsensical because music cannot be defined or judged by humans.


There is the classic hippie mantra... "There is no good! There is no bad! My foot is just as great as Abraham Lincoln! No one knows what they're talking about because they're human! Everyone is creative! The dirt under my feet is creative! Let's all just lay down and smoke weed all day."

Well, I for one am quite content to define and judge music. I judge people. I judge politicians. I judge my morning cup of coffee. I come up with a concept of what the perfect T Bone steak is, and then I go to a restaurant and judge their offering against my ideal. Everyone defines and judges every single waking moment of their lives. If they aren't doing that, they probably need a spit cup and a bib.

See! You're judging my post right now!


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Saying "any sound is music to my ears" is fine for oneself, but music composition and arrangement is a different animal. Sure, you can identify the rhythm of a dog lapping up water, but there's obviously no intellectual input on the dog's end. I'm not sure about music floating around in the cosmos? From what we know, which is far from everything, it's pretty dead in space.


The 'magic' is in the ear of the beholder. There may not be "intellectual input" on the part of the dog, but if a human strains to listen and appreciates the sound on its own terms, then it is the _human_ intellectual input that can make the sound music_al_, even if not from a sentient source.

[Note: I don't necessarily agree with what I just said.  ]


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Actually, Jupiter is one hell of an avant-garde composer.


That's some freaky fun ****! I suppose Earth makes noises too? Have these been captured?


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> For those of you that say that Cage has no right to compare car horns to Beethoven, if Cage experiences them both as music than none of us can say that he is not experiencing music. It is his judgement about the music. And his judgement of the music is his own and no one else's. You cannot tell Cage what he ought to experience. That is just nonsense.


I'm not denying Cage the right to think that car horns are the same as Beethoven. I'm just pointing at the emperor's nakedness. The absurdity of equating Beethoven with car horns is self-evident. Cage surely had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek and didn't even believe what he was saying himself. It's amazing that anyone might take a comment like that seriously. I think Cage was a lot smarter than the people who quote him.

Snappy outrageous comments in interviews don't make most of his music any better though.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> I'm not denying Cage the right to think that car horns are the same as Beethoven. I'm just pointing at the emperor's nakedness. The absurdity of equating Beethoven with car horns is self-evident. Cage surely had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek and didn't even believe what he was saying himself. It's amazing that anyone might take a comment like that seriously. I think Cage was a lot smarter than the people who quote him.
> 
> Snappy outrageous comments in interviews don't make most of his music any better though.


It is absurd to you, not to him and not to others. And I don't even know what to say to your 2nd to last comment... I just think that you're not listening to what I or others are saying because you've really got it all wrong, which is disappointing.


----------



## pluhagr

Dodecaplex said:


> Actually, Jupiter is one hell of an avant-garde composer.


Oh! this is SO cool. I really like it.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Even if John Cage was a douchebag with the sole intention to create trendy gimmicks, can we not disregard that when considering his music, just like we don't let Wagner's anti-semitism impact on our appreciation of his operas.


That one should be obvious. Wagner created operas that anyone with half a brain can see creativity and craftsmanship in, even if they had never read a word of Wagner's essays. Cage created noise that required reams of self justifying manifestos to explain. Without the program notes with the cosmic theories, the average person would hear his stuff and scrunch their mouth to one side and say, "What's this crap?!"


----------



## bigshot

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Any "music student" who goes to a "music school" can just do what they like, no formal assessment - ranking of their merits - upon "graduation". Just turn up, and then "graduate" as "musicians" and "composers", all of equal merit.


i think at many schools, that's pretty much the case. The students who actually achieve an education do so because of their own efforts in spite of the hippie professors who tell them that anything they "feel" is good.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> That one should be obvious. Wagner created operas that anyone with half a brain can see creativity and craftsmanship in, even if they had never read a word of Wagner's essays. Cage created noise that required reams of self justifying manifestos to explain. Without the program notes with the cosmic theories, the average person would hear his stuff and scrunch their mouth to one side and say, "What's this crap?!"


Well maybe he didn't write it for the "average person" whatever that means... I think that his writings, mainly Silence, make him genuine. He did not compose on a whim but he composed well thought out works. There was thought and intention.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> i think at many schools, that's pretty much the case. The students who actually achieve an education do so because of their own efforts in spite of the hippie professors who tell them that anything they "feel" is good.


OH GOD! I tried to ignore this... but I have to respond. Have you ever been to college? Have you studied music in college? Your post indicates that you have no idea what college professors are like. Your comments are really not adding to the thread anymore. They are silly and pointless and stop a real discussion from taking place. I would appreciate if you would cease commenting on here or change the nature of your comments. Thank you.


----------



## Meaghan

bigshot said:


> I'm not denying Cage the right to think that car horns are the same as Beethoven.


I wonder where all this stuff about Cage "thinking car horns are the same as Beethoven" came from. This example has been used by folks on both sides of the debate, but from everything I've heard or read by Cage on the subject he perceived a _significant_ difference between traffic noises and Beethoven. (See HC's clip for some of his thoughts on this.)


----------



## pluhagr

This quote is from Cage, I think it is important.
"I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke. I wanted to mean it utterly and be able to live with it."


----------



## clavichorder

bigshot said:


> Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected. -Oscar Wilde


I always find Oscar Wilde's quotes thought provoking, but a bit trollish. From what I know of him, he was an impish man who liked to make cheeky statements. I think he THE master at selling a particularly elitist point of view. I don't care if he is far wittier than I, I refuse to listen to him most of the time. If we all listened to Oscar Wilde, we'd all want to give up on life because we weren't good enough. Who cares if he's right in a certain way? One of my least favorite quotes of his, "Ambition is the last resort of failure" is a particularly cruel one.


----------



## bigshot

Explain to me the qualities of 4'33" that you find to be expressive, genuine and of high quality without referring to Cage's manifestos justifying the piece. Only point out the qualities that are part of the experience of the performance. Pretend that you're hearing the work for the first time and haven't even heard of John Cage before.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> Have you ever been to college? Have you studied music in college?


I graduated from UCLA with a degree from the art school there.



pluhagr said:


> I would appreciate if you would cease commenting on here or change the nature of your comments. Thank you.


Ha! Welcome to the wonderful world of open discourse. There's really no reason to get all upset. If you can't tolerate disagreement, take a break and go outside and listen to the "compositions" of the world around you.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> There is the classic hippie mantra... "There is no good! There is no bad! My foot is just as great as Abraham Lincoln! No one knows what they're talking about because they're human! Everyone is creative! The dirt under my feet is creative! Let's all just lay down and smoke weed all day."
> 
> Well, I for one am quite content to define and judge music. I judge people. I judge politicians. I judge my morning cup of coffee. I come up with a concept of what the perfect T Bone steak is, and then I go to a restaurant and judge their offering against my ideal. Everyone defines and judges every single waking moment of their lives. If they aren't doing that, they probably need a spit cup and a bib.
> 
> See! You're judging my post right now!


Hey bigshot, why don't you actually reply to this post of mine? Funny how you have the courage to keep coming back despite the fact that this post completely demolishes all of your arguments. And despite the fact that you ran away from replying to it.


Dodecaplex said:


> You're so confused in your definitions that I don't know where to begin. An opinion is nothing more than a view held by a person. A person is a subject. Therefore, statements that express his opinion are subjective (e.g. "Mendelssohn's symphonies sound amazing" and "car alarms sound amazing" are both subjective statements).
> 
> On the other hand, a fact that exists in the universe that we can observe is an object. Therefore, statements about scientific data, historical documents, etc. are objective (e.g. "Mendelssohn wrote symphonies" and "cars have alarms" are both objective statements).
> 
> Finally, the analysis isn't objective if your criteria is a set of subjective opinions.
> 
> According to whom are these the required criteria?
> 
> According to whom are these masterpieces?
> 
> Again, according to whom is Mendelssohn more likely to be good music?
> 
> Yes, that is subjective, but so is saying "I like Mendelssohn's symphonies, therefore they are music to me".
> There's no universal law saying what is good and what is bad music, nor is there a law saying what is and what isn't music. Do you see why what you're saying is completely nonsensical?


And by the way, the only things that could be judged are objective data and statements that describe objective data. Your statements inaccurately describe objective data, which is why I can criticize them.


----------



## bigshot

clavichorder said:


> One of my least favorite quotes of his, "Ambition is the last resort of failure" is a particularly cruel one.


Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was a particularly eloquent riff on that theme.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> That's some freaky fun ****! I suppose Earth makes noises too? Have these been captured?


Not sure about earth. You can google it and see though. It's truly fascinating.


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Hey bigshot, why don't you actually reply to this post of mine?


because the post of mine you were replying to, which outlined the process for arguing a point logically, answered all of those points. I spent a bit of time trying to simply and clearly articulate the process for analyzing and judging the relative value of ideas, and I didn't see the need to do it again. Perhaps I boiled it down too much. A google seach for "logical argument techniques" might state it clearer than I can.


----------



## pluhagr

Dodecaplex said:


> Not sure about earth. You can google it and see though. It's truly fascinating.


That it is. It is quite amazing that actually happens.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> because the post of mine you were replying to, which outlined the process for arguing a point logically, answered all of those points. I spent a bit of time trying to simply and clearly articulate the process for analyzing and judging the relative value of ideas, and I didn't see the need to do it again. Perhaps I boiled it down too much. A google seach for "logical argument techniques" might state it clearer than I can.


I'm sorry but I study philosophy, so I know a bit about arguments. Yours are not logical.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> That's some freaky fun ****! I suppose Earth makes noises too? Have these been captured?


Back in my high school days I had an album called "Harmony of the Spheres" where someone took the data from the movement of the planets and stars and fed it into a synthesizer. The album was a good solid 40 minutes of meandering, dreamy stuff not too different than the ambient music of Brian Eno. I have no idead if it was ever released on CD, but back in the day it was quite popular with the pot smoking set.

Edit: Isn't google great?
http://www.neilardley.com/harmony-of-the-spheres/
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7790886


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> I'm sorry but I study philosophy, so I know a bit about arguments. Yours are not logical.


Philosophy and logic don't often intersect.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> because the post of mine you were replying to, which outlined the process for arguing a point logically, answered all of those points. I spent a bit of time trying to simply and clearly articulate the process for analyzing and judging the relative value of ideas, and I didn't see the need to do it again. Perhaps I boiled it down too much. A google seach for "logical argument techniques" might state it clearer than I can.


Actually, it did not. You don't even know the difference between subjective and objective statements. And telling someone to google something as an argument is how a child might try to crawl out of arguments. But that's okay if that's how you want it to be. It's just that no one will ever take you seriously.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> Philosophy and logic don't often intersect.










[


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid I'm not going to argue about how to argue. There are enough rabbit holes in this thread as it is.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Philosophy and logic don't often intersect.


You are VERY wrong here. Anyone who stops and studies philosophy knows that it is rooted in logic. Logic is philosophy, it is a brach of philosophy at least. 
Aristotle must be rolling in his grave because of your comment...


----------



## bigshot

I admit psychology is much worse than philiosophy in this area.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> I admit psychology is much worse than philiosophy in this area.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Dodecaplex

pluhagr said:


> You are VERY wrong here. Anyone who stops and studies philosophy knows that it is rooted in logic. Logic is philosophy, it is a brach of philosophy at least.
> Aristotle must be rolling in his grave because of your comment...


Well, let us remember what violadude said.


violadude said:


> I wouldn't try too hard to convince these guys of your point. They're not likely to take into account what you are really saying. Believe me, I know from experience.


----------



## pluhagr

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, let us remember what violadude said.


I know I know...


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> What are you talking about?


Logic is to philosophy as design is to art. It should be a key aspect... It was always intended to be a key aspect. But then some folks jumped in and peed in the pool, wandering into theoretical corners of logicless philosophy and designless art... and music without melody, harmony and rhythm. It's what we're talking about here.

As for psychology... Well if philosophy is the organized religion of logic, then psychology is the equivalent of pygmy headhunters sacrificing goats in the Ituri Forest.

I can certainly be convinced that a particular type of music has more going for it than I think it does. It's happened in the past. But it takes examples and articulation of the attributes that make it great, not just telling me that I should take your word for it.


----------



## pluhagr

bigshot said:


> Logic is to philosophy as design is to art. It should be a key aspect... It was always intended to be a key aspect. But then some folks jumped in and peed in the pool, wandering into theoretical corners of logicless philosophy and designless art... and music without melody, harmony and rhythm. It's what we're talking about here.
> 
> As for psychology... Well if philosophy is the organized religion of logic, then psychology is the equivalent of pygmy headhunters sacrificing goats in the Ituri Forest.


Very wrong again. We'll talk when you have your facts straight.


----------



## bigshot

pluhagr said:


> Very wrong again. We'll talk when you have your facts straight.


Feel free to comment without that restriction yourself.


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> Logic is to philosophy as design is to art. It should be a key aspect... It was always intended to be a key aspect. But then some folks jumped in and peed in the pool, wandering into theoretical corners of logicless philosophy and designless art... and music without melody, harmony and rhythm. It's what we're talking about here.


Philosophy and logic use language to convey ideas about reality. Music, on the other hand, cannot be used to convey any ideas about reality, nor does it use any language. The comparison is therefore false.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> i think at many schools, that's pretty much the case. The students who actually achieve an education do so because of their own efforts in spite of the hippie professors who tell them that anything they "feel" is good.


That's sooo not how music schools work....


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Philosophy and logic use language to convey ideas about reality. Music, on the other hand, cannot be used to convey any ideas about reality, nor does it use any language. The comparison is therefore false.


Plug had the answer to that one in post 189.

I hope everyone else is enjoying this as much as I am.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, let us remember what violadude said.


Omg...I got quoted! Happiest day of my life


----------



## pluhagr

violadude said:


> Omg...I got quoted! Happiest day of my life


I did it again. Are you happier?


----------



## violadude

pluhagr said:


> I did it again. Are you happier?


No, you didn't quote me to make a point to someone else.


----------



## starthrower

So Jupiter emits noises and vibrations, but I don't consider it music. Wait... I think some of that sounds like Ligeti's music!


----------



## pluhagr

starthrower said:


> So Jupiter emits noises and vibrations, but I don't consider it music. Wait... I think some of that sounds like Ligeti's music!


 I would call that music. I interpret it as music. But it is not music to you.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I have come to believe that if someone intends it to be music, it is music. If someone intends it not to be music, it isn't music but some people (eg. John Cage) might _interpret_ it as music.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> That one should be obvious. Wagner created operas that anyone with half a brain can see creativity and craftsmanship in, even if they had never read a word of Wagner's essays. Cage created noise that required reams of self justifying manifestos to explain. Without the program notes with the cosmic theories, the average person would hear his stuff and scrunch their mouth to one side and say, "What's this crap?!"


You are officially hopeless.


----------



## Dodecaplex

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I have come to believe that if someone intends it to be music, it is music. If someone intends it not to be music, it isn't music but some people (eg. John Cage) might _interpret_ it as music.


Please don't return us to square one. Based on one of your previous posts, I believe you haven't read the great number of posts in this thread that clearly falsify what you're saying here.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^No I haven't.


----------



## Dodecaplex

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^No I haven't.


Then you have some TC homework to do.


----------



## Polednice

Note to people who would like to enter into discussion and debate: no matter how ferociously you hold your beliefs, no matter how fundamentally logical you think you are, and no matter how much witty rhetoric you wish to display in your arguments, if you allow even one ounce of dismissive, insulting venom to infiltrate your posts - whether you're being disrespectful to another poster or a professional under discussion - you do not deserve to have your posts acknowledged, let alone taken seriously.

In short: stop being so ****ing petulant.


----------



## Dodecaplex

I should calm down a bit too. I apologize to anyone who has felt that I've been dogmatic with expressing my idea that defining and/or judging music is nonsensical.


----------



## bigshot

I'm enjoying myself. No need to worry about me.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Note to people who would like to enter into discussion and debate: no matter how ferociously you hold your beliefs, no matter how fundamentally logical you think you are, and no matter how much witty rhetoric you wish to display in your arguments, if you allow even one ounce of dismissive, insulting venom to infiltrate your posts - whether you're being disrespectful to another poster or a professional under discussion - you do not deserve to have your posts acknowledged, let alone taken seriously.
> 
> In short: stop being so ****ing petulant.


Does that include my facepalm image?


----------



## starthrower

pluhagr said:


> I would call that music. I interpret it as music. But it is not music to you.


I don't interpret it as music. Not sounds coming from a giant gas planet. I wouldn't call thunder from the earth's atmosphere music either. Ligeti organizing like sounds and textures in a composition is what I call music.


----------



## Conor71

nevermind!


----------



## pluhagr

starthrower said:


> I don't interpret it as music. Not sounds coming from a giant gas planet. I wouldn't call thunder from the earth's atmosphere music either. Ligeti organizing like sounds and textures in a composition is what I call music.


 And that's where you and I disagree.


----------



## Dodecaplex

starthrower said:


> I don't interpret it as music. Not sounds coming from a giant gas planet. I wouldn't call thunder from the earth's atmosphere music either. Ligeti organizing like sounds and textures in a composition is what I call music.


Okay, what if I had lied to you and said it was actually composed by Ligeti? Would you have then considered it to be music?

But of course, as you can see, whether you consider it to be music or not doesn't matter in the least bit, which is why giving up on the idea of "defining music" is the only sensible solution. If you find any better ones, I'd be glad if you told me about them.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Okay, knowing Polednice, we can get a meaningful discussion out of this. Let us proceed . . .



Dodecaplex said:


> In that case, we should have specific (and probably tautological) definitions for all the different things that can make music (man-made music is music made by humans, animal-made music is made by animals, water-fall-made music is made by waterfalls etc.) which just makes the whole thing even more nonsensical.
> 
> 
> Polednice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that be nonsensical? It seems reasonable to me, with most of us limiting our interests to human-made music!
Click to expand...

My initial understanding was that if our definitions for music were so specific, then there'd be no use for them in the first place. But I'm going to let that pass because, after all, a tautological statement such as "man-made music is made by humans" would indeed be redundant, but I can't think of anything that could falsify such a definition. If these definitions are okay with you, then so be it. But . . . I like to take it a level further. :devil:


Dodecaplex said:


> . . . by the way, you didn't address the point about the supreme being whose judgment of music is higher than all of our judgments . . .
> 
> 
> Polednice said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it didn't make sense.
Click to expand...

This will be making things a bit too philosophical; however, if we're going to discuss aesthetics, then we're bound to run into such problems. Essentially, this is what I'm trying to say: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a God exists. In this case, would you agree that the existence of such a being would be of supreme importance? After all, since he created the universe and all the things that are possible within it, then he is the absolute judge of everything in this universe. If you disagree, then explain why. And if you agree, then I'd also agree and I'd say that it logically follows that such a being's judgment, whatever it may be, would be the "right" judgment.

Now, what this tells us is: our judgment of the facts in this universe is very limited, which leads to the conclusion that our definition of music is meaningless since we can't be certain whether it agrees or doesn't agree with the supreme being's definition. This is why I keep saying that defining music is nonsensical. What do you say?


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> My initial understanding was that if our definitions for music were so specific, then there'd be no use for them in the first place. But I'm going to let that pass because, after all, a tautological statement such as "man-made music is made by humans" would indeed be redundant, but I can't think of anything that could falsify such a definition. If these definitions are okay with you, then so be it. But . . . I like to take it a level further. :devil:


But the converse generally argued for in this thread is a definition so vague that it also has no use. The way I would prefer to interpret things is that big-M Music is defined by sounds created deliberately by humans, while little-m music_al_ things can include any sounds humans appreciate which aren't created by or for them. I don't know if that's any more sensical, I'm just thinking out loud.



Dodecaplex said:


> This will be making things a bit too philosophical; however, if we're going to discuss aesthetics, then we're bound to run into such problems. Essentially, this is what I'm trying to say: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a God exists. In this case, would you agree that the existence of such a being would be of supreme importance?


Not necessarily. Because:



Dodecaplex said:


> After all, since he created the universe and all the things that are possible within it, then he is the absolute judge of everything in this universe.


The second statement does not naturally follow the first. You are interpreting the notion of God in the monotheistic tradition, but there are an infinite number of conceivable deities that could create a universe and life, but have no interest in the affairs of life, and never intervene in those affairs, meaning that, despite its existence, it would be of little importance to life except as another little factoid to collect.

Even if I were to accept your monotheistic, omni-everything interpretation, I still have an issue with you saying that it follows that the supreme being's judgement would be "right". Its morals would be absolute if it could punish us for transgression after death (not necessarily an attribute of a supreme being), though we could still find those morals repugnant and follow them purely out of fear. Does that make them "right"? Just because an all-powerful being created the universe and allowed my existence does not mean that I owe it deference! I would challenge the notion that absolute truths _ever_ exist in _any_ universe with _any_ kind of deity.

On aesthetics, the situation is even hazier. The very nature of aesthetics is about _human_ appreciation. Would a deity even hold an opinion or a definition? Would it matter if it did? I don't think so. Appreciation of aesthetics and defining various aspects or manifestations of aesthetics is an entirely human endeavour, and the point of doing so is not to uncover any fundamental truths (which, indeed, everyone should accept is a silly thing to try), but to come to some consensus about a useful approach and a useful set of definitions to aid the human experience.

I'll repeat in other words that I don't think it matters whether there's a deity or not, and I don't think it matters if a deity gives you rules and offers reward and punishment; I do not believe that absolute truth exists anywhere in the multiverse and so I think it is an invalid criticism to say that a discussion about definition is pointless because it can't come to a conclusion of truth. It's not about being right, it's about having a conversation useful to the human experience, which I would contend is always more important than following the rules of even the most benevolent tyrant.


----------



## starthrower

Dodecaplex said:


> Okay, what if I had lied to you and said it was actually composed by Ligeti? Would you have then considered it to be music?
> 
> But of course, as you can see, whether you consider it to be music or not doesn't matter in the least bit, which is why giving up on the idea of "defining music" is the only sensible solution. If you find any better ones, I'd be glad if you told me about them.


I'm not out to define music for anyone's ears but my own. I'll just decide that for myself. It's interesting to hear those sounds recorded from Jupiter, but I wouldn't buy a CD of that stuff. Ligeti may have composed a few textual pieces in this vein, but overall his body of work is obviously much more diverse. I don't expect Jupiter to produce something like his sonata for solo cello, or his violin concerto.


----------



## superhorn

Rossini on the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique : " It's a good thing this isn't music ". 









:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## starthrower

Some composers hate to admit that another composer wrote something that they couldn't conceive of or create themselves. Easier to throw the insults about.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> But the converse generally argued for in this thread is a definition so vague that it also has no use. The way I would prefer to interpret things is that big-M Music is defined by sounds created deliberately by humans, while little-m music_al_ things can include any sounds humans appreciate which aren't created by or for them. I don't know if that's any more sensical, I'm just thinking out loud.


Well, the problem I would have with making such a distinction is that it's in a sense degrading the little-m music_al _ things. I don't see why we should make this differentiation in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?


Dodecaplex said:


> After all, since he created the universe and all the things that are possible within it, then he is the absolute judge of everything in this universe.
> 
> 
> Polednice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Because:
> The second statement does not naturally follow the first. You are interpreting the notion of God in the monotheistic tradition, but there are an infinite number of conceivable deities that could create a universe and life, but have no interest in the affairs of life, and never intervene in those affairs, meaning that, despite its existence, it would be of little importance to life except as another little factoid to collect.
Click to expand...

I knew this was going to be your response. But think about it, what this actually does is that it simply adds another layer of uncertainty to our thinking. After all, it's not just that we have to worry that our aesthetical judgment may or may not be the same as the deity's judgment, but there's also the problem that such a deity may or may not exist and/or care in the first place. This just makes the entire endeavor more nonsensical and futile.



Polednice said:


> Even if I were to accept your monotheistic, omni-everything interpretation, I still have an issue with you saying that it follows that the supreme being's judgement would be "right". Its morals would be absolute if it could punish us for transgression after death (not necessarily an attribute of a supreme being), though we could still find those morals repugnant and follow them purely out of fear. Does that make them "right"? Just because an all-powerful being created the universe and allowed my existence does not mean that I owe it deference! I would challenge the notion that absolute truths _ever_ exist in _any_ universe with _any_ kind of deity.


Not the best analogy in the world, but can characters in novels defy or question their author? They are all merely play-things compared to the grand writer that created them. They may dislike how they've gone through murder, rape, natural disasters, and all other sorts of tragedies (perphaps because the author had already decided that they would dislike it), but they simply can't question the author's sense of right or wrong because he's on an entirely different level. If this monotheistic God exists, and if he's a massive a**hole, then there's nothing you or I could do about it. We'd be merely play-things compared to this grand deity. As you see, this introduces the philosophical problem of free-will, as well as a countless number of other problems, so I suggest we simply drop this line of argument.



Polednice said:


> On aesthetics, the situation is even hazier. The very nature of aesthetics is about _human_ appreciation. *Would a deity even hold an opinion or a definition?* Would it matter if it did? I don't think so. Appreciation of aesthetics and defining various aspects or manifestations of aesthetics is an entirely human endeavour, and the point of doing so is *not to uncover any fundamental truths(which, indeed, everyone should accept is a silly thing to try), but to come to some consensus about a useful approach and a useful set of definitions to aid the human experience.*


I don't know whether or not the deity would hold a definition or opinion, but if it did, then yes, it would matter. And, like I said, this simply adds another layer of uncertainty. But to address your second point, hmm . . . I guess you're right there. As long as we don't try to come up with an objective definition for music and then proclaim it to be a universal definition, and as long as we actually admit that it's nothing more than a label that's there to aid our experiences, then I'd agree with you. In the end, what I'm saying is that we must acknowledge our limitations.



Polednice said:


> I'll repeat in other words that I don't think it matters whether there's a deity or not, and I don't think it matters if a deity gives you rules and offers reward and punishment; I do not believe that absolute truth exists anywhere in the multiverse and so I think it is an invalid criticism to say that a discussion about definition is pointless because it can't come to a conclusion of truth. It's not about being right, it's about having a conversation useful to the human experience, which I would contend is always more important than following the rules of even the most benevolent tyrant.


This is all true because of the massive cloud of uncertainty and confusion that is blurring the little amount of knowledge we have. You see, it's not that not reaching a conclusion of truth is an invalid criticism, but _because_ it's a _valid_ criticism, is why we should have never tried to reach a conclusion of truth in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, the problem I would have with making such a distinction is that it's in a sense degrading the little-m music_al _ things. I don't see why we should make this differentiation in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?


It's only degrading if you are taking the word "music" to have certain judgement values attached to it. For example, when people state a metaphor like, "this poem is so musical!", what they're _not_ doing is calling it music; what they're doing is complimenting the poem by associating it with something they like (music). Those are associations that need to be discounted in this discussion. To say that non-human little-m "musical" things are not music is _not_ a subtle insult; it's an emotionless statement declaring that they are sounds not made by humans.

In other words, take the word "music" to be _exactly_ synonymous with the phrase "sounds created deliberately by humans." _Not_ something judgemental like "_pleasing_ sounds created deliberately by humans." That way, it is not degrading to refer to little-m 'musical' things.



Dodecaplex said:


> I knew this was going to be your response. But think about it, what this actually does is that it simply adds another layer of uncertainty to our thinking. After all, it's not just that we have to worry that our aesthetical judgment may or may not be the same as the deity's judgment, but there's also the problem that such a deity may or may not exist and/or care in the first place. This just makes the entire endeavor more nonsensical and futile.


It makes the endeavour futile if we're comparing our judgements to a speculated supreme being, but I don't know why you brought that into the discussion in the first place! So remove the deity from the equation - what uncertainty is pointless now?



Dodecaplex said:


> Not the best analogy in the world, but can characters in novels defy or question their author? They are all merely play-things compared to the grand writer that created them. They may dislike how they've gone through murder, rape, natural disasters, and all other sorts of tragedies (perphaps because the author had already decided that they would dislike it), but they simply can't question the author's sense of right or wrong because he's on an entirely different level. If this monotheistic God exists, and if he's a massive a**hole, then there's nothing you or I could do about it. We'd be merely play-things compared to this grand deity. As you see, this introduces the philosophical problem of free-will, as well as a countless number of other problems, so I suggest we simply drop this line of argument.


You're right that it's not the best analogy.  What I would briefly say (although I agree we should discontinue this particular line of argument) is that you make an unsubstantiated leap from "things the creator has happen in its world" to "this is a demonstration of the creator's sense of right and wrong." I don't think those naturally follow, and even if we were mere play-things, what separates us from fictional characters is _consciousness_. That allows us to question the deity's whims and/or benevolence as much as we like, even if we can never have an impact on it.



Dodecaplex said:


> I don't know whether or not the deity would hold a definition or opinion, but if it did, then yes, it would matter.


Why?  If the deity said, for its own mystical reasons, that Beethoven was rubbish and Stockhausen the epitome of genius, would we all be compelled to somehow realign our aesthetic ideals? I say damn the deity, Beethoven is who I'll follow! I think this strange reasoning regarding what god says or thinks is just a peculiar extension of human childhood during which we all naturally defer to our parents in order to learn things about the world. Of course, sometimes, what our parents tell us is rubbish, and we grow to a point where we rightly question what we are told. The same holds for any kind of god. It may assert authority, it may exist in eternity, it may have power to punish and reward us forever after death, but that can never mean that we must accept everything it says as absolutely true.



Dodecaplex said:


> hmm . . . I guess you're right there. As long as we don't try to come up with an objective definition for music and then proclaim it to be a universal definition, and as long as we actually admit that it's nothing more than a label that's there to aid our experiences, then I'd agree with you. In the end, what I'm saying is that we must acknowledge our limitations.


Good! 



Dodecaplex said:


> This is all true because of the massive cloud of uncertainty and confusion that is blurring the little amount of knowledge we have. You see, it's not that not reaching a conclusion of truth is an invalid criticism, but _because_ it's a _valid_ criticism, is why we should have never tried to reach a conclusion of truth in the first place. So, what do you say? Stick with the tautologies?


You're just doing a 180 on me without telling me why.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> It's only degrading if you are taking the word "music" to have certain judgement values attached to it. For example, when people state a metaphor like, "this poem is so musical!", what they're _not_ doing is calling it music; what they're doing is complimenting the poem by associating it with something they like (music). Those are associations that need to be discounted in this discussion. To say that non-human little-m "musical" things are not music is _not_ a subtle insult; it's an emotionless statement declaring that they are sounds not made by humans.
> 
> In other words, take the word "music" to be _exactly_ synonymous with the phrase "sounds created deliberately by humans." _Not_ something judgemental like "_pleasing_ sounds created deliberately by humans." That way, it is not degrading to refer to little-m 'musical' things.


Fair enough. 



Polednice said:


> It makes the endeavour futile if we're comparing our judgements to a speculated supreme being, but I don't know why you brought that into the discussion in the first place! So remove the deity from the equation - what uncertainty is pointless now?


I brought it into the discussion because it's a possibility that cannot be ignored. I simply can't ignore the possibility that there might be an omni-everything God, and if such a God exists, we can't argue with his judgment. Keep in mind that, here, I'm not talking about labels that could aid us with our experiences, I'm talking about the conclusion of truth you were referring to, as well as the fact that such a conclusion can never be reached by humans, which is why I say that we ultimately can't define or judge music.



Polednice said:


> You're right that it's not the best analogy.  What I would briefly say (although I agree we should discontinue this particular line of argument) is that you make an unsubstantiated leap from "things the creator has happen in its world" to "this is a demonstration of the creator's sense of right and wrong." I don't think those naturally follow, and even if we were mere play-things, what separates us from fictional characters is _consciousness_. That allows us to question the deity's whims and/or benevolence as much as we like, even if we can never have an impact on it.


You misunderstood me here. I never said anything about any demonstration of a creator's sense of right or wrong. My entire point was to actually demonstrate that we can't know or judge a creator's sense of right or wrong. And mentioning consciousness brings in the problem of free will, so let's forget about this argument.



Polednice said:


> Why?  If the deity said, for its own mystical reasons, that Beethoven was rubbish and Stockhausen the epitome of genius, would we all be compelled to somehow realign our aesthetic ideals? I say damn the deity, Beethoven is who I'll follow! I think this strange reasoning regarding what god says or thinks is just a peculiar extension of human childhood during which we all naturally defer to our parents in order to learn things about the world. Of course, sometimes, what our parents tell us is rubbish, and we grow to a point where we rightly question what we are told. The same holds for any kind of god. It may assert authority, it may exist in eternity, it may have power to punish and reward us forever after death, but that can never mean that we must accept everything it says as absolutely true.


The deity is what caused the music and the composers who created the music to be able to exist in the first place. I don't know what the deity's judgment would be, and I don't know whether or not it will have a judgment, but if it does and whatever that judgment may be, it is still beyond us. To summarize everything that I've said: we can't be sure about any objective values or judgments, but if there _were_ any such things, the creator's judgment would be above everyone else's.


Polednice said:


> You're just doing a 180 on me without telling me why.


If I were to say "not reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is an invalid criticism of our discussion", then that implies we _can_ actually reach a conclusion about the definition of music with our discussion. For instance, take the negation of it: "reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is a valid criticism of our discussion", which is just as absurd. So, the correct form would be to say "not reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is a valid criticism of our discussion". After that, what you said in the last paragraph from your previous post logically follows, though I'd still disagree with _some_ parts of it. I think that our main disagreement lies in what we exactly think of the two words "valid criticism".


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> I brought it into the discussion because it's a possibility that cannot be ignored. I simply can't ignore the possibility that there might be an omni-everything God, and if such a God exists, we can't argue with his judgement.


Whhhhyyyyyyyyyy?!?!!  As I alluded to before, I don't see how this is any different to that parent/child inferiority complex. Even if the deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring, all-murdering whatever, what does its opinion matter _on topics that are fundamentally about the human experience_. As you have rightly pointed out, music is just something that exists within the human sphere. It has no meaning elsewhere. So what is important is how music affects _us_; not what any other being in this universe thinks of it.



Dodecaplex said:


> The deity is what caused the music and the composers who created the music to be able to exist in the first place. I don't know what the deity's judgment would be, and I don't know whether or not it will have a judgment, *but if it does and whatever that judgment may be, it is still beyond us*.


Which is, word for word, _precisely_ why the judgement does not matter to the human race.



Dodecaplex said:


> To summarize everything that I've said: we can't be sure about any objective values or judgments, but if there _were_ any such things, the creator's judgment would be above everyone else's.


Again why? I think we're actually talking at cross-purposes here. Let me split it up a little:

1) If there are _objective_ measures of music, then yes, the attribute of omniscience would place a supreme being's judgement above ours.
2) If - as I have actually been talking about (though you may have got confused and not realised) - all measures of music are purely subjective, then the deity's judgement does not matter, because it has no role in subjective experience.



Dodecaplex said:


> If I were to say "not reaching a conclusion about the definition of music is an invalid criticism of our discussion", then that implies we _can_ actually reach a conclusion about the definition of music with our discussion.


Cross-fire again, I think. By "invalid", I do not mean "diametrically wrong." Therefore, the negation of the sentence doesn't matter, and it doesn't imply anything. By "invalid", what I mean is that the criticism has no place in the discussion because it is _accepted_ that no conclusion can be reached, so pointing that out adds nothing to the discussion and is not a true criticism.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> Whhhhyyyyyyyyyy?!?!!  As I alluded to before, I don't see how this is any different to that parent/child inferiority complex. Even if the deity is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring, all-murdering whatever, what does its opinion matter _on topics that are fundamentally about the human experience_. As you have rightly pointed out, music is just something that exists within the human sphere. It has no meaning elsewhere. So what is important is how music affects _us_; not what any other being in this universe thinks of it.


Scroll down.



Polednice said:


> Again why? I think we're actually talking at cross-purposes here. Let me split it up a little:
> 
> 1) If there are _objective_ measures of music, then yes, the attribute of omniscience would place a supreme being's judgement above ours.


Yes, that's exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. And I completely agree with that statement.


Polednice said:


> 2) If - as I have actually been talking about (though you may have got confused and not realised) - all measures of music are purely subjective, then the deity's judgement does not matter, because it has no role in subjective experience.


No, the subjective measures of music don't interest me. I thought we were already beyond that. 



Polednice said:


> Cross-fire again, I think. By "invalid", I do not mean "diametrically wrong." Therefore, the negation of the sentence doesn't matter, and it doesn't imply anything. By "invalid", what I mean is that the criticism has no place in the discussion because it is _accepted_ that no conclusion can be reached, so pointing that out adds nothing to the discussion and is not a true criticism.


Yes, it is accepted that no conclusion can be reached, which is why it has to be explicitly stated that no conclusion can be reached, which is why I believe it is a valid criticism that cannot be trivialized. Call it the fundamental axiom of music if you will.


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Yes, it is accepted that no conclusion can be reached, which is why it has to be explicitly stated that no conclusion can be reached, which is why I believe it is a valid criticism that cannot be trivialized. Call it the fundamental axiom of music if you will.


We're making ground, dodeca, making ground! I almost want to hug you! 

On this final point, though, I must nit-pick. Yes, no conclusion can be reached. Yes, it should be stated and accepted that no conclusions can be reached. BUT, it is not a criticism of _any_ kind because we're not trying to reach conclusions. As I said before, the conversation is meant to be more utilitarian than that - it's about coming to a consensus on a concept useful for exploring an aspect of human experience; not about finding out something that's 'right'.

If there _are_ people trying to reach proper conclusions, then it's a valid criticism - but those people don't come under the category of those who have accepted that no conclusions can be reached.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> We're making ground, dodeca, making ground! I almost want to hug you!
> 
> On this final point, though, I must nit-pick. Yes, no conclusion can be reached. Yes, it should be stated and accepted that no conclusions can be reached. BUT, it is not a criticism of _any_ kind because we're not trying to reach conclusions. As I said before, the conversation is meant to be more utilitarian than that - it's about coming to a consensus on a concept useful for exploring an aspect of human experience; not about finding out something that's 'right'.
> 
> If there _are_ people trying to reach proper conclusions, then it's a valid criticism - but those people don't come under the category of those who have accepted that no conclusions can be reached.


Well, this is great. I feel like Aristotle when he first came up with his classic laws of logic and whatnot.

Now, to come up with a subjective and utilitarian definition for music I am going to say that music is any and all sounds that exist in this universe and that can be heard, appreciated, and/or remembered by a sentient being. For the sake of making things easier to organize, I should divide it into three categories: man-made music, animal-made music, and natural music. Each of these have tautological definitions that cannot be falsified. Finished. 

The funny thing is when you realize just how little is accomplished with our subjective defining of music. The world is still the same, composers still compose what they want, birds still chirp, planets still emit electromagnetic vibrations etc. Nothing has changed aside from how we view things.


----------



## bigshot

I love how many words it takes you guys to say you can't come to any conclusion! Of course, the rest of us have no problem with doing that...

Animal made music makes me laugh though! I'm picturing...


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Now, to come up with a subjective and utilitarian definition for music I am going to say that music is any and all sounds that exist in this universe and that can be heard, *appreciated*, and/or remembered by a sentient being. For the sake of making things easier to organize, I should divide it into three categories: man-made music, animal-made music, and natural music. Each of these have tautological definitions that cannot be falsified. Finished.


Note the bolded part, which I would use to specify that not all sounds in the universe could be music. For example, sounds outside our range of hearing would not be music, and nor would sounds that are invariably painful. This also brings up another pointless point, which is that I think a definition for music is only useful within a single species. It must change for different species in accordance with their auditory experience.

My next useless conjecture would be that I think all sounds that meet the above criteria are not music _until_ they are appreciated. They are not music on the moment of creation; they must become music on the moment of reception.



Dodecaplex said:


> The funny thing is when you realize just how little is accomplished with our subjective defining of music. The world is still the same, composers still compose what they want, birds still chirp, planets still emit electromagnetic vibrations etc. Nothing has changed aside from how we view things.


I know. I'm not gaining anything from the discussion except having a bit of harmless fun.


----------



## Eviticus

Speaking of animal music: Does anyone love waking up to the sweet sound of the birds singing to each other? Turns out those cute little tweeters may not actually be singing to each other after all but actually trading insults... just like the man made twitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2025006/Sparrows-birdsong--theyre-actually-trading-insults.html


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^Does that make Messiaen's music full of swear words then?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> My next useless conjecture would be that I think all sounds that meet the above criteria are not music _until_ they are appreciated. They are not music on the moment of creation; they must become music on the moment of reception.


I know you know what I'm going to say. After all, the composer probably almost immediately appreciates his own music in his own subjective way of appreciating things. So how about a better useless conjecture, which is that all sounds that meet the previously established criteria are music if and only if they are being appreciated at the present moment. And works that have been published and appreciated a few centuries earlier but that have now been lost can no longer be considered music. How about that?


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> I know you know what I'm going to say. After all, the composer probably almost immediately appreciates his own music in his own subjective way of appreciating things. So how about a better useless conjecture, which is that all sounds that meet the previously established criteria are music if and only if they are being appreciated at the present moment. And works that have been published and appreciated a few centuries earlier but that have now been lost can no longer be considered music. How about that?


Deal. *Firm hand-shake*.


----------



## Sid James

superhorn said:


> Rossini on the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique : " It's a good thing this isn't music ".


Berlioz had the same opinion of much of Rossini's music, he said something like Rossini was a better cook than a composer. He was similarly not a fan of Bellini and Donizetti. I think both Beethoven and Berlioz were not big fans of Rossini overall, probably due to his popularity and wealth more than anything else, but they did acknowledge that he was pretty good at comic opera...


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> Deal. *Firm hand-shake*.


Well, then, would you like to go get a cup of coffee or something? And then maybe go back to whatever responsiblities that both of us are currently ignoring?


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, then, would you like to go get a cup of coffee or something? And then maybe go back to whatever responsiblities that both of us are currently ignoring?


Sounds great! Let's maybe go for dinner instead, though, and, you know, watch a film or something? Might as well make a night of it. Work can wait until tomorrow...


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I personally feel that you can't define music. Each person has their own idea of what music is. You can't find a true defintion of it in Webster's. I feel that anything with a beat or notes can be considered music, even mass produced, over-played, top 40 garbage. I may not enjoy it, I may think that the artist has no talent but who am I to say that it is "true" music or not? My ego is not that over-inflated.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> Sounds great! Let's maybe go for dinner instead, though, and, you know, watch a film or something? Might as well make a night of it. Work can wait until tomorrow...


Well, my avatar is currently in theaters. So I can't go outside until I get it back. It's not like I could change it any time I want or anything. But maybe some later time.


----------



## Dodecaplex

TrazomGangflow said:


> I personally feel that you can't define music. Each person has their own idea of what music is. You can't find a true defintion of it in Webster's. I feel that anything with a beat or notes can be considered music, even mass produced, over-played, top 40 garbage. I may not enjoy it, I may think that the artist has no talent but who am I to say that it is "true" music or not? My ego is not that over-inflated.


Yup, and that's how the wave of the sea sweeps away the sand. Sid James is forever right. :clap:


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, my avatar is currently in theaters. So I can't go outside until I get it back. It's not like I could change it any time I want or anything. But maybe some later time.


OK. I get it.


----------



## bigshot

Mozart isn't music on the planet Mars then!


----------



## Sid James

Let's settle this "debate" once and for all.

In the favour of the conservative dogmatists who won't admit their bias. Which basically boils down to -

J.S. Bach, Wagner = music, not only "real" music but "great" music, the sacred cows.

Guys like the other two B's, Mozart, Handel, Vivaldi, and a few other wigs, maybe = "good" music, almost "great" but not quite.

Guys like Liszt, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz = music that has it's merits but is too popular, tacky, banal, etc. So it's fair to middling at best.

Guys like Bartok, Stravinsky, Berg = acceptable face of modernism. Again nowhere near as "great" or "good" as the first two categories.

Then everything else, which is beyond the pale and "bad," eg. not "real" music - John Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Birtwistle, Carter, the sounds of various planetary bodies, etc...


----------



## bigshot

I like animal music a lot better than John Cage's music! Down with Cage's! Up with animals!


----------



## bigshot

The nice thing about animals is that they never seem to pontificate like first year art students. They just make music!


----------

