# What is music?



## Guest (Aug 20, 2016)

It seems there's not actually been a thread about this, and prompted by the latest splurge of comment in a 4'33" thread (which most have probably given up on) I thought I'd launch the question now by carrying across my last post from there.

Here are three different views on music and, in particular, its value to society (and only one explicitly about Cage's piece.)



> [4'33" is] serious because it gets right to the heart of the avant garde project of the last century as a whole, as expressed in Dada, in Picasso's pasting bits of Le Figaro onto his canvasses, Marcel Duchamp's urinal "readymade", in the sirens that wail through the orchestral works of the composer Edgard Varese like Ameriques, in Futurist Luigi Russolo's Art Of Noises manifesto - to collapse the walls between art and life, in this case to extend the notion of what is admissible as music and what is not to . . . everything. This was an idea that would have confounded the great musical masters of the 19th century and previously, whose overarching assumptions would come crashing down in the early part of the 20th. In this respect, 4'33", ironically, is closer to "noise" music than anything else.


David Stubbs http://thequietus.com/articles/05438-silence-why-john-cage-s-4-33-is-no-laughing-matter



> The default stance of ethnomusicology, therefore, is aesthetic relativism. We don't argue that one kind of music is better than another, because there isn't an objective position from which to make such a claim.


Patrick Burke http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2015/januaryfebruary/feature/what-music



> Music is different things to different people: to Ian Skelly, author of the article 'Beauty Speaks', above all things music has a transcendental significance that is captured in the beautiful patterns of Nature and architecture - a kind of 'frozen music'; to Mark Kidel, author of 'Conversations and Crossroads', music can bridge cultures in a universal 'conversation' that is beyond intellect or reason, but which is heartfelt; to Brian Eno, music brings the joy of unexpected and beautiful sound; and to singer/songwriters like myself and Howard Milner, music - and singing in particular - takes us to a world apart: a world beyond self and ego; a place of emotion that touches the soul.


Annie Lennox http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2540-What-is-Music.html


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html

And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html
> 
> And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


D'oh!

Faulty search on my part didn't turn up more than 23 threads and didn't include this.

Sorry folks!

(but we haven't had a thread discussing whether there is a difference between what music is and what constitutes music )


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Well it's an old thread, and creating new threads for the discussions we have had in the past is not considered unacceptable here. But on the other hand, the definition we came up is basically perfect, so....


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html
> 
> And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


It was an excellent thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

I like that ethnomusicology quote. That's where I hang my hat.


----------



## SimonDekkerLinnros (Jun 15, 2016)

Music is a world within itself
With a language we all understand
With an equal opportunity
For all to sing, dance and clap their hands


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I figured it out by about age 7 or 8. Before that I would hear music on the radio and I assumed it was like the wind. It just existed in the atmosphere, nobody had to compose and arrange it.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

SimonDekkerLinnros said:


> Music is a world within itself
> With a language we all understand
> With an equal opportunity
> For all to sing, dance and clap their hands


definitely beautiful

as for the second line I deeply doubt it ....and it depends on style of music
but if classical music is taken into regard, then quite few understand its language - majority on this forum doesn't count as a proof, because it's a forum dedicated to classical music, therefore all of us here representing a minority of people who understand this language compared to a majority staying outside.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

helenora said:


> as for the second line I deeply doubt it ....


Language is probably not the correct terminology. Because language conveys specific meanings, and music does not.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

ok, let's change it for "sounds we all understand". the question remains the same " Does everyone understand them ?" for many they ( sounds) will be just sounds and nothing much more....., I mean sounds they don't understand ...as public understanding doesn't do further than "tonic - dominant" functions which they got used to hear in pop music and unfortunately I can't say that I'm exaggerating .


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's not neccesary for the enjoyment of music. I don't know anything about dance steps or choreography, but I can enjoy watching Fred Astaire or a ballet dancer.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

it was said in a figurative sense. No one says one should theoretically analyze all music one listens.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html
> 
> And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


Hello Dim7, after referring to the thread posting you have linked, I'm still not sure I have grasped what you mean by "non-linguistic sounds". Do you mean sounds that are produced other than by those produced by the human voice?


----------



## SimonDekkerLinnros (Jun 15, 2016)

helenora said:


> ok, let's change it for "sounds we all understand". the question remains the same " Does everyone understand them ?" for many they ( sounds) will be just sounds and nothing much more....., I mean sounds they don't understand ...as public understanding doesn't do further than "tonic - dominant" functions which they got used to hear in pop music and unfortunately I can't say that I'm exaggerating .


The quote is from the song "Sir Duke" by Stevie Wonder. I would guess that he meant that the emotions music bring are not bound by language, something like that.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Referring to the original question.
I know what it is when I hear it, and to quote Forrest Gump "that's all I've got to say about that"


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

TalkingHead said:


> Hello *Dim7*, after referring to the thread posting you have linked, I'm still not sure I have grasped what you mean by "non-linguistic sounds". Do you mean sounds that are produced other than by those produced by the human voice?


Apologies for "bumping" this post, but I would like an answer from _Aug6_ to this query. Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

TalkingHead said:


> Apologies for "bumping" this post, but I would like an answer from _Aug6_ to this query. Thanks.


You'll find him in the undergrowth.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> Apologies for "bumping" this post, but I would like an answer from _Aug6_ to this query. Thanks.


I noticed your post, but I'm too tired at the moment to argue coherently. Basically by non-linguistic sounds I meant sounds that are not words of a language, but then I realized that I'll have to make the whole definition more specific still.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

I understand, I'm rather fatigued, too. We'll talk later "in the undergrowth" as Dogen suggests...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Fine music is structurally organized sound performed by performers that need training to please the composer and audience. Pure and simple.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> I noticed your post, but I'm too tired at the moment to argue coherently. Basically by non-linguistic sounds I meant sounds that are not words of a language, but then I realized that I'll have to make the whole definition more specific still.


Basically the problem is to exclude poetry while including music with words.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html
> 
> And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


There are problems with this definition:

- One cannot exclude linguistic sounds, and therefore poetry is still in.
- There is a lot of actual music that is primarily communicative. ("Happy Birthday," hymns, jingles, mnemonics and all sorts of didactic and ceremonial music)

After the necessary adjustments for these objections, one is left with "sound organized to stimulate psychologically." So air raid sirens, doorbells, speech, and every sort of animal noise are back in as well.

My long-standing conclusion on this issue is that "music" doesn't have _a_ definition. There are a cluster of phenomena related by family resemblances, none of which shares the traits of all of the others, that are commonly called music.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

That's exactly what I said in the post right above yours...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> That's exactly what I said in the post right above yours...


Well, no. You presented a problem to solve. I said it can't be solved.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> My long-standing conclusion on this issue is that "music" doesn't have _a_ definition. There are a cluster of phenomena related by family resemblances, none of which shares the traits of all of the others, that are commonly called music.


I tend to agree with this assessment. I think it's better to think of aspects that all music has in common (e.g. sound) and perhaps boundaries beyond which no music is found. The latter apparently is rather controversial.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think it would be more insightful to ask "why do we need a definition for music" and examine the mindset and thinking behind the kind of mind that thrives on definitions. I come to the conclusion that this is the product of an overly-rational mind. Definitions are good for other areas of human endeavor, like science, but not for art, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, when artists are questioning the basic concepts of art.

The most useful and practical use for a definition of music, which would be an inclusive term, would be to exclude all forms which do not meet this definition, to further the agenda of those who want to exclude 4'33" as a valid statement.

In other words, a definition of music would be the product of pure monkey-like aggression.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What is music?*



Dim7 said:


> We had this back in 2015 http://www.talkclassical.com/37308-what-constitutes-music.html
> 
> And we did eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate and final, if a bit awkward definition for music: Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically.


I will agree that linguistic sounds (words, syllables, vocalizations) can be part of the "music" universe. But so, importantly, is "non-sound" or silence. After all, not every note (sound) is played at every instant by every instrument. Silences, such as the fermata pauses in the opening of Beethoven's Fifth, play an integral role in shaping a piece of music. Even a ten minute blast of white noise (the full spectrum of sound frequencies) is limited in time (and space) by the silence preceding and the silence following. In such instance, music becomes an _organized _use of sounds and silences, with the understanding that such organization may be to consciously _not _organize, as one would do in a randomly generated composition of sounds and silences.

I also contend that music is a mode assigned by consciousness. The sounds a bird makes are not music until a consciousness assigns it as such. Thus we humans talk about "the music of birds", but I do not suspect that birds themselves talk about such a thing, or even think about it. So music remains a human construct, or rather, a construct of consciousness.

As for "stimulating psychologically" .... All human responses to stimuli of all sorts in some way or another "stimulate psychologically", whether one is aware of the stimulation or not. If one hates a piece of music, or loves it, or is completely indifferent to it, his or her consciousness has been affected, or stimulated in some psychological way. The birds, on the other hand, don't care one way or another. (I suspect that even Messiaen's music does not move them!)

Thus, music is perhaps better said to be "sound(s) and non-sound (silence) that is consciously organized (even if randomly or aleatoric) _and_ consciously comprehended as a distinct construct", the "to stimulate psychologically" being a given of human response to stimuli in general.

But hell ... what do I know!? I like both Mozart _and_ John Cage.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Non-linguistic sounds that are not primarily communicative organized to stimulate psychologically"

There are problems with this definition, because music is a dramatic language, originally used to illustrate and accompany dramatic action and speech. It does this through "gestures" which are based on language, and speech patterns, and the act of speaking.

Music often imitates speech phrasing, as in A-B-A phrases which "ask a question" and then "answer it."

Music is not specific like language is, because it does not label or identify things, such as "chair."

Music can evoke emotions, though, and evoke "states of being" which are way more complicated than "chair" but not as specific or precise. These sound stimulate our emotions and feelings. Feelings and emotions are often times not specific, and are a contrast to the rational side of our nature.

The problem here is that once again, the rational, definition-seeking mindset needs to be satisfied, and pin-down music with a definition, and turn it into a "chair."

Chairs are used for sitting. Chairs are utilitarian; they have a purpose. Nobody asks, "What does this chair mean?" They just sit in it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

Perhaps before folks get hung up on 'definitions', a proper read of the OP might be in order.

The title question (which might _imply _'please define') is, I think, sufficiently open when the three articles I linked to are taken fully into account.

Certainly, I am not seeking or 'monkey-aggressively' (?) demanding a definition and the reason I took it away from the 4'33" thread was precisely to avoid repeating or resurrecting that theme.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps before folks get hung up on 'definitions', a proper read of the OP might be in order.
> 
> The title question (which might _imply _'please define') is, I think, sufficiently open when the three articles I linked to are taken fully into account.
> 
> Certainly, I am not seeking or 'monkey-aggressively' (?) demanding a definition and the reason I took it away from the 4'33" thread was precisely to avoid repeating or resurrecting that theme.


The articles you link are basically sound. The first one even reinforces what I have long said about 4'33", that it is not silence, and thus the title 4'33": a duration of time. Otherwise, it would be called "Silence."

And the ethnomusicologist has good things to say: music is part of being human, and being human is a very diverse thing. And no kind of music is "better" than any other.

Still, I fear you are casting pearls before swine. Like the posting about "anti-intellectualism" in America, I'm afraid it's alive and well, and would rather be watching football on TV.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it would be more insightful to ask "why do we need a definition for music" and examine the mindset and thinking behind the kind of mind that thrives on definitions. *I come to the conclusion that this is the product of an overly-rational mind. Definitions are good for other areas of human endeavor, like science, but not for art, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, when artists are questioning the basic concepts of art.*
> 
> The most useful and practical use for a definition of music, which would be an inclusive term, would be to exclude all forms which do not meet this definition, to further the agenda of those who want to exclude 4'33" as a valid statement.
> 
> In other words, a definition of music would be the product of pure monkey-like aggression.


I would say rationality and over-rationality have nothing to do with it. Nor is the distinction between science and art relevant. It is simply that some broad concepts don't have definitions because not all instances of the concept share qualities with all the others. The term science is probably one of them.

I think your conclusion about monkey-like aggression is very funny and probably true of some involved in the 4'33" discussion, but not really valid as a general rule. To quote a couple of aspiring philosophers: "Monkeys don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I would say rationality and over-rationality have nothing to do with it. Nor is the distinction between science and art relevant. It is simply that some broad concepts don't have definitions because not all instances of the concept share qualities with all the others. The term science is probably one of them.
> 
> I think your conclusion about monkey-like aggression is very funny and probably true of some involved in the 4'33" discussion, but not really valid as a general rule. To quote a couple of aspiring philosophers: "Monkeys don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it."


If "What is music" remains an open and flexible concept, then I'm all for it. I just don't think the arts are as definition-driven as science is, and I still maintain that this is the product of an overly-rational culture.


----------

