Jump to content

What does 'experimental' mean, in 'experimental music'?


droolmaster0

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm really not entirely sure....

I'll relate my own 'case history'.

I tend to not listen enough to current music, and I tend to ignore genres. I find it hilarious that in what are ostensibly experimental genres like 'noise music' there are seemingly infinite sub genres - which to me are the antithesis of experimental music. I say this inquisitively, not confrontationally (sp?) but how is something experimental if it conforms to a very narrow sub genre? '(noise with wall to wall projectile vomit and habanero peppers, bright orange')

I tend to use that adjective when describing my own music because I can't think of anything else. I AM in a sense experimenting. Since I'm trying not, deliberately to make music that conforms to anything really, I'm working from various technical levels - routing, unusual settings, etc, to surprise myself, and then eventually to find things that please me. The theory always is that working without preconceptions (as much as possible) allows me to find stuff that I wouldn't have preconceived.

But I'm not entirely sure that this fits with the definition of the term. Does it only refer to the final product? And how, exactly? These are questions that I ask myself. Usually when I'm less drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Hmm, to me "experimental" can only apply to a single person, or I suppose there can be schools of experimentalism, which still have one person's ethos driving it.

The minute you slap a label on it as a movement or subgenre, it becomes meaningless. What your are doing agrees with what I consider being experimental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

labelling tends to happen after the fact. some people feel the need to analyze, intellectualize, etc and classify it. doesn't make it right or wrong its just what they do

Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
The theory always is that working without preconceptions (as much as possible) allows me to find stuff that I wouldn't have preconceived
i have 2 thoughts on this

there was a group of photographers in the 80s that just shot from the waist. these guys just had no process or were totally spontaneous. then afterwards they would go through and find photos that worked and ones that didn't. ultimately it was refreshing and unique compared to stiff traditional 'super serious' photography, but it did waste a lot of materials lol

then there's what you said about routing, strange settings, etc. this could be construed as taking process and trying to push it into more interesting and strange places. i think its a valid form of expression even if there's no structure, formula, etc. there's no shame in doing it purely for self-indugent reasons and not bowing to the pressures out there to conform
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by mate_stubb View Post
Hmm, to me "experimental" can only apply to a single person, or I suppose there can be schools of experimentalism, which still have one person's ethos driving it.

The minute you slap a label on it as a movement or subgenre, it becomes meaningless. What your are doing agrees with what I consider being experimental.
At the same time, one could approach music like I do, and still arrive at very traditional results - so I wonder whether my description is really enough. I agree with you - it isn't a 'genre' or movement....but people I respect think that calling music experimental is a copout. In a sense, I think that's right - i call it experimental because I can't think of anything else. They will throw out terms to refer to (as an example) my music as electroacoustic this or that, or other terms that I can't remember - so, in some sense I think I agree with you. But I think that something more is needed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by gregwar View Post
labelling tends to happen after the fact. some people feel the need to analyze, intellectualize, etc and classify it. doesn't make it right or wrong its just what they do

i have 2 thoughts on this

there was a group of photographers in the 80s that just shot from the waist. these guys just had no process or were totally spontaneous. then afterwards they would go through and find photos that worked and ones that didn't. ultimately it was refreshing and unique compared to stiff traditional 'super serious' photography, but it did waste a lot of materials lol

then there's what you said about routing, strange settings, etc. this could be construed as taking process and trying to push it into more interesting and strange places. i think its a valid form of expression even if there's no structure, formula, etc. there's no shame in doing it purely for self-indugent reasons and not bowing to the pressures out there to conform
What you write prompts me to ask - what really is meant by "self-indulgent reasons"? What is making music for non 'self-indulgent' reasons? I don't think that you mean simply making it for money, or a specific purpose, etc - but I"m not sure exactly what you mean. Isn't the purest music made for self indulgent reasons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When I think of "experimental music," I tend to think of albums like the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" or "Smile." Some of the songs from "Smile" are just these amazing layered vocal arrangements that are unlike anything else I'd ever heard before. It was a complete departure from anything anyone else was doing.

Shuggie Otis's "Inspiration Information" is another example that comes to mind.

Experimental music usually involves ignoring boundaries. You might use an unusual time signature, an experimental tuning, or a new method of composition. It might also involve a new combination of instruments, sound effects, you name it. Sometimes the artist even creates the instruments himself.

Usually "experimental music" that succeeds artistically is conventional in some regards and experimental in others. Music that's too 'experimental' is usually so far out and removed from the norm that it doesn't appeal to most listeners on any level.

It's an interesting topic -- i.e. what 'experimental music' really is, why people make it, and what its implications are. I used to record a lot of experimental music back in the 1980s and 1990s, and I'm still surprised now and then by some of the stuff I came up with.

To me, one important implication of experimental music is that it makes you more conscious of when you're otherwise being conventional. You realize how often you're really just playing along with the conventions of existing musical genres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Book a gig somewhere, see if anyone likes your music. If no one does, then it's experimental music facepalm.gif

It helps to have no recognizable melody, rhythms that set off epileptic seizures and song titles like "Napalm Carpet Indoctrination #263 (protozoan remix)".

You must use more effects devices than instruments. Creating feedback loops on cheap mixers is the best.

Bonus points if you release only limited edition flexidiscs or hand painted 8-track cartridges.

2388.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We all know about the weaknesses of Wikipedia, but I'm impressed by the effort put into this article to encompass all the varieties of music that gets tossed under "experimental music":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music

I've played a bit of John Cage's music. He's known for chance music, but the piece we've been working on is tightly arranged and reflects deliberate thought rather than random noodling. We tried our best to play it this past summer and we're going to give it another shot in a month. The other Cage pieces that I have heard also seem to be tightly arranged.

Free improvisation, which is also mentioned, is something I've also done. The really good players have a knack for creating a structure together, which probably has a lot to do with highly-developed listening skills. The ones who suck (like me), don't accomplish that so easily.

"In C" by Terry Riley is a blast to play with a bunch of other people. Surprisingly, that too is considered "experimental".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here are the experimental songs I mentioned earlier, for anyone interested.

The Beach Boys - "Child is Father of the Man." My favorite part starts at around 0:50. Really unusual vocal arrangement, but very nice. Brian Wilson had a friendly rivalry with The Beatles, and "Child is Father of the Man" and "Our Prayer" show that Wilson's vocal arranging ability was in a world of its own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FYJZeQaIUU


And "Our Prayer:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFY-WC3zVqs

Shuggie Otis was a child guitar prodigy and multi-instrumentalist, and a brilliant lyricist and melodic composer. His album "Inspiration Information" had a significant influence on a variety of musicians. It's interesting also that his father was the 'Godfather of Rhythm and Blues' himself, Johnny Otis. Here's 'Strawberry Letter #23' (see especially 2:09 to 3:50):



"Strawberry Letter #23" was featured on Groove Armada's album "Another Late Night:"



... and later a reworked version became a top ten hit for The Brothers Johnson. Sometimes experimental music is ahead of its time and people just aren't ready to appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRDzKu-_OE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I'm really not entirely sure....

I'll relate my own 'case history'.

I tend to not listen enough to current music, and I tend to ignore genres. I find it hilarious that in what are ostensibly experimental genres like 'noise music' there are seemingly infinite sub genres - which to me are the antithesis of experimental music. I say this inquisitively, not confrontationally (sp?) but how is something experimental if it conforms to a very narrow sub genre?
It's a good question. I think what happens in some cases is not that experimental music conforms to a narrow sub genre, but that it becomes one -- because of how other people decide things must be. It's a convention of thought and classification as people do it. We tend to link things by attribute, even if there is no real cladistic relationship. What you've hit upon, at least as I'm reading it, is also partly a linguistic and epistemological problem (which also relates to longstanding arguments in, for example, the history of biology as well).

It turns out that one man's "experimental music" is another man's "variation on an existing style of music." And for the latter, the binding factor might just be that they share the use of wooden mallets or the throwing of feces as a common feature. smile.gif

I've also wondered how far 'out there' you have to be to be truly 'experimental.' Is it okay to call your music experimental, for example, if you're conforming to the classic western scales (Aeolian, Lydian, Phrygian, Dorian, etc.)?

And what if your music is atonal, even randomly atonal? Does that automatically make your music 'experimental'?

And then if you're REALLY far out there, you end up in an argument over whether it's even music at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At work, so can't comment at length, but I think that the only requirement for something to be music is that it consist of sound and silence, organized (in a very loose sense) by a human being. Other than that, one cannot describe some set of properties (rhythm, harmony, etc) that are necessary for something to be called music. I think that it's rather an absurdity for someone to be listening to something that is "REALLY far out there" and then have someone else say that it isn't music. Just because one doesn't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify.

Quote Originally Posted by zoink View Post
It's a good question. I think what happens in some cases is not that experimental music conforms to a narrow sub genre, but that it becomes one -- because of how other people decide things must be. It's a convention of thought and classification as people do it. We tend to link things by attribute, even if there is no real cladistic relationship. What you've hit upon, at least as I'm reading it, is also partly a linguistic and epistemological problem (which also relates to longstanding arguments in, for example, the history of biology as well).

It turns out that one man's "experimental music" is another man's "variation on an existing style of music." And for the latter, the binding factor might just be that they share the use of wooden mallets or the throwing of feces as a common feature. smile.gif

I've also wondered how far 'out there' you have to be to be truly 'experimental.' Is it okay to call your music experimental, for example, if you're conforming to the classic western scales (Aeolian, Lydian, Phrygian, Dorian, etc.)?

And what if your music is atonal, even randomly atonal? Does that automatically make your music 'experimental'?

And then if you're REALLY far out there, you end up in an argument over whether it's even music at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to toss in my own two cents here... I think experimental music and electronic in particular, consist of two main principals.

It transgresses musical technicality by using different or unique scales, atonality, time signatures etc and also by inventing or using unique sound sources and methods of manipulation.

And I think experimental music also has some sort of contemplative quality about it.

I think currently, most of what we would call experimental is merely a play on smashing genres together. I think true experimental music is a break with common or traditional writing methods, sound sources etc but it's also presented in a way that makes you think about what is being done or accomplished.

Hawkwind for instance, while I think what they did was cool, it was also analogous to the nu metal bands using a DJ for scratching or dropping beats into their songs. Yea it's experimental, but it's not what I would consider if it was the core of an art form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

WAUW. I don't feel like I have that much valid material to contribute to this thread, but I just wanna say thanks for an extraordinarily interesting topic that provided some serious reflection for this chap.

Difficult topic, since experimental music is elusive, due to vagueness of its definition and judgement in the eye of the beholder. I'll say that I don't listen to much music that doesn't experiment on a certain level, but I don't listen to any music that carry no other tag than 'experimental' (except free improvisation, which is maybe the essence of experimental music. This is still called 'free', though!). The thought that a piece of music cannot be experimental because it's in 4/4, in melodic minor, has a strong singable melody or something else entirely, is just silly to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some good questions here I think. I don't think that it's correct to establish a hard threshold for any of this. And, over time, obviously, what is 'experimental' shifts.

But I this that it's a misuse of the term to apply it to music that is very close to some recognized genre, but just a little outside of it. I'm tempted sometimes to try to apply it solely to the process, but I think that this isn't right either. I think that some serious thought about what music is, and how to make it is required. Also the desire and ability to initialize oneself and look at things anew, repeatedly. For instance, one can experiment and come up with something interesting, but then if one copies oneself again and again, it doesn't seem like it's experimental anymore. So - it would be quite legitimate, I think to say to me (just using myself as an example, since I know what I TRY to do) - "look, I know you THINK that you're making experimental music, and you may be experimenting in some sense, but your stuff sounds exactly like X, or this genre, and it hasn't really evolved much, so maybe you should just call it noise music"

In some ways, this is a harder question (for me, at least) than 'what is music' because I think that the answer to that one is simple.

Quote Originally Posted by zoink View Post
It's a good question. I think what happens in some cases is not that experimental music conforms to a narrow sub genre, but that it becomes one -- because of how other people decide things must be. It's a convention of thought and classification as people do it. We tend to link things by attribute, even if there is no real cladistic relationship. What you've hit upon, at least as I'm reading it, is also partly a linguistic and epistemological problem (which also relates to longstanding arguments in, for example, the history of biology as well).

It turns out that one man's "experimental music" is another man's "variation on an existing style of music." And for the latter, the binding factor might just be that they share the use of wooden mallets or the throwing of feces as a common feature. smile.gif

I've also wondered how far 'out there' you have to be to be truly 'experimental.' Is it okay to call your music experimental, for example, if you're conforming to the classic western scales (Aeolian, Lydian, Phrygian, Dorian, etc.)?

And what if your music is atonal, even randomly atonal? Does that automatically make your music 'experimental'?

And then if you're REALLY far out there, you end up in an argument over whether it's even music at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I mentioned in the other thread (and I suppose I"m biased because I just really have never liked the Beach Boys) - i think that it's a misuse of the term to call this 'experimental music'. It's pop music. It might stretch things within the genre, but I just can't see how it's experimental music in the sense in which I asked the question, and the term is used generally.

Quote Originally Posted by zoink View Post
Here are the experimental songs I mentioned earlier, for anyone interested.

The Beach Boys - "Child is Father of the Man." My favorite part starts at around 0:50. Really unusual vocal arrangement, but very nice. Brian Wilson had a friendly rivalry with The Beatles, and "Child is Father of the Man" and "Our Prayer" show that Wilson's vocal arranging ability was in a world of its own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FYJZeQaIUU


And "Our Prayer:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFY-WC3zVqs

Shuggie Otis was a child guitar prodigy and multi-instrumentalist, and a brilliant lyricist and melodic composer. His album "Inspiration Information" had a significant influence on a variety of musicians. It's interesting also that his father was the 'Godfather of Rhythm and Blues' himself, Johnny Otis. Here's 'Strawberry Letter #23' (see especially 2:09 to 3:50):



"Strawberry Letter #23" was featured on Groove Armada's album "Another Late Night:"



... and later a reworked version became a top ten hit for The Brothers Johnson. Sometimes experimental music is ahead of its time and people just aren't ready to appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRDzKu-_OE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I mentioned in the other thread (and I suppose I"m biased because I just really have never liked the Beach Boys) - i think that it's a misuse of the term to call this 'experimental music'. It's pop music. It might stretch things within the genre, but I just can't see how it's experimental music in the sense in which I asked the question, and the term is used generally.

Quote Originally Posted by zoink View Post
Here are the experimental songs I mentioned earlier, for anyone interested.

The Beach Boys - "Child is Father of the Man." My favorite part starts at around 0:50. Really unusual vocal arrangement, but very nice. Brian Wilson had a friendly rivalry with The Beatles, and "Child is Father of the Man" and "Our Prayer" show that Wilson's vocal arranging ability was in a world of its own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FYJZeQaIUU


And "Our Prayer:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFY-WC3zVqs

Shuggie Otis was a child guitar prodigy and multi-instrumentalist, and a brilliant lyricist and melodic composer. His album "Inspiration Information" had a significant influence on a variety of musicians. It's interesting also that his father was the 'Godfather of Rhythm and Blues' himself, Johnny Otis. Here's 'Strawberry Letter #23' (see especially 2:09 to 3:50):



"Strawberry Letter #23" was featured on Groove Armada's album "Another Late Night:"



... and later a reworked version became a top ten hit for The Brothers Johnson. Sometimes experimental music is ahead of its time and people just aren't ready to appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRDzKu-_OE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by mildbill View Post
What does 'experimental' mean, in 'experimental music'?



It means you don't know what you're doing.

If you know what you're doing, it's not experimental.
That is just nonsense on so many levels. My sarcastic remark is that it is YOU who don't know what you're doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a VERY good answer, I think.

Quote Originally Posted by Metrosonus View Post
Just to toss in my own two cents here... I think experimental music and electronic in particular, consist of two main principals.

It transgresses musical technicality by using different or unique scales, atonality, time signatures etc and also by inventing or using unique sound sources and methods of manipulation.

And I think experimental music also has some sort of contemplative quality about it.

I think currently, most of what we would call experimental is merely a play on smashing genres together. I think true experimental music is a break with common or traditional writing methods, sound sources etc but it's also presented in a way that makes you think about what is being done or accomplished.

Hawkwind for instance, while I think what they did was cool, it was also analogous to the nu metal bands using a DJ for scratching or dropping beats into their songs. Yea it's experimental, but it's not what I would consider if it was the core of an art form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
As I mentioned in the other thread (and I suppose I"m biased because I just really have never liked the Beach Boys) - i think that it's a misuse of the term to call this 'experimental music'. It's pop music. It might stretch things within the genre, but I just can't see how it's experimental music in the sense in which I asked the question, and the term is used generally.
Well, I don't begrudge anybody their taste for or against Brian Wilson. As for how you asked the question, I wasn't aware of any special or added conditions on the word "experimental."

Over the several decades that I've followed it, 'experimental music' is the only label I've ever heard attributed to Brian Wilson's "Smile" sessions. It's designation as 'experimental' has been common enough as to be axiomatic. In its time, it was considered so far out there that it was assumed that mainstream listeners wouldn't understand it or know what to do with it if they released it. It may not be as extreme in its experimentalism as synth "noise music," but I still think the label fits for what it is.

It is musical music, though it's certainly not "pop" by any stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure sounds like pop music to me, and I also think that there is a HUGE gap between what the mainstream pop music fan will accept and true experimental music. I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'special or added conditions'. I simply don't think that the experimentation that the Beach Boys did is the same kind of fundamental questioning about music and what it does that true experimental music has. It's pop music. I'm incredulous that it would be looked at otherwise.

Quote Originally Posted by zoink View Post
Well, I don't begrudge anybody their taste for or against Brian Wilson. As for how you asked the question, I wasn't aware of any special or added conditions on the word "experimental."

Over the several decades that I've followed it, 'experimental music' is the only label I've ever heard attributed to Brian Wilson's "Smile" sessions. It's designation as 'experimental' has been common enough as to be axiomatic. In its time, it was considered so far out there that it was assumed that mainstream listeners wouldn't understand it or know what to do with it if they released it. It may not be as extreme in its experimentalism as synth "noise music," but I still think the label fits for what it is.

It is musical music, though it's certainly not "pop" by any stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I label most of my own music as experimental. From the beginning, I've tried everything I could with solo electric guitar, and had to learn how to keep time and play in rhythm without a band. For some reason, metronomes and I never jived. So, I have odd time signatures, and always try new things. Whether it be genre or guitar effects, I do something new every time I record. Some idiotic people have said to me "Just because you use a ton of effects doesn't make you experimental." Most of my output has minimal effects. It's my playing that's different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePTGc9VVZf8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by zoink

View Post

 

pop music, bent a little bit. More pop than not. I don't think that the Beatles made experimental music either. But I'll leave this to you and others who think that this is what the topic is about - I"m just not interested in the Beach Boys in this context at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...