Members donaldcrunk Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by droolmaster0 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. i would have liked to reply earlier, but work is hectic. when i hear the reference 'experimental music' (which i apply to my own process as well) i tend to subconsciously associate it with the typical 'atonal' genres. i think thats an incorrect association, my ideal statement would be that 'experimental music' is 100 percent about the process and act of exploring the unknown, trying new combinations and ideas, as drool said. perhaps the end result fits in a genre, perhaps not - the act of associating one's music with a genre is purely up to the musician i think, and can be just as personal as the music itself. a few of us thrive on introducing 'chaos' in our studio systems - whether by patching with the modular, hitting some sort of 'randomize patch' button, feedback loops, noise etc. there's always an element of 'experimental' when using non predictable systems like this, and to me that's the excitement of making music in the time we live in. plentiful tools & no expectation of commercial success leads to a limited number of passionate people doing interesting things with interesting equipment, making interesting sounds. but can the term 'experimental music' be applied to any genre? by my definition, i think so - but again i think it's up to the artist themself to define. many people have the same unconscious associations that i do about the term 'experimental music' and so intentionally avoid the term, even if their methods and process are experimental in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 So if pop structured music can be written off as not being experimental even if it's using experimental elements, does the same rule apply to experimental music attempting to mix in pop structured elements? Yes and I think Suit had a good term in calling it exploratory music. If one were to improvise their own structure, such as Varese it would still be experimental, but if one simply copied an 8 bar, ABCAB type thing, then no, it's not wholly experimental. Furthermore, if experimental music tries to adhere only to experimental techinques, but all of these techniques have already been done a million times over, should it really be considered experimental? I think, in theory (or perhaps in practice), this can be considered the failing of experimental music. the issue here is, if we consider experimental music a "process" centered art form, it's incredibly easy for anyone to replicate the "process" of someone else. but I would argue that for no two people, the results would be the same. Until such time that experimental music becomes common place and replaces traditional music and all that it encompasses, it would then be the goal of experimental music to transgress those now common techniques. But until that time, I think the more common and replicated techniques tend to drift away from the core and more towards the outside as their use is more dictated by fashion rather than personal taste or a preference as a tool. I would think that there, in that nebulous outer valence you'd find the people that say "hey i looped this, I can be like Eno too" or something.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mooginator Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by droolmaster0 I couldn't disagree more strongly that one must be thoroughly versed in theory and composition in order to call one's music experimental. To some degree, one might say that there are 2 basic elements in the characterization - one must embody the spirit of experimentation deeply in one's own approach, and then I suppose it must also be evident in the final work. In some sense, it's really none of the listener's business what background the composer has - listen to the music and react to it on its own. The cliche that one must know the rules in order to break them is pretty silly. If one is making 'noise music' for instance, one does not need to study harmony first. And in fact, I think that it's often true that when one studies a discipline, it 'brainwashes' them from ever being able to truly let that theory go. As a violin player, I'm sometimes amused by hearing the attempts of great classical players to play non classical music. It's usually horribly, horribly stiff..... You are espousing experimenting not experimental. Anyone can experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator You are espousing experimenting not experimental. Anyone can experiment. uh. No. but you don't explain yourself at all, so it's hard to argue with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Meatball Fulton Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 If you listen to two music performances that sound like random noises to you, does it matter that one was actually composed and played as written and the other was completely untrained performers just doing whatever they felt like (wasn't there a video some guy shot of apes banging on synthesizers?).I once heard Wynton Marsalis talk about free improvisation in jazz and he made the point that listeners were more likely to accept musicians they had previously heard in mainstream contexts while considering others with a similar sound to be charlatans.My wife finds that the more unusual the music is to her, the more she needs to attend a live performance to enjoy it. Anyone else feel that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'd like t comment n this but I will have t o do so later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundwave106 Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Re-Member So if pop structured music can be written off as not being experimental even if it's using experimental elements, does the same rule apply to experimental music attempting to mix in pop structured elements? A rule of thumb I have is that the dominant style gets the nod for what to call a piece. So a pop piece with some experimental elements (Beatles using tape loops in a pop composition) gets called pop, but experiments should be acknowledged. John Lennon / Yoko Ono did write a few things that were definitely experimental to me though (their all tape loop solo albums). Lou Reed's another example, "Metal Machine Music" is an experiment entirely based on noise drones. There are also some artists that I would truly consider both. If someone writes for a genre, but does so with an entirely experimental technique, for instance. Some of Brian Eno's ambient music would count here. Originally Posted by Re-Member Furthermore, if experimental music tries to adhere only to experimental techinques, but all of these techniques have already been done a million times over, should it really be considered experimental? That's a good question, and I think it's important to distinguish that *experimental* doesn't mean *innovative* per se, and vice versa. Experimental music typically is defined as non-traditional music that does not conform to standard musical norms -- it typically truly is an avant garde term. Innovative is when you come up with new ideas that have not been tried before, regardless of genre. At least, that's how I define it. As I see it, all the music concrete / tape loop stuff was pioneered by certain classical cats in the 1940s and 1950s. So what The Beatles etc. were doing with them wasn't exactly a new technique. On the other hand, when Wendy Carlos re-recorded classical tunes using a Moog music synthesizer, what she did had never been done before, even if it was classical pop. Wendy Carlos was more innovative than Lennon's Unfinished Music was, even if Lennon's Unfinished Music was more experimental. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Re-Member Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Metrosonus Until such time that experimental music becomes common place and replaces traditional music and all that it encompasses, it would then be the goal of experimental music to transgress those now common techniques. I've always felt that it's the other way around; traditional music is what eventually replaces experimental music. Apes picked up a stick, randomly bashed it against several objects and realized it made a sound, then eventually some kind of structure evolved from the process. Traditional music wasn't just born in a vacuum of space. Plus if the inevitable goal of experimental music is to transgress against the norm, it would be no different than what Punk Rock aimed to do in face of Proggressive Rock. Since it's the same context, can Punk Rock be considered experimental? To me, the word experimental has always meant asking yourself "what if...?", I'd say it's more about exploration and less about validation. I certainly enjoy the genre, but feel there's too many musicians these days using the genre to hide behind the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 I don't disagree with you at all.. that kinda goes back to the over genrefication craziness of maybe a decade ago. "No man. I don't suck, you don't get it. It'd indie, ambient pop core trance dude.. cant you see it?" And I guess I was thinking a little too broad like what if in a million years, when a mars colony gets cut off from earth and atonal sheet metal music is the norm, would some hip kids go back to sheet music? But for the foreseeable geologic time period, yes, I agree things tend to move from experimental (or even subcultures) into the norm. but I think there's various levels, with fusion or smashup styles being on the outside.. while more severe interpretations are found at the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mooginator Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by droolmaster0 uh. No. but you don't explain yourself at all, so it's hard to argue with you. The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. In the United States, experimental music activity is unregulated. It must be different in your country. Are the experimental music police over there well-trained and well-paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. Several people have pointed out that when we talk about 'experimental music' we are not talking about slight deviations from sub genres. But you want to enforce your interpretation, which is your right. I'll simply disregard it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by girevik In the United States, experimental music activity is unregulated. It must be different in your country. Are the experimental music police over there well-trained and well-paid? That made me laugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Re-Member Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by soundwave106 Lou Reed's another example, "Metal Machine Music" is an experiment entirely based on noise drones. I also forgot to comment on this... I have this record and got Lou Reed to autograph it for me at some book festival about a decade ago. There was some Q&A session and we had a good discussion about it. I also have Boyd Rice's "Pagan Muzak" autographed in my collection as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BonsoWonderDog Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BonsoWonderDog Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by mildbill 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. Originally Posted by droolmaster0 That is just nonsense on so many levels. My sarcastic remark is that it is YOU who don't know what you're doing. Perhaps I should re-phrase it. Experimental to me means 'I'm going to try something, and I don't know what the outcome will be.' If you know the outcome, and the process involved to achieve the desired outcome, I don't consider it 'experimental'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Re-Member Posted October 10, 2012 Members Share Posted October 10, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. How about the following scenario... You make a deal with Guitar Center to allow you full access to any one of their stores for one entire day. You then invite several kindergarten classes with practically little knowledge of any musical instruments to run amok and "jam out" on instruments for hours. Every instrument would be set up to be recorded during the entire event. Using what you've just recorded as a sound source, you then edit down and mix everything together into to short audio snippets to be pressed on record. You could even take things one step further and translate everything note by note to sheet music. As an agreement with Guitar Center, you've now got the task of marketing these two products to the public... but what as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bucksstudent Posted October 11, 2012 Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 Originally Posted by Re-Member How about the following scenario... You make a deal with Guitar Center to allow you full access to any one of their stores for one entire day. You then invite several kindergarten classes with practically little knowledge of any musical instruments to run amok and "jam out" on instruments for hours. Every instrument would be set up to be recorded during the entire event. Using what you've just recorded as a sound source, you then edit down and mix everything together into to short audio snippets to be pressed on record. You could even take things one step further and translate everything note by note to sheet music. As an agreement with Guitar Center, you've now got the task of marketing these two products to the public... but what as? Sounds a little Flaming Lips to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members liliththekitten Posted October 11, 2012 Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 Don't give them any ideas. Sounds like the sort of thing they would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted October 11, 2012 Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 Originally Posted by Mooginator The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements. Once years ago, I was talking to a mentor of mine who was a really fine painter, and I asked him, "What if just anybody, not necessarily an accomplished artist, came along and invented cubism? Would it mean the same thing?" I'll never forget his answer: "No. It wouldn't. It's what you bring to the table that gives something like cubism its weight and meaning. You don't START with cubism and abstraction. Context is everything. Braque, Cezanne, and especially Picasso had already mastered realism, and cubism was the next step in exploding the dimensions that were previously only visible from a single perspective. They EARNED it." So I agree with Mooginator. It can be cheap and even meaningless to just walk in without any background, without any miles tread in music, and start banging things together and proclaiming, "Look at me. I'm experimenting." In experimental music, it's not just a matter of what you do. It's WHY you're doing it. It's also a matter of what you did BEFORE it that induced you to experiment. There is continuity in art. There is such a thing as evolution in the artist. Context and precedent, it turns out, mean a lot. Experimentation, if it's meaningful, is a reaction to prior thought and knowing. I also like STG's term "exploratory music." It sounds -- appropriately, I think -- a bit more like climbing a mountain for the first time than mixing vials in a lab. It sounds more like discovery than synthesis, which in my experience hits closer to the mark. And I do think it's important to separate out the various motives people bring to 'experimental music', if we're to really understand it and reasonably define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 ok, but the obvious negativity in the first formulation is what I was objecting to. I'm not sure that I've ever heard someone say 'you don't know what you're doing' and mean it as a compliment. One can deliberately set up 'experiments' where one doesn't know the outcome, but it would be false to say that (in many cases) that person doesn't know what he is doing. But I"m open also to there being music that we'd call 'experimental' even if the person knows exactly what the outcome will be. Ultimately - if they put the music out there, and don't proclaim that "I didn't know the outcome" then one is judging the music solely by the results. As I tried to articulate - I think that there are two main components to the judgement that music is experimental - one is the experience and process of the person making it, but the other is the experience of the listener. I might experiment all I want in all sorts of ways, but if the output is some lame pop crap that no one would recognize as 'experimental music' - well, that counts too. Originally Posted by mildbill Perhaps I should re-phrase it. Experimental to me means 'I'm going to try something, and I don't know what the outcome will be.' If you know the outcome, and the process involved to achieve the desired outcome, I don't consider it 'experimental'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 I"m having enormous trouble posting right now. This is to zoink. I'll try to get the quote in here if I can...Well, I"m not sure why your friend is relevant.this is all conceptual, and linguistic.If someone recommended a composer to you highly, and you listened to their work, and you were just floored by it. It did all of the things that new, interesting music should do, etc - and it was different - you had never heard anything like it before. Well, I think that means something. But then suppose you found out that it was made by someone with no training, or experience in the traditional musical components. You really have 2 choices. You can simply decide that you were wrong based on this preconception about who can create good music, or you can reevaluate your preconception.What you friend, I think is really saying, is that he doesn't think that it's possible for such a person to exist. But his point isn't conceptual. I know people whose music I very much respect, who never played a real instrument, and have no traditional training. That to me is enough of a counterexample to your ideoiogy that I simply can't take it seriously. The other counterexample, which admittedly is even more subjective, is that when I am 'experimenting' with sounds, I simply don't feel the need, on any level at all, for more training in harmony, etc, in my background. I suspect that people who require these things, BY DEFINITION, are simply people with rather conservative tastes. They want to hear that trace of harmony, or other training, in the music. They get uncomfortable when they are challenged by stuff that puzzles them at first.'What I have never heard at all, not even close, is any hint of an actual argument about why exactly one must know harmony in order to avoid it altogether, versus that the presuppositions formed in learning it are a disadvantage. It's all ideology. People are OFFENDED by the notion that maybe this training isn't really helpful in making other sorts of music, so they ideologically devalue the music. 4'33" did not require traditional classical training to write, and whether Cage had it or not shouldn't affect one's appreciation (or not) of the piece and its ideas. The real issue here is an ideological predisposition AGAINST traditional backgrounds, but there is NO logic to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted October 11, 2012 Members Share Posted October 11, 2012 Originally Posted by droolmaster0 Well, I"m not sure why your friend is relevant. I can see that. Originally Posted by droolmaster0 If someone recommended a composer to you highly, and you listened to their work, and you were just floored by it. It did all of the things that new, interesting music should do, etc - and it was different - you had never heard anything like it before. Well, I think that means something. But then suppose you found out that it was made by someone with no training, or experience in the traditional musical components. You really have 2 choices. You can simply decide that you were wrong based on this preconception about who can create good music, or you can reevaluate your preconception. There is no real equivalency in your example to what I said. I'm not concerned with "training." I'm concerned with "understanding." If a person without training possesses the understanding to undertake 'experimental music' with some real insight, then that's one thing. But if a room full of chimpanzees painted the Mona Lisa, wrote Hamlet, and spontaneously composed Clare de Lune, they wouldn't even know what they had done. And for that reason, it wouldn't really matter that they did it (apart from amazement at the sheer unlikelihood of it). The absence of mindfulness changes its significance and meaning. And what I'm saying is, if for example someone with an extensive understanding of tonality composes something atonal as a reaction to tonality (i.e. as an exploration outside of it), it means something different from the atonal meanderings of someone with no understanding of tonality. And this is true of *any* criterion or feature of music, whether experimental or conventional. Context matters. The issue regarding "training" is a straw man. It turns out that tonality, rhythm, harmony in general, and counterpoint are not arbitrary features of music. There is an empirically provable physical basis for their status as objectives in music. Our auditory sense registers proportions of pitch as they combine in harmonies, and what we experience subjectively (even emotionally) as the pleasure of harmony and the displeasure of its opposite actually correspond very consistently with the math behind it. The mistake that an 'experimental musician' might make is in thinking that all of the so-called "rules" of conventional music are arbitrary, made up, even encultured. And it's simply not that simple. You can't write it all off as an arbitrary fabrication, compose your own symphony of sampled farts, and call it insightful experimental music. To understand principles relating to the mathematics of pitch and rhythm, for example -- I don't care how you acquire the understanding -- is to apprehend something universal and essential about music as a physical phenomenon. I think what you're arguing for are the merits of experimental music independent of the existence of conventional music -- i.e. as an organic creation that isn't a reaction to anything. Fair enough. But experimental music that is composed as an ABSTRACTION (to borrow from the Picasso example) is a different animal. This is why I think it's important to explore the motivations for making such music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.