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

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by droolmaster0

Yes - we agree that thought about what one is doing and skill is required. However where we disagree is that the this must be in the realm of traditional musical categories. I think that several people here have emphasized the first part, so I'm not sure why you continue to mention it.

 

I said nothing about experimental music having to reside within traditional music categories.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by girevik

All GOOD experimental music was done by somebody who knew what they were doing, regardless of whether they had formal training in Western classical music or Western classical instrumental performance, or whether it's stuffed into a "safety container" like a Beach Boys song, or whether the music contains traditional elements like harmony, defined pitch, and rhythm. I think you would be hard-pressed to find "harmony" in the Steve Reich piece "It's Gonna Rain", which is based on a recording of a speech.

There ARE experimental musicians out there without traditional training, who probably did start out banging {censored} together randomly, who TODAY most assuredly know EXACTLY that they are doing.

 

Personally, I could care less about "training." In some ways "training" can even impede free thought and experimentation, and can even be indoctrinating.

I care about the REASONS for experiment, what drives the artist to do it, what they're looking for, what they did and thought previously that made them want to do THIS now. I also care about skill, and a cognitive grasp of the variables you're playing with.

Have you ever watched someone tweak and experiment with a knobby synth in a music store? There are some who know exactly what they're adjusting. They can tailor a sound and really explore the bounds of the instrument.

And then there are people who just twist random knobs to see if anything new happens. I've seen plenty of that too.

It's difficult to hold the latter in very high regard musically or technically, or to call what they're doing a directed 'experiment.' You might get away with 'exploratory.'

But it is what it is. It may even be where lots of good artists get their start -- everybody has to start somewhere -- but later on they'll be the first to admit that it was all just amateurish noodling without a notion of what they were doing.

[droolmaster0]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I said nothing about experimental music having to reside within traditional music categories.

 

What I said was that you emphasized that one should have skill in these areas, not that the music itself must reside there.

[Meatball Fulton]

The original question was:

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

Have we decided yet that it's become meaningless?

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by droolmaster0

What I said was that you emphasized that one should have skill in these areas, not that the music itself must reside there.

 

What I said was that experimental music and conventional music often share certain features in common, and that experience and knowledge of these features would be a benefit in making experimental music. Like it or not, there IS a knowledge and skill crossover. It's not to say that lacking "training" prevents good experimental music from possibly happening. But it IS to say that there are features of sound, and even of composition, that are useful to know -- even if your goal is to 'break' the so-called rules.

An artist with a rich background and deep understanding of harmony will tend to also have a thorough grasp of discordance as well, and for that very reason. He'll be able to say something about what's happening physically with the sound itself, or in the experience of the listener, with the apparent clash of frequencies.

I maintain that knowing what a chord is -- and what frequencies do when they interfere with each other physically -- helps even if your intention is to play the first eight notes of the chromatic scale upward from middle C.

You're saying, "What does it matter if the listener likes it?"

And I'm saying, "Well your only metric is whether it's entertaining. I'm talking about experiments, and what they yield."

[droolmaster0]

I never said anything about not caring whether the listener likes it. However, unless one is trying deliberately to create the most popular music possible, one obviously doesn't care about ALL listeners, but only some listeners.

I just give up on the rest of it. I find your arguments to be silly.

 

Originally Posted by zoink

What I said was that experimental music and conventional music often share certain features in common, and that experience and knowledge of these features would be a benefit in making experimental music. Like it or not, there IS a knowledge and skill crossover. It's not to say that lacking "training" prevents good experimental music from possibly happening. But it IS to say that there are features of sound, and even of composition, that are useful to know -- even if your goal is to 'break' the so-called rules.

An artist with a rich background and deep understanding of harmony will tend to also have a thorough grasp of discordance as well, and for that very reason. He'll be able to say something about what's happening physically with the sound itself, or in the experience of the listener, with the apparent clash of frequencies.

I maintain that knowing what a chord is -- and what frequencies do when they interfere each other physically -- helps even if your intention is to play the first eight notes of the chromatic scale upward from middle C.

You're saying, "What does it matter if the listener likes it?"

And I'm saying, "Well your only metric is whether it's entertaining. I'm talking about experiments, and what they yield."

 

[girevik]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

Personally, I could care less about "training." In some ways "training" can even impede free thought and experimentation, and can even be indoctrinating.

 

You may not but someone else here does. That is why my post was directed at the forum instead of you specifically.

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I care about the REASONS for experiment, what drives the artist to do it, what they're looking for, what they did and thought previously that made them want to do THIS now. I also care about skill, and a cognitive grasp of the variables you're playing with.

 

All the high-level players in experimental music have reasons.

All of them have skill in operating their gear of choice.

It seems like you're overly concerned with the product of low-level players and not taking into account the accomplished practitioners of this admittedly small area of music. It would be like me watching that infamous Youtube cover of "Final Countdown" then expressing all these misgivings about rock music based on that example.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by droolmaster0

I just give up on the rest of it. I find your arguments to be silly.

 

... And while we're being frank, I find your arguments to be baseless and more than a little absurd ... peppered for good measure with dismissiveness toward anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Quelle surprise.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by girevik

It seems like you're overly concerned with the product of low-level players and not taking into account the accomplished practitioners of this admittedly small area of music.

 

I'm actually concerned with the conflation of the two.

[Re-Member]

So droolmaster0... just out of curiosity, what are some documented examples of what you consider experimental music? As of now, it seems to me that your definition of what experimental music is exists almost as a form of chaos and/or nihilism within it's own genre. Unless I've missed something, I can't find a post in this thread that provides a good example of something that states your case. Others have posted good examples which points to the grey area within different genres... black being convention, white being most of what you've been pushing for. It would be nice to see some source material as to what exactly has been inspiring this discussion.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by Meatball Fulton

The original question was:

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

Have we decided yet that it's become meaningless?

 

I decided that more or less at the beginning.

But sometimes a conversation is still fruitful even though it doesn't reach a consensus or ultimately answer the fundamental questions it poses.

And I think that overall this has been such an occasion. It's an interesting topic, and a lot of people raised very good points.

I also don't think that when two people disagree, one of them has to be right and the other wrong. 'Experimental music' is full of grey areas. There ARE no 'right' answers really. Only (hopefully) thoughtful ideas. Everything is a judgment call, or a statement of value -- not necessarily a statement of fact.

My main goal was to present some of my thoughts with the hope of challenging certain presumptions about meaning and purpose. I don't claim to have any final answers.

But it's fun to probe this topic for interesting questions.

[girevik]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I'm actually concerned with the conflation of the two.

 

I don't understand your concern.

If I want to check out the rock music scene in your area, I want to hear the best players and songwriters, not the worst. You sound like you'd rather hear the worst than the best.

[droolmaster0]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this post, or where it's coming from.

Why do you say that my 'definition' (which of course I haven't given because I don't have a precise one) "exists almost as a form of chaos and/or nihilism within it's own genre". I'm not sure what that means, first of all, but what is it that I said, please, that inspires this? I don't think that saying that it is not a REQUIREMENT that music contain the traditional musical elements as part of its structure is the same as saying that the music must be chaotic. My ideas are not even that unusual, and they certainly aren't original - perhaps check out youtube for some examples of John Cage speaking about music, etc. And while, for instance, Girevik is more patient than I am, and has a less confrontational style, it seems to me that he has said similar things. Please differentiate our views.

 

Originally Posted by Re-Member

So droolmaster0... just out of curiosity, what are some documented examples of what you consider experimental music? As of now, it seems to me that your definition of what experimental music is exists almost as a form of chaos and/or nihilism within it's own genre. Unless I've missed something, I can't find a post in this thread that provides a good example of something that states your case. Others have posted good examples which points to the grey area within different genres... black being convention, white being most of what you've been pushing for. It would be nice to see some source material as to what exactly has been inspiring this discussion.

 

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by girevik

I don't understand your concern.

If I want to check out the rock music scene in your area, I want to hear the best players and songwriters, not the worst. You sound like you'd rather hear the worst than the best.

 

I'm referring to the possible conflation between the experimental musician who has skill and makes music with some kind of meaning or intention, and the random dabbler who just makes noise. I've maintained all along that it's not just what you do, but "why" you do it that also matters.

I would argue that in experimental music, text without context is often meaningless and empty.

I'm not really concerned -- at least in this conversation -- about what someone 'wants' to hear. What I'm talking about centers more on the relationship between the experimental artist and his experiment, the drive behind that process.

[Allerian]

And for what its worth, sometimes experiemental music sounds exactly the same as "regular" music but is being created or controlled in a new way.

[Re-Member]

Sorry about that last post. Came home rather drunk from a debate party last night... still trying to remember what my frame of thought there was, but I know it had something to do with this:

 

Originally Posted by droolmaster0

I precisely DON'T want to make music in which I know the outcome, and I want the result to diverge as much as possible from my expectation. I want to be surprised by what I'm getting. The technique, for me, involves many things - knowing the gear well enough to hold on for dear life and find things that surprise and delight me, learning to unlearn certain presuppositions about playing the violin, trying to improvise in new ways, etc - but always with the notion that the end result must please me. At the same time, I don't think that the methods that I used on some particular day are important in themselves, and I don't think (unless it's purely for professional interest) that the listener should really care about them.".

 

There's a few things in there that suggests an element of chaos and negation of expectations and the methods being used.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by Allerian

And for what its worth, sometimes experiemental music sounds exactly the same as "regular" music but is being created or controlled in a new way.

 

+1

[droolmaster0]

 

Originally Posted by Allerian

And for what its worth, sometimes experiemental music sounds exactly the same as "regular" music but is being created or controlled in a new way.

 

I would hesitate to call music that uses some experimental methods, but whose result is entirely conventional, 'experimental music'. there is obviously disagreement on this. But it seems very strange to me to encounter, say, a very conventional country song on youtube, describe it as such, and then be corrected by someone who then described how the person used various techniques to compose this very conventional music. I don't think that this is what is generally meant by 'experimental music', except by people who are more immersed in conventional music and think that they are doing something really unconventional.

[droolmaster0]

I'm not sure what suggests that the final product needs to be chaotic. Ultimately the evaluation of experimental music is pretty similar to conventional music, though the person doing the evaluating may not have similar experience. I think it comes down to various factors of whether one is 'drawn into' the work, moved by it (in some sense), attracted to the way the sounds are used, etc. To say that I try to 'surprise' myself in various ways, and that I do not want to be in total control of the eventual outcome does not imply (to me) that I'm looking for some random junk at the end. Not at all.

 

Originally Posted by Re-Member

Sorry about that last post. Came home rather drunk from a debate party last night... still trying to remember what my frame of thought there was, but I know it had something to do with this:

There's a few things in there that suggests an element of chaos and negation of expectations and the methods being used.

 

[girevik]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I'm referring to the possible conflation between the experimental musician who has skill and makes music with some kind of meaning or intention, and the random dabbler who just makes noise. I've maintained all along that it's not just what you do, but "why" you do it that also matters.

 

In other words, you may have trouble distinguishing between experimental music made by a skilled artist and experimental music made by an unskilled one.

I don't have this trouble, because I've listened to enough of this music to be able to discern the difference. In the case of the former, there is some kind of discernable organization going on. Even in free improvisation, a performance may commence chaotically, but if all participants are skilled, they discover a structure together rather quickly, like two or more people settling on a conversational topic and developing the conversation from that point.

I can tell the difference between a piece like "Imaginary Landscape #1" by John Cage, and monkeys banging on metal things. You can too, if you have sincere interest in listening to this music, and start listening to a lot of it.

As for the relationship between an experimental artist and his (or her) "experiment", you could always try asking the artist or reading up on that artist. There are quite a few books and articles on Cage for example. I think this would be more productive than going after the hypothetical dabblers, the monkeys - the strawmen that are too easy to knock down.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by girevik

In other words, you may have trouble distinguishing between experimental music made by a skilled artist and experimental music made by an unskilled one.

I don't have this trouble, because I've listened to enough of this music to be able to discern the difference. I can tell the difference between a piece like "Imaginary Landscape #1" by John Cage, and monkeys banging on metal things. You can too, if you have sincere interest in listening to this music, and start listening to a lot of it.

 

I personally don't have any trouble distinguishing between the two. I'm just deploring the sheer amount of bad 'experimental music' that is made by people who use the term as an excuse for lacking skill and a real point in doing it.

My point is that a lot of people make noise and call it "experimental music" because there's nothing else to call it. It degrades and confuses the meaning of the term.

They would argue that this ....

... is the artistic equivalent of this ....

... and I'm saying that they're not equivalent. One is based on a profound and insightful perception of reality, and the other is a random scribble.

They might also argue that their work is not done in contrast to conventional tonality, harmony, counterpoint, etc., but I would argue that much of it obviously is, and much of "good" experimental music is comprised of variations on accepted conventional musical themes and methods.

I've known, worked with, and talked to a LOT of experimental musicians over the past 25 or so years (Austin is PACKED with them), and ALL of them were very up front about this. There was nothing embarrassing about it. Most of them were formally trained musicians (though not all), and were quick to point out how they were exploring inversions, twists, and variations on what amounted to the ways that nature works and the ways that humans think. And it just so happens that many of the natural features of sound itself are, you guessed it, accounted for in modern music theory.

Again, experimental musicians who are serious about their craft and spend years working at it tend to be very up front about why they're experimenting, and what they're expressing or reacting to. In many cases the experiment is not even about the music itself, but the event of playing it as analogous to some other aspect of life or existence. It's an ontological shadow play, which itself can be quite beautiful. But it also has to mean something to the listener, and every good artist understands this.

[droolmaster0]

I obviously am not serious about my craft, and also obviously have not thought about any of these issues. I am very grateful to you for pointing this all out.

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I personally don't have any trouble distinguishing between the two. I'm just deploring the sheer amount of bad 'experimental music' that is made by people who use the term as an excuse for lacking skill and a real point in doing it.

My point is that a lot of people make noise and call it "experimental music" because there's nothing else to call it. It degrades and confuses the meaning of the term.

They would argue that this ....

... is the artistic equivalent of this ....

... and I'm saying that they're not equivalent. One is based on a profound and insightful perception of reality, and the other is a random scribble.

They might also argue that their work is not done in contrast to conventional tonality, harmony, counterpoint, etc., but I would argue that much of it obviously is, and much of "good" experimental music is comprised of variations on accepted conventional musical themes and methods.

I've known, worked with, and talked to a LOT of experimental musicians over the past 25 or so years (Austin is PACKED with them), and ALL of them were very up front about this. There was nothing embarrassing about it. Most of them were formally trained musicians (though not all), and were quick to point out how they were exploring inversions, twists, and variations on what amounted to the ways that nature works and the ways that humans think. And it just so happens that many of the natural features of sound itself are, you guessed it, accounted for in modern music theory.

Again, experimental musicians who are serious about their craft and spend years working at it tend to be very up front about why they're experimenting, and what they're expressing or reacting to. In many cases the experiment is not even about the music itself, but the event of playing it as analogous to some other aspect of life or existence. It's an ontological shadow play, which itself can be quite beautiful. But it also has to mean something to the listener, and every good artist understands this.

 

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by droolmaster0

I obviously am not serious about my craft, and also obviously have not thought about any of these issues. I am very grateful to you for pointing this all out.

 

Only you can really know this about yourself, under present circumstances. I personally don't know you.

It's big of you to admit it, though.

[girevik]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I personally don't have any trouble distinguishing between the two. I'm just deploring the sheer amount of bad 'experimental music' that is made by people who use the term as an excuse for lacking skill and a real point in doing it.

 

You left the impression that you do have this trouble, because you used the word "conflate".

 

Originally Posted by zoink

My point is that a lot of people make noise and call it "experimental music" because there's nothing else to call it. It degrades and confuses the meaning of the term.

 

Ah, so you don't like noise - like what Allerian, Merzbow, Cage, many others, have done.

I dunno if it would have helped if you'd admitted this earlier in the thread.

 

Originally Posted by zoink

They might also argue that their work is not done in contrast to conventional tonality, harmony, counterpoint, etc., but I would argue that much of it obviously is, and much of "good" experimental music is comprised of variations on accepted conventional musical themes and methods.

 

What you think is "good" is a function of your personal taste. It's clearer to me now, I think. You need something conventional for the music to be considered "good". Reich's "It's Gonna Rain" would never work for you, because it's just tape recordings of a sermon, artfully manipulated in and out of phase with each other per the composer's directions.

 

Originally Posted by zoink

I've known, worked with, and talked to a LOT of experimental musicians over the past 25 or so years (Austin is PACKED with them), and ALL of them were very up front about this. There was nothing embarrassing about it.

 

They should have no reason to be embarrassed, if they are serious about their art.

Ok, so you don't like noise. Enjoy the music that you do like! That's what I prefer to do - no point in focusing on people who make music I hate.

[zoink]

 

Originally Posted by girevik

You left the impression that you do have this trouble, because you used the word "conflate".

 

I used the word 'conflate' to describe what some do. Not me.

 

Originally Posted by girevik

Ah, so you don't like noise - like what Allerian, Merzbow, Cage, many others, have done.

 

Not to get semiotic, but the 'noise' I referred to is not 'noise music', but just noise. The sound of a garbage truck passing by. The sound of a 5 (or 25) year old in the keyboard section of Guitar Center banging on keys and twisting knobs with no inkling about music or art in general.

Some people like to make noise, because it feels like efficacy to do this. Some also like to shoot guns, light firecrackers, and wreck other people's sandcastles.

But to refer to all forms of noise as music is to undermine the meanings of both words.

And my reference to "good" experimental music was to parrot others' use of the expression in this thread. It goes without saying that "good" is subjective. But there's another layer to it when you start talking about substantive elements of experimental music like intent (or lack of it).

AGAIN, CONTEXT MATTERS. REASONS FOR DOING SOMETHING ARE IMPORTANT. IN EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC, OFTEN THE REASONS FOR DOING IT ARE THE ACTUAL ART.

Moreover, I never said that music has to be conventional to be "good." Another straw man.

Some guy with 31 face piercings, lots of black clothing, and a cigarette-burnt Microkorg might assert that the sound a small animal makes when you step on its tail is 'music.' But that doesn't make it so, just because he says it is. What is defined as 'music' is ALWAYS a product of consensus.

LOTS of people want to be "musicians" nowadays. But fewer than ever want to do the work to become one. When you're young, you look for ways to impress your friends, maybe get laid, appear "deep" and sophisticated, fit in with a subculture. The list goes on.

But let's not CONFLATE these motives with the motives of the Picassos and Braques of this world.