This documentary I'm in (noise/experimental "music" content)

[droolmaster0]

I think I'm done with you. First you tell me I'm circular, then you tell me I'm inconsistent, then you tell me I'm circular.

 

 

Ah, yes, the word I'm looking for is 'versatile'.

 

 

Just because I'm standing by the way I perceive and qualify music does not mean I'm incapable of making a strong argument.

 

 

That is correct. But it doesn't mean that you ARE making strong arguments.

 

 

And then you name-call which, for somebody who is constantly telling me I don't know how to form an argument, is pretty fundamentally stupid...to be honest.

 

 

Well, at least you're honest.

 

 

So we've reached a moot point. So what? It happens all the time. I'm not saying you're a {censored}ing idiot because you don't see things my way, why aren't you extending that to me?

 

 

Because, I guess (and here I'm being honest also), the combination of pomposity and bad logic gives me hemorrhoids.

[akliner]

Because, I guess (and here I'm being honest also), the combination of pomposity and bad logic gives me hemorrhoids.

Yeah. I suppose reading through all your own posts will do that to ya.

[pighood]

Hey, nice stuff! And here I thought you only made recordings of your Fizmo upchucking. You been holdin' out on me, bitch

Most of my recordings are of my Q upchucking.

[BonsoWonderDog]

Hey akliner.........Droolmaster called yo mamma fat.

[Don Solaris]

Noise Music: Is/Isn't

Noise = Random Music




If you could slow down the white noise and turn it into notes, you would get this:

- random notes, played at random volumes (velocities), separated by random rests.







And it is up to individual (not your teacher, not your school, not your ministry) to decide is this music or not. If someone likes to listen to random notes, i don't see the problem in calling it a music.

Second (and more important) thing, on many composition, the theme requires a few bars or even the whole part to consist of random notes (think of a movie composer that has a scene with a lunatic smashing things around the room). It is a composition of random notes that doesn't look any different from the one shown in the picture above. The same soundtrack gets performed in the large concert hall and people do call it a music. No one stands up and yells at musicians: "Hey this part is made of random notes!!! This is not music! I want my money back!!!"

[BonsoWonderDog]

Doesn't change the fact that AKLiner called Droolmaster's mamma fat.

[akliner]

Doesn't change the fact that AKLiner called Droolmaster's mamma fat.

OHHHHHHH SNAP!

[akliner]

Second (and more important) thing, on many composition, the theme requires a few bars or even the whole part to consist of random notes (think of a movie composer that has a scene with a lunatic smashing things around the room). It is a composition of random notes that doesn't look any different from the one shown in the picture above. The same soundtrack gets performed in the large concert hall and people do call it a music. No one stands up and yells at musicians: "Hey this part is made of random notes!!! This is not music! I want my money back!!!"

 

 

When breaks like this are a part of a greater more "musical" theme, then they help to create tension and instability withinin the composition and serves the music that's being created. In my opinion.

[pgunders]

When breaks like this are a part of a greater more "musical" theme, then they help to create tension and instability withinin the composition and serves the music that's being created. In my opinion.

I disagree. Such elements don't "serve" the music--they are fully a part of it. Just as the initial "chiffing" noise of a floutist blowing into a flute is fully a part of flute music. Just as the unstable frequencies preceding a steady tone from a trumpet are fully a part of trumpet music. Just as the rasp of a bass string against wood on an unfretted bass is fully a part of a bass solo. Music is full with noise. Heck, I've even heard that some synthesizers have "noise" knobs. Who would have thought?

[r33k]

Yes, and how long can this random musical break be before the composition stops being music? In your opinion?

[droolmaster0]

Noise = Random Music If you could slow down the white noise and turn it into notes, you would get this: - random notes, played at random volumes (velocities), separated by random rests. And it is up to individual (not your teacher, not your school, not your ministry) to decide is this music or not. If someone likes to listen to random notes, i don't see the problem in calling it a music. Second (and more important) thing, on many composition, the theme requires a few bars or even the whole part to consist of random notes (think of a movie composer that has a scene with a lunatic smashing things around the room). It is a composition of random notes that doesn't look any different from the one shown in the picture above. The same soundtrack gets performed in the large concert hall and people do call it a music. No one stands up and yells at musicians: "Hey this part is made of random notes!!! This is not music! I want my money back!!!"

Well, actually, I'd say that what it is when you slow it down is irrelevant. If it is heard as noise, and not pitched tones, then it's noise. But it's still music if anyone hears it as such.

[droolmaster0]

Yes, and how long can this random musical break be before the composition stops being music? In your opinion?

 

 

44.8 seconds, according to to the latest estimates....

 

Music is not some scientific material that can be measured - this is music, this is not, this is music for this long, this is music for THIS long, this is almost music...

 

Music existed before there were definitions, and attempts like, (can't remember - the guy with the fat mama) attempt to impose an artificial limitation on it - which only serves, functionally, as a quality judgement - essentially an academic pedigree on 'this sucks', 'this doesn't suck'.

 

Definitions should be descriptive, and mostly used when you encounter a word whose meaning is really in doubt. The only reason that 'music' is in doubt is the stupid overintellectualizing by some, and the confusing of personal taste with some existential notion of whether it exists here, or not.

 

If anyone enjoys listening to sounds that have had some human hand in their organization (in the loose sense) then it's music, and if anyone enjoys putting sounds together (on any level) it is music. Exact differentiations of what it is and what it isn't aren't important at all. I'd say that it's only in a metaphorical sense that the sounds of nature, untouched in any way, are music, but it's not really an important distinction - as soon as I start listening to it as music, it becomes such, really.

 

My mama weighs 780 pounds soaked in oogah oil, but is on Atkins.

[droolmaster0]

I disagree. Such elements don't "serve" the music--they are fully a part of it. Just as the initial "chiffing" noise of a floutist blowing into a flute is fully a part of flute music. Just as the unstable frequencies preceding a steady tone from a trumpet are fully a part of trumpet music. Just as the rasp of a bass string against wood on an unfretted bass is fully a part of a bass solo. Music is full with noise. Heck, I've even heard that some synthesizers have "noise" knobs. Who would have thought?

Right - but you don't understand him. Since he presupposes (essential for his circular reasoning) that noise isn't music, and pieces consisting of noises, and/or lack of time signatures, aren't music, therefore, he needs to do this to preserve the purity of his circular reasoning. Then again, he may actually be a troll, or very anxious to succeed in his academic program - the desire for success (obviously not only in music) causes us to assimilate some strange values and beliefs. You will not pass unless you learn what music REALLY is - well, if you didn't believe this crap, why would you pay all of this money and invest all of this time and effort for an illusion?

[akliner]

Yes, and how long can this random musical break be before the composition stops being music? In your opinion?

That's a great question, and the answer is I'm not really all that sure.

I think it has more to do with intention. For example, songs are filled with non-musical elements or effects all the time. A layer of fuzz might be used to underscore an entire passage of a rock song in order to give it texture or grit. Sirens samples are not uncommon in techno music.

But if I strip away the rest of the song and just leave the fuzz and the sirens is it still music?

My impulse is to say no. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To me, the beauty of music is the way that sonic elements come together to create something greater than itself. If noise is used, I'm much more drawn to the way seemingly random samples can work to form a tight drum beat. In the case of noisy synthesizers, the way the electronics inside the noise-generating device(sorry I'm bad at electronics ) can be manipulated to create the same tones that traditional instruments make.

In the case of the flute or similar instruments that pgunders raises, I would say that the split-second of sound of air hitting the mouth piece before a note is made is a character of the instrument. That brief moment of atonal sound adds to the rich performance of a gorgeous flute. However if you just have some blowing on to a mouth piece, I don't think you have music.

To me, noise adds flavor and color to the music being made. But once you strip away the "greater good" or the structure of the song and leave only these added flavors, you no longer have the song and you no longer have, in my opinion, music.

Think of it like making a chicken. This chicken will taste bland and pretty dull without some seasoning. You have an arsenal of seasonings that make that chicken taste amazing.

You may not be able to make a good-tasting chicken without the seasoning, but you can't make FOOD without the chicken.

Food=Music
Chicken=A VERY solid musical structure
Seasoning=Noise

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the sheer amount of work it takes to make atonal sounds. I do work as a sound designer. It's terribly difficult to create a cue. I just wrote a cue that had 17 tracks/layers. It was part of a really strange play where they needed an "alien" cue:

The events of the 20 second cue:

1. Low throb, alien presence is felt
2. Arrival of the space craft from stage right to just left of center stage
3. Space craft hovers
4. The space craft's computer processes and confirms the human's presence
5. A mechnical hatch opens to make room for the tractor beam
6. Enormous swell of white noise to abduct the human
7. The hatch closes
8. The ships "gear" is shifted back into flight mode
9. The exit of space craft from left of center stage to upstage center

It took a great amount of effort. I did think parts of it were beautiful to listen to and it had TIMING to match the action on stage. The low throb as actually a musical note from my synthesizer. And certainly there is an ART to sound design and sculpture.

But I don't think I made music. I made art. I made some tones. But like Diametro said, music has to have some sort of consistent structure. Now, if I had written a melodic song (like in the "space" genre) and stuck that cue in the mix, then that atonal series of sounds DOES become part of the song. If I turn down the faders on the mixer and SOLO that cue alone, though, it is just a cue. A gorgeous, well-balanced, artful cue, that is enjoyable to listen to, but not MUSIC.

[akliner]

Right - but you don't understand him. Since he presupposes (essential for his circular reasoning) that noise isn't music, and pieces consisting of noises, and/or lack of time signatures, aren't music, therefore, he needs to do this to preserve the purity of his circular reasoning. Then again, he may actually be a troll, or very anxious to succeed in his academic program - the desire for success (obviously not only in music) causes us to assimilate some strange values and beliefs. You will not pass unless you learn what music REALLY is - well, if you didn't believe this crap, why would you pay all of this money and invest all of this time and effort for an illusion?

Welcome back

Did you get a cream for you ass?

[droolmaster0]

That's a great question, and the answer is I'm not really all that sure. I think it has more to do with intention. For example, songs are filled with non-musical elements or effects all the time. A layer of fuzz might be used to underscore an entire passage of a rock song in order to give it texture or grit. Sirens samples are not uncommon in techno music. But if I strip away the rest of the song and just leave the fuzz and the sirens is it still music? My impulse is to say no. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To me, the beauty of music is the way that sonic elements come together to create something greater than itself. If noise is used, I'm much more drawn to the way seemingly random samples can work to form a tight drum beat. In the case of noisy synthesizers, the way the electronics inside the noise-generating device(sorry I'm bad at electronics ) can be manipulated to create the same tones that traditional instruments make. In the case of the flute or similar instruments that pgunders raises, I would say that the split-second of sound of air hitting the mouth piece before a note is made is a character of the instrument. That brief moment of atonal sound adds to the rich performance of a gorgeous flute. However if you just have some blowing on to a mouth piece, I don't think you have music. To me, noise adds flavor and color to the music being made. But once you strip away the "greater good" or the structure of the song and leave only these added flavors, you no longer have the song and you no longer have, in my opinion, music. Think of it like making a chicken. This chicken will taste bland and pretty dull without some seasoning. You have an arsenal of seasonings that make that chicken taste amazing. You may not be able to make a good-tasting chicken without the seasoning, but you can't make FOOD without the chicken. Food=Music Chicken=A VERY solid musical structure Seasoning=Noise It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the sheer amount of work it takes to make atonal sounds. I do work as a sound designer. It's terribly difficult to create a cue. I just wrote a cue that had 17 tracks/layers. It was part of a really strange play where they needed an "alien" cue: The events of the 20 second cue: 1. Low throb, alien presence is felt 2. Arrival of the space craft from stage right to just left of center stage 3. Space craft hovers 4. The space craft's computer processes and confirms the human's presence 5. A mechnical hatch opens to make room for the tractor beam 6. Enormous swell of white noise to abduct the human 7. The hatch closes 8. The ships "gear" is shifted back into flight mode 9. The exit of space craft from left of center stage to upstage center It took a great amount of effort. I did think parts of it were beautiful to listen to and it had TIMING to match the action on stage. The low throb as actually a musical note from my synthesizer. And certainly there is an ART to sound design and sculpture. But I don't think I made music. I made art. I made some tones. But like Diametro said, music has to have some sort of consistent structure. Now, if I had written a melodic song (like in the "space" genre) and stuck that cue in the mix, then that atonal series of sounds DOES become part of the song. If I turn down the faders on the mixer and SOLO that cue alone, though, it is just a cue. A gorgeous, well-balanced, artful cue, that is enjoyable to listen to, but not MUSIC.

Actually, this is rather hilarious...why don't you {censored}ing learn some science/technical skills and build a device that can actually TEST whether something is music or not? Or why doesn't someone else do it?

[carbon111]

I'm going to give myself the small pleasure of assuming that was a little bit of humor in my favor.

Ahh, missed this.

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. I honestly don't agree with your definition of music. It really is too limiting and restrictive. Though I'll still buy you a beer, or pancakes, if you're ever in the neighborhood

I make so-called "traditional" music like this: http://www.carbon111.com/music/dead_leaves.mp3

...and also more aleatoric noisy stuff: http://www.carbon111.com/music/touch.mp3

Is the second piece, "Touch", "not music" because it has no meter? Many of the sounds were produced by self-generating modular patches not physically played by me - basically unstable random circuits. Is it music? You bet your ass it is!

Edit:
Just to be clear, I personally don't make any differentiation between my "songs" as being music or non-music, noise or structured, tonal or atonal - they're all simply Music. ^_^

[akliner]

Dammit, your tracks won't play at work

I'll give them a listen when I get home.

[r33k]

Music is not some scientific material that can be measured - this is music, this is not, this is music for this long, this is music for THIS long, this is almost music...

 

 

Exactly. I'm trying to nudge our boy akliner to come to that conclusion himself.

[droolmaster0]

Exactly. I'm trying to nudge our boy akliner to come to that conclusion himself.

 

 

This is kind of like good cop, bad cop, then?

[r33k]

Something like that.

[akliner]

Exactly. I'm trying to nudge our boy akliner to come to that conclusion himself.

 

 

Nah, man. I guess I'm old-school (though certainly not alone in this old-school), but for me, music is the sacredness of its traditions and finding new and innovative ways to fill those conventions.

 

I'll concede that noise is art, I'll concede that noise is musical.

 

But for me, music is rooted in something far stronger than what may sound good to one person. What's exciting to me in music is the way it keeps being innovated within the traditional structure: the sheer math of time signature and creative ways to explore time signature, the development of machines that can put out the same notes that old-school classical instruments, the way chords are being explored and adapted to create beauty with dissonance.

 

There is still a cutting edge in music, but what's amazing about it is that it can be passed on the way the great composers passed on their works, with a common musical language.

 

Sound is listened to and enjoyed all the time. When I put on a comedy CD, am I listening to music? Clearly, by your standards I am. I am listening at attention and enjoying the organization of sound that somebody is making with their words.

 

But I don't think that's music. It certainly is art and with all the talk about noise having to be seen live to really "get", I'd reckon it's an AMAZING performance art. However, music (in my opinion) should stand on its own. It shouldn't need a visual aide in order to be effectively communicated.

 

Of course, all of this, my $.02.

[droolmaster0]

Nah, man. I guess I'm old-school (though certainly not alone in this old-school), but for me, music is the sacredness of its traditions and finding new and innovative ways to fill those conventions. I'll concede that noise is art, I'll concede that noise is musical. But for me, music is rooted in something far stronger than what may sound good to one person. What's exciting to me in music is the way it keeps being innovated within the traditional structure: the sheer math of time signature and creative ways to explore time signature, the development of machines that can put out the same notes that old-school classical instruments, the way chords are being explored and adapted to create beauty with dissonance. There is still a cutting edge in music, but what's amazing about it is that it can be passed on the way the great composers passed on their works, with a common musical language. Sound is listened to and enjoyed all the time. When I put on a comedy CD, am I listening to music? Clearly, by your standards I am. I am listening at attention and enjoying the organization of sound that somebody is making with their words. But I don't think that's music. It certainly is art and with all the talk about noise having to be seen live to really "get", I'd reckon it's an AMAZING performance art. However, music (in my opinion) should stand on its own. It shouldn't need a visual aide in order to be effectively communicated. Of course, all of this, my $.02.

 

 

Once you save a little more money, you'll express it something like this:

All of the things spoken about here are music, and it's silly to use such a restrictive and repressive definition of music to prescribe what is and will be music. However, because I am so steeped in musical tradition, I prefer music which develops those parameters within the traditional constraints, rather than other music which does not. I have learned not to confuse my musical taste with some objective view of what music is, which by definition then, will make others wrong if they disagree.

[akliner]

Once you save a little more money, you'll express it something like this: All of the things spoken about here are music, and it's silly to use such a restrictive and repressive definition of music to prescribe what is and will be music. However, because I am so steeped in musical tradition, I prefer music which develops those parameters within the traditional constraints, rather than other music which does not. I have learned not to confuse my musical taste with some objective view of what music is, which by definition then, will make others wrong if they disagree.

 

 

Maybe, but probably not.

 

I think that Noise will be studied in history books as a musical movement, but just like all challenging movements in the arts, there are philosophical reactions in support or in opposition to the embracing of those new creations.

 

DADAism (in theatre) is studied as a movement in theatre, but not neccesarily AS theatre. And I've been through enough "what is theatre?" conversations to know that it will never be answered.

 

Same goes with music. We'll never arrive at a generally accepted definition of music.

 

It does not mean, however, that it is pointless to have these debates or to argue a side and argue your own passions. I, for now, am firm in my remarks about music. I appreciate that you are firm in your remarks about music as well.

 

We'll probably never agree, and we certainly aren't the only people having these conversations.

[droolmaster0]

Maybe, but probably not. I think that Noise will be studied in history books as a musical movement, but just like all challenging movements in the arts, there are philosophical reactions in support or in opposition to the embracing of those new creations. DADAism (in theatre) is studied as a movement in theatre, but not neccesarily AS theatre. And I've been through enough "what is theatre?" conversations to know that it will never be answered. Same goes with music. We'll never arrive at a generally accepted definition of music. It does not mean, however, that it is pointless to have these debates or to argue a side and argue your own passions. I, for now, am firm in my remarks about music. I appreciate that you are firm in your remarks about music as well. We'll probably never agree, and we certainly aren't the only people having these conversations.

 

 

Every comment you make shows that you don't really understand the important issues...what a definition really is, how academia fits into the notion of what music is, etc...you just keep on repeating your brainwashed tripe over and over and over.