Jump to content

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

greaseenvelope

By greaseenvelope
in Keys, Synths & Samplers

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
greaseenvelope Newbie

greaseenvelope

Posted
  • Author
  • Members
Posted

 

Mostly what I get from this discussion is, "My noise art in unpopular, so I hope to elevate it by calling it 'music'. Anyone else that disputes me is {censored}ing {censored} {censored}er that doesn't get it."

 

 

Many noise artists are actually upset about the genres increasing popularity, relishing the years of mail art anonymousness. I think the idea that we care whether its called music or not is preposterous, and a projection upon a group of people who are for the most part not present in this discussion. I will call what I do music, as it has a structure and sometimes is perceived as "songs", and don't really care to dispute this term. Most music sucks, as does most noise.. it's hardly elevating anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
droolmaster0 Newbie

droolmaster0

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Then I point to TAW's posts. I will twist a paperclip into a little pony and call it music.

 

 

But it's a misuse of the language to call something that has nothing to do with sound, music. Think, even momentarily, before you post. There will be a quiz - I'd hate to see you have to retake this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
The Audacity Works Newbie

The Audacity Works

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Sigh. There isn't a goddamn {censored}ing line. There is no objective measurement of what music is and isn't. It doesn't matter. If your dude above is composing it as music, I suppose he might consider it such. If he can get me to listen to it as such, then I suppose it is....but it's not like it is or it isn't. If I heard this guy's composition, and he asked me what I thought, I'd probably say, well, you're trying to do something avant garde, but it sure sucks. What were you trying to get at...what you're really asking is if a piece of music is REALLLLLLY bad, at what point is it not music.

I'm not questioning whether or not something is or isn't music. That's not not point at all. What I'm asking, is if someone like John Cage can call a complete lack of sound music, why can't I call a complete lack of visuals film? You implied it's not the same thing (left shoes and all). I assert that if you're going to call nothing something, you can call nothing any equally vaporous term, such as "art", "drama", "film", "literature", "religion", or "truth".

 

If the posters in this forum claim that John Cage could just as well have said "4'33" is my art-film; that is, a complete lack of visuals"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
droolmaster0 Newbie

droolmaster0

Posted
  • Members
Posted

That's not what I said. To say that to be music, something must at least have some human interaction with sound, doesn't mean that every sound is music. To say that because there is no sound, or any attempt to play with sound, and therefore, conceptually, semantically, any way you want to put it, it isn't music, ISN'T the same as giving some minimum criteria for what is music, or what everyone should consider music. THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
greaseenvelope Newbie

greaseenvelope

Posted
  • Author
  • Members
Posted

 

To say that to be music, something must at least have some human interaction with sound, doesn't mean that every sound is music.

 

 

Coming from a aborted graduate anthropology background myself, this is the definition I am most comfortable with. People sell recordings of it, go to concerts featuring it, tour the country playing it, interview its makers and make publications featuring reviews of these recordings... sure sounds like music to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
sizzlemeister Newbie

sizzlemeister

Posted
  • Members
Posted

If you have a piece of paper that has on it an image containing little symbols on a staff, in other words what would commonly be accepted by the non-elitists as a "score" or "sheet-music" and ask a musician who sight reads what do they see, they'll say they see "music" - and they would be correct.

 

And the paper and the symbols have nothing to do with sound except for the rustle of the paper in some one's dirty (or not) hands. Which may or may not be music depending on not only who perceives it, but who perceives it and makes a claim either way.

 

On another note, isn't it just as hypocritical to suggest what music IS as to suggest what it IS NOT?

 

Who is Gene to tell Rich that his definition of what music IS or IS NOT is any better, or more accurate, than Rich's definition of what music IS or IS NOT? If you're going to throw away the parameters of meaning for one nebulous subject, in this case music, then you can not logically argue that there should be parameters for another nebulous subject such as language.

 

Therefore, I hereby proclaim this thread IS NOT and HAS NOT BEEN about music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
droolmaster0 Newbie

droolmaster0

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

If you have a piece of paper that has on it an image containing little symbols on a staff, in other words what would commonly be accepted by the non-elitists as a "score" or "sheet-music" and ask a musician who sight reads what do they see, they'll say they see "music" - and they would be correct.


And the paper and the symbols have nothing to do with sound except for the rustle of the paper in some one's dirty (or not) hands. Which may or may not be music depending on not only who perceives it, but who perceives it and makes a claim either way.


On another note, isn't it just as hypocritical to suggest what music IS as to suggest what it IS NOT?


Who is Gene to tell Rich that his definition of what music IS or IS NOT is any better, or more accurate, than Rich's definition of what music IS or IS NOT? If you're going to throw away the parameters of meaning for one nebulous subject, in this case music, then you can not logically argue that there should be parameters for another nebulous subject such as language.


Therefore, I hereby proclaim this thread IS NOT and HAS NOT BEEN about music.

 

 

When you say that someone looking at a score is seeing music, you're using 'music' in a different sense than we are talking about here. There is one use of the term in which we can speak of the representation of music as music, sure. But what does it represent? That's what we're talking about here, and the sense of the word that we're talking about here. You have to be careful about the distortions that you introduce when you change to a different usage of a word, and assume that you are talking about the same thing.

 

No, it isn't hypocritical for me to suggest that what is music is largely subjective, but (unless we arbitrarily change the meanings of words), it does have to do with sound, because this is really, or should be, a pretty noncontroversial issue.

 

"throw away the parameters of meaning" - what in the world are you babbling about? I'm trying to make you think a little bit about words and what they mean, and how this pertains to music. Btw, while language does evolve, to be strictly correct, parameters boundaries. This is really a confusion with 'perimeters'.

 

but, you really need a little more precision in your formulations - I really am not sure what you're really getting at, other than calling me a hypocrite, which is quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
The Audacity Works Newbie

The Audacity Works

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

That's not what I said. To say that to be music, something must at least have some human interaction with sound, doesn't mean that every sound is music. To say that because there is no sound, or any attempt to play with sound, and therefore, conceptually, semantically, any way you want to put it, it isn't music, ISN'T the same as giving some minimum criteria for what is music, or what everyone should consider music. THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Think before I post? Christ, man.

 

Let's try this one more time:

 

John Cage and many of his fans say that four and a half minutes of dead silence is "music". Fine, cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
r33k Newbie

r33k

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 


The only real opinion I have in the matter is that John Cage (or rather, his publisher) is a huge douche for suing people for copyright infringement. Yes, over
4'33"
.

 

 

Not sure where you're coming from there. Why shouldn't he be able to protect his work from misappropriation like any other composer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
mildbill Newbie

mildbill

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Well, you could put anything that way...If the confronter put forth a compelling argument, and explained all of his terms and their meanings in a straight forward understanable, agreeable way, that made perfect sense to the listener, maybe the listener would say "You know - I agree with all that you've said, and I really wasn't sitting on a couch, I was embracing the corpse of a 14th century metalurgist."

 

 

 

well ya - there's always that. :freak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...