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

[akliner]

Is this music? It certainly doesn't fit your definition of organized sound in time.

??? I don't understand the refence.

[droolmaster0]

I understand that point of view, but I also celebrate music's deep historical roots and the people that have worked to define the common language we use to make music. As with many things in the avant-garde, if you cannot defend your creations, then you have no voice in the greater conversation. You have no place in the advancement and exploration of the arts. It sounds stuffy and academic, but that's my background and training. As far as I'm concerned, you music first understand and be fluent in the rules of a form before you break them. I even offered a historical nod to Dadaism to help support their cause and only one person acknowledged it. Oh well. I'm currently in the process of writing a 30 page paper about breaking the rules of musical theatre to accomodate rock music as a valid presence on the stage. I'm in full-throttle academic mode.

 

 

Somewhat of a non sequitur, and also false....I'm just defining what pretty much should be the only acceptable definition of music, unless you want to want to define stuff that people enjoy listening to, that has been composed by human beings, as something else. I don't see the point in doing so.

 

As for whether someone needs a background in the history and theory of music to compose music, well, that's kind of a silly rule at face value. If you heard something that you liked, you'd probably consider it music, but then if you found out that the person had no training, would you decide that it wasn't? Surely, the only meaningful interpretation is that you're saying that it is unlikely that someone without this training could write something that you'd like. That's too bad, really, that you impose this rule.

 

I don't give a {censored} about academic vs non-academic. The issue is whether what you say really makes sense or not, or is simply academic obstructionism. I'd vote for the latter.

 

If some entirely self taught person constructs a noise piece that I like, what more do I really need to call it music? The rest is interesting - to what degree training helps or hinders originality, and in what ways, and whether one can have too much training, etc, etc. But, ultimately, it's like technique - you have to get past it and just play, or just listen.

[droolmaster0]

I agree with Akliner. Music has form, noise does not. However, that doesn't deny that noise can be art.

 

 

??? What you seem to be saying that if someone doesn't impose SOME kind of organization upon noise, then it isn't music? Hard to say really, and to me, calling noise art, but not music, doesn't make any sense. What it really boils down to is: if I like it, it's music. If I don't, it's not.

[droolmaster0]

Is this music? It certainly doesn't fit your definition of organized sound in time.

Well, it might be the representation of music, but, like a score, it isn't the music itself.

[akliner]

Somewhat of a non sequitur, and also false....I'm just defining what pretty much should be the only acceptable definition of music, unless you want to want to define stuff that people enjoy listening to, that has been composed by human beings, as something else. I don't see the point in doing so. As for whether someone needs a background in the history and theory of music to compose music, well, that's kind of a silly rule at face value. If you heard something that you liked, you'd probably consider it music, but then if you found out that the person had no training, would you decide that it wasn't? Surely, the only meaningful interpretation is that you're saying that it is unlikely that someone without this training could write something that you'd like. That's too bad, really, that you impose this rule. I don't give a {censored} about academic vs non-academic. The issue is whether what you say really makes sense or not, or is simply academic obstructionism. I'd vote for the latter. If some entirely self taught person constructs a noise piece that I like, what more do I really need to call it music? The rest is interesting - to what degree training helps or hinders originality, and in what ways, and whether one can have too much training, etc, etc. But, ultimately, it's like technique - you have to get past it and just play, or just listen.

 

 

I don't understand why you seem to be having trouble with my line of logic. I am constructing a very basic logical argument:

 

Music= commonly agreed upon as the organization of sound in time

Sound= tones identified on any world music scale

Time= adhering to a time signature

 

Noise= exists, many times (if not exclusively), without identifiable tones on any scale and without an identifiable time signature

 

Therefore, Noise cannot be considered music.

 

In terms of an untrained person's compositions, surely they can be music. I am reacting primarily to the Noise genre and its wholesale dismissal of traditional music values (tones in time). You cannot simply dismiss all of what has conventionally made music music and still claim it as such without a good deal of thought and defense. I'm not trying to obstruct the art with academic nonsense, but I want to better understand the reasoning behind it.

 

I want to understand the rationale behind noise, and I'd love for somebody to make a case that it is actually music.

[droolmaster0]

I don't understand why you seem to be having trouble with my line of logic. I am constructing a very basic logical argument: Music= commonly agreed upon as the organization of sound in time Sound= tones identified on any world music scale Time= adhering to a time signature Noise= exists, many times (if not exclusively), without identifiable tones on any scale and without an identifiable time signature Therefore, Noise cannot be considered music. In terms of an untrained person's compositions, surely they can be music. I am reacting primarily to the Noise genre and its wholesale dismissal of traditional music values (tones in time). You cannot simply dismiss all of what has conventionally made music music and still claim it as such without a good deal of thought and defense. I'm not trying to obstruct the art with academic nonsense, but I want to better understand the reasoning behind it. I want to understand the rationale behind noise, and I'd love for somebody to make a case that it is actually music.

 

 

You state first that it is "commonly agreed" (whatever that means exactly - are we appealling to popular consensus in a logical argument?) that music is the organization of sound in time. I think that most people would consider noise (or non-pitched sounds, if that is exactly the same thing) as sound. So, it then seems somewhat contradictory to REQUIRE that these sounds are pitched, and that there is a time signature. Cannot something be organized (organization can take place on multiple levels) without having a time signature? Surely it can.

 

So, what you seem to be doing is saying that traditionally, music was considered to be organized sound that fulfilled these requirments...I don't think that back in the 19th century, we had people composing music based on electronic noises, or other noises. Things were more highly structured then. But it seems far more rational and correct to me to take the fact that ultimately music has always been organized sound that people enjoyed listening to and/or playing, and that as the tools for this have evolved, some antiquated definition of music will exclude what is, in the spirit of things, quite blatantly music.

 

But yeah - surely if you start out with the presupposition that noise can't be music, then noise isn't music. Nasty job of arguing there, mate.

[akliner]

You state first that it is "commonly agreed" (whatever that means exactly - are we appealling to popular consensus in a logical argument?) that music is the organization of sound in time. I think that most people would consider noise (or non-pitched sounds, if that is exactly the same thing) as sound. So, it then seems somewhat contradictory to REQUIRE that these sounds are pitched, and that there is a time signature. Cannot something be organized (organization can take place on multiple levels) without having a time signature? Surely it can. So, what you seem to be doing is saying that traditionally, music was considered to be organized sound that fulfilled these requirments...I don't think that back in the 19th century, we had people composing music based on electronic noises, or other noises. Things were more highly structured then. But it seems far more rational and correct to me to take the fact that ultimately music has always been organized sound that people enjoyed listening to and/or playing, and that as the tools for this have evolved, some antiquated definition of music will exclude what is, in the spirit of things, quite blatantly music. But yeah - surely if you start out with the presupposition that noise can't be music, then noise isn't music. Nasty job of arguing there, mate.

 

 

Two quick replies until I absolutely concede that we have reached a stalemate here...

 

1. My definition of music as being the organization of sounds (and silences) in time is certainly not an arbitrary one. Aside from it being the definition I have been given throughout music theory courses and piano lessons, common-ass WIKIPEDIA mentions it as such. Even if you disagree with this particular definition of music, it's pretty unfair to suggest that my using this definition as being in any way manipulative. Also "commonly agreed upon" is not appealing to POPULAR concensus, it's appealing to precedent...which you will find to be a pillar of legal argument and judgement.

1a. SO...if this definition is not to your liking or you find it too limiting, what do you suppose a more suitable definition be?

 

2. If we did dismiss time signature as the only method of organizing the TIMING of music, what would you suggest as its replacement?

 

Look, I'm all for watching Noise artists go to war against the very foundation of music, but you need to make sure you have the right ammo.

[Allerian]

Music= commonly agreed upon as the organization of sound in time Sound= tones identified on any world music scale Time= adhering to a time signature Noise= exists, many times (if not exclusively), without identifiable tones on any scale and without an identifiable time signature.

So I'm apparently not making music on tracks where I don't use a time signature or your defined "sounds"? Thanks, I had no idea.

[Allerian]

Look, I'm all for watching Noise artists go to war against the very foundation of music, but you need to make sure you have the right ammo.

 

 

Whose goal is this? I make noise music because it brings me joy.

[akliner]

So I'm apparently not making music on tracks where I don't use a time signature or your defined "sounds"? Thanks, I had no idea.

It's not MY definition.

[Allerian]

It's not MY definition.

Would you cite your source for the logic you used? It looks pretty "made up" to me. :poke:

[akliner]

Whose goal is this? I make noise music because it brings me joy.

Excellent.

I'm just debating semantics, which are important.

[akliner]

Would you cite your source for the logic you used? It looks pretty "made up" to me. :poke:

?? I don't understand the question?


How do I cite a source for logic?

[Allerian]

?? I don't understand the question? How do I cite a source for logic?

You said it wasn't your definition. Source?

I just get the impression that it's more your opinion than some kind of existing logical reasoning.

I think I feel my apathy kicking in, "Hello old friend.".

[jjdugan3]

To address Art,Music,and so forth..There has been a history of art and music that has been disregarded as "non",not belonging to the generally accepted norm,or unnaceptable to more pedestrian sensibilities.Lets take Dadaism,Expressionism,Modernism,Impresionism,all regarded as non art and abominations in their time.Jackson Pollock is still regarded as {censored} by some ,after all it's just drippings on a canvas.

How about Edgar Var

[droolmaster0]

Two quick replies until I absolutely concede that we have reached a stalemate here... 1. My definition of music as being the organization of sounds (and silences) in time is certainly not an arbitrary one. Aside from it being the definition I have been given throughout music theory courses and piano lessons, common-ass WIKIPEDIA mentions it as such. Even if you disagree with this particular definition of music, it's pretty unfair to suggest that my using this definition as being in any way manipulative. Also "commonly agreed upon" is not appealing to POPULAR concensus, it's appealing to precedent ...which you will find to be a pillar of legal argument and judgement. 1a. SO...if this definition is not to your liking or you find it too limiting, what do you suppose a more suitable definition be? 2. If we did dismiss time signature as the only method of organizing the TIMING of music, what would you suggest as its replacement? Look, I'm all for watching Noise artists go to war against the very foundation of music, but you need to make sure you have the right ammo.

 

 

The problem isn't with the organization of sounds in time, it is with your subsequent presupposition that sound constitutes only pitched tones, and organization constitutes only time signatures.

 

Go back to your misapplication of books. This is silly, and you clearly don't understand what 'begging the question' means in philosophical parlance. You want to show that sound compositions consisting of noise aren't music, so you take a broad definition of music (similar to what I'm suggestion) - the organization of sounds in time - but then you make the assumption that sound = pitched tones, and organization = time signatures, and then you conclude that noise isn't music. Bravo - one of the better examples of circular reasoning I've heard today.

[akliner]

To address Art,Music,and so forth..There has been a history of art and music that has been disregarded as "non",not belonging to the generally accepted norm,or unnaceptable to more pedestrian sensibilities.Lets take Dadaism,Expressionism,Modernism,Impresionism,all regarded as non art and abominations in their time.Jackson Pollock is still regarded as {censored} by some ,after all it's just drippings on a canvas. How about Edgar Var

[mildbill]

Gads... that Merzbow clip. I seriously have no idea how he became famous for this stuff. At the risk of playing my music to someone who isn't going to enjoy it, I'll just ask that you listen fully and keep an open mind: Control of the Human Mind Delivery Solar Flare (wow, forgot how wild this gets - good speakers a must) Aside from me, check out Khate . She is the end-all do-all creative superstar of noise, imo.

Disclaimer: I don't know {censored} about the noise genre. (I know a bit about 'sound' and 'music' tho).


OK - The stuff that Allerian/Khate are doing, sounds to me like 'atmospheric' or 'soundscape' in that it has normally discernable pitches and timbres which vary over time.

Merzbow (sp?) sounds more like 'noise' to me in that it's composed of simultaneous random frequencies varying in amplitude. (Think 'white', 'pink', 'red' noise, etc.)


If both of these types of productions are considered part of the noise genre, then it covers too large an area to have a meaningful definition.

[mytee2.0]

I want to understand the rationale behind noise, and I'd love for somebody to make a case that it is actually music.

 

industrial! DONE!!!

[r33k]

??? I don't understand the refence.

 

 

It makes me sad that a musical academic doesn't know John Cage or his most famous work. He is Exhibit A that your 'definition' of what is music is tenuous at best and completely wrong-headed at worst.

[pgunders]

P.S. for you noise guys... Has there been any mention of the DADA movement as a manifesto inspiration for the work you do? All this talk has reminded me of Tristan Tzara and his theatre work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

 

 

Well, one obvious connection would be that Merzbow takes his stage name from Kurt Schwitters' "Merzbau." Another reference point of noise music to the art world would be Throbbing Gristle's work (TG being the original industrial band, which evolved out of the 70s performance art collective COUM Transmissions).

 

Parties really interested in theoretical discourse on noise should have a look at Jacques Attali's book "Noise: the Political Economy of Music" and Paul Hegarty's recent book "Noise/Music: A History." Both books have their problems, but they're still well worth a look.

[droolmaster0]

Oh yah...me likee much that Autechre video. It's drum n' bass format, mostly drum with extended breaks, all run through lord knows how many processes and edits. What's not to like:p nat whilk ii

 

 

There is nothing not to like....

[girevik]

Whose goal is this? I make noise music because it brings me joy.

 

 

Most of the noise musicians I know have more in common with you than with whoever is "at war with the establishment" or whatever. I have not met any of these "at war" noise people, not even the ones who have played at High Zero or have otherwise passed through Baltimore-DC on tour.

 

They're all making noise music because that's how they wish to express themselves, that's all. No anti-anything.

[mildbill]

The industrial stuff I've heard focuses on the juxtaposition of sampled 'found' sounds with atmospheric soundscapes. Engaging - in a way (and for a while).

[akliner]

 

It makes me sad that a musical academic doesn't know John Cage or his most famous work . He is Exhibit A that your 'definition' of what is music is tenuous at best and completely wrong-headed at worst.

 

 

No. I do know about that piece. I wasn't able to identify it just from its notation though.