2. music
  3. 166564-142748

Music is sound, sound can be music

It was hard to make a title that fit what I wanted to talk about. Reading the thread about the deleted Hip-hop/Rap thread was an interesting window on some of the mindset here (some of which was unfortunate and depressing too but that's the world we live in....). What struck me was the attitude that if it's not played on a traditional instrument it's not music, or it just "sucks" in some way.

First, many instruments today, lots of brass ones especially or guitars didn't exist until the last 100-200 years. Do they not make music?

But you have to learn to use it skillfully, so I read. Knowing how to read and write music surely qualifies one yes? Talented even, if your can write complex pieces?

Ok, then. 25 years ago I worked with early digital audio systems using sequencers and MIDI. My partner graduated with honors from Berklee college of music and was a composer. He wrote some amazing work without touching anything more than a mouse and keyboard. Was it music?

10 years later I worked with another person who did incredible work in sound collage and electronic music. They did use a controller that is essentially a piano keyboard but it only sends note data to the system. She could play wonderfully on a real piano but often used non-linear editing and manipulation to produce innovative soundscapes. Was it music?

There are other examples where people do all sorts of experimental things with sound and not a single traditional instrument is ever used. Is it art?

My point here is if you don't like something that's fine. It doesn't make you a bad, stupid, or ignorant person. Neither are you those things if you don't understand why people create things or how they choose to do it. Of course, you are free to say what you like, that's your right. But don't be surprised when you are considered ignorant and intolerant when all you have to say is negative and derogatory remarks.

Life is too short to spend energy on things you don't like. Move on past and participate in the things you enjoy and let others enjoy theirs. Or maybe open you mind and give something more than a cursory glance if curiosity gets you, explore, read, listen and learn. You may decide it really isn't for you, but then again you might.
jet88
ghdprentice
6,969 posts
 
I really enjoy the positive aspects of the forums and try and avoid any of the trolls and egotists attempting to feed their egos through condescension. I like sharing the knowledge I had developed over the last fifty years and learning from others.There is so much positive about this pursuit and so much future possibilities it is wonderful.

I stayed away from the thread you were talking about. Don’t care to get involved. My interest in music has grown from Rock in the 60s and 70’s to, classical, jazz, electronic, and world. I attend the symphony regularly for ten years. I also have been really excited about the possibilities of new music... Imogen Heap headed in a great direction and scratched at a whole new world of electronic... once in a while I hear a bit that really goes into truly creative space. I love that. Actually I also loved Gil Evan’s Out of the Cool 1960... I love music that pushes the boundaries. I love The Art of Noice, helping break some of the connection with traditional instruments. There is definitely a whole world open to only the musicians creativity. 
gregm
3,405 posts
 
Nice & interesting post.Of course, in all of the examples you mention people created music -- albeit using different instruments.
I have found, empirically, that the underlying objection many of these people have lies in seeing a computer as a possible musical instrument.
The digital provenance of the source signal, i.e. the original sound was made by "an operator" using software & electronic circuits to emulate (and transform) the sounds made by the musician interacting with a physical medium which generates a sound of its own accord, without the help of an external power source, software, etc
 

And the skills associated with virtuosity are totally different;
-- the traditional model has the musician and the instrument, and the idiosyncratic virtuosity separates (say) Heifetz from other violinists;
-- in the new model, the skillful player can emulate Heifetz' violin playing virtuosity

frogman
7,441 posts
 
OP, you’re missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with the use of electronic vs “traditional” instruments. There is lots and lots of electronic music that is loved by many who don’t like rap. Aside from the personal opinions about the message of some rap, the issue (objection) FOR SOME, is that much of rap deviates from the traditional constructs of music which mostly boil down to rhythm and melody. Much of rap does not have a defined melody at its core. A smattering of “melodic” fragments used as “dressing” does not a defined melody make. So, in a strict sense it does not meet the traditional criteria for what constitutes “music”.

One can argue all day about whether there is room for deviation from the traditional constructs of music and the validity (or lack thereof) of a strict traditional definition of “music”; that is perfectly fine. However, what I find curious more than anything and what I believe is the reason for so much vitriol around the discussion of this topic is why fans of the genre bristle at the opinion that it is not music. That stance is not necessarily a pejorative. I happen to like some of the more creative rap that has a message that is not gratuitously abusive to my value system and sensibilities; even while appreciating very “edgy” examples of the genre. I also acknowledge that at its best it can definitely be considered art. These are criteria that I use when judging ANY art form. However, I consider it to be poetry more than anything else because it, more times than not, deviates from what I consider to be the traditional constructs of “music”. SO WHAT?! Is poetry a “worse” or less valid art form than music? Hell no! So what exactly is the problem? If one person considers it music and another considers it poetry how is that a reflection of its validity? It’s not.

So, let’s see, those who clamor for open mindedness and respect for all are themselves incapable of allowing others to hold a different personal opinion by which they define an art genre? Got it.


hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,974 posts
 
OP, enjoyed your post.

The fundamental point, for me, is a pragmatic one. Things are what we need or want them to be. All definitions depend on usefulness.

If I need to throw out some trash, that cylinder over there is a "trash can."

If I need to change a light bulb and the cylinder (turned over, supports my weight) allows me to reach the light, it is now a "step stool." Neither definition is more primary than the other except insofar as I take it more often than the other.

(I know many people who have converted various objects into "speaker stands." Those things are, in fact, now speaker stands.)

Everything is what it is taken AS. That fundamental pragmatic point includes "sound," "noise," "music," and even "trolls."

The hard part isn’t coming up with definitions. The hard part is negotiating about which ones we want to agree on.
frogman
7,441 posts
 
Sure, there can be different criteria used for defining something if one is comfortable with that kind of relativism. Some would consider that a lowering of standards. A cinder block works just fine supporting a speaker. Will it do as good a job (sound as good) as a stand designed to take into account the time proven issue of the resonance characteristics of that particular speaker, at the perfect height, etc.? Doubtful.

More importantly, why is it necessary to have agreement? I’m perfectly comfortable with disagreement. Why does disagreement have to turn into disrespect and vitriol? It doesn’t; and vitriol is pointless and counter productive.
More to discover