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
tablejockey
3,901 posts
 
Rap is the genre you just can't discuss in a thread. It's tied with too many 
social issues which are HOT buttons now. Compels many to project
their inner whatever you want to call it, then a thread goes south QUICK!

Perhaps corny,  the message however is clearer than ever....
https://vimeo.com/252765355

I've ignored it since the 80's and always will,  but the masses have spoken- Rap and it's derivatives are  here to stay.

'
jet88 OP
62 posts
 
Thanks everyone for all the replies. There's a lot of good thought and dialogue here.

@frogman  I think it is you that missed the point. I assert this by you closing statement:

 "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."

 I made it quite clear that others can have their own opinions. I also made it clear that how you express yourself is how you will be judged by others. Don't like it because you think it's not music for whatever reasons? Fine. You can even say why just as you did in a reasonable, respectful manner. It's the snide remarks and thinly veiled racism I have issues with that I saw. In those cases, people still have the right to speak but I don't have to listen to them. That doesn't make me incapable of allowing others to have a different opinion, it makes me incapable of listening to ignorance and hatred.

Lastly, I encouraged people to give different things a fair chance before deciding they don't like it. And if they did decide they don't, that it was perfectly ok.
hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,974 posts
 
@frogman I agree to disagree about relativism. Relativism is a rather complicated topic, and it’s very time consuming merely to define terms. I doubt we’ll make much progress here, and there’s a lot written already. It's deep water, so put your flippers on.
frogman
7,441 posts
 
jet88, point taken. I agree with what you wrote about being respectful; no problem there at all. My reaction had to do with your pointing to the use of electronics as the apparent reason for why rap is disliked by some. As I said previously, that is not the case. I won’t repeat myself beyond that. Anyway, thanks for your response to my comment. On the more important point, as concerns an Internet forum, that of respect and decorum, we completely agree.
frogman
7,441 posts
 
Hilde45, complicated indeed. 

A little progress? From your article:

**** This incoherence charge is by far the most difficult problem facing the relativist. It is worth noting that attempts to overcome the problem by appealing to the notion of relative truth appear not to succeed. Many versions of relativism rely on such a notion, but it is very difficult to make sense of it. An assertion that a proposition is “true for me” (or “true for members of my culture”) is more readily understood as a claim concerning what I (or members of my culture, scheme, etc.) believe than it is as a claim ascribing to that proposition some special sort of truth. Constructing a conception of relative truth such that “p is relatively true” (or “p is true for S”, or “p is true for members of culture C”) amounts to something stronger than “S believes that p” (or “members of culture Cbelieve that p”), but weaker than “p is true (simpliciter)”, has proved to be quite difficult, and is arguably beyond the conceptual resources available to the relativist. (Siegel 2011: 203) ****

**** The suggestion … is that what is (by commonsense standards) the same situation can be described in many different ways, depending on how we use the words. The situation does not itself legislate how words like “object”, “entity”, and “exist” must be used. What is wrong with the notion of objects existing “independently” of conceptual schemes is that there are no standards for the use of even the logical notions apart from conceptual choices. (Putnam 1988: 114)****


More to discover