tspikes51

Okay, as promised in the "Least Favorite Genre" thread, here's my lesson on music.

First of all, let me start by asking you all to define music.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Painted

Any sounds created with artificial and/or natural musical instruments.

Bangin' sticks on rocks, its crude but an instrument.
The masterpiece that is a Les Paul guitar is no more than some over priced wood and metal.

tspikes51

Close, but not quite.

Music is sound that has been controlled (that's agreed to be the closest you can get to a definition). That simple. Some people on the TFP have suggested that there are basic elements of music (i.e. timbre, rhythm, pitch) that must all be present and change during a piece to have music, with intentions to prove that rap or techno are not really music. Not completely true. In this sense, all of these elements are present wherever there is sound.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

mercury-hg

hmm, who could that "some people" be?

apparently you too want to misconstrue my earlier comments. did i say that rap and techno are not music? nope. do i actually think that rap and techno are not music, but just didn't come out and say it? no.

what i DO think is that a song writer has three tools at his disposal: pitch, rhythm, and timbre. thankfully, it's the norm to use all three in order to create interesting pieces. i never claimed that a song that doesn't make atleast moderate use of these elements isn't a song. i'd probably argue that that song sucks, but yeah, it's a song. whether your "controlled sounds" come from a full orchestra or tin can, the collection of sounds can be fully described by pitch, rhythm, and timbre.

so why make a song or part of a song with instruments that don't give you control over all of these properties? it's like assembling a relay team of amputies. sure, they might finish the race, but the 2-legged teams are going to do a bit better.

to everyone who still thinks i'm attacking techno or rap: i'm not. actually i popped in the least favorite music thread to try to give some direction to a thread devolving into "rap sucks" and "techno sucks". plenty of songs in these genres are "musically interesting". yet some are laden with samples and ambient scratching that doesn't add anything to the song.

balderdash111

I have a sense this thread is going to rapidly descend into a battle of "I'm smarter than you"s, but here's my offering:

You can't define music objectively b/c I think the definition relies on the intent of the musician and is therefore circular. If you are rhythmically banging a metal thing against another metal thing, is it automatically music? What if you are just building a house?

I think "music" is the sound (or lack thereof - see John Cage) made when someone tries to make music. Yes it is circular, but c'est la vie.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

tspikes51

So true. Or even when you are trying to listen for music. Odd as it may seem, you can manipulate sound into whatever you want it to be just by listening to it.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

vanblah

OK. But that's just a selective observation.
-----------
From the OED we get the first definition of the word Music as a noun:
<i>and later:</i>
There are a lot more, but we don't want to go into them here. I think you get my point.

So let's not argue semantics about this subject ... we all <i>know</i> what music is. I think the real question is what does music mean to each of us?

The closest I can get to what it means to me is what most people refer to as a "soul." Music comes from within me ... it may not come from within others. Even when I listen to music I internalize it. I am NOT a passive listener.

Doug

Glory's Sun

music is whatever stirs a person's soul. nuff said.

scott_p_1

I think that may be a bit too vague. Things that obviously aren't music can stir a person's soul, such as a good painting.

Glory's Sun

this is vague but.. I mean if you consider something music and it moves you then it is music. That is why there are so many different genre's and styles of music. There is something for everybody.

roachboy

why is it that the most conservative type of musicians (and listeners), who are involved with the most conservative types of music, are the ones who usually raise this tiresome question (what is and is not music)?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

vanblah

I agree. It's such a stale argument; sort of along the lines of a first-year philosophy student asking someone to "prove that they exist".

That's why I wanted to explore the question "what does music MEAN to each of us" rather than the semantic argument "what is the definition of music."

Doug

zenmaster10665

I think it is amazing to note that irregardless of culture, music is respected, loved and practised all over the world...

It truly is the world's universal language.

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

tspikes51

Ah, yes. It is truly the oldest art form used for expression of emotion or worship of deity (possibly predated by cave paintings, but that was for communication of information). It's because anybody, no matter what language they speak, can listen to a song, and feel the emotion, and even a story coming from it. For example: Rammstein. A good deal of people that listen to Rammstein can't understand a word that they say (I don't know much German either), but they still get that feeling of anger and creepiness from their music. As a music major whose chosen instrument of study is voice, I am required to sing in a non-English language some of the time. My favorite piece to sing is in Italian ("Caro Mio Ben" by Giovanni). Until I looked up the translation, I didn't know what a single word in the song meant, but I still knew it was describing something of beauty because of the song. I tried singing it in a beautiful English translation, but it did nothing for the song.

Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but I think that saying that one genre of music is not legitimate is like insulting somebody who listens to that kind of music. It is like saying "your emotions and thoughts, as a whole, suck" to somebody. Now, it's okay if you don't like a certain piece of music, but saying rap or techno aren't music is like saying that wonton is not real food. It's just a matter of taste.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

vanblah

Agreed. I think that most people draw the lines too obscurely when they say things like that. For instance, I know a guy who calls himself a keyboard player. When I asked him to play something he admitted that he could not actually play traditional piano, but could trigger samples that were assigned to the keys. I did not call him a liar, I did not say that he was NOT a keyboard player. He was after all playing the keyboard.

Music generated from samples and loops is still music; there really is no arguing that. It IS a valid form of music as well. The "players" of such music might not be traditional instrumentalists but they are <b>most certainly</b> composers. I think the problem most people have with this concept is that there is the sense that <i>anyone</i> can produce music this way. That statement is true ... but it's also true that <i>anyone</i> can play the violin or the tuba. It's the quality of the music that is produced that is the question.

A great techno or rap composer can produce very interesting and complex music; just as a great classical or jazz composer can do the same. You can still tell a hack from a pro in any genre. In my opinion a lot of the stuff that is produced in the techno/rap/pop/country veins is hackneyed, trite, cookie-cutter pablum. There is always the exception to the rule.

Doug

tspikes51

Again, so true.

See: Jay-Z, Fabolous, Jurassic 5, the Chemical Brothers, the Crystal Method, Beck, Mixmaster Mike, Prodigy, Lil' Jon, Kanye West, Dr. Dre, Carolina Bird Dog (Petey Pablo), the Beastie Boys, Lil' Flip.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

tspikes51

Oh, and did I mention that people are convinced that music without lyrics is not as legitimate or creative or complex as music without, and that they're wrong too???

This goes hand in hand with cover bands. People seem to think that cover bands aren't as musically talented or creative as musicians who write their own songs. However, I'll tell you that it's just as hard to cover a song as it is to write your own, of course, unless you're just reading the music straight off the page and not doing anything to it.

Just a couple more thoughts.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

mercury-hg

i'm curious, tspikes - you didn't respond to my post and still continue to speak of people devaluating genres. i thought my comments were a valid contribution, but perhaps they were ignored.

vanblah: i completely agree that your "keyboard"-playing friend was playing an instrument, if i understand what you said correctly. arranging individual sounds into a complete piece is the essence of music, whether the notes are laid out chromatically or in a less organized fashion.

i think there's some value to "defining" music from basic blocks, if only to prevent needless bashing of genres that some people don't enjoy. say someone comes in and says "rap isn't music because it doesn't do X and Y like classical/progressive metal/whatever does". well, if we've broken "music" down into its consituent parts, we can say "yes it does, here's how/why" and move on to something more interesting.

Slavakion

What about the music of nature, such as rainfall, crickets, the ocean, or a river. In a sense, these sounds are controlled by nature and the laws of physics thereof... but you know what I mean. Do you define "controlled" as "controlled by man"? Because there is definitely a musical property to nature.

YaWhateva

The mention of Jay-Z should never be mentioned in a thread related to music...

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"

vanblah

Mercury-HG: At first I had a hard time with what my friend was saying because I had spent a lot of time learning traditional piano. If he had claimed to be a pianist I might have had a reason to call him a liar ...

Slavakian: I posted a couple of definitions of music from the OED above ... one of those definitions includes music found in nature.

tspikes51: Are you trying to start a flamewar? If so, let me know and I will stop posting here.

I don't think the argument is valid that certain genres are less legitimate than others. It is at most correct to say that certain genres require less classical training than others. Again though I refer to my post above concerning hacks vs. professionals.

Doug

Ramallah

I took a music appreciation class this semester and music was defined only as "the organization of sound."

If you want to hear an example of stuff that really doesn't sound like music, listen to Varese's "Poem Electronique." No rhythm or structure at all but it's still considered music for some God-forsaken reason.

tspikes51

I wasn't talking about you directly... sorry if that's what it seemed like. It just seems that there's a high amount of dismissing certain genres as not music going on on the TFP. I am taking a stand to protect these genres, as well as promote the widening of people's musical tastes to include the endlessness that is music.

Now, to your first post, I will say this. You mentioned in the other thread something along the lines of "a song composed for 20 oboes would be ignoring timbre." I would assume that almost everybody here likes Metallica, or at least consider it to follow the "norm." Now, there is a certain popular song by Metallica where *gasp* there are only 2 guitars that have the same timbre playing for the bulk of the song (Master of Puppets). However, this is considered completely enjoyable and interesting. Or how about a saxophone quartet? Or a solo? Not trying to flame, just trying to get you to think, to redefine your limits a bit, if not get rid of them.

Absolutely not. I get very involved with music, as it is my life (or at least my future profession) pretty much, so I may go a bit over the top about it from time to time. I refer you to my purposes that I just gave above. I am really sincere about trying to help people to discover the whole diverse world that is music.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

tspikes51

In this case, it's controlled by the listener's mind. It may sound a bit strange, but try it sometime, find the tone that is in that sound in nature. It is most incredible. So yes, controlled by man, but not in the conventional manner that we limit ourselves to. The listener is as much of an artist as the player.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

OFKU0

Yeah, it is interesting. Applying emotions to what we listen to truely is the gift of music, since anyone can apply whatever meaning they want to it.

Back when I was in school studying music I did a paper on how people apply meaning to music, given a set of songs and asked their thoughts on each song.

Not what the song meant but more what they were thinking and the emotions from their thoughts. Just brilliant. Not one of over 150 people had the same thought/fantasy/visualization for any of the songs.

In a similar sense I would imagine it is like looking at a piece of art. Everyone sees something different from the rest.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

vanblah

I just read a book by Shinichi Suzuki (the guy who started the Suzuki Method for violin). It is called "Nurtured by Love." It is required reading for parents who have children in a Suzuki style class.

I can't give this book a high enough recommendation for anyone interested in music. I think it should be required reading for everyone regardless of their profession.

It's only 100 pages long and it's like $10 from Amazon.

mercury-hg

no offense but that's a horrible analogy. 2 guitarists in a rock band is hardly an abberation of the genre - it's the standard. not to mention that my oboe comment was a joke. the idea of composing a piece for 20 oboes is completely absurd, which is the point i was trying to make. oboes have a nasally duck tone that, when multiplied 20 times... <cringe>

tspikes51

Dude, I'm not trying to attack you. Don't make this personal. I'm just using what you said as an example, because if I cited all of the times that somebody said "rap sucks" (or something to that effect [not saying that you said that directly]) on the TFP, it would take people hours to load the page.

Personally, I think I'd enjoy a song written for 20 oboes. Now, mind you what is music and what is pleasing to onesself are two different things. I might not like a certain song composed for 20 oboes, but that doesn't mean that it's not music. It just means that I don't find it to stimulate a feeling in me that fits the feelings I like to have. Each person has their own set of preferred feelings, and when a song triggers one or a multitude of those feelings, the listener finds pleasure in the song.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

roachboy

20 oboes?
what you made would be a function of what you understood to be possible for the intruments. obviously, if you are going to start and stop thinking about them with the phrase "nasally duck tone" then what you would make for that ensemble would probably suck.
which, as was said directly above this, would have nothing to do with the question of what is and is not music.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite