Finding your voice

Then it isn't music, it's just noise .

Bull. Not everything has to be some oh so artsy work. Some things CAN be appreciated just because they sound good. I hate it when composers are pretentious.

I hate it when composers aren't pretentious ;)...well, not really. But you get my point (I hope).

Anyway, for example, a piece could be mathematically constructed, and interesting, but it is less about music than math. One could connect with it musically, but the intent and nature of the piece is mathematical. Something can sound interesting, like a bunch of beetles being crunched, or something ridiculous like that, and we can enjoy it for its qualities, but as far as music and art go, it doesn't really fit into those categories. Well, unless the composer is trying to express something with these sounds/constructs, but of course you're saying that he isn't.

That music might fit into the definition of music as simply "organized sounds", but for most I think the definition of music delves deeper than that. It doesn't have to, but I think it should, and so do most people, I believe. I'm assuming here, of course, but you seem to think that it shouldn't or doesn't have to, at least...and, well, that's sounds a bit pretentious to me, as well :ermm:

I'm talking about simply what makes defines music, and what actually is music. If we disagree on the basic understanding of that, then this discussion is moot.

I dunno, it just seems....not human to not have music or art reach deeper than simply physical perceptions. A bit soulless, I think, to just wander outside our minds or on the surface of them, when all the fun stuff, and actual perceptions of outside our minds, is inside *shrug*. Otherwise we're just simple machines, which we certainly aren't (especially the brain, which again is why I strive to connect to a deeper meaning).

Now I must politely say "f**k you" for instigating me enough into a response at 4:21AM :closedeyes:....:sleeping:

So, you just discard all of Feldman's output? *sigh* so much beautiful music gone wasted, then... :(

Well, in that case, art just becomes craft, in my opinion. If there's no point to making the art, if it's just colors or shapes or sounds, then why bother?

Well, what is it that makes you believe that Art is something so elitist that should only be done by the very selected, talented few? Why can't Art be something that everyone can do? Art began as something that everyone did back in the Stone Age, everyone. It started from the people, yet it seems it doesn't belong to the people anymore.

And also, what if a piece is 100% mathematically calculated, yet no one tells you that? And you find it beautiful? David Cope talks about a concert they had with pieces written by the EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence), and an old lady sitting next to a friend of his apparently hadn't read properly the leaflet, yet after a piece in the style of Bach (written by the computer), she said "oh, such beautiful music! I love Bach" or something. So, what about that? Is it art for her, but not art for anyone else who knows what it is?

Furthermore, not all music ever tried to "express" something - the music of Machaut was highly calculated and the use of mathematics (and especially the "golden ratio") in music was highly esteemed back then. In his motets he sometimes uses up to three different texts, sung in three different languages simultaneously. Obviously, there is nothing to be expressed here, since not many people spoke all English, French and Latin, and even if they did, trying to comprehend three simultaneously unfolded stories/texts in three different languages at the same time while listening to the music is an almost impossible task.

And music *is* mathematically calculated anyway, whether you agree or not. Ratios of frequencies, lengths of instruments, durations, metronome markings, rhythmic divisions, harmonic relationships, acoustics, they all involve a LOT of mathematics and physics. Even these simple Mozart chords in a sonata, even the form of a sonata, they can all be analysed in terms of mathematics. Bach, even, wrote very mechanically. Basically, some of his stuff that are very highly regarded today are nothing more than technical written exercises, such as his Well-Temped Clavier, which is basically a set of Preludes and Fugues written in each one of the keys of the new keyboard instruments which were tuned according to the equal temperament scale, or the Goldberg Variations, which is basically a set of variations with every 3rd variation being a canon (canon in the unison, canon in the second, canon in the third, going through many possible canons). Or pieces like Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta", whose form is based on the golden ratio - isn't this a great piece of art?

What about the music of Debussy? He didn't try to "express" anything.. Or the music of Satie? Varese? Cage? Birtwistle?

I'm talking about simply what makes defines music, and what actually is music. If we disagree on the basic understanding of that, then this discussion is moot.

I am afraid you have misunderstood the concept of "discussion" here. In order for discussion to exist, we simply have to disagree on something, even if it is the basic understanding of it. So, there *is* no absolute definition of Art, just as there isn't a definition of Life or Everything (42 is the answer, I know I know... :P ).

Some things CAN be appreciated just because they sound good.

(by Yagan Kiely)

Well, what if ALL things can be appreciated just because they sound good or they look good?

I agree with absolutely everything Juji just said - besides the bit about John Cage writing music :P

Dear god, we agree with each other. How'd me mange that?

Well you may have your crazy-donkey theories but it doesn't mean we can't agree on other things. Apparently.

Nonsense reply eliminated, sorry it was stupid, and I don't want to argue today.

I hate it when composers aren't pretentious ...well, not really. But you get my point (I hope).

pretentious - Wiktionary of course who wouldn't want that? Just a hop skip and a jump between being pretentious and having a facade.

Anyway, for example, a piece could be mathematically constructed, and interesting, but it is less about music than math.

That hasn't got anything with... anything.... o_0

Music does not need some hidden meaning some underlying story to be good. Hell, threnody's 'story' was added after it was written, does that make it rubbish all of a sudden? A lot of composers did that.

The example with the Threnody is very good. In fact, the piece was intended as some kind of comment/reply towards Cage's 4'33", so I guess many people, just by hearing this, will discard Penderecki's piece as "non-art" (those who consider all of Cage's output to be non-art anyway). Well, unfortunately, many people just by listening to the piece will say that it's not art anyway :(

What about the music of Debussy? He didn't try to "express" anything..

....The hell? Since when?

"I confess that I am no longer thinking in musical terms, or at least not much, even though I believe with all my heart that Music remains for all time the finest means of expression we have." - Claude Debussy

"Have I succeeded in expressing all that I felt? It is for others to decide. Is the faith which my music expresses orthodox? I do not know; but I can say that it is my own, expressed in all sincerity." - Claude Debussy

"Music expresses the motion of the waters, the play of curves described by changing breezes." - Claude Debussy

Suite bergamasque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Children's Corner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*thoroughly owns Juji*

EDIT: I'd argue you with about Satie as well since I do find his music "expressive" but it's hard to say what the hell he was trying to do with his music. I think he just enjoyed doing things for the sake of being weird...such is the French culture.

Music is consciously calling attention to sounds. Usually it refers to the organized creation of sounds, often with intent, but not always. 4'33 is always the example I pull out when I discuss the definition of music. Silence itself is not music. However, Cage specifically directed a performer to NOT play any sounds, and because it is a performance setting, the audience is aware of other sounds that are being created, regardless of whether they are being consciously created. One cannot dismiss something as non-music because of the timbres being used, as percussion has proven that anything can be used as an instrument. One cannot dismiss something as non-music because of the 'lack of intent' behind it, because if I am correct, much of Bach and Mozart - s music was written for a patron, not totally out of artistic expression. One cannot dismiss something as non-music because it doesn't sound good, because that's just plain wrong.

Do you people not realize that the majority of music that is or has been written is Absolute music, or functional music (film scores, ballets, etc). Stop stroking it to Verdi and step out of your box once in a while "Mr. Romantic"