The difference between music and sound

In the couple of years I have been active on Young Composers, I have noticed two related phenomena. The first is a regular proliferation of discussion threads along the lines of 'Why do you write atonal/dissonant music?' which inevitably begin with a poster's exasperation at music they consider to sound strange or unpleasant. The second are reviews and critiques or compositions which say 'I liked how your piece sounded' or 'it sounded a bit weird'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this leads me to believe that there is very little awareness (not necessarily on YC - people in my university composition class are the same) of the difference between music and sound. A piece can sound good but be unmusical, and vice versa. It seems to me that many people are too concerned only with surface detail and effect, and neglect what makes music musical - progression, pacing, structure - things that are below the surface but are really important. At this point I have to point out that music displaying these qualities is in no way limited to a particular style or genre. There are plenty of incredibly simple pieces - but if they're good, they're good simple pieces because the 'underneath stuff' is actually there. There's a fine blog post, (on my regular blog reading list) in which the author deals with many of the same issues I have approached above, albeit better than I do. My question is: If this is true, is it because of the way music is taught today, or is it a product of contemporary thinking in general?

It could be a language issue... Sound seems a verb to me, in your examples... And sound for me is also connected with noise, which is different, but still subcsonsiously it still is linked...

I know it doesn't really help, but anyhow... :) Should read the blog link, and will do at some point, once I find a tiny bit of time!

The difference between music and sound?

At this point in history, very little.

Eh, it's very simple really. Music is (often) made up of sound. If you happen to like the music, it's music to you rather than just sound. If you DON'T like it (and you're not very informed) you'll end up making the assertion that it's "just" sound, when in reality music is ALWAYS "just" sound.

The part that makes sound into "music" is not in the sound, but in you. What happens is that people aren't used to ideas like this and want to think that they're just perceiving "music," as it is, rather than making active interpretations of sound based on their culture, education and upbringing.

But Cage and the like have showed quite clearly, you can listen to traffic "as if it were music," therefore turning it into music as far as anyone is concerned. Pierre Henry and the Music concrete guys have showed that you can take sounds literally out of context to produce something that stands as "music," even if they're just street noises. The point is, the sound of a violin is not objectively "more musical" than a power drill, they're both sounds and both can be used.

That's all, really.

PS: The blog post is scraggy. Here's an example:

The exclusion of all other elements of musical interest (counterpoint, form, and rhythm) means that the substance of the music is pure sound.

Ok explain to me how a piece of music doesn't have form or rhythm. Hell even counterpoint can be inferred from the most abstract clashing of sounds (which is what it actually IS, isn't it?) Ugh, it's some guy who has no idea rambling about things he has no idea.

The difference between music and sound?

At this point in history, very little.

Although I do not understand many of the contemporary music, I think I understand what you mean, but you are wrong. I want to restate that music is composed sound, where the word 'compose' can include aleatoric factors.

My first reaction. Maybe I am wrong too?

Although I do not understand many of the contemporary music, I think I understand what you mean, but you are wrong. I want to restate that music is composed sound, where the word 'compose' can include aleatoric factors.

My first reaction. Maybe I am wrong too?

You're wrong yea. Music is made of context for most part. Again, go back to good'ol 4'33''. It's nothing but an experiment on context, it tells you "OK, whatever happens aurally in this set period of time is to be regarded as and listened to as music." It's "composed" in that way, but in reality the simple instruction highlights how unnecessary a composer may actually be for us to listen to ANYTHING "as music."

It switches "on" the parts in your brain that you use when you listen to music, but applies them to different sounds than what you're normally used to. Don't believe me? Try it yourself:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/433-experiment-thread-19223.html

:>

You're wrong yea. Music is made of context for most part. Again, go back to good'ol 4'33''. It's nothing but an experiment on context, it tells you "OK, whatever happens aurally in this set period of time is to be regarded as and listened to as music." It's "composed" in that way, but in reality the simple instruction highlights how unnecessary a composer may actually be for us to listen to ANYTHING "as music."

It switches "on" the parts in your brain that you use when you listen to music, but applies them to different sounds than what you're normally used to. Don't believe me? Try it yourself:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/433-experiment-thread-19223.html

:>

Ah, but it is composed. There have been many time intervals of four and a half minutes in which people have listened to things. It only become art (and arguably, music) when Cage formalized it.

That isn't to say you can't listen to other sounds as you would listen to music. But to me, one of the requirements for art is that it was somehow formed by a person, or by people (or by machines, maybe sometime in the future).

I think it depends on one's definition of "art" and to what degree they connect "music" with "art".

You're wrong yea. Music is made of context for most part. Again, go back to good'ol 4'33''. It's nothing but an experiment on context, it tells you "OK, whatever happens aurally in this set period of time is to be regarded as and listened to as music." It's "composed" in that way, but in reality the simple instruction highlights how unnecessary a composer may actually be for us to listen to ANYTHING "as music."

It switches "on" the parts in your brain that you use when you listen to music, but applies them to different sounds than what you're normally used to.

hm... I do believe you, and that was exactly what I meant. In this case the environmental sounds are composed in way that context creates the sound. I think it still fits in my restatement of cyberstrings remark.

But I dont know...

Ah, but it is composed. There have been many time intervals of four and a half minutes in which people have listened to things. It only become art (and arguably, music) when Cage formalized it.

That isn't to say you can't listen to other sounds as you would listen to music. But to me, one of the requirements for art is that it was somehow formed by a person, or by people (or by machines, maybe sometime in the future).

I think it depends on one's definition of "art" and to what degree they connect "music" with "art".

No. He was just pointing out a phenomenon that has existed forever. I'm certain others have had their 4'33'' minutes in all sorts of historic periods and parts of the world. Plus of course 4'33'' isn't 4 minutes at all, it can be longer or shorter, Cage himself said it wasn't a precise duration.

And, along with this, the requirement for art is precisely the same, it just needs to be "art" to you for it to be art. It has nothing to do with what you're observing, but with what you think "art" is. See Duchamp, good example there.

Yes, but him pointing it out is exactly the difference. Like you and I both said, the phenomenon has existed forever. But only when Cage formalized it, it became a work of art. I would say Cage actively "composed" 4'33" by pointing out this phenomenon.

If you call it music, it's music. If you call it sound, it's sound.

It's the difference between a field recording and an album.

Or random noise and music.

Don't forget that it can be both.

I believe sound is simply the product of vibrations in the air, and music is the organisation of those sounds into something which appeals to both the human ear and subconscious.

..which is of course highly subjective. What I consider music many people consider 'just sounds'.

Well, here comes another shitstorm.

For me, sound and music are very different. Sound can be used in music, and you can even use music in sound, but I don't think even organized sound is musical. It can be nice, but what would we have if we just allowed all sound to be music?

(inb4 someone quotes me then goes "uh, ____?")

It can be nice, but what would we have if we just allowed all sound to be music?

Exactly what we have now. Oh yeah, welcome to the 1940s.

One's spellied "m-u-s-i-c", the other's spelled "s-o-u-n-d".

Ok, I'm not willing to go that last step and say there's no distinction, but it's very hard to argue otherwise than that the distinction is kind of arbitrary and not universal. I would argue that it's a matter of convenience, because honestly, it's kind of dumb to go major in "sound composition" or listen to The Velvet Underground's "sounds" on your iPod.

Here's another way to look at it:

Sound is the word of science which I associate with physical / acoustical properties such as wavelength, wave speed, timbre, phase, amplitude, pressure, properties of the source, the medium, the auditory system, etc.

When I refer to the quality and specs of an amplifier (such as harmonic and intermodulation distortion), I think of sound, even if what is coming through it is Beethoven's 9th. Same about rooms and halls.

Music is the label of art which I associate with (purposeful) creation, expression, association, interpretation, feelings, emotions, thoughts, ideas, etc.

When I refer to the idea behind a piece, how it makes me feel, what I associate it with, no matter how noisy or tonal it is (it can be made of noise or pure sine waves), no matter how it is organised, I think of music.

One might say that sound is the medium and music the result of manipulating sound. Similar to light and paintings...

Exactly what we have now. Oh yeah, welcome to the 1940s.

I just don't buy it. That's not the way I think.

I mean, suppose someone famous were to record some birds, some wind, some idle chatter and a few cars in the background, all of this phasing in and out of perception, and say it was his new piece. Then, when everyone is eating it up, he comes out and says he never meant it to be artistic, it was just a social experiment, and the sounds were just him walking through the park with a voice recorder. What becomes of the recording?

Sound can be artfully done. But it's not music. It doesn't have to be, mind you, there's nothing wrong with just sound. But it's not music.

It's the difference between numbers and maths. When sound starts to turn into music, it starts to patternise itself by brain. The relationship among those patterns are perceived by a human ear and recognised by brain. These patterns can be explained rationally, but without the explanation of psychophisiological effects of these patterns, it's half-explained.

When the psychophysical effects come in, only a sound may 'feel' like music. Think about enormous fields of grass and you hear only one note. Hundreds maybe thousands of people playing only one note with trumpets or trombones. The first ten seconds are really 'musical' but then it slowly turns into something 'boring'. The thing is, it attracts you for a period. Of course, if you keep adding certain rhythm, maybe drums and cymbals, it's really a music now, even if it's really primitive.

And the rational part is as all we know, harmony.

Maybe, music is a balance of how you make people pump chemicals and how you make people see the patterns.

Patterns are everywhere folks!

^ I tended to prefer the same view several years ago (that music is organised sound). It is true that the big portion of the brainwork is based on patterns. So, when you recognise organisation in patterns, then it's music. But I found that (apparently) not-so-organised sounds can still be musical and meaningful, and I personally don't feel so different about them. So I don't support this view anymore, at least not that much.

I just don't buy it. That's not the way I think.

I mean, suppose someone famous were to record some birds, some wind, some idle chatter and a few cars in the background, all of this phasing in and out of perception, and say it was his new piece. Then, when everyone is eating it up, he comes out and says he never meant it to be artistic, it was just a social experiment, and the sounds were just him walking through the park with a voice recorder. What becomes of the recording?

Sound can be artfully done. But it's not music. It doesn't have to be, mind you, there's nothing wrong with just sound. But it's not music.

What if someone writes a nice fugue for string quartet, has it played in a concert, then tells the audience it wasn't meant to be artistic, but just a theoretical exercise? Isn't that exactly the same thing? The point is: In both cases it's not a "serious music composition" for the composer - yet the audience can choose to listen to it as such.

Luc Ferrari's "presque rien" is pretty much exactly what you described there. And yes, it is on a rather weird border between "music" and "field recording". But I still can listen to it and enjoy it in an entirely "artistic" fashion. Is there anything wrong with that?

P.S. Painters of the 19th century and earlier have often spent most of their time doing "field recordings" of natural objects (even if sometimes slightly "artistically distorted" in some way). I mean, many impressionist paintings are essentially field recordings with a lousy resolution. Some painters still paint in a similar tradition, and even more so photographers. Is to you only non-figurative/abstract visual art real art?

What if someone writes a nice fugue for string quartet, has it played in a concert, then tells the audience it wasn't meant to be artistic, but just a theoretical exercise? Isn't that exactly the same thing? The point is: In both cases it's not a "serious music composition" for the composer - yet the audience can choose to listen to it as such.

I think there's a difference there. With tonal counterpoint, you can't really write it and think you're not writing music, even if it's an academic exercise. No composer would write a fugue and then call it not music. And I don't think any audience member would take him seriously after that declaration. However, I'll contradict myself later.

Luc Ferrari's "presque rien" is pretty much exactly what you described there. And yes, it is on a rather weird border between "music" and "field recording". But I still can listen to it and enjoy it in an entirely "artistic" fashion. Is there anything wrong with that?

No, and I stipulated that there is nothing wrong with it. But I can't call it musical. This topic is just a semantics issue, really. People put too much weight on "music". It's not better than sound, or art, or science or plumbing or a flowerpot. It's not the only thing that appeals to our senses. I just have a fairly specific definition of music. With the freedom we have as composers to write more or less whatever we want and have it played in a concert hall, you have to consider three options: everything is music (absurd), nothing is music (perhaps, but it makes for difficult conversation) and there is some line between noise and music, but since no one can define that line, everyone must do so for him/herself (there's the contradiction from earlier). Mine excludes noise, not out of a grudge, but simply because I want some kind of boundary. And to be honest, I've not worked out all the details yet (i.e., what about percussion pieces? where's the line between percussion and noise?), but it seems better to me than to go the extreme one way or the other.

But really, it's a pointless argument. I'm off to noise theory class.

If it is about the semantics, which I think, the least you have to say is that that conclusion is drawn in the first place by people who experimented with that, like Cage and many others.

I think its no coincidence that that musical development came after the time semantics was a philosophical issue (de Saussure to start with)

You cant hide behind "it is just semantics" and at the same time say "I simply want some boundary". That is just ignoring the raised questions, and pretend nothing happened...

I guess it is the purpose of this topic establish some common ground in defining both music and sound. :D

That is just ignoring the raised questions, and pretend nothing happened...

Unfortunately, ignoring the 20th century and all the questions we still have no answers for is something very comfortable. The fact is, the reason why I support the view that "music is anything" and "art is anything" is because I honestly don't know anymore after I've had wildly different experiences like the stuff you're saying about Cage. I can't really find any evidence, either anecdotal or empirical that we can at all make distinctions and assertions as clearly as some people would want.

But, eh, I don't mind. It's OK that things are much more complicated than they seem and that we don't know the answers, that makes them more interesting to me.