What is true originality (later, what music IS)

"Applying the Jarrett quote to Cage, as long as he did not imitate (surely he didn't?), what he wrote was music."

You apply the quote incorrectly. Jarrett said, "Even if you SOUND like 80,000 others." 4' 33" of silence is not sound. And if you say "well there's ambient sound there" then the word "you" in Jarrett's quote has no meaning. Unless you want to take your slippery slope of changing the definition of thousands of English words so that "you" can mean "THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS" That'd be going pretty far with changing definitions for yourself so that you can think of Cage as someone that History won't forget.

"Hideous brain farts" aside, first of all: it's Schoenberg. Secondly, they may not class Russia as western world at the time Rachmaninov was writing. May it also have been a book with an emphasis on modern music? Don't get upset about your favourite composer not being mentioned: there are plenty of other books about him."

The vast majority of the book was about beautiful, well crafted music by people who studied the Art of writing MUSIC for their entire lives. It seems to me that if you want college students who normally listen to rock music to perhaps pick up a classical cd, the entire book should be about all the great composers, including Rachmaninov. You can't tell me that a normal non music major wouldn't be MORE likely to get into Rachmaninov than Schoenburg. Think about it. You play some kid who listens to metal the Prelude in C# minor and they'd be like DUDE! THATS SO METAL!!! AWESOME! ::buys a rachmaninov cd::

I have thought for a long time that in order to get "non-music majors to start listening to classical music, we need to get rid of the arrogance and snobbishness that is so inherent in the so-called "classical music system". It's a great big put-off from the very start!

To suggest that it isn't the EPITOME of snobbery to try to convince college students that hideous nonsense or COMPLETE SILENCE is music, is yet again, changing the definition of words! What planet are you people from, anyway?

And don't try to convince me YOU'RE (and anyone who agrees with you) not being arrogant here. I am trying to preserve the english language, but to experience your pipe dream reality you have to change the definition of "music, "craftsmanship," "snobbery," and even "you."

I feel like I'm at recess trying to play with a child who keeps changing the rules so he can win nah nah nah!

Okay, Schoenburg did engage in the study of musical craftsmanship. Fine. Maybe Cage did as well. But if one of these men writes a composition, no matter how organized, that SOUNDS random, does it really matter that it is organized, if the ear cannot detect it?

And if another of these men claims to "craft" something that has no craftsmanship in it, they are playing with the definition of words, which I will reiterate is a useless activity. Applied to other areas of life such as morality, this activity can be dangerous and result in the slaughter of millions of people. But, it's just music so anyone who does it just ends up looking like a female donkey in heat.

""I think if one were to arrange feces in a geometric pattern on the ground, it would have a similar aesthetic effect." - Derek

Now now, that's not very nice. Play nicely!" -David

Hah. Anyone who is honest with themselves will realise I speak true. The only difference is Schoenburg's music doesn't smell bad.

Music is music. Ambient sound is ambient sound. Silence is silence. Musical (but non music) sounds are musical. Arrogant people who change the definitions of words so they can experience a pipe dream reality are arrogant people who change the definitions of words so they can experience a pipe dream reality. Words MEAN things.

There you go. I reversed my decision. Feelin' the heat? :cool:

jacob: My point is that the acoustics of sound, though variable as you point out, is something as unchangeable as the color blue. (or tourquoise, as you may very well prefer).

I never said I was a proponent of only ever using equal temperment in music. I listen to a lot of Eastern music, for example, which uses many tones and intervals not found in Western scales. Some of them are purer, and even MORE flattering to the ear. Some of those canon examples are putting a piece WRITTEN with a particular scale system in mind to a DIFFERENT system. How is that useful?

So, according to you a music history book is supposed not to portray the history of western music but to present music anyone with at least half a brain can pretend to enjoy? Leave marketing to the salesmen. Besides, even though you said that popularity doesn't say anything about quality, you still base the merit of music on whether or not your average person will like it.

Schoenberg. If a tree falls and nobody's around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Whose ear, by the way? Mine? Yours? The average person's?

No, you don't. You claim to be able to judge things about which you know nothing at all. You're not speaking true, you're merely speaking your mind.

Meanings change over time. In ancient Greece, "symphonia" meant "sounding together", therefore encompassing all music with more than one voice. Early baroque composers called overtures a "sinfonia". Bach's sinfonias are three-part inventions. Then it took on the meaning of "big four-movement piece for orchestra", at least until Beethoven's 6th, when it could mean "multi-movement piece for orchestra". Then Beethoven's 9th came along with its chorus... You get my point. Or maybe you don't.

I'd be more likely to concede that Schoenberg has a valid place in Western Music History, because he did write music. It is sound organized by a mind. Cage also wrote music, for the prepared piano. But "complete silence" is not music, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is noise coming from 12 radios, also not organized by a mind.

The thing that makes me the most angry is the EXCLUSION of Rachmaninov from that book. I wouldn't have had as big a beef with it if he were in it. I don't mind if textbooks mention various errors of the human gene pool, so long as the outstanding ones like Rachmaninov are included.

I have never said that there is no subjectivity at all in how words are used. But consider these following words:

Sound

Noise

Silence

Music

These all have distinct definitions. How in the world is it useful to make "music" synonymous with any of the others? I guess some people find it amusing. I do not mean to say that I think dictionaries are the final authority on the meaning of words.

I mean to say that REALITY is the final authority on the meaning of words.

There is a difference between subjective naming of a musical genre and NOUNS. How someone organizes music through time may be called a symphony or a sonata or a fantasia. That is subjective. Whether or not a set of sounds has been organized by a human mind or not, is objective. Will the meaning of "jellyfish" ever change? The meaning of that word, which is what a certain marine creature is, will never change.

You apply the quote incorrectly. Jarrett said, "Even if you SOUND like 80,000 others." 4' 33" of silence is not sound.

4'33" is not silence! Cage always tells this story of being in an anechoic chamber where all sounds are blocked out, and still hearing two pitches, which he was told were from his nervous and circulatory systems (IIRC). Thus silence as it is defined is not possible when an observer is present.

I have thought for a long time that in order to get "non-music majors to start listening to classical music, we need to get rid of the arrogance and snobbishness that is so inherent in the so-called "classical music system". It's a great big put-off from the very start!

Amen David!

And don't try to convince me YOU'RE (and anyone who agrees with you) not being arrogant here. I am trying to preserve the english language, but to experience your pipe dream reality you have to change the definition of "music, "craftsmanship," "snobbery," and even "you."

YOU have yet to acknowledge that originality does not depend on craftsmanship! Check the dictionary!

Okay, Schoenburg did engage in the study of musical craftsmanship. Fine. Maybe Cage did as well. But if one of these men writes a composition, no matter how organized, that SOUNDS random, does it really matter that it is organized, if the ear cannot detect it?

Yes, this is a problem for me as well. I prefer my music transparent, at least transparent enough that I can figure out something by the end of the piece and feel good about myself. However, organization (a system) is the result of a look by the observer. It is nothing inherent about piece; it depends on your recognition of a pattern. Which leaves how well a piece is organized in our own hands. What a challenge.

jacob: My point is that the acoustics of sound, though variable as you point out, is something as unchangeable as the color blue. (or tourquoise, as you may very well prefer).

"Variable" and "unchangeable" are in complete contradiction with one another, are they not? And "acoustics" is the scientific *study* of sound, which has changed much over centuries of science.

Some of those canon examples are putting a piece WRITTEN with a particular scale system in mind to a DIFFERENT system. How is that useful?

For the many on that page that do resemble a major scale, the use is in exposing the wide variety of major scales possible. For the unrecognizable ones (like the minor version or the anti-pentatonic version), they at least provide you with a window into an alternate universe.

Wow, that's a neat site, Jacob! I especially enjoyed the "Blackjack" tunings

Remember, my definition of music involves sound organized by a mind. During 4' 33", no ambient sound is being organized by a mind. (unless someone brings a boombox into the auditorium while this "piece" is being "performed" I suppose!)

I readily acknowledge that Cage was original. But his work (except perhaps the prepared piano stuff, which is mildly interesting, sort of like George Winston) isn't worth listening to, so his originality doesn't matter.

But if you'll recall, my definition of True Originality DEPENDS on craftsmanship. I do not refer to dictionaries to be the final word, I refer to reason.

originality

n 1: the ability to think and act independently 2: the quality of being new and original (not derived from something else)

Hmm, it would seem that I am being original by not referring to a dictionary! I am not deriving my views from music theory professors and the opinions of most musical academic elitists; I am thinking for myself.

What is craftsmanship?

Derek, I want to know why we must go by your defintions of what music is to you. IF John Cage isn't worth your time it doesn't mean he isn't music. It just means he isn't worth your time, but I personally think he is great. Also why should we believe your definition that true originality is craftmanship?

jacob: Craftsmanship is anything that requires effort and discernment on the part of the craftsman, which though bearing many subjective elements, has a solid, universal undercurrent to it, such as the fact that beats in groups of 3 will always sound like beats in groups of 3, and a major chord will always sound like a major chord, and an octave will always sound like an octave. Tuned differently? Any chord in that tuning system will always sound like a chord in that tuning system. The way sounds sound is not arbitrary. That's the objective unversal element in music; there is also a subjective universal element. Though I do agree, popularity can't be equated with quality, one has to ask the question: "Can a scale system and the subsequent music written for it, given its popularity, really be arbitrary? Or are there reasons for its popularity rooted in something universal but perhaps inexplicable?" Clearly, I believe the latter is the case.

Sitting at a piano for several minutes and doing nothing does not require discernment or effort. Nor does turning 12 radios to random frequencies.

BitterDuck: You don't have to go by my definition of music. I am merely stating what I believe music really is, despite what the vast majority of dictionaries or people or musicologists think or say it is. Do you not find the following argument convincing?

"

consider these following words:

Sound

Noise

Silence

Music

These all have distinct definitions. How in the world is it useful to make "music" synonymous with any of the others?"

For to make music synonymous with any of these words, we no longer have a distinct word for: Sounds deliberately organized by a human mind for the purpose of enjoyment and/or intellectual satisfaction. Maybe we need a new word? FunMindSound. Maybe I'll start using that word from now on, the rest of you can keep calling 4'33" music. :cool:

I did concede in my earlier posts that Cage has written some insipid new age music for prepared piano. That is, of course, music, by my definition. So is schoenberg's serialism. And it is my OPINION that Cage's music is insipid, and Schoenberg's music ugly and hideous.

You may find it interesting or perhaps contradictory that I listen to a lot of atonal music. Well, I find Mozart's string quartets boring.

I will hold to the idea that complete silence, ambient noise, and radios turned to random frequencies, and "chance" music, is not music, by any stretch of the imagination.

"Variable" and "unchangeable" are in complete contradiction with one another, are they not? And "acoustics" is the scientific *study* of sound, which has changed much over centuries of science.

If you take any frequency of a tone, and double it, will not every human being ever born always hear a similarity between the original tone and the one with twice the frequency? How they react to it in a piece of music, of course, is the subjective part. But my point is, take a frequency, multiply it by X, and you get some interval or other. That interval will always have the same sound. It is as unchangeable as if you take Color RGB and add various intensities XYZ to each component. See what i'm saying? Frequencies of sound are a real, physical thing just as colors are a real, physical thing. Yes, we percieve them with our senses, but the reason perception is able to exist at all is because these things we sense are consistent and universal.

Well here we are in an argument about whether an objective reality exists. Which is beyond my capacities to speak about, and off-topic besides (or perhaps...a little too on-topic!). The problem is that leaving this unresolved leads to circularity. I'll say, "Who are you to say that it did not take effort and discernment to sit at a piano and do nothing?" And you'll claim as an objective fact that it really does not, and that won't be good enough for me because I will take it as your subjective argument, and this whole thing will trail off with A looking down on B as a closed-minded fool, and B looking down on A for being delusional and disrespectful of language and of the great composers. Let's find an alternative to that.

I think the debate is over, if it has come to deciding whether it takes effort to sit down at a piano and do nothing. :P That's a nice little alternative isn't it? :cool:

Subjectivity and objectivity: how much organisation does a mind have to do in order to create music? Let's say that composing music with pencil and paper for traditional instruments is creating music while tuning twelve radios for a duration is not creating music: how many elements of the compositional process are involved in each? What is subjective and what is objective about each proccess? Given that original music has to have an uncertain number of original elements, at the time of writing or performing a 'piece', which has the right to be labelled 'original', if any? Or both?

I think I'll set that as an essay question next term...

I like rice. Rice is good when you are hungry and want to eat 2000 of something. Rice.... rice people, rice.... let's all go for some rice.

I have some nice beef stuff in the fridge that I made earlier. It has beef mince (only the best steak mince, of course), kidney beans, organic onions, organic broad beans, organic caugettes, tomatoes, herbs, spices and stuff. Yummy with rice, it would be.

I love a good rice stir-fry right now... granted stir-fry is better with noodles, but a good rice-stir fry hits the spot as well. Some greens in there, chicken, not beef, although beef is good too, and maybe some nice sauce... not sure what though. Yeah, that would be nice

I just had some wild rice with tamari, which is like soy sauce but better.

* picks jaw up off the floor *

I cannot believe what I've been reading...

It's like the good old days.

Except that I'm getting to old and tired to join the debate anymore. :)

David: "Given that original music has to have an uncertain number of original elements"

Hm. The more I think about this the less I understand what the question is. Surely each element will have varying degrees of 'originality' - quantifiable (although impossibly difficult to calculate due to having to know the entire history of the universe) - all of which add up at different focal lengths to a piece which has its own quantifyable degree of originality...

I was once set an essay asking if it is possible to entirely remove subjectivity from a composition (as Cage suggests). I still find this a fascinating subject, and one which crops up on the board from time to time.

There have been many computer programs which have written pieces of music. ... are they music? If I program it to plot the notes in a quasi random way, is it music? If it happens, by chance, to sound "nice", has it magically become music? If you didn't know it was written at random? While you may argue that the chances of that happening are minute, it is still not LOGICALLY impossible. Because of this simple fact, the presence of a mind cannot be a rule as to whether something is music.

Hm. That paragraph should have gone probably below here or something. It's all over the place, this post.

Derek. For some reason I have a feeling you are a republican american. I might be wrong. A quick hint from me would be to remember that in a debate such as this, words which are better avoided are adjectives which describe or are the result of emotions.

I believe my girlfriends is beautiful. You may find her hideous. We can not logically be both correct, so it's quite clear we will never reach an end unless we both concede that our views on my girlfriend's beauty are not actually relevant at all, and we should be discussing truths. It is true I find her beautiful and it is true you find her hideous.

Do try and avoid these words as it makes you look bad. :)

I am actually undecided as to whether certain 'pieces' are music or not. But I am decided in saying it is totally worthless anyone saying anyone else is wrong, purely because it is something you decide by yourself. Just like my girlfriend.

Subjectivity and objectivity: how much organisation does a mind have to do in order to create music? Let's say that composing music with pencil and paper for traditional instruments is creating music while tuning twelve radios for a duration is not creating music: how many elements of the compositional process are involved in each? What is subjective and what is objective about each proccess? Given that original music has to have an uncertain number of original elements, at the time of writing or performing a 'piece', which has the right to be labelled 'original', if any? Or both?

I think I'll set that as an essay question next term...

"Subjectivity and objectivity: how much organisation does a mind have to do in order to create music?"

The answer to this is simple. If a mind deliberately sounds one note (not randomly, but deliberately) this can be said to be music. Profoundly boring music, but music nonetheless. It must be deliberate, and it must originate somehow in a mind. Chance music and silence and radios do not produce anything deliberately chosen by a mind.

I think we've (well, some of us) already come to an agreement about what is truly original. If a composer creates music that sounds exactly the way he wants it to sound, and it is not an exact imitation of anything else, it is original.

There have been many computer programs which have written pieces of music. ... are they music?

If a human mind writes these programs to produce music as close to what the human wants to hear as possible, yes what they produce is music. If they write a program that more or less plays sounds as follows (it is in QBASIC code):

DO

SOUND INT(RND * 500) + 100, 1

LOOP UNTIL INKEY$ = CHR$(27)

This program does not create music, as it does not represent a human mind deliberately choosing how and when to play these sounds.

No matter what device or technique is used to organize the sound, that organization must be the choice of a human mind, ultimately, or it cannot be said to be music. (by what I believe to be the true, distinct definition of music despite what all dictionaries and all the world's musicologists might say or think)

While you may argue that the chances of that happening are minute, it is still not LOGICALLY impossible. Because of this simple fact, the presence of a mind cannot be a rule as to whether something is music.

On the same token, if we were to throw a deck of cards on the ground randomly and pick them up in a random order, and repeat this over and over again, and were able to do this once every second (that's a card shark for ya!), it would take vastly longer than what Astronomy currently estimates is the age of the Universe to pick them all up in the correct order Ace through King and through all the 4 suits.

Pieces of music have many more than 52 things in them.

So if you think its worth waiting around dozens of billions of years for a random program to write something as moving as the Rach 2, thats great; but I'd rather have a human mind go about that activity; much more efficient :)

If a computer program happened to randomly come up with something that sounded "nice," it is not the computer program which determines whether what it has come up with is "nice." If this were to happen, it would be a human mind deliberately choosing sounds to be music, much as one can see shapes in clouds.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 16 2005, 09:26 PM

* picks jaw up off the floor *

I cannot believe what I've been reading...

It's like the good old days.

Except that I'm getting to old and tired to join the debate anymore. :)

Yeah, I mean look at all these other guys. They have to change the meanings of all sorts of words in order to have an argument that even remotely compares to mine! That must be very tiring indeed!

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive" - William Shakespeare.

Then again I have no idea if you agree with me or not. I was using your reference to being tired to craft a mild ad-hominem argument against some people in here. :P

It'd be nice if SOMEONE agrees with me that complete silence, and total random ambient noise or random noise isn't music. It'd give me renewed confidence that there are some people in the classical music world with a modicum of courage to stand up against the nonsense.

I'm still trying to decide whether I agree with you, Derek. I'm a traditionalist, too, and your arguments are congruous with logic as I personally understand it.

Yet I am hesitant to try and quantify what true originality is in music, much less what music itself is. I know what I think it is, but other people see it differently.

My personal belief is that music - aside from sound - is about intention.

On the Old YC board I wrote:

I think if it's the composer's intention that it be music, so it is. At least for him/her it is. There is no rule or law that says that an audience or any member thereof must accept it as such. At its best, music is a contract between composer, performer and listener in which all agree that music is being made. But just because one of the parties doesn't fully sign on to the contract doesn't completely negate the validity of the whole exercise. It's about intention.

Yes I think it is good to bring up the original topic I started the thread with. I do agree that it is not quite as clear what true originality is as what music is.

It seemed for a while originality meant shovelling as much dissonance as possible into compositions. However, this practice became so common in the 20th century it can hardly be said to be original anymore.

Some seem to be exploring new scales/tuning systems. Much of these are based off of mathematical equations/derivations, etc.

My problem with that is it is not intuitive. All of these recent experiments so far have completely failed to come up with a system that would produce indian ragas or western symphonies.

Since these avenues of so called "innovation" have been more or less exhausted, thats what leads me to believe true originality has to do with craftsmanship.

It was mentioned earlier that the variety possible within music (especially via the dimension of rhythm) is literally infinite. Perhaps through the absorption of as many styles as possible and rhythmic adventurousness is everyone's ticket to true originality?

Cage never meant 4'33 to be music, I believe. His goal was to challenge the definition of music and start debates like this one.

Or maybe he found out he could get famous this way because he couldn't write good 'real' music because he didn't listen to Schoenberg who then refused to teach him anymore. :)

Reallly, Cage had a talent for finding things like this. They can be considered historicly important. The rebellion against classical art and its conservatism and snobbism did probably not originate from music itself. But the trend infected music. Sure Cage was one of the important people in this movement which made him very famous. Maybe that's what he wanted, I don't know. He applied his talents in a way that was very effective, making him very famous.

But of course 4'33 isn't music. To suggest so would be absurd.

Cage didn't meant to do anything musical with 4'33. And 4'33 doesn't follow the defition of music. So from what basis can you say it is music?

One person argued that 4'33 is filled with rests and that rests are important in organising music so 4'33 is organised. Well firstly, in music rests organise sound. If there are only rests in the score you can't hear them. If I would write down a intricate rhythmic conbination of different rest lengths no one would be able to hear the organised pattern. It is not organised sound.

Secondly, in 4'33 the rests aren't played at all. They are on the page. But the performer used a stop watch to time 4'33. She/he doesn't 'play' the rests. Nothing is done with them.

Another funny thing about 4'33 is that it cannot be effectively performed after its premiere. You need a big campaign: "John Cage's new composition. Played by David Tudor, premiere 'then' and 'there'"

Then the concert hall flows full, everyone is in anticipation and 4'33 is 'played' or rather 4'33 happens. Nice joke with a philosophical basis and basis for discussion. But it't not music of course. The effectiveness of this performance does not depend on the score or the interpretation of the score. It depends on the commotion around it. People need to except music. When nothing happens they are confused.

I think that the story about the ambient sounds is really an excuse or justification to start up the discussion. To effectively achive his non-musical goal he had to call 4'33 music. If his intentions were obviously stated they would have failed.

Another thing is, it's actually copyrighted. And yes, people buy the score too. I am not sure how this copyright is violated. Do we violate it by being silent for 4 minutes 33 seconds? Or can't we use the rests on the score the way he did? If he used 15, I am sure alot of orchestra pieces have 15 measures of rests for some instruments. So 4'33 is plagiarism too! Actually, I am suprised it was possible to copyright it.

To me music is organisation of sound in terms of harmony, rhythm and melody. All three are needed. It doesn't matter who organised it and how it is organised. And thanks to physics harmony, rhythm and melody are pretty objectively definable

A problem is that a piece isn't totally organised or totally random. So there is a problem with a piece that is largely randomised and partly organised. You get into more problems if you leave the human perspective out in the 'calculation'. Human perspective may not be objective. But it is universal to all humans (except those with brains that don't function properly, there are actual people unable to organise the tones they here so musical organisation is lost to them. All music is random sound to them.), so that is just as good.

One person argued that 4'33 is filled with rests and that rests are important in organising music so 4'33 is organised. Well firstly, in music rests organise sound. If there are only rests in the score you can't hear them. If I would write down a intricate rhythmic conbination of different rest lengths no one would be able to hear the organised pattern. It is not organised sound.

Secondly, in 4'33 the rests aren't played at all. They are on the page. But the performer used a stop watch to time 4'33. She/he doesn't 'play' the rests. Nothing is done with them.

Another funny thing about 4'33 is that it cannot be effectively performed after its premiere. You need a big campaign: "John Cage's new composition. Played by David Tudor, premiere 'then' and 'there'"

I think that the story about the ambient sounds is really an excuse or justification to start up the discussion. To effectively achive his non-musical goal he had to call 4'33 music. If his intentions were obviously stated they would have failed.

Another thing is, it's actually copyrighted. And yes, people buy the score too. I am not sure how this copyright is violated. Do we violate it by being silent for 4 minutes 33 seconds? Or can't we use the rests on the score the way he did? If he used 15, I am sure alot of orchestra pieces have 15 measures of rests for some instruments. So 4'33 is plagiarism too! Actually, I am suprised it was possible to copyright it.

Hrm... Actually, there are no real rests in the score. I've seen the score a couple of times, in Cage's handwriting, and it just says TACET, three times, for each movement. It is meant to be up to the performer how long the piece is, and the premiere performance was for 4' and 33". If someone were to perform it again, it wouldn't be a different piece per se, because it's intent is to be different each time it is played. Someone can perform it and stand up there for only 30 seconds per movement, making the piece 1'30" instead. But it's still called 4'33", and you know why? Because that's what John Cage wanted it to be called. And it was him who created that idea and wrote it down, i.e. composed it. Also, no performer was holding a stopwatch, where'd you get that idea?

Forgetting about the composer's intent and making your own general, black and white rules about originality and music is retarded, unless of course, everyone wrote their music solely for YOU. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't. I write MY music, and if I want to write a piece that says to the performers: 'Play random notes for an hour, beginning and ending on A flat', and I call it 'Music in A flat', then it is music which was written for the key A flat. DUH.

http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/silence.html

It's strange how everyone seems to be in agreement that 4'33" isn't, and was never even considered music. This seems to me to be more strange than it not being music. It's conceptual, sure, but the whole setting, division of it into movements, the blinking score, it all adds up to a piece of music for me and I'm genuinely surprised I'm in the minority here (apparently on the other side of the fence than John Cage himself...)

"music is organisation of sound in terms of harmony, rhythm and melody"

why? this is another positiion where I seem to be in a minority. There's a piece called Space Invaders by a chap named Alphonse Mouzon. This is essentially a drum solo punctuated by the words "Space Invaders" and some synthesiser effect madness. It may not be your cup of tea, but I defy to you to say it isn't music. But there is no melody. Similarly, Ambient 1/1, by Brian Eno doesn't have a rhythm to speak of. Is this still music? Obviously so.

I want to reply to Derek's points. Will do with more time.