What is true originality (later, what music IS)

If you are correct, then technically those pieces aren't music. A bird singing also isn't music. But there is a lot more merit in calling it music than there is in 4'33. There are CDs with bird music, whale music, or even ocean music(water wave sounds). There are a lot of artists that create CDs with ambient sounds, looped bass, samples and all kinds of weired stuff. When I think there is an objective definition of music that excluded all these things then that doesn't mean birds aren't allowed to whistle. Go ahead and write your pieces that question or violate the definition of music.

Music is an objective art, based on the universal laws of the universe. These can be described by the rules of physics. These aren't made or thought up by me. I don't see how that means you have to write music for me.

But I must dissapoint you. Humans cannot improvise random music. Humans aren't capable of random thought. You can throw dice and make something psuedo-random. Think about it, it would be impossible for the performer to play your piece. Will be try to make it sound good? Terrible? Use all 12 notes or 88 keys an equal amount? Any though going into this will make it organised in some way. And without any thought he can't do anything. You can still discuss if the piece would be organised enough to be called music though.

And about John Cage, he is probably too smart to care about what music actually is. But his intention clearly was not to write a piece of music but rather to state questions, get famous and make us discuss this topic.

David Tudor did use a stopwatch to 'accurately' play the piece. I think Cage would have laughed his donkey off every time people performed his work. Because those people probably didn't get his point. Or they copied his joke, tastelessly...

I don't see how the setting of something makes something music or not. The fact that there was a guy sitting in front of a piano with empty sheet music while the audience is listening in anticipation, doesn't make it music.

If we consider 4"33 to consider music, then when I are going to give a recital, and I am going to read a book while laying with a pillow on my grand piano, audience waiting... Am I playing music or am I reading?

[...]

I'm glad to see Prometheus has his head screwed on straight and understands what music really is.

Here's a good question: which of the 3 things, melody, rhythm, and harmony are really able to exist without one of the others?

I don't think that Cage will always be remembered. Maybe he will be a footnote in a "Lemons of 20th Century Philosophy" textbook 100 years from now.

I forgot to mention something hilarious about that same textbook that I earlier expressed my anger over.

Here is an exact quote from my textbook:

"Were it not for Schoenberg and like minded composers, the heavy metal rock of Metallica would not have been possible."

me talking to the author hypothetically: Ok MORON. First off, that's thrash metal not your awkward "man I wish I was cool" term of "heavy metal rock." Secondly, being a guitar player and an avid listener of Metallica, None of their music uses anything remotely atonal. In fact, they use nothing but harmonic minor scales, blues scales, triad arpeggios, and very simple rhythms. Eat it, you pretentious academic. I want to use your book for kindling. If you had ANY idea what you're talking about, you pansy snob brained Cage loving idiot, you would have chosen Slayer or Cannibal Corpse as your example. Your argument would have held more weight. But no, do research about metal? Oh no, never. Oh and did I mention Rachmaninov 0wnz0rz j00? (remember from my earlier post, this book does not so much as contain Rachmaninov's name)

What makes you think that the author was talking about stylistic influences for Metallica's music? Schoenberg was amongst those at the forefront of musical change (at least, he was at the forefront of the most rapidly developing genre) at the time. They opened the way for other composers to do similarly, whether or not in the same genre: he set a precedent.

On the subject of terminology: I thought you didn't like people getting at you for terms and definitions thereof that were slightly different to your own. Heavy metal (Metallica is a heavy metal band) was derived from rock, prog rock and blues. So, there's a lot of 'rock' in there. Much more rock than blues. So, the term 'heavy metal rock' isn't so bad at all, is it. Now, here you're doing to one what others apparently do to you: don't base your arguments on difference in terminology. Base it on fact.

However, I do agree that this chap's argument about Schoenberg and friends made Metallica's music possible to be a little crass. However, I don't know how he qualifies that argument. I'd like to read a copy of this book.

I think anyone who reads my whole post and sees "0wnz0rz j00" will realize I was saying that whole thing with just a bit of tongue & cheek. It's fun to completely grind someone into dust, you should try it sometime.

Anyway the name of the book is: "Pretentious Hot Air" by "Complete Flipping Moron" from Yap-a-lot University.

::edit::

Sorry, thats "Listening to Music" FOURTH EDITION by Craig Wright, in Yale University.

Most of the book is just fine, a good outline of Western Music History. But I just find it mind numbingly incredible that he doesn't even mention Rachmaninov. If he had included Rachmaninov in the section on Romantic composers, I wouldn't be going after him at all. I'm all for "inclusion" even of Cage and Schoenburg, but not if you have to EXCLUDE a composer who WILL without a shadow of a doubt remain immortal for all time.

Rachmaninov? :lol:

THIS MEANS WAR :excl: :) :excl:

;)

I disagree. I find his music profoundly original. So he used lots of normal triads? How does that make him unoriginal? You can't tell me that given two random pieces by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov, any (reasonably avid) listener of classical music couldn't easily tell them apart?

Anyway, a history book shouldn't display all those who were the most profound innovators. It should display all those composers whose music is truly

GOOD.

Okay, maybe not ALL. But come on people. this is RACHMANINOV we're talking about, not the droves of Baroque composers contemporary to Bach. This is RACHMANINOV.

And no, he's not my all time favorite composer.

So it isn't specifically a western music history book then? What is the book's purpose? What is the author's aim(s) with it? Who was included in the composer list of the Romantic section?

No, it is entirely on Western music history. It is just an overview of Western music history for non music majors who are (supposedly) in college. In the Romantic section, it includes:

Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, a bunch of opera guys, Johannes Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler

If I wrote the book I'd completely eliminate the section on

GOOD

music like Soler, Grieg, ... etc.

allow me to add, I think its completely reasonable to talk about schoenburg and Cage and others in a book for people MAJORING in music. But for non-music majors? They don't want to hear about that crap.

Not all non-music majors thing that SchoenbErg is 'crap'. I teach music for a living to people who are not in full time education or work: some of whom go on to study music in university.

Part of my teaching involves getting them to listen to lots and lots of very different music. I give them as many different genres as I can find. I've played them Rachmaninov, even! One of my favourite lessons to teach is in what we call 'Music Psychology', though I've taken the contents of that lesson into other lessons. Here, we have a survey of the class to find out what constitutes things like 'good', 'effective', 'competently written' or 'enjoyable to listen to' and things like that. Most of them, to my surprise, like some of Schoenberg's music more than they like Rachmaninov's music. Why is this? They usually think that Rachmaninov's music is too "mushy" or that it doesn't do as much as the Schoenberg. Of course, it isn't ever a 100% think this or that scenario: however, the balance in my experience does seem to be toward more modern musics than the older musics. Another interesting experience is that people tend to like pre-baroque music much more than anything written during the baroque to romantic periods.

This may offer much food for thought. Talking of food... I'm hungry.

We also had a near one hour debate on Cage's 4'33. This is with people, all of whom undergrads, many of whom won't persue music after leaving this college.

Your experience is indeed surprising. But what I still don't know is HOW you teach these classes, and what you say, that might make these students feel it might please you more to say something you want to hear. non major students have a tendency to regurgitate the same nonsense they get from their teachers. I'm not saying you're doing this, maybe what you say is genuinely true, I wouldn't know unless I attended your classes and judged for myself.

I'm just putting "good" in big letters to annoy people who think musical judgement so relative that complete silence can be considered music.

I do readily admit there is a lot of subjectivity in music, but I draw the line at

GOOD

music, and then judge from there what really moves me or makes me want to continue listening to it.

Yes, this is a good point and indeed there's nothing I can say to tell you if what I say is indeed true or the students' opinions honest.

However:

1) None of my students really know my musical preferences and so they don't really know if I prefer Schoenberg to Messiaen or Ravel to Berg.

2) I play so much music to them that I've selected (ie. it is not neccessarily on the syllabus) that they can only think that I know all the pieces well and therefore get at least some enjoyment out of all the pieces.

3) My opinions are discussed at the end of the class.

4) I usually do this experiment once a term fairly early on in the term. I say usually, I've only been doing these particular classes for two years.

We also had a near one hour debate on Cage's 4'33. This is with people, all of whom undergrads, many of whom won't persue music after leaving this college.

That debate wouldn't have been nearly as long had I been in the class. I would have said:

Consider these following words:

Sound

Noise

Silence

Music

If "music" can mean something other than "sound organized by a human mind for the purpose of enjoyment and/or intellectual satisfaction," and take on a synonymous meaning with "noise" or "silence," then what have we accomplished other than messing with the definition of a word? What do we then call sounds organized deliberately by a human mind for the purpose of enjoyment and/or intellectual satisfaction? Fun-mind-sound?

The class would have been like: "Hey, you're so right. What was Cage smoking anyway?" And you'd've got mad. And I would have snickered.

:)

You think you're the only one who's come up with that? No. It's been brought up so many times in my classes (and out of classes, too). In fact the only things you'd be demonstrating is lack of understanding towards others' opinions on the subject and that you have poor discussion skills.

Should we now debate the meaning of the word 'debate'? *grin*

Well, it just seems to me whenever anyone DOES come up with that argument (which I'm certain many have), that the debate would end. To go any further would be to deny some objective fact of reality, and that isn't debate. But yes, lets not now discuss what debate is :)

I would go so far as to say that it really isn't a matter of opinion what music is. In saying that, of course, I do not assert that Schoenburg or music for prepared piano "is not" music. I assert that complete silence, and 12 radios tuned to random stations and other such nonsense, IS NOT music. How can anyone possibly debate further? It boggles my mind! So yes, I have absolutely zero respect for any other "opinions" people might have on this subject.

An opinion on "whether schoenburg is good music" of course is something I have tremendous respect for. I have actually enjoyed certain schoenburg pieces and listen to a lot of atonal music besides that. Well not enjoyed Schoenburg, more like "found him interesting."

I am reminded of a debate I once had with a Ph.D. of medieval spanish literature over the number "ten." He asserted that this number (not just the word, the NUMBER) could not exist until language had brought it into existence. But I said: "Don't you realize that our words are labels for things we observe? 10 is a real thing! 1 is a real thing!" him: "But the ten-ness isn't there til the language says it is." me: ::holds hands up to his face:: "The ten-ness is RIGHT HERE my friend!" Ugh. I sometimes can't believe such people even EXIST. It seems like they would relativistically imagine their lack of existence after a while. Too bad that isn't possible, come to think of it!

I absolutely hate 'PoMo' (I won't even utter the word) because I hate irratiol reactionism of any kind.

But Rachmaninoff isn't a very important person in musical history. If I were to write on western music I would ignore him too. Schoenberg is very important though. He wasn't just a composer, he was one of the most important musicologists in history. And he openen whole new areas of music.

I don't see why you keep pairing Schoenberg with Cage when you do claim one wrote music you don't really like and the other didn't.

Actually, Cage did write real music. But it's rather poor imo, probably because he didn't really seem to care. Surely his 'musical music' would never given him the place he has in the history he has now.

Nobody's pairing Schoenberg with Cage other than they are two composers who entered our debate for being radical in their own fields.

Derek: Hadn't we conceded that music is very much a subjective term? Now you're saying that it's objective. Have I missed something?

Yes. Whether or not something IS music is objective. How good a certain work of music is, is subjective. I feel whether or not something IS music is not up for debate; I feel how good a certain work of music is is merely a matter of opinion.

Ah, I see what I missed. Opinion. One person's music is not music to another person. Is that it?

Rachmaninoff was a great composer. I think most of us will agree with that. But being a great composer and being an important composer are two completely different things. Rachmaninoff's influence on music was virtually nil.

No one will argue with Schoenberg's importance in music history, and Cage, while it might be claimed that he didn't really write music, is important for having made his listeners think about what constituted music. Both have more importance than Rachmaninoff.

Mind you, I'm a traditionalist and dislike most of the work of both Schoenberg and Cage, but one cannot get around recognizing their significance in music history. To dismiss them as "postmodern crackheads" is totally out of line.

I am reminded of a debate I once had with a Ph.D. of medieval spanish literature over the number "ten." He asserted that this number (not just the word, the NUMBER) could not exist until language had brought it into existence. But I said: "Don't you realize that our words are labels for things we observe? 10 is a real thing! 1 is a real thing!"

I propose, Music requires sound and intention. Source. I reject the qualifier 'organized' because organization, again, is in the mind of the composer, then the performer, then finally the listener.

'Organized' is slippery like that. How much ambiguity is allowed? Am I allowed to write a note with unspecified pitch such that the performer chooses? Am I allowed to write a cadenza with free rhythm? Or are both of these not problems because the intentionality that I forego is handed off to the performer?

What if the performer screws up? Is the 'right' version (which isn't even sound at this point) the music, or is the mistake music? If, in a jam session, I sense a rare 'magic moment' of perceived organization, which I could either attribute to random coincidence or possibly the meeting of minds into a collective conscious, is that music? Are the other moments less of a music? Ask not what, but when is music?

That and: Underestimate not the power of language.