What is true originality (later, what music IS)

Underestimate not the power of language but the misuse of it. *grin*

Some people equal the two. Reality only exists in the eye of the beholder. There is really no problem with the way you express it. It's quite valid from some points of view. But 'they' take the extreme version and build all kinds of things on it. Some argue that language limits our thinking and reality. One weak point in language is the fact that we have a lot of binary things. One if male or one is female for example. This creates unacceptence against those that are neither.

Some go even further and argue that our language was 'invented' by anti-female, anti-non white males. So our languauge has a anti woman and anti-non-white bias. Now it goes even further and they apply it to math too. Math is racist and sexist.

Another thing is that our objective scientific 'facts' are just as good as the stories some shaman cooked up while under influence of drugs/herbs. They are equal good truths. They take all forms of relativism and subjectivity so far everything breaks down. And they like it.

We can't say Rachmaninoffs works are masterworks. Because our opinions are biased. Woman composers weren't given a fair chance. So we only got half of the music we should have. Thus any opinion is flawed.

Also, every time some authority wrote a book and mentioned Rachmaninoff our opinion if influenced too. So its biased and we need to accept it is quite meaningless. It's more a product of the culture we live in than of our taste or preference. Let alone objective reasoning.

That's why I hate 'PoMo'. They want to deconstruct everything and refuse to realise the implications. And then they have these cerebral literature intellectuals thinking all this stuff up without looking outside their own minds. No one understands them. It's just juggling with words. No actual point is made.

* dons his moderator helmet reluctantly *

This is exactly the kind of debate we like to see here, but it has been getting a bit edgy. While things seemed to have simmered down a bit in the last couple of hours, I'd like to remind certain of us in particular to mind the tone of our rhetoric. Like it or not - and I'll go on the record as being a bit more laissez faire personally - per the management, the fully public sections of this board are governed by a code of behaviour which may be reviewed here: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/BOARD-RULES-t3.html

This discussion hasn't quite crossed the line, but it has come close in a few comments. Mutual respect and avoidance of deliberatly inflammatory rhetoric are encouraged. In other words, argue and debate to your hearts' content - but be fair and respectful about it.

And of course, as always, there are no holds barred whatsoever in the Free For All forum, which has been gathering a layer of greasy dust lately, for some strange reason.

* doffs the helmet and goes back to what he was doing *

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

No. Whether or not a group of sounds is organized by a person for the purpose of enjoyment or not, is objective. Since that is distinct from silence, and distinct from 12 radios tuned to random stations, this is exactly the same thing as saying, whether OR NOT a group of sounds is MUSIC.

However, once it has been objectively determined that a group of sounds IS music, it is at that point a matter of opinion HOW GOOD that music is. it is NOT a matter of opinion WHETHER some sounds are music.

Heh, Lee, its kind of hard to remain calm when other people refuse to accept cold hard facts of reality and try to play relativistic rhetorical dogeball. Someone said I'm not here to debate. You're right, I'm here to lecture relativists and hopefully knock some sense into their heads. :) Someone might now say, well you're not going to convince anyone by being arrogant, pushy, and closed minded! To that I would say, nobody would pay any attention to me if I was all nice and warm and fuzzy, they'd feel completely entitled to go on believing the same nonsense they have for years. Outrage DOES have persuasive power.

Not that i'm really outraged---this is music for crying out loud. If a crowd of total lunatics wants to drop thousands of pots and pans from the top of a building and say WHAT GLORIOUS MUSIC, BEETHOVEN COULDn'T HAVE DONE IT. That's fine with me, it doesn't hurt anybody (assuming nobody is on the street below).

But it's retarded.

I forgot to mention that relativists are some of the most assertive and morally outraged people I've ever met. "How DARE you suggest that absolute truth exists?" Whilst asserting an absolute in the very process. Gah. Someone call the insane asylum! Hypocrites.

Because you know everything there is to know about music, right?

Many of us are not relativists. I, for one, have a quite fixed idea of what constitutes music and what doesn't. Although my tastes in music are about the same as yours, my idea of what constitutes music clearly differs from yours. Which, because everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, clearly also makes me an idiot, right?

The only conclusion I am drawing from this thread is that things are getting very ugly very fast. What part of "deliberately inflammatory rhetoric" did you not understand? Outrage may sometimes have persuasive power, but it also tends to cause a whole lot of people to want to knock some sense into your head. You have already made your point, and now we expect you to at least be civil when defending it.

I'm going to make this warning fair and public. Again, I am not a relativist; I have a pretty clear-cut standard for what is acceptable and what is not. I now inform you that you are the first in the entire history of YC, including the old board, to cross that line. That's quite an accomplishment. Aren't you proud?

Also, I have been a soccer player longer than I have been a musician. In any sport you care to name, the referee's word is final. And as you may be aware, in soccer the referee is perfectly justified in showing a player a yellow card for excessive dissent. Now that you've heard what my background is, you know exactly where you stand at the moment. Don't even try to talk to me about censorship, I'm laying down the cold hard facts of reality, to use your own words.

When did I call you a relativist? I think you're overreacting. Nobody else is taking me quite as seriously as you are. (thank goodness) Don't I want to be taken seriously? Of course, but like I said before, this is music we are talking about, not politics or religion. There, I would gladly be made a martyr and continue ranting and raving til I was banned from the website. But in here I just don't care. I do, however, feel that relativism in music has its source in the same basic worldview, so it does make me a bit angry wherever it appears. (again, I did not say you specifically are a relativist. did I say 'caltechviolist' in any of my posts?) It's rather fun being one of the few with the courage TO be outraged over something like this.

So, it is to wonder why you are so angry at me if you agree with me? I could've used one or two more teammates back there! (some soccer player you are, you're kicking the ball towards the wrong goal!)

This concludes my posting on this thread. ::takes a bow:: :)

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

Why are you tryin to get a total rigid definition of music? Of course there is room for discussion about organisation. But it also isn't totally in the mind of the composer.

But 'intention' is ever worse than 'organisation'. Firstly this definition makes every intentional sound music. Unless you add 'musical intention', like on the wikibook. And that would create a loop, and in the end it says: 'music is music'. That isn't very nice when you are trying to create a meaningfull definition.

Plus we have an issue about direct and indirect intention. When I start my car and I don't intent to make it magically not make any sound, which one one in his right mind of do, then according to this definition, driving my car would equal playing music.

If you oppose to using words to describe music, which is reasonable, why do you try to make another definition of music using words?

'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?

So, it is to wonder why you are so angry at me if you agree with me? I could've used one or two more teammates back there! (some soccer player you are, you're kicking the ball towards the wrong goal!)

See the word "Moderator" under my name? The rules are the rules, and as a mod I have a responsibility to make sure they are followed. Regardless of which side of an argument you're on, you're going to respect them. And no, being outraged and being arrogant and pushy are two entirely different things. A lot of people have shown outrage at a lot of things over the years, and none felt the need to repeatedly throw ad hominem attacks around at the slightest challenge.

Oh, and I get very offended when someone who clearly has very little idea of what reality is like tries to tell me something like "welcome to the real world". You are not the final authority on all things, get used to it.

Please note that I am not going after Prometheus at all.

I'm done with this thread.

I really, really do enjoy rice.

It is quite good.

I wish i could catch a fish stick. that would be convenient...

* takes a bow, as I have obviously won my side of the argument here * :)

It seems people are leaving this thread. So I'll just happily stay here and make a few comments about some of the things I've read.

"messing with the definition of a word" (back on the previous page)

Yes, I think we are messing with the definition of the word. This is what trying to define the word "music" is all about, no? I don't get it.

"scientific 'facts' are just as good as the stories some shaman cooked up while under influence of drugs/herbs"

What makes you say that? The stories cooked up by the Shaman under the influence of drugs/herbs aren't demonstratable, repeatable and peer reviewed. Scientific 'facts' are. They are quite different.

"Outrage DOES have persuasive power."

Only for the weak minded. One would hope to be able to keep calm and retain a grasp on reality/logic, even in the most heated ofdebates

"being arrogant, pushy, and closed minded! "

Was Derek admitting to be these things? This is hardly the sort of thing to be boasting about.

"How DARE you suggest that absolute truth exists?"

I believe that absolute truth exists. I just think you are either just applying it to the wrong thing, or you are wrong. It is an absolute truth that some people extract musical enjoyment from something that you do not consider music. This is pretty unarguble. My belief is, is that as long as someone extracts musical enjoyment, it is music TO THEM. I find it very strange the argument that music is objective. It most clearly isn't, as the changing tastes over the centuries has proved.

"deliberately inflammatory rhetoric"

Is the last resort of a fool.

"BEETHOVEN COULDn'T HAVE DONE IT."

He probably couldn't have done it as he was a century or so too early. Whether he would have been able to do it had he lived in the 20th century? Probably. If he thought that way.

"why you are so angry at me if you agree with me?"

Because you have such a willingly blinkered view, that it is frustrating . I must say, that you are not the first, and are probably not the last person on this board to have argued in this rather childish way (your story about your 'final word' with 10 and your hand makes me want to slap you and tell you to grow up. He can't really respond to you because you haven't made a real statement. No argument, no hypothesis, no real theory as such. Just a shallow, aggressive, theatrical statement. I suppose you felt you had won at that point, and maybe the people around you thought that too. However without being caught up in the moment it is clear that you just wanted to end the discussion with a superficial win for you without really bothering to argue.)

And actually, I don't think "Caltech" did agree with you about the definition of music. He just agreed with your tastes.

"music is music"

Exactly.

"But if you make the human perseption the most important consideration"

Surely this is precisely the point Cage was making. And this is the whole thing. If you are wanting to argue that the music needs to be organised, then in exactly the same way the performer takes on the responsibility for the composition when (s)he performs the Cadenza without rhythm, the listener takes this responsibility on when listening to 4'33". This is, as far as I know exactly what Cage intended.

Actually I think I'm returning to my essay I wrote at Uni - my conclusion was that there has to be some human interaction at some stage - even if it's at the final stage with the listener. This is the human input you require for the composition to become music, and also satisfies the 'music can be whatever you want it to be' brigade. I think Cage would also be in agreement. :)

Maybe this is where we all can agree?

Also, isn't it strange, that on this board, a thread of only 91 posts appears to be massive. And we all seem to feel the need to calm down and slow it before it goes out of control... didn't we reach 5000 posts on one thread on the old board? :)

Seriously though, we can go on like this for ages and it's great fun. Let this thread live on!

Originally posted by stefan inglis@Aug 18 2005, 03:25 PM

Also, isn't it strange, that on this board, a thread of only 91 posts appears to be massive. And we all seem to feel the need to calm down and slow it before it goes out of control... didn't we reach 5000 posts on one thread on the old board? :)

Seriously though, we can go on like this for ages and it's great fun. Let this thread live on!

See what I'm saying? People turn their heads when someone says something controversial/inflammatory! It's exciting!

Oh and something that you don't quite get about what I am saying. There are two different things.

1) WHETHER something IS music or IS NOT. <

and 2) HOW GOOD some MUSIC is. THAT is a matter of opinion. That's like an analog signal, for any individual, varying from no signal to very strong.

Examples of number 1:

- total silence IS NOT music. (0)

- schoenberg's most cacophonous orchestral works ARE music. (1)

- Cage's chance works ARE NOT music. (0)

- Cage's prepared piano works ARE music. (1)

- putting weights on an organ in germany over the span of 600 years IS NOT music. (0)

now for the number 2 (note these all begin with *I* to denote that they are my opinion!)

- I DISLIKE Schoenberg's MUSIC. (0/10)

- I find Cage's prepared piano music to be INSIPID. (2/10)

- I LOVE late Scriabin's sonatas. (10/10)

- I LOVE Keith Jarrett's work, even the abstract atonal stuff. (11/10)

And everyone else is totally entitled to developing their own opinion as to how good music is. But no matter what people deem to be music, whether it be babies crying, a bomb exploding, or farm animals mooing and clucking, it does not change what music quite obviously IS.

Starting to make sense now?

Does anybody remember the site: aatonality.com? I think it's gone now, but that site was AWESOME. lol. I think they went a little too far, personally. I like a lot of modern/atonal works.

It's all about intent, really. In a lot of ways, John Cage was a musical counterpart to Marcel Duchamp. IMHO he was more a philosopher than a musician, intentionally creating outrageous pieces to cause people to think about the definition of music. It turns out that it's not quite as clear-cut as you seem to think it is. Keep in mind that "music" is a human concept, nowhere near as absolute as the color blue or the number ten.

I personally subscribe to Lee's theory of the contract between composer, performer, and listener. If all three consider something to be music, then it is music.

I'm glad someone agrees with me. I think maybe some want to stretch what I meant about intention too far.

Does anybody remember the site: aatonality.com? I think it's gone now, but that site was AWESOME. lol. I think they went a little too far, personally. I like a lot of modern/atonal works.

Yeah, I think that guy got tired of everybody ripping him a new one, but I kind of enjoyed going over there once in a while, even though I didn't agree with him on a lot of things. What I miss especially are the links he had! There was an Italian guy he had a link to who had posted half a dozen Classical symphonies he'd written on his website. He was almost as much of a Classicist as I am. I never bookmarked any of those links, figuring Aatonal would always be there, and now I'm outta luck.

Derek (or anybody), did you happen to make a note of Mr. Aatonal's e-mail address or anything? I'd like to get in touch with that guy, just to get some of those interesting links.

Yeah, that's fine with me if a group of people want to CALL something music, but that doesn't guarantee that it is.

No. Derek. I didn't misunderstand your point. It is a simple point. That music either is (objectively) or isn't music. This is where I am very sure you are mistaken. Music is an art. It isn't an object. As Prometheus was saying, there are people who can hear no 'music' in music. To them, there is no music at all. Nothing is music. It is clear from their examples that the creation of 'music' is therefore in the brain. Your "FACT" of music being objective is as laughable as it is wrong. Who (other than you) decides what this is? Even if it is decided (be it a dictionary or whatever) why is it forever set in stone? Is something real-world (let's say a bottle) also so rigid? Over time, designers may confound our expectations as to what a 'bottle' is. There may be something new. Some will argue it's a flask. Some a jug. Some a cup. The truth is, is that it doesn't actually matter, and each person can decide for himself what it is. If it functions as a bottle for person X, then it is a bottle for them. Why is this so difficult to accept? And why did you entirely ignore my last paragraph?

And your argument of listing Noise, Sound, Silence and Music (iirc) - surely music is a combination of the previous 3 (in any measures)?

Anyone can cause a fuss and provoke a reaction. It is very easy. All one needs to do is be arrogant, ignorant and aggressive. It is no achievement. Many, many, many people have caused arguments on this board from, essentially, lying. From not wholly believing something, but continuing the discussion either through an inability to back down, or some boring entertainment. I'm not sure what is worse, to do this, or to honestly have such a poor attitude.

No. Derek. I didn't misunderstand your point. It is a simple point. That music either is (objectively) or isn't music. This is where I am very sure you are mistaken. Music is an art. It isn't an object. As Prometheus was saying, there are people who can hear no 'music' in music. To them, there is no music at all. Nothing is music. It is clear from their examples that the creation of 'music' is therefore in the brain. Your "FACT" of music being objective is as laughable as it is wrong. Who (other than you) decides what this is? Even if it is decided (be it a dictionary or whatever) why is it forever set in stone? Is something real-world (let's say a bottle) also so rigid? Over time, designers may confound our expectations as to what a 'bottle' is. There may be something new. Some will argue it's a flask. Some a jug. Some a cup. The truth is, is that it doesn't actually matter, and each person can decide for himself what it is. If it functions as a bottle for person X, then it is a bottle for them. Why is this so difficult to accept? And why did you entirely ignore my last paragraph?

What you're talking about with a bottle are merely labels for something which is an obvious concept: something that holds liquid or small objects. When someone perverts the word music to mean cow flatulence, they are not changing what music IS. And that is: sounds organized by a human mind!

There must be a word that is distinct from noise, silence, etc. to describe this variety of sound.

If you and others are so dead set on perverting the word music to mean something it does not, I will go ahead and call : sounds organized by humans (and we're assuming these sounds are not JUST the spoken word, of course, I'm surprised nobody has brought that up, for it is sound organized by a human mind): FunMindSound.

My point is, I reject the notion that an individual can change a meaning, a concept, which is truly THERE in reality. I do not reject the notion (which you and others bring up repeatedly) that people can make up words, and use existing words to mean things that they do not. Of course they can. But why do it?

I just brought up a fascinating question. Can the spoken word be considered music? No, I do not think it can. That is also distinct concept from music. Can it appear IN music? Yes, of course it can. Rap is music. Is the spoken word musicAL? Often, yes.

However, in olden times one spoke of "songs," which were really poems spoken by a bard, and may or may not have been accompanied by an instrument. Maybe the spoken word is indeed music?

I believe the spoken word can be music. For example, Radiohead's Fitter Happiness. The song is a computerized voice reading a list with drunk thom messing around with the piano.

Also I want to bring up your pure definition of music. I believe music could have once been defined as you define it Derek, but as time changes so does the meaning of the word. For example, science was once the hunt for the secert of turning metals into gold or the exlier of life, but as time progressed science became a quest to solve the mysteries of the world. I believe the same change has occurred with what music is.

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 18 2005, 05:07 PM

I never bookmarked any of those links, figuring Aatonal would always be there, and now I'm outta luck.

* huge grin *

Also I want to bring up your pure definition of music.

Sprechtstimme, Derek, sprechtstimme. Spoken word can be music. Yes. Music doesn't have to have a defined pitch: why does the voice have to lyrical in order to be music?

After reading your edit, I will no longer make a comment I was about to make. However, I do have this to say: Were Beethoven's symphonies *all* well received? Were there none that left the audience and orchestra dumbfounded out of pure auditory violation? Was Mozart always popular throughout his life? It is true that *some* composers were nearly always well received (alas, it's human nature to make a small percentage of less-than-good works: even for the 'greats'). Music that causes "people to cover their ears and scream bloody murder" is far from a new concept. It's been going on for decades! I suggest you spread your wings and read a few more interesting books.