What is music?

"an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=music

"Music is an art form whose medium is sound"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music

"an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music

Discuss

(excuse me if a topic like this is already in existence I could not find one, as my search is not functioning properly...)

Music is organized sound. As Cage's 4'33" showed us, the only necessary component of music is duration which, given our limited three dimensional conception, we're constantly experiencing time fold in a linear manner anyway. Basically, anything and everything can be music; it's simply context.

Thread done.

The wikipedia definition isn't too bad really. But it may still be too broad: I claim that there can be art forms whose medium is sound which aren't music.

The question here is mainly where we draw the line between music and other artforms, taking into account many interdisciplinary fields. Is an opera music, or is it a mixture between music, theatre, and possibly other things? Or a song: While many songs are primarily regarded as music, there certainly are -many- songs (especially folk songs etc.) that draw their interest not so much from sounds, but from the words they convey, and might therefore fall much more under the subject of literature.

It gets even more difficult with some of the newer artforms that have arisen in the 20th century. Sound installations, for instance, which are often created by originally -visual- artists, who simply use elements in their art that give a sound (or may even consist -solely- of sound), but while still approaching it as they would approach any other visual artwork.

Bringing up the structuring of time, as Nirvana has mentioned it, is therefore rather relevant in my opinion. A conscious working with timestreams and time segments is one of the most fundamental things that has traditionally set music apart from, say, painting. Sure: There definitely are also many other artforms that incorporate time as a fundamental element (film, theatre, even poetry), but I think it is still a means of setting music apart from other forms of sound art, which do distinctly attempt to avoid time as a primary formal criterion, such as many of the mentioned sound installations. Is it important to make this distinction? Not per se, no. But it -is- important to take note that many artists who do this kind of thing very strictly define their art -not- as "music" (or even "worse": composition).

This linear and bounded aspect does matter quite a bit for my own perception of music. A sonic texture that "is just there" is something quite different. Not better, not worse, just different. Naturally, this distinction has been put in question numerous times, by many artists in many pieces, but maybe the fact that all these composers and sound artists even found it necessary to question this boundary exactly supports the hypothesis that it has some relevance.

I mostly prefer to go with the notion that music is organized sound. How organized? Well, perhaps it's good to mention, without falling into many details, that, as cognitive researches tend to show, many of the same brain centers are activated while listening to music and while participating in conversations (hence the popular connection between music and language - phrases, sentences, caesuras, etc.). Of course, these things are explored / exploited differently as time passes. Perhaps, we could encapsulate the entire music evolution in a few sentences, one of which would be that, first and foremost, the closest, the simplest and the most obvious relationships are explored, then the more complicated, the more remote ones. Now, this reminds me of some composers and teachers, who (rightfully) say that sometimes in analysis and composition people tend to pay attention to relationships that are obvious to the eye and the mind, but are not obvious to the ear, in general (i.e. - aurally, they are as remote as they can be), in which case, perhaps, one wastes one's time on elements that are in fact of little importance, if not even irrelevant. And I think this sometimes happens in today modernism, which often comes from over-cerebralizing the stuff in a way that departs too far from perception, while our cognitive capacity remains the same genetically. Of course, that's not to say that I am conservative as Jean Sibelius or something, nor that it is bad and cannot result in satisfying and beautiful sonic experiences (look at Nirvana's and Gardener's posts). OK, this is just a sidenote that isn't in so-direct a relationship with the topic. :P

I think trying to define what music is ends up in the same situation as trying to define art. In the end you can't really narrow it down to majority since it is quite simple for any individual to veer off and call music what others would not.

More interesting would be which parameters make people think of something as "music" or not, such as cultural pressure, cognitive factors and intellectual appreciation.

As for music being organized sound, I don't really think that's a good definition considering organization already is rather specific. You can tape something and then call it music, how did you organize anything? It's really impossible to plug in all holes in any single definition honestly and shooting for any in particular I think is a waste of time. Do we really need a fool-proof definition of music? Is it stopping us from writing it?

You can tape something and then call it music, how did you organize anything?

In that case you organize a time framework in which anything that occurs shall be called music!

In that case you organize a time framework in which anything that occurs shall be called music!

Well yes, but isn't that organizing a time frame rather than sounds? Whatever happens inside that time frame could as well be irrelevant, so how can I be organizing it?

Why does it have to be organized?

Music is organized sound. As Cage's 4'33" showed us, the only necessary component of music is duration which, given our limited three dimensional conception, we're constantly experiencing time fold in a linear manner anyway. Basically, anything and everything can be music; it's simply context.

Thread done.

To an extent, yes... anything and everything can be music. That's a very simple definition (and really inclusive). However, duration isn't exactly a component of music. Music can, theoretically, extend for eternity itself. Duration is just a constraint - one of many - that we put on music.

Why does it have to be organized?

Well technically just wanting it to be disorganized is already a form of order, if anything it's the same as having "organized chaos" where something sounds totally random yet it's all carefully planned with some formula or whatever (Xenakis, woop.)

It's a perception thing I guess.

Well technically just wanting it to be disorganized is already a form of order, if anything it's the same as having "organized chaos" where something sounds totally random yet it's all carefully planned with some formula or whatever (Xenakis, woop.)

It's a perception thing I guess.

Fair enough.

For me, I've worked in collective improvisatory settings where "organization" might be happening on an individual basis, but the result is decidedly disorganized... on purpose.

...

which, I suppose...is still kinda organized. ;) Yes...perception.

uh, 'organization' doesn't imply anything strict necessarily and I think it's rather axiomatic that there are various degrees of organization. I mean, you can go anywhere from the precise and meticulously notated work of Ferneyhough to Cage's 4'33" and other works that utilize 'rhythmic structures' which are nothing more than really just designating time frames in which sounds are allowed to occur. Even an on the spot on improvisation can be considered 'organized' in the simple fact that you are intending to create certain sounds as certain times. I really don't think this is a hard issue at all.

I do agree however that it is mostly pointless to try and define music ('organized sound' is simply the closest I think music comes to a definition) anymore as it is mostly pointless to define art in general; post-modernism has pretty much eradicated any kind of boundary between normal, everyday life and art even. I think the only things that can even begin to separate art from non-art are intent and perception. Am I perceiving something as art? Then, to me, it probably is. Is the creator/performer trying to make something artistic? Then, to them, they are. And granted, I think that there is a bit of an 'artist's responsibility' in the sense that it is of my personal believe that, if someone wants to seriously create art or make a professional career out of a field in art, that they should make it a point to know What's Up and study those before them so they can at least understand what context they are creating their art. But again, I can't even objectively argue that this on any level nor can I argue that it's impossible for someone with absolute ignorance of their art medium to create something beautiful in it.

...'organization' doesn't imply anything strict necessarily...you can go anywhere from the precise and meticulously notated work of Ferneyhough to Cage's 4'33" and other works that utilize 'rhythmic structures' which are nothing more than really just designating time frames. I really don't think this is a hard issue at all.

I do agree however that it is mostly pointless to try and define music

I get your point ;) And, it's not a hard issue - but (as SSC pointed out) it's all about perception. I just know there are many instances where "organization" is ignored...even discouraged. There can be many factors contributing to something being "musical"...or there can be a single factor while abandoning all others. It's all about the intent and the perception.

My definition (coninciding with your second paragraph)

Music is intended to be be observed as music.

...

Even better:

Music is.

But postmodern thought has been around for centuries. Why does it suddenly apply now?

But postmodern thought has been around for centuries. Why does it suddenly apply now?

wut

Okay, two things:

1) Explain to me what 'post-modernism' is exactly because I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are the same thing at all.

2) Assuming we are talking about the same thing and it has been around for centuries as you say, then it's not that it's 'suddenly applying' now. It's that, finally, more people are getting on board with the program. Plus, again, with the invention and popularization of the internet, post-modernism is becoming increasingly more and more relevant and inescapable. Which again, makes me think that we're talking about two different things entirely.

But postmodern thought has been around for centuries. Why does it suddenly apply now?

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA...... That is soooo going in my sig!!!

I don't think it has anything to do with postmodernism at all. It's just what happens when you take into consideration that there's nothing wrong with calling whatever you want music. People will have different tastes regardless of what they're calling things, the actual product itself won't change just because we name it one way or another, nor would the people's reactions good or bad.

I don't think it has anything to do with postmodernism at all. It's just what happens when you take into consideration that there's nothing wrong with calling whatever you want music. People will have different tastes regardless of what they're calling things, the actual product itself won't change just because we name it one way or another, nor would the people's reactions good or bad.

Well, post-modernism helped in eradicating any notion of archaic formalism left in art in general. Cage is often considered the first 'post-modern' composer and, while I don't quite agree with that, his ideas were definitely influential in the broadening of the scope of music.

Something to think about:

If you are using tools like hammer, metal, wood, screwdriver, soldering iron, etc. to build or fix something and you're making sound / noise by doing your job, we could hardly say that your intention is the sound, so is it music? But if your intention is precisely to produce this specific kind of sound and record it, then is it music? And what about birds? They can sound pretty organized, pretty rhythmic, etc. Is this music?

Something to think about:

If you are using tools like hammer, metal, wood, screwdriver, soldering iron, etc. to build or fix something and you're making sound / noise by doing your job, we could hardly say that your intention is the sound, so is it music? But if your intention is precisely to produce this specific kind of sound and record it, then is it music? And what about birds? They can sound pretty organized, pretty rhythmic, etc. Is this music?

Actually, fairly good points. However, for me personally, I still think it falls to the case of 'intention' and 'perception' Even if it's not the intention of the sound source to create noises, if you were to hear them and perceive them as music, then it would be to you. And there's no real reason to go beyond a micro, person-to-person basis on music; there's hardly any 'universal truth' or universally appealing art. Again, Cage's 4'33": The only difference between 'noise' and 'music' is context.

The longer this thread goes on, the more I'm starting to even hate the term 'music' Everyone finds a different set of sounds and different combinations of sets of sounds appealing. Some people love combinations of sets of sounds so much that they make a career out of arranging these sounds which other people may or may not find appealing as well. It doesn't have to be anymore complicated than that.

Screw putting a label on 'music' and screw discussion on what 'is' art.

Music is.

/end thread

Music is what you want it to be ...

"what is love? baby don't hurt me, no more"

"what is love? baby don't hurt me, no more"

You beat me by about half an hour there :blink: