Chuck Nessa Posted February 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I think Joe G. is getting close, but still too geocentric. SETI project. How about some examination of the term "organized"? Please welcome my (invited) friend JN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I think Joe G. is getting close, but still too geocentric. SETI project. How about some examination of the term "organized"? "Organized" would imply intent. Joe, I was agreeing with you completely and trying to extend your idea to realms beyond our world of malls and forests. I'm an avid birder and find the communication in birdsong (and the "random" sounds like those you cite) to be profoundly musical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Welcome JN! I guess we need to think more broadly about the term "organize". I would look at Cage's 4'33" and say that the organizing factor is right there in the title. The fact that Cage puts a temporal boundary on the piece creates an element of organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I would look at Cage's 4'33" and say that the organizing factor is right there in the title. The fact that Cage puts a temporal boundary on the piece creates an element of organization. Probably. Y'all are getting the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Probably my favorite quote related to this topic... "Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ear lie back in an easy chair." -- Charles Ives Edited February 9, 2006 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't. Neither do I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 "Definitons" are finite by, uh, definiton. Music isn't. What is music not? Tell me what it's not, or by any criteria can't be, and then we can get on with the business of talking about what it is. I don't think I know enough to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) I think all aspects playing a part apply to both partners in the game: Music is unimportant without someone who listens, even if it is only the person who plays it. But if more than one is listening, it's better, of course. Which leads to the social/ritual aspect. I think there is always some ritualistic aspect, even with a music lover sitting down at home and puting an LP on the turntable. The intention someone pointed out is very important, but on either side: If John Cage determines the background noises to be music by his intention, it's music, although most listeners won't accept this. Intention on the side of the performer and the listener is the key to it all, me thinks. Now the way the sounds are organized are subject to the individual and cultural factors of the performer and listener - the possibilities are infinite, as Jim aptly stated. Edited February 9, 2006 by mikeweil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Music is unimportant without someone who listens, even if it is only the person who plays it. Charles Ives composed many pieces of music, but with no avenue to have them performed he simply put them in a trunk in his home. Was that music unimportant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Music is unimportant without someone who listens, even if it is only the person who plays it. Charles Ives composed many pieces of music, but with no avenue to have them performed he simply put them in a trunk in his home. Was that music unimportant? Well, he did listen, even if only with his inner ear, and had an intention, and we all listen now. I didn't mean to say it has to be listened to by others as soon as it is conceived ... p.s. perhaps I should have written "Music is unimportant without someone who listens, just the person who plays it is sufficient". That's what I wanted to say ...... oh the grammar of a foreign language ... Edited February 9, 2006 by mikeweil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Adding to Chuck's fine definition: Beautiful emotions shared through organized sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Adding to Chuck's fine definition: Beautiful emotions shared through organized sounds. No ugly emotions allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Well, if composed with artistic integrity, even the ugly can be seen as beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 For example, this is ugly, but is arguably a beautiful painting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I comprehensively define music as: "That which was performed by no more than 6 musicians in live to 2 track recordings between 1950 and 1968 on the Blue Note Label." Surely no one can fault me for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montg Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 The word 'music', like all words, is defined by its use. We apply the term 'music' to a sound that lifts us--somehow enriches us. A voice or the wind through the trees can be 'music to my ears', whereas some grammy nominated singers are making noises that I find destructive and so I would never apply the term 'music' to what they're doing. So, the transcendent experience may be subjective, but the application of the term music is pretty straightforward. And as I grow, I apply the term music where I once could not (an Eric Dolphy solo, for instance) and I restrict the term from places where I once used it (growing up I thought Neil Diamond was 'music'--I don't anymore). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Spring in the air... There's music everywhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandra Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 The Grammy is still fresh in my mind.... They have an award for 'spoken word' ( most probably because it is a recorded item rather than for music ). So, is a mono tone spoken word music? On the other extreme, if someone plays 1200 sequential tones each separated by 1 cent, is that music? Music as 'organized sound' seems to include both of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Well, if composed with artistic integrity, even the ugly can be seen as beautiful. Now it has to be artistic? What about Negro Work Songs? That music had a function, to help get them through thier day, but was there any artistic intent? I don't think so. (Of course that invites a whole debate about the definition of 'art'). BTW: I'm not trying to bust your huevos Noj, I'm just making conversation and padding my post count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Well, if composed with artistic integrity, even the ugly can be seen as beautiful. Now it has to be artistic? What about Negro Work Songs? That music had a function, to help get them through thier day, but was there any artistic intent? I don't think so. (Of course that invites a whole debate about the definition of 'art'). BTW: I'm not trying to bust your huevos Noj, I'm just making conversation and padding my post count. I think the Negro Work Songs definitely had artistic intent. Not the intent to entertain or become commercially viable, but they were an expression of self and served a spiritual purpose, which to me, definitely falls into the affirmative category of "but, is it art?" The ultimate answer to that question will never be answered, but it's interesting to discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 There doesn't necessarily HAVE to be artistic intent. When a songbird sings, it is musical sans artistic intent. If a musician is communicating horror or sadness or creating music which is "ugly," but puts it together in an artful manner, it can still be beautiful. Confused yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 Can I suggest that perhaps a songbird does have artistic intent, in the way I suggested with regards to Spirituals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted February 10, 2006 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 "Definitons" are finite by, uh, definiton. Music isn't. What is music not? Tell me what it's not, or by any criteria can't be, and then we can get on with the business of talking about what it is. I don't think I know enough to do that. I was going to post something deep like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted February 10, 2006 Report Share Posted February 10, 2006 "The sounds of the world living" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.