what is this thing called music, anyway?? ...

dblbass · Post by **dblbass** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:56 pm

... and why do we love it so???

at the risk of being a little far from forum topic, here's an interesting tip:

I'm most of the way through a great book called Music, the Brain & Ecstasy : How Music Captures Our Imagination
by Robert Jourdain. (no I'm not him!, never heard of the guy, even!). I'm enjoying this book immensely

all the way from psycho-acoustics through tone, note, rhythm, melody, and form/composition, pretty interesting stuff throughout. The guy's orientation is almost entirely western classical music, but most of the points he makes carry over real well to any sort of music.

I should think any pulsar/DAW/MIDI music maker would find this a really thought-provoking and amusing read

FWIW

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:49 am

thanks for the tip -- added it to my Wish List -- and always looking for more excellent books to read, as you might have guessed, I always choose rather technical books, so it is excellent to get suggestions from fellow musicians in other areas.

Post by **garyb** » Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:56 pm

it's noise.......

...........or the order of the universe(see super string theory,imaginary vibrating strings hmmm)

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Fri Oct 19, 2001 8:55 am

music is not a thing.

a process perhaps?
an appearance to the mind?

it is surely more than the differences of pressure of air molecules.
it seems that some subjective element must be included for sound to be music. ie. a perceiver?

is it still music if it is played with no one listening . . .

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Oct 19, 2001 1:31 pm

Wow, this is interesing.. A question everyone thinks about.. atleast sometime in their musical career.
I'll give my own thoughts.. bu remember, they're all opinions. Not much can be proved, it's just what I've come to believe. So here it goes...

To me, music is a set of restrictions. It sounds strange.. I know. Let me explain.

You use sound to make music right? Sometimes a sound itself could be music... and sometimes it's not. It's just noise. But when a sound is used with certain rules, limits, logic, intention, then it becomes music.

The process of sound becoming music also has a lot to do with context. Say you have 3 kinds of sound playing at the same time. One is low, mid, and then a high sound. If you were to put 1 additional sound in, then you are putting a sound into a context. But at that instant, you have to make a creative choice. Do you put another low sound on top of the existing low sound to emphasize it? Or are you going to put an even lower/higher sound to enhance the spectral dynamism? Do you place a sound half way between the middle sound and the high sound to balance things out? Or do you not put in a sound at all? Choosing between these possible solutions is the process in which a sound becomes music. So I can say music is a result of making a set of creative choices. Without choice, there is no music. (well, if "not making a choice at all" is your creative decision, then that's also music I guess)

The creative decisions you make produce a set of restrictions. Some restrictions are already there.. like, the way a piano makes sound.. The way it's been tuned.. how many notes there are in an octave. These are given. That's why you'd expect a piano to sound a certain way, and you'd expect a piano player to play certain phrases. You can also change these rules.. but most of the time, they are given. Some people like to change the rules. Some people say there shouldn't be any rules at all because it limits their expression. But because of these limitations, because of the expectations that result from knowing these limitations, we can fulfill the expectation, or choose to not fulfill it. That is music. Even if it means it's only the creator's expectation that is fulfilled/not fulfilled. But if the creator doesn't realize the limits.. or if his expectation has nothing to do with the composition.. if he doesn't effectively use the given limitations... well, I guess you could still call it music but I wouldn't say it's smart music.

Here's a funny example:
If everytime a person dies, people played a set of sin waves, and if everytime someone got married, people played a set of pulse waves, and if whenever people fell in love, people played a set of pulse waves... You're likely to think that pulse waves have something to do with love.. and therefore, create a context in which composers can use a pulse wave in. A composer may use pulse waves up to a certain point and all of a sudden switch to a sin wave, creating a devastating shock in the listener. That's music.

Now these were some thoughts about making music... here's the other side of the story.. Percieving music.

What it takes for a sound to be percieved as music, sort of lies within what it takes to make music. To make things short, it's a matter of what a person recognizes as music. Which is simply a collection of past experiences. These experiences (like bethoven, beatles, and Herbie Hancock) are what creates an image of music within a listener. Anything beyond that, will not be percieved as music. Music is simply a learned perception. Just like any other man made language. In extreme terms, it is simply a figment of man's imagination. In natural form, music does not exist. It is a product of cognition.

If anything has a structure, certain amount of order, and if you're taught that it's music... then you probably will believe it's music. That's why almost every country has its own, sometime extremely distinctive style of music.

In the end, it's making decisions within a limited context (be it the creator's or the audience's) that makes even the strangest chaotic noise, music.

So that's my part of story guys. Sorry about the strange examples.. I do get carried away at times. But I'd like to say that this isn't the only point of view.. I mean, there is no one rigth answer. But it's a great creative process to discuss things like this. So let's hear some more!

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:32 am

kensuguro wrote:
To me, music is a set of restrictions.

I don't think you mean this(?). Music is not the restrictions themselves (nor even the set of them), but that which is created respective of these restrictions. Sorry if that is not what you mean, but I think so(?). BTW - I think that I agree, if I understand you as I have said I did. . .

But what about NOISE (ie. Merzbow, Oval, etc. etc.)? I had a friend try to argue to me that music is a subset of sound art, and that the genre noise is actually sound art and not music proper. Thoughts?

kensuguro wrote:
To make things short, it's a matter of what a person recognizes as music. Which is simply a collection of past experiences. These experiences (like bethoven, beatles, and Herbie Hancock) are what creates an image of music within a listener.

but this presupposes an infinite regress; if everyone only recognizes music in light of cultural contexts, then culture must be infinite regressive, temporally speaking? If you are an evolutionist or creationist, you posit a begining to culture, which means that perception of music vs. nonmusic cannot be entirely empirically learned through culture. I suspect that the origin and perception of music is more basic, having to do with our innate drive to categorize the world, and to anticipate consequences via induction, which, I believe are evolutionary endowments because they are effective for survival in the world. . .

sorry about the critiques, but I believe you are largely right and subtley wrong (and sorry, I have been reading too much phenomenology lately . . . any Merleau-Ponty fans out there, oh French ones?)

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sun Oct 21, 2001 8:40 pm

Music is not the restrictions themselves (nor even the set of them), but that which is created respective of these restrictions.

Right, right. I guess I can say that music itself doesn't mean a set of rigit restrictions but rather the result of restrictions. A product of restrictions. I'm thinking more in the line of things like "society", which doesn't point at anything in particular but is more of a phonomenon.

But what about NOISE (ie. Merzbow, Oval, etc. etc.)? I had a friend try to argue to me that music is a subset of sound art, and that the genre noise is actually sound art and not music proper. Thoughts?

If you are an evolutionist or creationist, you posit a begining to culture, which means that perception of music vs. nonmusic cannot be entirely empirically learned through culture. I suspect that the origin and perception of music is more basic, having to do with our innate drive to categorize the world, and to anticipate consequences via induction, which, I believe are evolutionary endowments because they are effective for survival in the world. . .

Well, I think these two (sound art and initial perception) go very well together. The interesting thing about music (or any creative activity) is that it doesn't necessarily mean you make music from what you know musically. It could be man's drive to categorize, which I think is at the core of the process of "understanding" by the way, or it could be some sort of affordance... or maybe even just an accident. I mean, music started because a couple of prehistoric cavemen started jamming on their bows right? So the initial "big bang" could be almost anything.. And the categorizing/pattern searching/experimenting type of process would probably come after that. But the kind of primitive music made in such situations would be very simple sonically and structurally which makes it rather close to sound art... I say this because since there is very little culture to rely on, primitive music would rely more on simple biological mechanisms and reflexive cognition. (simple stuff like a sound seeming louder when played in octave) Which is what I think is at the basis of sound art.. It tingles a different part of the brain compared to conventional music. Not to say which is better or advanced. I mean, they're both interesting for different reasons. Sound art, while being relatively simple in mechanics, is more natural in form and requires less active intellectual understanding. Conventional music on the other hand, is itself a very refined mechanism that requires a certain amount of literacy to understand. (though these are just my opinions)

But I guess your friend's point of view (music being a subset) is possible... or I think I agree coming to think about it. At the core, you could say that music is about structure, harmonic interactions, and all the other more "classical" mambo-jambo but those times are pretty much over. Now alot of music is about timbre, spectrums, mixing, compressing.. which is totally going away from the harmony this and thats... and becoming very close to enjoying the mere sonic creativity, sometimes even more than the musical content. ("musical" here pointing to chords and the likes) Music as it is right now is a combination of these two qualities which could place it within sonic art.. But then, it can also be said that music is using certain elements from sonic art, meaning only a part of music is included within sonic art. If you ask me though, as long as there are people trying to squeeze the last bit out of GM soundsets... music will definitely have a part that has absolutely NOTHING to do with sonic art. (joke joke)

I'm not very familiar with the noise people you mensioned but here's something I know... Dear old Luigi of Intonumouri.. Now THAT's a noise guy I know. His contribution was great and I'd say without him, noise wouldn't have been what it is today. But I disagree with him in that he went the noise direction because since music will increase in complexity, speed, sonic range as history progresses, then the ultimate music would be to maximize all those parameters.. which would be noise. Well, I think that's going a bit too far, though those aren't his exact words. According to Luigi man, noise is music... in fact music in its finalized form.. I didn't think so.. though his statement may seem to be true logically. In actuality, even if a certain noise was produced by fast forwarding an extremely well written composition, it's just beyond the human processing speed and when complexity and speed reaches that certain threshold, it becomes... well, noise.. The word noise as used in information science.. useless information or distortion. When it reaches that level it will no longer be percieved as music or.. well, anything at all. But that's about saying noise IS music.. using noise in compositions I guess would be a different story. (though Luigi did some noise compositions and did live hall performances which ended up with either the people leaving, or a fist fight!)

sorry about the critiques, but I believe you are largely right and subtley wrong

Pssshhh.. ah, you know I don't mind a good roast.. haha. It's all part of the creative process.

I know I'm not always right... that's what makes it worthwhile!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2001-10-22 01:04 ]</font>

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sun Oct 21, 2001 8:50 pm

A little addition:

but this presupposes an infinite regress; if everyone only recognizes music in light of cultural contexts, then culture must be infinite regressive, temporally speaking?

Well, by saying people who only recognizes music in cultural contexts, I was pointing at consumers in general. Not every one is like that... that's WE'RE here. Hurray for musicians!
We're the ones that build thier preception of music.. and possibly the way they will precieve music in the future. Now ain't that cool.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Oct 22, 2001 10:29 pm

admen shape the cultural context. musicians are the ones who make music.to paraphrase marcel duchamp,music is whatever musicians say it is.
it is true that music has the ability to bring about a change in reality.this is all part of word sound and power.ancient science.(tho most grope in the dark or like myself use what is illumined in the foreground, still unable to see past one's immediate reach)

huh?
ever changed the wheather? (rain dance)

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:38 am

Strange to hear about Duchamp in this thread... Mister toilet bowl eh? But not to skip the point that you've made, it's strange how music has a lot in common with visual art... err, Duchamp is close to media art at times but anyway... He just happens to be one of my favorite artists of that era.

Post by **garyb** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 7:11 pm

light and sound are vibrations @ frequencies(.) like anything else in this world. music is as visual art, the image of the works of creation,as man is the image of the creator.
shadows.
light.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2001-10-23 20:13 ]</font>

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 12:21 pm

It's really interesting how Duchamp's idea about "ready made" has been carried out almost to its full extent in sampler based music.. almost to its full extent! Well, anyway, enough of my Duchamp talk..

"as man is the image of the creator"
Great line by the way...

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 5:40 pm

"as man is the image of the creator"

except that there is no creator in this sense

Post by **garyb** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 10:52 pm

that's what "image" means.man thinks he is,but he is just the image.he thinks he sees,but all he sees is the image.reality is beyond his sight.he sees the picture,but the painter is invisible except for the painting.
what fun!

nicked · Post by **nicked** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:17 am

women respond to bass

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:21 pm

so do men