TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- John Cage - 4'33"
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Cage "composed" it, but he would have no idea what it sounded like each time. I think it's just a bit of semantic pedantry to call it music. Any sound can produce an emotional response- whether it's birdsong, a baby crying or an alarm clock going off infinitely. By that definition, if I tapped irregularly on a table edge to irritate someone, I'm performing music. The only difference is the context, and that shows how hollow modern art can be- it is often affirmed merely by its context. People will actually think about what something has to say artistically simply because they've paid to see it and think about it in that way. It's almost an art prank in itself.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Pisses you off, doesn't it?

Yes, and some people do (as well as make you feel happy and sad...) and i can assure you that they don't perform art of any sorts!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Cage "composed" it, but he would have no idea what it sounded like each time. I think it's just a bit of semantic pedantry to call it music. Any sound can produce an emotional response- whether it's birdsong, a baby crying or an alarm clock going off infinitely. By that definition, if I tapped irregularly on a table edge to irritate someone, I'm performing music. The only difference is the context, and that shows how hollow modern art can be- it is often affirmed merely by its context. People will actually think about what something has to say artistically simply because they've paid to see it and think about it in that way. It's almost an art prank in itself.

Exactly, very well put. If someones simply says that he/she performs "art",and he puts his creations in a certain context, which in turn is well supported and hyped by some related higher institution or authority (e.g. a famous art-critic, or another artist)could simply directly influence the ignorant. People who are simply exposed to that context (and who don't know whats the difference between baroque and romanticism), would tend to believe it and suppport it. In the end they will praise it as the "next big thing", which is "full of ideas", is "groundbreaking" and evokes "strong emotions"...

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes, and some people do (as well as make you feel happy and sad...) and i can assure you that they don't perform art of any sorts!

Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard.

Because then you're well on the way to making "art" a redundant term.

Is a spoonful of peanut butter music? What genre does it fall under?

Or how about the sounds made by somebody eating a peanut butter sandwich? Is that music?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Or how about the sounds made by somebody eating a peanut butter sandwich? Is that music?

Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it.

At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Because then you're well on the way to making "art" a redundant term.

Don't look at me. I've never done it, but I doubt that means no one has.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it. At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole.

Nice post!

I forgot about that thread and i just noticed the responses...sorry. Anyway here we go.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard.

Thats my criteria for something to be art...


1)It must involve some kind of conscious creation (people as you said fail this criterion because they were automatically created by DNA "programs".)


2) It must involve some aesthetic quality, be it good or bad, positive or negative, dark or lightfull.



3)It has to express or symbolise something. Thats why art is performed in the first place. Its like an external representation (painting,music bla bla bla) of an internal representation (a thought, a feeling, an "image"-auditory, visual, tactile etc.)that for some (posibly affective-emotional) reason desperately needs to get out of one's mind.



Things that miss any of these three are not considered "ART" IMO and this is what most people think about art anyway (i think).

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it. At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole.

The way you put it, its like there is no difference between music, noise and silence. THERE IS or else we wouldn't have three different words for them. These phenomenological notions of music as "what you think is what you get" are driven by modern-20th century (existential-phenomenological) philosophy and are totally wrong IMO since they distort what music IS in the first place. Not only that but makes anyone a potential artist and potential musician since talking, knocking on one's door and cleaning with the hoover-cleaner are all potential music-pieces. Which they aren't. And anyway they fail to pass the three statements i made before of what potentialy can constitute art and music (and Cage failed to create anything at all!).




According to wikipedia:

Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence. It is expressed in terms of pitch (which includes melody and harmony), rhythm (which includes tempo and meter), and the quality of sound (which includes timbre, articulation, dynamics, and texture). Music may also involve generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound. Music may be used for artistic or aesthetic, communicative, entertainment, or ceremonial purposes. The definition of what constitutes music varies according to culture and social context.





This last phrase is driven by 20th century modern notions and i don't think that every-one agrees with it. Its not strange that every cultire in the world makes and listens to music the way music is defined by wikipedia. Not a single tribe have called silence or the roaring of the tiger as music. These primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of music something that these modern pseudo-abstract notions clearly fail IMO.

Go read:

The Tuning of the World by R. Schaffer

and

The Futurist Manifesto by Luigi Russolo

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I forgot about that thread and i just noticed the responses...sorry. Anyway here we go. Thats my criteria for something to be art... 1)It must involve some kind of conscious creation (people as you said fail this criterion because they were automatically created by DNA "programs".) 2) It must involve some aesthetic quality, be it good or bad, positive or negative, dark or lightfull. 3)It has to express or symbolise something. Thats why art is performed in the first place. Its like an external representation (painting,music bla bla bla) of an internal representation (a thought, a feeling, an "image"-auditory, visual, tactile etc.)that for some (posibly affective-emotional) reason desperately needs to get out of one's mind. Things that miss any of these three are not considered "ART" IMO and this is what most people think about art anyway (i think). The way you put it, its like there is no difference between music, noise and silence. THERE IS or else we wouldn't have three different words for them. These phenomenological notions of music as "what you think is what you get" are driven by modern-20th century (existential-phenomenological) philosophy and are totally wrong IMO since they distort what music IS in the first place. Not only that but makes anyone a potential artist and potential musician since talking, knocking on one's door and cleaning with the hoover-cleaner are all potential music-pieces. Which they aren't. And anyway they fail to pass the three statements i made before of what potentialy can constitute art and music (and Cage failed to create anything at all!). According to wikipedia: Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence. It is expressed in terms of pitch (which includes melody and harmony), rhythm (which includes tempo and meter), and the quality of sound (which includes timbre, articulation, dynamics, and texture). Music may also involve generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound. Music may be used for artistic or aesthetic, communicative, entertainment, or ceremonial purposes. The definition of what constitutes music varies according to culture and social context. This last phrase is driven by 20th century modern notions and i don't think that every-one agrees with it. Its not strange that every cultire in the world makes and listens to music the way music is defined by wikipedia. Not a single tribe have called silence or the roaring of the tiger as music. These primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of music something that these modern pseudo-abstract notions clearly fail IMO.

I stand by my opinion that anything can potentially be music just as with any other art. Just because you don't perceive someone talking as music doesn't mean someone else can't. The definition wiki gives is merely an attempt to define music, which I think can't truly be done. Truth is, everyone has their own unique definition of what music really is, therefore it cannot have one definition.

Take something like being outside and hearing birds chirping. I regard this as music. Do the birds actually mean to create music? No, they're only communicating with each other. If I hear this and personally think of it as music, then its music to me and thats all that matters. I just think music is one of those things that isn't nor ever will be completely understood and defined.

Chirping birds had a large influence on composers/orchestras post renaissance...


seriously go read "tuning the world"

quote:

Originally posted by tranceDJ I stand by my opinion that anything can potentially be music just as with any other art. Just because you don't perceive someone talking as music doesn't mean someone else can't. The definition wiki gives is merely an attempt to define music, which I think can't truly be done. Truth is, everyone has their own unique definition of what music really is, therefore it cannot have one definition. Take something like being outside and hearing birds chirping. I regard this as music. Do the birds actually mean to create music? No, they're only communicating with each other. If I hear this and personally think of it as music, then its music to me and thats all that matters. I just think music is one of those things that isn't nor ever will be completely understood and defined.

So, the picture of a city is art, the view of a mountain is like a painting, the volcano is sculpture, building a house or a toilet can be perceived as an artistic creation, the continuous slapping in the face can be cosidered as music and as artistic creation, shouting at one is music, brushing the house walls can be considered painting, typing is music, two cars crushing is music, an aeroplane crushing is music, washing the clothes is music and art generally, fixing a computer is sculpture...the list is endless...


conclusion...

Everything Is and Can be potentially art (and how this potentiality is defined?By merely saying that something is art? )

Is that your definition of art?

If i'm mistaken then give your definition of what constitutes art then. I gave mine. Is good to stand by your thoughts and beliefs but if these thoughts are somehow irrational and don't correspond to reality then they are wrong aren't they? I can support and say anything i like, i can say that water is not made by H2O but from cosmic bubbles and that everything is made by cosmic bubbles, so everything is water in a sense. Am i supposed to be right?

p.s.(and the bird-song actually can be perceived as music because it obeys the definition by wikipedia).

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Go read: The Tuning of the World by R. Schaffer The Futurist Manifesto by Luigi Russolo

From what i read "the tuning of the world" is concerned with the notion of the "soundscape" (as a parallelism to landscape) as a potentioally threatening environment for mankind. i read that this book is concerned with the increasing threat of noise pollution on the 20th century, especially with the presence of "continuous noises" that result from electric machines (whereas in the past noises were spontaneous e.g. the bells ringing). I can't see how ths is related to art?

As for the other book, the only "futurist manifesto" i found was the original political movement that started in the beginning of the 20th century in italy by someone called Marinetti F.T. a book is written about it by some italian authors with the mane one being Apollonio. It is about the contributions of technology in general and how anything classical should be thrown-out. Its an extreme movement which was though to lead in italian fascism. I read that Russolo you mention was a member of the futurists and Musollini was as well!(lol).I think the book you mention is "the art of noise manifesto" by Russolo. Anyway, futurism was an extreme position and i think no-one has to take it seriously.

bleh no use. and obviously i meant the art of noise manifesto.



plain and simple i don't agree with you.

Petran, I take issue with the third aspect of your definition. More important is that it illicit emotion or thoughts in the perceiver, to whatever degree. This doesn't exclude your definition, because a work that means something to the creator means something to at least one person.

For this reason, art is impossible to pigeonhole like you want to. I say, if someone else is moved to the point of calling something art, I won't waste energy on disagreeing, because obviously they feel that the work deserved the appellation they give it.

That's a quality response.


I really like that way of looking at it and when having this debate again may reference this particular thought.

eh, its alright. i think a sean tyas rework will make it proper

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN 2) It must involve some aesthetic quality, be it good or bad, positive or negative, dark or lightfull.

is there anything that doesn't meet this requirement?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN 3)It has to express or symbolise something. Thats why art is performed in the first place. Its like an external representation (painting,music bla bla bla) of an internal representation (a thought, a feeling, an "image"-auditory, visual, tactile etc.)that for some (posibly affective-emotional) reason desperately needs to get out of one's mind.

two ways to interpret this requirement, one which leads to the same rhetorical question as above, and one which leads to you and everyone else having to realize that an amazing amount of things they used to term "art" are anything but art.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN The way you put it, its like there is no difference between music, noise and silence. THERE IS or else we wouldn't have three different words for them.

no objective difference - plenty of subjective difference left.
edit: i meant no objective difference between music and noise or between music and silence. an objective difference between noise and silence clearly exists. (unless you wanna debate the existence of objectivity at large, an argument i'd gladly partake in )

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN These phenomenological notions of music as "what you think is what you get" are driven by modern-20th century (existential-phenomenological) philosophy and are totally wrong IMO since they distort what music IS in the first place.

are things driven by modern-20th century philosophy inherently 'totally' wrong?
you ascribe these philosophies with distorting what music actually is and was - what is (& was) music? who determined what it is and was?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Not only that but makes anyone a potential artist and potential musician since talking, knocking on one's door and cleaning with the hoover-cleaner are all potential music-pieces. Which they aren't. And anyway they fail to pass the three statements i made before of what potentialy can constitute art and music (and Cage failed to create anything at all!).

are you not noticing your extensive use of circular reasoning here?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN According to wikipedia: Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence.

so far so good, 4'33" was organized, and contained both audible sounds and silence.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It is expressed in terms of pitch (which includes melody and harmony), rhythm (which includes tempo and meter), and the quality of sound (which includes timbre, articulation, dynamics, and texture).

no problems yet, considering no sound can exist that can not be 'expressed in terms of pitch, rhythm, and the quality of sound'.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Music may also involve generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound. Music may be used for artistic or aesthetic, communicative, entertainment, or ceremonial purposes. The definition of what constitutes music varies according to culture and social context.

and no need to even address this portion since it only describes things music may be and do...

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN This last phrase is driven by 20th century modern notions and i don't think that every-one agrees with it. Its not strange that every cultire in the world makes and listens to music the way music is defined by wikipedia. Not a single tribe have called silence or the roaring of the tiger as music. These primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of music something that these modern pseudo-abstract notions clearly fail IMO.

most (if not all) tribes thought the world is flat, had every star revolving around it (at best), et cetera.

these primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of astrophysics (among other sciences) that our modern psuedo-abstract notions clearly fail IYO(?).


oh and btw, in case you didn't notice, your wikipedia quote said nothing of necessity for conscious intention to create sound or express anything by it.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex I say, if someone else is moved to the point of calling something art, I won't waste energy on disagreeing, because obviously they feel that the work deserved the appellation they give it.

Ok, and if i say that by responding in trance-addict, i perform proper science and i get thousands of responses that support my new "groundbreaking idea" (and angry responses that i obviously don't), since some crazy people just like the "groundbreaking idea" that responding on internet forums is purely scientific, (and that they, themselves are actual scientists!)it means that i deserved the appelliation they gave me (and remember it is only after I've done it, that people liked it, agreed on that and certified me as a scientist)and that i must be a proper scientist! And believe me...it CAN happen in 2007...

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T is there anything that doesn't meet this requirement?

Tools and Tool-making is the first example that comes to mind. There is nothing beautiful in a swiss army knife.

quote:

two ways to interpret this requirement, one which leads to the same rhetorical question as above, and one which leads to you and everyone else having to realize that an amazing amount of things they used to term "art" are anything but art.

I can't see how is this interpreted in more then one ways. Its simple. Someone feels melancholic (affective reason) for something (internal representation), and so he/she need to put it out of himself/herself into a piece of art such a painting, a piece of music or sculpture (external representation) that doesn't necessary correspond to the image of his/her internal representation. This could also be an abstraction. (e.g. feeling melancholic about a woman makes someone create music instead of a direct copy of the same woman).

quote:

no objective difference - plenty of subjective difference left.edit: i meant no objective difference between music and noise or between music and silence. an objective difference between noise and silence clearly exists. (unless you wanna debate the existence of objectivity at large, an argument i'd gladly partake in )

I think this is ambiquous. I think there is an objective difference between music and noise and this is that, music could be said to involve the complex temporal organisation of sound e.g. a saw-wave is spaced in more equal intervals whereas the waves of noise are all over the place. I think there must be a remarkable correspondence between what the physics demonstrate and what people would generally tend to report and between music theory and subjective perceptions.

A here is a scientific explanation that tackles what we exactly have stated.


http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...07051.Ph.r.html

(it also states that in the "broader definition" of music John Cage's can be considered as music.)

and there is a experimental psychology project running right now with the purpose of investigating these matters so we should keep in touch with them...!

http://www.scienceproject.com/proje...diate/IP004.asp

quote:

are things driven by modern-20th century philosophy inherently 'totally' wrong? you ascribe these philosophies with distorting what music actually is and was - what is (& was) music? who determined what it is and was?

They are not inherently wrong, but there must be compared to previous theories since previous theories are more well established. The term "Music" and the complex symbolic theory behind "music" and its physical and perceptual manifestations was founded in ancient greece by the pythagoreans (if i remember) and was extensively developed through-out the centuries where we get at the "mastering" of it during and after the renaissance.

Now because the industrial revolution happened and some lazy crackpot likes to "liberate" everything because he likes how the factories sound like, and throw centuries of thinking and contributions away doesn't mean he is right, correct? Music theory is well established and takes years to master it. It is astonishing how well is mathematically founded. Its beauty, elegance and complexity are second to none. So, thank you. I Prefer not to follow this modern notion, which in the end of the day represents a tiny minority of what music is.

quote:

are you not noticing your extensive use of circular reasoning here?

No, i can't see it lol.

quote:

so far so good, 4'33" was organized, and contained both audible sounds and silence.

I saw that in the first link before but i still can't understand where is the "organisation". Isn't organisation about the production of meaningfull patterns? How a car's sound is organised? I can't see how the temporal seggregation between sound and silence of the current "creation" is organised since nothing can predict the appearance of sound or silence. The sound of the car is an unpredictable event isn't it? Or just because i say its "art" suddenly everything is "organised"?

quote:

no problems yet, considering no sound can exist that can not be 'expressed in terms of pitch, rhythm, and the quality of sound

and where exactly was the pitch (melody) and the rhythm in the current musical "creation"?

quote:

and no need to even address this portion since it only describes things music may be and do..

Yes but it reflects the agreed consensus so it must hold truth right? Since it derives from centuries of agreed subjectivities it msut be objective. Surely it must have more weight then me now saying "music is the voices of aliens from from andromeda galaxy" correct?

quote:

most (if not all) tribes thought the world is flat, had every star revolving around it (at best), et cetera. these primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of astrophysics (among other sciences) that our modern psuedo-abstract notions clearly fail IYO(?).

This is a wrong argument you make. When we talk about universals we talk about properties and functions that seem to be inherent in humanity's behaviour. Examples are, language, arithmecy, music, dancing and causal thinking (there are more). What you say its just a property that results from a universal-that is "making inferences"-not the universal itself. In your example the universal is truely present in all humanity although its content varies and is context-dependent.Whilst all tribes make inferences about the world, their explanations vary. In the current case the universal is "making logical inferences" or "reason". The content of the universal COULD be "the earth is flat". The content would vary from culture to culture.

Your example in the "music" case, could have been equal to "all human music is based on four-to-the-floor rhythms".In the current case the universal is music (which agrees with non-modern futuristic notions) and a potential content could be the appearance of rhythms through-out various geographic regions.

It is not strange that music theory has developed on top of these primitive universals rather then the "all-is-art" interpretations you support. If that was the case then we wouldn't even have notes since we wouldn't need them. I stand by these last arguments as the strongest against these modern notions which are cool ideas but they clearly don't reflect what is really happening and what usually tends to occur.

quote:

oh and btw, in case you didn't notice, your wikipedia quote said nothing of necessity for conscious intention to create sound or express anything by it.

Yes i know since this is just mine definition which i believe reflects lots of peoples notions about what constitutes art. I was discussing this with two friends, one is a professional pianist the other starts his career in composition and they completely agreed. If you ask any professionally trained musician he/she would tell you that 20th century ideas like Cage's are ok and cool but definitely thay are flawed and that they constitute biased musical philosophy.It is no starnge that even now, decades after Cage's work NO ONE has ever played "music" the way he ment. This should mean something...

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T so far so good, 4'33" was organized, and contained both audible sounds and silence.

The sounds aren't organised. Like I said- Cage would never be able to know what the track would sound like each time. The "audible sounds" are only available in a live setting and are entirely random and incidental. If 4.33 ever sounded like it was written to sound, it would sound like nothing. And so there's nothing audible in it, and it isn't music.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The sounds aren't organised. Like I said- Cage would never be able to know what the track would sound like each time. The "audible sounds" are only available in a live setting and are entirely random and incidental. If 4.33 ever sounded like it was written to sound, it would sound like nothing. And so there's nothing audible in it, and it isn't music.

i didn't claim the sounds are organised, i claimed the composition is organised. and the fact that in a vacuum it would be different has no relevance to the issue since 1. vacuums only exist in hypotheticals, and 2. almost everything would behave differently in a vacuum.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Ok, and if i say that by responding in trance-addict, i perform proper science and i get thousands of responses that support my new "groundbreaking idea" (and angry responses that i obviously don't), since some crazy people just like the "groundbreaking idea" that responding on internet forums is purely scientific, (and that they, themselves are actual scientists!)it means that i deserved the appelliation they gave me (and remember it is only after I've done it, that people liked it, agreed on that and certified me as a scientist)and that i must be a proper scientist! And believe me...it CAN happen in 2007...

Are you asserting that art and science are so comparable?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Tools and Tool-making is the first example that comes to mind. There is nothing beautiful in a swiss army knife.

is one of these more beautiful/ugly than the other?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I can't see how is this interpreted in more then one ways. Its simple. Someone feels melancholic (affective reason) for something (internal representation), and so he/she need to put it out of himself/herself into a piece of art such a painting, a piece of music or sculpture (external representation) that doesn't necessary correspond to the image of his/her internal representation. This could also be an abstraction. (e.g. feeling melancholic about a woman makes someone create music instead of a direct copy of the same woman).

it's simple, someone makes music (or something that sounds strangely alike to music) without a statement, without emotion, and without intention to express anything with it. either his music (and many others') isn't really music, or this requirement is null because it becomes another 'may'.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I think this is ambiquous. I think there is an objective difference between music and noise and this is that, music could be said to involve the complex temporal organisation of sound e.g. a saw-wave is spaced in more equal intervals whereas the waves of noise are all over the place. I think there must be a remarkable correspondence between what the physics demonstrate and what people would generally tend to report and between music theory and subjective perceptions. A here is a scientific explanation that tackles what we exactly have stated. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...07051.Ph.r.html (it also states that in the "broader definition" of music John Cage's can be considered as music.) and there is a experimental psychology project running right now with the purpose of investigating these matters so we should keep in touch with them...! http://www.scienceproject.com/proje...diate/IP004.asp

music (like art) is an inherently subjective term (moreso than noise and silence are), hence there can be no objective difference between music and noise.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Now because the industrial revolution happened and some lazy crackpot likes to "liberate" everything because he likes how the factories sound like, and throw centuries of thinking and contributions away doesn't mean he is right, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Music theory is well established and takes years to master it. It is astonishing how well is mathematically founded. Its beauty, elegance and complexity are second to none. [/quote nature provides even more elegance, complexity, and adherence to mathematical formulas than classical music did and does, yet you deny it the right to be called Art. [QUOTE]Originally posted by PETRAN So, thank you. I Prefer not to follow this modern notion, which in the end of the day represents a tiny minority of what music is.

err, 'this modern notion' is all-encompassing in its claim that all can be music, including everything you do agree deserves the term music. so if it's a question of how large a percentage of things a certain theory encompasses, you're on the wrong side

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN No, i can't see it lol.

how can you miss it? your entire post was full of that fallacy

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN I saw that in the first link before but i still can't understand where is the "organisation". Isn't organisation about the production of meaningfull patterns? How a car's sound is organised? I can't see how the temporal seggregation between sound and silence of the current "creation" is organised since nothing can predict the appearance of sound or silence. The sound of the car is an unpredictable event isn't it? Or just because i say its "art" suddenly everything is "organised"?

as i wrote in my reply to system j, it's not the organistion of sound, rather than organisation of the piece (time? tempo? key? required instruments? players? et cetera).

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and where exactly was the pitch (melody) and the rhythm in the current musical "creation"?

in any audible sound and pattern heard througout the preformence. btw, pitch does not automatically translate to mean melody, every sound has pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes but it reflects the agreed consensus so it must hold truth right? Since it derives from centuries of agreed subjectivities it msut be objective. Surely it must have more weight then me now saying "music is the voices of aliens from from andromeda galaxy" correct?

i didn't even address its truth value
whether or not it holds truth is irrelevant to whether it is a requirement or not.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN This is a wrong argument you make. When we talk about universals we talk about properties and functions that seem to be inherent in humanity's behaviour. Examples are, language, arithmecy, music, dancing and causal thinking (there are more). What you say its just a property that results from a universal-that is "making inferences"-not the universal itself. In your example the universal is truely present in all humanity although its content varies and is context-dependent.Whilst all tribes make inferences about the world, their explanations vary. In the current case the universal is "making logical inferences" or "reason". The content of the universal COULD be "the earth is flat". The content would vary from culture to culture. Your example in the "music" case, could have been equal to "all human music is based on four-to-the-floor rhythms".In the current case the universal is music (which agrees with non-modern futuristic notions) and a potential content could be the appearance of rhythms through-out various geographic regions.

i'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying here. the last portion of my post was an analogy designed to show that just because something has quite a history of being the accepted standard does not mean that it is true.

your reply to it should ideally be accepting the analogy as valid and considering its effects on your arguments, or showing it to be an invalid analogy (if this is what you were trying to do here, please rephrase).

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It is not strange that music theory has developed on top of these primitive universals rather then the "all-is-art" interpretations you support. If that was the case then we wouldn't even have notes since we wouldn't need them. I stand by these last arguments as the strongest against these modern notions which are cool ideas but they clearly don't reflect what is really happening and what usually tends to occur.

all-is-art does not imply all art to be equal in the attention it receives and the enjoyment it brings to others among other things, notes would still have their place, and likely the same one they have had in our actual world.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes i know since this is just mine definition which i believe reflects lots of peoples notions about what constitutes art. I was discussing this with two friends, one is a professional pianist the other starts his career in composition and they completely agreed. If you ask any professionally trained musician he/she would tell you that 20th century ideas like Cage's are ok and cool but definitely thay are flawed and that they constitute biased musical philosophy.It is no starnge that even now, decades after Cage's work NO ONE has ever played "music" the way he ment. This should mean something...

and it does, it means most people don't enjoy Cage's work and the work of others inspired by his ideas. and btw, lol at the bias argument - asking the most likely proponents of the time-cherished classical movement and theories for their opinion on something that (in their minds) negates their life's work.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.