It's something I've been pondering about for a while now.
In graphic art it's pretty simple, as from what i understand it's simply a measure for how far it's removed from actual real world objects. But in music i don't find it that obvious, because all music can be seen as an abstraction. And i'm not sure what would lie on the other end of the scale, what is 'real' music?
At first i thought it was just a measure for how much it leaves to the imagination, how obvious or abundant it is. Synonymous with terms like 'deep' or 'intelligent'. But apart from being rather subjective and vague it also conflicts with how i'd categorize EDM genres by their abstraction when going by intuition.
Normally i'd say techno is more abstract then house. And IDM is more abstract then techno. However things like braindance IDM or breakcore are not exactly subtle, but i'd still call them abstract.
This would imply that it has more to do with how far it's removed from something. Possibly the more 'human' elements in music. Or 'soul'?
So there'll probably some more music-savvy who can explain it a bit better. As well as discussing what genre's can be considered abstract.
SYSTEM-J
I never really thought about music in terms of abstraction, because in music more than most artistic forms, subject and object collapse into one and conventional semiotic processes don't really apply. I think most of the people who use "abstract" just use it as a synonym for "weird". I heard someone call my Post Apocalyptic mix "abstract" and I found it a really strange concept.
I guess you could say that music rooted in conventional instrumental and vocal origins - where the sounds are the clear result of the live performance of real instruments - has the relationship between a real physical process and the music. Abstract music would be divorced from what is seen as the real, live process of performance. It would be music that is just sound, with no connotations of any corresponding physical event in its creation.
ripped
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
your post is very abstract
and what does "conventional semiotic processes" mean?
Bierheld
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I never really thought about music in terms of abstraction, because in music more than most artistic forms, subject and object collapse into one and conventional semiotic processes don't really apply. I think most of the people who use "abstract" just use it as a synonym for "weird". I heard someone call my Post Apocalyptic mix "abstract" and I found it a really strange concept.
I guess you could say that music rooted in conventional instrumental and vocal origins - where the sounds are the clear result of the live performance of real instruments - has the relationship between a real physical process and the music. Abstract music would be divorced from what is seen as the real, live process of performance. It would be music that is just sound, with no connotations of any corresponding physical event in its creation.
Well all music is just sound of course. Tribal music for instance has a lot of characteristics i'd associate with abstract music. As it's very sterile and minimalistic, yet it's also as musical as it gets in terms of origins and the feeling it induces. There has to be some sort of inherent musical effect you can associate with certain sounds for it to make sense. Otherwise it becomes all about what you're used to wrapping your head around.
Music seems to work in contrasts sometimes. It's like the inherent machine romance present in electronic music. With the original techno producers claiming they were inspired by the factories they worked in.
Machines are all about function and as such have little if anything to do with what music is all about.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by ripped
your post is very abstract
and what does "conventional semiotic processes" mean?
Basically this:
I just mean Lesson 1 basics of understanding semiotics. Long before abstract art even really existed, music always complicated these basic ideas about meaning and understanding art. That's why Walter Pater, who was a Victorian art critic, famously said: "All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music, because, in its ideal, consummate moments, the end is not distinct from the means, the form from the matter, the subject from the expression; and to it therefore, to the condition of its performance."
ripped
is this abstract enough?
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Bierheld
Well all music is just sound of course.
Yeah, but some sounds are more abstract than others. A recording of rainfall is less sonically abstract than an acid line, a recording of someone crying is also less emotionally abstract than a piano melody. Then there are lyrics, which are just sounds where abstraction has been given meaning through a semiotic system called language. And so on.
Bierheld
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yeah, but some sounds are more abstract than others. A recording of rainfall is less sonically abstract than an acid line, a recording of someone crying is also less emotionally abstract than a piano melody. Then there are lyrics, which are just sounds where abstraction has been given meaning through a semiotic system called language. And so on.
That's exactly the sort of link i was looking for.
The opposing is element is not 'human', but 'nature'. Tribal is not abstract because it's a naturally occurring sound effect. It's starting to make a bit more sense now. Although it could still have a bit to do with what we've been exposed to the most, because the spectrum of sound we consider to be musical seems rather too stretchable to have such an earthly basis.
Bierheld
quote:
Originally posted by ripped
is this abstract enough?
It's really rather funny that this in general is hold in much higher regard then something like wubstep while there really isn't much difference in aesthetics, apart from more clean and elegant production.
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I guess you could say that music rooted in conventional instrumental and vocal origins - where the sounds are the clear result of the live performance of real instruments - has the relationship between a real physical process and the music. Abstract music would be divorced from what is seen as the real, live process of performance. It would be music that is just sound, with no connotations of any corresponding physical event in its creation.
Yeah, that is one meaning.
There is also the idea of "absolute music," meaning music that is not written to accompany anything else (stories, or images, or activities like dancing or ceremonies). In that sense any music made "just for listening" could be called "abstract" or "absolute."
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Vector A
Yeah, that is one meaning.
There is also the idea of "absolute music," meaning music that is not written to accompany anything else (stories, or images, or activities like dancing or ceremonies). In that sense any music made "just for listening" could be called "abstract" or "absolute."
Sounds kind of like the Dark Matter of musical analysis.
