Are Certain Genres Not "Music"?

The word genre is meaningless without another word that goes with it, so when you ask if a certain genre of music is well, music then of course it is.

Are certain genres of art not music? Of course.

You could rightfully ask a question that refers to sound art genera being classified as music or not.

If the gist of your question is whether certain free improvisation or sound collage works are music then i guess the answer would be: it  depends on the listener.

Some music is so obscured by mystery that there is music lurking beneath but it comes off as gibberish.

Think about scores like "Kontakte" by Stockhausen which sounds like a smattering of randomness but in fact is quite structured and complex in its compositional approach therefore yes, it is music but lurking in a sea of abstractness that may not make it recognizably so.

As far as if artists like AMM or the noise of Merzbow are musical, i guess that's a gray area of interpretation which is probably what the artists were trying to achieve, namely attention through controversy.

So I can't really define music per se. It seems to me more like an experience. We can definitely narrowly define it to what most folks traditionally think of as music, but there will always be these gray areas around the edges of this narrow definition.

You can even take a different path with this (though I admit there may be many flaws with this idea). Music can be described by mathematics and in a way you could describe mathematics as a form of music. This would eventually lead some to the idea that the universe is itself music and music is the universe. So I leave that idea for anyone that has nothing to do today to ponder.

For me, music must have musical instruments. A voice is a musical instrument to me. A drum machine is not. Nor is auto-tune and other automated computer generated sh*t.

There are songs that might have a sound such as an actual glass breaking for effect, or the band recording thunder for spice, but there's usually a drum set involved, or a guitar, piano, vocals.

For me, I would guess most rap is not music. For example, The Doors rapped, rhythmically singing lyrics with music... Sampling is lazy corporate business bullsh*t. Taking a hit song, and just adding an extra layer with auto-tune because one can't sing is degeneracy.

1: "Well, I haven't found anything I like from this genre but I'm willing to take recommendations and give it a fair shot and try to understand the appeal"

or,

2: "I've given this style a fair shot and at the end of the day, it just isn't for me. But if you enjoy it, more power to you, maybe one day i'll come around to it"

I feel like both of these are totally understandable, way more productive and far less offensive than trying to do mental gymnastics to scientifically prove that a genre of music you don't like or understand, can't even be called music.

The fact that a musical approach is deemed a genre must mean it is a form of music.   However, a discussion about what music itself is, as opposed to sound without thought or form, is an entirely reasonable and worthwhile topic.

OK, I'm going to get serious on this, maybe too serious...

1

I don't believe that there is an objectively true meaning of a word. Words are not defined in a neutral vacuum. They are defined by use and by use they are changed. The meaning of most words is floating, and different people can legitimately use different meanings of the same word.

2

That said, obviously language is used to achieve (at least the illusion of) understanding, so uses of the same word are usually more or less strongly connected. I can say the wind outside is music but Beethoven's Fifth isn't, but the only thing that this would achieve is that nobody would take me seriously.

3

So every person can legitimately have their own concept of music but the vast majority of these will be fairly similar. Although I'm not sure whether when coming to the definition there is much more that people could agree on than that music is made of of sound (if not necessarily 100%), 99.9% of people will agree on many many works being music, and chances are even regarding those that are controversial (noise, field recordings, spoken word dominated stuff) most could agree on what makes them controversial, if not necessarily on the same side of the argument.

4

But why does there even have to be an argument? If hip hop is music for me but not for X, I could well say, so be it, we don't have to agree, or (this is different!) X has no right to tell me what I should think is music and neither do I have a right to tell them.

5

Probably the more interesting question than "what is music" is: How is the statement "Y is not music" used? What does the person who says that want to convey? Just that Y does not fit their personal definition of music but everybody else can disagree no problem? If that were the case, it wouldn't be very interesting, would it? But there are other meanings, for example "I hate it but want to give my personal hate a more general and objective feel" (then one could say this in order to clarify), or "I don't see a reason to listen to it; it's outside the range of things that I consider valuable even to try to get a music experience" - which is all fine as long as it's personal, but I wonder whether these persons think that "Y is not music" should have consequences for other people (like never inviting people who do Y to perform on music festivals).

6

Personally I don't find it very relevant where to draw the line, as for me it doesn't have much implication whether something is "really music" or not. I may like or not like to hear it regardless. Being music is not a category that implies or is necessary for quality of listening. At the same time I'm very interested in the issue because I think that the attempt to extend the borders of music leads to creative and interesting work. Much of what I listen to is in the "grey area", often consciously put there by the artists. "What is music" can be inspiring as a question, and this is what I like about it.

7

Twice, in different ways, I was in a conversation with friends (once with musician friends, once with a friend who has a bit of a comedian ambition) about whatever, and we started spontaneously and more or less smoothly to make the conversation about the sound rather than what it was originally about, for example by repeating sentences, and making them consciously sound in a way that would evoke "musical qualities", leaving the "content" on its own. Music or not music, not so important, but the concept of musicality was very important for this. The first rappers may have got into it in the same manner. Still there are people who discover musical qualities of what they're doing while speaking, and who may then consciously go further in that direction (although of course now rap is all over the place and not much originality or "discovery" is needed to have this idea... except that it can be done in quite different ways as well).

8

I do have a tendency to think that music happens (and is in this sense produced) in the listener's ear. I can enhance my experience of daily life (or get into some kind of meditation) sometimes by trying to consciously listen to what's around me as music (if sometimes this "music" is not good... but often it is). Once more, the question whether it really is music is ultimately not important, but the "concept" of music is, as a different more conscious mode of listening. I may even catch myself imagining a musician arranging what I hear, but obviously that's nonsense. The only person who arranges it is myself, despite not being involved in the sound creation.   

9

I'm surely not alone with this. I read Irmin Schmidt and Holger Czukay (Can) saying similar things about their listening experiences, as well as Asmus Tietchens, Fred Frith, and a number of avantgarde musicians. The whole "genre" of field recording is built on that. 

10

"Intention" of the musician - I'm not so sure how important that is. To say that "Music is what is made with the intention to make music" as a definition is circular. The intention needs to be described without referring to music. "Arrangement of sound for listening pleasure"? Well, not all music is meant to please the ears... maybe "arrangement of sounds by criteria based on listening experience" (what about Beethoven when he was already deaf?)

If I hear something as music, whether I like it or not, what difference does it make what the intention was behind putting together the sounds in this way, or if there was any?

   

11

Then there's a whole different kind of approach to learning and teaching music, of specific rules of harmony and melody and rhythm, of "what goes" according to some rules (that I do not deny have strong some experience and wisdom behind them, if culturally constrained), or just about a more or less informed intuition of musicality - or at a much higher expert level about learning/studying an instrument or composition. This may be "sold" in some sense as essence of music. Again I believe what is important about this is the positive discovery and refinement of rules and conditions of "musicality" of a certain kind. Much quality comes from this. The exclusion side of it - "it's not music if it doesn't work according to these rules" - doesn't seem to be productive to me, or rather, it has been productive only by giving rise to rebellion, and extension of the range of what can count as music. But fair enough, not only the perfection of established kinds of music, also instigating rebellion and creativity that runs against it are achievements, so fine by me.

  

12

And then there's all kinds of mixtures between music and other art forms such as rap or "sound installation", music to convey non-musical messages etc. Are these music? Don't know. Is it important? What are the implications for you of locating something inside or outside music?

TheLionOfPrague wrote: Reggeaton.