Is There A Line Between Noise & Music?

If the artist considers it music, it is music. 

Edited by Philéas - November 17 2007 at 17:17

Very cool, thoughtful thread.

Here's my contibution:

Merzbow, Cannibal Corpse and Keith Rowe are music.

Sean Kingston is noise.

Of course there is -- but it's largely subjective.

Good news, everyone... I found the line:


 
_____________________________________________________________________

 

In all seiousness, I suppose we define music subjectively. I'd like to say there in some definite answer to what music is exactly, but any line drawn by someone else will have a counterexample by another person, and how can one possibly overrule a counterexample based on opinion in fairness.

sounds:
    1)unorganised set of sounds
    2)organised set of sounds
             2.1)for the purpose of communication (excl. communication artist-audience)
             2.2)for the artistical purposes
                      2.2.1)standalone music
                      2.2.2)non-standalone music

examples:

1. traffic jam (non-musical to many), bird song (musical but not music)
2. any set of sounds that humans organise for communication, artistic or otherwise
2.1 speech, yelling, laughter etc. (in communication with other persons)
2.2 organised for the artistic purposes, musical or otherwise
2.2.1 anything that you use to reflect a (piece of) nature (the very definition of art: to be a reflection of a nature) that could stand alone without other media
2.2.2 same as above but incorporated in other art forms (sound effects for a theatre play)

This sections may intersect to some extent: you can use music (2.2.1) as speech (2.1) (singing a song to a girl to express love, singing a weeping song to express sorrow for dead grandparent). (Same can be done (also in a limited way) with other art forms; if I am a painter and I paint oil on canvas with explicitly erotic content and I give it as a present  to a girl, I'm also trying to tell her something.)

Sound effects (2.2.2) are used combined with some other art form (multimedia art project, theatre, dance, movie). They can also be a standalone musical piece without a host (soundtrack), but the listener  must mentally host  music into the border of a context. You can listen a soundtrack without knowing that is a soundtrack or without knowing the existence of a movie, but however, music must be NESTED in an orchestra or on a recorded CD.  Sheet music on a piece of paper is also art; because the written play never played on stage could be readen and experienced artistically.
However, if music exist only in one's head,  it doesn't exist as art (same for all art forms). Of course, if we accept a point of view that art that was/is/never will be experienced doesn't exist at all.

The perfromed concerto in  a hall or on a  sea shore is not the same thing if composer intended to incorporate the sound of seagulls and waves. If that wasn't composers intention, then those sounds are simply a background noise during the performance, like a cough in audience. So music is all about context: nesting, hosting, packaging, quod errat demonstrandum.

Not if its done from an artistic view point

It occurs to me that many of the different opinions in this thread arise because different people mean different things when they say "noise."

goose wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   It would only take an artist with a "name" to do just that.   As to waves crashing on a beach, there are about 20 minutes of those on Camel's "Harbour of Tears" - and it's part of the album, therefore it's part of the music as the artists intented.   Maybe I should go back through this thread, but time is short...     >Is John Cage's 4'33" music? Logically, if you allow that any piece of music can contain rests, this is just a piece of music with four (?) consecutive, very long rests. I don't think it would be said that the use of a general pause for effect in a piece is unmusical, and these are certainly pauses used for effect.

Edited by Certif1ed - November 13 2007 at 08:45