Is There A Line Between Noise & Music? |
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
Author | |||
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer Joined: March 08 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2755 |
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:21 | ||
Assuming that it evokes a response in somebody, I'd say that you are right.
|
|||
erik neuteboom
Prog Reviewer Joined: July 27 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 7659 |
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:22 | ||
Clarke2001: ironical anology that Vincent Van Gogh painting (in your zig) because in those days his style was considered as quite 'noisy' but nowadays his style is 'hot'
Edited by erik neuteboom - November 12 2007 at 17:24 |
|||
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 18 2006 Status: Offline Points: 7744 |
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:29 | ||
Yes t is organized silence. |
|||
Chris H
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 08 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 8191 |
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:36 | ||
Personally, I think it's all about opinion.
Any music can be considered noise and any noise can be considered music. That's about all there is to it really.
|
|||
Beauty will save the world.
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 03:12 | ||
Christo and Jeanne-Claude effectivelly did that in Austrailia:
|
|||
What?
|
|||
goose
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 20 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4097 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 03:25 | ||
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 goose - November 13 2007 at 03:26 |
|||
A B Negative
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 02 2006 Location: Methil Republic Status: Offline Points: 1594 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 06:06 | ||
Soundgarden's version is my favourite (although they did play it a bit faster than most people are used to).
I agree that music is organised sound (or silence) but I don't know why I love AMMMusic and can't stand Revolution #9 by The Beatles. It may be that I get the idea that The Beatles are just playing at being avant garde, so my preconceptions as a listener are having a bearing on how I respond to the music.
I've just heard that a group called Zeitkratzer has released an orchestral version of Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. I'm going to look for it in the local HMV at lunchtime...
|
|||
"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."
|
|||
A B Negative
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 02 2006 Location: Methil Republic Status: Offline Points: 1594 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 08:13 | ||
...HMV didn't have it. What a surprise!
|
|||
"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."
|
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 08:38 | ||
Theyre not rests - they're movements.
Don't miss the point - the music is generated in the ambience - it's not a series of pauses at all - and it's not about silence, it's organised sound. It's simply that the sounds themselves are random - that doesn't make them any less intentional.
This was a logical extension of Cage's experiments with randomness in music - random factors applied to pitch, duration - even timbre, by attaching various objects inside a piano to create the "prepared piano".
In 4'33", we have organisation - a specific (although entirely optional) duration for the piece - and we have sounds which occur within that organised structure.
Don't confuse the piece with Fünf Pittoresken by Erwin Schulhoff, written 14 years earlier - that was just rests - and a Dadaist experiment rather than a true composition.
If you can't get it at HMV, try Amazon; http://www.amazon.co.uk/433-John-Cage/dp/B000003070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1194961059&sr=8-1
ah... you meant this; http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=+Zeitkratzer+Metal+Machine+Music.&Go.x=10&Go.y=9 Edited by Certif1ed - November 13 2007 at 08:45 |
|||
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 09:01 | ||
(not trying to pick on your posts, you just ask/raise some good questions )
I think it's self-explanatory really - you're not trying to create art when you argue with your parents, but it could be recorded and used in a piece of music.
All of the things you mention are communication, and music is a type of sonic communication - hence the similarities - although as the poet Craig Raine once said "You can't use music to tell people where their baggage is at an airport".
The intention of communication is everything - working out what the artist intended is part of the fun of listening to music (for me, at least...), and part of why we misunderstand each other so frequently, ie, not many people find enjoyment in working out the "artists'" intentions, rather they would prefer, or find it easier to make their own interpretations.
Edited by Certif1ed - November 13 2007 at 09:03 |
|||
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer Joined: March 08 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2755 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 12:46 | ||
It occurs to me that many of the different opinions in this thread arise because different people mean different things when they say "noise."
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 14:18 | ||
^ wise words Phillip, but isn't that the essence of Assaf's original question:
...it does appear that this imaginary line varies from person to person as their personal perception of what is or is not music is set by their own personal boundaries. Is it simply that "noise" takes the listener out of their comfort zone?
So another question would be how is this line set from one person to the next. Is it simply a matter of education, learning to explore new boundaries and experimenting with pushing the received limits of what is acceptable? Or is it something hardwired that cannot be altered?
By that I suppose I am asking whether it is possible to educate someone into accepting Merzbow (or Faust or whatever) as music in the same way that "education" can teach students to understand modern-art as Art?
|
|||
What?
|
|||
mrcozdude
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 25 2007 Location: Devon,UK. Status: Offline Points: 2078 |
Posted: November 13 2007 at 14:32 | ||
Not if its done from an artistic view point
|
|||
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer Joined: March 08 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2755 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 02:33 | ||
Oh, undoubtedly, but I'm the wrong person to tell you how to go about it. I'm sure there are people who would be far more qualified to answer this question around somewhere. I will say that I personally have never been able to play a piece of music proficiently without learning to appreciate it, if not like it.
But bad music is still music, even if it doesn't work for you,, because it works for others. I take noise to be something completely different, although I must admit some sympathy for Buddy Rich's postion here. The story goes that near the end of his life he was in a hospital room. A nurse was there attending him and apparently he groaned or something because she asked him if something was wrong.
He replied, "Country music." Edited by ghost_of_morphy - November 14 2007 at 02:35 |
|||
clarke2001
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 14 2006 Location: Croatia Status: Offline Points: 4160 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 02:43 | ||
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. |
|||
Man With Hat
Collaborator Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team Joined: March 12 2005 Location: Neurotica Status: Offline Points: 166183 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 03:08 | ||
For me, its really about presentation. If someone goes into the studio and bangs the living hell out of the instruments, kicking the chairs all over the room, and slamming windows/doors, I do consider that noise. But, if its organized in some pattern, no matter how chaotic, than its more than just noise. (Even chance music is still organized in some way, though unpredictable, thus I still consider that music).
However, that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable. As I'm sure almost everyone in this thread has said, its certainly up to personal taste. I remember last year in my Intro to Music class, my teacher played this piece (which I unfortunately can't recall the name of) which was written without defined meter and very unconventionally. And the music reflected that. It was mostly if not all dissonant, jagged, undefined, and realitively brutal (especially compared to everything else we listened to). Anyway, this one girl started to freak out when it started to play. She was sitting across the room and I could hear her say, 'what the hell is this? Oh God...you can't call this music. Turn it off!' It made me laugh, mostly because I was enjoying it like nothing else. Me personally, I can listen to a straight noise album, however I don't think I would constantly or consistantly.
Aside from that tangent, I think the best use of noise, and probably the most musical would be in combination with something more melodic. I would also think more people would be willing to accept this as music, instead of just straight up, unrestrained noise (which is fun to make nevertheless...).
After reading over my post I realized I never explictly answered the question: No, for me there is no line, even though I would consider some things noise (which I could also define as music. Another little story: Over the summer I got a new roof put on my house. Certainly the noisiest thing I've heard. However, after awhile it kinda took me into a trance...the consistant pounding, the random slams, bangs, bashes, the almost rhythmic pattern of the nail gun being fired...afterwards I kinda whished I taped it). Edited by Man With Hat - November 14 2007 at 03:13 |
|||
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
|||
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 03:14 | ||
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.
|
|||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 03:59 | ||
I think that "Sound organised in time" is as objective as you can get - there's no opinion in that sentence, although it is rather open-ended;
Obviously, speech is sound organised in time - and we wouldn't generally consider speech to be music (although it's true that Schoenberg developed a spoken/singing style which he called "Sprechgesang", and even some Operas, such as Mozart's "Die Zauberflote" include speech in places, despite the proliferation of recitative).
The other twist to "Sound organised in time" is that anyone can do it - ie, the listener can choose to "organise" sounds by listening for patterns, or even the absence of patterns, if that is what "does it", that create intellectual or emotional stimulation.
Therefore, anyone can be the artist in this scenario, such that music and noise are effectively what we choose them to be, and thus deeply subjective.
It's precisely this co-existing objective/subjective nature of music/art that I find so fascinating about it.
In terms of a "composition", however, I much prefer to explore the composer's objective intentions than my own subjective reactions to it - that way I get to listen to and enjoy a huge variety of music - and can at least attempt to judge it on its own merits rather than my personal taste.
Once you reach an understanding of what the composer was trying to do, the music can take on an extra level of meaning and enjoyment - and even pieces like "Gesang Der Junglinge", "Revolution #9" or "Moon Child" cease sounding like random noise and more like music with artistic intentions.
...so yes, there is a line between noise and music - it all depends on where you choose to draw it at this current time in your life, depending on how intently you choose to listen to what is being communicated to you.
"No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous."
Henry Brooks Adams
|
|||
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 05:19 | ||
|
|||
What?
|
|||
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: November 14 2007 at 15:39 | ||
My music theory teacher stressed this definition:
"Music is the organization of sounds and silences designed to elicit an emotion."
This is a sufficient condition of music, but not a necessary one, in my mind. Music can be accidental, with no intention to make music at all. For example, one shouldn't think a bird's song is designed to illicit an emotion in humans, but it often does (and we hardly regard the illiciting of emotions in non-humans in considering music anyway. How selfish.). Also, the term "organization" implies conscious design, which I don't think is necessary for something to be music. So, how about this definition:
"Music is the not-necessairly conscious organization of sounds and silences that illicits an emotion in a listener."
Perhaps that is even too narrow.
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |