I found this quote and thought it might make a good topic
I encounter this viewpoint alot. I recall one instance where someone posed the question to me: "If someone opened their window at night and listened to the sounds of a populated city, and called it music, would they be right?"
To which you could respond, "Whatever I say is music is music." But what is the point of that? That is a cop-out answer. If we have any pretention at all of discussing anything, we must assume certain things about consensus and it's effect on meaning. The VAST majority of people would not say that the random sounds of a city street constitute music.
Therefore, maybe the above quote contains some truth. He says that most music is a series of repetitions with changes interspersed. That indicates some type of will behind the sound. Someone is directing the output. It seems pretty obvious to me that human agency has to be involved somewhere. But he goes on to make a value judgement as well. He says that it is the *lack* of repetition in electronic forms of music that suggest progress, because traditional instruments (which I take to mean acoustic) played by humans cannot execute the kind of mathematical precision required to make perfectly repeating sonic structures.
What a bunch of bullshit! Thousands of musicology research articles can prove that repetition at key points of melodies and especially rhythms are essential for establishing shared experience between the producer of music and the listener. Thus, I think I still firmly believe that the sonic arrangements called "electronica" do not count as music. I think that the creation of music must involve some sort of interpersonal communication (shared experience). Call this a "Groove" or whatever you like, I think it is a good definition of music. It must be a situation in which people, acting of their own accord, selectively rely on other humans for guidance. For example, a drummer and a bass player both rely on each other to create the backbeat and chord progression. Now, some people try to use the orchestra to disprove what I'm saying. They might say, well, an orchestra is entirely thought out before-hand and therefore isn't "spontaneous." But there is still a groove established between the conductor and the players! And the players are not deaf, they listen to each other. It still counts as music.
Another more precarious (and subjective) position that I sometimes take is that music must involve an emotional or intellectual empathy with the listener. It would be near impossible to explain this phenomenon, but for me it is easy to identify "music" that doesn't achieve this. I don't know why, but when I listen to music I want to feel like I am part of the equation somehow. Not like, someone is trying to sell me records, but that they are aware of the concept themselves, or something
Basically, I feel that sonic arrangements which are purely selfish, disconnected from others, and non-repetetive, are not music.
I'm an acoustic instrument player so I'm a bit biased, but I'd be interested in what other people think about this :D
I encounter this viewpoint alot. I recall one instance where someone posed the question to me: "If someone opened their window at night and listened to the sounds of a populated city, and called it music, would they be right?"
To which you could respond, "Whatever I say is music is music." But what is the point of that? That is a cop-out answer. If we have any pretention at all of discussing anything, we must assume certain things about consensus and it's effect on meaning. The VAST majority of people would not say that the random sounds of a city street constitute music.
Therefore, maybe the above quote contains some truth. He says that most music is a series of repetitions with changes interspersed. That indicates some type of will behind the sound. Someone is directing the output. It seems pretty obvious to me that human agency has to be involved somewhere. But he goes on to make a value judgement as well. He says that it is the *lack* of repetition in electronic forms of music that suggest progress, because traditional instruments (which I take to mean acoustic) played by humans cannot execute the kind of mathematical precision required to make perfectly repeating sonic structures.
What a bunch of bullshit! Thousands of musicology research articles can prove that repetition at key points of melodies and especially rhythms are essential for establishing shared experience between the producer of music and the listener. Thus, I think I still firmly believe that the sonic arrangements called "electronica" do not count as music. I think that the creation of music must involve some sort of interpersonal communication (shared experience). Call this a "Groove" or whatever you like, I think it is a good definition of music. It must be a situation in which people, acting of their own accord, selectively rely on other humans for guidance. For example, a drummer and a bass player both rely on each other to create the backbeat and chord progression. Now, some people try to use the orchestra to disprove what I'm saying. They might say, well, an orchestra is entirely thought out before-hand and therefore isn't "spontaneous." But there is still a groove established between the conductor and the players! And the players are not deaf, they listen to each other. It still counts as music.
Another more precarious (and subjective) position that I sometimes take is that music must involve an emotional or intellectual empathy with the listener. It would be near impossible to explain this phenomenon, but for me it is easy to identify "music" that doesn't achieve this. I don't know why, but when I listen to music I want to feel like I am part of the equation somehow. Not like, someone is trying to sell me records, but that they are aware of the concept themselves, or something
Basically, I feel that sonic arrangements which are purely selfish, disconnected from others, and non-repetetive, are not music. I'm an acoustic instrument player so I'm a bit biased, but I'd be interested in what other people think about this :D
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
