Sound, contemporary music and subjectivity.

Cafe Society
1

Inspired by a discussion appearing in this thread: Sounds vs. Music - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board

I thought it would be appropriate to continue it here.

So here goes, topics:

To me it seems people have different understandings of what sound and ‘musicality’, and their relationship, constitutes. Somehow, sound is separate from music, just as how music is separate from other forms of art, by how it is generated and organized. Some people in the other thread stated music is organized sound, sound put into a structure.

Apparently harmonic content has something to do about musicality, which I strongly disagree with.

Most people would not call white noise a musical sound. If you filter white noise, and run it through an envelope you get a snare-drum, or a crash, or a ride. If you treat it a bit differently, you can get the sound of wind, a waterfall, or a helicopter. Why is the sound of a ride inherently more musical than a waterfall?

What if you take comtemporary classical composers into account, like Stockhausen, Cage, Ligeti, Messien? What about industrial music, ambient music, noise and glitch-music or experimental music?

What about improvisational music? If music is ‘musical’ or ‘unmusical’ sound organized, what happens when composers present sounds in a unorganized manner? Is that not music? In the other thread “4’33” by Cage was mentioned. Is that not music? How about improvisational noise, ambience or glitch?

So yeah, more of a general discussion of sound, contemorary music and everything inbetween.

2

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to get at but here are a few thoughts.

First of all, yes, I pretty much agree with the idea that music is “organized sound”. This implies that there is an intention on the part of the “organizer” (i.e. the composer). That does not necessarily mean that music should have a memorable melody, or a melody at all as a matter of fact.

Musical instruments produce tones which are combinations of a basic frequency and additional frequencies that are multiples (overtones) of the basic one. These are relatively easy to analyse. The spectrum of “natural sounds” is immensly more complex than that of musical instruments (except some percussions). Perhaps it is too diffcult for our ears to analyse and therefore “not musical”. I can’t answer that.

Now, contemporary composers. One can argue that the second half of the 20th century has been the golden age of sound exploration.

Ligeti’s music from the 60’s and 70’s is almost entirely focussed on timbre: big masses of “sound” that change slowly with no real melody and no pulse. And yet, it is so powerful, moving and expressive. That’s definitely music in my book. He’s the only post-WWII composer that I would consider as a genius (there are half a dozen others that are major composers, though).

You’ve also mentionned Messiaen. He’s an interesting case. As an early adopter and life-long supporter of the ondes Martenot, he was a pioneer a electronic music. He also used birdsong transcriptions in his works, an (not very successful) attempt to incorporate “natural sounds” in music. His oeuvre and his teaching also led to the creation of two totally different esthetic movements: total serialism and spectralism which both used timbre as an important parameter.

Perhaps you’re already familiar with spectral music of Tristan Murail and Gérard Grisey. It appeared in the 70’s as reaction against the ultra-abstract total serialism of Boulez and Stockhausen. Its aim was to make the exploration of sound spectra the basis of composition. Basically what they would do is start with a tone, or a chord and anayse its components then manipulate, rearrange and transform them sometimes with the help of computers, sometimes purely acoustically. At its best, it’s truly fascinating music. Last I heard, Murail was busy incorporating the spectra of “natural sounds” in his works: the sound of thunder, wind or rain, something that was impossible until recently.

And Cage… Well, the least said about him, and especially about “4:33”, the better :D.

3

So all sound is music. However, since 4:33 is also music, music is also the absence of sound. That means that the term “music” encompasses all sounds and no sounds whatsoever. In other words, everything is music, making the term “music” redundant and thus unnecessary.

Am I missing something?

4

Call it what you like.

5

To me, there is a distinction between “music” and “art” - in this case, I would argue that 4:33 is Art, but not Music. It seeks to engage the Art Consumer with something that provokes emotion and thought - that is Art - but it is not organized sound because it doesn’t involve sound.

I appreciate that experimental music can take melody, harmony, meter and rhythm - what I typically think of as the components of music - and challenge our notions of them. I also respect musical artists’ willingness and ability to challenge our conception of music. But, like a Koons artwork consistenting of a vacuum cleaner in a plexi box, there are pieces that legitimately challenge one’s definition of Art, but they seem to only exist at the fringe of the field. If you are rich and want a vacuum in a box, cool, but it is a curiosity, not a broad new category in the genre.

6

Somewhat, this question is sort of like “is it art”. My answer in art is based on Duchamp. If someone presents it as art, the question of whether it is art has been decided. You now get to decide if you think it is good or not.

ETA: Aww, WordMan, I don’t agree for once. What’s the magic line you cross before “music” becomes “art”?

ETA2: I mean, I can write out 4:33 in a few minutes on staff paper. I can’t write out Hendrix’s The Star Spangled Banner out on anything but recordings. Which is more challenging of the range allowed in music?

7

I guess I would say that there is a big blurry space where Music as organized sound transitions over to a more generic concept of Art. Taking the sound of opening a closet and letting the stuff fall out and presenting it for consumption is more Art than Music, as I am trying to articulate it.

There is no bright line, but “Sound presented for Consumption as Art” is a broader category, to me, than “Music”…

8

IMHO, 4:33 and Duchamp are not so much Art as they are Wit.

9

Hmm, ok. I disagree, I think even line dancing at a night club counts as “art”, so the band performing the track has certainly crossed into the land of art. What counts for music within the idea of art is pretty much defined (for me) by what gets presented as intentionally manipulating sound. Like most art, I think some of it’s really bad, some merely boring, some ok, some good, some earth shatteringly good.

But then again, I’m sure we both sleep quite well. Same planet, different worlds.

10

I think we’re good - Music is a sub-category of “Sound as Art” - so yeah, Line Dancing and Punk Rock and all music sits within that. But the Open Closet sits within Art category Set but outside the Music set in terms of Venn Diagrams…

11

And I take offense at your assertion about Duchamp! The only way to avenge his honor is that we duel with dust over the next 20 years.

(Yeah, he was long on wit and short on works, but he changed art. Heck, he challenged the very idea of working on art.)

12

Yeah. we’re fine until the greatest hits of Fibber Mc Gee start climbing the charts. Don’t say nasty things about Duchamp, though, or it’s dust, dust, dust.

But now, when I think about it, even my definition runs into paradoxes. Even I don’t know if The Best of Marcel Marceau would count as a music album or if it’s its own category of art album. It certainly isn’t spoken word, but it’s an audio manipulation.

13

Sorry if the OP seemed a bit disjointed. I was quite tired, and barely straight in my head. I basically just threw a few ideas, some which appeared in the former thread I linked, out in the open for discussion, without thinking much of direction. I’m still fairly tired, but I’ll try to appear a little more coherent.

Before I continue, I have to say that I come from the perspective of one involved with noise-music, arranged or improvised. My interest in contemporary classical music stems from that involvement, not the other way around. Further, I do not consider myself an expert on any of this, just an interested hobbyist.

First, 4’33: The piece as intended, is not silence at all. It is comprised of mutterings and ambient sounds produced by the audience. I am not of the opinion that absence of sound necessarily is music, though used right it is a very useful compositional tool. I guess you may call it art, or music, but imo that’s besides the point. No matter if it is art, music or both, what it is is conceptual.

It may have seemed I stated all sound is music. That was not my intention. I do not know any such thing. My opinion is that sounds used in music is musical, and I believe both music and musicality is purely subjective definitions. If any of you find the sound of a dog sneezing unmusical, that’s your opinion. I do not believe it has anything to do with human response to harmonic content, though. Or if it does, we have a lot of people in this world that are harmonically challenged. But then, what do I know, haha.

Earlier I posted examples of sounds made by filtering noise, like a hi-hat or a snare. Connected to that is the question of unusual sounds made by conventional instruments… Would that be more musical than sounds generated by surroundings, chance etc.? I saw a french saxophonist some time ago. He made the damn thing sound like a motorway during rush hour.

Anyway, sorry for a long post, times running out and I have to go, even though I’d like to write and ask some more. Ciao for now, synthesizer fans.