I listen to a lot of oddball music. Karlheinz Stockhausen, Conlon Nancarrow, Iannis Xenakis and such. The one comment I hear from people is the idea that “that’s not music, that’s just noise.” To my mind it is music, at least to me. In the same sense that if you had played AC/DC back in Mozart’s time it would have been considered “noise” as well.
But the other comment I hear is that the composer was obviously just experimenting, since the sounds don’t usually bear any resemblance to what they would consider “music.”
Edgar Varese said “I do not write experimental music. My experimenting is done before I make the music. Afterwards, it is the listener who must experiment.”
But it seems like a personal line to draw in the sand, and mostly according to personal taste. So, at what point does “experimental” music become “real” music?
“Real” music is founded on music theory. There are certain rules which apply roughly to all types of music. Keys, chord theory, etc. all play into it. All these rules aren’t hard and fast… they can’t be broken at times, expressed and interpreted in different ways…
I would imagine then that “experimental” music would challenge the boundaries or overall validity of music theory. I don’t know how one would prove that music theory is invalid though. Interesting however.
I think if you’d have played AC/DC for Mozart he would have recognized it as music… fairly simple and annoying in his opinion maybe, but… music all the same. I always wondered what Mozart would think of distortion… hmmmmm…
I haven’t heard of any of the artists you’ve mentioned, but if they aren’t playing within the “rules” designated by music theory, then they will be “experimental” until they disprove music theory. I think.
For me, in most cases, it’s when I can detect specific purpose in the music, IE the 1st, 3rd, and 5th notes of a major scale sound good and happy when played together, so when a composer or songwriter uses those notes, they’re doing it for the directed end of making the listener feel relaxed.
So, to me, when someone takes a jackhammer to concrete in order to chop up a sidewalk I perceive it as noise. But when the sound is being used specifically to make the listener feel, say, discomfort, I’ll be willing to buy that as being music. As to whether it’s worth my time to listen, or if it’s even creative is a whole other issue. I have a feeling that the reason my favorite musicians elect to use the “boring” western, 12-note scale parameters they do is merely a question of artificial selection. It’s been found that to play “normal” chords in a rhythmic and sequential pattern works a lot better than going up to a piano and hitting a bunch of tritones for an hour.
It is my opinion that music theory is merely a rigorous set of rules detailing what to do with sounds in order to achieve specific goals. The western 12-note scale is devastatingly effective and also, it seems, infinitely open. Because it takes a while to really have a firm grasp on music theory to the point where you can truly utilize it, a lot of “serious” musicians will resent “experimental” musicians as being ignoramus’ trying to take the easy road. I think one of my guitar teachers said it best when he stated that he didn’t think much of the band Sonic Youth, until he learned that they actually did know how to play their guitars, at which point he says he came to hear a lot of cool stuff in their music.
So to sum up my own personal long-winded opinions in a single sentence, *I believe it is music when the composer/creator has chosen, not been forced, to take the experimental path. *
I’m finding that some groups I dismissed as punks who only knew three chords, actually are pretty sophisticated. Witness, the Beastie Boys and their instrumental LP.
I think Red is on to something. You have to know the rules and show some proficiency before you can starting bending and playing with those rules.
As long as there some honest attempt at it, I’ll buy it as “music.”
But for now, I haven’t gotten much more daring than Radiohead.
I think that some types of sound are so experimental that they aren’t “music” per se (because they don’t follow music theory) and instead are “sound design.” Take for example the works of Japanese artist AUBE (Akifumi Nakajima), whose projects involve noise soundscapes from a single sound source. There’s no rhythm to his works, so it’s hard to characterize it as music. AUBE doesn’t even like to be labelled a musician.
So, I think that when experimentation produces something that fits with music theory, it’s music. If not, it’s just sound design, which IMHO is just as much legitimate art.
This reminded me of something that I’d forgotten to mention. In my limited experiences with music that uses quarter-tones and other notes outside the western scale I’ve found it surprisingly listenable. I’m not sure to what extent they have a comparable set of music theory in some of those countries, but I would imagine that, as is the case here, the good musicians can just hear what will sound good.
[hijack]
Does anyone know if they make quarter step guitars (ie 24 frets in an octave). I think it would be really cool to explore the possibilities with one of those.
[/hijack]
To nitpick, Indian classical music (more specifically Hindustani music) is based on a strict music theory called raag. The pieces are quite structured while allowing for ample improvisation. There is as much Indian music theory as there is Western music theory. While the 3rd (gara) or the 5th (pancham) may or may not be stressed in every raag, there are specific patterns to be followed and to be expounded upon. These rules (which also govern when and for what purpose a raag should be played) are different for every raag and are not broken in the strictest genre of Indian classical music (khyal).
For the OP, music is quite analogous to art. IIRC, Beethoven’s Ninth received a review which compared it to clattering on a tin roof or something along that line. Stravinsky’s stuff caused riots in Paris. The last century was filled with breaking down barriers in communication and travel in the West – the music and art have reflected similar deconstructionalism. I see nothing wrong with that, and demonstrates how art and music are elastic enough to always keep pace with the current mood of society.
I find the OP a little bit confusing. Are you saying that experimental music isn’t real? Maybe more likely, you are supposing that there has to be a prejudice against experimental music which has to be overcome, perhaps by the passage of time and the accumulation of respect and familiarity.
Of course, to some people, chromatic music (for example) is still hard to listen to. And many will insist that it sounds purposeless. This is despite the fact that it is a generations old tradition with more rules and theories than you can shake a stick at. Chromatic music is not experimental anymore, because it has been done many ways already, but it’s still “noise” to many people.
To me the experiment is in the mind of the composer. They are trying something new. Thus if a westerner used microtones without listening to traditions that used them, she would be experimenting even though it might be a centuries old tradition in another culture.
Experimental music doesn’t have to be “noise” ever. It just requires the audience to listen in ways that they may have never tried before. For many people I think this is where they draw the line. If it isn’t immediately accessible on some level, it’s “noise” because their conception of music isn’t one that allows them to be challenged and grow as a listener.
Or sometimes, as with Japanese noise composers, it really is “noise” because they use random feedback and lots of distortion to create a sound that has no structure.
I wish that a heck of a lot more music was “experimental”. Too often it’s the same old forgettable schlock from the same tired performers banking on their same old sound. When sound recordings cease all effort at experimentation, I’d say that’s when they quit being music and become something closer to advertising.
Art ought to be experimental, or what’s the point? So I’d vote for a broad spectrum definition of music that includes creative “soundscape recordings”. I’d rather listen to something interesting done with jackhammers than most boring top 40 radio/video.
UnoMondo mentioned AUBE. Pick up their new rather heavy (in many ways) CD “Seton” and judge for yourself. Amazing stuff.
Just to let you know, AUBE is one man, Akifumi Nakajima. I was lucky enough to catch his first ever U.S. concert in Detroit last weekend. It was very good.
I do an “experimental music” show every week on our local public radio station (3 to 6 am). I plan to play AUBE this week and now I can give correct information. Thanks again.
You’ve got to be kidding me. What your seem to be saying is that as long as someone starts out with a formal understanding of music, anything they make afterwards is music. To buy into this line of thinking negates the spontanaeity (pardon my spelling) that makes so much cool music. Music (or “noise,” if you like) made completely blind of musical conventions is no less music than anything else.
What’s more (not that you really want to know, and not that I feel you are one, but since I’m on the subject…), formally trained musicians who are unable to hear the musical value in the output of those lacking said training piss me off.
Kyomara, many do expect the artist to be proficient in traditional methods before jumping off into the “experimental” realm.
My friend’s art school sister said that students there must be good realist artists before they can be taken seriously at the surrealist level. Hey, that’s just what I heard.
I like the explanation that some outfits better serve a soundscape asthetic, like my buddy’s freeform space jazz project… he agrees it’s not music per se, but it is most definitely art… sound art.
ooof pldennison, thanks for the spellcheck. Yeah, if I wanted to use ‘western music’ I would have used those words exactly.
I used ‘music theory’ to express the idea of ALL musical theory… note that I DIDN’T specify ‘western music theory’… edwino would later clear this up; he beat me to it.
Acco, even if you meant to include “all of music theory,” I still think you’re incorrect to state that " . . . if they aren’t playing within the ‘rules’ designated by music theory, then they will be ‘experimental’ until they disprove music theory."
Music theory is descriptive. Even within each culture’s musical tradition, it’s descriptive. Nobody is ever going to discover, for example, that a major chord is really voiced I-iv-V rather than I-III-V; I-III-V is what a major chord is. Likewise, nobody is ever going to discover that the final interval of the minor scale is a step-and-a-half rather than a whole step.
It’s like math (actually, it’s exactly like math)–it takes a certain set of axioms (the division of the octave into 12 tones, the major and minor scales, the diatonic chords) and proceeds from there. It isn’t something to be disproven–it can’t be disproven. It’s a set of assumptions through which each culture constructs music.
12-tone music, for example, plays within the “rules,” but is it “real” or is it “experimental”? All depends on whether the listener likes it, I guess.
I think it is experimental when only one person/group does it. As soon as somebody else hears it and does something similar that validates the original work as music. I can’t really provide any specific examples other that maybe ‘black’ metal’. It started out as very noisy, heavily layered, super fast ‘noise’ (with sometimes intentionally ultra-horrible production). But was quickly expanded, refined and validated and is now a large genre of heavy metal.
But music and drawing/painting are quite different in the sense that anyone can pick up a guitar and make a melody without really studying, but very few folks can render a decent realistic picture of anything without a lot of practice. Just because many expect it does not mean that many are right, you know? There are technical wizards who produce nothing but soulless crap (I will refrain from naming names because it will turn into a completely new debate), while it is perfectly plausible for someone with very little training to make a sound that can deeply affect the listener.
And pldennison, yes, these rules you list never change for Western music. However, there are many kinds of music in which major chords and minor scales simply don’t exist. There are enough different sets of rules for anyone who likes to invent their own…