Major and Minor Scales

[Quijote]

Sounds and "possibilities" shouldn't necessarily be confused with music. Bodily functions make a "sound" but is that music? A car's brakes screeching - and that would be tonal - is a "sound', but it isn't music. When music leaves the realm of the truly human, and identification with the human spirit and emotion, and becomes a mere function of the intellect, or mechanics, most people want to part company with it. In Texas we can listen to bleating cattle - and if I was a really, really cynical human being (who wanted attention) I could record that onto a computer, add the sounds, say, of nails being driven into a piece of wood, or bathwater being thrown over the dog - put it all together and call that "art". Some clown would come along and say, 'man, you've really got something there'. But I know Stephen Colbert would be waiting to rubbish me and I'd deserve it!

The tone of this posting, The Dude, makes one almost tremble. Do I have the temerity, dare I be the inhuman, mechanistic, cynical (and attention-seeking) clown that disagrees with you? As I don't get out much (as the saying goes), I suppose I have nothing better to do this Friday evening (but I promise to be as objective as I can) ...

[Quijote]

Sounds and "possibilities" shouldn't necessarily be confused with music. Bodily functions make a "sound" but is that music? A car's brakes screeching - and that would be tonal - is a "sound', but it isn't music [...]

I agree with the first and second clauses. Sounds and their possibilities are simply that - material possibilities that need to be worked into something worthy of interest. A car's brakes screeching (which would hardly be tonal, rather a form of inharmonic spectra, with hard to discern pitch(es), I would have thought) is part of the same argument: if you just play back the sound and call it "music" then you might be on thin ice; it really depends on how you exploit it. However, that is not to deny that one might find the sound of screeching brakes agreeable.

[Chris]

One more addendum to what I wrote last night - I think music MUST have a discernible beat or pulse for it to be embraced by the public and posterity. If one cannot dance to it - well let's just say 99% all recordings that 99% of the world would call "music" is something that can be danced to. Tho I would welcome some exceptions to this rule if offered by anybody.

I don't know if Gregorian chant really has a discernible beat.

[The Dude]

The tone of this posting, The Dude, makes one almost tremble. Do I have the temerity, dare I be the inhuman, mechanistic, cynical (and attention-seeking) clown that disagrees with you? As I don't get out much (as the saying goes), I suppose I have nothing better to do this Friday evening (but I promise to be as objective as I can) ...

All I've got to say to you, pard'ner, is saddle up and get moovin'. I've included your theme song

!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fh1dnspEHw

[Quijote]

[...]In Texas we can listen to bleating cattle - and if I was a really, really cynical human being (who wanted attention) I could record that onto a computer, add the sounds, say, of nails being driven into a piece of wood, or bathwater being thrown over the dog - put it all together and call that "art". Some clown would come along and say, 'man, you've really got something there'. But I know Stephen Colbert would be waiting to rubbish me and I'd deserve it!

See my posting above. Your bovine reference continues the screeching brakes argument, really. Yes, I would agree that it would be ever so slightly exasperating as music, but this would be because there has been no attempt to transcend (ahem) the material. I record a herd of Texans bleating whilst being nailed and washing dogs. So what do I have? Music? No, I have a recording of a bunch of Texans being nailed whilst ... etc.
On the other hand, I see no problem whatsoever taking all these sound sources (Texan cattle bleating, screeching brakes, ...) and transforming them to such an extent that their original mimetic content is entirely absent, and then go further and attempt a musical composition using the transformed material. Dare I call that art? An attempt at one, yes.

[Quijote]

All I've got to say to you, pard'ner, is saddle up and get moovin'. I've included your theme song

!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fh1dnspEHw

Be a good fellow (or lady) and let me finish. Thanks.

[Quijote]

And what is the "realm of the truly human"? And what is music? Any "traditional" composition can be reduced to mathematics. Does that, then, remove it from that realm? Music is all about possibilities and sounds. Without that there would be no music. The idea of creating music that is beyond the realm of human experience does not appeal to people who are confined within their comfort zones. Those who are willing and can escape those confines have a limitless approach to music and what it is.

I really have no idea what the "realm of the truly human" means, and it rather scares me, to be honest, Sorrano! Forgive my scientific ignorance, but cannot everything be reduced to (or expressed as) mathematical equations?

[Quijote]

Surely the purpose of music is to reflect that realm of human experience not to alienate itself from it? I may be old fashioned in my tastes but it is precisely this dehumanising element in modern art and life that repels me.

I really have no categoric idea about the purpose of music. Is there just the one, then?
That there are dehumanising elements is our lives is a given, Headmaster, and you are not the only one to suffer from them. What do you find dehumanising in modern art, may I ask?

[The Dude]

You started the cultural stereotypes, cowboy, so you should enjoy this.

[Quijote]

[...]I tend to listen to successful musicians, with a solid performing and academic background, rather than dry academics who would-be-if-they-could-be. Interesting, too, that many of the more recent "composers" have been mediocre performers themselves, or non-performers. I agree with a couple of earlier comments from other bloggers that there is a strong element of striking a pose, and pretension with much of this 'stuff' anyway.

In any case, the people have spoken with their feet.

I don't really see your point here, The Dude. Haydn was reputedly a mediocre pianist, Schubert too, I believe. I never heard that Berlioz was anything special as an instrumentalist either. As to striking poses, well I have to agree with you, and it is something I am at pains to counter. There is the pseudo-intellectual pose, and the anti-intellectual pose. Both are vacuous.

[Sorrano]

I really have no idea what the "realm of the truly human" means, and it rather scares me, to be honest, Sorrano! Forgive my scientific ignorance, but cannot everything be reduced to (or expressed as) mathematical equations?

As far as my understanding goes, which isn't to say much, I think that you are correct.

[Quijote]

[...]In any case, the people have spoken with their feet.

And their pockets. This cannot be denied. I understand it is particularly dire in the USA. One must perservere.

[Quijote]

Before we descend into another round of personal attacks can I please request we don't go down that road - it will result in the thread having to be closed and comments deleted.

I'm doing very well at the moment, I think.

[Quijote]

Sorrano's post is thought provoking I think in several areas - firstly about comfort zones and about definitions of music. The World health organisation has just published a study on the negative effects of noise pollution on human health, yet the avant garde have since Luigi Russolo's 'The art of noise' gone down this very road. Russolo regarded traditional melodic music as confining and envisioned noise music as its future replacement - personally I do not regard noise as music but I realise that to some this is a provocative statement!

Yes Peter, we know very well you are trying to provoke me. I hope you don't pin all of your arguments on Russolo. We have had this argument before (well, a part of it), and we never really defined how we understand avant garde : a particularly 50s / 60 / 70s movement (Cage, Fluxus ...), or something alive today. Please don't talk to me about Halliwell (or however you spell his name).

Can we get something right once and for all : I do find certain noises appealing (car honks that create unexpected dissonant/consonant intervals that morph over time, birdsong[noise], leaves frotting, rain on a window, water over rocks, fire, crunching gravel ...), and I resent the implication that this makes me errant in some way. I find it astonishing that there are those who consider these sounds (noises) to be unmusical. As they occur in the environment without compositional intent, ok, they are noises, but more importantly they represent a rich source of musically exploitable material.

[Quijote]

[...]I think when you have to start examining the definition of music you are already in real trouble, conceptually speaking.

It is a problem, agreed. Some musicians are so cowed that they choose to drop the term "music" altogether and use "sonic art" or "sound design" instead, reserving the word "music" up to (let's say) 1911 and ""sonic art" for anything "atonal", to vastly simplify the argument.
Me? I say nonsense! Or rather merde. What is music to my ears is music.