IDM Mailing Archive

OK. I'd been staying out of this, mostly because I try to steer clear of anyone offering up criteria for what constitutes "REAL music", unless that criteria is simply the fact that it is being offered up as such. As far as I'm concerned, the jackhammer outside your window mixed with the din of traffic, the low hum and whine of your refrigerator, and the insipid dialogue on your neighbor's television can be music, if it is heard as interesting and appreciated within a musical context. Different forms of appreciation can be brought (very successfully) to bear on a number of different aesthetic objects. John Hughes III probably said (sang) it best: "I can dance forever/ to the beat of murmur/ to the clang of clatter/ without you... ever... hearing." That is, if I remember my lyrics correctly. But I digress. I'm actually writing to mention that neither gamelan or Oval belong in whatever category you're describing here (i.e. "no progressions of tones being used"). Gamelan, strictly put, is simply the word that Indonesians use for "music". On a worldwide scale, it merely means "music in an Indonesian style" (just like chai means "tea like they make in India"). This music may be entirely percussion-based, or it may include flutes or other instruments as the primary instruments. It's pleasant, often. Oval also makes use of tones, although Popp and Oschatz (repsonsible for the visual aspects of Oval) would tend to agree with you that Oval isn't music--- their reasons why are somewhat convoluted. In short form, Popp would call the project a comment on the uses of technology and the commodification of art forms. I think I've only recently come to any understanding of his philosophy behind what, to me, are merely some of the most beautiful soundscapes I've ever heard, and some of the more important albums to come out this decade. At any rate, much of 94diskont sounds like a minimalist (Glass-ish, perhaps) CD-scanning symphony, and, e.g., ovalprocess and systemisch contain a number of well-recognizable tones, rhythms and textures. Dok does lean toward more extreme minimilism, but dear god, I hope you don't believe that sparseness, when it reaches some ill-defined degree, means that something is no longer music. So, yeah. Since you (DynamiCell) mentioned having not heard either of these, I didn't really think I could let the two above-mentioned sink into your relatively arbitrary "not music" category. FWIW, I probably won't be buying those Fax releases either. Cheers, M. ----- Made with affection by distrustful lovers. DynamiCell@aol.com wrote:

quoted 2 lines Have you heard gamelon orchestras? Or Oval? Or any of those cds on >> Fax

>>Have you heard gamelon orchestras? Or Oval? Or any of those cds on >> Fax >>that are just one note sustained for an hour? Is that not >> music?

quoted 2 lines No, that is not music, and no I have never heard it, and thank you >for

>No, that is not music, and no I have never heard it, and thank you >for >telling me so that I wont buy it.

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

At 11:57 AM 10/9/2000 -0700, Matthew Korfhage wrote:

quoted 7 lines OK. I'd been staying out of this, mostly because I try to steer clear of

>OK. I'd been staying out of this, mostly because I try to steer clear of >anyone offering up criteria for what constitutes "REAL music", unless that >criteria is simply the fact that it is being offered up as such. As far as >I'm concerned, the jackhammer outside your window mixed with the din of >traffic, the low hum and whine of your refrigerator, and the insipid >dialogue on your neighbor's television can be music, if it is heard as >interesting and appreciated within a musical context.

i'd like to differ from this, stating that essentially random noises heard in a musical context do not constitute music; rather, they constitute noise. depending on personal preference, such noise can be appreciated or hated, but it's still noise. music has to have a purpose. whether it's a carefully calibrated orchestration, or people playing live, a purpose is present. now, if you record the noise occuring from random sources, then that could arguably be music, but that's YOU having the *purpose*. i'm not stating purpose as in "i set out to do this", but purpose meaning that someone has to do something to make it music, even if it's just making a recording. even if you get 5 random people on stage "playing" different instruments randomly, if they just happen to be up there, it's noise. if they're up there for the purpose of making random sounds, then it's music. :) cheers, /derek --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

EggyToast <youn0394@umn.edu> writes: : music has to have a purpose. Says who? And even if it does, why does the "purpose" need to be external to the listener? If I listen to the ambient sounds around me and mentally organize them into music, who are you to say that what I'm listening to isn't music? Traditionally, non-improvisational music has been a three-part affair. There is a composer, a player -- and a listener. Electronic music eliminates the player, while improvisational music eliminates the composer. The one constant is the listener, and I would argue that you can eliminate both of the others and still have music. So even if we accept that music need have purpose, why does that purpose need to be external to the listener? Claiming otherwise leans toward the simplistic argument that music is some sort of (universal?) language, a view discredited on neurophysiological grounds (music and language use different parts of the brain) as well as philosophically suspect. That said, there are such a multitude of ways to define music, from mental states to physical acts, from social events to abstract philosophy, that it is quite impossible to come up with a definition of just what music *isn't*, since it *is* so many things. "Which is more musical: a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing by a music school?" -- John Cage Cheers, -Ed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

andrei@world.std.com wrote:

quoted 3 lines Gamelan, strictly put, is simply the word that Indonesians use for

>>Gamelan, strictly put, is simply the word that Indonesians use for >> >>"music". >I thought gamelan was the Indonesian word for orchestra.

In derivation, gamelan is the noun form of "to play" or "to strike in order to make a sound", i.e. gam(b)el + -an. I've seen sources translating gamelan either as "Indonesian music" or as "Indonesian orchestra." My guess is that there was originally no distinction between the orchestra and the sounds it made. Through the modern influx of other styles of music, gamelan now refers, in general practice, either to an individual orchestra or to the style of music that this type of orchestra plays. The word gamelan itself, though, as near as I can figure, has the primary meaning of "the act of playing music" (keeping in mind that there was, in Bali or Javanese, no separate word "music", as far as I've been able to find). M. ----- Made with affection by distrustful lovers. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org