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

I have no problem agreeing on this, although for other reasons I personally would express it in terms of the sounds being framed into a context (instead of in terms of purpose), which does require more than just passive appreciation. I was just being sloppy in my original post. Listening to your refrigerator--and liking it--is only hearing the possibility of turning that sound into art/music, not music itself, unless one wants to go wild with the idea that true art exists only in the moment of its conception, and not in its physical manifestation (don't go there, please don't go there). Godspeed, M. ----- Made with affection by distrustful lovers.

quoted 1 line From: EggyToast <youn0394@umn.edu>

>From: EggyToast <youn0394@umn.edu>

quoted 30 lines At 11:57 AM 10/9/2000 -0700, Matthew Korfhage wrote:

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

_________________________________________________________________________ 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

Ed Hall wrote:

quoted 2 lines Electronic music eliminates the player, while improvisational music eliminates the

> Electronic music eliminates the player, while improvisational music eliminates the > composer.

Improvisation is instant composition. As long as one's playing some sort of "instrument" and one's making conscious decisions about what one's playing, one is composing. Composition comes _out of_ improvisation. There really is no such thing as free improvisation. Even the freest of improvisers have "licks". And recordings of improvised music tend to become more like compositions to the listener if listened to repeatedly. I realize I'm taking your statement a bit out of contest. Andrei --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

andrei@world.std.com writes: : Ed Hall wrote: : : > Electronic music eliminates the player, while improvisational music : > eliminates the composer. : : Improvisation is instant composition. As long as one's playing some sort of : "instrument" and one's making conscious decisions about what one's playing, : one is composing. Composition comes _out of_ improvisation. There really is : no such thing as free improvisation. Even the freest of improvisers have : "licks". And recordings of : improvised music tend to become more like : compositions to the listener if listened to repeatedly. : : I realize I'm taking your statement a bit out of contest. Actually, you're not. The point that composer and player are combined in improvisation is well-taken. I would extend that to the possibility that all three can be combined. Further, if a listener imposes a mental grid around ambient sounds that makes them musical to him or her, then they are, in fact, music -- just like the mental grid I project upon a Bach fugue makes it musical to me though the same sounds might be "noise" to a Bantu tribesman. -Ed P.S. A somewhat more amusing John Cage quote follows: I was surprised when I came into Mother's room in the nursing home to see that the TV set was on. The program was teenagers dancing to rock-and-roll. I asked Mother how she liked the new music. She said, "Oh, I'm not fussy about music." Then, brightening up, she went on, "You're not fussy about music either." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Funny you bring up Cage because I would have liked to add a comment to my previous post which was that Cage didn't view interpretations of his graphic scores as improvisations and from what I know he wasn't fond at all of jazz. And David Tudor used to make up precise plans as to how he would interpret Cage's scores. Andrei Ed Hall wrote:

quoted 31 lines andrei@world.std.com writes:

> andrei@world.std.com writes: > : Ed Hall wrote: > : > : > Electronic music eliminates the player, while improvisational music > : > eliminates the composer. > : > : Improvisation is instant composition. As long as one's playing some sort of > : "instrument" and one's making conscious decisions about what one's playing, > : one is composing. Composition comes _out of_ improvisation. There really is > : no such thing as free improvisation. Even the freest of improvisers have > : "licks". And recordings of : improvised music tend to become more like > : compositions to the listener if listened to repeatedly. > : > : I realize I'm taking your statement a bit out of contest. > > Actually, you're not. The point that composer and player are combined > in improvisation is well-taken. I would extend that to the possibility > that all three can be combined. Further, if a listener imposes a mental > grid around ambient sounds that makes them musical to him or her, then > they are, in fact, music -- just like the mental grid I project upon a > Bach fugue makes it musical to me though the same sounds might be "noise" > to a Bantu tribesman. > > -Ed > > P.S. A somewhat more amusing John Cage quote follows: > > I was surprised when I came into Mother's room in the nursing home to see that > the TV set was on. The program was teenagers dancing to rock-and-roll. I asked > Mother how she liked the new music. She said, "Oh, I'm not fussy about music." > Then, brightening up, she went on, "You're not fussy about music either."

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org