Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Definition of Music

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 12:25:13 PM9/17/05
to
In this recent discussion in the Death of Tonality thread that has now
become either attempts to define music, or support for reasons on whether
such a definition is even useful or not, one thing I have not heard
mentioned too much is the intent of the work.

The adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to come into play in
not only the definition of beautiful music, but music in general. Many are
supporting the position that "it is music if the listener hears it as such".

Ignoring that possibility for the moment, let's say I do want a working
definition of music. Here are my problems:

I'd like to refine the definition to include things like Atmospheres. For
that purpose, I think Dave's "three elements" of music, Rhythm, Melody and
Harmony (although commonly accepted in the traditional definition of music,
so not picking on Dave, he just put it in his post) are too narrow.

So I would conclude that music contains the basic elements of Sound:
Duration, Frequency, and Volume. Thus all music would contain those basic
elements. That would allow 4'33" to fit in the definition, it simply has a
volume of zero (or, if we're hearing the sounds in the space around us as
was intended, those meet those qualifications). It would also allow me to
take Yankee Doodle, and transpose it electronically beyond the range of
human hearing, and while it is silent to us, it still has frequency, volume
and duration. So it is still music.

Now the problem with this is, speech would contain all of those elements
too, so how would I delineate between speech and music (let's assume that I
want or need to). Obviously, a poetry reading and a song sung unaccompanied
would be extremely similar - why would one be music and the other not?
Further, there are many spoken word performances that really border the line
between these two - they are "poetry" but performed in such a way as to
bring them closer to music (more pitch inflections, or obvious rhythmic
ideas, beyond those natural inflections and syllabic meters).

There seem to be only a couple of places I can seem to think of to make a
delineation. One is tradition, which works fine for traditional things and
for new things that fit in with tradition. Shakespeare, whether anyone wants
to define it as anything, is traditionally accepted as poetry, and Bach is
music. That one's pretty easy and we use it all of the time. The problem
seems to arise when either a new invention (or otherwise uncategorizable
based on tradition - such as Sprechstimme - of course its name sort of
solves this problem, doesn't it!) appears, or when a traditional form is (or
must be for some reason) considered to be something other than what
tradition implies.

In the former part of the problem above, it seems the most obvious solution
is to invent a new category - so we might have poetry, music, and
music-poetry. Spoken Word, much improvised Rap, Sprechstimme (and let's
assume these are not placed in an otherwise more obvious musical setting and
are unaccompanied) seem to need to have a new category. However, it seems
that these often occur in musical contexts (i.e. accompanied by more
traditionally defined music) so they err on the side of music. Thus we can
make a distinction between a poem, and when a poem is used in the larger
context of a musical work as "music" (which is probably then why we call
them lyrics instead of poem, to specify, or "text" to generalize).

The latter part of the problem above seems to do with the other places I can
seem to find to make a delineation: the composer (performer in some cases),
and the listener. One has to do with the composer's intent, and the other
with the listener's perception.

Let's assume that my definition that music contains two elements: Sound
(frequency, duration, and volume - which by the way includes a volume of
zero, frequencies above and below the limits of human hearing, and durations
that can be imperceptibly long or short) and allows the inclusion of Bach,
Ligeti, Jay-Z, etc., and Intent.

The intent is what separates speech from music, but it does not disallow the
possibility of someone intending speech to be music, or someone from hearing
speech (or anything for that matter) as music.

The first part disallows things like "a car" from being considered music. It
has to be sound (or lack thereof based on zero volume). A sculpture is not
music (you see, I would have a definition for "art" or for "physical matter"
or "physical conditions" etc. to delineate those types of things).

The second part (fourth element) allows the end user of the definition to
consider "traditional" music music - it has all 4 elements (since we assume
that most composers would have intended their music to be considered music,
and not rocks, or poetry, etc.). It also allows for random sounds to be
perceived by the listener (the listener _intends_ to hear it as music). It
allows for a composer to intend poetry as music (whether an individual
chooses to perceive it that way is up to the listener). It would also allow
a composer to present a performance of an electronic piece that has
imperceptible notes so high we can't hear them, but the four elements are
there.

It also does not disallow the possibility of combining music with other
forms. Already I don't consider Opera or Ballet "music", in consider them to
be music combined with other elements such as "dance" or "Divas", oh wait,
that's not an art form, oh, maybe it is, anyway...

But it does disallow a composer from intending a rock to be music (OK, they
could certainly do so, but I would not consider it music by this definition,
it would be "art" "sculpture" or a combination of forms, but not just music
by itself, they'd be intentionally being counter, not artistic).It would
also disallow me walking outside and considering a rock to be music (I would
consider it "art" or something else again).

This doesn't prohibit an artist or audience from assigning artistic
attributes to non-traditionally artistic things, but it does specify the
definition of such artistic assignations.

So,

Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent.

Without intent (either by the listener as perceiver, or composer/performer)
it is merely sound. Without sound (not counting intentional zero volume
within an intended period) it is something else (art, poetry, sculpture,
etc.)

Thoughts?

Can we blow holes in this (besides the obvious one as to whether we even
need such a definition).

Are there works we can attempt to fit in this, or that cause it to fall
apart.

I would personally consider Britney Spears not to be music, but I have to
allow that by definition, most people would consider it to be so.

Steve


Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 12:37:13 PM9/17/05
to
Steve Latham wrote:


> So,
>
> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent.
>
> Without intent (either by the listener as perceiver, or composer/performer)
> it is merely sound. Without sound (not counting intentional zero volume
> within an intended period) it is something else (art, poetry, sculpture,
> etc.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Can we blow holes in this (besides the obvious one as to whether we even
> need such a definition).


Well, there's always the mediaeval idea of a 'musica speculativa'.


> Are there works we can attempt to fit in this, or that cause it to fall
> apart.
>
> I would personally consider Britney Spears not to be music, but I have to
> allow that by definition, most people would consider it to be so.
>

Perhaps you could prove that she has no Intent. :-)

--
samuel
MP3's of my works and performances:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.

- Charles Bernstein

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 1:08:58 PM9/17/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c4692$0$11070$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

>
> Well, there's always the mediaeval idea of a 'musica speculativa'.

What is is Samuel?

I'll Google it, btu I think others might be interested too.

>
>
>> Are there works we can attempt to fit in this, or that cause it to fall
>> apart.
>>
>> I would personally consider Britney Spears not to be music, but I have to
>> allow that by definition, most people would consider it to be so.
>>
>
> Perhaps you could prove that she has no Intent. :-)

I think her intent might have ulterior motives :-)

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 1:30:21 PM9/17/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...

(snip)

> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent.
>
> Without intent (either by the listener as perceiver, or
> composer/performer) it is merely sound. Without sound (not counting
> intentional zero volume within an intended period) it is something else
> (art, poetry, sculpture, etc.)

> Steve


Could you please clarify... are you saying that Art, Poetry, Sculpture etc.
are "without intent"?

dave......... www.Shemakhan.com


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 1:30:43 PM9/17/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c4692$0$11070$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Steve Latham wrote:
>
>
>> So,
>>
>> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent.
>>
>> Without intent (either by the listener as perceiver, or
>> composer/performer) it is merely sound. Without sound (not counting
>> intentional zero volume within an intended period) it is something else
>> (art, poetry, sculpture, etc.)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Can we blow holes in this (besides the obvious one as to whether we even
>> need such a definition).
>
>
> Well, there's always the mediaeval idea of a 'musica speculativa'.
>

Well, from what I can gather briefly it is not music (by my definition,
which may be determined to mean diddly squat in the end). It is taking the
word music and applying it to a non musical situation such as Kepler's music
of the spheres, and biorhythms (not to mention the astrological ones I
found, which shall remain unmentioned). Thus we are dealing with things that
are "like music" or "musical", which I would allow (by allow, I mean
consider, not "authoritatively") under a separate definition. Besides,
according to what I'm seeing (correct me if I'm wrong) they lack the Sound
component of my definition.

Now, if a person takes the frequencies of the rotations and or revolutions
of the planets and applies a sound or pitch to them and creates a work, that
is Sound and the Intent of the composer to present it as such, therefore
music, but the planets themselves don't produce that sound, only
mathematical variables. Thus, the Fibonacci series is not music, but someone
may use it as a basis, or to produce musical aspects and make a piece out of
it (like all of these fractal music sites).

I wonder if there's more to this idea of musica speculativa than what I
could gather, but for now, it doesn't meet the requirements of the
definition

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 1:37:38 PM9/17/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zuqdnco8a4Vcz7He...@comcast.com...

No. I would need other definitions for those, like potentially Sculpture is
Form (or Objects) and Intent (though let's not digress here).

What I'm saying is intent (either on the part of the creator, or of the
observer) is an important part of the consideration of categorizing things
as "music", "poetry", "sculpture", etc.

Steve


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 2:10:46 PM9/17/05
to
It seems to me this is an age of "re-defining" ideas and concepts... (what
do you mean by "is").

When someone cannot get the results they want, they move to "re-define" the
word or concept. It seems to me an easier task to invent a new word to
describe a new concept. In an earlier exchange it was suggested that
AMELODIC was the essence of rap... sounds like a pretty good use of a new
word to me to describe a form of "music" that has no melody per se... lots
of rythym though.

Intent is essential... as is form. I believe we need to HEAR the sounds to
be considered Music. That means that 4'33" is NOT music, in my estimation.
Unless of course EVERYTHING not heard IS Music...! And then again, if there
is no form... no deliberate intent to present sound in an orderly fashion
(like Aleatorical music)... then it too cannot be considered Music... though
sound is involved, as is a certain rythym.

Is a bird-song Music? Messiaen certainly considered this in his works. But
what is the bird's intent??? Certainly, to entertain, is not the motive. Nor
is spiritual enlightenment.

I think too, that MUSIC must call attention to itself... this again would
mean that 4'33" is not Music as it deliberately tries to call to attention
everything else other than itself.

As language and words are subject to individual interpretation, only a
generalized definition of Music is possible.

Beethoven/Symphony#5 = MUSIC.......... Cage/4'33" = notMUSIC


dave........... www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 4:44:24 PM9/17/05
to
There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's
all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I
say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very
much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that
subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do
next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful
tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I
always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

`Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty
went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, `for to get their
wages, you know.'

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't
tell you.)

dave.......... www.Shemakhan.com


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 4:54:59 PM9/17/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XMOdnWn7NYW...@comcast.com...

> It seems to me this is an age of "re-defining" ideas and concepts... (what
> do you mean by "is").

Who says ideas and concepts can't or shouldn't be redesigned.

>
> When someone cannot get the results they want, they move to "re-define"
> the word or concept. It seems to me an easier task to invent a new word to
> describe a new concept.

Well that is certainly true.

In an earlier exchange it was suggested that
> AMELODIC was the essence of rap... sounds like a pretty good use of a new
> word to me to describe a form of "music" that has no melody per se... lots
> of rythym though.

Right, but we're talking about a different level (a sub-level below music).
The point is, people try to say that "rap" is not music and use the argument
that is has no melody, so it can't be. I would say that music that has no
melody could be called "amelodic" or whatever, but, it is still music.

>
> Intent is essential... as is form. I believe we need to HEAR the sounds to
> be considered Music.

Ok, what about if I write the Yankee Doodle piece that's to high to be
heard. You would say that not music. When does it stop becoming music? When
the frequencies reach 15k+ (which you and probably can't hear) or 18k+ where
an 8 year old can't hear it anymore (my point being, while the numbers are
made up, that does music cease to be music if you turn it down too low to be
heard? What if you can't hear it but someone else can?).

That means that 4'33" is NOT music, in my estimation.

That's where you're wrong. Everyone makes the assumption that 4'33" is
silent. It's not. The piece is about the sounds in the preformance venue
that occur while the piece is being performed. Everyone's sniffle, program
rustle, ari conditioning hum, etc. are part of the performance. You do hear
those, so by that you must concede it is music (though you could make
another argument now besides inaudibility).


> Unless of course EVERYTHING not heard IS Music...!

But then, there's no intent. But you are getting to something that I'd like
to clarify. Is sheet music Music? Or does it only become music when it is
performed (or "heard" in someone's head as they read the music?

And then again, if there
> is no form... no deliberate intent to present sound in an orderly fashion
> (like Aleatorical music)... then it too cannot be considered Music...
> though sound is involved, as is a certain rythym.

Aleatoric music is not random. It might be a random set of events but it is
set in motion by someone intending to compose a work, perform a work, or
listen to a work. If you throw rocks into the air and draw notes wherever
they land on staff paper, the pattern of falling might be random (although
one could argue that gravity, air density, rock shape and mass, etc. can be
calculated) but the act of choosing rocks to throw on to staff paper and
then create an aural artistic work out of it is not "random" by the
composer. Only one aspect of the piece is random, the rest are conciously
controlled - intent.

>
> Is a bird-song Music?

If you intend to hear it as such, yes. Intent.

Messiaen certainly considered this in his works.

Again though, this is someone specifically setting bird calls in music. This
is not the bird call, it is the bird call being used in a work. So even if
you decide that naturally occurring bird calls are not music, that doesn't
prohibit them from being considered music when put in the context of a
piece.


But
> what is the bird's intent???

We don't know. But I'm talking in these cases about the intent of the
listener. If the listerner intends to hear it as music, then it is music to
that listener (granted, the listener may be in a minority of humans, but
that's no big deal).


> I think too, that MUSIC must call attention to itself... this again would
> mean that 4'33" is not Music as it deliberately tries to call to attention
> everything else other than itself.

Well, there you get into an argument about what is in the piece, and what's
not. We usually assume that a mute droppend on the floor during a
performance is not part of the performance, but if the composer writes in
the score "drop mute on floor", then it does become a part of the work. So
the question would be did Cage intend for ambient sounds to be part of the
piece or not?

>
> As language and words are subject to individual interpretation, only a
> generalized definition of Music is possible.

What about multipl precise definitions, like many other words?

>
> Beethoven/Symphony#5 = MUSIC.......... Cage/4'33" = notMUSIC

I disagree.

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 5:06:27 PM9/17/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZKdncwYAYL...@comcast.com...

[snip]

So, we are not allowed to take a word like cool, and use it to mean neat.
And neat can mean cool not clean. And an organizer can only be a person, not
a day planner or a handheld device. The word star can't be used to define a
celestial object, a person in a performance, a verb (gerund) a "to star in",
or anything that closely resembles a star. The sun must be the Sun, it can't
also be a star?

Words can and do have more than one definition, and those definitions may be
altered in time when need arises. That's the beauty of language.

But I'll take it as one vote that the listener's intent is unimportant.

LSL


David Webber

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 5:33:21 PM9/17/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...


> ....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
> Intent....

So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
communication.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm


Steve Layton

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 5:42:14 PM9/17/05
to
"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XMOdnWn7NYW...@comcast.com...
[...]

>
> Intent is essential... as is form. I believe we need to HEAR the
> sounds to be considered Music. That means that 4'33" is NOT music,
> in my estimation. Unless of course EVERYTHING not heard IS Music...!
> And then again, if there is no form... no deliberate intent to
> present sound in an orderly fashion (like Aleatorical music)... then
> it too cannot be considered Music... though sound is involved, as is
> a certain rythym.

I'll agree here with both Dave and Steve that intent is essential, an
absolute given in any art. Form, too. But there are at least two kinds
of intent; the maker's and the observer's (slightly clumsy term, as an
observer's intent makes him a "maker", too). Either can bring intent
to any situation, so that sometimes unintended things can be given
intent. Intent creates significance, which creates form with whatever
elements of the medium we're concerned with. Like I said about a
jillion posts back:

In music, we create that significance in only two broadest-level
"physical elements" or events: sound (physical or mental, intended or
unintended), and its compliment, "silence" (again physical or mental,
intended or unintended, both together marking some form in time). How
we care to further refine each of those is anybody's choice to offer,
and anybody else's choice to accept.

> Is a bird-song Music? Messiaen certainly considered this in his
> works. But what is the bird's intent??? Certainly, to entertain, is
> not the motive. Nor is spiritual enlightenment.

But there's always the oberver's intent as well, which can be very
different from either the birds or Messiaen.

>
> I think too, that MUSIC must call attention to itself... this again
> would mean that 4'33" is not Music as it deliberately tries to call
> to attention everything else other than itself.

Earlier, you also said: "I believe we need to HEAR the sounds to be
considered Music. That means that 4'33" is NOT music" . . . During
any performance of 4'33", there's no way you're *not* going to hear
sound occurring. This is precisely Cage's point, along with his belief
that those sounds themselves have a kind of aesthetic value, if we pay
attention. And 4'33" definitely does "call attention" to *itself*. It
uses a dedicated performer, in a concert setting, with very clearly
defined formal boundaries. That the sounds contained in that form
can't be anticipated doesn't at all negate its intent to be a musical
experience. Later there will be plenty of actual "conceptual music"
pieces, but 4'33" is definitely *not* one of those.

--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 5:59:17 PM9/17/05
to

"David Webber" <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgi2ee$m8g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>
>
>> ....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>
> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal communication.

The intent is to be music, not a sonar probe, political rally, or verbal
communication.

The verbal communication is sound and intent, but the intent is to be verbal
communication. But, if you put verbal communication into a piece (Lincoln
Portrait etc.) and the intent is for it to be music, then it is.

So by "intent" I meant it to imply "intended to be perceived as or
intentionally perceived as". Would you buy that Dave? (I think you might
agree with the intent, but not the intentionally perceived as part)

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 6:06:02 PM9/17/05
to

"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5ZGdnW5uY6r...@speakeasy.net...

> "Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XMOdnWn7NYW...@comcast.com...
> [...]
>>
>> Intent is essential... as is form. I believe we need to HEAR the sounds
>> to be considered Music. That means that 4'33" is NOT music, in my
>> estimation. Unless of course EVERYTHING not heard IS Music...! And then
>> again, if there is no form... no deliberate intent to present sound in an
>> orderly fashion (like Aleatorical music)... then it too cannot be
>> considered Music... though sound is involved, as is a certain rythym.
>
> I'll agree here with both Dave and Steve that intent is essential, an
> absolute given in any art. Form, too. But there are at least two kinds of
> intent; the maker's and the observer's (slightly clumsy term, as an
> observer's intent makes him a "maker", too).

My "composer" (performer) and "listener" - and that was part of my point in
presenting it that way, because we haven't been discussing the maker's
intent, but, when the listner hear music, they are intending to hear it as
such and become a "creator" in that respect as you say.


Either can bring intent
> to any situation, so that sometimes unintended things can be given intent.

Right, like the "random" aspect of aletoric music Matticus was mentioning.

Intent creates significance, which creates form with whatever
> elements of the medium we're concerned with. Like I said about a jillion
> posts back:
>
> In music, we create that significance in only two broadest-level "physical
> elements" or events: sound (physical or mental, intended or unintended),
> and its compliment, "silence" (again physical or mental, intended or
> unintended, both together marking some form in time). How we care to
> further refine each of those is anybody's choice to offer, and anybody
> else's choice to accept.

Very nice -sorry I missed it ealier.

>
>> Is a bird-song Music? Messiaen certainly considered this in his works.
>> But what is the bird's intent??? Certainly, to entertain, is not the
>> motive. Nor is spiritual enlightenment.
>
> But there's always the oberver's intent as well, which can be very
> different from either the birds or Messiaen.


>
>>
>> I think too, that MUSIC must call attention to itself... this again would
>> mean that 4'33" is not Music as it deliberately tries to call to
>> attention everything else other than itself.
>
> Earlier, you also said: "I believe we need to HEAR the sounds to be
> considered Music. That means that 4'33" is NOT music" . . . During any
> performance of 4'33", there's no way you're *not* going to hear sound
> occurring. This is precisely Cage's point, along with his belief that
> those sounds themselves have a kind of aesthetic value, if we pay
> attention. And 4'33" definitely does "call attention" to *itself*. It uses
> a dedicated performer, in a concert setting, with very clearly defined
> formal boundaries. That the sounds contained in that form can't be
> anticipated doesn't at all negate its intent to be a musical experience.
> Later there will be plenty of actual "conceptual music" pieces, but 4'33"
> is definitely *not* one of those.
>

I think part of this particular instance is a general unfamiliarity with
this piece. Most have heard about it, but not actually heard it - er,
wait... you know what I mean - attended a performance! I was even not as
well informed about the score as I thought I was and thanks again to Samuel
for the link to the Tudor discussions etc.

Thanks Steve L,

Steve L.


Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 6:30:06 PM9/17/05
to
David Webber wrote:

> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>
>
>
>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
>>Intent....
>
>
> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
> communication.


Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?

Steve Layton

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 6:52:27 PM9/17/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> David Webber wrote:
>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>
>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
>>>Intent....
>>
>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>> communication.
>
> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?


This is good; we have sound, intent, and the "when" of time (so form).

Fiona Abrahami

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 8:05:50 PM9/17/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote


> David Webber wrote:
> > "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote
> >

> >>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
> >>Intent....
> >
> > So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
> > communication.
>
> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?

Personally, I think this is still too broad, and it needs further
qualification (although it might seem recursive): "Music is when sound is
intended to be music, and includes some reference to musical tradition" i.e.
it is the intent to be music that is all important. After all, when I ring
my neighbour's door bell (I like the Dutch for this "to 'bell' my
neighbour") by ringing the doorbell I am intending to make a sound that will
grab their attention, but I am not intending to make music even if I ring it
rhythmically, so it is not music because it lacks the intent.


Fiona

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 8:40:13 PM9/17/05
to
Intent, yes. Sender's intent, no--not for music, but for language.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 8:44:30 PM9/17/05
to
In article <dgib1m$405$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,

What if it comes out beautiful?

The bells on the cable cars in San Francisco are for alerting people
that the car is starting. Have you ever heard some of the amazing performances
the operators can pull off on those things? People sometimes tip them
for it just like any other busker.

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 8:42:28 PM9/17/05
to
In article <dgi2ee$m8g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,

David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>
>
>> ....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
>> Intent....
>
>So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>communication.

This is why sender's intent to send a message is not part of my
definition, but listener's esthetic reception is.

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 8:55:37 PM9/17/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Do%We.640$Az1.535@trnddc07...

>
> "Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XMOdnWn7NYW...@comcast.com...
>> It seems to me this is an age of "re-defining" ideas and concepts...
>> (what do you mean by "is").
>
> Who says ideas and concepts can't or shouldn't be redesigned.


Sorry... I meant the definition of the words used to describe those ideas
and concepts are changed. Of course ideas and concepts will change, but in
order to discuss them the words and definitions of those words need to be
defined and agreed upon.


>> When someone cannot get the results they want, they move to "re-define"
>> the word or concept. It seems to me an easier task to invent a new word
>> to describe a new concept.
>
> Well that is certainly true.
>
> In an earlier exchange it was suggested that
>> AMELODIC was the essence of rap... sounds like a pretty good use of a new
>> word to me to describe a form of "music" that has no melody per se...
>> lots of rythym though.
>
> Right, but we're talking about a different level (a sub-level below
> music). The point is, people try to say that "rap" is not music and use
> the argument that is has no melody, so it can't be. I would say that music
> that has no melody could be called "amelodic" or whatever, but, it is
> still music.
>
>>
>> Intent is essential... as is form. I believe we need to HEAR the sounds
>> to be considered Music.
>
> Ok, what about if I write the Yankee Doodle piece that's to high to be
> heard. You would say that not music. When does it stop becoming music?
> When the frequencies reach 15k+ (which you and probably can't hear) or
> 18k+ where an 8 year old can't hear it anymore (my point being, while the
> numbers are made up, that does music cease to be music if you turn it down
> too low to be heard? What if you can't hear it but someone else can?).


Well then, to me, it is not music if I can't hear it... I could stay at home
a "listen" to this sort of "music"... not very enjoyable though.


>
> That means that 4'33" is NOT music, in my estimation.
>
> That's where you're wrong. Everyone makes the assumption that 4'33" is
> silent. It's not. The piece is about the sounds in the preformance venue
> that occur while the piece is being performed. Everyone's sniffle, program
> rustle, ari conditioning hum, etc. are part of the performance. You do
> hear those, so by that you must concede it is music (though you could make
> another argument now besides inaudibility).


I realize that 4'33" is not about silence... but what is the intent if he
did not score that jack-hammer or that squealing bus or honking horn (fill
in your own sound). Cage only intended that you hear the environment... but
with no pre-determined sound selected where is the intent? But I wasn't
listening to Cage... I was listening to everything BUT Cage.


>
>
>> Unless of course EVERYTHING not heard IS Music...!
>
> But then, there's no intent. But you are getting to something that I'd
> like to clarify. Is sheet music Music? Or does it only become music when
> it is performed (or "heard" in someone's head as they read the music?


I think this is false... a person does not hear anything "in his head"... he
only thinks he does. To hear, the aural nerves need to be excited... no
sound, no hear.


>
> And then again, if there
>> is no form... no deliberate intent to present sound in an orderly fashion
>> (like Aleatorical music)... then it too cannot be considered Music...
>> though sound is involved, as is a certain rythym.
>
> Aleatoric music is not random. It might be a random set of events but it
> is set in motion by someone intending to compose a work, perform a work,
> or listen to a work. If you throw rocks into the air and draw notes
> wherever they land on staff paper, the pattern of falling might be random
> (although one could argue that gravity, air density, rock shape and mass,
> etc. can be calculated) but the act of choosing rocks to throw on to staff
> paper and then create an aural artistic work out of it is not "random" by
> the composer. Only one aspect of the piece is random, the rest are
> conciously controlled - intent.
>
>>
>> Is a bird-song Music?
>
> If you intend to hear it as such, yes. Intent.


So.... EVERYTHING is MUSIC if I wish it to be???


>
> Messiaen certainly considered this in his works.
>
> Again though, this is someone specifically setting bird calls in music.
> This is not the bird call, it is the bird call being used in a work. So
> even if you decide that naturally occurring bird calls are not music, that
> doesn't prohibit them from being considered music when put in the context
> of a piece.
>
>
> But
>> what is the bird's intent???
>
> We don't know. But I'm talking in these cases about the intent of the
> listener. If the listerner intends to hear it as music, then it is music
> to that listener (granted, the listener may be in a minority of humans,
> but that's no big deal).
>
>
>> I think too, that MUSIC must call attention to itself... this again would
>> mean that 4'33" is not Music as it deliberately tries to call to
>> attention everything else other than itself.
>
> Well, there you get into an argument about what is in the piece, and
> what's not. We usually assume that a mute droppend on the floor during a
> performance is not part of the performance, but if the composer writes in
> the score "drop mute on floor", then it does become a part of the work. So
> the question would be did Cage intend for ambient sounds to be part of the
> piece or not?
>
>>
>> As language and words are subject to individual interpretation, only a
>> generalized definition of Music is possible.
>
> What about multipl precise definitions, like many other words?


CONTEXT


>
>>
>> Beethoven/Symphony#5 = MUSIC.......... Cage/4'33" = notMUSIC
>
> I disagree.


And I respectfully agree to disagree...
>
> Steve
>


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 9:19:38 PM9/17/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> David Webber wrote:
>
>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>
>>
>>
>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>>
>>
>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal communication.
>
>
> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?
>
>
> --
> samuel
> MP3's of my works and performances:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/


So if I intentionally, and rhythmically keep hitting a trash can with a
hammer, and I intend it to be music... it is. If I swing the hammer and stop
short of contact with the trash can, this too is music if I wish it to be?
This should make for a very interesting pledge break on a local PBS station.

Why do I NOT have to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven, but I have to
have Cage explained to me? I mean I realize Beethoven is dead and the music
is old... but it touches me without ever having to be explained, but Cage
and similar composers need an apologist... sounds like a sales pitch to
me...CAVEAT EMPTOR...

I just can't imagine myself years from now digging out the ol' 4'33" and
popping it on the player and kicking back. Seems to me rather like the
"Christ in Piss" piece... OK, now what? Has this benefited Humanity in some
way? How?

What then, is MUSIC?

dave....... www.Shemakhan.com


J R Laredo

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 9:32:03 PM9/17/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
> In this recent discussion in the Death of Tonality thread that has now
> become either attempts to define music, or support for reasons on whether
> such a definition is even useful or not, one thing I have not heard
> mentioned too much is the intent of the work.
>
> The adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to come into play
> in not only the definition of beautiful music, but music in general. Many
> are supporting the position that "it is music if the listener hears it as
> such".
>
> Ignoring that possibility for the moment, let's say I do want a working
> definition of music. Here are my problems:
>
Well, you can't ignore that possibility, because, music does exist only
within the mind. Everything else is just vibrating air.

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 9:37:48 PM9/17/05
to
If I had a concert performance, and the "performer" played a recording of a
Beethoven symphony on stage to the audience, is this music???

dave......... www.Shemakhan.com


Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 9:38:33 PM9/17/05
to
In article <m4ydnWQWDa4...@comcast.com>,

Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>So if I intentionally, and rhythmically keep hitting a trash can with a
>hammer, and I intend it to be music... it is. If I swing the hammer and stop
>short of contact with the trash can, this too is music if I wish it to be?
>This should make for a very interesting pledge break on a local PBS station.

Stranger things have happened.

>Why do I NOT have to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven, but I have to
>have Cage explained to me? I mean I realize Beethoven is dead and the music
>is old... but it touches me without ever having to be explained, but Cage
>and similar composers need an apologist... sounds like a sales pitch to
>me...CAVEAT EMPTOR...

Why do people imagine they're getting Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and it's
just irritating, rather than that they aren't following it at all?
Why did Ravi Shankar lecture at the beginning of his concerts in the
US but not in India?
Sounds to me more like a matter of simple familiarity.

>I just can't imagine myself years from now digging out the ol' 4'33" and
>popping it on the player and kicking back. Seems to me rather like the
>"Christ in Piss" piece... OK, now what? Has this benefited Humanity in some
>way? How?

Some people seem to think it has benefitted them. Do you really
think anybody benefitted from "Yellow Submarine", or "That's The Way I
Like It", or "YMCA"?

>What then, is MUSIC?

What makes YMCA music? Isn't it just irritating noise made of fashionable
bits stolen from Johann Strauss? Or is it?

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 9:39:09 PM9/17/05
to
In article <NdGdneEB1KV...@comcast.com>,

Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>If I had a concert performance, and the "performer" played a recording of a
>Beethoven symphony on stage to the audience, is this music???

Ever been to an electronic music concert?

Steve Layton

unread,
Sep 17, 2005, 11:23:30 PM9/17/05
to
"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:1z3Xe.36$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

> In article <NdGdneEB1KV...@comcast.com>,
> Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>If I had a concert performance, and the "performer" played a
>>recording of a
>>Beethoven symphony on stage to the audience, is this music???
>
> Ever been to an electronic music concert?

For an acoustic version, there's Paul Ignace's Symphonie Fantastique
No. 2 (which is identical to Berlioz's original; Ignace simply crossed
out Berlioz's name and put his own name on the conductor's score as
author, and added the "#2" to the title. I think David Cope's book
"New Directions in Music" had the details).

Of course this is about as old as Duchamp, when he signed a
bottle-rack or urinal, as early as 1914. He was being a little cheeky
when he made the Mona Lisa his own, with a mustache; but by extension
from the bottle-rack, he could just as easily have made a "pure"
version without the mustache.

A maybe trivial, but I think interesting thought, comes to me thinking
about seeing Yes play in Portland back in about 1972. The music that
actually began the concert, which they walked out to and then began
playing with no break as the recording ended, was the finale of
Stravinky's "Firebird" (I think you can hear this on the live
"Yessongs" album). Of course the piece is unaltered Stravinsky, but
for many people it somehow then becomes part of a Yes piece, too,
integral to their experience of the Yes concert!

And the whole notion of musical quotation comes up. Normally some few
bars of the quoted piece is inserted into the new piece. But once
you've done that, what is the difference if the quote is a few bars
longer? Or many bars longer? Or even the entire movement?... There's
no "official" line that can be drawn, only each person's own
particular subjective opinion.

Joachim Pense

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:26:56 AM9/18/05
to
Lookingglass:

>
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> David Webber wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>>>
>>>
>>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>>> communication.
>>
>>
>> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?
>>
>>
>> --
>> samuel
>> MP3's of my works and performances:
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/
>
>
> So if I intentionally, and rhythmically keep hitting a trash can with a
> hammer, and I intend it to be music... it is.

Yes

> If I swing the hammer and
> stop short of contact with the trash can, this too is music if I wish it
> to be? This should make for a very interesting pledge break on a local PBS
> station.

It's performance art. It can be considered as a "borderline" case of music.

>
> Why do I NOT have to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven,

I _had_ to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven.

> but I have to have Cage explained to me?

That is certainly not necessary to a large for many Cage pieces (Sonatas and
Interludes for Prepared Piano for example). For some pieces it is
necessary. But still less than Beethoven.

> I mean I realize Beethoven is dead and the
> music is old... but it touches me without ever having to be explained,

I am not sure if that is true. Well, I am pretty certain it is not. It takes
a lot of education, experience and knowledge to appreciate Beethoven's
music.

David Webber

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:01:47 AM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Vk0Xe.3161$Yu2.834@trnddc02...


> The intent is to be music, not a sonar probe, political rally, or
> verbal communication.
>
> The verbal communication is sound and intent, but the intent is to
> be verbal communication. But, if you put verbal communication into
> a piece (Lincoln Portrait etc.) and the intent is for it to be
> music, then it is.
>
> So by "intent" I meant it to imply "intended to be perceived as or
> intentionally perceived as". Would you buy that Dave? (I think you
> might agree with the intent, but not the intentionally perceived
> as part)

Hmmm. Not really. I find it deeply unsatisfactory.

Essentially you are saying that anything is music if the originator
intends it to be. This is Humpty Dumpty's approach, which
actually I have always admired in one way, whilst finding it deeply
unsatisfactory of course for lexicographers. In your case it does
not provide a definition of music, rather an evasion of any
definition.

Not that I was trying to "define" music, myself. I was merely
pointing out that the most significant factors (of music from the
mists of antiquity to the present day) are rhythm, melody, and
harmony. I have seen nothing here to make me alter that view,
however hard some people try to find very specific examples of music
where other factors are also important to them.

David Webber

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:03:25 AM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and

>>>Intent....
>>
>>
>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>> communication.
>
> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?

Sound is intended in all the above.

Steve tells us music is when music is intended. As a definition, I
find that unsatisfactory - see other post.

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:28:55 AM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> David Webber wrote:
>
>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>
>>
>>
>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>>
>>
>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal communication.
>
>
> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?
>

Not without further explanation I think. I realized from David's response
that the "intent" must specify that it is intent to be perceived as music,
so it's not just "sound" with other intents - the other is what I didn't
specify inthe definition (though it was implied in my discussion).

Newly revised:
Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

How's that?

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:30:41 AM9/18/05
to

"Steve Layton" <dal...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:a7adneuasZw...@speakeasy.net...
Yes, Steve, I meant to mention that in my last response to you - the intent
if what you mention (and mentioned Dave menitoned :-) as "form" (also
organized, etc.)

So now I have:

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:32:17 AM9/18/05
to

"Fiona Abrahami" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgib1m$405$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

Fiona, I realized that everyone moght not read my original post, and when
Dave read a snipped version I realized it did need more specificity in the
wording, so now I have;

Newly revised:
Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), intentionally conceived or

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:37:41 AM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:NH2Xe.28$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

> Intent, yes. Sender's intent, no--not for music, but for language.

I was hoping you'd chime in Matt, because I was afraid you'd say what I
think you're saying.

You're saying the composer's or creator's intent has nothing to do with it
being music, only the end user's perception?

Right?

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:43:05 AM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:UJ2Xe.29$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

> In article <dgi2ee$m8g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>
>>
>>> ....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and
>>> Intent....
>>
>>So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>>communication.
>
> This is why sender's intent to send a message is not part of my
> definition, but listener's esthetic reception is.
>


I had to re-specify in the wording of the definition Matt because once
snipped from my original post, the idea of intent was no longer specific, so

Newly revised:
Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

Now, I know you want to eliminate the "conceived" part - in that the
sender's intent. But, what I'm doing here is specifying that the sender's or
receiver's intent would be for it to be considered music. That eliminates
the sonar probe (I mentioned this in my original discussion of intent, which
is why I included intent in the first place - to separate music from verbal
communication).

So why I'm not eliminating the end user's esthetic reception, I'm "adding" a
qualifier that the composer's intent may also be allowed to be a factor.

What do you think?

Steve


Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:43:29 AM9/18/05
to

Well, I would say that in ringing, it was not the sound that was intended but
the message that a doorbell delivers. The poetry place I work in has a theatre,
where during performances we turn off the sound of the doorbell - instead, a
light flashes when someone rings. So sound isn't even necessary in a doorbell.

In music, though, the intention is always the sound itself (even if it may also
convey ideas or feelings).

Your definition is circular, which makes it inherently problematic, but I could
live with that - if it weren't for the fact that you posit some 'musical
tradition' as a criterium. Here, my alarm bells begin to, er, flash, because I'm
very suspicious of invoking "tradition" as a means of limiting the field of
possibility, usually a power ploy in disguise.

The way I see tradition is always open - hence Philippe de Vitry, hence
Monteverdi, hence Beethoven, hence Schoenberg, hence Cage, hence Johnson, hence
La Monte Young and all those others who were less interested in limiting music
than in keeping it fresh.

Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:45:49 AM9/18/05
to
Lookingglass wrote:


> Why do I NOT have to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven, but I have to
> have Cage explained to me?

Taste? Sensibility?

I never had to be lectured about Cage when it came to his actual pieces. Brahms,
though, yes, I had to be lectured a bit I suppose.

> I just can't imagine myself years from now digging out the ol' 4'33" and
> popping it on the player and kicking back. Seems to me rather like the
> "Christ in Piss" piece... OK, now what? Has this benefited Humanity in some
> way? How?

I never cared for Serrano much. The controversy of that piece seemed contrived
to me. But I won't speak for Humanity!

> What then, is MUSIC?

Whatever you need it to be!

--
samuel
MP3's of my works and performances:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,

Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:48:36 AM9/18/05
to
Steve Latham wrote:


Why aren't you including Space? That's very important to me. Also, Medium
(loudspeaker or human body, etc), Context (occasion, etc).

Come to think of it, perhaps we should simplify instead: Music is Music. ?

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 10:56:45 AM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:OL2Xe.30$yb...@news.itd.umich.edu...
[snip]

>
> What if it comes out beautiful?

Beauty is in the ear of the beholder :-)

>
> The bells on the cable cars in San Francisco are for alerting people
> that the car is starting. Have you ever heard some of the amazing
> performances
> the operators can pull off on those things?

OK, then they are transforming the original intent into a musical intent,
which is included in my definition.

Additionally, if the end user perceives it as music, that is still included
in the definition.

Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:16:02 AM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wa-dnVw3veS...@comcast.com...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Do%We.640$Az1.535@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XMOdnWn7NYW...@comcast.com...
>>> It seems to me this is an age of "re-defining" ideas and concepts...
>>> (what do you mean by "is").
>>
>> Who says ideas and concepts can't or shouldn't be redesigned.
>
>
> Sorry... I meant the definition of the words used to describe those ideas
> and concepts are changed. Of course ideas and concepts will change, but in
> order to discuss them the words and definitions of those words need to be
> defined and agreed upon.


Exactly. But when concepts change, they either need to be incorporated into
and existing definition, or, a new one made. However, I don't feel that
prejudice or ignorance should be a reason for not wanting to change a
definition (or create a new one) as seems to be the case with a lot of "new"
concepts.


>
>
> Well then, to me, it is not music if I can't hear it... I could stay at
> home a "listen" to this sort of "music"... not very enjoyable though.

I'm not suggesting enjoyment should be a part of it because as you know, we
all like way too many different things. It's far to subjective to include.

But let me ask you this. If I play a subsonic note, is it a note?

[snip]


>
> I realize that 4'33" is not about silence... but what is the intent if he
> did not score that jack-hammer or that squealing bus or honking horn (fill
> in your own sound). Cage only intended that you hear the environment...
> but with no pre-determined sound selected where is the intent?

The intent is that you sit down for a performance of the work at a
predetermined time period and location - the time period is the duration of
the piece (which is intentionally decided upon by the player with the aid of
an intentionally described score) and the location is your range of hearing
(sounds that are audible to you in that location). The random sounds that
happen during the event are random, but everything else is specified.

You wouldn't consider the random fluctuations in timbre or dynamics (or
tempo) to disqualify any Beethoven as being Music. You wouldn't also
disqualify a Jazz improviser's random choices of note patterns (which are
all pre-learned from a "bag of licks" - but random in presentation) as not
being music would you?

But I wasn't
> listening to Cage... I was listening to everything BUT Cage.

But you are hearing Cage. The performance instructions specify that the
sounds of the venue are an active part of the piece - intent.

Now, I would argue that if you just stoll throught the park and hear some
sounds, you are not really hearing a piece then, just random sounds. But
haven't you ever heard some machinery and noticed it makes a rhythm? If you
then detemine that the time you a e listening to that, intentionally making
your mind hear it as a specific rhythm during a period of time which you
intend to be "the performance", then you could argue that it was a "musical
performance" - I realize it would only be so in your mind, but, if you
invited a bunch of people out to hear a musical performance and took them to
the location, then they, understanding the your intent is to hear it in some
organized fashion makes them percieve it not as random, but as "organized
sound" - I'm defining that is music, many may choose not to. But isn't it
worth considering?


>
> I think this is false... a person does not hear anything "in his head"...
> he only thinks he does. To hear, the aural nerves need to be excited... no
> sound, no hear.

I can see that standpoint. So you would say that it becomes music when the
sound waves enter the atmosphere. Thus a stereo playing in the woods is
music, even if no one is there to hear it, since the sound is being
produced. Is that correct?

(watch out, I'm trying to trip you up becuase, if you claim that this is
true, then the supersonic Yankee Doodle must still be music.).


[snip]

>
>
> So.... EVERYTHING is MUSIC if I wish it to be???

Well, I'm qulaifying it that the intent must be musical intent, not poetic
intent, communicative intent, etc.


Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

>


> And I respectfully agree to disagree...

Always everyone's right. But given the definition above, would you consider
this plausible, or would you modify it in some way?

Best,
Steve
>>


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:27:22 AM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m4ydnWQWDa4...@comcast.com...

>
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> David Webber wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>>>
>>>
>>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>>> communication.
>>
>>
>> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?
>>
>>
>> --
>> samuel
>> MP3's of my works and performances:
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/
>
>
> So if I intentionally, and rhythmically keep hitting a trash can with a
> hammer, and I intend it to be music... it is.

I think so. Matt would disagree.

If I swing the hammer and stop
> short of contact with the trash can, this too is music if I wish it to be?

No, becuase you produced no sound.

Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

> This should make for a very interesting pledge break on a local PBS
> station.
>
> Why do I NOT have to be lectured to, to appreciate Beethoven, but I have
> to have Cage explained to me? I mean I realize Beethoven is dead and the
> music is old... but it touches me without ever having to be explained, but
> Cage and similar composers need an apologist... sounds like a sales pitch
> to me...CAVEAT EMPTOR...

Most people actually aren't able to appreciate Beethoven at the level they
might be able to becuase they don't understand it beyond a certain level,
which is unfortunate becuase there's so much to enjoy.

And were not apologizing, we saying everyone has a right to make music in
their own way without being ostracised for it. We're talking about
acceptance, rather than outright uninformed dismissal.

>
> I just can't imagine myself years from now digging out the ol' 4'33" and
> popping it on the player and kicking back.

I know. I see your point. But it's not meant for that. It's not really meant
to exist in the recorded medium. Obviously Ballet is meant for the stage,
but you don't have a problem listening to the music without seeing the
dancers do you? So recordings may fall short in some instances of musical
works. However, if you did appreciate 4'33" you could perform it yourself
anytime you like. How's that for empowerment!

Seems to me rather like the
> "Christ in Piss" piece... OK, now what? Has this benefited Humanity in
> some way? How?

I don't call that Art. I call it "Shock Art" because the focus is not on the
Art, but the Art (if there is one) of shocking people. The art is not about
the object, but about people's reactions to it. I would argue for it on a
philosophical level, but those who do it not for art's sake, but simply to
shock people are "cheaters" in mye eyes.

If I wrote a piece comprised of electronic snippets of rapists justifying
their actions you could bet I could get a reaction out of it. But, I would
never compose such a work unless I had a good artistic reason for doing so
(i.e. to inform people that those people think they are in the right when
they are obviously not), but it seems many people have jumped on this
bandwagon and would do it just to shock people, which I think is less than
honest.

But Cage was honest about what he was doing.
>
> What then, is MUSIC?


Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.


Steve

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:28:43 AM9/18/05
to

"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ns3Xe.368082$xm3.89868@attbi_s21...

I only ignored it for the moment. If you read on, you will find that it is
incorporated later.


Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

intentionally perceived is "in the ear of the listener".

Steve

David Webber

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:28:38 AM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:HQeXe.2652$9a2.1538@trnddc04...

> Newly revised:
> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally
> conceived or perceived as music.
>
> How's that?

No room for argument there. But whom does this definition help
exactly?

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:31:32 AM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NdGdneEB1KV...@comcast.com...

> If I had a concert performance, and the "performer" played a recording of
> a Beethoven symphony on stage to the audience, is this music???

Yes.

Obviously, the recording is music.

But, if the recording is incorporated into a larger piece, which is what
we're talking about here, then it would still be music. It is a performer
intentionally creating musical sounds (after all, he could have picked 4'33"
to play! :-).

That's no different than a guitarist sitting up there and playing, except
that the "instrument" is a playback device that produces sound from a
pre-existing set of data.

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:33:58 AM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:ty3Xe.35$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

>
> Some people seem to think it has benefitted them. Do you really
> think anybody benefitted from "Yellow Submarine", or "That's The Way I
> Like It", or "YMCA"?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. There was much more getting laid going on from those!


>
>>What then, is MUSIC?
>
> What makes YMCA music?

it's got a beat, and you can seduce young men to it (apparently).

Isn't it just irritating noise made of fashionable
> bits stolen from Johann Strauss? Or is it?

Right, but my definition doesn't exclude it (much as I would like to).

I'm just responding to be silly here though Matt.

Steve


Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:39:18 AM9/18/05
to
David Webber wrote:

> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:HQeXe.2652$9a2.1538@trnddc04...
>
>
>>Newly revised:
>>Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally
>>conceived or perceived as music.
>>
>>How's that?
>
>
> No room for argument there. But whom does this definition help
> exactly?


Are you implying that a definition that helps somebody will leave room for argument?


--
samuel
MP3's of my works and performances:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/

Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:43:45 AM9/18/05
to

"David Webber" <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgjee9$krf$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
[snip]

>
> Hmmm. Not really. I find it deeply unsatisfactory.
>
> Essentially you are saying that anything is music if the originator
> intends it to be.

Originator, or Listner.

This is Humpty Dumpty's approach, which
> actually I have always admired in one way, whilst finding it deeply
> unsatisfactory of course for lexicographers. In your case it does not
> provide a definition of music, rather an evasion of any definition.

It does specify two things - Sound and Intent

Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

I realized ealry on that it might be evasive. But go back to my original
post David. Making the case for sound eliminates "performance art" or
"theatrical" aspects that are not sound, but it does not make a distinction
between poetry and music, which is where intent comes in.

Now, I will say that I think everyone agrees that sound or silence in the
form of silence within the duration of the work) and intent is important.

What I'm still on the fence about is the composer's and/or the listener's
intent. Matt feels that the composer's intent is not a factor, and you seem
to feel that the listener's intent is not a factor (other wise, we can call
"anything" music - I'm reducing to anything to "sound and intentionally
considered as music", but considered by whom?). It's got to be one or the
other, or both.


> Not that I was trying to "define" music, myself. I was merely pointing
> out that the most significant factors (of music from the mists of
> antiquity to the present day) are rhythm, melody, and harmony.

I understood that (that's why I said I wasn't picking on you).

I have seen nothing here to make me alter that view,
> however hard some people try to find very specific examples of music where
> other factors are also important to them.

Agreed, but I have never like harmony as a traditional factor. I would
prefer Pitch (in which melody and harmony are both considered) and Rhythm
for that type of definition. Though I will certianly concede without
reservation that whenever it comes up in traditional discussions, then those
three that you present are the ones that are mentioned.

But consider my definition


Newly revised:
Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

And tell me what you think now that I've clarified the "not a definition"
factor (I hope).

Steve

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:47:24 AM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VYeXe.2655$9a2.421@trnddc04...


WHOA!!!................. So the composer need not intend the music? To use
the "travel" analogy, I don't need the car for travel as my intention for
travel is enough!?!?!?!

I'm not sure that a composer writes his carefully considered and selected
notes on the manuscript page (or onto a virtual staff for some) without
INTENDING it to be heard at some point as music... IMHO.


dave............. www.Shemakhan.com


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:48:06 AM9/18/05
to

"David Webber" <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgjee9$krf$2$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:432c9949$0$11074$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>>>....Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent....
>>>
>>>
>>> So is a sonar probe, and a political rally, and any verbal
>>> communication.
>>
>> Can we repair this by saying "Music is when sound is intended"?
>
> Sound is intended in all the above.
>
> Steve tells us music is when music is intended. As a definition, I find
> that unsatisfactory - see other post.

My problem is of course Dave, that if it's not music that's intended, it
does loes any definitive power - it's just defining sound. But to ditinguish
between Poetry and Music, it would need to include that the Sounds (I'm of
course talking about a poem being read, not the text) are inteneded in some
way to be poetry, or music.

Now my problem is who decided this intent?

So do you agree with this, because if not, what separates music from poetry?

???
Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:57:07 AM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432d7ea0$0$11067$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

>
>
> Why aren't you including Space?

Sound exists in space (I assume you mean "area", not "Space" as in outer
space.

That's very important to me.

Also, Medium
> (loudspeaker or human body, etc), Context (occasion, etc).

Doesn't matter. Sound is produced by a loudspeaker or a human body. Music
can be produced by either.

Context is an important one. I feel like it's covered in Intent, but I was
wondering if some mention of "performance" must be made. Like a set of time
boundaries in which the work takes place. What do you think?


> Come to think of it, perhaps we should simplify instead: Music is Music.

Well of course, but that goes against that whole don't define a word with
itself thing they always teach you :-)

Although, you see I did have to include it in mine in a way too!

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 11:58:36 AM9/18/05
to

"David Webber" <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgk14q$b39$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:HQeXe.2652$9a2.1538@trnddc04...
>
>> Newly revised:
>> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived
>> or perceived as music.
>>
>> How's that?
>
> No room for argument there. But whom does this definition help exactly?
>

Those who wish to make a differentiation between types of art: music is an
art, sculpture is an art, but music is not sculpture (and that's not to say
that aspects can't be intertwined into musical-sculpture, etc.)


Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:01:51 PM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-fCdnWKGbbG...@comcast.com...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:VYeXe.2655$9a2.421@trnddc04...
>>
>> "Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:NH2Xe.28$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>> Intent, yes. Sender's intent, no--not for music, but for language.
>>
>> I was hoping you'd chime in Matt, because I was afraid you'd say what I
>> think you're saying.
>>
>> You're saying the composer's or creator's intent has nothing to do with
>> it being music, only the end user's perception?
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> WHOA!!!................. So the composer need not intend the music?

My definition includes that possibiliy. I think Matt disagrees.

To use
> the "travel" analogy, I don't need the car for travel as my intention for
> travel is enough!?!?!?!

Your talking about a physical thing here. Music is perceived (the sound part
of it is physical, but we as humans make it or call it music, it is not
"inherently" music).

>
> I'm not sure that a composer writes his carefully considered and selected
> notes on the manuscript page (or onto a virtual staff for some) without
> INTENDING it to be heard at some point as music... IMHO.

Exactly, and I'm trying to honor that intention by including that
possibility in the "intentionally conceived" part - with which I think Matt
disagrees,
so I'm wating to see.

Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

But what do you think about the Sound and "Composer's Intent" parts so far?

Steve

Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:08:47 PM9/18/05
to
Steve Latham wrote:

> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:432d7ea0$0$11067$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>>
>>Why aren't you including Space?
>
>
> Sound exists in space (I assume you mean "area", not "Space" as in outer
> space.
>
> That's very important to me.
>
> Also, Medium
>
>>(loudspeaker or human body, etc), Context (occasion, etc).
>
>
> Doesn't matter. Sound is produced by a loudspeaker or a human body. Music
> can be produced by either.
>
> Context is an important one. I feel like it's covered in Intent, but I was
> wondering if some mention of "performance" must be made. Like a set of time
> boundaries in which the work takes place. What do you think?

Time, definitely.

I think why I mention this is because I think in a good musical performance,
there is going to be a theatrical dimension which isn't covered merely by the
parameters of sound. The theaticality of a loudspeaker is of course very
different from that of a human player (not to mention the theatricality of a
performer who is being amplified!). A CD played at home, by definition, is a
domestication of this theatrical experience of music.

>>Come to think of it, perhaps we should simplify instead: Music is Music.
>
>
> Well of course, but that goes against that whole don't define a word with
> itself thing they always teach you :-)
>
> Although, you see I did have to include it in mine in a way too!

What about this:

Music is valuable sound.

Samuel Vriezen

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:11:27 PM9/18/05
to
Samuel Vriezen wrote:

> What about this:
>
> Music is valuable sound.


Music is when sound is recognized as valuable.

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:25:06 PM9/18/05
to
Are "tonal languages" Music?... (as referred to at this link). While not
with the intention to be Music, there is a rhythm, pitch, sound.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Tonal_language

If I play a solo violin piece by Bach, but do not INTEND it to be Music, is
it Music?


dave........... www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 12:41:27 PM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:PbgXe.5975$Yu2.1587@trnddc02...

(snip)


> But what do you think about the Sound and "Composer's Intent" parts so
> far?
>
> Steve


I absolutely agree that those 2 components a necessary... but there is so
much more to MUSIC... otherwise, if I intend that the methodic hammering of
a trashcan (by itself) be Music, then anything, and everything can be (and
is) MUSIC, by merely stating that it IS Music... though I would classify it
as "organized noise"...(nothing wrong with that).

dave.............. www.Shemakhan.com (I think my brain hurts!!!) ;^)


Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:48:14 PM9/18/05
to
In article <432d8a82$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,

Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>David Webber wrote:
>
>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:HQeXe.2652$9a2.1538@trnddc04...
>>
>>
>>>Newly revised:
>>>Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally
>>>conceived or perceived as music.
>>>
>>>How's that?
>>
>>
>> No room for argument there. But whom does this definition help
>> exactly?
>
>
>Are you implying that a definition that helps somebody will leave room
>for argument?
>

I'd like to point the whole direction in the direction of esthetics,
though I have no unified theory of esthetics.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:51:05 PM9/18/05
to
In article <VYeXe.2655$9a2.421@trnddc04>,

As in, when my grandfather heard Bartok, he heard a lot of noise,
despite Bartok's painstaking efforts.

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:51:41 PM9/18/05
to
In article <-fCdnWKGbbG...@comcast.com>,

Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:VYeXe.2655$9a2.421@trnddc04...
>>
>> "Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:NH2Xe.28$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>> Intent, yes. Sender's intent, no--not for music, but for language.
>>
>> I was hoping you'd chime in Matt, because I was afraid you'd say what I
>> think you're saying.
>>
>> You're saying the composer's or creator's intent has nothing to do with it
>> being music, only the end user's perception?
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>WHOA!!!................. So the composer need not intend the music? To use
>the "travel" analogy, I don't need the car for travel as my intention for
>travel is enough!?!?!?!

Give Dave a pair of Nikes and see if he can get down to the corner store
without a car!

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:49:28 PM9/18/05
to
In article <rJCdnaqHpZ9...@comcast.com>,

Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Are "tonal languages" Music?... (as referred to at this link). While not
>with the intention to be Music, there is a rhythm, pitch, sound.
>
>http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Tonal_language
>
>If I play a solo violin piece by Bach, but do not INTEND it to be Music, is
>it Music?

I know people who use their alarm clock radios this way...

Joe Roberts

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 1:53:36 PM9/18/05
to
Steve,

> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume),
> intentionally conceived or perceived as music.

Is the circularity not troubling?

Just wondering,

Joe

Julio Laredo

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 2:11:35 PM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LIfXe.5831$Yu2.703@trnddc02...

>
> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:ns3Xe.368082$xm3.89868@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>> In this recent discussion in the Death of Tonality thread that has now
>>> become either attempts to define music, or support for reasons on
>>> whether such a definition is even useful or not, one thing I have not
>>> heard mentioned too much is the intent of the work.
>>>
>>> The adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to come into play
>>> in not only the definition of beautiful music, but music in general.
>>> Many are supporting the position that "it is music if the listener hears
>>> it as such".
>>>
>>> Ignoring that possibility for the moment, let's say I do want a working
>>> definition of music. Here are my problems:
>>>
>> Well, you can't ignore that possibility, because, music does exist only
>> within the mind. Everything else is just vibrating air.
>
> I only ignored it for the moment. If you read on, you will find that it is
> incorporated later.

No. You can't ignore it for the moment. You can't ignore it all. Music
does not exist outside of a mind which can recognize either the instructions
to make vibrations or the vibrations themselves. These vibrations can
have any manner of parameters you wish to assign them. But, without a mind
to render the information in the vibrations into music there are only
vibrations.

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:33:08 PM9/18/05
to

"Joachim Pense" <spam-co...@pense-online.de> wrote in message
news:dgjbsj$k07$04$1...@news.t-online.com...

(snip)

> I am not sure if that is true. Well, I am pretty certain it is not. It
> takes
> a lot of education, experience and knowledge to appreciate Beethoven's
> music.

I liked and appreciated Beethoven at about the age of 10... I had no
education or experience at that age except to listen.


dave....... www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:36:09 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:dOhXe.47$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

(snip)


> As in, when my grandfather heard Bartok, he heard a lot of noise,
> despite Bartok's painstaking efforts.
>
>
> --
> Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields

So Bartok is noise?

dave........ www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:50:26 PM9/18/05
to
OK... I think I've got it now.

To sum up... Everything IS Music (or CAN be Music) if I intend it to be
Music, regardless of what the composer's (or non-composer) intent is.

... is that clear enough?


dave........... www.Shemakhan.com


c.j.ro...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:03:59 PM9/18/05
to
you can't use the word you're trying to define to define that word for
jesus christ's sake. you're saying that music is music, which is sorta
old.

Alain Naigeon

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:23:02 PM9/18/05
to
"Joe Roberts" <cdex3_at_comcast.net> a écrit dans le message news:
uKidnX2rxOO...@comcast.com...

What's the status of extra galactic signals?
Noise, because it sounds so for our ears?
Music, because "they" might have intented it?

--

Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France


Alain Naigeon

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 5:29:06 PM9/18/05
to
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message news:
M8gXe.5962$Yu2.1820@trnddc02...

>
> Those who wish to make a differentiation between types of art: music is an
> art, sculpture is an art, but music is not sculpture (and that's not to
say
> that aspects can't be intertwined into musical-sculpture, etc.)

But there are people who've learnt music, or sculpture, or painting, for
several years, and I've been told that school programs were different ;-)
So what? Do you really need to study composition for such a long time,
if it eventually only depends on listeners'intentions? Is anyone able to
write music just because he meets a listener's wish?

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:35:26 PM9/18/05
to

"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uHfXe.5825$Yu2.2112@trnddc02...

(snip)

> If I swing the hammer and stop
>> short of contact with the trash can, this too is music if I wish it to
>> be?
>
> No, becuase you produced no sound.
>
> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived
> or
> perceived as music.

Then it follows that 4'33" is not Music because NO SOUND is produced by the
performer... or the composer... yes?


> And were not apologizing, we saying everyone has a right to make music in
> their own way without being ostracised for it. We're talking about
> acceptance, rather than outright uninformed dismissal.

Everyone has the right to create... but to call something Music, certain
criteria must be met under the definition of MUSIC.


>> I just can't imagine myself years from now digging out the ol' 4'33" and
>> popping it on the player and kicking back.
>
> I know. I see your point. But it's not meant for that. It's not really
> meant to exist in the recorded medium. Obviously Ballet is meant for the
> stage, but you don't have a problem listening to the music without seeing
> the dancers do you? So recordings may fall short in some instances of
> musical works. However, if you did appreciate 4'33" you could perform it
> yourself anytime you like. How's that for empowerment!

But I am not watching a ballet... I am listening to Music.


> Seems to me rather like the
>> "Christ in Piss" piece... OK, now what? Has this benefited Humanity in
>> some way? How?
>
> I don't call that Art. I call it "Shock Art" because the focus is not on
> the Art, but the Art (if there is one) of shocking people. The art is not
> about the object, but about people's reactions to it. I would argue for it
> on a philosophical level, but those who do it not for art's sake, but
> simply to shock people are "cheaters" in mye eyes.
>
> If I wrote a piece comprised of electronic snippets of rapists justifying
> their actions you could bet I could get a reaction out of it. But, I would
> never compose such a work unless I had a good artistic reason for doing so
> (i.e. to inform people that those people think they are in the right when
> they are obviously not), but it seems many people have jumped on this
> bandwagon and would do it just to shock people, which I think is less than
> honest.
>
> But Cage was honest about what he was doing.


How do we know that? Do we know that Serrano was just trying to shock?
Perhaps Cage was trying to "shock" the public by calling attention to what
is or is not Music.

dave.............. www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:44:44 PM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432d7ea0$0$11067$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

(snip)


> Why aren't you including Space? That's very important to me. Also, Medium

> (loudspeaker or human body, etc), Context (occasion, etc).
>

> Come to think of it, perhaps we should simplify instead: Music is Music. ?


... seems to me that that would be a non-definition.


> samuel
> MP3's of my works and performances:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/


If I perform 4'33" in an outdoor park, what is the "space"?... Are the
streets that border the park the outer edges of that space?... the buildings
that are across the street?... the city?... the country?... Earth?...
Cosmos? What, if any are the limits to that space and what sounds are to be
included...? ALL?

dave.............. www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:49:11 PM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432d920a$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>> What about this:
>>
>> Music is valuable sound.
>
>
> Music is when sound is recognized as valuable.
>
>
> --
> samuel
> MP3's of my works and performances:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/


If, again, I perform 4'33" outdoors and the sound of a jackhammer is heard,
what value is that sound? Does it lose it's value if I do not consider it
Music, or I hear it out of context of 4'33"?

dave............ www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 6:56:37 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:1z3Xe.36$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <NdGdneEB1KV...@comcast.com>,
> Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>If I had a concert performance, and the "performer" played a recording of
>>a
>>Beethoven symphony on stage to the audience, is this music???
>
> Ever been to an electronic music concert?

>
> --
> Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields


But that is an "electronic music" concert. I don't think Beethoven intended
his music to be played on a "sound replicator"...!?!

dave............. www.Shemakhan.com


Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 7:51:21 PM9/18/05
to
In article <GNfXe.5855$Yu2.2412@trnddc02>,

Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:ty3Xe.35$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>>
>> Some people seem to think it has benefitted them. Do you really
>> think anybody benefitted from "Yellow Submarine", or "That's The Way I
>> Like It", or "YMCA"?
>
>Yes, Yes, and Yes. There was much more getting laid going on from those!
>
>
>>
>>>What then, is MUSIC?
>>
>> What makes YMCA music?
>
>it's got a beat, and you can seduce young men to it (apparently).
>
>Isn't it just irritating noise made of fashionable
>> bits stolen from Johann Strauss? Or is it?
>
>Right, but my definition doesn't exclude it (much as I would like to).
>
>I'm just responding to be silly here though Matt.
>
>Steve

Well, the Gold Record of YMCA made it into the Museum of the American
Indian (look it up at www.si.edu). I guess that settles it.


--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 7:52:11 PM9/18/05
to
In article <K9ydnWI4G5G...@comcast.com>,

That's what musical education is, for the most part.

Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 7:58:19 PM9/18/05
to

and is exactly what I have been trying to say, with my other two posts The
Ear and Mind, no mind no music, the quality of the mind and what forms the
mind is very important. We all have different MEMORIES and these MEMORIES
are dependant on different qualities and factors

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:03:12 PM9/18/05
to
In article <TZydnd3ZU6p...@comcast.com>,

Lookingglass <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:dOhXe.47$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>(snip)
>
>
>> As in, when my grandfather heard Bartok, he heard a lot of noise,
>> despite Bartok's painstaking efforts.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
>
>So Bartok is noise?

To my grandfather, yes. Couldn't prove to him otherwise with any
argument or sophistry whatsoever. Yet he had Don Giovanni memorized.
If I couldn't use a working definition of music to converse with him,
then the definition impedes communication.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:05:56 PM9/18/05
to
In article <432de7e6$0$12703$626a...@news.free.fr>,

Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Joe Roberts" <cdex3_at_comcast.net> a écrit dans le message news:
>uKidnX2rxOO...@comcast.com...
>> Steve,
>>
>> > Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume),
>> > intentionally conceived or perceived as music.
>>
>> Is the circularity not troubling?
>>
>> Just wondering,
>
>What's the status of extra galactic signals?
>Noise, because it sounds so for our ears?
>Music, because "they" might have intented it?

This gets at my reason for leaving the sender out of it--as does the
concert-prank in which you don't detect the sender and can never tell
whether there was one or not. By the way: Samuel, you prankster!

Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:10:05 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:30:41 +1000, Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> So now I have:
> Newly revised:
> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived
> or
> perceived as music.
> How's that?
> Steve

not to cool, because you do not have a definiton of mind? no mind, no
music, without quality of mind you cannot define anything, unless music
can exist outside of humanity and is integral to the universe, than you
need a much larger all encompassing definiton of how sound and music exist
in the universe

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:10:37 PM9/18/05
to
In article <op.sxbovbcfrcci85@dynamicspace>,

So if a transistor radio is abandoned on a hilltop and nobody comes
within earshot before its battery dies, it makes no difference whether
it blasts Purple Haze to the rocks or Mahler's 8th. No music. But
pressure waves, sure.

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:13:39 PM9/18/05
to
In article <y-ednfAlzK8...@comcast.com>,

So you deny that the experience of pre-eleoctronics music heard through
an electronic medium is music?

--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:04:33 PM9/18/05
to
In article <uKidnX2rxOO...@comcast.com>,

Joe Roberts <cdex3_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>Steve,
>
>> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume),
>> intentionally conceived or perceived as music.
>
>Is the circularity not troubling?

Not necessarily. In my case I refer to esthetic perception, leaving
the defintion of esthetics for another day. But "circularity" can
be well-formed and meaningful--mathematicians have been using it all
the time.

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:08:12 PM9/18/05
to
In article <432de7ed$0$12703$626a...@news.free.fr>,

Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message news:
>M8gXe.5962$Yu2.1820@trnddc02...
>
>>
>> Those who wish to make a differentiation between types of art: music is an
>> art, sculpture is an art, but music is not sculpture (and that's not to
>say
>> that aspects can't be intertwined into musical-sculpture, etc.)
>
>But there are people who've learnt music, or sculpture, or painting, for
>several years, and I've been told that school programs were different ;-)
>So what? Do you really need to study composition for such a long time,
>if it eventually only depends on listeners'intentions? Is anyone able to
>write music just because he meets a listener's wish?

The point that the answer to this question is "YES" was driven home
to me when I co-taught a course in music composition for novices. Anybody
CAN write music. What matters is whether your values are in line with your
actions.

Matthew Fields

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:12:38 PM9/18/05
to
In article <1127081039.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

Careful.

The factorial function F(n) from non-negative integers to non-negative
integrs is defined by

F(0)=1
F(N)= N * F(N-1)

F is used in the definition of F and the definition is completely well-formed,
by arithmetic induction.

Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:28:35 PM9/18/05
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:25:13 +1000, Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> In this recent discussion in the Death of Tonality thread that has now


> become either attempts to define music, or support for reasons on whether
> such a definition is even useful or not, one thing I have not heard
> mentioned too much is the intent of the work.
>
> The adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to come into play
> in
> not only the definition of beautiful music, but music in general. Many
> are
> supporting the position that "it is music if the listener hears it as
> such".
>
> Ignoring that possibility for the moment, let's say I do want a working
> definition of music. Here are my problems:
>

> I'd like to refine the definition to include things like Atmospheres. For
> that purpose, I think Dave's "three elements" of music, Rhythm, Melody
> and
> Harmony (although commonly accepted in the traditional definition of
> music,
> so not picking on Dave, he just put it in his post) are too narrow.
>
> So I would conclude that music contains the basic elements of Sound:
> Duration, Frequency, and Volume. Thus all music would contain those basic
> elements. That would allow 4'33" to fit in the definition, it simply has
> a
> volume of zero (or, if we're hearing the sounds in the space around us as
> was intended, those meet those qualifications). It would also allow me to
> take Yankee Doodle, and transpose it electronically beyond the range of
> human hearing, and while it is silent to us, it still has frequency,
> volume
> and duration. So it is still music.
>
> Now the problem with this is, speech would contain all of those elements
> too, so how would I delineate between speech and music (let's assume
> that I
> want or need to). Obviously, a poetry reading and a song sung
> unaccompanied
> would be extremely similar - why would one be music and the other not?
> Further, there are many spoken word performances that really border the
> line
> between these two - they are "poetry" but performed in such a way as to
> bring them closer to music (more pitch inflections, or obvious rhythmic
> ideas, beyond those natural inflections and syllabic meters).
>
> There seem to be only a couple of places I can seem to think of to make a
> delineation. One is tradition, which works fine for traditional things
> and
> for new things that fit in with tradition. Shakespeare, whether anyone
> wants
> to define it as anything, is traditionally accepted as poetry, and Bach
> is
> music. That one's pretty easy and we use it all of the time. The problem
> seems to arise when either a new invention (or otherwise uncategorizable
> based on tradition - such as Sprechstimme - of course its name sort of
> solves this problem, doesn't it!) appears, or when a traditional form is
> (or
> must be for some reason) considered to be something other than what
> tradition implies.
>
> In the former part of the problem above, it seems the most obvious
> solution
> is to invent a new category - so we might have poetry, music, and
> music-poetry. Spoken Word, much improvised Rap, Sprechstimme (and let's
> assume these are not placed in an otherwise more obvious musical setting
> and
> are unaccompanied) seem to need to have a new category. However, it seems
> that these often occur in musical contexts (i.e. accompanied by more
> traditionally defined music) so they err on the side of music. Thus we
> can
> make a distinction between a poem, and when a poem is used in the larger
> context of a musical work as "music" (which is probably then why we call
> them lyrics instead of poem, to specify, or "text" to generalize).
>
> The latter part of the problem above seems to do with the other places I
> can
> seem to find to make a delineation: the composer (performer in some
> cases),
> and the listener. One has to do with the composer's intent, and the other
> with the listener's perception.
>
> Let's assume that my definition that music contains two elements: Sound
> (frequency, duration, and volume - which by the way includes a volume of
> zero, frequencies above and below the limits of human hearing, and
> durations
> that can be imperceptibly long or short) and allows the inclusion of
> Bach,
> Ligeti, Jay-Z, etc., and Intent.
>
> The intent is what separates speech from music, but it does not disallow
> the
> possibility of someone intending speech to be music, or someone from
> hearing
> speech (or anything for that matter) as music.
>
> The first part disallows things like "a car" from being considered
> music. It
> has to be sound (or lack thereof based on zero volume). A sculpture is
> not
> music (you see, I would have a definition for "art" or for "physical
> matter"
> or "physical conditions" etc. to delineate those types of things).
>
> The second part (fourth element) allows the end user of the definition to
> consider "traditional" music music - it has all 4 elements (since we
> assume
> that most composers would have intended their music to be considered
> music,
> and not rocks, or poetry, etc.). It also allows for random sounds to be
> perceived by the listener (the listener _intends_ to hear it as music).
> It
> allows for a composer to intend poetry as music (whether an individual
> chooses to perceive it that way is up to the listener). It would also
> allow
> a composer to present a performance of an electronic piece that has
> imperceptible notes so high we can't hear them, but the four elements are
> there.
>
> It also does not disallow the possibility of combining music with other
> forms. Already I don't consider Opera or Ballet "music", in consider
> them to
> be music combined with other elements such as "dance" or "Divas", oh
> wait,
> that's not an art form, oh, maybe it is, anyway...
>
> But it does disallow a composer from intending a rock to be music (OK,
> they
> could certainly do so, but I would not consider it music by this
> definition,
> it would be "art" "sculpture" or a combination of forms, but not just
> music
> by itself, they'd be intentionally being counter, not artistic).It would
> also disallow me walking outside and considering a rock to be music (I
> would
> consider it "art" or something else again).
>
> This doesn't prohibit an artist or audience from assigning artistic
> attributes to non-traditionally artistic things, but it does specify the
> definition of such artistic assignations.
>
> So,
>
> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), and Intent.
>
> Without intent (either by the listener as perceiver, or
> composer/performer)
> it is merely sound. Without sound (not counting intentional zero volume
> within an intended period) it is something else (art, poetry, sculpture,
> etc.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Can we blow holes in this (besides the obvious one as to whether we even
> need such a definition).
>
> Are there works we can attempt to fit in this, or that cause it to fall
> apart.
>
> I would personally consider Britney Spears not to be music, but I have to
> allow that by definition, most people would consider it to be so.
>
> Steve
>
>

Little girl hears a sound, has no notion of any concepts relating to
music, knows no notion of melody, harmony or any historical perception of
tradition, except that the sound means something to her.

Little boy hears a sound, has been taught concepts relating to melody,
harmony and has an understanding of a historical perspective of muscical
and cultural development, the sound means something to him.

What is the difference between the little girl and little boy?

Joe Roberts

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:27:05 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" wrote:

> Lookingglass wrote:

> >"Matthew Fields" wrote


> >> As in, when my grandfather heard Bartok,
> >> he heard a lot of noise, despite Bartok's
> >> painstaking efforts.

> >So Bartok is noise?

> To my grandfather, yes. Couldn't prove to him
> otherwise with any argument or sophistry whatsoever.
> Yet he had Don Giovanni memorized. If I couldn't use
> a working definition of music to converse with him,
> then the definition impedes communication.

Matt,

If this is too personal, then please disregard it and I apologize for it.

What would have been a working definition to converse with him?

If he were here today -- the same gentleman, exactly as he was then -- what
would be a working definition to converse with him?

If there would be two defintions, then why?

I'm assuming you mean by "working definition" one that enables successful
conversation.

Joe


Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:34:05 PM9/18/05
to

with no mind to perceive, there is no possible human experience so
therefore no possible memory, so therefore no music, but from an UNIVERSAL
perspective outside human consciousness there is still sound, but not
human persception, so therefore there can not be music of a human dimension

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:39:19 PM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432d916a$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
[snip]

>> Context is an important one. I feel like it's covered in Intent, but I
>> was wondering if some mention of "performance" must be made. Like a set
>> of time boundaries in which the work takes place. What do you think?
>
> Time, definitely.

I'm thinking I've covered that in intent, in the idea that, for instance, I
would consider silence music if it occured within an intentional time period
(the performance) whereas unintentional silence, such as the vacuum of space
(unintentional or uncontrollable by us that is) wouldn't count (unless
incorporated into a work).

>
> I think why I mention this is because I think in a good musical
> performance, there is going to be a theatrical dimension which isn't
> covered merely by the parameters of sound.

OK. There I would diverge and include any theatrical aspects as some other
art (theater, dance, acting, etc.) or possibly some other adjacent factor
(entertainment).

The theaticality of a loudspeaker is of course very
> different from that of a human player (not to mention the theatricality of
> a performer who is being amplified!). A CD played at home, by definition,
> is a domestication of this theatrical experience of music.

Sure - especially in the case of The Rite of Spring for instance. If I think
about something like "For One, Two, or Three People" (title might not be
accurate) I would consider there to be an important theatrical aspect to the
piece that wouldn't come across on CD. But, the music part is the music, the
theater part is the theater (or whatever it would be called -and a separate
"hyrbrid" category might be needed for such works). My intent with the
definition is just to define the musical parameter. In other words, while
the theatrical component might be a major part in understanding or enjoying
a work, the absence of it wouldn't make the piece no longer music (just a
"lessened version" potentially) no more than playing a transcription of a
work (since original timbral changes might not be possible for example)
doesn't make it "not music".


>
>>>Come to think of it, perhaps we should simplify instead: Music is Music.
>>
>>

>> Well of course, but that goes against that whole don't define a word with
>> itself thing they always teach you :-)
>>
>> Although, you see I did have to include it in mine in a way too!


>
> What about this:
>
> Music is valuable sound.

The sound produced by an alarm is a valuable sound. I think that's too
broad, Obviously also, the subjectivity of "value" becomes a major concern -
I think too many people would read into it that it means "good", which I
think we'd agree is not soemthing we'd want being decided for us.

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 8:40:25 PM9/18/05
to

"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:432d920a$0$11064$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>> What about this:
>>
>> Music is valuable sound.
>
>
> Music is when sound is recognized as valuable.
>

Ooh, now that's good!

I need to ponder that for a while, but it's got potential.

Thanks!

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:02:05 PM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rJCdnaqHpZ9...@comcast.com...
> Are "tonal languages" Music?... (as referred to at this link). While not
> with the intention to be Music, there is a rhythm, pitch, sound.

Dave, by my definition, no. In fact, that's why the definition is the way it
is - it is intended to keep language (spoken) from being considered music,
unless it is used in a musical context.

I've said:
Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, andVolume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

The intentional conception as music means that two people conversing who are
simply intending the sounds to be non-musical communication are not making
music.


So you and I seem to be in agreement here. I think where you might disagree
with Matt is that he would say (and I've included this in my definition)
that a person overhearing that conversation could consider it to be music,
and therefore [to that listener] it would be music.


> If I play a solo violin piece by Bach, but do not INTEND it to be Music,
> is it Music?

This has two components. The first is that tradition has defined for us a
certain body of literature that we would automatically consider music, Bach
being in that realm. But let's say it's not Bach, but a new composition by
you that sounds a lot like Bach, but you don't intend it to be music.

I am trying to honor the composer's intent (intentionally conceived), so if
that is your intent, contrary though it may be (from a historical
standpoint), then I would respect that intent (and maybe a sub-category
would be needed, such as "anti-music" etc. - the visual arts are good at
that sort of thing). However I would allow that you could not prevent some
people (in this case a large body because they'd be used to defining similar
things a music already) from hearing it as music - which is where Matt's
argument for the end listener (intentionally perceived) hearing it as music
is concerned. You could call it not music until you're blue in the face
(seems like there have been some examples of this in the past) but too many
people are going to call it music against your will.

The opposite side: Obviously, Cage (and remember, we're just picking one
name as an example here) would intend people to hear his work as music and
because a significant number of people wouldn't choose to do so by the
traditional definition he could have defended it until the day he died, but
no one would hear it that way.

The problem is this - there are a relatively significant (per capita
speaking) number of people who do accept "Cage-type" (FLOABT) as music. Many
more so than someone would win by trying to call a "Bach-type" piece
non-music. This amount of people have had enough significant influence to
cause people to at least stop and think about it as music. I think my
concern is that people don't dismiss "Cage-type" music as non-music for any
artistic reasons, but they dismiss it because of prejudicial reasons (I see
many all of the time who say "serial music sounds like crap" and you can
play serial music for them and they don't know it, and they don't complain).
The problem becomes one of ignorance (not necessarily intentional, could
have just happened through lack of exposure - I mean, you only hear Cage
when the radio goes dead :-) so who's ever going to be exposed to it).

But this argument goes beyond 4'33". People are using similar type arguments
to say that Glass is music (or maybe it's musicmusicmusicmusic, no wait,
that's Lansky), but Threnody, or Schoenberg's Woodwind Quintet for that
matter are not music. Is "Revolution Number 9" music. I'd say so. Vareses'
Ionisation, Cowell's Banshee - I think they're all music.

So, still pondering.

Steve

Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:07:33 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:40:25 +1000, Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>

nah valuable has to be pin pointed within a continuum of possible human
perception, which takes us into difficult territory

Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:11:21 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:10:37 +1000, Matthew Fields <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:

no 2


will give this another go:

The music of Mahler or Hendrix came into existence because of human
perception and experience, so yes it is music, but the music of Mahler or
Hendrix could not of willed itself without human perception and
experience, there is a huge difference

Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:16:36 PM9/18/05
to

"Lookingglass" <Shem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lsOdnecpbf9...@comcast.com...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:PbgXe.5975$Yu2.1587@trnddc02...
>
> (snip)
>
>
>> But what do you think about the Sound and "Composer's Intent" parts so
>> far?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> I absolutely agree that those 2 components a necessary...

Good.

but there is so
> much more to MUSIC... otherwise, if I intend that the methodic hammering
> of a trashcan (by itself) be Music, then anything, and everything can be
> (and is) MUSIC, by merely stating that it IS Music...

no no no. Not "anything" - it must be sound, and must be intentional ( and
by that I mean that the time in which it occurs must be intentionally
considered a "performance period").

So calling a rock music is disallowed here (the sound a rock makes, maybe as
it slowly erodes, if it does make a sound, might be considered music, or
used in a musical context, but that's the sound of the rock, not the rock
itself - it must be sound).


though I would classify it
> as "organized noise"...(nothing wrong with that).

But isn't that what music is? Wouldn't you call a percussion jam on
non-pitched insturments music? (I assume you would). a "note" or tone, and
noise are the same thing - they're all acoustic vibrations. In a note, waves
(if more than one) are related periodically. In noise, we consider the
wavforms to be aperiodic, or not related in whole number integers (I think
I'm saying that right). Obviously a guitar with distortion on it is a lot
more "noisy" than a flute sound. A Snare drum even more so.

So I'm saying that the noise is Sound, and organization represents Intent.
Your presenting your trashcan banging as music would meet those qualities.
Don't forget that also your ideas is not without precedent in Stomp. Isn't
that organized noise? Granted, the organization meets more traditionally the
idea of rhythm (regular rhythm anyway). Your trashcan hammering might be
less periodic (regular) rhythmically but it would be rhythm in some sense
since you're doing it so methodically.

>
> dave.............. www.Shemakhan.com (I think my brain hurts!!!) ;^)

Well, I think everyone (indlusing myself) can always benefit from a little
exercise of the noodle - Lord knows my body doesn't get what it should!

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:32:39 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:dOhXe.47$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <VYeXe.2655$9a2.421@trnddc04>,

> Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>>news:NH2Xe.28$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>> Intent, yes. Sender's intent, no--not for music, but for language.
>>
>>I was hoping you'd chime in Matt, because I was afraid you'd say what I
>>think you're saying.
>>
>>You're saying the composer's or creator's intent has nothing to do with it
>>being music, only the end user's perception?
>>
>>Right?

>
> As in, when my grandfather heard Bartok, he heard a lot of noise,
> despite Bartok's painstaking efforts.

Ah, but now we're possibly getting to the crux of the matter - why did your
Grandfather call it "noise"? No offense to your grandfather, but he wasn't
calling it noise because he heard noise. I think he heard it as noise
because because he had been influenced by others to do so. So it was not his
intent to hear it as noise, but the intent of others who he may have
followed without questioning (I hope you know I'm not assuming I know
anything about your grandfather, and I mean no offense Matt).

Now I think if he honestly decided it was noise, he certainly had every
right to call it whatever he wanted. But was he doing so by his own intent?

What about the concept of "listener as composer"? When I say:


Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume), intentionally conceived or
perceived as music.

could not "conceived" include the possibility of the conception going on in
the mind of the listener? So if I go out and listen to the sound of nature
as what appears to be a listener, and I decide that I am hearing a work of
music during the time I'm there, then don't I become the composer? (let's
for now assume we won't say it's God, or Nature, or anything like that who's
doing the composing, let's leave it as human)

Am I not conceiving and perceiving simultaneously?

Obviously I'm cheating with the wording here so that this definition would
allow those who insist that perception has nothing to do with it can use the
word conceived to mean the composer intends it to be music, but for someone
like you (and me by the way - I agree with you in large part) the idea of
conceiving it as music doesn't mean it has to be the composer, it could be
the "listener as composer".

What do you think?

Steve


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:34:47 PM9/18/05
to

"Joe Roberts" <cdex3_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uKidnX2rxOO...@comcast.com...
> Steve,

>
>> Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume),
>> intentionally conceived or perceived as music.
>
> Is the circularity not troubling?
>
> Just wondering,
>

What circularity Joe? Could you explain.

I didn't really want to use "music" in the definition of music, and I've
raised that issue a couple of times already, but I wanted to make sure the
ideas of sound and intent are somewhat sound before bickering about that. Is
that the trouble, or is it something to do with the entire premise?

Steve


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:31:07 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:WnnXe.56$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

> In article <1127081039.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <c.j.ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>you can't use the word you're trying to define to define that word for
>>jesus christ's sake. you're saying that music is music, which is sorta
>>old.
>
> Careful.
>
> The factorial function F(n) from non-negative integers to non-negative
> integrs is defined by
>
> F(0)=1
> F(N)= N * F(N-1)
>
> F is used in the definition of F and the definition is completely
> well-formed,
> by arithmetic induction.
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
> Music: Splendor in Sound

I thought we were defining words here.

dave........... www.Shemakhan.com


Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:46:17 PM9/18/05
to

"Charles J Camilleri" <fra...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:op.sxbovbcfrcci85@dynamicspace...

(snip)


> and is exactly what I have been trying to say, with my other two posts The
> Ear and Mind, no mind no music, the quality of the mind and what forms the
> mind is very important. We all have different MEMORIES and these MEMORIES
> are dependant on different qualities and factors


No mind... no anything.


dave............. www.Shemakhan.com


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:47:39 PM9/18/05
to

"Julio Laredo" <jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:r5iXe.377640$xm3.52929@attbi_s21...

>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:LIfXe.5831$Yu2.703@trnddc02...
>>
>> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:ns3Xe.368082$xm3.89868@attbi_s21...
>>>
>>> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JrXWe.2546$9a2.1111@trnddc04...
>>>> In this recent discussion in the Death of Tonality thread that has now
>>>> become either attempts to define music, or support for reasons on
>>>> whether such a definition is even useful or not, one thing I have not
>>>> heard mentioned too much is the intent of the work.
>>>>
>>>> The adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to come into
>>>> play in not only the definition of beautiful music, but music in
>>>> general. Many are supporting the position that "it is music if the
>>>> listener hears it as such".
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring that possibility for the moment, let's say I do want a working
>>>> definition of music. Here are my problems:
>>>>
>>> Well, you can't ignore that possibility, because, music does exist only
>>> within the mind. Everything else is just vibrating air.
>>
>> I only ignored it for the moment. If you read on, you will find that it
>> is incorporated later.
>
> No. You can't ignore it for the moment. You can't ignore it all.

I didn't, I just wasn't discussing at that time. It is included.

Music
> does not exist outside of a mind which can recognize either the
> instructions to make vibrations or the vibrations themselves. These
> vibrations can have any manner of parameters you wish to assign them.
> But, without a mind to render the information in the vibrations into music
> there are only vibrations.

Right. I got that in there. You're misreading the post based on a snipped
out of context version.


I said it is basically (you need to see the entire thing though) Sound and
Intent - the Sound is the physical factor, your "instructions
to make vibrations or the vibrations themselves" and the Intent is the
human factor, your "a mind to render the information in the vibrations into
music"

See, I got it all. And I'm not ignoring either of these factors. I just
simply wasn't discussing them at that point in the paragraph. Watch out for
mis-snips in discussions like this!

The one place I might need to clarify with you is "instructions
to make vibrations...". I would agree that the vibrations are the physical
factor part of the definition. But, is a CD music (after all, it carries the
digital instructions for the equipment to produce the vibrations)? I would
say the sound coming out of the speaker is music, but not the electrical
currents, or digital information is not. This comes into play in the second
part of your idea that a mind must make the information into music. Thus,
the CD on the shelf is not music (even though it carries the info to make
the vibrations) until the actual sound comes out of the speakers. Would you
agree?

Steve


Charles J Camilleri

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:49:01 PM9/18/05
to
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:32:39 +1000, Steve Latham <lla...@verizon.net>
wrote:


or his mind had no perception or memory of that given soundscape to
co-relate too, so therefore it was noise, it is quality of mind, why would
a nomadic mind here density of harmonic progressions when there is no
corelation to the movement of those sounds to his visual perception of
space?

just wondering about the relationship of vision and sound


>
> Now I think if he honestly decided it was noise, he certainly had every
> right to call it whatever he wanted. But was he doing so by his own
> intent?

what does intent have to do with it? do all human beings with a mind go
around with the same awareness of concepts of sound? what if there is no
concept what does his grandfather use to define noise, he an only use his
memory which is dependant on his mind

Lookingglass

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:49:11 PM9/18/05
to

"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:1mnXe.55$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...

(snip)


> So if a transistor radio is abandoned on a hilltop and nobody comes
> within earshot before its battery dies, it makes no difference whether
> it blasts Purple Haze to the rocks or Mahler's 8th. No music. But
> pressure waves, sure.
>
>

> Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields

When did it cease to be music? I was music when the DJ played it, wasn't it?
That was the intention.

dave.............. www.Shemakhan.com


Steve Latham

unread,
Sep 18, 2005, 9:49:34 PM9/18/05
to

"Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:432de7e6$0$12703$626a...@news.free.fr...
> "Joe Roberts" <cdex3_at_comcast.net> a écrit dans le message news:
> uKidnX2rxOO...@comcast.com...
>> Steve,

>>
>> > Music is Sound (Duration, Frequency, and Volume),
>> > intentionally conceived or perceived as music.
>>
>> Is the circularity not troubling?
>>
>> Just wondering,
>
> What's the status of extra galactic signals?
> Noise, because it sounds so for our ears?
> Music, because "they" might have intented it?

So, if an alien race landed here, and played their music for us, and it
sounded like white noise, you would say it wasn't music?

Questioningly,
Steve


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages