Re: Definition of Music


"Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:N2YYe.1951$kH3.760@xxxxxxxxxxx

>> The thing is if people *really* want to disagree with you, tand
>> they can't disagree with what you say at face value, they always
>> pretend you saidd something else. He said 'A' but I think he
>> also belives 'B' and 'A' and 'B' may imply 'C' every other
>> Tuesday, so let's quote him as saying 'C'. :-(
>
> matt doesn't strike me as that way,

Well in that case he is being extremely careless in imposing his own
specific interpretations on what I say and arguing with those. And
of course he is making his own very specific assumptions (on very
little data) about what I consider music as soon as he makes
statements about "my music" - which he did on numerous occasions.

> Ok, i think that what's happening here is as soon as you say
> "melody and harmony", when you say "rhythm" the assumption would
> mean that you intend "traditional" rhythm, not that you're
> including irregular and a-rhythmic examples.

I am not sure what you mean by "traditional rhythm". I have always
distinguished between "rhythm" and "pulse", and whilst much music
has a strong pulse, this is obviously not a requirement. [I am
sure Matt distinguishes between rhythm and pulse, and *if* he was
assuming I meant the latter when I said the former, then he is doing
me a disservice.]

I fell in love with jazz at the age of 11 and took its "more
interesting than traditional" rhythms very for granted. Later I
learned a little more (though probably not yet enough) about its
origins in African percussion.

I am not sure "arhythmic" is a good word for use in music. In
science it means effectively "not having a regular pulse" as in "his
heartbeat is arhythmic". And in music you do have to distinguish
between rhythm and pulse.

> Right - so when you say melody, you're implying an intentionally
> designed sequence of pitches?

Just a sequence of discrete pitches or a continuously changing pitch
as in a continuous glissando. If I listen to a recording I ought
to be able to tell whether it is music or not, without knowing the
intent of the composer/performer. And "intent" becomes difficult in
the case of birdsong. Does the bird intend to make that sound, or
is it just doing it involuntarily? I don't think there's an answer,
outside of theology.

[Of course "melody" also has a specific meaning to some people in
the sense of "a tune you can hum easily", but of course any
sequence of notes forms a melody. One of the great mysteries of
life (by way of illustration) is that if I take away the 1st and 2nd
alto sax parts of a big band piece I have never heard, and play the
1st part, it is a tune. If I play the 2nd part, quite a lot of it
doesn't sound or feel "right" somehow. OTOH if I go to the band and
play the 2nd part together with the whole sax section it sounds and
feels great. They're both melodies, but one feels better (in some
very peculiar sense) when played alone.]


> I think people have mistaken me by assuming I meant sound is
> music. I didn't. I think sounds can be used as music (after all,
> that's exactly what notes are, just sound of specific frequency
> and duration). I don't think the sound of a rock is music, but I
> think the sound of a rock hitting the floor could be incorporated
> into a musical work (after all, we'd just call it a percussion
> instrument!).

Exactly - almost any sound can be used as a contribution to music.
So something wider is needed to define music.

> On a fundamental level they are the same, but the difference is
> that Morse Code takes an EXISITNG language and encodes it, it's
> not the language itself.

Indeed. In fact it doesn't even encode he language directly - it
encodes a written version of the language. (I guess the Chinese
would have been unlikely to think up morse code <g>. And I wonder
if Greek has a version of morse code with codes for letters like psi
and chi which don't exist in the Latin alphabet?)

> I've heard of people who "speak" Morse Code though! (and other
> invented languages, including Klingon and their own inventions).

There is one invented language which you may have difficulty
distinguishing from music.

"Solresol" was invented by a French musician Jean François Sudre at
the beginning of the 19th century. It has precisely 7 syllables -
do re mi fa sol la si - with words like

doredo = time
doremi = day
dorefa = week
doresol = month
dorela = year

and thousands of others with up to 5 syllables.

The point is that you can write and pronounce this language as
above - or one can sing it, or hum, it or whisle it to any major
scale!!!!

Writing a sentence IS composing a tune!!!!

(This is something I have known a litle of since well before the
internet, but having just been inspired to check, I find that lots
of information is now easily available: eg
http://www.ptialaska.net/~srice/solresol/intro.htm )

> You know David, I was thinking about this. Maybe part of the
> problem is that Music exists in two forms, and were trying to
> define both, but they have exclusivities that prevents that. Music
> "as performance" exists in time, but Music "as concept" exists in
> the brain. Wouldn't you agree?

I am not sure I accept the significance of that. Tree growth is
observable and exists in time but tree growth as a concept exits
also in the brain. I think this is a general question about
perception and understanding, which is far more general than music.

>>....
>> Try this for size: the mechanical examples you have cited have a
>> very regular pulse. A sufficiently regular pulse without melody
>> accompanying it, is likely to be mechanical rather than musical.
>> I therfore have a notion that rhythm alone can be music only if
>> it is not entirely (in some sense) regular; if it is then we need
>> melody.
>
> I don't see that as being any different from a percussion sections
> playing a regular rhythm. Granted, it's repetitive (so Glass might
> be mechanical, rather than meditative)

I haven't heard anything yet by Glass which really appeals to me -
but that is another question. [Wry smile: can *something* intended
to be music - with your idea of 'intent' - actually fail and not
quite make it! :-) ]

>... and the snare drum in Bolero might be mechanical...

But the whole point there is what goes on against it!!!!!

In fact any dance-oriented music tends to have a regular pulse.

>.... raindrops are relatively random. But if I recorded them and
>used that in a piece of music, then it'd be music.

I think the question is "what with?"

>> BTW I have a hard time conceiving of any objective definition of
>> music which excludes all bird song. The creatures may have a
>> limited repertoire but so do some humans :-)
>
> You know David, for an old Jazz guy you're pretty smart sometimes.

I like to think I am not *just* a jazz guy. When I took up the
clarinet at age 13 I was equally inspired by Barney Bigard on "Mood
Indigo" and Jack Brymer (or it may have been someone else back
then) with Mozart's clarinet concerto. :-)

> But there I would just have to say that Art is a human construct.
> Animals might apply esthetic designs on thing - birds make
> attractive nests to lure mates, but their intent is not just to
> beautify, but to procreate (which may not be a conscious intent).

This is a *very* complicated question. :-)

>>> So we can describe music that contains no dynamic changes as
>>> "monodynamic" -
>>
>> Like anything played on a harpsichord :-)
>
> Right. Or by pop musicians (snickering wildly).

Often strikes my ears that way too. :-)

> It can not exist without sound (which has a physical definition).
> Then the only thing that separates it from other things that use
> Sound is human intent. I can't think of anything else.

It is difficult to think of anything else - but I think the effort
is worthwhile. I still like rhythm, melody, and harmony (to order
them according to my current thinking coming out of this
discussion).

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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Narmer of Egypt
    ... said to sound like Velikovsky, but when someone first said that, I ... source or target language, You totally ignore the known phonological ... toujch the roof of the mouth, but most of the tongue is stiffened ... Bible that the heads of the rivers started with a single ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The original non Indo-European languages of Europe
    ... Much language change is systematic: a certain sound, in a certain context, changes into another sound in every word in which it occurs in that context. ... Basque, Iberian, and Berber are Indo-European languages. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The original non Indo-European languages of Europe
    ... Much language change is systematic: a certain sound, in a certain context, changes into another sound in every word in which it occurs in that context. ... Basque, Iberian, and Berber are Indo-European languages. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Definition of Music
    ... Sound and Silence are (and are ... > in time has rhythm. ... I have avoided pitch in favour of "melody". ... If you want an analogy of this kind, try sound with molecules. ...
    (rec.music.compose)
  • Re: Definition of Music
    ... >> I'm comparing sound to water - they are both physical measurable things. ... > Ah but objectively if we have a sound we may not know the intent ogf the ... > that there is lots of music which has none of melody, harmony, and rhythm. ...
    (rec.music.compose)