Re: Who is this imitating?


"Tom K." <tkorth1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_tydnaSDesZ1ygPanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4jrnj.9453$EZ3.1454@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


But if you ask 100 people your bound to get 100 different results. Take
the average and I think you got your answer. But which 100 people? What
about 1000?


I'm a bit leery of a "democratic" or statistical average approach to
defining any art. Too much danger of winding up with pablum which offends
no one - plus who determines that the crowd is always right?


Maybe. I do not necessarily mean it has to include those who do not listen
to music or have a very limited knowledge of music. But you have to have a
definition and you cannot let one person define the definition illogically.
That essentially means that people have to agree on the definition.

In mathematics one person can define all the definitions he wants but if
they make no sense then he's just a kook.

Since the answers are going to vary a great deal depending on time,
location, etc.. We need a more solid definition.

1. MUSIC IS SOUND. (NOT SOUND IS MUSIC)

Since you've been discussing Cage, you might be interested in (one of) his
definitions of music "Everything we do is music." His object was to
remove what he saw as an artificial demarcation between "high art" and
everyday life.


This is just nonsense to me. To say that means nothing. Its useless and just
an emotional reponse to how he feels about life. Also, just cause he said it
doesn't make it true.

2. MUSIC IS AN EMOTIONAL RESPONS TO SOUND.
3. MUSIC HAS INTENT. (Intent in the sense above)
(maybe more)

IIRC, it was Stravinsky who declared that "Music is powerless to express
anything." As Steve said, it is the listener who grafts emotion onto
music, the music has none of it's own.


No, this is wrong too. Obviously music can express things... damn, do you
really believe it can't? These people are just saying these things to go
against the grain. If they could not express anything then they would not
have composed. He doesn't mean for it to be taken literally. What he means
is that it cannot express specific things. Now what it expresses might be
dependent on who is listening and thats one of the complicating factors
involved.

So these narrow down the possibilities. *** music is not music because
it is not sound.

Notation, being the instructions for realizing music is music - but not
the same definition you guys are grappling with. Like so many words,
"music" has a number of definitions. Think about the different
definitions of "sonata" for instance - hopefully the context will clarify
which definition is being referenced.


It is music? Why is it? You can't just say it and that makes it true. Now
people might call musical notation as music erroneously but for simplicity
and this is fine. But when it boils down to it and we are talking
specifically about what is and isn't music then we have to be clear that
notation is not music but notation. It is the notational representation of
music and this is distinctly different from music. Why? Because notation is
neither necessary or sufficient for music. This means they are different.
(they might overlap in some sense but that isn't enough)

Basically some people consider bad music not to be music(I sorta fall in
that category) but technically by the above definition I have to include
much more... Maybe even Cage's silence. It sorta has the above
requirements but sorta doesn't. Its vague and I choose not to be so
inclusive while you are more inclusive with them.

Now you're getting close, Jon! What you are really trying to pin down is
what constitutes "good" and "bad" music - trying to separate music from
non-music is just a red herring.


No, unless you believe everything is music. Now if you want to do that then
thats fine. I choose not to because I believe it is useless. Now maybe with
music and its vagueness that is the best approach and I could be wrong in
that respect. But I do know from my scientific experiences that definitions
are very important and clear and precise ones happen to be the most useful.
Music isn't science but niether is the study of language yet formal studies
in language use very precise definitions.

I believe probably the main reason music theory hasn't progressed very far
in a scientific way is that those who study it refuse to define it the best
they can. This is the difference between science and non-science. Science
started out with people trying to understand without prejudice and it
involved into a formal method of too understand. With music theory people
don't want to taint music with science because they feel it will take away
the creativity(because most of those people did not do well in science and
feel its bad. Although music theoriest are much closer to scientist's)

I guess people interested in understanding music do not want there "art" to
become unimpassioned and "scientific". They do not want to be mathematicians
who they see as emotionless. Maybe they are right but a gut feeling is not
enough.

Yes, but what is the average believe about these things? Just as we
cannot rely on the composer(because hell, he doesn't really know) nor can
we rely on any individual.

Back to a statistical sampling? The average (white) person in colonial
America believed that African-Americans were (at best) 3/5 human. I'd be
suspicious of anyone or any group claiming to have the definitive answers
regarding art (or a number of other belief areas lacking scientific
proof).


And this is exactly why one needs a scientific approach to music. So people
can't do what you want like "music is everything" and "music cannot express
anything".

I do not claim sampling is the best approach except that it does offer a
possible answer that could be true. If you are arguing that sampling is
wrong and never give sthe right answer then you need to learn more about it.
Its used all over the place. It has to be used right and not blindly.

You make the fallacy of assuming that the sample average defines the sample
population. Your logic above is the same as saying that the mean height of a
population of monkeys predicts the mean length of population of insects.

What you did above was show, assuming the statistics is true, simply that
the average white person believe that African-Americans were 3/5 human. If
the statistics are true then they are true. It says nothing about science in
that statement but just what people believe.

People used to believe the world was flat, what is? No, why? Because it
wasn't. But most people believe in god and yet no one uses the same logic so
suggest that the they could be wrong too.

In any case the point is that you use statistics to get some idea of what
something is. I am suggesting to use it to get a definition of music as
there will be some truth to that definition. Once you have a definition that
every agrees somewhat on then you can use that and build on it. If you just
take person x's definition and use that then who knows how wrong it is. If
you let everyone use there own definition then people will be arguing over
nothing because they assume they will be using the same definition.

The fact of the mater is, is that neither you, me, or anyone else in this NG
know the true definition of music. You might want to believe your definition
is right but its not. I hate to break it to you.

Now what do you propose? All of use use our own definitions, try to find
common ground, leave it undefined, or take your definition as the
definition? (and if you think there are other possibilites I'd like to hear
it)

I guess we really have to say its a personal choice and let it be that
but it can't hurt to have a decent definition.

If everyone is bound by it, then maybe it can hurt!


No one is bound by it. ITS A DEFINITION! ITS NOT A LAW! Even with laws
people break them. A definition is simply a codified idea that people can
use in communication to reduce the complex ideas and increase efficiency.

In mathematics you have things like

"Definition
Let S be a subset of a topological space X. We say that a point x in X is a
limit point of S if every open set containing x also contains a point of S
other than x itself. This is equivalent to requiring that every
neighbourhood of x contains a point of S other than x itself. (It is often
convenient to use the "open neighbourhood" form of the definition to show
that a point is a limit point and to use the "general neighbourhood" form of
the definition to derive facts from a known limit point.)"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_point


So what this does is give us a specific term that is used by mathematicians
when ever appropriate which codefies that long ass paragraph into two words.
It has a very specific meaning and every mathematician agree's that they
will take the definition as absolute. That is, they will not modify the
definition so that there will be ambiguity. (this happens now and then
because two people make them up at the same time or one does not know or
they do it on purpose)

Its just a definition. Music as a term is just letters and letters are just
symbols. They mean nothing. Its the concept behind them that is important.
They could have called the above term *3shf93hs* and it would work just as
well except its harder to remember and doesn't have any descriptive
reference to the definition(which really is just a memory tool).

So you might think Cage's silence is music but if we used my definition,
say, and it would be then you can make up another term to call that sort of
music. The problem is you want to call it music because that is your
prejudice. Its an emotional response instead of a logical one.

Well, I don't really consider drumming or claping music. It is musical or
it is on the far ends of what I consider music. Music for me is more
about melodies, harmonies, and/or rhythms and a whole host of other
things. If you just have one or maybe even two then its probably not
music or just much farther from what I consider to be music.

Jon, are you seriously suggesting that only certain Western music genres
from roughly 1600 qualify as music?


Did I say that? Sheesh, you sure do read a lot into it. You need to read
literally what I said and not add what you think I said. Does asian music
not have melodies? Does africian music not have rhythms(and pitches even)?
Did the ancent greek music not have melodies? Where the hell did you get
1600 from or western music?

Ok, then maybe the real question is: Does music have to be logical? Even
though I don't like serial music I still consider it music. Its not
because of the logic in it but that it has musical intent and uses the
musical tools(sound, pitches, rhythms, etc).

Good question. Much of the post-Cage "avant garde" music is sometimes
described as non-goal directed music which, it seems to me, you are trying
to eliminate as "music". While I agree that a great deal of it is pretty
uninteresting aurally, there were some things that did prove useful, such
as the rebirth of improvisation in a classical context. So if a piece
intentionally eschews logic, is it good music? (I'm not ready to go your
route and say it isn't music - but it doesn't necessarily have to be good
music *IMO*.)


Well, like I said before... all this is grey area. Either it is grey because
its inherent in the quality of sound and what we call "music" or it is grey
because we haven't properly defined things. Chances are its both.

Now when you say "non-goal directed music" you qualify what we call music so
that it fits better with what you are trying to describe. But eventually
you have to qualify so much that its not music any more. (again, there
might be overlap but one is not contained in the other)

For example, Opera is not music!!! Opera uses music but it is not music!
Opera also includes other things. So to say opera is music is wrong. Of
course when people say that what they mean is that opera uses music or the
musical aspect of opera(which ignores the other parts).

Now I do make the fallacy of bluring the lines between non-music and bad
music but I try not to do this when I'm in such phenomenological
discussions.

I'm just saying that we should try to find the best definitions we can
and not just use what we have. There are always better ways to describe
things as we learn more about them. I feel Cage's silence is not music.
I could be wrong. But it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about what
he did. I in no way think he shouldn't have created it and I guess I see
it as a good thing. But to call it music is the main problem. Just like
you wouldn't call a painting music I feel it is similar to calling cage's
silence music. Although I could see that it might be music and because it
is a grey area I am not sure.

From what I've read of Cage, he'd be very happy with your response to
4'33" as he wanted to it provoke the thoughtful re-examination of one's
beliefs. Seems to me that's exactly what you are doing.


Yes, maybe, but that doesn't mean its music! ;) I am not really talking
about why cage composed his silence but wether it constitues music or not.
Even if it doesn't, doesn't detract from why he "composed" it.

Well, I want to understand it. The only way I know how to understand the
world around me is through mathematics/logic. Maybe that is my comfort
zone and why I always try to go there.

I am not at all happy in doing something I do not understand. I do not
feel comfortable. This is the reason I try and understand music instead
of just doing it. Maybe I enjoy more from trying to understand it than
actually doing it.


Seems to me that the real beauty in music is bound up with an imperfect
understanding of it at best. Listening to a Beethoven quartet or a
Coltrane solo for the first time, there is much that I don't "get" or
understand - a natural result of being flooded with information. But on
the 2nd or 5th or 80th hearing, I understand more and more and each
revelation is at a deeper level. It's the lack of understanding which
causes me to go back for repeated listenings.


Yes, and maybe music cannot be defined. But the interactions of atoms cannot
be defined nor the phenomena of life. Yet we has humans have progressed to
where we are because we have defined things. Definitions are all only about
simplifying... but simplifying is the process of understading. We cannot
grasp the complex meaning of anything(and I mean anyhing, no matter how
simple it seems) yet we can grasp the simple meanings... hence simplifying
the complex is how we understand the world.

A musician does the same... the difference between him and a mathematician
is only that the musician chooses to rely on "gut feelings" and the
subconscious only while the mathematician relies on those and logic.
(Probably almost all the great contributions to math were "inspriational" or
"gut feelings" but through the framework of logic)

Logic is what holds math together and what makes it what it is. I am not
sure about music. Maybe the ambiguity and undefinable properties of sound
and its relation to the human consciousness is what makes music what it is.
But everything is ambiguous and undefinable until one tries to define it so
we do not know which it is... hence we must try to define it even if we
ultimately can't.

But if I get to the point where I totally understand a piece of music,
then it becomes trivial and uninteresting. Doesn't there always have to
be some mystery to arouse the emotions you were talking about earlier?


But you are speaking from one person. You might be right in some sense
though. I do not know. But think about it. If a piece of music is
completely useless and does nothing then is it really music? or is it
something else? Maybe its just sound then?

All I can say is that the piece has become unmusical to you. i.e., it no
longer is a musical piece *to you*. Again, this is a problem with music is
that we are trying to talk about it in "global" terms but it really is a
"local" thing. (which I think a lot of you guys treat it as or are working
on it at that level while I'm trying to work on it on the "global" level...
but definitions are global things... no single person needs a definition
until they communication with someone else)

So maybe to clear it up: Cage's silence might be "music" to you but it is
not music using my definition. Remember, definitions are global and we are
assuming my definition is the definition which it isn't because I just made
it up(it has to be accepted first).

Of course music is an intensely personal experience so I guess this is the
reason people have a hard time of thinking about it on the global level. If
your brain associated cage's silence with music when you heard it then it is
music to you. Some people associate colors or images with music. The problem
with this is that its not a global property. What you experience is not
experienced by everyone. If it was then it would be a global property.

I don't necessarily mean global properties are well defined... e.g., if
every but 8 people experienced cage's silence as music then we would say it
is music... we cannot let 8 people detract from the significance of the
result. You might say this is like the racial example you gave and in some
sense it is as it uses statistics but we are assuming people are telling us
the truth about how they feel about the piece of music. Those people who say
blacks are 3/5's human are doing it based on emotions and do not care about
the truth. (its not the same emotions that we are dealing with the musical
one. We have no reason to believe that the result is decieved in the musical
case.)

I definitly do not mean we go out and actually do a sampling for a valid
definition. (although we could and I'd bet with proper statistical analysis
we would get a decent definition) But if you can assume that the people
would give a definition of what they think is music without predujice then I
think most answers would transcend culture and time. (of course this is
impossible because of ego)


Thanks,
Jon


.