searching for experimental music forums

[mystahr]

btw; I'd call the blackbird experimentalists in the bird-community as they always seem to try out new sounds and sequences. Ok they are trying to mimic what they hear from other birds, but I think they're quite clever in that field

[emdot_ambient]

I do think the deeper this topic is going the harder it becomes to find the denotations of what experimental music is. I can but only hope this thread will go on as it sure makes for one heck of an interesting read.

Great comments.

And to get back a little closer to being OT, yeah, it's very difficult anymore to define experimental music. To me it is any attempt to take a new look at:

1) What may be perceived as music
2) Ways of manipulating and transforming sounds
3) Ways of arranging sounds

Any of the above. All of them, hopefully, resulting in something that is appealing aesthetically in some way.

Much of what I've put forth so far comes out of my interpretation of Cage's musical philosophy. And yet I find most of his compositional work to be very hard to appreciate. Steve Reich, however, I would classify as an experimental composer because he's constantly exploring new ways of arranging even traditional instruments. But he does so in a way that almost always ends up being appealing.

Unfortunately, I think too many composers throughout the years have paid more attention to process and intellectual intent than to actual results. Subotnick, Dockstader, Ussachevsky and others have pulled it off even while being very challenging. Most don't.

[whyterabbyt]

No. Not at all. Like so many others, you're confusing the conscious attempt to create an aesthetic experience (composition) with the actual experience (music).

I dont believe so. I think there's a causal relationship between the two in that music is the result of composition, but I dont think Im confusing process with result.

Surely you must agree that humans started composing only after they experienced sound as aesthetically pleasing? Composition came about, I think, as a reaction to aesthetic experiences derived from natural sources.

Im not sure there's any evidence that aesthetics was necessarily involved at all. Ritual music is not concerned with aesthetics, for example. I think maybe you're confusing a particular level of 'aesthetics' with music

Music is all in our minds.

Our mind as active creator, or passive listener?

It is a human response to sound.

I disagree.

Composition is just a conscious effort to either mirror the beauty we hear around us, or to take control of our environment by forcing an aesthetic experience rather than waiting around for it from an external source.

At its minimum, it is an active participation in the direct or indirect creation of some form of sound. I'd suggest that that active participation is what determines the intent ie the difference between the creation of music or 'mere' sound. The response to that is passive, and whilst one may perceive a 'musical' form to something which comes from no specifically musical intent, that does not automatically imbue it with the magical property 'music'.

You're all focusing on the creative act rather than the aesthetic experience . . . two distinctly separate things. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

I dont think the 'aesthetic experience' is what defines music. Does a tape recorder in the forest play music when no-one is listening, for example?

I would argue that the fact I can have a deeply moving aesthetic experience of sound completely apart from someone creating a composition, coupled with the fact that so very many compositions are created that result in no aesthetic experience at all, points to the conclusion that music is all about how we perceive and experience sound, not how someone constructs a sound.

I dont see that a 'deeply moving aesthetic experience' inherently makes a 'sound' into 'music' though. I can recognise 'music' in things which I have no aesthetic regard for, or emotional response to, whatsoever.

[rachmiel]

does anyone else feel they need a good hot shower after this discussion? or, better yet: to listen to the bee gees* (saturday night fever) while dancing madly about the house?

* - now that's music. ;-)

rachMiel

[mystahr]

I'm thinking about the doorbel

[vurt]

sup rach,we too passionate for you?

[whyterabbyt]

i am maniacally differentiating when it comes to music. all that german education, i think ... my professors sitting on my shoulder wagging their fingers, exhorting me to analyze, dissect, critique! in fact, i wish i were able to just relax and let the music take me more.

why did you ask this?

Because it is inherent in humans to categorise, to sort, to differentiate. And that there is a reason there is a separate categorisation for 'music' which separates it from a broader category of 'sound'.

If one ceases to make a distinction between music and sound, to categorise, to use shorthand notations that place like with like, to remove distinctions, then ostensibly one ceases to differentiate between various forms of any stimuli. Where does one stop?

[dystonia_ek]

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the intentionality of most music is the single largest obstacle we face in appreciating sound.

Only if you maintain some sort of attachment to the concept of music (and related semantics).

No, not an attachment to the concept of music per se, but only an understanding that what you're about to hear was consciously create to BE music.

Words are getting in our way here.

As soon as you expect a certain experience, your mind will begin categorizing and judging based on that expectation. Swtich on a radio and you expect . . . sounds that some composer intended to be music. How's that?

Depends on how you tune the radio - I leave mine between stations.

I'm quite capable of appreciating sound for its own sake - I don't have to pretend it's music to enjoy it. Pure sound/noise is, imo, superior in every way to music - it has no agenda to push, no ego that needs stroking.

[rachmiel]

> sup rach,we too passionate for you?

vurt, you guys are exactly what i need. but does your group intensity frighten/threaten me sometimes (in a good, creative way): o ja!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

> Because it is inherent in humans to categorise, to sort, to differentiate. And that there is a reason there is a separate categorisation for 'music' which separates it from a broader category of 'sound'.

i'm listening ... ;-)

> If one ceases to make a distinction between music and sound, to categorise, to use shorthand notations that place like with like, to remove distinctions, then ostensibly one ceases to differentiate between various forms of any stimuli. Where does one stop?

you cut me to the quick, sir.

i think that taking the "music is everything" way to its ultimate conclusion would result in: 1) a stay at the funny farm; 2) deep enlightenment; 3) both of the above.

for me it would probably be door #1, which is why i'm sitting here taking deep breaths, in-hale ..., ex-hale ..., in-hale ..., ex-hale ... ;-)

rachMiel

[lex_strooder]

Pure sound/noise is, imo, superior in every way to music - it has no agenda to push, no ego that needs stroking.

I agree but some illuminati conspiracy theories are nagging me... maybe some sublime noise frequencies have an hidden agenda...


---------------------------------------------------
HEADLINE...
BBC RADIO has aired brainwaves since the late 70's
---------------------------------------------------


...but that would actually be some cool experimental music... or rather a social experiment

[shamann]

To me it is any attempt to take a new look at:

1) What may be perceived as music
2) Ways of manipulating and transforming sounds
3) Ways of arranging sounds

Any of the above. All of them, hopefully

I am with you 100% up to this point. Succinctly put, but...

resulting in something that is appealing aesthetically in some way.

I don't think appealing is necessary. I take aesthetics to be what they say in the dictionary, "dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty." When dealing with the nature of beauty, that also includes dealing with the inverse. I'd more say it is something that is of interest aesthetically, of interest being that which draws our attention to the form. You're right music is perceived, but it is also made. And in the instance of practical music - for worship, meditation, dance, instruction - they still exist as explorations of the form, even if not always for our explicit benefit (for God, etc).

[Z3R0T0N1N]

do you think that perhaps when cage said that when he sits quietly and just listens that what he hears is music, that he was makeing a statement about the intention of the listener being as or more important than the source, when defining music. When I sit and listen to the sound of the wetland next to my home, it is sometimes with the intention of hearing the "music" therein.
any thoughts on that?

[dystonia_ek]

resulting in something that is appealing aesthetically in some way.

Which reduces it to mere decoration, effectively.

[emdot_ambient]

Cage's point, which he made explicitly clear very often in interviews, essays and lectures, was that the sounds he heard when he just stopped to listen were music.

You're right that there is a problem with words here. The term music has traditionally been applied only to sounds consciously arranged by humans, but it is used to imply that there is something different about those kinds of sounds, and that is that they are sounds arranged to be appreciated as beautiful. Cage saying that the sounds he heard are music, to me, means he is admitting to appreciating all sounds as equally beautiful. Any sound can be heard as beautiful. You've said as much yourself. That's all he's saying. I don't think he would have been so dictatorial as to suggest that any sound you or I hear is music.

Cage was profoundly influenced by the teachings of Zen. And in Zen, it is the pure experience of being that is important. Their teachings are all about trying to force the mind into a pure experience of being, experience without meaning or intellectual content--that sudden flash of experiencing everything without symbolism or interpretation.

Knowing that, I think one can conclude that Cage's music was all about trying to attain that kind of experience of sound. Consequently, intent would stand in the way of that aim.

But that goes beyond appreciation. Appreciation of sound is appreciation of sound. Moving that act up to the term "music" suggests that words like music and art are inherently better things to be. That the word "sound" is vulgar, so we must elevate it to music to let it shine.

You seem to have a very . . . I don't know how to say it any other way, and this isn't meant to be judgemental at all . . . materialistic interpretation of both music and art. You seem to be suggesting that music and art (meaning visual art) are anything produced by a process that creates an object of intent. That is, that art is the painting and and music is the composition.

I would argue that those are simply things and have no meaning or value without their aesthetic appreciation. A Van Gough is the same as a painted house if that's the case. They are nothing but things with colorful paint applied.

I keep going back to the idea that any human behavior that is normally included in the arts (music, painting, poetry, dance, etc.) are ALL about how we react to them. Otherwise there would be no point in these activities. They are inspired by our minds attempting to replicate, make comment on, and to some extent, control the things we see around us in both nature and human experience. They are our subconscious minds attempting to reflect that which inspires us. In short, they are reactions on an internal level. As such, there is no distinction between sound and music as long as you are reacting to them in the same way.

But they're both just words, and the problem with supplanting one for the other willy-nilly negates all shared understanding of that word.

No, that enriches our understanding of how other react to the world. Words are symbols and if our understanding of the world or our reaction to the world changes, then our symbols need to change with us. You're not really trying to freeze language in a static place are you? I could point out countless common words that have been twisted around by the passage of time and changes in human thought and experience.

And it just doesn't jive with me to say that things are art only when I perceive them to be good. Art can suck, quite often does, but it is still art. Art is the function/act/product

Seems I was correct about your opinion. It is very materialistic.

Maybe deterministic is a better word, whereas I see things more relativistically. See, to me Emerson Lake and Palmer once was music and now it's simply noise. But on some days, some of their work might be music again. I see no problem with that, no contradiction.

When you say "Just because a composer sits down and arranges a lot of notes doesn't mean his creation is going to be universally acclaimed to be music," your using music as a qualifier rather than a descriptor. You're saying it is only music if people love it. But again, that negates any useful meaning.

No, I'm saying it's only music WHEN, not IF, people love it . . . and I dislike the phrase "love it." I don't think of an aesthetic appreciation as a judgement of value. I saw a statue of Kali that was an incredibly moving pieces of art but they scare the bejeezus out of me. I wouldn't quite say I love it, but I certainly had an aesthetic appreciation of it.

Maybe we're both getting stuck on words, though. You want to define music simply as the thing and then apply value judgements afterwards. I want to define music as an aesthetic experience itself. The only problem I have with your way of looking at things is that places the emphasis on creation, which I think can act as an obstruction to producing what you and I both want, which is an enjoyable sound (whether you define it as music or not). I also have a lot of trouble with your definition because after all the experimentation that's gone on the boundaries between what you would call music and what you would not are terribly blurred.

Take sound sculptures for instance. If I string a giant piano wire across a canyon and attach the end of it to a very large resonator . . . the wind excites the string and the resonator amplifies the sound, which then echoes around the canyon . . . is it music or not? There is no conscious composition going on, but their is intent. Random shifts in the wind produce the sound, yet the sound would not exist without the artist having set up the situation. People passing by would very likely experience the installation in what we would normally consider a musical way . . . they'd hear musical pitches, changes in dynamics and harmonic content . . . music or not?

I'd say it's music when someone appreciates the sounds. You? I could make arguments either way. It's only random excitations, yet the installation was made purposefully to create . . . music?

[emdot_ambient]

resulting in something that is appealing aesthetically in some way.

I don't think appealing is necessary. I take aesthetics to be what they say in the dictionary, "dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty."

Which is what I meant. Morton Subtonick's The Wild Bull was the hardest piece of music I've ever come to love. It took me years. It's extremely challenging and can at times be hard to describe as appealing.

We're talking about words a lot aren't we?