the theory is everything phallus see?

[Gregjazz]

Well, what I THOUGHT you were saying was that Cage's music, though aesthetically unpleasant, could still be judged positively because it illicited a reaction from the listener (mostly cognitive, almost assuredly about process and statement).

My point was that your analysis of Cage's music should get to "aesthetically unpleasant" and then stop.

Music isn't about process or philosophy, music is about music.

John Cage had a monumental impact on the creative community due to his philosophy on music. But he still wrote shitty music. That was my point

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

(opinions ahead) Why does music need to be separated from philosophy? To me, music is very related and interconnected with life, spirituality, etc. We do study music psychology and music philosophy. I believe that such aspects aren't very separate from music.

So whatever you want to use as your vehicle in music. Maybe math. Cage used a sort of philosophical viewpoint of music.

Cage aside, then what do you think of Stockhausen's work?

I guess the point is, that a lot of times we don't see the freedom of music. We write songs using the equal temperment, we use standard time signatures, etc. What happens when we take away all these rules taken for granted and make our own? We might result in a form of music that is very different, and perhaps very aesthetically unpleasant from the perspective of our conditioned ears.

A lot of times this experimental music can be seen as bullshit, and there's no denying that there probably is an amount that IS bullshit. But what's unmusical about starting from the roots of music and using different temperments, odd meters (or lack of), things never used or seen as instruments, and so forth.

[Gregjazz]

Yes, but do you LISTEN to it ever? Does anyone rock out to 4'33''?

Just because it might not be in the recorded format doesn't mean it's not music. Why do people go to live concerts? The energy is just missing in recordings. In a sense, you CAN rock out to 4'33''. Have you ever been in a large audience and everyone is concentrating and relatively silent? The energy is powerful.

actually, rachMiel contested the idea of 4'33'' and I agree with him; there IS silence, in the context of the song. If the song is silent (and 4'33'' was entirely "tacit") then external noise can't be counted as part of it... it is separate and distinct from the song.

Why do they have to be separate and distinct? The merging of the performer and the audience is a goal for many musicians. When I go to a live concert of any genre of music, I don't want to be separated from the performers, I want to be there, in the moment with them.

Reminds me of that Stockhausen tune where the performers appear on the stage and the audience applauds, as is traditional. The song then begins with the performers applauding back at the audience.

[Toxikator]

I guess the point is, that a lot of times we don't see the freedom of music. We write songs using the equal temperment, we use standard time signatures, etc. What happens when we take away all these rules taken for granted and make our own? We might result in a form of music that is very different, and perhaps very aesthetically unpleasant from the perspective of our conditioned ears.

A lot of times this experimental music can be seen as bullshit, and there's no denying that there probably is an amount that IS bullshit. But what's unmusical about starting from the roots of music and using different temperments, odd meters (or lack of), things never used or seen as instruments, and so forth.

I agree but also disagree.

Consider the postmodernist movement (reflected in genre terms, the rise of the Industrial genre). The idea that "nonmusical" concepts and sounds could be made musical was rather radical, but it caught on quick. Foreign music (different times, temperments, timbres) is strange to our ears but not necessarily unpleasant.

I guess my whole beef with "experimental" music is when it's experimental just for the sake of it.

Using obscure or even totally new approaches to composition can yield worthwhile results... but we judge the results on their own merits. The process of creating something only matters insofar as it affects the end result... but the process itself is irrelevant.

Just because music is creative, different, or unique does not mean it is good. "Good", of course, is subjective, I'm not denying that, and I'm not denying that tastes change as the human ear is conditioned and exposed to various musical concepts.

That said, I believe music should always be appreciated for the sound that comes out, not the effort that goes in.

[Toxikator]

Reminds me of that Stockhausen tune where the performers appear on the stage and the audience applauds, as is traditional. The song then begins with the performers applauding back at the audience.

In that case, the audience is part of the song, an "instrument" if you will, in it's creation.

Cage's statement was (purportedly) that there is no such thing as silence, and I disagree. It is possible to incorporate the noises of the audience into the piece if one desires; if one does not, then theoretically they don't count as part of the song.

but, remember that in that instant, you're appreciating the performance, not the piece. If you were listening from outside in the hall, you'd have no way of knowing who was applauding to whom, so it's not the music, but the performance, that you're actually appreciating.

As to live performance, in my opinion a "concert recording" is just another approach to composition, and the spontaneity, the presence of the crowd interacting with the band, the speaking, the breathing, etc. are all just elements of the piece. I differentiate that from actually GOING to a show, at which point it stops becoming an appreciation of music and starts becoming an appreciation of performance art (IMO)

[Gregjazz]

Using obscure or even totally new approaches to composition can yield worthwhile results... but we judge the results on their own merits. The process of creating something only matters insofar as it affects the end result... but the process itself is irrelevant.

Just because music is creative, different, or unique does not mean it is good. "Good", of course, is subjective, I'm not denying that, and I'm not denying that tastes change as the human ear is conditioned and exposed to various musical concepts.

That said, I believe music should always be appreciated for the sound that comes out, not the effort that goes in.

Here's where you and I differ. I'm into process over product.

I guess my whole beef with "experimental" music is when it's experimental just for the sake of it.

Sometimes musicians create experimental music to stretch their own ears, and in that sense it's experimental for the sake of it. Without experimental music we'd still be banging coconut shells together. If even. Somewhere along the line, someone has to stretch our ears little by little in order for music to progress.

[Gregjazz]

As to live performance, in my opinion a "concert recording" is just another approach to composition, and the spontaneity, the presence of the crowd interacting with the band, the speaking, the breathing, etc. are all just elements of the piece. I differentiate that from actually GOING to a show, at which point it stops becoming an appreciation of music and starts becoming an appreciation of performance art (IMO)

But we've only been able to record sound for a little over 150 years. The performance aspect of music is essential (IMO). I don't enjoy listening back to music nearly as much as listening to live players. There is a presence of energy which moves our soul which isn't captured by microphones.

[Toxikator]

That presence, however, is nonmusical.

I'm not doubting the validity of the live performance but remember that whatever it is we can't capture with microphones (as you eloquently put it) is not music, but some other aspect of the performance which we enjoy.

Even before 150 years ago we were doing our best to make sure the music was "preserved", with conductors and such... even though we couldn't physcially record sound there was still a musical idea, and it was being reiterated as accurately as possible given the technology available.

Somewhere along the line, someone has to stretch our ears little by little in order for music to progress.

I disagree. Music progresses BECAUSE of human taste, not in spite of it. the reason that monophony became polyphony was because people liked the sound of it... someone didn't just up and write 4 parts and wait for everyone to nod along.

I think the modernists were right to challenge musical convention but were quick to forget that you cannot force the course of art. art changes over time corresponding to taste... taste does not change to better suit the art available.

[Gregjazz]

That presence, however, is nonmusical.

I'm not doubting the validity of the live performance but remember that whatever it is we can't capture with microphones (as you eloquently put it) is not music, but some other aspect of the performance which we enjoy.

So if I'm understanding you correctly... speaking entirely as music in your terms, all other aspects aside there is no difference between live music and recorded music, apart from some audio differences due to microphone quality, placement, etc.

Even before 150 years ago we were doing our best to make sure the music was "preserved", with conductors and such... even though we couldn't physcially record sound there was still a musical idea, and it was being reiterated as accurately as possible given the technology available.

My point is that the performance aspect of music, the process, is an integral part of music which goes way back in history. A lot of ancient music is ecstatic music, also. I'm thinking of the traditional Indian and Chinese music I've heard (live).

Somewhere along the line, someone has to stretch our ears little by little in order for music to progress.

I disagree. Music progresses BECAUSE of human taste, not in spite of it. the reason that monophony became polyphony was because people liked the sound of it... someone didn't just up and write 4 parts and wait for everyone to nod along.

Progress is made via experimentation. That what I was trying to say.

I think the modernists were right to challenge musical convention but were quick to forget that you cannot force the course of art. art changes over time corresponding to taste... taste does not change to better suit the art available.

As you know, taste is subjective. Do you make music for others or make music for yourself?

[Toxikator]

Both. but making it for myself I still concern myself with the sound. I write music all the time for the sake of creation (exercise my creativity, learn my tools, etc.) but I throw those songs away. The ones I burn to CD are the ones that I want to listen to, not the ones I had the most fun writing.

So if I'm understanding you correctly... speaking entirely as music in your terms, all other aspects aside there is no difference between live music and recorded music, apart from some audio differences due to microphone quality, placement, etc.

Well, sort of. I would say that, musically, there is no difference between attending a concert and listening to a recording of that concert (sans audio quality issues)

Of course, there is something "else" to being in that crowd, kicking the hell out of someone and freaking out in a frenzy with the rest of the idiots beside you, feeling the energy of the crowd and seeing the passion of the performers.

BUT, it's not the MUSIC which does this, it's the rest of the experience. It's the effect on all 5 senses, and it goes beyond music as a genre (and steps into the realm of performance art, IMO)

[vurt]

It's the effect on all 5 senses,

hmmmm, you do know we have more than 5 senses?
i believe the considered figure these days is around 20ish...

[Toxikator]

Well, more than 5, but a few are more like subsenses.

Sight (vision)
Sound (audition)
Smell (olfaction)
Taste (gustation)
Touch (tactition)
- heat (thermoception)
- pain (nociception)
Balance/vestibular (equilibrioception)
Body awareness/kinesthetic (proprioception)

Those are the only human ones I could find. And to be fair, proprioception doesn't really even count for my example.

So that's at MOST 9... 10 if you count human echolocation, which only occurs in the blind so it really is still 9 at a time.

[vurt]

So that's at MOST 9... 10

well you only got another 10 or so to find, happy hunting.

[Toxikator]

Actually, research reveals that 9 is the agreed-upon number for my defenition, 21 for the more "liberal" defenition.

The 21 count divides, for example, taste into 5 senses (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, meaty), light into 2-4 (color and brightness, or even red, green, blue, brightness), etc.

My list above ENCOMPASSES those, it just doesn't segregate them.

the others are intellectual senses, and I side with those who don't consider it a sense unless it responds to external stimuli. Our sense of time, for example, doesn't count. Our ability to segregate sounds doesn't count. our body's self-regulatory systems for telling us when we're hungry, when we're thirsty, when we have to pee, or even the ones we aren't actually SENSING (like those which regulate internal pH and other chemical levels) don't count either.

Just depends on your POV on what constitutes a "sense"

[vurt]

Actually, research reveals that 9 is the agreed-upon number for my defenition, 21 for the more "liberal" defenition.

The 21 count divides, for example, taste into 5 senses (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, meaty), light into 2-4 (color and brightness, or even red, green, blue, brightness), etc.

My list above ENCOMPASSES those, it just doesn't segregate them.

ok well use the definition that fits eh, rather than messing up your watertight case.

[Toxikator]

ok well use the definition that fits eh, rather than messing up your watertight case.

I'm not picking a fight, there really is a divide in the medical community.

Do a quick search, you'll find most sources state that you have "between 9 and 21 senses, depending on who you ask"