Experimental music defined

[eduardo_b]

There was a very recent thread in which the term experimental music was introduced, and some said their music was most definitely not experimental. So I decided to find a definition that might give me some insight regarding this term, and here's what I found on Wikipedia:

The term was first introduced by composer John Cage in 1955. According to Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is not foreseen", and he was specifically interested in completed works that performed an unpredictable action.

This was not what I expected. To me, it would be "music" that 99 out of 100 people would say, "That's not music!" That is, melody would be marginal or non-existent relative to what we sing or hum along to in our cars and showers. But "unexpected outcomes" was, to me, unexpected. I assume he means unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be negative for the vast majority of those hearing it.

So, do those who believe they are creating experimental music adhere to the John Cage definition, or is it more about music that simply doesn't conform to what 99 percent of listeners want to hear? In other words, is experimental music outside of any of the recognized genres of music now in existence?

Have at it. I'll be back later to see how it's going.

[herodotus]

Edgard Varese said: "I do not make experimental music. I experiment before making the music. After it is finished, it is the listener that must experiment".

Personally, I think 'experimental' is a bad description of most of the music it is used to describe. It is sort of a catch-all for a large and disparate group of musical works and/or artists.

And it is quite easy to imagine experimental music that would not be at all alienating to most people. For example, just design a randomizer of some sort (many vst instruments have randomizer functions, especially samplers) that is restricted to playing only the notes of a standard pentatonic scale using only eighth notes at 100 bpm in 4/4 time.

The result will definitely be experimental, but is unlikely to grate on anyone's nerves the way, say, older Neubauten might. In fact, I suspect that the background music on the Ninitendo Wii is generated using some such mechanism.

[ozmoz2008]

So, do those who believe they are creating experimental music adhere to the John Cage definition, or is it more about music that simply doesn't conform to what 99 percent of listeners want to hear? In other words, is experimental music outside of any of the recognized genres of music now in existence?

Have at it. I'll be back later to see how it's going.

Yeah I think this define pretty well what is experimental music...as a friend musician of mine said in the past: "It's like when you're listenning to music and don't see charts...but more some visual images...or something else that only "notes"..."

It open our mind to more in music I think

But definetively not only what people "wants" or "don't want" to hear ...it is way more than that!

In fact unpredictability is something our brain likes...it motivates us....stimulate us...

But to feel unpredictability, you have to be in a situation that some predictability have been establish...and then...you surpise people with something unpredictable...

If a certain irrationality is used all the way throughout a piece...then it becomes predictable in itself...as if everything becomes irrationnal to our perception.

[Nystul]

To me, experimental music is one where the artist is trying something outside of what they know: the guitarist with his first wah pedal, having never even heard such a thing before, even if it happens to be 2009 and he lives in a cave. Avant-garde music is the one where the artist is trying something outside of what 99% of the listeners in that era will know. Even then, it would not have to go so far that they would say "That's not music!". "Well, that's certainly.... different" would be sufficient.

[vespers75]

In other words, is experimental music outside of any of the recognized genres of music now in existence?

There are some musics who tend to fit in certain types of "genres", yet the term 'experimental' is often used a general blanket label (sometimes incorrectly) for types of musics that don't nicely fit into a more well-known 'category'.

[Lunatique]

I usually think of the avant-garde genre as experimental in nature, so to me, experimental = avant-garde.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

i forget who said it, but i love this quote: "We've suffered for our art, now it's your turn."

[shamann]

I don't believe experimental is a style of music, similar to what Cage said, it is a description of the process. If you make music based on a hunch, i.e. "what would the result of this idea sound like," that's it. Music made as the product of an experiment.

The stuff I've done as an experiment often is the least alienating of my works to most listeners, primarily because I'm less concerned with the result and more concerned with what led to it.

[vurt]

im guessing this has a little to do with me saying i didnt think of myself as experimental.
it seems that cage hits my reasoning almost bang on, nothing i do has that "what if i do this?" factor, most of my methods are tried and tested, often long before i even try them

[ozmoz2008]

I don't believe experimental is a style of music, similar to what Cage said, it is a description of the process. If you make music based on a hunch, i.e. "what would the result of this idea sound like," that's it. Music made as the product of an experiment.

The stuff I've done as an experiment often is the least alienating of my works to most listeners, primarily because I'm less concerned with the result and more concerned with what led to it.

I agree that when the term "experimental" is used as a description of a genre or a format...it is often misleading...because in it's true nature...experimenting don't necessarely belongs to a genre or format...and belongs to all of them...individually and as a whole...

But I like the concept that Cage was referring to...and I like that "unpredictability" of it...and this, doesn't mean people can't understand...like I've said earlier...

I personnaly think that the term experimental should be something different that avant-garde, because often avant-garde is a well known term for a certain period in art...which could lead to some confusion of the true meaning of experimental music...IMO...as a non-genre specific music

Like we can say that improvisation is not only related to Jazz but too many genre as well...but we all know how important improvisation is in Jazz though!

[debra1rlo]

The word "experimental" suggests something out of control akin to some science project gone berserk and unleashed on humanity. Perhaps "abstract" would be a better term? Or does that have some negative/untrue connotation I'm not seeing?

[vespers75]

Perhaps "abstract" would be a better term?

Perhaps, yes.

[ozmoz2008]

Perhaps "abstract" would be a better term?

Perhaps, yes.

No I don't think it's the same, because abstract also means less focus...less clear...which is not necessarely what experimentation or experimental means...that surprise or unpredictable aspect could even be a melodic twist or time signature or else...not necessarely something "abstract"...but it doesn't mean that "abstract" music doesn't include some experimental stuff though...

[visa tapani]

I assume he means unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be negative for the vast majority of those hearing it.

Nope, you're misreading the Cage quote (which is understandable since without context it is vague). He means that the results are unexpected to the composer/performer. That is, an experimental composition is something whose sounding result cannot be fully predicted by the composer. Lot of Cage's aleatoric stuff falls into this category.

If this topic interests you, I suggest you read the first chapter of Michael Nyman's book "Experimental Music" (the chapter's title is actually: "Towards (a definition of) experimental music"). Nyman's definition follows Cage's line of thought and is one of the most widely adopted ones.

Obviously, the cliche that the "reaction could be expected to be negative for the vast majority of those hearing it" has really nothing to do with experimental music. Similarly, it's been known for thousands of years that sensible musical syntax can be built without melody - that feature alone doesn't really make anything experimental.

Personally, I use "experimental music" slightly more liberally than how Nyman and Cage define it, as their definition pretty much excludes fully composed out pieces from the definition. Still to this day I think I've only heard one piece on KVR that could be called experimental (no matter how liberally used). That was Spyro's "lo que tu ves en mi"...

[vespers75]

Perhaps "abstract" would be a better term?

Perhaps, yes.

No I don't think it's the same, because abstract also means less focus...less clear...which is not necessarely what experimentation or experimental means...that surprise or unpredictable aspect could even be a melodic twist or time signature or else...not necessarely something "abstract"...but it doesn't mean that "abstract" music doesn't include some experimental stuff though...

I approach music, usually the intial concept, in a very focused manner...the results may indeed be, and often are abstract though. The abstract quality allows the listener to interpret what they hear in their own way.

But this thread seems to be based on 'genres' and neatly categorizing things that aren't easily classified. I have little need for that shit, aside from from trying to describe things to the curious or someone who wants to know "what kind of music" one makes.