Experimental music defined

[debra1rlo]

dark industrial

Damn you vurt! You should have chose "deathstep."

[whyterabbyt]

The fallacy being the existence of experimental music?

the fallacy being the existence of a definition. you know, for it to be 'defined', like in your actual thread title.

And, the process, for the listener, is irrelevant.

Whether the process is irrelevant to the listener is irrelevant.

Not seeing a fallacy in the thread title, but rather a question, as noted clearly in the OP.

Sorry, did you edit the title to 'experimental music - definition?' when noone was looking?

The discussion is about what makes music experimental -- to composer, to listener, to musicologist.

Then its not about something being 'defined' then, is it?

[zerocrossing]

The fallacy being the existence of experimental music?

the fallacy being the existence of a definition. you know, for it to be 'defined', like in your actual thread title.

And, the process, for the listener, is irrelevant.

Whether the process is irrelevant to the listener is irrelevant.

Not seeing a fallacy in the thread title, but rather a question, as noted clearly in the OP.

Sorry, did you edit the title to 'experimental music - definition?' when noone was looking?

The discussion is about what makes music experimental -- to composer, to listener, to musicologist.

Then its not about something being 'defined' then, is it?

<blow-hard-art-rant>The problem is we live in what is called the "post modern" era. What does that mean? Duchamp put a urinal("Fountain") in a art show and signed it "R. Mutt 1917" He was saying, "It's over. The rules: Screw them. There are no longer rules." It used to be somewhat easy to call some form of art "experimental" because we lived in a world of strict rules in terms of art. Long before any of use were born a group of artists crapped on the rules and that bell can not be unrung. The aural (or not) version of this is Cages's 4'33" (I do an awesome cover if this tune.)

So what? Can we no longer experiment? Not in terms of a cultural paradigm. Those days are over. However, art is also personal and any time a choice is made a small "experiment" is conducted. By the time the piece is finished it's no longer experimental because the artist has deemed each outcome a "success." Of course, since all art is subjective you may disagree, but by that time it's no longer experimental, it's the results of an experiment. The only place I can think of where this isn't the case is in live improvisation. Once that note/sound is played you can't call it back. All my music is based on this. I set up a loose "framework" of percussion/drums and then I just start playing into audio loopers. I can undo but there's a lot of chaos involved from choice of instrument, patch, note, beat. I try to put a bunch of elements together and make it into something... sometimes it works, other times not so much. The results would rarely be called experimental by many people, but it was experimental to me.</blow-hard-art-rant>

[Voidoid Surrealist]

what the f**k is a 'beeking'?

[eduardo_b]

The fallacy being the existence of experimental music?

the fallacy being the existence of a definition. you know, for it to be 'defined', like in your actual thread title.

I was posing the question, not stating what the definition is. I never said there's a definition, but did note what Cage defined it as. The point of the thread was to elicit what others thought both of the term and what might define the kinds of music that might be included. There's no fallacy unless one assumed definition is not possible. Are you saying definition is not tenable given the scope of what might be included or discarded?

[dan_s]

it's the same as asking your baby girl to 'experiment'

[amiga909]

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".

no idea where the discussion is right now (2nd post quoted).. I like what Varese says.
Much better than Cage saying 'experimental = not foreseen'. which is too arbitrary - foreseen action or foreseen thought? can any actions or thoughts be foreseen? rubbish definition for me - especially when i like to smoke and need my mind sorted for making music

[vurt]

whatdoes?
e x p e r i m e n t a l
s
o
u
n
d

like

[vurt]

it's the same as asking your baby girl to 'experiment'

i dont have a daughter.

[dan_s]

it's the same as asking your baby girl to 'experiment'

i dont have a daughter.

lucky for you eh

[vespers75]

and how old are you dude, what can you show us? just say one genre and if you make a slicker track than me i will never post here.

come on.

33

One genre? Any genre?

Extreme metal.

Real instruments too, no guitar sampler bullshit.

[vespers75]

I'll even make this easier, if you like. We can do a cover song, so that it can be judged more objectively. How about something by Death? The song Open Casket should do nicely...it'll be easier for you, picking a simpler track from one of their earlier albums. You don't have to play the solos note for note either...feel free to do your own. Also, the bass guitar should be played with your fingers too, but I guess you can use a pick if you want. And the vocals...no pitch effects or anything aside from eq and reverb...since many have been saying that vocal style is easy lately, it shouldn't be a problem. Is that all cool for you, Rotty?

[vurt]

OOOOOOOOOOOOPEEEEEEEEEEN CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

[vespers75]

OOOOOOOOOOOOPEEEEEEEEEEN CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

[dirty oscillators]

But, for the listener, it may be truly experimental.

i disagree, because how would the listener ever know what went into the composition or production of what they're listening to?

I don't think they are the same experience.

that's exactly my point. composing and producing is a different experience than listening. listening comes from a whole different perspective, almost a naive perspective. there's no knowledge of what experimenting went on.

The listener doesn't have to know, can't really know, what the composer has gone through. An analogy would be film making. The audience might appreciate an innovative, well-crafted film, yet have no idea what the experience is in actually making it. A new experience for both director and viewer, perhaps, but not the same one. I would say the same applies to "experimental" music.

sounds to me like you're just trying to make it a genre "because you say so."