Experimental music defined

[whyterabbyt]

on experimental music???

is that even a real course?

which is a bit like asking if a dissertation on Jane Austen is 'a real course'.

[herodotus]

on experimental music???

is that even a real course?

which is a bit like asking if a dissertation on Jane Austen is 'a real course'.

No, it's like asking if James Joyce is a real course.

Which, of course, it isn't.

Joyce just sat in front of a typewriter with his eyes closed and banged away on it to make Finnegan's Wake. Everyone knows that.

[giancarlos]

on experimental music???

is that even a real course?

which is a bit like asking if a dissertation on Jane Austen is 'a real course'.

not really...she's an author who has been well studied....whereas 'experimental music' isnt even a defined subject, so the question as to 'is it a real course' is a reasonable one i think.

[nuffink]

Is it worth asking for a list of these sock puppets? The mods know who's posting from a particular ip address. I'd kind of like to know who I'm dealing with too.

[whyterabbyt]

not really...she's an author who has been well studied....

That's irrelevant as to whether an individual's dissertation subject relates to the course title. I'd imagine English Literature isn't one of your strong points, but if someone had done a Master's dissertation on Jane Austen, then that, English Literature, would more likely be the course they were on. For example.

so the question as to 'is it a real course' is a reasonable one i think.

Thinking something doesn't make it correct. Particularly when you've forgotten your question; you didnt ask 'is it a real course', but 'is that a real course.'

As I say, English isn't you're strong point; the 'that' in your original question could properly only be referring to the dissertation, or the topic of the dissertation. Your poorly structured question is ambiguous as to which, but it cannot refer to a subject which has not been mentioned, namely the course itself. By the way, your use of 'it' in your inaccurate attempt at repeating your question is similarly ambiguous.

Either way, if you speak to friend with an education, you may discover that degree courses typically cover a broader scope than a single specific individual's dissertation, which is intended to contain personal research focus and learning within the subject area of the course.

[whyterabbyt]

Dude, you're reading way too much into what I post.

perhaps that's compensation for the lack of existing semantic content?

[giancarlos]

Either way, if you speak to friend with an education

you're assuming i have friends...

i dunno, i fail to see why a simple question results in such sarcasm and elitism (again at KvR)

maybe it was worded in such a way you didnt understand or misinterpreted it

[whyterabbyt]

i dunno, i fail to see why a simple question results in such sarcasm and elitism (again at KvR)

i'm pretty sure you do. after all, 'is that even a real course' already contains deliberate sarcasm and elitism in comparison to the form 'is that a real course'.

maybe it was worded in such a way you didnt understand or misinterpreted it

no, it was just worded badly. As explained, your question was both ambiguous (as to what 'that' referred to), and displayed a basic ignorance of the the relationship between a dissertation and 'a course'.

[giancarlos]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[whyterabbyt]

Thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome, Dave.

[eduardo_b]

I don't think you are purposely contrary but someone else might feel differently. I'm not taking sides.

This is not an attack. I'd like to illustrate a point, it's based on opinion and so like any other opinion it's potentially flawed. I think it's pretty easy to spot a controversial topic, even if at first glance the subject isn't. I think you can spot them too, in fact I think you knew the potential for conflict before you created this thread. I believe that, you believe your questions and statements are balanced and that you are merely trying gain or provide better understanding of a subject. I also believe that some might consider your questions leading and your statements somewhat naive. I prefer not to make declarations one way or the other.

That is called being passive aggressive. People hate that. (Forgive me for being condescending)

If you are really trying to gain or provide unbiased insight on a topic, think about wording your questions and statements differently. You may find that people don't argue with you so often.
If you are expressing an opinion, do so like the rest of us assholes, bluntly.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Unlike some here, you typically offer substance and reason.

Let's look at the reality from my perspective. It's a discussion, or is supposed to be. I am unbiased for the most part because this area of music is both relative unknown to me and because I can see validity in many of the points of view raised here. I've learned a lot about the topic, but remain largely uncommitted on the subject. I have, however, been consistent in my approach, which others need to get over.

On some topics I am just as opinionated as many here, some of whom are too opinionated and sure about themselves on a regular basis. However, as someone with degrees in history -- a topic widely open to interpretation -- and a natural inclination toward observation and multiple points of view, I am not necessarily going to bluntly state what doesn't justify such an approach.

For example, I can provide more than a dozen very convincing, yet contradictory, reasons for the Civil War (I assume those outside the U.S. know what I'm referring to). All are valid, yet all are equally not the singular reason. Such is the way some topics are. Experimental music is one of these, in my opinion.

For anyone not use to or not inclined toward this approach and discussion, I might seem like I'm setting up various aspects of the topic and then being contradictory. It might seem that way, but it's not the case. Don't want to accept this? Fine, but that's your problem, not mine, and I don't own it.

Finally, and this definitely is not directed at you justin3am, the term passive/aggressive is both overused and misapplied. Yes, it can be valid for certain types of consistent behaviors, but completely invalid for discussions in which one can consider and hold multiple points of view. Those who are busy trying to find contradictions in my posts are wasting their time, because the apparent contradictions are just equally valid possibilities.

Experimental music, even as a topic, is rather difficult to define. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine, but I'm not altering my approach to this. My ambivalence regarding it is just what it seems, and may remain.

BTW, those sniping one-sentence posts from some of you, direct and indirect, are not adding anything to the discussion. You know who you are.

[eduardo_b]

and from your original post:

So, do those who believe they are creating experimental music....

you keep talking about it as if it's a genre, and now you're saying you never said it was a genre?

Dude, you're reading way too much into what I post. I haven't said experimental music is a genre, but for whatever reason you're reading it as though I am...I guess. I don't think it's a genre, but someone else might feel differently. I'm not taking sides on it.

If it's not a genre, does that mean I can make a track for the Music Cafe and then claim it as a new genre I just made up? Because that would be cool.

Yes. Go forth and create your genre.

[shamann]

Experimental music, even as a topic, is rather difficult to define.

As someone with degrees in history, it shouldn't be. That which was called Experimental Music in the 20th Century is well-documented. Perhaps defining it as a going concern is difficult, as the things that were called Experimental Music were in many ways future-limiting, but those things are well-known. Maybe start by reading Electronic and Experimental Music by Thom Holmes to familiarize yourself with the topic.

[zerocrossing]

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?

I went back to the OP, and something struck me upon my second reading of it.

How could listeners define whether or not your music is "experimental?" When I first started exploring non top 40 music as a pre-teen I thought the Master Musicians of Joujouka was the craziest experimental music ever. I"m sure the Moroccan musicians themselves didn't regard themselves that way, nor did most more savvy musicologists. My suburban New Jersey family and I thought otherwise. I believe my dad's exact words were "TURN DOWN THAT CRAP!"

Similarly, Ravi Shankar's orchestra got applause for tuning up at the concert for Bangladesh in the 70s. To pop music lovers I'm sure his music sounded like some new experimental exotic music, when in fact it was steeped in a really long rich tradition that we were just not privy to with our limited education. I respect people like Brian Jones and George Harrison for nudging us a bit and opening our eyes to other forms of music.

Anyway, many years later I'm sure I could play some King Crimson tracks for people I work with and they'd say, "Wow, that's really experimental!" except for music just like it has been being made for much of this and last century. To me it sounds commonplace. Really music can only be experimental to the musician making it. When you experiment you discover something, you present the audience with this discovery but to them it is not experimental, it is novel. (or maybe not)

[whyterabbyt]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Unlike some here, you typically offer substance and reason.

Let's look at the reality from my perspective. It's a discussion, or is supposed to be. I am unbiased for the most part because this area of music is both relative unknown to me and because I can see validity in many of the points of view raised here. I've learned a lot about the topic, but remain largely uncommitted on the subject. I have, however, been consistent in my approach, which others need to get over.

On some topics I am just as opinionated as many here, some of whom are too opinionated and sure about themselves on a regular basis. However, as someone with degrees in history -- a topic widely open to interpretation -- and a natural inclination toward observation and multiple points of view, I am not necessarily going to bluntly state what doesn't justify such an approach.

For example, I can provide more than a dozen very convincing, yet contradictory, reasons for the Civil War (I assume those outside the U.S. know what I'm referring to). All are valid, yet all are equally not the singular reason. Such is the way some topics are. Experimental music is one of these, in my opinion.

For anyone not use to or not inclined toward this approach and discussion, I might seem like I'm setting up various aspects of the topic and then being contradictory. It might seem that way, but it's not the case. Don't want to accept this? Fine, but that's your problem, not mine, and I don't own it.

Finally, and this definitely is not directed at you justin3am, the term passive/aggressive is both overused and misapplied. Yes, it can be valid for certain types of consistent behaviors, but completely invalid for discussions in which one can consider and hold multiple points of view. Those who are busy trying to find contradictions in my posts are wasting their time, because the apparent contradictions are just equally valid possibilities.

Experimental music, even as a topic, is rather difficult to define. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine, but I'm not altering my approach to this. My ambivalence regarding it is just what it seems, and may remain.

BTW, those sniping one-sentence posts from some of you, direct and indirect, are not adding anything to the discussion. You know who you are.

Translation : "Hey guys, Im too lazy to do any actual research, so can you, like do all the heavy lifting while I play at having a 'a natural inclination toward observation and multiple points of view' so I can just cherry pick anything that sounds informed in order to pass myself off as knowing something about the subject without ever having to publically commit myself to an opinion or anything.
BTW anyone that noticed that that's what Im doing sucks, nyah."