bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???

[ouroboros]

Good "Experimental", as far as I'm concerned, should do the same as any good experiment. Should state a theorem, test the theorem and give the results.

At last, here at least is a solid definition of "experimental music".

There is a lot to like about this definition in a practical sense. "Experiments" in and of themselves aren't automatically art, but they can result in art.

[RTaylor]

I confess I know little about Dickies.

It's rather useless actually. Don't waste your time with it. Read 1984 or Brave New World or something instead.

[aMUSEd]

Good "Experimental", as far as I'm concerned, should do the same as any good experiment. Should state a theorem, test the theorem and give the results.

At last, here at least is a solid definition of "experimental music".

There is a lot to like about this definition in a practical sense. "Experiments" in and of themselves aren't automatically art, but they can result in art.

I'm sorry but that's no definition at all - this is art not science. Both art and science have similarities in that they are both ways of understanding and changing the world but their methods and approaches are very different. Even in science that is only valid in certain fields - in many areas of psychology for example phenomenological, dialectical and qualitative methods are also valid.

Experimentalism cannot and should not be tied to such limits - it's about freedom of expression and creativity, not testing hypotheses. The problem here is that people are trying to shoehorn music or the arts into little boxes. Experimentation is about breaking out of such boxes so by definition it should not be placed in one itself. It's not necessarily even about being "new" or "bleeding edge", it's also valid for example to explore further in areas other's have initiated (like post Webernian music).

[RTaylor]

I'm sorry but that's no definition at all - this is art not science.

What's the difference? {Besides the fact that art requires higher levels of intelligence to understand or practice.?}

Both art and science have similarities in that they are both ways of understanding and changing the world but their methods and approaches are very different. Even in science that is only valid in certain fields - in many areas of psychology for example phenomenological, dialectical and qualitative methods are also valid.

Experimentalism cannot and should not be tied to such limits - it's about freedom of expression and creativity, not testing hypotheses.

Art is about freedom of expression and creativity.

Experiments are experiments.

The problem here is that people are trying to shoehorn music or the arts into little boxes. Experimentation is about breaking out of such boxes so by definition it should not be placed in one itself. It's not necessarily even about being "new" or "bleeding edge", it's also valid for example to explore further in areas other's have initiated (like post Webernian music).

Why do you seem to confuse the two?

[Sascha Franck]

You mean you show of your Kylie/Britney/Eric Prydz/R Kelly pop tunes here? How long would your reputation last?

A) I'd love being able to put out such well done stuff. Once I manage I'll defenitely hug myself for it (in case nobody else would). And hell yes, I'm serious!
B) From a technical point of view, Britney, Kylie and the likes are pretty much more experimental than most of the KvR things I've been listening to. In fact, the producers of those are true masters when it comes to new technology. Of course that's not exactly the truth when it comes to musical content.

Anyways, I've never been into fine arts and stuff a lot, especially when it came to modern art I was allways like "uh-oh, just another thing a monkey could've done as well".
But then, recently I've been at some exhibition of some "Blauer Reiter" stuff (I assume it's "blue rider" indeed), a group of painters, basically formed by Kandinsky. People such as Macke, Klee, Marc and the likes joined later on (happened around 1910 in Munich).
And while the paintings themselves didn't mean much to me at first, after listening to some explanation and after taking the time to read through some history brochure, it became quite clear what was meant and how they realized it the way they did. It surely helped a lot that both early and later works were exposed.
And while the paintings per se still don't give me much, I can somewhat enjoy them though, just because I can see the reasoning behind them. Quite an interesting experience to me!

I guess the same might be true for experimental music. Just that unfortunately I often can't detect the reasoning behind quite some stuff people are putting out @ K-v-R.
In most cases people aren't explaining themselves either. Usually all you hear is things like "I used the morph function of synth XYZ", which doesn't explain anything regarding the musical intention - which IMO would sometimes be required to understand some things. At least for me that is - other people might just understand it right away (just as there were people visiting the "Blue Rider" exposition that didn't need to read any brochures), but I often don't.
Maybe sometimes there's no intention apart from the joy of sound or so (admittedly pretty much often the reason for me to do anything, so I'm guilty as well, just that I usually don't post these things), but sometimes that simply doesn't seem to be enough for me.
I remember listening to aMUSEd's september contest entry - and while I allready liked the sounds, his explanations helped as well in understanding how things were meant.
Whether such explanations apply to me or not (in that case they did) is beyond the point, at least there's something to think about.

To be more cruel, I sometimes do indeed think that some of the stuff exposed here could indeed be done by some welltrained monkeys, using an oversized touchscreen triggering a step sequencer.
But maybe that's just me, maybe other folks DO indeed understand the reasonings behind those three parallel stripes of musical color...

[RTaylor]

And while the paintings per se still don't give me much, I can somewhat enjoy them though, just because I can see the reasoning behind them. Quite an interesting experience to me!

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/ :}

[aMUSEd]

Why do you seem to confuse the two?

It's not me that's confusing the two.

[opiadream]

and round and round again

[splattabreakz]

blah

[vurt]

and round and round again

a circle with corners!!!!
how experimental do you want it man????

[ahja]

Well, It's easy for ME to tell. Does it take talent, or doesn't it? Could any Joe Schmo sit down one night and do the same thing with little or no experience? Is it creative at least? Experimental stuff can sound cool for a minute, but does it get boring after that? Is it redudent to the point where you just want to turn that "crap" off?

Who cares? I think what matters is that Joe successfully makes himself understood with any medium. If it's boring... it probably shouldn't have been written to disc in the first place.

Good "Experimental", as far as I'm concerned, should do the same as any good experiment. Should state a theorem, test the theorem and give the results.

It's nice if it's packaged, clear, an interesting theory and... something that trys to break through the boundaries of music's current point in evolution.

The problem with a lot of experimentation is that there is no intent... or that the experiment wasn't worth bothering with in the first place or that the artist has just dumped stuff to disc without considering whether or not it's actually worth the electrons. It's the same as posting something that's forced or where you just want to keep the thread going... it's pretty obvious that you're just posting to have something to do... it's not interesting, nor does it say a whole lot.

Beyond that... the artist can use the results of experimentation to make other statements... Ie: take the series of patterns you dumped the other night and use them in something that makes a political point. This is the way I prefer to see experimentation used. It crams more content into the same space.

I'm an experimental music fan, though I gotta say most of it is crap. 90% doesn't have any direction at all. I'm a big fan of autechre's stuff, but c'mon, a lot of their tracks are worthless. I point autechre out since they are probably the most widely known...

Direction being determined by intent.

So, we agree.

Who cares? Just joining the conversation with my views. So, I guess me and whoever else.

[RTaylor]

Who cares? I think what matters is that Joe successfully makes himself understood with any medium. If it's boring... it probably shouldn't have been written to disc in the first place.

...

So, we agree.

Who cares? Just joining the conversation with my views. So, I guess me and whoever else.

If you're defining "talent" as an ability to express oneself with whatever medium then we agree.

If you're defining talent as the ability to do flashy guitar solos, play keyboards at the speed of light or an 8 octave range... We don't.

[RTaylor]

Why do you seem to confuse the two?

It's not me that's confusing the two.

How's that?

[aMUSEd]

Why do you seem to confuse the two?

It's not me that's confusing the two.

How's that?

I thought it was pretty obvious actually. You are the one wanting to apply criteria and standards relevent to scientific discourse to artistic experimentation. I am the one saying they are not the same thing - that they may have some similarities in terms of trying to understand the world around us but very diferent methods.

Maybe there is a problem here with the term "experimentation" - to an extent the term exploration or exploratory may be relevent. For example one problem with the thread question as posed is that it assumes that such "experimentation" needs to be "bleeding edge" or "new" in some way. If we use the concept of exploration then maybe it's possible to see that to explore new terrotory doesn't require that it is you making the first steps but that you could also be going quite legitimately into territory others have begun to chart. The universe of musical and artistic discourse is vast and largely uncharted - we are all fellow explorers in that sense but there is room for people who want to stick to fairly familiar routes as well as those who want to explore less well charted areas.

This whole question is a bit like asking someone to explain a joke - if you don't get it it's not going to be any funnier once it's explained - its like Munch when he was asked about what his paintings "meant" (fairly conventional remember by todays standards) - his response was something like "if could put it into words I wouldn't have painted it". I feel the same way about music and painting - if I could explain clearly enough what I am expressing in words I wouldn't need to make music or paint. They are difference types of discourse.

[Steven West]

I'm with you aMused. I think 'definition' only can come from 'expectation'. And if someone bores easily, they're expecting too much to begin with.
Like when I listened to George Harrisons 'Electronic Sound', within 30 seconds I thought "Oh no, this going to be like this for 45min. No Across The Universe or Gently Weeping Guitars here..." And I listened to the whole thing, and I was right. Totally Blinkered BS! Now Wendy Carlos 'Sonic Seasonings' on the other hand, I expected WAY too much from - a Holst's Planets to come emminating out. And at first I thought "Naw, this is blinkered bs too!" But after awhile, I kinda 'got it', went back and let the music 'expect me' so to speak - and quite enjoyed it from there on in.