searching for experimental music forums

[emdot_ambient]

...do you think that perhaps when cage said that when he sits quietly and just listens that what he hears is music, that he was makeing a statement about the intention of the listener being as or more important than the source, when defining music. When I sit and listen to the sound of the wetland next to my home, it is sometimes with the intention of hearing the "music" therein.
any thoughts on that?

Yes. I agree. That's what I'm talking about.

[intel]

I would argue that the fact I can have a deeply moving aesthetic experience of sound completely apart from someone creating a composition, coupled with the fact that so very many compositions are created that result in no aesthetic experience at all, points to the conclusion that music is all about how we perceive and experience sound, not how someone constructs a sound.

And I would counter by saying that I think this relies too heavily on an objective view of sound (noise) vs. music (song), whereas that view is purely subjective. Bird song I would tend to consider irrelevant in this conversation as a basis for what-we-normally-term-music existing in a natural form, for the simple fact that it is language and it is intentional. While birds no more sing for our entertainment than waves crash on sandy beaches for the same, one is an intentional act for a very distinct purpose and the other is a natural phenomenon unfettered by any cognizance we (or I, if that may be the case) recognize. Where the lines blur is that while all of us enjoy some music and some sounds, none of us enjoy entirely the same music and the same sounds. Thus rendering any definition of the terms "music", "sound" and "noise" thoroughly subjective.

Personally my definitions fall more in line with Mr. Hamann, but this thread is getting difficult to follow and far more convoluted to digest and devise salient points to submit for consideration.

(Reason #1 why there aren't many active forums dedicated to experimental music. )

[shamann]

do you think that perhaps when cage said that when he sits quietly and just listens that what he hears is music, that he was makeing a statement about the intention of the listener being as or more important than the source, when defining music. When I sit and listen to the sound of the wetland next to my home, it is sometimes with the intention of hearing the "music" therein.

I think Cage appreciated sound, but not music. Or at least the elevated status given to the concept of music. His experiments were often a direct reaction to the notion that sound was vulgar unless defined as music, which is usually taste as defined by social class.

And Cage was right about the appreciation of sound. It doesn't need to be arrayed by a composer to be appreciated, nor is elevated when done so.

But in being reactionary, often the social function of music was ignored. Sound that is isn't music. Sound that is arrayed, by us and for us, is music. I can hear the 'buts' already, so I'll restate, the word music does not denote quality nor the specific act of appreciation. Music is not better than sound, nor is sound better than music (sorry James), as they are different things.

Music is like Physics. Physics is the human study of physical phenomena - matter, structure, reaction - not the physical phenomena itself.

[dystonia_ek]

(Reason #1 why there aren't many active forums dedicated to experimental music. )

Probably

[shamann]

It's been fun though.

[intel]

It certainly has. Unfortunately I've got a big stack of shit here that I have to start studying sometime. So you guys stop posting so I won't miss anything. I'll be back in about 6 hours.

[shamann]

On the piano string sculpture, the point of the exercise was to draw attention to the form of sound, so yes, music.

On the housepaint and the Van Gogh painting, the point of the Van Gogh painting was to draw attention to the form (of light, shape, paint, representation). The housepaint was decoration, maybe even the opposite of the Van Gogh painting, as the point of the exercise was to draw attention away from the form.

On Zen, it is the pure experience of being that is. Importance is baggage.

[emdot_ambient]

I dont think the 'aesthetic experience' is what defines music. Does a tape recorder in the forest play music when no-one is listening, for example?

No but it does make a sound (if it's hooked up to an amplifier).

All the rest of your arguments, and shamann's, are really about the words themselves. You're deterministically set on defining a category of thing. I'm talking about philosophy. So I can actually accept your definitions because I use the word music in the way you suggest. If I'm talking about a composition, I call it music because that's what the thing is called. But in all this discussion, I've been talking about Music with a capital M, much like Art is capitalized when it is not referring to the object but the concept, or in the way Nature is capitalized when we are talking about it as a concept rather than a thing. I know a lot of people poo-poo captitalizing concepts like that but to my mind it is just an outward expression of the flaws of language when dealing with concepts that go beyond things.

I think Varese was talking philosophically, too, when he defined music as organized sound.

Cage was definitely talking philosophically when he defined it as sound heard.

I'm talking philosophically when I define it as sound heard aesthetically.

To me, the categorization between sound and music is useless except when you want to make a distinction in speech between composition and natural sound. But there is no danger of my definition of sound obliterating the difference between the two. If the guy in the next cube at work is blaring his radio set to a country station and I turn to him and say, "Would you mind turning that sound down." I think he'll understand what I'm saying. And if I say, "Isn't the wind making lovely music tonight?" I don't think anyone's going to be confused about what I say.

And, yes, setting a radio between stations is a wonderful thing . . . until digital radio takes over.

[shamann]

It certainly has. Unfortunately I've got a big stack of shit here that I have to start studying sometime. So you guys stop posting so I won't miss anything. I'll be back in about 6 hours.

Oops, sorry John.

But I'm off to commute and then family, so won't be able to post for at least 4 hours.

[emdot_ambient]

I think Cage appreciated sound, but not music. Or at least the elevated status given to the concept of music. His experiments were often a direct reaction to the notion that sound was vulgar unless defined as music, which is usually taste as defined by social class.

**shakes his head** Man, you've really got it backwards. Cage was elevating all sound to music, not claiming sound is vulgar unless perceived as music.

No, actually that's not quite right . . . Cage was about equating all sounds. Period. There is no elevation or demoting involved.

Did you read my little statement on Zen? To understand Cage you really have to make an attempt to understand Zen. Zen is not about judgements one way or the other. It's simply about experiencing.

And Cage was right about the appreciation of sound. It doesn't need to be arrayed by a composer to be appreciated, nor is elevated when done so.

I agree there. Phew, that's one

[Newbie Brad]

Guitars and stringed instruments, try http://www.kronosonic.com and http://www.unfretted.com.

Kronosonic looks pretty interesting....thanks for the tip!

It's been a valuable asset to me. Same for Unfretted.com. If you're at all interested in fretless guitar let me encourage you.

[emdot_ambient]

On the piano string sculpture, the point of the exercise was to draw attention to the form of sound, so yes, music.

So if I say to you, listen to those birds. That's music. My intent was to draw attention to the form and it becomes music.

On the housepaint and the Van Gogh painting, the point of the Van Gogh painting was to draw attention to the form (of light, shape, paint, representation).

That's exactly what house paint does. You paint the trim one color and the walls another, the intent is to draw attention to the form (of shape and color, the surface of the house, etc). And, of course art doesn't need to be representational.

So, again, Van Gough and house painting are equal in your definition.

On Zen, it is the pure experience of being that is. Importance is baggage.

And that's Cage all over. Experience the sound. The sound is music. The music is sound. Importance is baggage.

[shamann]

*...elevating all sound to music...No, actually that's not quite right

Hang on a second, that's what I was saying.

Zen is not about judgements one way or the other.

That's also what I was saying. It really has been confusing at times here. Although at least I'll say that rather than it being simply about experiencing, I'll say that it simply is.

My points on language were simply: we have words to describe things, and we have words that ascribe value to things. Those change over time, of course, but when you use a descriptor to qualify the value of that which it describes, you negate the description: if art is good, bad art is bad good.

[rachmiel]

one thing to remember about cage (or anyone else), i think:

he was just dis guy ... who had some interesting ideas about music and life. many of them happen to resonate with my personal views on music and life, which is cool. but when it comes down to it, what he (or anyone else) said/thought is not some sort of etched-in-stone *truth* ... yes? it's just some guy's take.

what i'm really interested in is each of *your* personal takes. even if they are wildly in opposition to mine. (especially if they're in wild opposition to mine!) i love it when people dare to reveal *themselves* in all their hopelessly imperfect human glory ... :-)

rachMiel

[shamann]

That's exactly what house paint does. You paint the trim one color and the walls another, the intent is to draw attention to the form (of shape and color, the surface of the house, etc). And, of course art doesn't need to be representational.

So, again, Van Gough and house painting are equal in your definition.

Equal in status, but not in function.

Well, I take decoration as means of distraction. The house is banal, we must gussy it up. It is the same as saying sound is banal, we must gussy it up as music. It's saying one thing (the house, the sound) is elevated through act (housepaint, music). I just place no value in the concept of elevation. I don't think music is gussying up, I think music is a process of examination. But we covered this already, and I think we agree on it.