searching for experimental music forums

[vurt]

> sup rach,we too passionate for you?

vurt, you guys are exactly what i need. but does your group intensity frighten/threaten me sometimes (in a good, creative way): o ja!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hehe dont be,for all the "arguing" we do i think the "experimental" crowd here at kvr are able to respect each other without any total agreement.
suppose it wouldnt be that experimental if we all toed the status quo
the hearing and challenging of others opinions is what makes a movement grow,otherwise surely it is just a stagnant mound of the same old same old.
withou discussions and ideas being put forward we are as the robin...
same song every day

who brought bloody birds into this?
hardly experimental are they now your frog at least they are trying counterpoint with bass.

[Newbie Brad]

This thread has been very satisfying to read and think about. I have had a small side chuckle about the feathered straw man in several of the theses because I recorded a fretless guitar cd-length recording with some location noises recently one day in NYC (free download in its entirety)(free selection therefrom with some integral bird interaction, Uptown Bird).

[vurt]

hehe i misread that as illegal bird action

[i need glasses i think...]

[paradiddle]

Well you got Music cafe, now we need experimental music cafe. Rachmiel has a mod would be a good choice. I'd be down for that.

im with you gary,im not sure ben would go for it, as gary says no other genre is specified foor here and to be honest can you imagine the uproar "ooh the wierdy ambienty experimentallys got their own forumQQQ" we already get enough "this place is overrun by non musician" threads

perhaps the auditorium would in fact be a better breeding ground,they have the music bit already set up for mp3s in genres/styles im sure it would be no prob for spe3d to add a discussion forum

id love to see it at either to be honest and also vote for rachmiel as mod !!!

[shamann]

One thing I wanted to illustrate on music, sound and meaning (as I've had a chance to think a bit while commuting):

If I write about something, on at least one level, there is a perceivable difference between that which I've written and that which I've written about.

That which I've written is encoded with a specific kind of meaning, that which I've written about does not implicitly carry that encoded meaning.

Music is like the writing about, only in its case it works directly with the material it describes. Since it is made up of the stuff it is about, it's easy to confuse the two, but to say that sound is the same on all levels as music ignores that one level of difference. Birdsong employed in music (a human creation, even if it is merely documentary) is perceivably different, on that one level, from birdsong itself.

Value (good/bad/beautiful/important/yada) is irrelevent, as it is interpretation, something that comes after the thing is made (and I think is that extra step that always gets in the way of a mutually agreed upon starting point).

Experimentation in music is the search for different and new and challenging ways in the "writing about."

Now, how about that forum?

[rachmiel]

> Rachmiel has a mod would be a good choice. I'd be down for that.

:-) a passionate experimenter am i. :-)

[tuz]

great read so far. to me experimental music is something that is done to make the unknown sounds become known in the end. what i mean is, if i'm experimenting and say did 2000 experimental tunes. hopefully, in the end i will have the results of my experimentation and i can have my own genre. from there on there will be similarity among my tunes. and it will be recognizable hopefully. they will say oh yeah this is tuz. there has to be a point to everything. i will only experiment until i find the sound i'm looking for. right now i'm not there yet. i'll only be satisfied when i find it and call it my own.

[Whoomph]

{edit}

[Whoomph]

I'd love to hear what these two guys would have to say on the matter,



&

[Whoomph]

One man found the music in sound and the other found the sound in music.

[intel]

come on. Pythagorus was a whack job.

[Whoomph]

[whyterabbyt]

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.

No, but we are pointing out, or at least I am, that the category has a core definition which defines a minimal set of attributes commonly understood to be shared by its members.

The 'aesthetic' response of a given individual to a possible member of that category is not the determinant of categorisation.

I'm talking about philosophy....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.

In that case, it should be realised that these things are only abstract concepts; any given quanitification of something being or not being Music can only be a subjective reaction. Since I am not aware of any means by which 'Music-ness' can be analysed, measured, or communicated to another party, except in relative terms, I can onlyrely on the fact that 'music-ness' has an aspect which distinguishes it from other sounds.

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.

Indeed. But I think there are clear reasons why language breaks down when dealing with what are subjective experiences and judgements; there is no means of communicating them precisely.

Mostly, I find philosophy to be a (failing) mechanism for trying to subvert that immovable barrier.

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.

Well lets take another example. Are all examples of the written word Literature?

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.

You weren't defining sound, though, you were defining music. There is a danger of your definition of music 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.

True, but that is just relying on the interchangeability of roughly related terms. If you actually asked someone 'can you hear music' when the wind was blowing, a better test IMO, how many do you think would answer 'yes', and how many would try listening for something other than the sound of the wind?

[dystonia_ek]

Which is what I meant. Morton Subtonick's The Wild Bull was the hardest piece of music I've ever come to love. It took me years.

I can hook you up with some much harder stuff, if you want.

[dystonia_ek]

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

Problem with that is that it doesn't encapsulate music that's made for other than aesthetic reasons.