Experimental music defined

[Dean Aka Nekro]

You could say that when any individual or band tries something different that it is experimental but like Vespers said above it is basically an easy way of saying they have changed direction i guess.

Here is an example:

For me using solely synthesis to compose or create a piece could be classed as me 'experimenting' but really i am not. Simply because people have already done just that before i was even born and so for *me* it might be new but its old hat to others and i have listened to quite a few of vurts tracks and vurts some of the tracks are purely synthesis based i think from ear: so here i would be changing direction rather than experimenting i think if you see what/where im coming from...it is a tough question that has really got me thinking. Im going to roll up a few, have a nice smoke and think about this one and get back to you mate with some sort of take on it. Whether it will make any sense is another story lol.

Nekro/Dean

[Rottweiler]

well experimental == seeking new territories.

abstrakt and avangard is simly a bit homo imo .

[vespers75]

well experimental == seeking new territories.

abstrakt and avangard is simly a bit homo imo .

Is mispelling every other word in a sentence experimental too? Really its just simply a bit "homo", IMO.

[vurt]

well experimental == seeking new territories.

abstrakt and avangard is simly a bit homo imo .

and theres me thinking you where homo when you like cock in your anus. who knew it was anything to do with a non sexual act?

[debra1rlo]

homo arigato mr. roboto

[ozmoz2008]

...Personally, I use "experimental music" slightly more liberally than how Nyman and Cage define it, as their definition pretty much excludes fully composed out pieces from the definition. Still to this day I think I've only heard one piece on KVR that could be called experimental (no matter how liberally used). That was Spyro's "lo que tu ves en mi"...

Interesting post...So basically agreing with me that experimental is more of a process than a genre or style ?...more precisely referring to the composer approach...

How could you say then that only one track have use that process if you can't be inside the process in itself?

[shamann]

The word "experimental" suggests something out of control akin to some science project gone berserk and unleashed on humanity. Perhaps "abstract" would be a better term? Or does that have some negative/untrue connotation I'm not seeing?

The trouble with abstract is that it seems used to mean the opposite of what it means. Most music is in fact abstract, in that music reflects concepts/theories entirely unrelated to its source. Much of what I do is rather concrete.

[eduardo_b]

Well, except for one odd character, the posts have been interesting and seem to lead in two directions regarding experimental music. One is the experience for the composer/musician and the other is for the listener. I was particularly surprised (yet again) by the revelation that Cage was referring to the composer.

I've been thinking about this. The creative process for most people doesn't have a pre-determined end except for the rare author who actually knows what the end of his/her work will be but not necessarily what the path to it will be. So, I suppose, the surprise, the unexpected result of a piece of music -- regardless of genre -- is where the work goes during the process. In some ways, that likely true for creating music even when it fits nicely within an existing and even well known genre.

But, for the listener, it may be truly experimental. As an example, I have listened to CDs from the Kronos Quartet over the years. Anyone know them? Their work is certainly not mainstream, although they are probably better known that many who work outside the more popular styles. But given the way the music is played and the compositions, it has always felt like experimental music -- neither predictable nor like much of anything I've heard before. I have no idea how the four members of the group feel about their work. Some pieces, the ones that are most dissonant and almost atonal, are the ones I like the least and seem more experimental within the framework of all the music I've ever heard, plus my own personal tastes.

I agree that abstract, while seemingly pointing toward the less structured and thus more experimental, is too broad to realistically be useful in this way. The term experimental seems closer to the mark in this regard even if not everyone thinks its appropriate.

I thought herodotus' remark very insightful:

And it is quite easy to imagine experimental music that would not be at all alienating to most people. For example, just design a randomizer of some sort (many vst instruments have randomizer functions, especially samplers) that is restricted to playing only the notes of a standard pentatonic scale using only eighth notes at 100 bpm in 4/4 time.

From this perspective, experimental music doesn't have to sound weird or distateful. At the same time, experimental music doesn't show up on the charts tracking what the culture considers the best music to be had at any given time.

[vurt]

...Personally, I use "experimental music" slightly more liberally than how Nyman and Cage define it, as their definition pretty much excludes fully composed out pieces from the definition. Still to this day I think I've only heard one piece on KVR that could be called experimental (no matter how liberally used). That was Spyro's "lo que tu ves en mi"...

Interesting post...So basically agreing with me that experimental is more of a process than a genre or style ?...more precisely referring to the composer approach...

How could you say then that only one track have use that process if you can't be inside the process in itself?

i would agree that the process is the experimental part.

but then we do have process music, which is often the result of recording these experimental processes.
but is the second run an experimental process even? even if it results in a different sounding piece? is that then chance music alone or can it still be process/experimental?

i think this was why isettled on "sound sculpture" it kind of gives me a freedom to do what i want within my own processes and output, and it does actually describe it quite well (better than any other label that gets attached to what i do really)
i find ambient, or noise or anything like that a little rstrictive for my tastes sound sculpture leaves me open to try anything and everything from far out abstract noise fusion improv to acapella pop.
and i get to sound all hoity toity n posh when i say "pfft, musician? i my friend am a sound sculpter!"

[eduardo_b]

and i get to sound all hoity toity n posh when i say "pfft, musician? i my friend am a sound sculpter!"

Taking sound where it has never gone before. Which, I guess, would make it experimental and original simultaneously.

[justin3am]

When I use the term experiment in the context of music, I'm usually referring to a process related to the scientific method. I develop a hypothesis based on known parameters (my control) and I seek a specific outcome by varying those parameters in a way that I can track and take note of the results. The process is the experiment the result is just a sound, and contrary to what many would figure, if the experiment results in the sound i was expecting it is a successful experiment (one which furthers my understanding of how I interact with sound) and an unexpected result is a failed experiment (one in which my hypothesis is proven incorrect).

Now, if my experiment fails, that doesn't mean that the results aren't fruitful. Often times I'm so enamored with the results of a failed experiment that I'll post it to the cafe, "This is an experimental piece" meaning the result that I just posted is still under experiment. That is, the experiment isn't complete until I understand why my original hypothesis was flawed.

That's what it comes down to when I refer to experimentalism. I'm fascinated by possibilities, that's why half of my music making time is spent reading manuals or taking notes. If you do enough research, you can sometimes accurately predict the outcome of your experiments. That doesn't just apply to new territory. I may experiment with concepts that have already been covered by others just to get an understanding of the math/science/(meta)physics/alchemy behind those concepts.

As far as my approach to music in terms of composition... it all comes down to something my stepdad always told me. "Nothing easy, is ever satisfying." I don't believe that is always true but it sums up my approach pretty well. I seek out the challenge and attempt to pass it on to the listener in a way that translates the journey I took to over come said challenge but often times I hide the details in a way that creates a new challenge for the listener.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Well, except for one odd character, the posts have been interesting and seem to lead in two directions regarding experimental music.

suck a dick...

[mellotronaut]

i try to describe some of my stuff as 'experimental pop', which only means, i mix some pop clichés with clichés from different kinds of music for my own excitement.

[vurt]

forget experimental music, experimental archaeology is where all the cool kids are hanging

[dan_s]

the scrotum is a cool place to hang out.

i am with the 'experimental is a process' side. i have tried some 'experimental' processes and came out with some pretty 'normal' results.

i think every genre was once experimental and when more then 1 artist started doing it, it became,....lame