Yes: Rhythm and melody. (and that’s not ‘rhythm/melody as perceived by the listener’, so people calling Hendrix ‘noise’ were just lacking education)
Overruled I disagree.
I think the ONLY criteria for a sound or group of sounds to be music is that it is perceived by the listener to be musical.
Mind you, as I get older, I lose my faith in other people’s perception of what is musical.
Allow me to re-phrase this:
It’s only music if I say it is.
I think the ONLY criteria for a sound or group of sounds to be music is that it is perceived by the listener to be musical.
Aesthetically pleasing sound does not always amount to music, no matter how much the listener would like it to. By definition, if there’s rhythm/melody, it’s music, and if not, not. (sometimes harmony is thrown in there too, but it’s always been argued to just be another melody)
People’s minds are more open in modern times to acceptance of all kinds of different sounds, and that’s awesome… but if something that isn’t music by the original definition needs a name, you don’t redefine the term “music” to allow the new sound, you make a new definition for the new sound.
Besides, the old definition is pretty broad. All you really need, technically, is two amplitude peaks, or two different harmonics. If you find some sound that doesn’t meet that minimal a criteria and feel the need to call it music… uhm… you might be an arty-farty wanker ;D
I seem to remember something about a “repetitive beat” beaing used when the government wrote up the criminal justice act in the UK (The act brought in to stop raves and basically took away a lot of civil liberties), although this may just refer to dance music.
I disagree about music having to have a melody… what about drumming?
Ah, but you see, you’re missing something crucial in my definition.
We were talking about what makes music, but this has been confused with quantifying the ‘minimum’ requirement for something to be musical. This is a pointless exercise. There is no minimum requirement. Music is art, and art doesn’t work like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage#World.27s_slowest.2C_longest_concert
My definition:
It’s only music if I say it is.
Is meant as a alternate wording of:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My definition of course also allows for the exclusion of stuff that I don’t like. ;D
… but if something that isn’t music by the original definition needs a name, you don’t redefine the term “music” to allow the new sound, you make a new definition for the new sound.
…
the original is greek, and applied to all the arts…
Ah, but you see, you’re missing something crucial in my definition.
We were talking about what makes music, but this has been confused with quantifying the ‘minimum’ requirement for something to be musical. This is a pointless exercise. There is no minimum requirement. Music is art, and art doesn’t work like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage#World.27s_slowest.2C_longest_concert
My definition:
It’s only music if I say it is.
Is meant as a alternate wording of:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My definition of course also allows for the exclusion of stuff that I don’t like. ;D
Which I suppose is where wrong music comes in! My friend has some wrong music that has no structure at all, just a series (and a parallell :D) of f*ck*d up noises. Not traditional music, but still has artistic merit. Not always particularly pleasurable, more of an experience, sometimes as traumatic as a nasty bout of diahorrea, but somehow quite satisfying at the same.
My definition of music would be similar to yours… A series of sounds which is listened to for it’s artistic merit (not necessarily enjoyable).. but then gain, where would poetry fit in.
This is a pointless exercise. There is no minimum requirement.
You’re wrong. The minimum requirement is rhythm and/or melody (that’s OR, goblinz 
)
Music is art, and art doesn’t work like that.
Sure it does. It’s right there in your dictionary. Don’t like the definition? Make a new word. This one’s taken.
Cage was a wanker. Yeh, I said it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Like I said, just because one likes it, does not make it music, no matter how much they want it to
just a series (and a parallell :D) of f*ck*d up noises. Not traditional music, but still has artistic merit
Exactly. Just because it’s not music doesn’t take anything away from it. Except that you can’t apply that name to it unless it has rhythm / melody.
My definition of music would be similar to yours… A series of sounds which is listened to for it’s artistic merit (not necessarily enjoyable).. but then gain, where would poetry fit in.
By your definition the wind in the trees and a passing train could be music. I love that shit. I will take my headphones off to listen to the 1000s of parrots down the road from my house just to lap up the cacophany. But it’s not music.
You’re wrong. The minimum requirement is rhythm and/or melody (that’s OR, goblinz
Nope, you’re wrong, but that said, both of these are a minimum requirement if you wish to sell records. ;D
Sure it does. It’s right there in your dictionary. Don’t like the definition? Make a new word. This one’s taken.
Words change their meanings all the time.
Examples:
current
cookie
crash
finger (a personal favourite - ever seen a film called “hot fuzz”?) 
ice
And by the way: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music
Cage was a wanker. Yeh, I said it.
Cage was an artist. It is the duty of the artist to try new things, even if stryd_one doesn’t understand why.
Like I said, just because one likes it, does not make it music, no matter how much they want it to
This is a direct contradiction to me. I’m saying that the final judgement for what is music is reserved for every single being or entity which hears the sound. I’m saying that I can no sooner judge for you what is music, than you can judge for me, or that I could judge for some as yet undiscovered gaseous entity of unimaginable power. This is why I see it as a pointless exercise. Of course, since this is a discussion on artistic form, use of terms like right, wrong, minimum etc (ie, absolutes) are really the only pointless element.
The element of final judgement also allows for the cranky old man sitting on his porch screaming at “you freakin kids” to “turn off that noise”. He is right in his judgement that he is not hearing music, and the freakin kids are right in their own judgement that it is music.
Nope, you’re wrong
Err you gonna back that up? I got like a billion dictionaries and music theory books backing up my statement 
Words change their meanings all the time.
Examples:
current
cookie
crash
finger (a personal favourite - ever seen a film called “hot fuzz”?)
ice
Ahh they aren’t *changed*, they are *added* meanings. They’d be a different number in the dicionary, like
ice
Frozen water
An evil drug
And by the way: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music
- any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound: the music of the waves.
Pfff what dicionary is that? In “the music of the waves”, the word ‘music’ is a metaphor. Note to self: Don’t buy that dictionary.
Cage was an artist. It is the duty of the artist to try new things, even if stryd_one doesn’t understand why.
No, I understand why - he was too busy being a scholar and forgot to make good tunes instead of wasting time being a poser. I do lots of cage-like experiments, it’s totally a cool thing to do… but I don’t go releasing them and making a big song and dance about it cause I’m not a wanker like that.
(heh pardon the pun)
This is a direct contradiction to me. I’m saying that the final judgement for what is music is reserved for every single being or entity which hears the sound.
I know what you’re saying but you’re just wrong. If I step in dogpoo on a foot path, just because I think it’s chocolate, doesn’t make it chocolate.
since this is a discussion on artistic form
Nothing to do with art, this is about the science of language… specifically, it’s about a definition of a word. I think that’s the problem here, it’s got nothing to do with artistic value. Even crap music is still music.
The element of final judgement also allows for the cranky old man sitting on his porch screaming at “you freakin kids” to “turn off that noise”. He is right in his judgement that he is not hearing music, and the freakin kids are right in their own judgement that it is music.
No, that’s the problem… just because the old man doesn’t like it, doesn’t stop it from being music. The old man is wrong like you. It’s still music, it’s just music he thinks is crap.
Err you gonna back that up? I got like a billion dictionaries and music theory books backing up my statement
How about 3 years of tertiary study? Not just owning books? Anyway, I don’t want to get into that shit. It takes no qualification to judge what music is, and I’m not going to be brow-beaten into submission here, it is a discussion, not a street fight. Try not to get all “ghetto rulez” on me. I’m not interested in who’s books are bigger and tougher than who’s…
Ahh they aren’t *changed*, they are *added* meanings. They’d be a different number in the dicionary, like
ice
Frozen water
An evil drug
So what, are you saying that the only meaning that is true is the first one in each entry? Or that there is inherently some sort of heirarchy given to different meanings? The numbers used in this instance are not to denote heirarchy, but should be treated as dot-points.
Pfff what dicionary is that? In “the music of the waves”, the word ‘music’ is a metaphor. Note to self: Don’t buy that dictionary.
Well spotted, in this instance, the term is used in a poetic or metaphoric way. See also “music of the spheres”, “cosmic ballet” etc. This actually means that it is not a definition of the artform, but of the metaphorical use of the word. My bad, didn’t read it carefully enough (pre-coffee) : - I certainly wouldn’t avoid buying a dictionary just because I didn’t agree with one of the definitions inside.
OK then, let’s go with the first definition from the same entry:
Sound in time is a good cross-point here, as to me, it means at least two sounds, either co-existing in the same time, or realised in two or more discrete points in time (you might call this “rhythm and melody”). ;D
I’ll certainly conceed that one sound on its own should not be considered music, nor should a truck full of violins, or a recording of background noise.
All said, I can agree with this definition, as:
it gives no specific weighting to any of the four elements mentioned, (particularly, is doesn’t isolate two of the four and hold them in higher regard than the other two);
it mentions the fact that music is an art form, and that it expresses ideas and emotions. (these are, to me, at least if not more important than the elements involved) this definition emphasises the expression, the artistic intention.
No, I understand why - he was too busy being a scholar and forgot to make good tunes instead of wasting time being a poser. I do lots of cage-like experiments, it’s totally a cool thing to do… but I don’t go releasing them and making a big song and dance about it cause I’m not a wanker like that.
Now you’re just being a turd. Most of what Cage was about was finding new methods of composition. He invented the ‘prepared piano’ because he had a gig to do where he wanted a percussion group, but only had a small space with a grand piano he couldn’t remove. Rather than giving up on the gig, or writing music for an instrument he didn’t want, he modified the instrument. In a different century (or later the same century), he probably would have been a midiboxer. ;D
Then, late in his career, he writes one piece, consisting of three movements, in each the instruction “tacet” (without speaking/sounding) is given. This piece is unfortunately SO revolutionary that it completely eclipses everything else he did, so now no-one even remembers his other work, he’s just ‘the guy who copped out and wrote play nothing on the page’.
Is this any less a compostion than a jazz chart consisting only of chord names, with the melody and chord voicing to be improvised as wanted?
Or an ‘adagio’ as originally intended, where the performers were to play at whatever tempo or tempi they feel, and to shift the tempo and rhythm to personal musical taste? - Unfortunately the term ‘adagio’ has since been taken by its literal translated meaning simply- ‘slowly’…
I know what you’re saying but you’re just wrong. If I step in dogpoo on a foot path, just because I think it’s chocolate, doesn’t make it chocolate.
This is irrelevant. And in any case, it wasn’t my dog, cause I always take bags with me.
If you find a discarded photograph in the street, is that art?
If you later attend a gallery opening and find the same photograph for sale, is it now art? Is the one you found earlier, now art?
Edit: removed irrelevant anecdote.
Err you gonna back that up? I got like a billion dictionaries and music theory books backing up my statement
…
does a degree in music count?
from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music):
“Music is an art form in which the medium is sound organized in time.”
this is in line with most music theory texts i’ve read.
btw, Messiaen annotated bird song in his music, i don’t like it much, but it’s music
(hey i feel much smarter today)
University degrees just mean you can recite spoonfed information, that’s not what I’m talking about. University is for rich sheeple. Just because I’m poor doesn’t mean I haven’t learned just as much and just as valid information as someone who wanted to support a recognised accreditation and had the cash to pay for it. I chose to learn about my music from scholars like you guys (yes, I do have some formal education), as well as religious scholars, native tribal musicians, phsychologists, etc etc etc… not just a pile of books. Sorry boys, but uni student elitism won’t fly here. My education is as valid as yours, despite what your universities convinced you of. Don’t be bothered by that, it’s their job to sucker people, that’s how they make their money. You’re not the first and won’t be the last.
When I say back it up I’m just referring to the fact that you made an empty “you’re wrong”. It’s not a competition I’m trying to start, I’d just like to hear something with some substance. You’ve got a brain otherwise I wouldn’t be having this chat with you. Share it dude
As for added vs changed meanings, no I didn’t imply any precedence of one definition over the other, but I did say that I’m yet to see a need to classify anything as music which doesn’t meet the original definition. As such, any such addition would be redundant. The reason I’d avoid that dictionary is that they clearly don’t understand the subject they’re documenting. OK, maybe they did the edits pre-coffee too
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
That’s inaccurate too - there’s plenty of music out there that doesn’t express ideas and emotions (see your Top 10 chart hehehe) Sure they can invoke emotion, but lots of sound arranged in time can do that, which is not music (birdsong, waves, etc). It’s not bad though… Like you said:
Sound in time is a good cross-point here, as to me, it means at least two sounds, either co-existing in the same time, or realised in two or more discrete points in time (you might call this “rhythm and melody”).
Bingo. perhaps if it said “sounds” it would be a bit closer. And color should be dropped, that’s part of harmony.
As for cage yeh, I don’t find a piece that’s instructed not to be played “revolutionary” I call that artsy fartsy bullshit. It’s arguably (lets not) still music or whatever, but just my own opinion is that it’s a crock. Likewise doing stupid things like songs played so slow that you only get a few notes out before you die. What the hell. He’s missed the point, and so have his fanboys. We all bitch about music with far less substance every day (see your Top 10 chart), and yet cage is one to be idolised? I think not. This is what too much school will do to you man.
“Music is an art form in which the medium is sound organized in time.”
Like I said to tilt in the chat, this is like the square vs rectangle thing. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Music is sonic art, sure; but just because it’s sonic art, does not make it music. I think this point is where we differ on this matter.
And ahh… All sound is organised in time. Without the time dimension, it’s just air pressure, and it’s static, so you couldn’t hear it.
Annyway let’s get to the point: Is there a need to alter the defining characteristics of music, rhythm/melody/(harmony)? Is there something you’d call music, which doesn’t have three amplitude peaks or two frequencies? I think the definition we have now is just fine. It even encompasses the ‘art for the sake of art/science/study’ bollocks I despise so strongly.
…Sorry boys, but uni student elitism won’t fly here…
…My education is as valid as yours, despite what your universities convinced you of…
…When I say back it up I’m just referring to the fact that you made an empty “you’re wrong”…
well, I’m sorry, but I think you started this..
You’re wrong. The minimum requirement is rhythm and/or melody (that’s OR, goblinz
This is not about university student elitism. I went to university to study digital systems design and implementation, not music. After I left the course (see avatar tag line), I took (read as, sneaked into) music lectures. When it came time to do presentations/assignments/exams, the lecturer realised that I wasn’t enrolled, and that I was taking the lectures without paying, but also without any promise of a qualification. Wheras many lecturers probably would’ve called security at this point and removed me from campus, I had fortunately struck a friendship with the guy, and he realised that my motives were altruistic, not malicious, and allowed me to stay for another several semesters, also advising me as to other classes I might like (which he also took, or in which the other lecturers were like-minded), and allowing me to join the experimental ensemble, in which I performed for around 4 years.
So no, I don’t have a ‘qualification’ in music. But I still have several years of study for the sake of learning, not for the sake of a pretty certificate.
That’s inaccurate too - there’s plenty of music out there that doesn’t express ideas and emotions (see your Top 10 chart hehehe) Sure they can invoke emotion, but lots of sound arranged in time can do that, which is not music (birdsong, waves, etc)…
Hmmmm.. so, are you saying perhaps, that certain top 10 charting tracks heard on radio and TV doesn’t seem (to you) (and also to me… :P) to fit a standard definition of “music”. I’m sure you would conceed that the same tracks are considered “music” to those who actually go out there and buy these shitty records. This is starting to sound a little like the “eye of the beholder” definition to me…
Bingo. perhaps if it said “sounds” it would be a bit closer. And color should be dropped, that’s part of harmony.
“Sound” and “sounds” should be taken as the same thing in this definition. “sound” without pluralisation can (and probably should) be taken as a plural. So to me, it does say “sounds”. Sort of.
Secondly, I think “color” in this definition is meant to mean “timbre”, so it should stay. Music will often be percieved differently if played by a different intrument.
As for cage yeh, I don’t find a piece that’s instructed not to be played “revolutionary” I call that artsy fartsy bullshit. It’s arguably (lets not) still music or whatever, but just my own opinion is that it’s a crock. Likewise doing stupid things like songs played so slow that you only get a few notes out before you die. What the hell. He’s missed the point, and so have his fanboys. We all bitch about music with far less substance every day (see your Top 10 chart), and yet cage is one to be idolised? I think not. This is what too much school will do to you man.
You don’t have to like cage. You don’t have to get cage. You also don’t have to hate on him. See also Battles.
Like I said to tilt in the chat, this is like the square vs rectangle thing. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Music is sonic art, sure; but just because it’s sonic art, does not make it music. I think this point is where we differ on this matter.
Yes, this is precisely where we differ. It’s ok though, we’re allowed to differ. In fact, the very fact that we differ fits neatly into my early definition. :
And ahh… All sound is organised in time. Without the time dimension, it’s just air pressure, and it’s static, so you couldn’t hear it.
No, sound exists in time. Sound is not by definition ‘organised’ (I’m sure many of us are kooky enough to recognise that, and that we make these sounds both voluntarily and involuntarily all the time ;D). It’s the organisation which makes it an artform, not the simple fact that it exists. A musical score makes no sound of it’s own (unless you scrunch it up and throw it in the bin), but it is still organised. Edit: Even if that ‘organisation’ simply consists of a page divided into three sections, each saying ‘play nothing’.
As an interesting by-the-by, the cage piece to me loses its musicality if ever it is recorded. It still serves its purpose when performed in concert, but as a recorded piece it is virtually pointless.
Annyway let’s get to the point: Is there a need to alter the defining characteristics of music, rhythm/melody/(harmony)? Is there something you’d call music, which doesn’t have three amplitude peaks or two frequencies? I think the definition we have now is just fine. It even encompasses the ‘art for the sake of art/science/study’ bollocks I despise so strongly.
Agreed, sort of.
well, I’m sorry, but I think you started this..
When I said you were wrong I said why. You didn’t, you just said I was wrong. So no, I didn’t start that.
This is not about university student elitism.
Oh please, it totally is - you both piped up with “I have university training” as a response to me asking for supporting statements. Where you learned information from, does not equate to the information you learned there. You both said it because you thought it carried some weight - it was elitism. Like I said - that’s the universities’ job, that’s how they make their money. You’re not the first…
Hmmmm.. so, are you saying perhaps, that certain top 10 charting tracks heard on radio and TV doesn’t seem (to you) (and also to me… :P) to fit a standard definition of “music”.
Hahhaha… Nah, I’m not saying that the chart songs aren’t music. They clearly are music, hence, that definition was inaccurate… and it’s not standard, the standard definition is the one I’m arguing for. The whole thing about expressing ideas etc is some newfangled thing, it’s unnecessary, and excludes some forms of music from being defined as music. Although in the case of the charts maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing ;D
“Sound” and “sounds” should be taken as the same thing
We aren’t talking about sheep here “Sounds” implies separation between two entities, “sound” does not. “sound” could be a sine wave… hard to organise it…
Secondly, I think “color” in this definition is meant to mean “timbre”
Totally, that’s my point - timbre is harmonic content, so it doesn’t need to stay in the definition, if you’ve got harmony in there. Also, you can have timbre/colour in a single note, and that ain’t music…
You don’t have to like cage. You don’t have to get cage. You also don’t have to hate on him.
I don’t like much of his work, but I do get it, and that’s why I do hate on him and his type. Why is it that people love to accuse me of not understanding something when in fact I just don’t agree with them? (you can find a few similar attempts like this on these forums alone) Because if I don’t understand, then that makes me mistaken. Nice try But I understand it completely, and I still think it’s missing the point.
Sure, I don’t *have* to hate on him, but just so you know, I could feel the Cage reference coming before you posted it, and avoided mentioning it - it’s not like I went out of my way to hate on him… but yeh, he chose to act like a poser, I choose to hate on him for it. You can choose to hate on me for that if you like, you won’t be the first
Yes, this is precisely where we differ. It’s ok though, we’re allowed to differ. In fact, the very fact that we differ fits neatly into my early definition. :
Yeh, and neatly into my “an individual’s ego doesn’t define our language” analysis of that definition Just because I say it’s chocolate, doesn’t change the sad fact that there’s shit on my shoe. Just because you say it’s music, doesn’t make it music.
No, sound exists in time. Sound is not by definition ‘organised’
True! But you can’t organise a single entity, you need more than one sound… Which is pretty much gonna land you in either rhythm or melody or harmony land.
. It’s the organisation which makes it an artform, not the simple fact that it exists. A musical score makes no sound of it’s own (unless you scrunch it up and throw it in the bin), but it is still organised.
Totally dude… But my point is that organising sound does not necessarily equate to making music.
(I’m sure many of us are kooky enough to recognise that, and that we make these sounds both voluntarily and involuntarily all the time ;D)
LMAO! That’s funny, because I was going to use a ‘musical’ kind of fart I did today as an example 
University degrees just mean you can recite spoonfed information, that’s not what I’m talking about. University is for rich sheeple. Just because I’m poor doesn’t mean I haven’t learned just as much and just as valid information as someone who wanted to support a recognised accreditation and had the cash to pay for it. I chose to learn about my music from scholars like you guys (yes, I do have some formal education), as well as religious scholars, native tribal musicians, phsychologists, etc etc etc… not just a pile of books. Sorry boys, but uni student elitism won’t fly here. My education is as valid as yours, despite what your universities convinced you of. Don’t be bothered by that, it’s their job to sucker people, that’s how they make their money. You’re not the first and won’t be the last.
i didn’t mention my degree to diminish anyone who doesn’t have one (though you seem to want to do so to anyone who does), only to support the fact that i have read many music theory texts. while most of them didn’t bother to specifically touch on the definition, the ones that did agree with the previously linked definition and none agreed with your “original” definition
Oh please, it totally is - you both piped up with “I have university training” as a response to me asking for supporting statements. Where you learned information from, does not equate to the information you learned there. You both said it because you thought it carried some weight - it was elitism. Like I said - that’s the universities’ job, that’s how they make their money. You’re not the first…
was this your reason for claiming the following?
I got like a billion dictionaries and music theory books backing up my statement
while it is noble to take responsibility for you own education (something i also do), there is nothing noble in denegrating all universities and all people who attend them without even attending one
Beware the mighty guru curse! ;D
aha! that’s why i felt smarter yesterday!
it’s true: more posts makes you smarter.
now i just have be careful to avoid the effects of the curse…
*whack*
Ok, sooo… whats next? The abortion debate?
