#44

might’ve already been brought up, but if there is to be a definition, it shouldn’t (or maybe isn’t) a rigid classification, but rather a shifting and ever-changing classification. I think the nature of art is way too complex and ameobic to be defined traditionally. kinda like gender and sexuality!

2 Likes
#45

@nuun @Erik I think the differentiating factors (to me) are intention, and acknowledgement of organizational/structural properties of what is being experienced.

1 Like
#46

so music can be defined as the auditive experience of intentionally structured/organized movement.
movement includes vibrations that travel through the air or another medium, but maybe also bodily movements (dance as part of music?).
(just rambling here)

#47

I like that. The way I have thought of the additional factor(s) was as internal or external context.
To give an example of external context, If you are exposed to the raw material (sound?) in addition to someone saying “I am going to play you this piece of music”, or if you go to a concert, you will classify the experience as music. External context = the factor is outside of you.

An example of internal context is when you are exposed to the raw material and it is somehow linked to something you have experienced as music in the past. Internal context = factor is inside of you.

Intention is similar to what I meant by internal context. The question is, how active are we in the choice of classifying something as music? or does it happen to us automatically, due to what our previous experiences and knowledge are?
Organizational/structural properties is pretty much exactly what I mean by external context.

2 Likes
#48

Children can recognize music at a very young age, so I think it’s more than just previous experiences and knowledge. Our brains our hardwired to be attracted to novelty and to detect patterns, and the more novel and organized we perceive a sound being, the more it stand out from the natural world. Even before we understand the concept of music, we start categorizing sounds as natural and artificial, and we then learn that a certain class of these artificial sounds are called music. Precisely which sounds are music and which or not is learned, and there’s grey areas in between, but I think anything that is sufficiently stands out from our environment will be considered music even with very little outside context.

3 Likes
#49

It depends on if you mean that children can recognize the phenomena YOU know is represented by the word music, or if you mean that they can know which phenomena is represented by which word.

Are you certain that all music is artificial? Insert a natural sound in the example below. I am still convinced music is raw material + context, and that if it is natural/artificial does not matter, or as labor camp put it, “art is not the objects/materials etc.”

I would go as far as outside context being completely irrelevant, if there is an inside context that is strong enough. Take a musician that works with a specific kind of sounds. If s/he hears sound of that kind, s/he will almost certainly make connections and associations to his/her work, no matter the outside context that the sound exists in.

#50

I’m pretty sure we learned music (and nearly everything else) from the entire natural world, at least to begin with.

1 Like
#51

This quote from Zappa changed my perception of music, and art in general, when I first read it 20-odd years ago,

“The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively-- because, without this humble appliance, you can’t know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a ‘box’ around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?”

4 Likes
#52

Did we humans learn music from the natural world—implying there was a music in nature before we learned it or experienced it—or did our music grow out of an imitation attempt or inspiration from what we find in nature?

I suppose: does music require artifice/work?

Is music human? I think whichever way someone answers this for themselves, it will narrow their definition.

1 Like
#53

I guess, to me, that’s an “and”, not an “or”.

Again, I feel it is both human, and beyond/before human.

2 Likes
#54

relevant

3 Likes
#55

One of my favorite interviews with Cage… so deeply joyful. My love knows no bounds for Cage

#56

What about the song of birds or the sample of any sound from nature, such as rain, wind or a river? Are they not natural, or are they not music?

#57

I think they are natural music.

3 Likes
#58

To me, music is a collection of one or more sounds which are produced or arranged with intent.

A bird singing to a mate is creating music.
Wolves howling for a lost member of the pack create music.
Whale song, dolphin squeaks, cicada chirps are all music.

If I record the sound of rain hitting the window and the wind howling through the chimney, and then arrange them in any way - I am creating music. Even if I declare that the live sounds of rain hitting the window and wind through the chimney is music - then it is music.

But in all cases, surely there has to be some intelligent agent intentionally producing or arranging or framing the sounds for it to be music.

2 Likes
#59

And it’s an amazing universe where there are so many entities, human, and non-human, capable of expressing such intent.

2 Likes
#60

Yes, I think children recognize the phenomena quite young, and later learn that that phenomena is called music.

I’m not saying all music is artificial, I’m suggesting that artificiality is the primary heuristic by which we recognize music as being music. But I also mean artificial more in terms of the organization of sounds rather than by their nature; like a bird’s song is artificial in the sense that it contains readily identifiable patterns, vs the more random sounds found in nature. Artificial is definitely not the best word…

I do agree that context can make something that might not otherwise seem to be music be heard as such, but that’s a grey area at the limits of what most people consider music.

1 Like
#61

I don’t think most people think about definitions of music at all, to any degree.

Most people simply react to music, as music. I believe this largely happens in a pre-conscious manner, and I also believe it’s likely that it happens for people in a much broader way than they’d be likely to consciously identify as such.

We are constantly reacting to the rhythms of our days. The tune of our environment. We must, as it is part of our survival instinct.

So, I’m suggesting that we brainy monkeys are rather fond of ascribing things to our neocortex, and while it’s true that it’s possible for music to be quite cerebral, I am asserting that it needn’t be. That in fact, it needn’t be conscious at all.

2 Likes
#62

Some very interesting definitions in John Blacking’s How Musical is Man?

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/104131606/How-Musical-is-Man-John-Blacking

Music may simply be “a perception of sonic order”.

3 Likes
#63

I think this is maybe nearer to what I was trying to ask; is there music without humanity? Not in regards to whether we call certain sounds “Music” or not, but does it require a human engaging, passive or active?

What is music without an organizing mind, without a consciousness to listen, without a body that is in tune? Is music part of the human condition or is there a harmony of the spheres, before or beyond me? I think if I can answer this for myself, then I can suss out what I call music.

If a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear it, does it make music?

1 Like