Music Banter - View Single Post

**Frownland** · 10-12-2014, 01:18 PM

Trollheart, you make me sad. It can be noise but it is also music.

I have a very liberal stance on defining music somewhat modeled after Duchamp's statement that 'What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.' Whenever an artist comes out with anything and calls it music, it inherently is. It can be a take on music that I don't agree with or sounds too foreign to me, but it is still music, no matter how structureless, pointless, or atonal it may be. This ideology opens the door to some artists making what they see as a musical equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes. But to be honest, if I like the music, I'll be the first to tell the emperor how awesome his outfit is.

One argument I hear against improvisational music is "my five year old could do this! This is not music!" which I find to be pretty dumb. I bet your five year old could strum and sing a poppy Beatles tune on the guitar, but that is still music as well. Record your little tyke and if it sounds good enough I'll call him a prodigy.

I'm going to take it a step further by embracing a Cageian perspective. Music can exist without intent as well. Listening to lines bang on a flagpole while construction across the street clangs and roars while grindy belches tree times is music as well because if someone recorded that as a field recording it would qualify as music to most. So I take the argument that it's a live performance of such. I think viewing the world as a musical landscape opens it up as a place rife with beauty and makes for a more enjoyable experience overall.

10-12-2014, 01:18 PM	#34 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	Trollheart, you make me sad. It can be noise but it is also music. I have a very liberal stance on defining music somewhat modeled after Duchamp's statement that 'What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.' Whenever an artist comes out with anything and calls it music, it inherently is. It can be a take on music that I don't agree with or sounds too foreign to me, but it is still music, no matter how structureless, pointless, or atonal it may be. This ideology opens the door to some artists making what they see as a musical equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes. But to be honest, if I like the music, I'll be the first to tell the emperor how awesome his outfit is. One argument I hear against improvisational music is "my five year old could do this! This is not music!" which I find to be pretty dumb. I bet your five year old could strum and sing a poppy Beatles tune on the guitar, but that is still music as well. Record your little tyke and if it sounds good enough I'll call him a prodigy. I'm going to take it a step further by embracing a Cageian perspective. Music can exist without intent as well. Listening to lines bang on a flagpole while construction across the street clangs and roars while grindy belches tree times is music as well because if someone recorded that as a field recording it would qualify as music to most. So I take the argument that it's a live performance of such. I think viewing the world as a musical landscape opens it up as a place rife with beauty and makes for a more enjoyable experience overall. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x Last edited by Frownland; 10-12-2014 at 01:37 PM.