What is music, what is not?
 

There have been many bands that have pushed the boundaries of what we consider to be music, and many people have also put music into a box of what it can and cannot be. So my question to you fellow music lovers is where is the line drawn? When do we say music has to stop evolving? And just what defines something that is indeed pushing the boundaries. Is music all forms of audio, or does it go farther, or in fact are these types of audio-stimuli but into boxes that may not be broken?

If a noise makes you feel something, it is music. If it makes you want to dance, then it's Rock and Roll!

The latter is one of the worst discriptions I've heard for the genre rock and roll, to be honest.

So samba is rock n roll?

Music is organized sound. Note that randomness might be a form of organisation and silence might be a form of sound. Of course there must be an intention to make music. If I deliberately belch three times in equal intervals then it's not automatically music. Except if I do that with a musical intention. Then it is music. Not necessarily good and interesting music though.

Generally I noticed, that people mostly resort to the "that's not music" argument to denounce music they simply don't like. I think that's a strange way of thinking. You don't have to categorize things to not like them.

That pretty much how I define music as well.

And I agree with you about people trying to invalidate music they don't like by saying it's not music. It's kind of a weird phenomenon, similar to the "that's not art" accusation. Strangely you never really hear people describe movies they don't like as not being movies or books they don't like as not being books.

Never thought about that books and movies thing. Interesting observation.
Perhaps the reason is, that "book" is tied to the physical (or lately also digital) object and movies to the act of filming, while music and art can't be that easily tied to anything.

Yeah, sorry, don't know what I was going for there. Out of curiosity, which was the absolute worst description you've heard?

That's a good point and I suppose people do try to dismiss books they don't like as not being literature.

Completely agree.

For me, personally (and I know many do not agree!) music has to have melody, or at least harmony. I have listened to some grindcore which I would not consider music, would consider noise, and yet you can listen to birds singing and that can be music. But I think to qualify as music the sound needs to have some basic structure, something you can recognise as a pattern, and it should be also something that evokes an emotional response in you, be it good or bad. I mean, I can bang dustbin lids while screaming at the top of my voice and my cat wails at the sound: is that music?

To me, no. It has to sound, I don't know, finished and have a purpose. Naturally, people will come here and say freeform jazz has no pattern, some black metal or EDM or whatever has none, and that's still music. And it is. So my definition does not stand up.

However, to me, I don't consider it music unless I can recognise it as such. Which is why sometimes some random sound (fridge, water in pipes, wind in the trees) can suddenly sound like music, though it doesn't always.

That's my take on it anyway.

I know we've already had this conversation, but I just want to highlight the fact that grindcore does have melody (notes are being played in a deliberate sequence), harmony (it contains notes being played together in the form of chords) and structure (which is quite traditional in the sense that you can actually write it out as sheet music). I find that it does evoke an emotional response in me and it sounds like it does in you as well, though in your case that emotion is repulsion.

Why do you tend to call it "not music" instead of "music I don't like" or "music I can't get into"?
Also there is lots of music without harmony, that I think anyone would still consider music. Indian music does not employ harmony, as far as I know.

And give banging dustbin lids while screaming at the top of your voice while your cat wails at the sound a chance. It might be fun and sound cool.:)

I'm sure Frownland would love it. :p:

I distinctively remember listening to Kurt Cobain during the 90s and trying to decide what was actual music or just making noise without no musical direction at all.

I don't know enough about music to understand the points you made so it really does just sound like noise to me. I remember in HS everyone was big into Dillinger Escape Plan and "math" metal. I just don't understand it.

I still call it music though. I just mute it when it gets played in plug.

I think that's a really great way of putting music and personally is how I see music fitting into the scheme of art, I just wanted to where other people might put it.

I don't think it's about "understanding", mostly it's about what you are familiar with.
If you played relatively tame rock to somebody one hundred years ago, they might perceive it similarly to how you perceive math metal and such stuff.
Just noise.
Most people have to get into those things gradually, although it all comes down to a question of personal preference in the end.

I disagree. Your average uneducated music listener can recognize patterns in traditional genres and that is what tends to dictate if they find a song catchy or appealing. If you played the rock you mentioned 100 years ago they might not like it but they would still be able to recognize melody in it. It wouldn't be "just noise".

With math metal/grindcore etc anyone who isn't educated in music won't understand what is going on. They may like the sound of it but they sure as hell are not recognizing the points that Jans made.

Ultimately, the genre just isn't appealing to me. However, if I understood what they were doing I would most likely have a much greater appreciation for it than I currently do.

I mostly base this on my own experiences. When I first listened to heavy metal (which is quite melodic after all) as a kid I found it was just terrible noise. Sure I was just a child, but I was relatively knowledgeable about music and had experience with rock music. And as far as I can judge and compare that to my first feelings upon listening to extreme metal or some far-out noisy improvisations it was really similar. There is so much structure and melody I hear now in experimental music, which I just didn't hear when I first came across it, because I had no points of reference.

I also don't have much knowledge about musical theory. I do play some instruments a little, but on a very basic and primitive level, just for fun.
But I nonetheless enjoy really complex music, although I would never be able to exactly tell what rhythm it's in or what kind of progression is being played. I do enjoy the complexity, but mostly I just like how it sounds. Although I do think it would add to the pleasure, if I could understand the musical theory behind it.

Okay I see what your saying. Maybe if I forced myself to listen to more of it I would start to recognize some of the patterns they use. I was just looking at from a first time listener's perspective but I think you make a solid argument.

I still won't be force feeding it to myself to try and like it. Just not my thing, heh.

Yeah, forcing oneself would be weird.
But who knows, you might come to enjoy music you wouldn't deem possible enjoying now. If someone told me, what I'd be listening to ten or even five years ago I'd laugh in their face.

Precisely because of what I said. There are a lot of genres/subgenres I can't get into -- hip hop, punk, jazz --- but I would never say they were not music. But to me (and I stress the "to me" part; this is my opinion and how I see it, and nobody can change that only me if I decide I want to look at it another way) grindcore (sorry Jansz but I was asked) is just noise. To me (again, to me) there is no rhythm or melody in it. I'm not denying it's there and that other people can hear, even categorise it (Cryptosy is better than Three Screaming Idiots or whatever) but I, personally, cannot and never will. To me, the difference between the sound grindcore makes and that of a car accident is minimal. I understand people find that hard to credit.

Look at it this way: somebody hates jazz. I put on let's say free jazz. This other body says "God that's just noise!" I can respond by saying "I don't like it but you can hear it's music not noise. Listen to the piano, the sax, the drums" etc. Now with grindcore (again, sorry but it's the one) I could not answer that same accusation. I could not break the music down, because to me it is not music and I have no way to, if you like, justify or legitimise it. It's purely noise, to me and my unnamed listening partner. It's not music I don't like --- I could put on a punk record and say I hate this music, but it would not be noise --- it's just noise. To me.
So you two will buy my album then? ;)

I don't think that forcing something on yourself like experimental music is necessarily a good thing while I do believe that anyone can come to love it. I never liked hip-hop but by just finding artists who I could relate to other genres that I did like I eased myself into it, and it didn't feel forced.

Thanks for elaborating. And you really don't have to stress that it's just a personal opinion, there's nothing wrong with it, although sadly there are lots of snobs out there who would say there is.


I wouldn't blindly buy it, but I wouldn't dismiss it because of it's concept and give it a try. I think I actually do have several albums along the lines of trashcan-banging and top-of-the-lung-screaming, although to my knowledge no felines were involved.:)

I sometimes come across people at concerts of experimental music, who give the impression to just be there, because it's supposed to be intellectual and classy. No enjoyment, no feeling for the beauty of the music, just cold calculation.
A sad sight.

Honestly those kind of people annoy me because there's no reason to act like something your not. I was raised on experimental, krautrock, garage rock, punk, electronic, and anything else so for me it feels right to me I hear things in that type of music that most people won't, as I said before that is what I was raised on.

As someone who grew up with mainstream music I'm curious:
Were you able to enjoy the more free-form, far-out stuff as a child?

I LOVED krautrock growing up Can was one of my favorite bands I would sing Mushroom at school and Kraftwerk too! I also had my mom who listened to radio more so I also had that, so it kind of evened up to my tastes now.

Sounds like a cool childhood.:)
I am madly in love (sounds like hyperbole, but it's the best way to describe my feelings) with Can, although it started in my late teens and I remember being somewhat annoyed and bored by them on first listen.

My dad would always joke that I was the only 5 year old in the world who knew who Can was, I still love them to this day I own Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi. Although I'm a huge fan other music now I still listen to that stuff that I listened to as a kid.

It would probably sound like "just noise" to them, and the reason why is that rock would not be a "traditional genre" to someone from 100 years ago. My grandfather grew up in the 1910s and 1920s listening to classical and ragtime and he thought The Beatles were "just noise". One of his big gripes about rock in general was that to him it had no melody.

I'm not educated in music. I never went to music school or anything. I can't break down what's being played into esoteric bits of music theory. I just know very basic things like what the words "melody" and "harmony" mean, which I think is pretty common knowledge. I don't think it takes a musical education to listen to someone playing a guitar and recognize that they are playing notes on it, something which happens in grindcore, math rock, etc.

How do you come to that conclusion, because they are not acting the way you expect? How do you know what they are thinking and feeling?

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.

I mostly base this on conversations I have with them or conversations I overhear.
But as I said, it's an impression and it might be often or even always wrong.

I find it hard to believe that he didn't recognize a pattern in the music. It sounds like he was just being stubborn because he didn't enjoy the music(melody). Not enjoying the melody and not recognizing there is more than just random sounds being played are the two things I was trying to differentiate between.

As for your second point, I know those words as well but from the grindcore I have listened to I would definitely not be able to make the claims you made to Trollheart. As far as I know everything you play on an instrument is a note, correct? So obviously I would recognize they are playing notes but when the notes are put together it makes very little sense to me. You seem to have a much higher comprehension of it than I do.

Not how they act, but you know when someone is really enjoying something and when it's what is "cool" to like or listen. But as grindy said it is an impression so there is always the possibility of being wrong of this assumption.

Well, I find it hard to believe that you and Trollheart can't recognize patterns in grindcore or math rock, but nevertheless I guess I have to take your word for it. Or maybe you're just being stubborn because you don't enjoy the music. ;)

The point isn't really whether they make sense to someone or not. It's safe to assume The Beatles' melodies didn't make sense to my grandfather, but nevertheless they, and the melodies in grindcore, are a series of notes played in a deliberate order, which means they make up a melodies.

This sounds like noise to me:
Mr. Hinkle's Medical History | Jesus the Carpenter

I can not for the life of me recognize any sort of pattern. It's just a bunch of random sounds (to me). Thanks Frown :P

I can recognize repetition of notes in all of these songs:



It's been a long time since I listened to any of this stuff. I was mixed up in what grindcore is exactly, but hopefully these examples will help you understand the point I was trying to make regardless of genre.

I listen to lots of music that might sound far more random and noisy than this Jesus The Carpenter track. So that's not the problem, but still I think it's pretty lame and uninteresting.

Ah Grindcore....that takes me back. Not a big fan anymore though, with some exceptions.