At what point does "music" stop becoming music?

during the bass solo

File: 6af9dc8aac6a39d8c96a05774cf24c7a.jpg (95KB, 661x1000px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 661x1000px

when the sound is not being 'arranged' by anything

music
[myoo-zik]

noun
1.
an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
2.
the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.
3.
musical work or compositions for singing or playing.
When it stops being that

>>74694533
When the composer doesn't consider it music.

>>74694634
this, it is not music when it is not presented as such

>>74694533
When it is fucking sucks

>>74694595
If your friend records that man jack-hammering the ground and shows it to you, is it not music? It is being arranged, of course.

>>74694595
>Field Recordings

>>74694634
/thread

>>74694633
shit definition

4'33 by John Cage is the only non-music music there is.

>>74694653
you can also listen to any sound as music; on that level the intent (or existence) of the composer is irrelevant

>>74694940
no it's not, lrn2fluxus

Any purely sonic creative expression devoid of rhythm, melody, or harmony is simply sound art.

>>74694633
>and color
What's that exactly?

when u cant dance to it

it doesn't

>>74694633
>rhythm, melody, harmony
Sound collages/atonal/avant garde/lowercase/noise/musique concrete isn't music by this definition.

>>74694940
Fucking pleb

>>74695683
Its like adding more expressive/interesting details into your musical ideas, like adding spices to a dish I suppose.

Idk I study music so it makes more sense to me

>>74694533
When you stop interpreting it as music.

>>74696034
this

>>74694634
>>74694962

>>74694533
When it stops giving the listener a musical experience. So I'd say it depends on the listener. The mere act of a listener judging sounds as being "musical" or "non-musical" makes the listener have a musical experience.

>>74694634
The act of composing means that it is intentional and thus whatever is created is inherently music

>>74695902
Examples of such added details?

>>74696173
define musical experience

>>74695902
>studying music

bet you have the most bland taste ever

>>74694533
When I don't get it.

>>74695902
You mean more like adding little arpeggios here and there (and other things in the score itself) or more like adding various samples in the background to make the song mroe interesting (and other things in the production)?

Or something else?

>>74694703
not music

File: france-art-dscf9033.jpg (20KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 700x525px

>>74694533

>>74694595
holy fuck that %fat

>>74694940
No, because it's not silence. The point is that the audience's noise would make the music

>>74699581
lmao brainlet

when it's not sound or the artist making it says that it isn't music

music, like all art, is and should be determined solely by intention

>>74694633
Shit definition
Music is all arts whose medium is sound and silence

File: 1491224509392.png (131KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 420x420px

Everything can be music is the nu-male way of dealing with the definition of music. All current definitons seem arbitrary so they just say everything is music to avoid actually having to define it.

>>74695683
I'm pretty sure that they refer to tone colour, i.e. timbre.

>>74694634
Fourth post best post
Having been to a contemporary classical music festival, I have to say that any strict definitions of music at this point are useless and futile. It's better to just enjoy yourself.

>>74699615
>music, like all art, is and should be determined solely by intention
So if I fart in a microphone and loop that 2-second sound for 45 minutes to make an album and called it music, would that be music just because I, the artist (which really just meand "the creator") said so?

If we record a bird singing and it turns out being a nice melody, would that not be music just because there wasn't an intention (despite the end product clearly being music)?

If some factory machinery moved in a rhythmic fashion, making some cool rhythms that constantly change with its advancing through its process, it would essentially make a song (since the same thing would play each time the process is started), despite the complete lack of intention of its maker.
If its maker made a video of its process from start to finish to advertise the machine, and people listened to its audio for its cool rhythms and sounds, would that not be music because of lack of intention?
What if someone isolated the audio of the video and sold it on vinyl?
Would it now become music because of the "injected" intention (despite it being the exact same thing)?

Seems like an arbitrary definition to me.

>>74699924
Factory machinery recordings were used on some industrial records, as I'm sure you're aware. Birds, definitely on field recordings. Either way, definitions are arbitrary in most cases. I would draw the line at 4'33".

music:
acid house
birds pooping
mozart
coltrane
just a buzzing noise for five seconds followed by a blank CD
a blank CD
not music:
90's tangerine dream

>>74699992
>Factory machinery recordings were used on some industrial records, as I'm sure you're aware. Birds, definitely on field recordings.
I know, and my point is that they're clearly music despite not being made with the intention of making music.

I think music is whatever someone (either the creator or the listener) considers music.

But of course it's not black and white.
Something can be considered music despite barely having any musical content and/or artistic merit, but it won't be "as music" as an actual song that follows rules made to leverage our instincts to have certain emotions triggered by certain rhythms, melodies, and harmonies.

I mean, an opera composition and a microphone recording sone traffic can be both music in their own way, but it's clear that one is "more music" than the other, or in other words, one fits the definition of music much better, while the other is stretching it.
And everything else in between.

>>74700080
Some people considered Throbbing Gristle the wreckers of civilization and not musical, even though there have been far more extreme musicians before and after they emerged. Just goes to show that not everything is back and white.

>>74700228
What some people think is irrelevant.
I just posted my own opinion on what can be music and what can't.
What other people call music and non-music is part of their own definitions, which don't necessarily have anything to do with mine.

>>74700248
Thank you for this conversation. Apparently, there are still people who want to salvage what's left of this board.

>>74694533
Harsh noise is my favorite genre

>>74700273
Thank you as well.
It does in fact get frustrating when almost every time you post something seriously and try to discuss a certain subject, you're met with shitposters, trolls, or you're just ignored.

I mean, I understand it (we're on 4chan after all), but it would be nice to have a normal discussion once in a while.

>>74694533
At what point do "you" start becoming not a part of your mom?

>>74694703
They're just recordings

>>74694533
It never does, the universe is music.

>>74700321
at no point of your existence

>>74700311
Is there another place to discuss music that's fairly active? We could try making actual threads here, but I'm almost certain that this board is done for. It has been bad, but never this bad.

>>74700078
Were they that bad? I stopped at Tangram, do they really get even worse?

>>74700364
The only places I know of are the niche subreddits and regular bulletin forums, but I don't really like those for different reasons.

I also hear about discords, but I have yet to find a decent one.
Also I don't like how it's basically just chatrooms, so discussions tend to be one-liners and other low-effort posts.

>>74700403
Should we keep trying to salvage /mu/ then?

>>74700427
Well, that's what I'm trying to do.

If I had a better place I'd have left 4chan by now.

>>74697398
yes

>>74697398
as if studying music makes you have bad taste. You're probably someone who thinks good music comes from musicians who don't know theory and that it should "just come from the heart man".

I assume you mostly listen to popular rock?

>>74700807
I think it stems from the sentiment that musicians who studied, get constantly taught the importance of the rules throughout their schooling years, so they end up liking things that are conforming to them, rather than music that aren't (which sounds wrong to their conformity-trained ears).

I'm not saying it's true for all musicians or at all, but this is how some people see it.

>>74694962
So if I enjoy to listen to silence (which I really do), is it music to me?

>>74700956
it's not silence though

>>74700869
I don't think I've ever noticed this in formally trained composers though.

File: 1460268558095.gif (2MB, 288x430px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x430px

>>74694533

Whenever you stop assigning a sound/s you hear as music.

>>74701685
What do you mean by formally trained composers?
If you mean people having a career in composing music, then they're different from just music students, which is what we're talking about here.

>>74701663
What do you mean?

>>74694533
music doesnt exist, its just an idea in your head, without language you couldnt pinpoint what the fuck a music is

Stop running away from definitions.

>>74699660

"everything can be music" is a definition that came about in the 60s, pleb

>>74702243
I hope you're not implying that there weren't nu-males in the 60s.

>>74699643
By that definition audiobooks and speaches would be music

>>74702113
shutup faggot, ugly fuck faggot autistic

>>74703821
>>74702113
owned

>>74694653
This.

'music' is a label applied to a work in order to classify it and compare or criticise it under suitable criteria.

>>74699660
"everything can be __________" is post-structuralist wank perpetuated by humanities students because it's the only -ism they could understand. It's a cop-out argument that people use to ruin discussions. It made sense a long time ago and helped pave the way for a lot of cool work, but now it's used as an excuse for absolute bullshit and we all need to move past it.

Being an idiot and posting random buzzwords is worse, though anon-kun

All the people saying that art is defined by intention are viewing art as a very autistic process. Art should be considered by context, is not a individual operation, it is always a social process, so its 'being' should be determined by the place in history it was produced.

>>74701802
This

>>74704690
>so its 'being' should be determined by the place in history it was produced
Only when that is the context that the work relies on. 'Fountain' certainly needs that, for example, but that doesn't mean every work does. Work can also be viewed in alternative contexts and through subjective lenses.

'Should' is a dangerous and retarded word to use in the context of your argument. Also, Art is a philosophical pursuit, music is a medium - they aren't the same subject.