Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I hate myself for saying this. But sometimes it's true, surely?
that doesn't change.
fuck buttons are good though
and play around to create something resembling a tune. And it has a riddim and stuff.
fuck buttons.... drone?
and whether the artist's intention is to make 'music' or not. God that sounds wanky.
it is music
How'd you work that one out?
with a rocket launcher
It's not up to you what is music and what isn't. The artists believe that it is music and presumably so do the fans. This comment is beyond snobbery. You can say "it doesn't sound like music to me" but not "it's not even music".
Bit extreme isn't it?!
rocket jumps work
I was blatantly being 100% serious :)
Where is the line between 'sound' and 'music' then?
if they're releasing records and playing their material live, I'd say it's music. Unless the artist wants people to see it as just noise/sound, then it's music. I think it would be incredibly pretentious for them to call it sound/noise, but that's beside the point.
Merzbow is a self proclaimed noise artist, I don't see any pretention in that. The artists can ask but not expect their audience to perceive their work in a particular way. One man's noise is another man's music.
"if they're releasing records and playing their material live, I'd say it's music"
Whether or not they release records and play live bears no influence on whether they are making music or noise. That's a silly thing to suggest.
I've been listening to the latest Xela record a lot lately, which has no real melody or much in the way of a discernible structure (although I'm sure a lot of thought went into the way it flows and the sounds used), but I find it really compelling, which I guess is probably the ultimate criteria for whether you judge something to be music or 'just sound.'
but it's been niggling me.
I listen to a lot of drone and stuff that a few people on this site might dismiss as 'not even music' but to my mind, there's a tangible difference between good drone and bad drone (although I'd be hard pressed to articulate exactly what that might be), which would tend to suggest that drone is music, albeit devoid of instantly recognizable structural elements. Art's a relational concept anyway, so I don't see why anyone should get indignant about this topic.
Maybe Sean intended this to be a place for us to discuss our favourite jet engine or pneumatic drill.
calm the fuck down chum
John cage ( I think it was him ) produced a whole album of silence. His idea was make people stop and listen.
Drone can be used to do such things. Make you zone out and go into deep thought.
Man is a legend, I'll have no bad word against him!
It was wank. A bunch of classically trained musicians sitting around, not doing anything; a world renowned conductor standing still; an audience awkwardly trying to stifle their coughs. And it went on for five minutes. If I didn't know what I was watching I'd think that the orchestra was broken. And then the commentators were like "That was extraordinary! The hum of the electric lights became part of the music!"
IT'S NOT EVEN MUSIC. "Composing silence", Jesus H. Shitstains.
Well that is interesting. I can't imagine it was interesting to watch mind. Silence is not exactly his best work now. Controversial maybe.
that would be bloody impressive.
"So we're at bar 78 now, yeah ?"
Though LOL@the audience. The coughing is supposed to be part of the composition, right ?
My friend was at a concert and 4'33" (the silence piece) was performed. Apparently it made the audience of the sound they were making, or something like that. I did watch all 4 minutes and 33 seconds, and I did laugh.
sorry to pull out that old chestnut but...yeah
But that's the thing, there's nothing to get: it's silence! Shit, I like silence. Nothing I like more than sitting in silence with a book or quietly reflecting. I think we live in noisy times and everyone could do with some silence. Like Einsturzende Neubauten say, silence is sexy. But that silence wasn't sexy, or even interesting. Maybe it was just the way it was performed, idk.
I've seen the blank music sheets with "John Cage - 4'33"" on it.
<Waiter, can I gets me a Hi Five?>
of the boundary between music/not music, is by the composer Edgar Varese, who defined music as "organised sound". Works for me.
what about deliberately unorganised sound? Or does the fact that it's deliberately unorganised make it organised? And have I spelt 'deliberately' correctly?
I prefer the "if it can be released on a record" rule but that does mean i have to include those field recordings of an industrial power plant, that John Peel would sometimes play.
Surely it's the same as 'organising' something?
To be honest I never ask myself whether something is noise or music. I've never really seen a point to it.
They first album was a extreme doom album. The rest of their work falls into evil ambient music at worst.
I put it on because I find it very relaxing. I think it's music. It's not arrhythmic or random cacophony, it's slow, thought out tones.
It was shit though
I don't mind turning it off before bed. Who do you think I am- Tom?
I was apologising for saying "It's not even music".
then it is music. Otherwise it's just noise like.
Organised sound is fair enough I suppose. As long as you count a load of musicians in a room playing random improvised stuff as organised. And with that in mind, this is mint
When I saw him in Finsbury Park there was a small group of people dancing. Like I said before, one man's noise is another man's music.
tbh I worry more about how i'm supposed to read your username than what is music and what isn't!
Did Merzbow play outside? That's cool. I once saw him and Keiji Haino eating dinner. I don't think that was music
like that... I think
I'm not CAPITAL LETTERS worried about it
That's the last time I tell someone...he didn't play outside, he played in the function room of an Irish pub called the Red Rose. The line up was astonishing- Merzbow doing an a mellower noise set, New Blockaders, Schimpluch Gruppe, Sudden Infant, Emil Beaulieau, Putrefier, Dave Philips....such an awesome night.
A burnt out match is not art. Put it in an art gallery on a pedestal with a little plaque by it saying "the human experience" then it becomes art. It becomes art because it has been presented as art. By placing it in a gallery you are invited to view it and discuss it as art.
Similarly if I hold my guitar next to my speaker and play an hour's worth of unvarying feedback then I woudn't count it as music. But if I recorded it and released it on CD and called it 'Meta-psychic-death-terrorism' then I would be encouraging people to listen to it as music (to consume it as music) and it could be heard as such. It would be SHIT music, but it would be music.
well done, you win the thread.
shall I do a lap of honour round the office?
and if anyone stops you to ask what you're doing, please tell them, preferably with a detailed explanation (including diagrams) :)
might be digging your feedback though without you encouraging them to
I see how this could be applied to noise bands. Why it should be a cause for controversy however, is beyond me.
In a similar vein, while I accept 'noise' (as distinct from traditional western 'music') as a legitimate art form - it is, after all, still 'organised sound' produced by instruments designed for the purpose - the boundary between legit noise and bullshit is that of replicability. In my opinion if you can't reproduce what you played, you're just a bullshit artist.
He made the Trout Mask Replica band play exactly what he wanted through brainwashing/non-stop rehearsal and then blared a load of unrepeatable sax solos over the top of it. Unrepeatable can be exciting. I mean it's not as if he couldn't fire off another unrepeatable sax solo of the same intensity
I get what you mean and I fairly agree that that kind of stuff is awesome. When I say replicability however, I'm using it more in the sense that what is played can theoretically be notated/tabbed and reproduced by anyone with the motivation/skill - which I think differentiates a Cap Beef's solo from just pure noise.
The notation would have to include all kinds of stuff for noise folk with their own custom setups and like but it would still be possible wouldn't it? I mean if you were mental, broke into their house and copied their circuits and stuff
you could replicate ANYTHING, surely ?
Well certain people who happened to be good at replicating stuff would be able too anyway. Captain Beefheart afaik couldn't really play the saxophone so would have had trouble replicating his own stuff. Could've taken him forever. All of this is kinda null and void to me
One of things I like about [pulls name from hat] Dirty 3 is that I couldn't do what any of them do, whereas some shit that people put out I think 'I could do that!'.
"but you didn't, Dad"
"well no, but I COULD have"
but he went to see Barry Manilow recently and sold all his vinyl. *hangs head*
if it was 'Japanese or something'. It wasn't. I dunno if that makes him racist or what.
of course it does, there was just no-one around to hear the sound that it made.
..why am I wrong? I don't understand how it can't make a sound.
but I would assume that it would depend if the first chicken like creature, was born either from an animal that gave birth to live young, or an egg.
the chicken came on the egg
and we don't really know when they started being chickens as they are now. Or do we?
rather than being the vibration of air, then you are wrong.
so yes, the vibration of air.
If "sound" is defined as something THAT ONLY EXISTS IF IT IS PERCEIVED, then there needs to be something/someone there to perceive it.
If you define sound as "the physical vibration of the air", then presumably things like tinnitus or other audiological defects which occur from within the ear/brain are not "sounds".
Would anyone like to hear an amusing story about a bridge?
You could argue that a lot of bands or musicians improvise, and create things that eare never the same twice. Cheesy example but could Jackson Pollock reproduce one of his action paintings? Not exactly. Does that mean it isn't art? No. I think it's down to taste really. some noise i like, some I don't, ditto modern art.
Fuck Buttons are still crap though.
that "but is it art?" question has a simple answer. Is it presented as art? Is it in a gallery? Yes. Then it is art. The same is for music. You might not LIKE it but that doesn't stop it being what it it.
i mean, your claim is a particular theory of art. it isn't the only theory of art out there. its just an assertion really, without any real foundation, and as such i don't think its inherently any more compelling than any other theory.
after everyone's buggered off?
you're a meany
That's how I win all my arguments.
that my point has been much more eloquantly put by sunbakedsnowcave. I lose.
It's all good.
“Music is an art form whose medium is sound organized in time.”
If it fits that criteria, then sadly it is. Wikipedia is pretty hard to argue with*
*except when it’s wrong
a tuneful, melodic form of aural entertainment is laughable.
It's like somebody coming along and suggesting that instead of eating food that tastes nice, we should eat things that aren't enjoyable and are tasteless: and then being respected for suggesting it.
It makes you guys feel really really good about yourselves when you start championing these apparently revolutionary forms of music, but I think there's an element of common sense involved.
John Cage's silent piece, or 'noise' is written with the intention of CHANGING SOMETHING and DOING SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. I don't think that in itself deserves the praise it receives.
In my opinion, Benny and Bjorn from Abba deserve miles more respect. As people like John Brainlove have showed with their attempts, it's very very easy to do something that's never been done before. It's a fucking doddle. Writing a good tune like SOS is MUCH more difficult; the fact other people have been writing 'nice melodies' for a long time doesn't make it less-deserving of respect.
You lot have just got your priorities mixed up.
so saying 'you lot' paints you as rather a paranoid character. Your penultimate paragraph is fairly accurate - but how do YOU feel about experiMENTALism?
that at least 98% of users on here would drastically disagree with me.
Experimenting with music is wonderful. But only as long as you keep an eye on where the tune's going. If you just let it wander off into unbearable nonsense then I'm not interested.
you can push the boat out as far as you like, but in the end I need a something keep me tethered to you. it's usually called a melody.
yeah it is easy to do things that haven't been done before, but some people do it better than others
What utter horseshit.
This, like many of your posts, falls apart the very first thread you pull - in this case, your argument only has weight if we accept that the purpose of noise music (and John Cage's Silent tune) is to 'revolutionise' music. It's certainly not true that incorporating dissonance and atonality into music is in any way a new concept.
peeeew. abba stink.
He's has created some of the most interesting percussion arrangements I've heard to date. He also invented the prepared piano and is a massive influence on many talented artists.
I think that in this day and age people have to keep pushing boundries to create something that has not been heard before.
This experimentalism is part of the evolution of music.
people who make it should be judged for making it. If you make something conceptual, you shouldn't be ignored if your concept doesnt connect with someone but you should be derided for it, this weird pedestal we put art on.
I find it baffling that you could suggest that music is only entertaining if it is tuneful or melodic, as if sound doesnt have huge potential. I find it even more baffling that you think there is one person in this thread who wouldn't appreciate or respect good melody.
which has a similar feel to it, although possibly a little more structured.
Also Ben Reynolds in some of his more experimental moods.
Thanks for the link.
the artist is probably doing what they wanted to.
is probably better phrased
"you're not even a real person"
because it's not an important issue.
street horsssing is a truely dreadful album.
...is not music. It's a product. Designed to rob kids of pocket money and pay for fat cat's new Bentleys.
Music implies art - so anything created sonically with artistic intentions IS music. Girls Aloud, created solely to make money, are not.
Therefore, Fuck Buttons and Crystal Castles are music.
Take That are not.
A fat bloke farting is infinitely more musical than Same Difference.
I rest my case your honour.
surely if it's intention is to make money then it has to have some appeal. Not only that but just because Girls aloud and Take that are created as a product doesn't mean that the songs written for them have no artistic merit.
many respectable and talented lyricists and musicians put a lot of work into creating these songs. surely the songs have artistic meaning and merit to them? and to the consumers.
You are just talking about music that is being controlled by large companies who are more intent on making money than music. But to say what the distrobute isn't music is wrong. that is like saying that everything a large art dealer sells isn't art because he is powerful and more intent on making money than art.
i think that made sense :S