It was hard to make a title that fit what I wanted to talk about. Reading the thread about the deleted Hip-hop/Rap thread was an interesting window on some of the mindset here (some of which was unfortunate and depressing too but that's the world we live in....). What struck me was the attitude that if it's not played on a traditional instrument it's not music, or it just "sucks" in some way.
First, many instruments today, lots of brass ones especially or guitars didn't exist until the last 100-200 years. Do they not make music?
But you have to learn to use it skillfully, so I read. Knowing how to read and write music surely qualifies one yes? Talented even, if your can write complex pieces?
Ok, then. 25 years ago I worked with early digital audio systems using sequencers and MIDI. My partner graduated with honors from Berklee college of music and was a composer. He wrote some amazing work without touching anything more than a mouse and keyboard. Was it music?
10 years later I worked with another person who did incredible work in sound collage and electronic music. They did use a controller that is essentially a piano keyboard but it only sends note data to the system. She could play wonderfully on a real piano but often used non-linear editing and manipulation to produce innovative soundscapes. Was it music?
There are other examples where people do all sorts of experimental things with sound and not a single traditional instrument is ever used. Is it art?
My point here is if you don't like something that's fine. It doesn't make you a bad, stupid, or ignorant person. Neither are you those things if you don't understand why people create things or how they choose to do it. Of course, you are free to say what you like, that's your right. But don't be surprised when you are considered ignorant and intolerant when all you have to say is negative and derogatory remarks.
Life is too short to spend energy on things you don't like. Move on past and participate in the things you enjoy and let others enjoy theirs. Or maybe open you mind and give something more than a cursory glance if curiosity gets you, explore, read, listen and learn. You may decide it really isn't for you, but then again you might.
On a sort of side note to your post. An interesting thing I read recently was the amount of music that is being created these days with the easy access to technology. I think in the past the cream of the crop in terms of musical talent went into music. Now a lot more people can make music. Which is both a good and bad thing. Someone like Tash Sultana is a good example (I am a fan)
One of my brilliant Indian colleagues from Silicon Valley went back to India a decade ago and created some software to give the general public the software tools to create music (Indian genres).
I really enjoy the positive aspects of the forums and try and avoid any of the trolls and egotists attempting to feed their egos through condescension. I like sharing the knowledge I had developed over the last fifty years and learning from others.There is so much positive about this pursuit and so much future possibilities it is wonderful.
I stayed away from the thread you were talking about. Don’t care to get involved. My interest in music has grown from Rock in the 60s and 70’s to, classical, jazz, electronic, and world. I attend the symphony regularly for ten years. I also have been really excited about the possibilities of new music... Imogen Heap headed in a great direction and scratched at a whole new world of electronic... once in a while I hear a bit that really goes into truly creative space. I love that. Actually I also loved Gil Evan’s Out of the Cool 1960... I love music that pushes the boundaries. I love The Art of Noice, helping break some of the connection with traditional instruments. There is definitely a whole world open to only the musicians creativity.
Nice & interesting post.Of course, in all of the examples you mention people created music -- albeit using different instruments. I have found, empirically, that the underlying objection many of these people have lies in seeing a computer as a possible musical instrument. The digital provenance of the source signal, i.e. the original sound was made by "an operator" using software & electronic circuits to emulate (and transform) the sounds made by the musician interacting with a physical medium which generates a sound of its own accord, without the help of an external power source, software, etc
And the skills associated with virtuosity are totally different; -- the traditional model has the musician and the instrument, and the idiosyncratic virtuosity separates (say) Heifetz from other violinists; -- in the new model, the skillful player can emulate Heifetz' violin playing virtuosity
OP, you’re missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with the use of electronic vs “traditional” instruments. There is lots and lots of electronic music that is loved by many who don’t like rap. Aside from the personal opinions about the message of some rap, the issue (objection) FOR SOME, is that much of rap deviates from the traditional constructs of music which mostly boil down to rhythm and melody. Much of rap does not have a defined melody at its core. A smattering of “melodic” fragments used as “dressing” does not a defined melody make. So, in a strict sense it does not meet the traditional criteria for what constitutes “music”.
One can argue all day about whether there is room for deviation from the traditional constructs of music and the validity (or lack thereof) of a strict traditional definition of “music”; that is perfectly fine. However, what I find curious more than anything and what I believe is the reason for so much vitriol around the discussion of this topic is why fans of the genre bristle at the opinion that it is not music. That stance is not necessarily a pejorative. I happen to like some of the more creative rap that has a message that is not gratuitously abusive to my value system and sensibilities; even while appreciating very “edgy” examples of the genre. I also acknowledge that at its best it can definitely be considered art. These are criteria that I use when judging ANY art form. However, I consider it to be poetry more than anything else because it, more times than not, deviates from what I consider to be the traditional constructs of “music”. SO WHAT?! Is poetry a “worse” or less valid art form than music? Hell no! So what exactly is the problem? If one person considers it music and another considers it poetry how is that a reflection of its validity? It’s not.
So, let’s see, those who clamor for open mindedness and respect for all are themselves incapable of allowing others to hold a different personal opinion by which they define an art genre? Got it.
The fundamental point, for me, is a pragmatic one. Things are what we need or want them to be. All definitions depend on usefulness.
If I need to throw out some trash, that cylinder over there is a "trash can."
If I need to change a light bulb and the cylinder (turned over, supports my weight) allows me to reach the light, it is now a "step stool." Neither definition is more primary than the other except insofar as I take it more often than the other.
(I know many people who have converted various objects into "speaker stands." Those things are, in fact, now speaker stands.)
Everything is what it is taken AS. That fundamental pragmatic point includes "sound," "noise," "music," and even "trolls."
The hard part isn’t coming up with definitions. The hard part is negotiating about which ones we want to agree on.
Sure, there can be different criteria used for defining something if one is comfortable with that kind of relativism. Some would consider that a lowering of standards. A cinder block works just fine supporting a speaker. Will it do as good a job (sound as good) as a stand designed to take into account the time proven issue of the resonance characteristics of that particular speaker, at the perfect height, etc.? Doubtful.
More importantly, why is it necessary to have agreement? I’m perfectly comfortable with disagreement. Why does disagreement have to turn into disrespect and vitriol? It doesn’t; and vitriol is pointless and counter productive.
I have been enjoying Mozart in the Jungle on Amazon Prime. A very entertaining series centered around symphonic music. It is somewhat cliche, but a lovely example of “sound as music”. While driving over a bridge, Rodrigo rolls down the window to hear the city sounds that inspire his compositions and musical sensibilities. Are the city sounds music? I would say yes! All in the perspective. And speaking of Rap, I am the OP of those first three recent removed Rap threads. Too bad this forum could not have a civilized discussion. Just being introductory in my exposure to Rap, I have discovered some of what I was looking for: Rap masterpieces. I already knew from Disney+, Hamilton was truly a Rap masterpiece. I wanted to find Rap LPs that will sound great on my TT rig. Unfortunately, the Hamilton Cost $128. But I did buy the CD. The other CD I bought was Kendrick Lemar’s To Pimp a Butterfly. I just bought the LP. Wow, I can’t wait to hear it of the rig! It is very sophisticated and a true masterpiece of the MC and the DJ. That is the spoken word with incredible electronic music “sound”. IMO, it is impossible not to marvel at the complex, highly musical structure combined with a dynamic presentation of the spoken word. I was turned on to Kendrick Lemar by a Forum member saying that his son and his friends, all students at Juilliard, were big fans of Kendrick. Can anyone recommend another Rap artist as complex and interesting as Kendrick?
The relativism is not avoidable, but it need not be a lowering of standards. All absolutes are conventionally described, defined, and either hewed to or overturned.
Of course it’s avoidable; it’s a choice we make. We all set standards for ourselves; I do, anyway. There in lies the reason you and I will disagree on this point. I’m ok with that.
Rap is the genre you just can't discuss in a thread. It's tied with too many social issues which are HOT buttons now. Compels many to project their inner whatever you want to call it, then a thread goes south QUICK!
Thanks everyone for all the replies. There's a lot of good thought and dialogue here.
@frogman I think it is you that missed the point. I assert this by you closing statement:
"So, let’s see, those who clamor for open mindedness and respect for all are themselves incapable of allowing others to hold a different personal opinion by which they define an art genre? Got it."
I made it quite clear that others can have their own opinions. I also made it clear that how you express yourself is how you will be judged by others. Don't like it because you think it's not music for whatever reasons? Fine. You can even say why just as you did in a reasonable, respectful manner. It's the snide remarks and thinly veiled racism I have issues with that I saw. In those cases, people still have the right to speak but I don't have to listen to them. That doesn't make me incapable of allowing others to have a different opinion, it makes me incapable of listening to ignorance and hatred.
Lastly, I encouraged people to give different things a fair chance before deciding they don't like it. And if they did decide they don't, that it was perfectly ok.
@frogman I agree to disagree about relativism. Relativism is a rather complicated topic, and it’s very time consuming merely to define terms. I doubt we’ll make much progress here, and there’s a lot written already. It's deep water, so put your flippers on.
jet88, point taken. I agree with what you wrote about being respectful; no problem there at all. My reaction had to do with your pointing to the use of electronics as the apparent reason for why rap is disliked by some. As I said previously, that is not the case. I won’t repeat myself beyond that. Anyway, thanks for your response to my comment. On the more important point, as concerns an Internet forum, that of respect and decorum, we completely agree.
**** This incoherence charge is by far the most difficult problem facing the relativist. It is worth noting that attempts to overcome the problem by appealing to the notion of relative truth appear not to succeed. Many versions of relativism rely on such a notion, but it is very difficult to make sense of it. An assertion that a proposition is “true for me” (or “true for members of my culture”) is more readily understood as a claim concerning what I (or members of my culture, scheme, etc.) believe than it is as a claim ascribing to that proposition some special sort of truth. Constructing a conception of relative truth such that “p is relatively true” (or “p is true for S”, or “p is true for members of culture C”) amounts to something stronger than “S believes that p” (or “members of culture Cbelieve that p”), but weaker than “p is true (simpliciter)”, has proved to be quite difficult, and is arguably beyond the conceptual resources available to the relativist. (Siegel 2011: 203) ****
**** The suggestion … is that what is (by commonsense standards) the same situation can be described in many different ways, depending on how we use the words. The situation does not itself legislate how words like “object”, “entity”, and “exist” must be used. What is wrong with the notion of objects existing “independently” of conceptual schemes is that there are no standards for the use of even the logical notions apart from conceptual choices. (Putnam 1988: 114)****
You guys have gotten me to attempt to define music in the broadest way possible. So how 'bout this? Noise crafted to elicit an emotional response in the listener.
Music is a way to use sound , taking the awareness level and the emotion level and raising them to their highest conscious possible point...
Music can be used also destructively...
Music of all age and cultures is also an history ,circling around the spirit...Music is not "arbitrary" it is something encompassing the rational and the irrational in a bigger whole....Then a spiritual phenomenon more than a sensible phenomenon...
Ernest Ansermet wrote a thousand pages book on that matter....In french , i think it is not translated ... One of the great book of the century.....
«Music is an hologram of consciousness»-Anonymus Smith
«Even the distribution of primes is pure music»- Physicist Michael Berry in marcus du Sautoy book the music of primes
The distribution of primes could be "interpreted" as an hologram of a universal memory, it is not surprizing then that a link with music could be possible...
All memory is music and music is related to the deepest memory and elicit it.... Rythm is universal habits or laws in musical clothes...
In India the tabla player with each part of his palm invoke and provoke a cosmic movement... Rythm is more powerful than meet the eye...Anyway all music is geometry....
«If all is relative, the absolute posit itself, it is the relation»-Lanza Del Vasto disciple of Gandhi
Imagine a mountain where the peak could be attained by an indefinite number of roads... One peak and many roads...
Imagine now that the peak is a tone pitch, and each road a voicing of it....
The problem of the existence of the relative and of the absolute is simple, it is a geometry problem in projective geometry....In music it is counterpoint....In number theory the distribution of primes....In spiritual meditation it is a conscious vision....
"relalitivism" on the contrary is an ideological view which is not simple....
Then we must learn to distinguish real problem among unreal one and political agendas....We must also distinguish science and technology, selected roads, going or not to the peak, from the mountain....
We actually had music class in school as a kid. They taught us music was notes on a scale and how to read and reproduce them. Rap meets that definition Same notes on same scale as all the rest...but essentially infinite ways to apply them. What varieties people like or not is another story. It’s all music. Has nothing to do with who likes which varieties or not. It’s very simple actually. No philosophy involved. It’s actually amazing that such a small collection of notes on a scale can produce endless varieties of music including rap. Toss in lyrics, stories, poetry and what have you and now you really got something that justifies spending big bucks to reproduce it well in one’s home.
@frogman Yes, progress indeed! You chose a great sentence: "What is wrong with the notion of objects existing “independently” of conceptual schemes is that there are no standards for the use of even the logical notions apart from conceptual choices. (Putnam 1988: 114)"
Putnam gets at the point I was trying to make. The notion that we can affix a label ("objects" or "music" or "noise") with the label "true" is one requires that we know this label is anchored in a reality outside of our conceptual schemes. This is something we cannot do; everything we label is labeled with our concepts, our words, and connect to our schemes -- and our purposes. That is why the relativist position is impossible to overturn. That said, what Putnam maintains -- and which I was trying to convey -- is that conceptual schemes can contain labels which are very, very stable, because they are part of forms of life which we have staked ourselves in. We see the most rigid examples of these labels in our logical terms ("and" "but" "or" etc.) and that is why Putnam mentions "logical notions." Hope that helps.
First, let’s be clear, I have no interest in “overturning the relativist position”, but please understand that this does not mean that I find truth in that position. However, I must admit that I find the use of the word “overturn” rather telling and indicative of at least one aspect of our respective stances. My interest is solely in recognizing, and in this particular case, being free to hold and express a position that is not in agreement with the relativist position. Moreover, the way that I interpret Putnam’s comment is that it is in opposition to the relativist position and affirming of my position. He explains what is “wrong” with the relativist position; which is, the absence of standards used to arrive at that position. My position values the use of standards as the means to arriving at a truth; admittedly, my truth. I don’t quite see how that comment supports the relativist position
**** everything we label is labeled with our concepts, our words, and connect to our schemes -- and our purposes. ****
Exactly; and this includes the concept of non reliance on standards. This notion can indeed be extremely purposeful; and not always in a positive way.
I'm very happy about the discussion my thread has sparked. Even the difference of opinions is great. The level of discourse and ideas presented about what music is, or could be is fantastic
Give yourselves applause for showing that this community of audiophiles is full of intelligent, articulate people who can have discussions with maturity, respect, thoughtfulness, and a shared love of sound.
Keep the tent big, welcome the strange and unusual, the different and weird. Yes, there's things out there that are deeply problematic like misogyny, racism, glorifying violence, etc. Together we can try to understand, ask questions, discuss and analyze and sift the wheat from the chaff, and by doing so discover new things worthy of our time and attention. The rest will naturally fall away.
Thanks again, you have all heartened me in rather dark times.
The physicist Henry Bortoft elucidated the Goethe vision in 3 books....
There is many way for a WHOLE to desintegrate itself in relative parts, but there is only one way for the parts to be reintegrated in the WHOLE they never ceased to be anyway.....We must transform ourself to perceive truth of the phenomena...They are not "objects" given to us in a passive distribution set for eternity...
Relativism is the error of considering the desintegration process to be the only one and unevitable because the WHOLE is considered to be ONLY the perception of ADDITIVE external parts...
This is a "vision" and consciousness disease, the WHOLE is in the part and shine through it, and to perceive it we must flow ourself with the phenomena and cease to use language and concepts always in an external participation to the phenomena reducing any phenomena to be an external objects, we must be included ourselves in the phenomena and like Goethe said the language and concepts must come and be born with and in the phenomena...
For example in music the "time" is never the time of an external clock ever....It is a flowing, sprouting, rythmical time where all is included even ourselves and the past and future...An internal time and an intemporal duration...The maestro conduct, feeling this time and transmitting it through the right timing wave of his body/soul to all musicians...In jazz improvisation, this is the feeling/perception of this internal time that is the act of playing together.... Then the improvisation reflect not a sum of accidents but a perfect convergence of synchronised events as feelings in each musician...And in the listeners...
The time of the "discovery" or the time of the observation is not always ONLY an external time either...But i already wrote too long post.... 😊
«If all is relative, the absolute posit itself, it is the relation»-Lanza Del Vasto
«Creativity erased all relativism»-Anonymus Smith
«No relativism can write the ninth symphony or create infinitesimal calculus, an integrated perceptive vision could»-Anonymus Smith
«True skepticism is not relativism but the "suspension" of judgement»-Anonymus Smith
@frogman I see better now. Thanks for the clarification. I think it puts you, me, and Putnam much closer together than I realized. I followed Putnam's career and wrote a book in which he featured. In the end, he attacks relativism, but it is such a wooly word, it's very hard prey to catch. Rorty does a good job of elucidating the issue. In the end, Putnam remains committed to pragmatism and perspectivism (which many equate with relativism because they're both anti-absolutisms), but because of Putnam's background in science, mathematics, and logics, he's a bit more realist-leaning than some others in that camp. We're really in the weeds here. so I suggest, now, that we agree to agree.
“Relativism is a family of philosophical views which deny claims to objectivity within a particular domain and assert that facts in that domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed.”
My post about Rodrigo in Mozart in the Jungle hearing music in the sounds of NYC is a good example of Relativism. Going back to the OP, and my post, music-or anything-is in the perspective of the observer. Rap, Opera, Metal, etc. are all valid musical forms-from my perspective.
Each act of perception seat on his roots and engender his own "history" and is relativistic in this sense...
But each act of perception could be re-enacted and opened to the revelation of an " absolute" content....
This absolute content is not the relative content of the perception but the awareness of the content and his conscious possible or potential meaning....His "openness"....
Then all perceptions even the more remote or different one could be translated at the right time and linked together...
The human perception of "sound" create music and music is precisely this conscious working translation and communication between cultures and perspectives...
Then relativism is only half of the story.....Like a particular road is half of the journey without the peak of the mountain....
All musical genres or cultures are justified and communicate between one another but some recapitulate conscious moments more easily than others and even integrate all the others more easily...
At the end, music is ONE universal phenomenon transcending and integrating history....
Someone explained that very clearly in the mid last century: Jean Gebser in the "Ever present origin" one of the greatest book ever written in the last hundred years....
«If all is relative, the absolute posit itself,it is the relation»-Lanza Del Vasto
«Then there is a hierarchy in music like in all activities but it is not a hierarchy of power but a hierarchy of integrated and integrating vision»- Anonymus Smith
«At the end there is a "sound" that recapitulate us all»-Anonymus Smith
« By all chance, is it a gong sound?»-Groucho Marx 🤓
Man, I feel like a broken record (pun not intended but...) going on about this but I'm loving the discussion! I wish I was not so busy and could participate beyond cheerleading, lol. At least I can read along in between working.
@frogman This idea that rap is, “not music” is simply incorrect.
Personal preferences and opinions aside, saying it is “not music” is simply incorrect.
One could say, “I don’t like rap music.” To say it doesn’t qualify as actual music is incorrect.
These incorrect statements can be debunked on a few levels:
1) When people say it, “has no melody,” that is incorrect. Countless rap songs of the last 30-odd years feature a distinct vocal melody sung by a vocalist during the choruses.
2) A rap song that isn’t occupied by a distinct vocal melody for 1/3rd to 1/2 the song is still music. Why? Because every rap song ever features the rap vocal over…whuddya know…music. Music being defined here as: a percussion track, a bass track, a chord progression featuring musical instruments playing notes/chords, perhaps even backing vocals singing a distinct background vocal arrangement.
3) Is avant-garde music “not music?” Is John Cage not music? Is Einstürzende Neubauten not music? What kind of definition of music holds any water? To just call it, “art”…I mean, I guess that works in an extremely broad way.
4) Is James Brown music? The music that accompanies Mr. Brown’s vocal, on many occasions, is as repetitive and simple as the looped sample in a rap song. The lead vocal, in turn, very often features little melody, but instead sort of a speak/sing approach. We could point to many other instances of this. Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, and on and on. The instrumental arrangements on many such songs by these artists can be extremely primitive.
”Who Do you Love?” by Bo Diddley, 1956, one single chord the entire song, no bass, with very little variation in the percussion arrangement, very primitive guitar fills, and that’s it :
”Tombstone hand and a graveyard mind / just 22 and I don’t mind dyin’…Rode a lion into town, use a rattlesnake whip / Take it easy Arlene, don’t give me no lip”
Plenty of folks in 1956 said, “this primitive garbage, this Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, it ain’t even music. It doesn’t even have melody, blah, blah, blah…”
“Subterranean Homesick Blues,” Dylan, tons of James Brown songs, etc., etc…
@frogman This idea that rap is, “not music” is simply incorrect.
Personal preferences and opinions aside, saying it is “not music” is simply incorrect.
One could say, “I don’t like rap music.” To say it doesn’t qualify as actual music is incorrect.
These incorrect statements can be debunked on a few levels:
1) When people say it, “has no melody,” that is incorrect. Countless rap songs of the last 30-odd years feature a distinct vocal melody sung by a vocalist during the choruses.
2) A rap song that isn’t occupied by a distinct vocal melody for 1/3rd to 1/2 the song is still music. Why? Because every rap song ever features the rap vocal over…whuddya know…music. Music being defined here as: a percussion track, a bass track, a chord progression featuring musical instruments playing notes/chords, perhaps even backing vocals singing a distinct background vocal arrangement.
3) Is avant-garde music “not music?” Is John Cage not music? Is Einstürzende Neubauten not music? What kind of definition of music holds any water? To just call it, “art”…I mean, I guess that works in an extremely broad way.
4) Is James Brown music? The music that accompanies Mr. Brown’s vocal, on many occasions, is as repetitive and simple as the looped sample in a rap song. The lead vocal, in turn, very often features little melody, but instead sort of a speak/sing approach. We could point to many other instances of this. Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, and on and on. The instrumental arrangements on many such songs by these artists can be extremely primitive.
”Who Do you Love?” by Bo Diddley, 1956, one single chord the entire song, no bass, with very little variation in the percussion arrangement, very primitive guitar fills, and that’s it :
”Tombstone hand and a graveyard mind / just 22 and I don’t mind dyin’…Rode a lion into town, use a rattlesnake whip / Take it easy Arlene, don’t give me no lip”
Plenty of folks in 1956 said, “this primitive garbage, this Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, it ain’t even music. It doesn’t even have melody, blah, blah, blah…”
“Subterranean Homesick Blues,” Dylan, tons of James Brown songs,
chrissi lipo etc., etc…
I guess that’s not music.
So how do you categorize rap if its not a music. In that way you will also say hiphop and rock is also not music
@tablejockey What does talking about a type of music have to do with “social issues?” And if such a discussion is “tied to too many social issues,” what about that discussion is so hazardous or disagreeable to avoid altogether in a music forum?
@tablejockeyAh. I saw this as a recently used thread.
Saw folks contributing recently. I read the posts, and responded to yours, which was, apparently, made over a year ago.
Still don’t know how talking about certain music on a music forum should ever be considered off-limits on social terms, or any terms.
Duke Ellington: “Music is an aural art; if it sounds good, it’s good music.”
Leonard Bernstein: “Amen.”
Q. What do you think of the new music?
A. I think that music is neither new nor old.
Q. I mean the young people’s music.
A. I don’t think the age of the performer should be considered one way or the other. If it sounds good, it’s good music, and if it doesn’t, then it is the other kind.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
