2. music
  3. 166564-142748

Music is sound, sound can be music

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.
jet88

Showing 6 responses by frogman

frogman
7,373 posts
 
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.
frogman
7,373 posts
 
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.
frogman
7,373 posts
 
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.


frogman
7,373 posts
 
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.
frogman
7,373 posts
 
Hilde45, complicated indeed. 

A little progress? From your article:

**** 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)****


frogman
7,373 posts
 
hilde45, thanks for your response.

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.
More to discover