On Music

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:48 pm

shadx312 wrote:That pretty much sums up your presence here really well!

A thread will start like this:
The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days.

We have the ability to sculpt things that some call "sound objects" that defy the old conceptions of a "note" and are more akin to the concept of sculpture wherein an "object" (sound) can be modified to the point of being indistinguishable from the original sound that we started with.

This makes traditional music theory useless and means that we have to come up with an entirely new way of codifying our methods.

Discuss.
And you'll turn it into this!:
myrnova wrote:Image
His mother probably had no cultural background, and the son had to explain to her the meaning of "conceptual art". But he was too busy, he had to listen to the birds singing... :roll: :lol:
It is not my fault if you don't even know Piero Manzoni and conceptual art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
shadx312 wrote:Fuck the children!
FYI: "conceptual art" is just what Stringtapper is talking about when he is referring to "modern music" :roll:
TomViolenz wrote:You sound like my mother that one time I made the mistake to take her to a Modern Art exhibition: "Oh this is not art! I can't even recognize the shapes (code ;-) ). Just give me a bucket of paint, and I make you 10 of this in an hour. So where are my millions...? Yada yada" It was quite cringe inducing! Just like your persistence to know it all... :roll: I'm out :(
:roll: :lol: So, I think he was referring to you, mr. "fuck the children", since I know and like both conceptual art and modern music. The fact I claim it is not "music" but "art of manipulating sound" does not mean I don't like it. So, it is not my fault if I am talking about art ("Artist's Shit" included), while you understand "shit". Now, you don't need to tell us all you can shit in a tin, too, "so where are my millions?"... :lol: Conclusion: you and some others (h20, rote fahne, tomviolenz etc.) are not here to discuss art and music, but just for trolling/bullying/mocking, and everyone can notice that. My suggestion: open a book and read it, section "'900 avant-guard artistic movements: figurative, music, literature, cinema", learn and understand the connections between Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" and Stringtapper's "idols'" works, then come back and start writing something more interesting and serious for the matter ("on modern music"), rather than insulting bull(y)shit.

Image

H20nly
Posts: 15850
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: On Music

Post by H20nly » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:16 am

okay... so after reading this i have a question (myrnova don't answer because i'm not asking you, so there is no need to directly ignore you; since indirectly works just fine).

if a bird chirps it's "loop based pattern" and a child likes it, does that prove some point?

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:32 am

H20nly wrote:okay... so after reading this i have a question (myrnova don't answer because i'm not asking you, so there is no need to directly ignore you; since indirectly works just fine).

if a bird chirps it's "loop based pattern" and a child likes it, does that prove some point?
Image

:roll: :lol:

H20nly
Posts: 15850
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: On Music

Post by H20nly » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:36 am

:lol:

Touché!

Theo Void
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: On Music

Post by Theo Void » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:38 am

myrnova hurts brain :(

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:18 am

H20nly wrote::lol:

Touché!
Image

Sorry to disappoint you, dude: I'm afraid NOBODY will ever answer to your questions here but me. "Ignoring Myrnova and a bird... ain't ace!" :roll: :lol:

re:dream
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side...
Contact:

Re: On Music

Post by re:dream » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:56 am

Just on the off chance that this may be a useful contribution to the conversation:

Many times, conversations and debates can get really bogged down because of an inflexible and simplistic approach to how key terms are defined.

People think they have to define something ('art', 'democracy', 'music') by trying to find its essence


But the problem is that there are

(1) different such definitions
(2) no commonly shared set of rules about how to adjudicate between them

The british philosopher WB Gallie wrote a lot about such 'essentially contested concepts' in the 1950s.

They are "concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users",and these disputes "cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone".
He did not really offer much advice on how to resolve this, but in general, it would seem that one response to such a situation is to recognize that differences are (1) deep (2) legitimate and (3) a way has to be found to go on with conversations that make space for such tolerance and difference.

Another approach comes from Ludwig Wittgenstein, who questioned whether definition of a concept by way of its essence was a useful approach at all.

He argued that some concepts were better thought of as clusters of meaning united by family resemblance. Like the members of a family, each concept would share some features with others, but no feature is shared by all, so that there could be family members with utterly dissimilar features.

Music seems to be one of these concepts. There are a broad range of commonly accepted ways of talking about music, and this includes calling sounds / patterns produced by animals or inanimate objects 'musical'. Stringtapper's question relates to an even better example of this. Composers are producing art that earlier generations of music theorists would not recognize as music at all. Yet they are beautiful; highly formalized; and accepted as music by communities of producers and listeners.

A more flexible and open-textured approach to thinking about the various and differentiated phenomena that are all, at different times and places, called 'music' by different people and different cultures, is probably a more useful way to proceed. Rather than stone-headedly insisting on one narrow definition and sort of walking around battering people over the head with it.

Steve Ballmer
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:56 am

Re: On Music

Post by Steve Ballmer » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:13 am

The problem is people keep trying to define shit, when they should just be enjoying it. It was this desire to over-conceputalise visual art that has basically killed it. If you want to see artistic things today, that last place you should look is a modern art museum.
"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, don't be afraid to make slurping sounds, and don't take crap from anybody."

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:28 am

there is a simpe solution for this question: rather than looking for the general "essence" (of music, democracy, whatever) just consider the effects. Under this perspective you can come for example to the conclusion that:
(1) U.S. democracy is not a real democracy.
(2) modern music is not music.

Of course you can reply "there is not only one democracy, not only one music, not one medicine" etc. In this case you enter a dangerous paradox called "infinite relativism" and everything falls down. That is why, both in science and in social disciplines there are the so-called "epistemologic dicotomies".

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:32 am

Steve Ballmer wrote:The problem is people keep trying to define shit, when they should just be enjoying it. It was this desire to over-conceputalise visual art that has basically killed it. If you want to see artistic things today, that last place you should look is a modern art museum.
That is just because you follow the dogma "art = beauty" :roll:
Figurative "Art" ended to be the representation of beauty after three historical events:
(1) WW1; (2) Holocaust; (3) Hiroshima
Last edited by myrnova on Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

re:dream
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:42 am
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side...
Contact:

Re: On Music

Post by re:dream » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:34 am

I have an idea.

string tapper:

Why don't you call this thread 'on Myrnova' and let her / him /it get on with it?

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:00 am

Your idea is naive, and your problem is this, in my opinion: you don't own a clear/defined epistemologic point of view as a musician (supposed you are a musician). You quoted Wittgenstein, so you should know well you have to define a concept linguistically to obtain a vision of truth. Of course Wittgenstein was not Hegel, so we are not talking of an ontologic truth. Just a human (linguistic) one. Now, following this philosophy (linguistic), the definition of music must be one, or you enter the paradox (you cannot say, for instance: "music is both sound and code", unless you consider "music" every sound, birds singing and thunders included, or change rules, e.g. consider the timbre an element of music, or define "sound a", "sound b" ad infinitum). So: it is easier and more logic to keep on calling music "music" and so-called modern music "the art of modifying sounds and their timbre".

Steve Ballmer
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:56 am

Re: On Music

Post by Steve Ballmer » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:09 am

myrnova wrote:
Steve Ballmer wrote:The problem is people keep trying to define shit, when they should just be enjoying it. It was this desire to over-conceputalise visual art that has basically killed it. If you want to see artistic things today, that last place you should look is a modern art museum.
That is just because you follow the dogma "art = beauty" :roll:
Figurative "Art" ended to be the representation of beauty after three historical events:
(1) WW1; (2) Holocaust; (3) Hiroshima
On the contrary, the Mona Lisa is a seriously hideous piece, yet it most certainly is art. The difference is that it required talent to produce. Of course, talent is one of the most overlooked concepts by philosophers. I wonder why :roll:
Last edited by Steve Ballmer on Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, don't be afraid to make slurping sounds, and don't take crap from anybody."

myrnova
Posts: 6451
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: On Music

Post by myrnova » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:11 am

Steve Ballmer wrote:
myrnova wrote:
Steve Ballmer wrote:The problem is people keep trying to define shit, when they should just be enjoying it. It was this desire to over-conceputalise visual art that has basically killed it. If you want to see artistic things today, that last place you should look is a modern art museum.
That is just because you follow the dogma "art = beauty" :roll:
Figurative "Art" ended to be the representation of beauty after three historical events:
(1) WW1; (2) Holocaust; (3) Hiroshima
On the contrary, the Mona Lisa is a seriously hideous piece, yet most certainly is art. The difference is that it required talent to produce. :roll:
The Mona Losa is not conceptual :roll:

Image
Last edited by myrnova on Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steve Ballmer
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:56 am

Re: On Music

Post by Steve Ballmer » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:13 am

Irrelevant, we were talking about art as beauty, as per YOUR post. Nice try. :roll:
"Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, don't be afraid to make slurping sounds, and don't take crap from anybody."

Post Reply