On Music

[stringtapper]

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.

[Bagatell]

I don't see any symphony orchestras abandoning notation any time soon.

I can't think of any electronic musicians who would want their work reproduced exactly, apart from selling you one of their CDs.

[myrnova]

I don't see any symphony orchestras abandoning notation any time soon.

I can't think of any electronic musicians who would want their work reproduced exactly, apart from selling you one of their CDs.

That is because in Europe music is the code (a language: notes). In the U.S. on the contrary people call "music" even the sound, noises, effects, etc. For them there is no difference between music (the code) and audio (the sound). For instance: they have copyright for noises, too! I mean, let's say in the U.S. you take a recorder and record some thunders in a rainy day, a certain number of birds singing, then you go down to the river and record dropping water, waves splashing etc. Then publish a cd with all these natural noises: now you have "copyright" for this (so-called) "recorded music". For real, I am not joking! Here (Italy) the difference between music and sound is still clear: music is when everyone who knows the code can reproduce it (because it is a language), otherwise you can always whistle or sing it (in a sequencer: MIDI events); sound is everything you can only record (being it just a phisical phenomenon) and listen to (in a sequencer: AUDIO tracks: soundwave). There was a very long discussion about this (apparently simple) difference, but in the U.S. people don't understand it, maybe because of the fact they call "music" (the code) everything (cds, mp3, audio, noise, recorded audio, special effects etc.)? They call both "notation" and everything else "music". In Europe "notation" is music. The rest is sound.

Stringtapper claims this is an "old" concept of music, because of those new electronic "genres" which cannot be written with notes. Actually, this kind of "music" is called "abbellimenti" and have always existed (Verdi suggested Metal sheets for recreating thunders, Strauss used rifles and guns, etc.). Besides, what Stringtapper means for "modern music" (in Europe: sound effects recorded) represents 0,0001% of total music worldwide. 99,9% of music is still music (the code, which you can read and write. In a sequencer: the MIDI tracks).

[re:dream]

I don't think it has anything to do with the difference between Europe and the US.

I think what Stringtapper is saying is true of some traditions of electronic music. If you think about the key variables in musical experience being pitch, volume, time/tempo, timbre and space, you could say (generalizing greatly) that until recently, in almost all musical traditions, the making of music focused mostly on the first three variables, pitch, tempo/rhythm, and volume. You had a little control of timbre but not all that much, and you had very little ability to control the spatial elements of music

With the advent of electronically produced music other aspects of the musical experience (timbre, spatial characteristics) are much more manipulable. And indeed for both the makers and the consumers of music attention is very much on the timbral aspects. Whole genres of dance music, for example, are distinguished by tiny variations in texture, timbre and spatial characteristics.

And this does mean that the codes whereby musical information is transmitted change as well. Were you to write down the musical notation for a classic EDM hit - let's say Atmos's Klein Aber Doktor - the notes contain almost none of the really important information. If you want to describe that music in an abstract way (in other words, convey its most essential nature through a medium other than an actual recording) you would have to find ways of talking about the way filter sweeps, reverb, etc are used.

Look at the way in which electronic musicians these days talk about how to get a particular sound. You need to use a completely different vocabulary and approach to that used in forms where the emphasis is not so much in timbral innovation.

[myrnova]

Timbre and spacial characteristics have nothing to do with music code. They are just elements of the sound.

Look at the way in which electronic musicians these days talk about how to get a particular sound. You need to use a completely different vocabulary and approach to that used in forms where the emphasis is not so much in timbral innovation.

You told that: "a particular sound" it is not music. If they talk about timbre they mean "sound", not music. Music is and will ever be the same (notes and pauses in time. In a sequencer: MIDI tracks). But, again, this is a clear difference in Italy. Maybe in the U.S. audio tracks and MIDI tracks in a sequencer are both considered "music" (because they both "sound like music").

[re:dream]

Myr, I absolutely disagree.

Music is the sound.

The notes, 'the music code' the MIDI roll, those are not the music. They are merely representations of music. They are instructions on how to make the music.

What I take the OP to mean (or what I think, any way) is this: there was a time when all the most important information about a piece of music could be captured in an encoding that summarized pitch, tempo, volume. All you need to produce Bach's Brandenburg concerto is the sheet music that tells you what instruments play what notes, in what rhythm, at what volume. (Plus a very deep transmitted culture of performance, of course).

The coming of the electronic age in music meant that that information is no longer enough. Knowing what key a track is in, what the time signature and tempo is, what notes are played, is no longer enough to transmit the most important musical information. If I wanted to capture the information that would allow me to perform -- say, one of the pieces on Robert Henke's latest album -- the notes, the time signature, the amplitude, would no longer be enough. Enormously important aspects of the musical experience - fundamentally meaningful aspects of what you and I hear - are created e.g. by taking a particular sound and then mangling, repeating, delaying, fragmenting, chopping, reconstituting it. ( Crucially, musically transliterating the eventual sound - reducing it back to notes - could be done. But that would miss the point, because musical code is not about recording a performance, but capturing the DNA that is needed to reproduce it. )

So this is interesting. As stringtapper said

we have to come up with an entirely new way of codifying our methods.

This is exactly right. The new musical possibilities mean that we need new ways of encoding and formalising what goes into producing a musical performance

(Of course, an .als file is already one such way of codifying it. All the information needed to exactly reproduce a particular sound object can be summarized in a few kb of code.)

Maybe in the U.S.

I really don't see what this has to do with the US? I don't live there, neither do you.

[myrnova]

I understand well why you disagree. You are american, right?
Regarding all the question, and why it has to do with U.S., you can find all the answers here:

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=168277

No, musc is not "the sound", music is a code, made with particular sounds (instruments). Otherwise, even spoken language could be called "music", birds singing, thunders, noises etc. The difference between music and sound: music is a human activity, like language, writing, maths etc., it is a matter of mathematic relations; the sound is a natural phenomenon (you can think music, you cannot think sound).

The pleasure for music is not due to the sound, but it is a consequence of ratio (elements in different relatinships). Infact you can feel pleasure for e.g. a thunder, waves splashng, birds singing etc. But yo cannot call these sounds "music". And that is why you start feeling pleasure once you "learned" a piece of music, not the first time: because of relations (mathematic). Sounds are ininfluent, unless they need to strengthen what the composer wants to express with the music.

[stringtapper]

Of course myrnova's contention that sound-based music is a US phenomenon is complete and utter nonsense, which anyone with even a modest grasp of music history in the 20th century understands.

What is commonly referred to as "electroacoustic music" has its roots in two movements: musique concrète and elektronische Musik. The former originated in Paris, the latter in Cologne.

Pierre Schaeffer (French) was arguably the first to introduce the concept of music that lies beyond traditional note-based conventions.

He can try to rewrite history and say that Europeans don't have these kinds of definitions of music but the simple fact is they do because those definitions were originated by Europeans.

History: 1 - myrnova: 0

[myrnova]

as already said, concrete music and "electronische musik" are just 0,001 of music worldwide. 99,9% of music is still made with notes. Besides, I consider them "experiments with sound", not music. For me "music" is when you can feel the relations between elements (notes and rhythm). Otherwise it is "art of sound". Can be beautiful, interesting, "cool", etc. but only for some experts of sound. Normally, musicians play, read and write music, don't sculpt sound. The ones who sculpture sound are called "audio engineers", not musicians.

[stringtapper]

as already said, concrete music and electronk musik are just 0,001 of music worldwide. 99,9% of music is still made with notes. Besides, I consider them "experiments with sound", not music. For me "music" is when you feel the relations between elements (notes and rhythm). Otherwise it is "art of sound". Can be bautyful, interesting, cool, etc. but only for some experts of sound. Normally, musicians play, read and write music, don't sculpt sound.

This answer completely sidesteps my last post.

What that means is myrnova doesn't want to address the fact that he is making false statements when he says this conception of music is an American phenomenon. He did the same thing in the MIDI vs. Audio thread. When confronted with insurmountable evidence that his "code" conception of music is in no way universal he sidesteps the debate and starts saying "99% of music heard on the radio uses what I call 'the code.'" A completely specious and irrelevant argument.

Electroacoustic music is in fact music. How many people are making it or listening to it is completely irrelevant with regard to how it is defined.

[myrnova]

as already said, concrete music and electronk musik are just 0,001 of music worldwide. 99,9% of music is still made with notes. Besides, I consider them "experiments with sound", not music. For me "music" is when you feel the relations between elements (notes and rhythm). Otherwise it is "art of sound". Can be bautyful, interesting, cool, etc. but only for some experts of sound. Normally, musicians play, read and write music, don't sculpt sound.

This answer completely sidesteps my last post.

What that means is myrnova doesn't want to address the fact that he is making false statements when he says this conception of music is an American phenomenon. He did the same thing in the MIDI vs. Audio thread. When confronted with insurmountable evidence that his "code" conception of music is in no way universal he sidesteps the debate and starts saying "99% of music heard on the radio uses what I call 'the code.'" A completely specious and irrelevant argument.

Electroacoustic music is in fact music. How many people are making it or listening to it is completely irrelevant with regard to how it is defined.

In my opinion, you can call "music" even the sound of a car engine, the WC flush, a lion roaring, a ringing bell, cosmic echoes, my cat jumping on the piano, whatever. BUT, all these are not music. So, for me, those avantguard experiments you call "music" are "art of sound". It can even be interesting and cool, but people don't percieve it as "music" (the code). Infact normal people react like "what a strange sound" when they listen to it. Never talk about "music" (unless you explain them "no, it is music, believe me, it is a new concept of music, based on timbre manupulation" and all these mental maaturbations ).

[crofter]

as already said, concrete music and electronk musik are just 0,001 of music worldwide. 99,9% of music is still made with notes. Besides, I consider them "experiments with sound", not music. For me "music" is when you feel the relations between elements (notes and rhythm). Otherwise it is "art of sound". Can be bautyful, interesting, cool, etc. but only for some experts of sound. Normally, musicians play, read and write music, don't sculpt sound.

This answer completely sidesteps my last post.

What that means is myrnova doesn't want to address the fact that he is making false statements when he says this conception of music is an American phenomenon. He did the same thing in the MIDI vs. Audio thread. When confronted with insurmountable evidence that his "code" conception of music is in no way universal he sidesteps the debate and starts saying "99% of music heard on the radio uses what I call 'the code.'" A completely specious and irrelevant argument.

Electroacoustic music is in fact music. How many people are making it or listening to it is completely irrelevant with regard to how it is defined.

In my opinion, you can call "music" even the sound of a car engine, the WC flush, a lion roaring, a ringing bell, cosmic echoes, my cat jumping on the piano, whatever. BUT, all these are not music. So, for me, those avantguard experiments you call "music" are "art of sound". It can even be interesting and cool, but people don't percieve it as "music" (the code). Infact normal people react like "what a strange sound" when they listen to it. Never talk about "music" (unless you explain them "no, it is music, believe me, it is a new concept of music, based on timbre manupulation" and all these mental maaturbations ).

You are entitled to your opinion now shut the fuck up.

[stringtapper]

In my opinion

It can even be interesting and cool, but people don't percieve it as "music" (the code).

Wrong. You don't perceive it as music. See the above quote again.

Infact normal people react like "what a strange sound" when they listen to it. Never talk about "music" (unless you explain them "no, it is music, believe me, it is a new concept of music, based on timbre manupulation" and all these mental maaturbations ).

Define "normal people." The fact that you have to resort to such qualifications like "normal people" and "99% of music on the radio" only proves that your argument is based around nothing but your opinion.

The very existence of the term "electroacoustic music" highlights the fact that your opinion is not shared by all musicians.

[myrnova]

normal people: 99,9% of human being. Example: children. If you play a piece of music with whatever instrument or voice, every child (even 1 y.o.) will recognize it as MUSIC (because it is a human language/code). If you play "musique concrete" or whatever avant-guard "art of sounds" the children will start crying... or maybe he could even fall asleep But won't percieve it as music. They can differ between music and sound...

[stringtapper]

normal people: 99,9% of human being. Example: children. If you play a piece of music with whatever instrument or voice, every child (even 1 y.o.) will recognize it as MUSIC (because it is a human language/code). If you play "musique concrete" or whatever avant-guard "art of sounds" the children will start crying... or could even fall asleep But won't percieve it as music. They can differ between music and sound...

So you've met 99% of the people and children in the world and have tested this then?

Or are you going to say it's "common sense"?

Citing "common sense" is the last resort of a person who has no argument.