Why, man, why?

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:19 pm

b0unce wrote:trust me man, music is all about rules.

if you are someone who is naturally gifted, you just pick up a guitar and go with whats inside of you - well if it sounds 'right', its music. Even if you didnt learn the rules, you can listen to what you just playyed - study it, and you will see the rules you are following.

or if you just play random strings, well it might sound interesting - if you can appreciate sounds for the sake of sound. but you're rolling the dice, the musical stuff will be following rules, even if it wasnt your intention.

I know what you mean by 'breaking the rules' musically, but I think thats a bit of a misnomer, a more accurate description would be abstraction, the rules are still the root of the 'rule breaking', if it sounds musical. otherwise its just random sound/noise. which is fine too.

re: the painting analogy. Well, like I'm saying - music is all about rules, the way you used the painting analogy would be suited more to sound in general. the paint equivilant to music would be something with discipline, I dunno, photo-realism maybe. Random splashes of yellow on canvas wouldnt be categorised as photo-realistic - although I'm sure its nice to look at.

y'feel me ?

and while some people can churn out music without studying the rules, thats not to say they're not obeying them - just study the music and you find them. Its like saying theres no rules to breathing/walking, just because you dont have to think about it.

please everybody, dont turn this into some ego contest. Music has rules, look it up.

Yes, so it's the rules that make it musical. I understand what you are saying about the painting thing, though I don't think photo-realism is the best example. Cubism is not photo-realistic, yet it has rules that it follows. Dada's rejection of the rules gives it it's legitimacy. The impressionists were rejected for breaking the accepted rules, yet still adhered to the rules of composition and color.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you because I agree with what you are saying. I am just expanding with my own thoughts. Interesting conversation, I love these types of threads.

I'm off to my home boys studio to go break some rules...

lol

peace

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:40 pm

word.

I know this isnt an argument, I was just kinda making a disclaimer on my own behalf -

one love!

(cubism etc [what you said] is a much better example)

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:55 pm

b0unce wrote:trust me man, music is all about rules.

Would you say that one rule of music is that it must contain sound? If so, I'd point out John Cage's famous work, 4'3", which is four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. His rationale for the piece was that he believed "music was all around us all the time" and the piece was his attempt to make the audience focus on sounds that were "part of our everyday lives". Even so, it is widely regarded as music, albeit avante-garde. The score for the piece is three movements consisting of rests. What do you think?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:20 pm

digitalex wrote:
b0unce wrote:trust me man, music is all about rules.

Would you say that one rule of music is that it must contain sound? If so, I'd point out John Cage's famous work, 4'3", which is four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. His rationale for the piece was that he believed "music was all around us all the time" and the piece was his attempt to make the audience focus on sounds that were "part of our everyday lives". Even so, it is widely regarded as music, albeit avante-garde. The score for the piece is three movements consisting of rests. What do you think?

I like john cage. good question. I've kind of already covered it when I talked about doing stuff as an abstraction to the rules - the rules are still the centrepiece even if you are flouting them.

is it really widely regarded as music ? I know john cage is regarded as a musician, and rightly so, but that doesnt mean everything he does is music. does anyone actually say 4'3" is music ?
The fact he conformed to the rules of music to compose it says something too. (he wrote it as such - three movements consisting of rests - not just 4'3" of silence - its not random...)

and as a note....we dont obey the rules of music, the rules of music resonate with us and thats not a coincidence. All we've done is taken note of what 'makes sense' - our brain can do this stuff without external stimulus. when you listen to the world around you, your brain will tune into the pleasant/musical stuff if you want it to - repeating rhythms etc, and filter out the noise. of course you can focus on what you like. maybe you want to hear the noise. but you'll know when you hear music, and thats not because you read the rules in a book.

so, in short, superficially 4'3" - the piece itself, the contained silence - isnt music in my opinion. The piece written on paper, thats music I guess - kind of a loophole, but hey - thats what being avante garde is all about. And if you use that 4'3" to listen to your surroundings, theres a good chance you will hear musical elements. and/or noise. whatever you want, if you try. so, superficially NO, but regarding your brain being naturaly capable of tuning into music YES

thats what I reckon, anyways. in laymans terms.

theres always the danger people take these kind of definitions the wrong way, and feel their ego being attacked by proxy to their methods being attacked - or not fitting into the definition they'd like to fit into.

I make more soundscape stuff than I do music. i dont feel threatened by the fact my wares dont fit into the music category. Music is just a sub-category to the greater scheme of sound, another more popular way of appreciating sound. popular because we're naturally musical.

again, thats what I reckon , its a pretty esoteric subject - and we may be chasing our tails trying to come to a conclusion because we're limited by language.
I reckon.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:25 pm

b0unce wrote:
digitalex wrote:
b0unce wrote:trust me man, music is all about rules.

Would you say that one rule of music is that it must contain sound? If so, I'd point out John Cage's famous work, 4'3", which is four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. His rationale for the piece was that he believed "music was all around us all the time" and the piece was his attempt to make the audience focus on sounds that were "part of our everyday lives". Even so, it is widely regarded as music, albeit avante-garde. The score for the piece is three movements consisting of rests. What do you think?
I like john cage. good question. I've kind of already covered it when I talked about doing stuff as an abstraction to the rules - the rules are still the centrepiece even if you are flouting them.

is it really widely regarded as music ? I know john cage is regarded as a musician, and rightly so, but that doesnt mean everything he does is music. does anyone actually say 4'3" is music ?

I've only ever heard it referred to as conceptual art. It has nothing to do with music, if you ask me - and no, one can't make that statement without first having a definition of music. Let's just say I have mine and won't debate it here

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:31 pm

Who says it has to be a debate? It can be a dialogue, you know.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:32 pm

or questions & answers...

what do YOU think digitalex, dialogue is a two-way street you know

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:48 pm

I'm thinking about your response and meditating on it for a bit. And I'm doing other things besides posting here.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:51 pm

Ok,
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this subject.

you might also meditate on the idea of not starting dialogues you dont have the time or will to participate in.

what you sow, so shall you reap

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:58 pm

So would you say that music is sound that "makes sense" to us, feels right, in a way? Or that what feels right and makes sense is a subset, a narrow band of the spectrum of music? There are many people that cannot see the sense in or understand jazz music, yet it is music. Would this mean that music is subjective then? How about chance music, which includes random elements, albeit fixed in overall outline? Is the birdsong sound or music? Can you find music in it? And I was busy writing this, so I just saw your last post. I have the time and will, but I prefer to take my time and have a constructive dialogue, as opposed to spewing opinion. I am enjoying this and hope you are too.

stale bread · Post by **stale bread** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:13 pm

b0unce wrote: only a fucking moron would say music has no rules.

Music Has No RuLes.

Mr Man · Post by **Mr Man** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:19 pm

Every music has its own rules but many shared too

stale bread · Post by **stale bread** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:37 pm

rules don't legitamize anything. Rules in music mean nothing more than popularity, if popularity is where you get your legitamacy from then for you and your understanding rules do have meaning. in a sense everyone is correct, music is what it is for you and no one else because those are the rules that you set before yourself, but before the current rules that you adheir to there were other rules, and even now they're are different rules in different places. i'm not being vague when I say that everything is anything and every opinion in this thread is right, as long as it is not meant for everyone.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:53 pm

b0unce wrote: please everybody, dont turn this into some ego contest.

stale bread wrote:
b0unce wrote: only a fucking moron would say music has no rules.
Music Has No RuLes.

stale bread, you have a habit of contradicting me just for the sake of it. You were wrong before, and you're wrong now. I wont waste my time illustrating how wrong you are, because as I learned from previous encounters you dont concede. you just flake out of the discussion when you're proven wrong.

and I'm not wasting more of my thoughts on this thread - I've made my point, I'm not going to re-hash it over and over for a prick like stale bread. Believe what you want, I dont care.

I have one question tho, digitalex - you said 4'3" was widely regarded as music - you might post three examples of where you've seen it referred to as music. Lest people think you make blanket statements which hold no merit.

*tug*
*tug*
*SPLOOGE*

digitalex · Post by **digitalex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:04 pm

Widely regarded, and perhaps widely disregarded. The fact that it challenges the definition of music is what is important. If it were universally disregarded, it probably wouldn't be famous. You can look it up yourself if you doubt. And hey, thanks for looking out for me

I was hoping you would respond to my last post.