What's to be and what's not to be considered as Music?"

[Cato]

(Cato is waiting for an answer to two questions posed earlier: "Tick-tock-tick-tock...")

Quote from: Cato on July 29, 2013, 04:19:21 PM

   

Allow me to repeat my questions:

    Then, according to this idea, composers who have used cymbals, tam-tams, wood blocks, hammers, a gran casa, and any other "unpitched" sounds, are expressing "very very secondary" "senses" or "thoughts."

    Why on earth would they ever bother to express such trivial "senses" or "thoughts" ?


    Therefore, Penderecki's massive rows and lines of disorderly sounds in e.g. Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima are simply a "theater of sounds" expressing nothing, no sense, no thoughts, and audiences are mystified about how these sounds are connected to the title.   

    Except that such is not the case!  Many listeners will tell you they hear bombs dropping and airplane engines and people scrambling and that the disorder of the sounds expresses both "sense" and "thought."  Others might say they hear pain and anguish in the soundscape.

    And can you choose a melody from a composition that you like and tell us which "thoughts" are expressed by it?  Perhaps that would clarify the discussion!

Well, a tiny little bit of patience, if you please.

I've got ONLY 24 hours per day.

Fine, I can see where Question #1 might cause you to ruminate, but I would think that, after you developed such a theory, your mind would have already had some quick and clear examples to answer the second question...since your theory depends on them!

[Alexander_Bystrow]

Then, according to this idea, composers who have used cymbals, tam-tams, wood blocks, hammers, a gran casa, and any other "unpitched" sounds, are expressing "very very secondary" "senses" or "thoughts."

Why on earth would they ever bother to express such trivial "senses" or "thoughts" ?

A.Bystrow: Tonality provides the sound row with order, structure. That's what we need to build melodies.

Cato:  Therefore, Penderecki's massive rows and lines of disorderly sounds in e.g. Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima are simply a "theater of sounds" expressing nothing, no sense, no thoughts, and audiences are mystified about how these sounds are connected to the title.   

Except that such is not the case!  Many listeners will tell you they hear bombs dropping and airplane engines and people scrambling and that the disorder of the sounds expresses both "sense" and "thought."  Others might say they hear pain and anguish in the soundscape.

And can you choose a melody from a composition that you like and tell us which "thoughts" are expressed by it?  Perhaps that would clarify the discussion!

I've read your writing and ... well ... should say it makes me sad.

Are you a fifth-form secondary school boy?
And you are not much of a musician!

My advice to you:
if you choose to put questions to a text, you must make proper effort to read it carefully and thoughtfully first.

You are yourself quoting me:
"A disorderly row of sounds cannot be properly organised to express intonation, sense, thought, and can allow the author just to ... paint or organise a theatre of sounds. But these are spheres of other Muses!"

Who and Where says that unpitched sounds can't convey informative images?
- Not me.

I first speak about intonation, and then sense, images, thought (conveyed by it).

Both musical=pitched sounds
and
noise=unpitched ones can undoubtedly convey informative images, but those are images of quite different nature, kind, level, quality.
Musical information is tightly connected to intonation, it's more abstract, that's why it's possible to find or make up different texts to the same melody.

Then, in the quotation, I speak about painting, theatre and different Muses. - And you fail to understand that with the aid of other Muses, e.g., the Muse of graphic Arts we also convey information, but this information is essentially different in kind, quality and method!

Finally the resulting from the above subordination -
Unpitched sounds can play a part in music, but it is a very auxiliary part. You can accompany a melody with them, but if you compose only with noises, then you sit down between two chairs (2 Muses) and fall onto the floor, as your creation is only the compilation of sounds, in Russian we say – звукотворчество, not музыка=music.

The key words for Music is Intonation, Melody.
And intonations must be very sensible, well put together, in order to create a melody.

Here I'll also repeat the bottom of the starting article of mine, that you also failed to take in :
Music should always carry Beauty, even when it tells us about something very sad. In this respect music is comparable to belles-lettres, fiction, in contrast to non-fictional, documentary chronicle.

Is there enough Beauty in Penderecki's bombs?

----
What else I am wondering about is -
   Why are Americans ... well, how to put it moderately, politely and at the same time sincerely? ... well, God! ... why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent? Or at least a very-very considerable part of them?

I hope you'll forgive my saying so. You should not take offence, but accept it as a necessary to know truth.

[Pat B]

Hey, can somebody recommend a good recording of 4'33"?

[Cato]

You are yourself quoting me:
"A disorderly row of sounds cannot be properly organised to express intonation, sense, thought, and can allow the author just to ... paint or organise a theatre of sounds. But these are spheres of other Muses!"

Who and Where says that unpitched sounds can't convey informative images?
- Not me.

I first speak about intonation, and then sense, images, thought (conveyed by it).

Both musical=pitched sounds
and
noise=unpitched ones can undoubtedly convey informative images, but those are images of quite different nature, kind, level, quality.
Musical information is tightly connected to intonation, it's more abstract, that's why it's possible to find or make up different texts to the same melody.

Then, in the quotation, I speak about painting, theatre and different Muses. - And you fail to understand that with the aid of other Muses, e.g., the Muse of graphic Arts we also convey information, but this information is essentially different in kind, quality and method!

Finally the resulting from the above subordination -
Unpitched sounds can play a part in music, but it is a very auxiliary part. You can accompany a melody with them, but if you compose only with noises, then you sit down between two chairs (2 Muses) and fall onto the floor, as your creation is only the compilation of sounds, in Russian we say – звукотворчество, not музыка=music.

The key words for Music is Intonation, Melody.
And intonations must be very sensible, well put together, in order to create a melody.

Here I'll also repeat the bottom of the starting article of mine, that you also failed to take in :
Music should always carry Beauty, even when it tells us about something very sad. In this respect music is comparable to belles-lettres, fiction, in contrast to non-fictional, documentary chronicle.

Is there enough Beauty in Penderecki's bombs?

----
What else I am wondering about is -
   Why are Americans ... well, how to put it moderately, politely and at the same time sincerely? ... well, God! ... why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent? Or at least a very-very considerable part of them?

I hope you'll forgive my saying so. You should not take offence, but accept it as a necessary to know truth.

0:) etc.

Where to start?

Alexander: you say that "Music (Intonation) conveys sense, images, thought..."

Who and Where says that unpitched sounds can't convey informative images?
- Not me.

You have indeed said so!

Well, thank you for your attention and questions!

Unpitched compositions, definitely, can't be music in any way!

Music can be made out of musical sounds, consequently, the pitched ones.

According to your own rules, Music (defined as pitched sounds) produces "sense, images, thought."

THEREFORE, following your own logic: Unpitched compositions CANNOT produce "sense, images, thought."

But then you contradict yourself almost immediately:

Unpitched sounds can be added as very-very secondary means.

And today you further confuse the issue:

Unpitched ones can undoubtedly convey informative images, but those are images of quite different nature, kind, level, quality.

My question therefore remains: can you explain why any composer would use unpitched sounds for such inferior "informative images" ?

A disorderly row of sounds cannot be properly organised to express intonation, sense, thought, and can allow the author just to ... paint or organise a theatre of sounds. But these are spheres of other Muses!

I used Penderecki's Threnody specifically to disprove your assertions: the Threnody conveys quite a bit of "sense" and "thought."  I have played the work for teenagers without telling them the title, and they quite clearly heard much more than a senseless "theater of sounds."  They often told me they heard panic, sirens, fear, dread, etc. from Penderecki's quarter-tone cluster chords. 

They heard "sense, images, thought" from a work with no melody, and the unpitched sounds were NOT "secondary" or "auxiliary" in any way: they were PRIMARY!

Of course maybe they heard these things because of this assertion:

"...why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent? Or at least a very-very considerable part of them?"

Is there enough Beauty in Penderecki's bombs?

Yes!  It is beautiful in the way that Solzhenitsyn's terrible yet compelling work The GULAG Archipelago is beautiful, or in the way that Paul Celan's poems about the Holocaust are beautiful.

And you fail to understand that with the aid of other Muses, e.g., the Muse of graphic Arts we also convey information, but this information is essentially different in kind, quality and method!

How do I fail to understand that?  Obviously the graphic arts "convey information" "different in kind etc."  Who was arguing about that?   

I will try this one again:

Quote from Cato:

And can you choose a melody from a composition that you like and tell us which "thoughts" are expressed by it?  Perhaps that would clarify the discussion!

[ibanezmonster]

Is there enough Beauty in Penderecki's bombs?

Yes. That's why it's one of my favorite 20th century works. "Ugly" can be beautiful.

[Parsifal]

I have to say, Alexander, your thread is losing entertainment value, fast.  Your pronouncements are becoming just too tedious.

As Elgarian said, somewhere above, you have mistaken semantics for philosophy.  "Music" is a word in the English language which has been used to describe sound, organized to produce aesthetic pleasure or convey an emotional state.  To decree that some sorts of music which you apparently don't understand or like aren't music is just foolishness.  All this tells us is that are a very narrow-minded sort of fellow, and not open to the ideas of others.  Why not just admit that there is some music that you don't get?

What else I am wondering about is -
   Why are Americans ... well, how to put it moderately, politely and at the same time sincerely? ... well, God! ... why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent? Or at least a very-very considerable part of them?

Now, that is priceless!

[some guy]

Now, that is priceless!

So true.

Entertainment value: still high.

Unfortunately, I think that Alexander feeds off of our mockery, becoming stronger and stronger. Becoming either more and more entertaining or more and more tedious.

It's a conundrum. More tedious equals more entertaining. A moron of the oxy family.

[jochanaan]

It may be a futile effort, but I'll try to speak seriously for a moment.

The trouble with theories about music being ordered is that, in most of the compositions considered great, there is a slight, essential disorder, like Robert Herrick's "sweet disorder in the dress."  A college professor of mine, who had studied such things much more than I have, said once that Bach never wrote a "textbook" fugue; there is always some innovation or irregularity.  Without such disorder, music is too tame, too mild, too inflexible to carry artistic vision.  It needs wildness to be effective.

"Why do the Graces now desert the Muse?
They hate bright ribbons tying wooden shoes." --Walter Savage Landor

[Alexander_Bystrow]

It may be a futile effort, but I'll try to speak seriously for a moment.

The trouble with theories about music being ordered is that, in most of the compositions considered great, there is a slight, essential disorder, like Robert Herrick's "sweet disorder in the dress."  A college professor of mine, who had studied such things much more than I have, said once that Bach never wrote a "textbook" fugue; there is always some innovation or irregularity.  Without such disorder, music is too tame, too mild, too inflexible to carry artistic vision.  It needs wildness to be effective.

"Why do the Graces now desert the Muse?
They hate bright ribbons tying wooden shoes." --Walter Savage Landor

You provide a bit more successful talk, but make a mistake.

What is introduced is not at all disorder (you are using here a wrong word. - Is it a slip of the tongue or is it done on purpose to mislead?).

It's innovation, new way, new approach, but it can be successful in making positive impact only and only when it is logical and persuasive. (Logical -> Orderly)

Composers must be very-very careful, sensitive and clever when introducing new ways so that they do not splash out the baby with water, that's what a lot of fiddle-headed innovators actually do.

[some guy]

fiddle-headed

I'm guessing that that's a good thing for a composer to be. Or?

[Alexander_Bystrow]

I have to say, Alexander, your thread is losing entertainment value, fast.  Your pronouncements are becoming just too tedious.
As Elgarian said, somewhere above, you have mistaken semantics for philosophy.  "Music" is a word in the English language which has been used to describe sound, organized to produce aesthetic pleasure or convey an emotional state.

1. Some people here with their 'very-very thoughtful' questions do make me produce replies, that can become tedious to others, since I have to resort to repetition of what has already been worded and explain very trivial things.

2. What you say about the English word "music" can really involve a very serious talk. Since English is very much of a simplifying language, which puts and puts different things into one and the same word. So people, brought up on English and not knowing more developed, more differentiating languages, are blind, more than others, i.e. unable to see the differences between quite different things.

[Alexander_Bystrow]

They heard "sense, images, thought" from a work with no melody, and the unpitched sounds were NOT "secondary" or "auxiliary" in any way: they were PRIMARY!

Yes!  It is beautiful in the way that Solzhenitsyn's terrible yet compelling work The GULAG Archipelago is beautiful, or in the way that Paul Celan's poems about the Holocaust are beautiful.

How do I fail to understand that?  Obviously the graphic arts "convey information" "different in kind etc."  Who was arguing about that?   

I will try this one again:

Quote from Cato:

And can you choose a melody from a composition that you like and tell us which "thoughts" are expressed by it?  Perhaps that would clarify the discussion!

PRIMARY, you say, - for what exactly Muse?
You steadily go on confusing different Muses (with their different ways, methods and tools).

2. I wonder why some people persistently draw and draw me here to politics?
What do you exactly mean by "Holocaust"?
For example, I know a lot about the genocide of Russians and Germans. Do you mean this?

[Elgarian]

What else I am wondering about is -
   Why are Americans ... well, how to put it moderately, politely and at the same time sincerely? ... well, God! ... why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent? Or at least a very-very considerable part of them?

I hope you'll forgive my saying so. You should not take offence, but accept it as a necessary to know truth.

But of course it's entirely appropriate to take offence - which is the effect you clearly intended. I'm not American myself, but I find it offensive on my American friends' behalf. Having observed the extraordinary lack of understanding of what are really quite elementary philosophical issues in your posts, I find your adopted stance of intellectual superiority almost amusing (in an unpleasant sort of way).

Since English is very much of a simplifying language, which puts and puts different things into one and the same word. So people, brought up on English and not knowing more developed, more differentiating languages, are blind, more than others, i.e. unable to see the differences between quite different things.

This really is so absurd it's almost delightful. To attempt to disguise one's lack of philosophical awareness by blaming the language employed betrays a special type of ignorant arrogance that I don't think I've encountered before.

Judging from your posts, I suspect you're unaware of how civilised, intelligent, and informed discourse is conducted, so I'm not surprised various people have accused you of trolling. I don't know whether you're trolling or not, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, just in case. That's all, really. Top o' the morning to you.

[The new erato]

For each post he stumbles unaware (I guess) into still another can of worms.

[Cato]

PRIMARY, you say, - for what exactly Muse?
You steadily go on confusing different Muses (with their different ways, methods and tools).

2. I wonder why some people persistently draw and draw me here to politics?
What do you exactly mean by "Holocaust"?
For example, I know a lot about the genocide of Russians and Germans. Do you mean this?

[/b]

1. Music.

2. Yes.

We all await your answers to my 2 previous questions!   0:)

[dyn]

Music is any non-verbal sound or sequence of sounds produced by a performer for an audience. These three things—performer, audience, and lack of verbal meaning—are necessary to define a specific phenomenon as music, as opposed to e.g. conversation, birdsong, practice. (The "performer" may in some cases be a loudspeaker; the non-verbal sounds may be accompanied by a text that delivers verbal meaning in addition to the purely sonic meaning.) A musical performance typically, but not exclusively, is conducted by musicians and takes place in a space constructed or repurposed for that specific action.

I tried to read as little of the rest of the thread as possible, it being just too silly.

[The new erato]

I tried to read as little of the rest of the thread as possible, it being just too silly.

I congratulate you on your wisdom.

[Alexander_Bystrow]

But of course it's entirely appropriate to take offence - which is the effect you clearly intended. I'm not American myself, but I find it offensive on my American friends' behalf. Having observed the extraordinary lack of understanding of what are really quite elementary philosophical issues in your posts, I find your adopted stance of intellectual superiority almost amusing (in an unpleasant sort of way).

This really is so absurd it's almost delightful. To attempt to disguise one's lack of philosophical awareness by blaming the language employed betrays a special type of ignorant arrogance that I don't think I've encountered before.

Judging from your posts, I suspect you're unaware of how civilised, intelligent, and informed discourse is conducted, so I'm not surprised various people have accused you of trolling. I don't know whether you're trolling or not, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, just in case. That's all, really. Top o' the morning to you.

I see you feel offended! What a pity!

But in what other way can one deliver the true state of things to others, if not stating it in this or that very minimized and polite way?
Or you want me to keep completely silent on what I see?

2. The English language is the most simplified language in Europe, at least if compared to Deutsch and Russian.

3. You abuse putting labels, again and again - lowering labels on those, whose thoughts you dislike, with elevating labels meant for yourself;  argumentation, grounds being absolutely absent.
These are not very good manners.
What on Earth do you mean by your repeated label 'philosophical (un)awareness'? With un-, put onto others, and 'awareness' meant very much for yourself?

Just words.

I am already acquainted with this particular trick. When people proceed from just labelling to logic and honest application of facts, these labels become empty and wrong for everyone to see.

4. "Trolling"  - I just reflect and express my thoughts fairly openly and naturally, with a rare and kind-hearted application of tiny egging on. Open and natural thinking and talk is what others should also do.

[Alexander_Bystrow]

[/b]

1. Music.

2. Yes.

We all await your answers to my 2 previous questions!   0:)

What on Earth other previous qq?

[Karl Henning]

How can you expect us under-intelligent Americans to answer the (moderate, polite and at the same time sincere) question, why are Americans a tiny little bit under-intelligent?

Show mercy, O ultra-intelligent one!