What are musics?

[Mandryka]

Today I listened to three pieces of music:

1. A Mozart Piano Sonata
2. Some of the Chantilly Codex
3. Kraanerg

What I feel is that I was listening to each with different parts of myself. And that really it's a shame that we have one expression, "music", for all three.

(I think I've put this in the wrong place - I always seem to do that. Maybe someone would move it, since I can't.)

[Mirror Image]

3. Kraanerg

That's a cool work by Xenakis. As for it's meaning, who knows?

[Ken B]

Today I listened to three pieces of music:

1. A Mozart Piano Sonata
2. Some of the Chantilly Codex
3. Kraanerg

What I feel is that I was listening to each with different parts of myself. And that really it's a shame that we have one expression, "music", for all three.

(I think I've put this in the wrong place - I always seem to do that. Maybe someone would move it, since I can't.)

So when someone says Gruppen is not music, you'd agree? 

[Mandryka]

So when someone says Gruppen is not music, you'd agree? 

I would remain silent.

[jochanaan]

The best and most inclusive definition of music I've come across is also the simplest: "Organized sound."

[North Star]

The best and most inclusive definition of music I've come across is also the simplest: "Organized sound."

But where is it organized? If sounds of nature happen to be music to one's ears, does that still fit the definition, as the sound is organized in one's brains? 

[jochanaan]

But where is it organized? If sounds of nature happen to be music to one's ears, does that still fit the definition, as the sound is organized in one's brains? 

It would seem that some human has to do the organizing, and it should be intentional.  For example, the noise of a helicopter is a mere by-product of its operation; yet if some human decides to instruct four helicopter operators to fly certain ways at certain times for the purpose of creating sound patterns...  0:)

[North Star]

It would seem that some human has to do the organizing, and it should be intentional.  For example, the noise of a helicopter is a mere by-product of its operation; yet if some human decides to instruct four helicopter operators to fly certain ways at certain times for the purpose of creating sound patterns...  0:)

Is birdsong music before it's transcribed by e.g. Messiaen? (someone might ask, is it music anymore - and I'd club them, and not with one that has members, either.)

[Mandryka]

What I felt when I was listening to the Xenakis, Mozart and early music is that, in some sense, the skills needed to appreciate the one were not the same as the skills needed to appreciate the other. It's almost as if they belonged to different genres. Appreciating Xenakis and appreciating Solage and appreciating Mozart's piano variations are as different as appreciating Shakespeare and Picasso.

Is that right?

I've changed the title to reflect this line of thinking a bit more.

[North Star]

What I felt when I was listening to the Xenakis, Mozart and early music is that, in some sense, the skills needed to appreciate the one were not the same as the skills needed to appreciate the other. It's almost as if they belonged to different genres. Appreciating Xenakis and appreciating Solage and appreciating Mozart's piano variations are as different as appreciating Shakespeare and Picasso.

Is that right?

Well maybe not quite as different - I'd compare it with e.g. van Eyck and Picasso. But in a sense I agree with the comparison, as works of art from different genres can have much in common, and are equally products of their time & culture, and timeless & universal. Certainly the way music is composed (or poetry/prose written, paintings painted, photographs made, etc.) has changed during the times in ways that require the listener to be familiar with the different styles of composition.

[Moonfish]

Today I listened to three pieces of music:

1. A Mozart Piano Sonata
2. Some of the Chantilly Codex
3. Kraanerg

What I feel is that I was listening to each with different parts of myself. And that really it's a shame that we have one expression, "music", for all three.

(I think I've put this in the wrong place - I always seem to do that. Maybe someone would move it, since I can't.)

Interesting observation Mandryka! What do you mean with 'parts'?  Part of your psyche that it resonates with, parts of your experiences/memories or something more elusive that the music connects to?
Alternatively, could one not argue that different music (including types and eras) evoke different kinds of emotions? Or perhaps a combination of both?

[Mandryka]

Interesting observation Mandryka! What do you mean with 'parts'?  Part of your psyche that it resonates with, parts of your experiences/memories or something more elusive that the music connects to?
Alternatively, could one not argue that different music (including types and eras) evoke different kinds of emotions? Or perhaps a combination of both?

I don't know. But I feel that whatever's involved in enjoying the music from the codex is not the same as what's involved in enjoying the Mozart and similarly for the Xenakis. I don't think it's just a question of different emotions or different memories. They're different categories, maybe.

And why should we expect anything different? The author's of the music had such different objectives and used such different means. All they have in common is that at some low level of description they are sound waves.

[Ken B]

I don't know. But I feel that whatever's involved in enjoying the music from the codex is not the same as what's involved in enjoying the Mozart and similarly for the Xenakis. I don't think it's just a question of different emotions or different memories. They're different categories, maybe.

And why should we expect anything different? The author's of the music had such different objectives and used such different means. All they have in common is that at some low level of description they are sound waves.

I sorta agree, but wonder how much of it is just the shock of the new? Machaut is strange. Mucher stranger than any contemporary avant garde. 700 is a lot of years. That definitely engages different parts of the brain. But as you adapt it gets more similar to listening to rock or Mozart or Berio.

[Moonfish]

The audiences the composer directed it towards are also vastly different culturally. E.g. Machaut's music must have perceived very differently in the 14th century compared to the present regardless of how "experienced" the modern listener is (attuned to the compositions of the time, well-read in regards to history, culture, religion etc). There is no way to avoid the modern mind (our own psyche/culture) as we listen to compositions from the past.

[North Star]

The audiences the composer directed it towards are also vastly different culturally. E.g. Machaut's music must have perceived very differently in the 14th century compared to the present regardless of how "experienced" the modern listener is (attuned to the compositions of the time, well-read in regards to history, culture, religion etc). There is no way to avoid the modern mind (our own psyche/culture) as we listen to compositions from the past.

Yes, we can hear connections to later music that weren't in the music when it was written.

[Cosi bel do]

Okay so Mandryka is listening to three different pieces of music, with three different parts of himself.

I can imagine him plugging an earpiece alternatively in one ear and the other, but what can the third part be ?

(Also, depending on what this third part can be, I hope he cleaned the earpiece in the meantime.)

[Moonfish]

Yes, we can hear connections to later music that weren't in the music when it was written.

I wasn't referring to the structural aspects even though that is a valid analytical approach. I was thinking more about how the audience perceived the music (like Mandryka's initial question) and the actual intent of the composer (which could of course be quite variable).

[aukhawk]

The best and most inclusive definition of music I've come across is also the simplest: "Organized sound."

Speech is also organized sound, so you have to take it a little further than that.

[aukhawk]

1. A Mozart Piano Sonata
2. Some of the Chantilly Codex
3. Kraanerg
What I feel is that I was listening to each with different parts of myself. ...

And if you were to add in Hip-hop, or Reggae, or an Irish jig, you might find a different part again involved.

But we know music is initially processed by a small part of our brain.  Personally I think of music as a type of 'brain massage' and what I find is that as you traverse the spectrum from purely tonal to purely atonal the depth of massage increases.  Sometimes you just want a light stroke, sometimes you want the fingers of steel.

[amw]

Speech is also organized sound, so you have to take it a little further than that.

Music can incorporate, or consist entirely of, speech.

e.g. a good deal of rap, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jU9mJbJsQ8, Cage's 'Lecture on Nothing', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8C6-XqaNs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z42ZR2mPdY etc