What is 'not music' to you?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I find it always interesting to read people's opinions about how they define music, but all the more interesting when they describe compositions or sounds as 'not music' altogether! Of course, these opinions are more often seen on YouTube comments where the acceptance of Schoenberg as a composer of real music is probably much more disputed than on GMG.

When thinking about posting this thread, I was reminded of a question I had to answer for a homework assignment back when I was 13 or 14 years old for a music subject: 'what is the difference between music and noise?' I went overboard with my 800 word response, not including some passages from a John Cage interview I read earlier that year, but in a nutshell I simply responded that any sounds that one hears, whether composed or not, is music if you listen to it in the same way as you listen to any other music.

I've also seen strange descriptions of compositions by 20th century composers as being 'sonic art' (apparently not music even if it can be enjoyed in the same way), which I have to admit is a pretty cool description for music anyway.

Anyhow, to answer my own question, any sound which is not created with the intention of being music is not music only when I am temporarily not listening to it that way.

What is 'not music' to you?

[mc ukrneal]

"Not music' is the Nexus of thorny musical problems. It often is a tangled mess of music that requires careful assembling. You can throw an array of analytical tools against the music, but beware the bowtie effect  - it can throw you for a loop. You know it when you see it - and then it's gnarly!

So many strange questions lately...

[Karl Henning]

As far as I can tell, Art, Music elude definition. So how would their negation be defined?

[mc ukrneal]

Anyhow, to answer my own question, any sound which is not created with the intention of being music is not music only when I am temporarily not listening to it that way.

What is 'not music' to you?

I don't understand your definition by the way. The word 'only' seems to limit the definition to a specific set of conditions or in this one case one condition. And all the negatives are confusing.

[Monsieur Croche]

Good one:

I have more than a little inclination to differentiate between Music and 'the music of nature,' [or other impromtu general sounds] and what you have said re: If you listen to it as a piece of music, then that is music.

In those situations, the person listening perceives what they are hearing as 'musical,' and with that penchant / compulsion of the human brain to literally make sense of any and all it takes in, and knowing of what it already associates as music, then imposes the notion that what is heard is somehow ordered, and says, "that is music." I say those kind of sound occurrences ain't, while we hear them as 'very musical.'

I think I call anything actually music, music, but then I've had a handy super terse definition, pretty widely known, that keeps me from uttering that silly more figure-of-speech than literal, "That's not music," when, indeed the sound at hand has no other definition.

Stating what IS music is pretty simple, and takes care of 'what is not' music at the same time.

I must include deliberately made by man.
ALL man made. That includes: scores with built-in indeterminacy, allowing for a bit of improvisation or other such directives are still fundamentally 'ordered' by the composer. / Music with improvisation as its base, Jazz, East Indian classical/traditional sitar music is still generated and ordered by people with brains. Computer generated, even, still relies upon software determined by and written by 'man.']

I argue one has to accept any and all sound sources, acoustic and electronic [Once Upon A Time, there was not a thing called a clarinet or a piano, so not accepting other sound sources including the 'new,' is, well, a little silly as well as being a titch to the right of King Louis XIVth....][/size]

What is left to define "What Is Music" other than 'made and determined by man'

Pitch ~ not necessarily determinate, or fixed.
Duration.
Intensity.

Those three cover all the elements required to be present if "It Is Music." They are good for literally, ALL MUSICs: sound art; pre-determined scored pieces; Gamelon music; ethnic music using different scales; various tunings -- the entirety across the spectrum.

There. Armed only with Man-made: Pitch, Duration, and Intensity, no one need ever worry their weary heads about "is it music," ever again.

You're welcome 

Whenever you hear or read, "that is not music," in those many contexts with which we are all too familiar -- we know that is not meant literally, but is a conventional figure of speech.

So... opinion on a piece of music [because that is really what it is and what the OP is about,]
---"That's not music."
A more truthful comment by way of response:
---"You don't recognize this music that a few or many others recognize as music? Big Whup."


Best regards.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I don't understand your definition by the way. The word 'only' seems to limit the definition to a specific set of conditions or in this one case one condition. And all the negatives are confusing.

It's a strange thing to define isn't it then? Perhaps I'll try to phrase it better:

All sounds can be listened to as if listening to a piece of music. Therefore, the fact that all sounds are music is dependant on me listening to the sounds in that way. When I am not, then it isn't music to me.

The word 'only' does indeed limit it to that condition, because it's about my perception at any given circumstance. From reading my earlier definition, you're very right that the negatives are confusing! Sorry about that!

[Monsieur Croche]

All sounds can be listened to as if listening to a piece of music.

Alrighty, then. This ^ is true, but it is wholly dependent upon "as if." You are a musician and a composer. Your perception when hearing the happenstance sounds around you as if those were a piece of music is, uh, conceptual, ergo, not a piece of music but heard by you "as if those were "a piece of music."

The fact that all sounds are music is dependent on me listening to the sounds in that way. When I am not, then it isn't music to me.

Okeedoh, so dependent upon your mood or perception, those sounds are, or are not, music.

The sounds may have all those qualities of pitch, duration, intensity, -- wind rustling the leaves of a tree fits well within, but it is not 'made or ordered by man.'

Your hypothesis of 'hearing it as music... it is music to me [and I totally get that, from similar first-hand experiences via that same kind of perception], reminds me though, of that bit of dialogue from Amadeus:

"Emanuel Schikaneder: Look, I asked you if we could start rehearsals [of the magic flute] next week and you said yes.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Well, we can.
Emanuel Schikaneder: So let me see it. Where is it?
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Here. [Mozart points to his head.]
Schikaneder: Write it down, Wolfie. It is no good to anyone if it is just in your head."

To hammer away at my point of argument, "It is not music if it is just in your head." Musical? Sure. A musical perception? Sure. Music? Not Yet. 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Alrighty, then. This ^ is true, but it is wholly dependent upon "as if." You are a musician and a composer. Your perception when hearing the happenstance sounds around you as if those were a piece of music is, uh, conceptual, ergo, not a piece of music but heard by you "as if those were "a piece of music."
Okeedoh, so dependent upon your mood or perception, those sounds are, or are not, music.

The sounds may have all those qualities of pitch, duration, intensity, -- wind rustling the leaves of a tree fits well within, but it is not 'made or ordered by man.'

Your hypothesis of 'hearing it as music... it is music to me [and I totally get that, from similar first-hand experiences via that same kind of perception], reminds me though, of that bit of dialogue from Amadeus:

"Emanuel Schikaneder: Look, I asked you if we could start rehearsals [of the magic flute] next week and you said yes.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Well, we can.
Emanuel Schikaneder: So let me see it. Where is it?
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Here. [Mozart points to his head.]
Schikaneder: Write it down, Wolfie. It is no good to anyone if it is just in your head."

To hammer away at my point of argument, "It is not music if it is just in your head." Musical? Sure. A musical perception? Sure. Music? Not Yet. 

Great points, and I do agree with you in terms of the 'pitch, duration, intensity,' definition, which ultimately applies to all sounds as well. However, I do feel that the difference between sound not intended as 'music' and 'music' is when a sentient being is there to react to it, to perceive it as music. Our senses allow us to perceive the universe (the phaneron) including sound, our sentience allows us to react to it. 

Ah, just thought of something to add....

When a piece of music has been recorded and I have it playing on my computer or something like that, is it music if I'm not paying attention to it? I would say yes because its intended purpose was that it would be 'music.' During its performance and recording, people would have certainly been listening to it. The recording is a documentation of the product of both playing something and listening attentively at the same time to achieve a goal.

[Monsieur Croche]

Great points, and I do agree with you in terms of the 'pitch, duration, intensity,' definition, which ultimately applies to all sounds as well. However, I do feel that the difference between sound not intended as 'music' and 'music' is when a sentient being is there to react to it, to perceive it as music. Our senses allow us to perceive the universe (the phaneron) including sound, our sentience allows us to react to it.

Never argued against that, and it is 'what I said,' i.e. Sentient Being hears simultaneous sundry sounds. perceives sounds as musical and altogether as music, because Sentient Being already has idea of musical, music, piece of music, and Sentient Being's brain involuntarily imposes order even upon truly random simultaneous sounds. The sounds Sentient Being hears all fall within the definition as having pitch, duration and intensity. Perception of those sound events is unconscious, then conscious; the compulsion of Sentient Being's brain to make order and sense of what is taken in is as near to involuntary as sneezing.

I said those sounds are for us musical, but not music, even if sentient being perceives it that way because they have experience of actual music to which to relate the same idea to those other sounds.

Not denying 'that is musical,' nor 'hearing it as if it was a piece of music.'

But your OP does ask what is and what isn't music, and that play on the imagination of sounds which no one plotted out that you [sometimes] perceive as music... it is a side anecdote. What is NOT music, which is what you were asking, are all other things, planned or not, which do not involve a willfully concerted working of sound with pitch, duration, intensity as a sole medium.

P.s. You know that inviting people to say 'what is not music' also opens the proverbial battered and bloody gates of all things negative, especially about modern and contemporary, maybe with a few pot-shots at some pop music? "That modern stuff that is all squeak, squawk, and horrible noise, that atonal crap, etc." -- you know, it is an invitation to dis all "the usual suspects," composers from the late eighteen hundreds through to the present day. If you had been anticipating that....

Come to think of it, since you started this thread, you may have a subconscious masochistic streak 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

you may have a subconscious masochistic streak 

0:)

[bwv 1080]

Alot of music exists without pitch, and duration & intensity are meaningless terms. 

Much easier to say what is not a good definition of music than coming up with one

[North Star]

Piazzolla and Vivaldi can be pretty hot.

...Oh wait, apparently that's not what this topic is about...

[Madiel]

As far as I'm concerned, 4'33'' is not music because it lacks the attempt at organising sound. If it's music, then John Cage can sue me for breach of copyright anytime I sit quietly in my own house for a while.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

As far as I'm concerned, 4'33'' is not music because it lacks the attempt at organising sound. If it's music, then John Cage can sue me for breach of copyright anytime I sit quietly in my own house for a while.

So music must be sound organised by someone? Interesting....what it during a performance of 4'33" there is someone who actually claps a certain rhythm?
Or is 4'33" more of a philosophy to you than it is music? I've heard many people say that about 4'33".

[amw]

Music is a sonic event created by (a) musician(s) for (an) audience(s). Non-music, I guess, would be anything that isn't that.

[Madiel]

So music must be sound organised by someone? Interesting....what it during a performance of 4'33" there is someone who actually claps a certain rhythm?

Than that someone is actually making music. The thing is, that music wasn't composed by John Cage.

I'm sure John Cage would try to say "aha! I planned for that" but that is taking the word "planning" past its breaking point.

[Madiel]

Music is a sonic event created by (a) musician(s) for (an) audience(s). Non-music, I guess, would be anything that isn't that.

I would hope I'm permitted to be my own audience. Otherwise years of piano practice just went up in non-musical smoke.

[amw]

I would hope I'm permitted to be my own audience. Otherwise years of piano practice just went up in non-musical smoke.

Nothing wrong with being your own audience! That's how music works in a lot of cultures, actually—there is no separation between "musician" and "listener". (But music is still being created as a "thing to be heard" by one's self and one's fellow performers.) Our culture is a bit weird in that regard, really.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I would hope I'm permitted to be my own audience. Otherwise years of piano practice just went up in non-musical smoke.

It seems only logical.

I don't think any composer would write things they don't like to listen to, unless they're in dire need for money!

[Monsieur Croche]

So music must be sound organised by someone?

^^^There is pretty much a general agreement on that, lol.
As spontaneous as Jazz or other improvisations are, 'chance music, all that comes from people, their brains -- someone is still organizing it, even if on their feet and on the spot What set scores or improv are not is 'accidental,' i.e. the opposite of the sundry ambient or random sounds generated around us, with there being no conscious intent of being assembled, or heard, as 'a piece of music.' You and I have been here before -- the non human schemed assemblage of sounds, man-made or naturally occurring, can be thought of as musical; they are not 'a piece of music.'
---Scores that have directives to improvise freely or with a few notes or graphic notations as the directive, leaving things to chance [shuffling the order of the pages of the score,] and all like less specific directives that are not set notes in the more standard notations are nonetheless parameters decided upon and set by the composer, no?

Interesting....what if during a performance of 4'33" there is someone who actually claps a certain rhythm?

Such a widely derided and misunderstood piece, imo. Cage's 4'33" is scored for any instrument or combination of instruments. David Tudor premiered the piece 'at a piano.' It's three movements each have specified length of duration. To indicate the start and end of each movement, Tudor put the piano keyboard lid down at the beginning, lifted it up briefly to indicate its end.
---The sound of the work in performance relies entirely on the fact the piece is performed, in a hall, with an attendant audience; The ambient sounds, the 'hall noise,' a rattle of a program, coughs, sneezes, sound of people moving in their seats, any spontaneous sound the audience makes, unconsciously or in reaction to the performance. "Hmm, nothing is happening, I'll start clapping out a rhythm, sing, shout, etc." Would then be part of the sound canvas of what is heard, as per the composer's intent.
---Take all the above, as scored, the composer knowing generally 'what the sounds to come from that are' while having planned upon and accepted those are indeterminate while 'organized' by the composer nonetheless. Consider then that rather sophomoric pseudo-philosophical question of "is a score music?"
---As "Just a score," there is little, if any at all, difference between the score of 4'33" and the score of any other piece of music, say, a Beethoven symphony. I.e. as a score, sitting there unperformed, neither are 'music' but are scores, those being but utterly mute graphs filled with marks and directives; those only become music when they are realized by the performer / performers, at which point either are, actively, "music."

Or is 4'33" more of a philosophy to you than it is music?

---It is a piece which is a piece, sounds as a piece, while its intent and performance confronted the audiences of music to think upon the nature of music, ["the very definition of music," ~ Wiki] what it is, and the nature of any and all sounds being possible to include in what we think of as or do call "music" vs. when and what we think of as "just sound." ---Clearly, the piece is still 'confronting' people who think of music in the more conservative and traditional sense 

From Wiki:
In 1951, Cage visited the anechoic chamber [a room designed in such a way that the walls, ceiling and floor absorb all sounds made in the room, rather than reflecting them as echoes] at Harvard university. An anechoic chamber is an extreme of a sound-proofed room. Cage entered the chamber expecting to hear silence. He wrote of what he found there.
---"I heard two sounds, one high and one low. When I described them to the engineer in charge, he informed me that the high one was my nervous system in operation, the low one my blood in circulation."
---Cage had expected total silence, and yet heard sound. "Until I die there will be sounds. And they will continue following my death. One need not fear about the future of music." The realization as he saw it of the impossibility of silence led to the composition of 4′33″.