Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What Is "Music"?

BTW, perhaps people from more primitive societies don't have a concept of music for music's sake because their musical attempts are not as developed as that of the common-practice Western tradition? Just a thought.

You know that chinese traditional music, for instance, has been largely forgotten by audiences from that country, who have been discovering the Western classics and bending it to their own taste for new compositions? May it be economical western influence or just natural assimilation of cultural goods from foreign countries? Isn't it the same as the assimilation of many old civilizations from the Greek culture?

I don't intend to be at a "high-horse stand", like was sugested. It's sincere questioning.

A bird's "song" can be "musical" to our ears (and Keats') but to be music, I would agree it has to be sound organized by humans.

Sophia

Because I don't feel that aesthetics are at all related to the compositional process - it's about how you feel the music affects you, and what value you have for the music. To be broader, it applies to objects as well. I think that the sound of a stream of water trickling is beautiful. But the stream could be muddy and not be so aesthetically pleasing to the eye (and you wouldn't know that unless you looked). You can somewhat compare that to a piece of music which you could well enjoy listening to, even if it has been composed by some totally obscure method involving chance, which one would not give the same value to (as a compositional method) when compared with a conventional composition. As well as the stream example existing on its own merits. How is it not possible to appreciate contextualised sound as having the same aesthetic value as something composed by a human? Value judgements are tough to negotiate.

See above. How one values music is entirely down to your perception of it - I'm sure people in other cultures (I'm talking totally isolated ones) wouldn't have the same value for Western Classical music as for their own, and vice versa.

It's because they don't have the same regard to aesthetics - music is functional. I would look through my notes and give you a specific example but I don't have them with me...regardless, it's things like playing specific pieces of 'music' (in our terminology) to coincide with the start of a season, to ensure that the season progresses normally. And if the wrong piece is played it would have an adverse affect. I'm not going to get into a debate about questioning beliefs here, but its clear that what one considers to be music can be drastically different from another.

And for that reason, while your point about their music not being as developed is true in a sense, it is because they don't have a need to develop it - it serves a strictly functional purpose. Why would they want to change it? It has been passed down from many many generations by observation, and orally from father to son etc. It probably is slightly different, and the instruments may even be easier to play or sound different, but it would be essentially the same in principle, as they don't have the same drive for revolution and innovation that an aesthetically driven approach to music has.

Here's an example of said value judgements.

Sorry Sophia to quote Wikipedia,

“The male Nightingale is known for his singing, to the extent that human singers are sometimes admiringly referred to as nightingales; the song is loud, with an impressive range of whistles, trills and gurgles. Although it also sings during the day, the Nightingale is unusual in singing late in the evening; its song is particularly noticeable at that time because few other birds are singing. This is why its name (in several languages) includes "night". ”

Love Max W’s apt reference to “anthropomorphic” ... don’t we humans get above ourselves sometimes ... however, you might like to reconsider your comment
"I don't feel that aesthetics are at all related to the compositional process" which is way off
target.

Good point. Although I would not consider aesthetics to be the only feature of good music.

What about algorithmically random computer music composed entirely by software, with no human input other than the software program? Is it music? Is it beautiful?

I guess both answers could be "may be". While not directly composed by humans, the algorithms driving the composition are based on a set of harmonic, rhythmic and melodic written by humans. I guess it's much like vaguely notated chance music, except it's interpreted by a computer.

So, it's music, and it can even be pleasing and beautiful. And although not directly man-made, it's built upon man-made compositional rules.

But is it art? I like this thread.

I too think it sounds beautiful, as well as the sounds of the sea, often inspiring composers in certain figurative musical passages as well. However beautiful though, it's not music because it's not an artistic expression: it's just beautiful natural sounds, the music of God if you will.

Does everyone here at least agree that music is a human artistic expression?

As the old expression says: "such sounds like music to my ears". Music is in the ears of the beholder, I guess.

Still, I still insist that music is human artistic expression. Perhaps part of the trouble in getting a definition here is that I'm considering music to be an art and many of the examples above are not really art, like chance music, natural sounds, computer composed pieces from human rules and... well, you know, rap. :p

These may be aesthetically pleasing, catering for someone's tastes, but should not be viewed in the same sense as music the art.

"however, you might like to reconsider your comment
"I don't feel that aesthetics are at all related to the compositional process" which is way off
target."

I suppose it also depends what aesthetic values one person values over others - obviously Bach's fugues are exceptionally well structured and written. But do they have the same (hard to describe) atmosphere of for example Scriabin's music? And could you say that a piece of music created solely on its aesthetic value, with little regard to aspects such as structure and counterpoint etc, could automatically have less or more value than the Bach? Not really. But it's possible to find value in both...just as, how can one decide what skill has gone into the composition of a piece of music? (I have posted something similar to this before) Do we consider a work which has taken years to compose by a 2nd rate composer to be as good as a trifle by a 1st rate composer? How can we define 1st and 2nd rate composers (it's a bad term but it's all I can think of) exactly? And with precision? We can't. The same goes for value judgements - the appreciation of music is solely based on what we hear, regardless of whether it is improvised, or aleatoric, or whether it took years to compose. I would go as far to say that the perceived aesthetic value of a piece of music is a byproduct of its compositional process, but no further...

"Still, I still insist that music is human artistic expression"

It's all about the context. I realise that the ambient noises outside can't really be described as music (even though some cultures consider it synonymous with their own 'music'). But what if I wrote a piece for 5 cups of water with holes in? And the structure of the piece was based on how much water is in each cup originally before the hole is unplugged, and variation in sound created by both natural interferences, and the height that the cup is suspended? Could that be described as music? Just as telling a string quartet to glissando from their lowest note to highest, in whatever time scale they feel like. Maybe to some people (personaly I wouldn't want to listen to them, but would find it hard to deny they have some musical function).

They have quite different "textures". And yet, a sad piece by Scriabin will have almost the same effect on the listener as a Bach sad piece.

After the aesthetics appeal and emotional content, what is left (or missing) is the brilliant counterpoint, awesome structure and ingenious variations and themes interplay much for the delight (or boredom) of the intelect.

Good point. Good music is not necessarily complex, true. But I find impossible though to appreciate music consisting of nothing but 2-3-notes melodic lines and beats. I think good music has a certain low threshold pass. Yes, many people accept "music" below that threshold, but mostly because music for them is just as much a functional/social thing as it is for primitive societies.

It's true. We know from Amadeus that it took several days for Salieri to finish a piece just to have it bettered in a few minutes of improvising by Mozart...

As I once said of some Ligeti's works: they are well structured, formaly organized streams of noise.

What an indictment of the ineffectual ability of the current keyboard notational system to convey the breathtaking shape of music ... that a scholar of music should be insensitive to the structured aesthetic tapestry present in the likes of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto opus 73.
It would appear that some need to SEE (architecture, fine arts and sculpture) rather than HEAR ... to be able to fully appreciate the finer points of masterpiece aesthetics.

Very true - hence why I made the Bach example. Something beautiful about the way it looks on score. Just as a complex maths equation (that is solved correctly..!) is a process taking one thing and turning it into something else, you could say the same thing about music. But that is just one aspect of aesthetics and I think one too tricky to be used to make value judgements with...although perhaps I am not educated well enough to know better...

AESTHETIC
adj

1-able to appreciate beauty.
Thesaurus: artistic, refine, sensitive, appreciative.

2-artistic; tasteful. Thesaurus: beautiful, pleasing,
lovely, tasteful, artistic.

3. relating to aesthetics.

-------------------------------------------------------------
AESTHETICS
noun

1-the branch of philosophy concerned with the study
of the principles of beauty, especially in art.

2-the principles of good taste and the appreciation
of beauty.

Definitions from "all-words.com"

===========================

Pianoid: I read some of your posts around noon today and wanted to comment, in particular, on the one in which you asked "why should the non-composition from Cage or raindrops have the same aesthetic value as a Brahms symphony?" My thoughts on that run along the same lines as Max W. I also believe that aesthetic value is in the "ears" of the beholder. For some people a Cage composition or raindrops may have just as much or more aesthetic value as a Brahms symphony.

I think the crux of the matter is we do not all necessarily mean the same things when we talk about aesthetic value. "Aesthetic value" in terms of what? If I use that term, I'd most likely be talking about value in terms of the music itself, what it sounds like; another person may mean how soothing something is to listen to; and there are countless other meanings a person can assign to "aesthetic value".

I was going to ask YOU what exactly you mean by "aesthetic value", but that was before you posted again. I think you've answered that question now.

I doubt we're going to come to a general consensus of what music is or what has more "aesthetic value" and what has less, as a result of our discussions, but I'm finding what people have to say of great interest. Having the opportunity to express our thoughts, to listen to and consider what others are saying on this subject, and to learn how we agree and how we differ I think is of great value. I'm gaining a better understanding and appreciation of how those of us view music, why we feel the way we do and what we mean when we come together to discuss music. Thanks to all of you who are participating in this discussion.

Jeanne W

A fascinating point. I am reminded also of people who talk about music evoking "visions" of certain things - mountains, fields, butterflies, whatever. I hardly ever "see" music in this way. I tend to *feel* it. The visual aspects of music elude me and, Max W, I don't know that I'd ever assign "aesthetic value" (for me personally) to a piece of music because of the way the notes sort out visually on paper, but I can certainly understand that!

So, yes, btb, we all experience music in our own way.

Jeanne W

A universal, objective definition is beyond me.

Subjectively, I regard music as the highly refined and cultivated personal process of deliberately using organised subsets of sound to produce agreeable reactions in my brain.

Perhaps this could be extended to a general definition of sorts by leaving out the opinion:

Music is the highly refined and cultivated process of people deliberately using organised subsets of sound to produce reactions in their brains.

I think music is either a mating call or a form of communication when taken down to its basic origins.

PW member's definitions of music:

Ted: "Music is the highly refined and cultivated process of people deliberately using organised subsets of sound to produce reactions in their brains."

USAPIanoTrucker: I think music is either a mating call or a form of communication when taken down to its basic origins.

The first definition is less inclusive/narrow in scope in comparison to the second.

The second definition is more inclusive/broader in scope or more in comparison to the first.

I rather like Ted's definition, but USAPianoTrucker, your definition of music also is starting to make sense to me. My opinion FWIW - - for who is to say which definition is right/most valid, etc. considering the authorities we go to, dictionaries, etc. do not all concur on one definition of what music is?

Maybe the question is, from what starting point might/should a definition of music best start and why?

My husband and I have been discussing this topic. He has his own opinion, one I'm having a bit of trouble assimilating and I haven't decided whether I agree with his viewpoint or not. He believes in starting with an extremely broad viewpoint and then categorizing things from there. His exact thoughts and reasons - I'll try to post more about that tomorrow.

A few other thoughts...

I said somewhere else here recently on PW, when it comes to music, it seems to me the English language just doesn't have enough words to adequately convey in a specific way some of the things we discuss about music. For instance, there is no one word in the English language that means the "music" of a songbird. Or that means the musical aspects of speech.

As Max W is saying, some words are "catch-all" kinds of words that can mean different things to different people. "Aesthetic value" in terms of what? A "great" piece of music in terms of what? A piece of music with no "value" in terms of what? A "work of genius" in terms of what? Etc.

The only way we can truly understand each other's viewpoint when we talk about such things is to adequately explain what we mean by the terms we are using ("value", etc.) Sometimes I think we agree with each other, at least on certain points, more than we know, because we've failed to fully explain ourselves.

Jeanne W

Raindrops may sound beautiful, but are not musical human artistic expression. And a chance composition by Cage may result in some music and some noise, but it's not a work of art, since it's not reproductible.

To a sound to be “music”, it must be representative and offer some kind of figurative content. Art is always figurative, be it abstract or not, and goes way beyond first grade “mímesis” of nature.
A bird’s song is not music because it's not figurative and doesn’t intend to be. It’s other sort of language, but not music. And, of course, not sound at all is no music at all, a Perogrullo assertion.
Human art is a re-presentation, a complex analogy of different aspects of the world as we know it. Music is an ethical re-presentation of sounds, “a mímesis of an ethos” (Poetics, Aristoteles), “ethos” meaning a whole of concepts, particularly the way music influences our souls and our lives.
Music is a language too and can and must be approached as such. The analogical capacity of music is extraordinary, although not conceptual or denotative as word’s language. But that’s another subject.

By the way: saying that African natives make not music and comparing their songs to birds sounds –that’s without knowing they’re making music and trying to “signify” something- is a totally absurd, racist and ignorant statement.

Re: John Cage. Many years ago I took my young daughter to a concert, of Brahms, Chopin and Cage. She sat enthralled by the music of Brahms and Chopin. She wriggled around uncomfortably during the playing of the Cage Composition. Finally, in a loud voice, she said, "mother, when are they going to get back to the music."

She had already made a distinction in her mind as to what was, and what was not music. Gaby Tu

I think this is the most well presented and civilized conversation I have ever heard on this subject

The definition we commonly use here is music is an organised combination of sounds and silences which employs 5 concepts : Pitch, rhythm, structure, tone colour and dynamics& expressive techniques. )Although it does not always have all 5 of these)

There is definitely a strong element of aesthetic value to the listener, for example gamelan orchestras and the like are not pleasing to my ear but to someone who is accustomed to listening to them they may sound beautiful..or Cage's music (or lack of it in 4'33) may come across as sounding terrible but still fits the criteria above...

Thought: Maybe there is also a cultural element to music as well

I didn't mean to sound racist at all because random shouts and beats are not music either if performed by African natives or some post-modern european art music composer...

But pianoid: African natives do not make “random shouts and beats”. They make highly complex polyrhythm perfectly organized in pitches and harmonies, beautifully figurative, cultural, expressive sounds of exquisite artistry. Occidental music owes a lot to African music and musicians.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/africa/cuvl/music.html