Thread: Drawing Lines in Regards to Music and Non-Music

Originally Posted by Conor71

I try to keep an open mind about what may or may not be music but if I am being honest I think that music has to have rules and some level of craftmanship for it to be called legitimate art.

As an example I have a Disc of Stockhausens Electronic "Music" - I do enjoy this Disc but I think its a bit generous to call it music as it is really it is just someone playing with sounds from a shortwave reciever and there is absolutely no structure to it and I would supect, very little skill involved in manipulating the electronic eqipment to produce the sounds!

I agree with you to some extent about the conservative view about what music is. But then again, it's my subjective opinion and I respect every other opinion about the definition of music. And I truly agree with Sid James' post, summing up the point of this discussion.
I've always considered most of modern art to be experimental art - as it's main point. Thus I myself would consider art such as Stockhausens's or Cage's as experimentation with sounds rather than pure music.

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.

I'll have to disagree with you there! - I think we can come up with some pretty easy rules for defining what is art or not.
What about my ideas for level of craftmanship for a start - we can certainly rate an artists skills by how well they compare with other Artists who we have reached a concensus on, that are skillful?

Originally Posted by Conor71

I'll have to disagree with you there! - I think we can come up with some pretty easy rules for defining what is art or not.
What about my ideas for level of craftmanship for a start - we can certainly rate an artists skills by how well they compare with other Artists who we have reached a concensus on, that are skillful?

Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place? According to whom is skill required to make music? Is there a law in this universe that says skillful music is good and non-skillful music is bad?

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place? According to whom is skill required to make music? Is there a law in this universe that says skillful music is good and non-skillful music is bad?

To expand a bit on that point - are you a trained musician? Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?
What do you really think of that?

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Why is skill considered a good thing in the first place?

Because skill allows a composer or performer to pick and choose how he is going to express himself and apply technique creatively. Without skill one's options for communicating are severely limited.

Even moms know that skill is a good thing. The only people who don't realize that are self absorbed critics who love to slather beautiful but meaningless words all over noise, and musicians who are making excuses for their own laziness.

Originally Posted by Conor71

To expand a bit on that point - are you a trained musician? Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?
What do you really think of that?

I do compose every now and then. Mostly fugues. But no, I don't think skill is required to be a musician since the definition of the word 'music' doesn't exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Art, music, aesthetics . . . all of these things are transcendental and cannot be defined with human language. The only things that could be defined are the laws and facts that exist in the universe. There are no laws in this universe regarding what music or art is/should be; therefore, trying to come up with a definition for it would be arbitrary and nonsensical.

Tell that to the centuries of great thinkers in the field of aesthetics! Making a comment saying that commenting a waste of breath is pretty nonsensical in itself.

Originally Posted by Conor71

I try to keep an open mind about what may or may not be music but if I am being honest I think that music has to have rules and some level of craftmanship for it to be called legitimate art.

As an example I have a Disc of Stockhausens Electronic "Music" - I do enjoy this Disc but I think its a bit generous to call it music as it is really it is just someone playing with sounds from a shortwave reciever and there is absolutely no structure to it and I would supect, very little skill involved in manipulating the electronic eqipment to produce the sounds!

Why do we care about skill in art? What does it matter? A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular. This happens all the time.

Originally Posted by Conor71

Do you think skill and training are necessary to be a musician or could someone, like myself, who has no training decide I will become a conceptual Musician?

There are no rules for being a CONCEPTUAL musician... but of course no one is required to listen. (Unless of course your work is programmed like ipecac to unwilling audiences who are forced to hear it. But make sure it's the first piece on the program so people don't walk out!)

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

I do compose every now and then. Mostly fugues. But no, I don't think skill is required to be a musician since the definition of the word 'music' doesn't exist in the first place.

We will have to disagree then because I definetely think skill is required to be a musician who produces anything of artistic worth.
Youre saying that someone who has no training in Musical notation or has no ability to play an instrument whatsoever should still be taken seriously as a Musician?

Originally Posted by pluhagr

A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular.

By that definition, a three year old is the creative equal of Picasso. Good thing that ignorance is not really the source of great art.

Originally Posted by pluhagr

Why do we care about skill in art? What does it matter? A very skillful painter could paint a painting that no one likes or cares about while a painter who is not skilled can create painting that are very moving and popular. This happens all the time.

You are talking about different levels of skill there which still implies that (some) skill is necessary in producing a work of art!

Originally Posted by bigshot

Because skill allows a composer or performer to pick and choose how he is going to express himself and apply technique creatively. Without skill one's options for communicating are severely limited.

Even moms know that skill is a good thing. The only people who don't realize that are self absorbed critics who love to slather beautiful but meaningless words all over noise, and musicians who are making excuses for their own laziness.

Composers who are lazy don't compose! And it should be noted that Cage and other experimental composers are skilled. Their music just doesn't express that skill outwardly. I feel bad for those who think too much about skill in art. Art is not about skill it is about expression. Skill is just a good thing to have. I find you calling composers lazy extremely offensive, and you are so vague too. Which composers are lazy and how. Do you know them personally. Did you research them. Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.

Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only subjective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.

Originally Posted by Conor71

Youre saying that someone who has no training in Musical notation or has no ability to play an instrument whatsoever should still be taken seriously as a Musician?

Sampling... Some argue that taking other people's music and chopping it all up in a blender counts as creation.

Originally Posted by pluhagr

Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only objective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.

Can't we reach a definition by concensus?