UPSB v3

Serious Discussion / Good Music

What is it???

k-ryder
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 03:46:56

i've been thinking about this, i've had many arguments on the bus about this
my main annoyance is the current mainstream "radio" music
i think that the songs are all quite the same lyrically (being all about relationships) and also, the backing music also sounds particularly similar
also, i'm uber annoyed at the rap of today
the lyrics lost all its meaning, and now every rap song is about sex, violence and money
i could go on a rant about whether this is a fault of the popularization of the genre, or because the target audience has moved away from african american teenager males to 12 year old caucasion boys (possibly can be traced back to point 1), but i wont

so what is good music?
is it to do with the lyrics, and how powerful it is?
can it just be a good melody or a strong backing music?
is it to do with how difficult it is to play (applies to classical music and also modern songs containing guitar solos?)
or is it just a matter of it selling 10 trillion records?
can a peice of music that was good at the time of release, become bad? (i know it happens the other way around, particularly with classical music)
and can it be good only if a small group of people listen to/like it?
Charlie
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 03:54:57

Good music is subjective.

Me, I listen to whatever that's catchy. I don't need amazing lyrics. If I wanted that, I'd read poetry, but I hate poetry.
Awesome
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 04:14:15

QUOTE (k-ryder @ Apr 19 2009, 11:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i've been thinking about this, i've had many arguments on the bus about this
my main annoyance is the current mainstream "radio" music
i think that the songs are all quite the same lyrically (being all about relationships) and also, the backing music also sounds particularly similar
also, i'm uber annoyed at the rap of today
the lyrics lost all its meaning, and now every rap song is about sex, violence and money
i could go on a rant about whether this is a fault of the popularization of the genre, or because the target audience has moved away from african american teenager males to 12 year old caucasion boys (possibly can be traced back to point 1), but i wont

so what is good music?
is it to do with the lyrics, and how powerful it is?
can it just be a good melody or a strong backing music?
is it to do with how difficult it is to play (applies to classical music and also modern songs containing guitar solos?)
or is it just a matter of it selling 10 trillion records?
can a peice of music that was good at the time of release, become bad? (i know it happens the other way around, particularly with classical music)
and can it be good only if a small group of people listen to/like it?

Lyrics aren't the focus of music, if lyrics are the main point I think it should be classified as poetry. Not saying its bad that some songs focus on lyrics, just that you can't compare it to actual music. It seems to me you are concentrating to much on the lyrics, for me lyrics are relatively meaningless, as long as they make some sense, and they flow with the song

For me deciding what is good music, is like deciding a good PS combo, it needs to be strong in all areas; complex to a point, fit together, sound appealing etc. (like PS, but with its own categories) except a lot more people pay attention to it, and have no clue about it (which is fine, but if they never picked up an instrument its hard to judge. Think, when you start PS, twisted sonic spam looks good) which means to get popular, you don't have to be good at all, as long as you are well networked.

To say its entirely subjective discredits the artists who work hard to actually make good music, just because you like a song doesn't mean its good, and you don't always have to like "good" songs. Again, compare it to PS, there are probably good spinners whose styles you don't like, it doesn't mean they are bad.
SJ
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 05:53:10

QUOTE (Charlie @ Apr 19 2009, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Good music is subjective.

Me, I listen to whatever that's catchy. I don't need amazing lyrics. If I wanted that, I'd read poetry, but I hate poetry.

yep. its subjective.

i usually like stuff on the radio but not always
and something catchy is always welcome
for example, Lady Gaga- Pokerface

i dont really pay attention to lyrics

i generally like music that has a good beat and melody.

but it seems like there is something that makes everyone like it
ex) britney spears, justin timberlake etc...
idk what that is tho
Charlie
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 07:05:51

QUOTE (SJ @ Apr 19 2009, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yep. its subjective.

i usually like stuff on the radio but not always
and something catchy is always welcome
for example, Lady Gaga- Pokerface

i dont really pay attention to lyrics

i generally like music that has a good beat and melody.

but it seems like there is something that makes everyone like it
ex) britney spears, justin timberlake etc...
idk what that is tho

Yeah, some music seems to attract more than others. Akon - Beautiful was catchy as hell.
Dark Angel-REX
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 15:25:33

Good music is indeed subjective.

I only care about lyrics when they are worth caring about. otherwise, i'll just listen to the melody.
Glamouraz
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 15:46:56

Good music is pleasing to the ears.

Sometimes. Sometimes i sing along to a song even though the lyrics may not apply to me. just cause it sounds good.

I'm all for good melody. Of course, there isnt a specific one. Anything that appeals to me is fine. Although there are some exceptions where the lyrcis can screw it up totally. (cant think of any examples but i've heard songs like that)

No. playing difficulty isnt much for me. I play instruments and i do admire the musicians playing if the song is hard to play. but whether it makes it nice or not i doubt it plays a part. (A7X beast and the harlot. Hard to play and i admire the guitarists. Song doesnt appeal to me though.)

Nope. For me it doesnt matter if the artist sells 1 record or a gazillion records. A nice song is a nice song. Selling more records only mean more people like his music and have a common taste.

Dont understand question sorry.

um.. only if a small group of people like it? Not sure. If you're saying if it can be good even if a small group of people like it, yeah.

I mostly look out for melody. i also listen to a variety of songs from a wide range of genres. There can be 2 songs from the same genre and I can like one of them but dislike the other.
Zombo
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 18:15:56

It's difficult to describe,

but I believe that naturally, people know what good music is, and that's music that doesn't physically cause them pain. In music theory, we can associate certain properties with those kind of music, such as consonance and the use of standard scales.

For example, most people will agree that Mozart is good music in the sense that the music is accessible and everybody will recognize that it is music that makes sense. They may not like it or have the impulse to want to listen to it, but I'm sure if they have to listen to it, they can tolerate it. It is music that feels natural.

However, you can train your ears to listen to music which is not naturally considered good. So IMO those types of music are not good, but you can like them anyway because you trained your ears for it. Usually this kind of music requires more thinking with your brain to appreciate.

Over time, I have developped a very developped ear for music and I now consider "harsh" music very good. I listen to stuff most people would find bad because it is either dissonant, uses non-standard scales, or has a lack of coherent structure or rhythm.

Over history, what's good has considerably changed though. At the beginning, only consonance was accepted, but after words people started using dissonance if it resolved to consonance, and then chromatic scales. So you can say there is an evolution. The next step would be for people to appreciate pure dissonant music, which is much of what was composed in the 20th century (see examples).

It's funny because my guitarist has an ear which doesn't appreciate dissonance much and everytime I put some dissonant notes in my songs, he can always tell that something is "off" at that point. I however like this sound but he doesn't.

Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwVNoeEIcKc (one of my favourites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI (abstract music)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ2L9Of4gJY (very complex, layered music)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrVjCIaa3UQ (very powerful)

And some more accessible stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq7Z-urKY1w (one of my favourite composers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwYW26DZTTw (great example of expressionism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtMAz70lFX8 (serialism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Iy4LXPFo8 (clusters)

some of this stuff is pretty hard to listen, but once you got the ear for it, it's really deep music and I think that's the evolution of music. You won't hear this kind of music 200 years ago.
BSGfanatic
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 22:12:04

I listen to music for the melody and the lyrics. I think lyrics, and music should be an expression of how the artist feels about anything. I also don't think people should look at music with such a closed mind. Anything can be music it all depends on how the listener feels.
NoobishPenspinner
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 23:38:12

QUOTE (Charlie @ Apr 19 2009, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Me, I listen to whatever that's catchy. I don't need amazing lyrics. If I wanted that, I'd read poetry, but I hate poetry.
Metalm3
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 15:12:14

Good music is pretty subjective. I think almost everything you hear are music. It depends on ur liking towards the genre of music and what you think music is.
Raem
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 20:01:44

QUOTE (Charlie @ Apr 20 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Good music is subjective.

Me, I listen to whatever that's catchy. I don't need amazing lyrics. If I wanted that, I'd read poetry, but I hate poetry.

Please read the title again. It says "good" music, not "catchy". These two are completely different.

Anyway, I agree about mainstream on radio being bullshit. Most of people don't even like it. They listen because it's popular. It's commerce.

For example, remember Disco times (I wasn't around that time, but as I know it was kinda popular back then). Now finding ONE person is difficult. Everyone is like "Meh, it's old". Music being old does not make it worse.

And songs are being catchy for a short time. It later gets annoying
________________________________________________________

What about lyrics - I partially agree. It's extremely hard to keep the rhyme and express feelings with it (and non-rhymed songs just sound awful mostly). Though I could not listen to a song with completely shitty lyrics (that's why I never listen to hip-hop and all mainstream songs with few exceptions).
Now note, that I said I 'partially' agree. I said that because I understand how you can listen to sucky lyrics, and it's completely normal. But a 'good' song definitely needs wise lyrics. Now read what I wrote above again - there is not much such songs. But If talking about 'good' music (and as I said, it never gets old) you don't need a thousand of them. My playlist is about 100 songs with lyrics, and about the same amount of instrumental songs (mostly piano and guitar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Zombo: I don't understand how you can listen to the song you called 'powerful'. It's AWFUL (imo). I can create better sound randomly mashing my piano

________________________________________________________

Back to the topic. As I mentioned above, I listen to both - powerful lyrics and good melody. Difficulity doesn't matter at all.
For example, Ludovico Einaudi is one of my favourite composers, but his songs are really really simple. That's why I like him. Ability to create godly sound with such simplicity ( example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03tuwgJc74w
It's one of more difficult songs by him, and includes not only piano. Now here's a link for some piano pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXXNwDYqA10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtF-y3NfaOU
And the sound is unhuman)

______________________________________________

By the way, some of my favourite songs with lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQcl0v26Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OLQB7ON9w (may be not really wise lyrics, and it doesn't have background melody at all but it's great)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM2dlfuo-xQ <- This one has everything in it. Good vocal, lyrics, melody (and guitar )

I also listen to Nick Cave, NIN, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Damien Rice and etc.etc.

Well, I hope you got my point.
Charlie
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 20:13:36

Just because you listen to a different type of music doesn't mean other genres are crap. You act as if listening to your type of music makes you a better.

A catchy song is engaging and and memorable. Shouldn't a good song be the same?
SJ
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 20:50:17

QUOTE (Raem @ Apr 26 2009, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway, I agree about mainstream on radio being bullshit. Most of people don't even like it. They listen because it's popular. It's commerce.

why do you think they become popular in the first place?
cuz its shit? that makes alot of sense doesnt it?

i dont think all of the mainstream music is good but alot of it is
Raem
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 05:28:22

Umm... that was my opinion if you want to know. You could add to your post that you don't want anyone disagree with you, so I wouldn't waste my time writing all that. Seriously, why even waste some time, if you know what exactly will everyone write (in case there is no one who disagree with you)

And by the way, shouldn't you all read my post again, and find that I am showing a huge tolerance before you attack me? By post above I mean, that if I couldn't find all the songs I like, I'd listen to mainstream songs.

I am an arrogant asshole. And when following my logic:
If I don't listen it, it's either I haven't heard it or I don't like it.
If I don't like it, it means it's bad

Though when someone else use same logic, same songs can be good for him, so it stays balanced. But my post is mine alone, so why should I listen to all of you to state my damn opinion and lower my understanding of music to yours?

And one more thing.
QUOTE (Charlie)
You act as if listening to your type of music makes you a better.

I didn't mean that. Someone who only listen to one music genre has no sense of music imo. There is some good songs around all Genres.

____________________________

Now about it getting popular. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Lithuania it was a huge mania of Linkin Park. And it ended in a year. Now there's a few people listening to it around me.
Again, read what I wrote in my first post. it's COMMERCE ( no offense to LP directly, that was just an example). "Musician" sell it (I don't care in what way "Musician" pay), it gets to the radio, and then boom, everyone hear it. Easy enough.

Now say me honestly. Do you listen to the same songs as 2? 3? 4 years ago? And if no, what changed, what made songs you listened worse?
k-ryder
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 06:50:20

QUOTE (Raem @ Apr 27 2009, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now say me honestly. Do you listen to the same songs as 2? 3? 4 years ago? And if no, what changed, what made songs you listened worse?

is the "you" the individual you, or the collective public you?
well, for the first case, it would be a change in taste or a better awareness of what you think is good/bad
for the latter, again, change in taste, but for most radio stations, its about chart positions, they will play songs higher in teh charts, because they are popular, and many will listen to the radio station

hhmmm.... i guess catchy is good
depends on the criteria

as subjective as this may seem, i think its good music if it can provoke emotion
Charlie
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 07:39:47

Actually, taste in music changes easily, especially during teen years. I believe your taste in music starts to settle down in your twenties. Don't quote me on it -- it's just a passing recollection.

QUOTE
There is some good songs around all Genres.

I agree with that. Even in some genres I don't like, I've found songs that I can't help but like -- grudgingly so.

And sj and I live in America. Current popular music is a lot of rock and hip-hop. Akon, Lady Gaga, T-Pain, etc are doing very well for themselves.
Zombo
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 16:11:30

I find that there are a lot of factors that make mainstream music popular which is not related to the music itself. It could be that the music is more advertised or "forced" by the media, or that the artist making the music is famous. IMO, the goal of mainstream music is to make money (most important for the record labels), not necessarily to make good music. However, mainstream is almost always very infectious music that gets stuck in the head. That's one of the traits of good music IMO. Most of the famous classical music is very memorable and most ppl know those works without even knowing their titles. That's a strong feature to have (remembering music without even knowing what it is). So I consider "memorable" a feature of good natural music. But you can train your ear to listen to music which is not memorable normally and it will give you a deeper appreciation.

@Raem: lol, the OC by Sorabji is a very difficult work to understand, but it is amazing when you have the ear for it. The atmosphere giving by the piano is very powerful to me. It also describes madness in a very pure way. Like the composer himself said: "With a wracking head and literally my whole body shaking as with ague I write this and tell you I have just this afternoon early finished Clavicembalisticum... The closing 4 pages are so cataclysmic and catastrophic as anything I've ever done â€” the harmony bites like nitric acid â€” the counterpoint grinds like the mills of God..."

Thanks for showing Ludovico Einaudi. I did not know that composer. IMO there is no universal GOOD music that is applicable in every context. You need to have the right mood for it. However I do think there are multiple genres of music that can fit the same mood, but some will be mroe potent than others. This kind of music I can definitely listen if the situation requires it. I also like to play this kind of music with a beautiful melody, it's the best kind of music to perform IMO. But what I like to play as a musician is different from what I listen as a music lover.
Raem
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 16:29:15

Okay, I may agree with almost everything you said, Zombo. But I am still not satisfied about Sorabji. It's just doesn't seem to be right. Express feelings? well, wouldn't I express my feelings if I'd mash my piano with anger (if anger is exactly what made me mash my piano). How would that be different? And it's easy to have no talent and play something random and later say "it's art, you just don't understand it"

Not everything you can't understand is art

Though you may be right, that I have no ear for that or something. But it's just totally out of my taste. And, as I said, I am an arrogant asshole and I will better think it's crap than I will admit that I have negative sides somwehere (like not understanding 'art'). Sorry.
Zombo
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 18:58:28

QUOTE (Raem @ Apr 27 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Okay, I may agree with almost everything you said, Zombo. But I am still not satisfied about Sorabji. It's just doesn't seem to be right. Express feelings? well, wouldn't I express my feelings if I'd mash my piano with anger (if anger is exactly what made me mash my piano). How would that be different? And it's easy to have no talent and play something random and later say "it's art, you just don't understand it"

Not everything you can't understand is art

Though you may be right, that I have no ear for that or something. But it's just totally out of my taste. And, as I said, I am an arrogant asshole and I will better think it's crap than I will admit that I have negative sides somwehere (like not understanding 'art'). Sorry.

The saying "Ignorance is bliss" applies in music. For example, I know nothing about painting. I can tell you very basic things like the figures being drawn in the painting are well drawn or not, but I can't go into any details. So for me it makes no difference. Furthermore, paintings that are really abstract, like those from 20th century, I have no idea what they mean and they look random to me. That's because I don't have knowledge of painting.

The thing is, you can live your whole life listening to simple music and enjoy it to your fullest and that's alright. But once you experience and understand more advanced concepts, you cannot go back...

It is like a blessing and a curse at the same time. You feel empty when you listen to what's normally good to others but at the same time you feel great satisfaction in appreciating advanced art. The same thing applies in many different aspects of life. For example, I can't really tell the different between a good set of speakers or bad so I have no incentive to buy an expensive set of speakers and encode all my music in lossless because I just don't get it. But for the audiophile who does, he simply CANNOT to listen to bad quality music because it grinds his ears. This is a curse for him because now he HAS to go out and buy the expensive speaker set, but at the same time he feels greater satisfication than me when listening to high quality music. Same thing with HDTVs. Ever since I'm used to watching HD cable on my HDTV, watching standard definition just kills my eyes since it's too blurry. When I go back and play old games from 2000 with ugly 3D graphics, it makes my head hurts because I'm used to advanced graphics. But I know that 10 years ago, I was watching those same graphics and thought they were amazing. I just can't go back now.

So now in music, imagine a world where dissonance, lack of rhythm, structure and random patterns become music that can be treated like regular music and be appreciated. Imagine a world where any 3 notes can be played together at the same time and you don't have to restrict yourself to the basic 7 notes of the consonant scale, or even the 12 notes of the chromatic scale. Heck, imagine a world where noise and notes that are NOT EVEN on the scale is music. This is the world I live in, and I absolutely cannot go back to the "simple" world of memorable melodies with soft accompagnment. Once you train your ears to go to the next level, the possibilities that open make music limitless. And like I before, some of this very advanced stuff slowly integrates the popular culture. Like I explained before, chromaticism was something only frequently used in the romantic period, and we now consider romantic music (chopin, liszt) to be perfectly normal music. But those guys used concepts that would have been inacceptable 300 years ago. So I don't see why the trend shouldn't continue and incorporate aspect of modern musics 200 years from now as well.

Same thing can applies in pen spinning. You can stay in the limited world of 1p1h spinning, or train yourself to appreciate the expanded world of pen spinning, where we go beyond the hand and even the pen. Once you evolve, you cannot go back. It is a blessing and a curse.

Another PS example would be that laymen can't tell the difference between pass and sonic, etc. What that means is that laymen are easily impressed by ANY PS combo, while you are only impressed by very good PS combos. The blessing here is that you have a deeper appreciation of PS than most ppl. The curse is that you lost the ability to be amazed by simple tricks. Take this same concept, apply to music.
TheOnion
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 01:58:44

I'm not sure I buy that whole "it's subjective" argument, atleast on completely. I think you can find some way distinguish great music, from what is less so. Ofcourse, I will not be able to regonize like a great techno track when I hear, because to me all techno, is just techno. But I think if you collect enough opinions from enough experienced listeners, you will be able to condense it into a list of objectively good music. Much like if you take like the IMDB top 250, you will find some movie with some objectively good qualities. You might not personally like all movies, or you might have picked another order yourself, but you (or atleast I) have to admit that there can be made a good case for each of the movies.
I think it is much a modern 20th century thing, that there is the opinion that you can not measure music against each other. I mean, many would have no problem with picking out Beethoven, Bach or Mozart's music as better than so many other composers's music. It might have something to with the heavy diversification of music that has been since the middle of the 20th century.
Anyways, when I look to get some good music I often go to rateyourmusic.com's all time top 100(or 200 or 300) albums to find it. I don't find all of it great, but actually a surprisingly large part of it. Find it here. Kinda skewed towards older music in the rock and jazz genres, so if you don't like that kind of music, it might not be something you like. But then again, I see it a little like the Oscars, where you don't find a whole lot of comedies, action or horror movies. Some stuff might have a broad audience without that much artistic appeal.
Zombo
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 02:25:08

anybody could have composed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY

but it is the way this composition came about that makes it one of the greatest works of our time.
TheOnion
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 02:32:08

QUOTE (Zombo @ Apr 28 2009, 04:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
anybody could have composed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY

but it is the way this composition came about that makes it one of the greatest works of our time.

Didn't it take him like 12 years or something like that to make it?
Maybe I could become a great mathematician by looking at the arithmetical problem of 2+2 for dozen years or so.
Zombo
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 02:37:38

the problems and the questions raised by 4'33" were never raised nor explicitly asked before the composition came about

that's the difference with solving 2+2

but no it didn't take Cage 12 years to compose this. Maybe he was inspired by related works before, but the actual process didn't take 12 years I'm sure.
TheOnion
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 03:00:14

QUOTE (Zombo @ Apr 28 2009, 04:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the problems and the questions raised by 4'33" were never raised nor explicitly asked before the composition came about

that's the difference with solving 2+2

but no it didn't take Cage 12 years to compose this. Maybe he was inspired by related works before, but the actual process didn't take 12 years I'm sure.

Yea alright, after looking it over on wikipedia it is more like about 5 years. Had just heard it in a radio program to have been around 12 years in making the piece. Still quite a long time for a single piece at the size of a song on the radio.
Also found out on wikipedia that he was actually not the first to make that kind of classical piece, the article shows actually three other pieces with large silent sections. Cage himself had also previously experimented with very quiet pieces.
But anyways, I do not have very high regards for that sort of total deconstructive way of trying to be more artsy than the last guy, it's all like Malevich's Black Square in a hundred different colors, and in the end it all ends up extremely boring and being a sort of a Emperor's New Clothes story.
Zombo
Date: Tue, Apr 28 2009 03:45:49

well i think you're missing the point if you think this piece is about having a large silent section, to me 4'33" raises several difficult questions that were not properly asked until its conception:

1) Is silence music? We already know that constant sound is music (most popular music nowadays contain no silence at all). We also know that music can be a mixture of sound and silence. Can we justify silence alone as music?
2) Is ambient sound music? Can the composer rely on ambient sound produced in the context of the performance and integrate it as part of the music.
3) Does every instruction in a piece of music need to contribute to the music? In 4'33", we have instructions for resting. Surely this is a musical instruction, since almost every piece I know contain instructions for rest. But we also have instructions for closing/opening the lid. This does produce a sound, but is it really part of the music? It does contribute to the piece because it makes a sound. Furthermore, you have someone taking the time with a timer. This produces no sound yet it actually contributes to the piece because you do need to keep track of the time. Is this a musical instruction?
4) Finally, this piece challenges the definition of music on a philosophical level, yet it is presented as a musical work. Should philosophy and music be seperate notions? Can music combine with philosophy?

4'33" is an attempt to break common definitions of music. It's obviously not a piece to listen, but to think. I mentionned about how music can sound naturally good to the ear, and how some music needs to be reasoned with the brain more than the ears. This one such (extreme) example.
Janselmi
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 09:56:46

I like only electronic music. Anything rock or something sounds to me lame. Its boring for me.

I hate mainstream music. Its too simple, lol and you cant find anything unique in that area.

UG till death \,,/
SJ
Date: Sat, May 2 2009 17:50:00

QUOTE (Janselmi @ May 1 2009, 02:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I like only electronic music. Anything rock or something sounds to me lame. Its boring for me.

I hate mainstream music. Its too simple, lol and you cant find anything unique in that area.

UG till death \,,/

mainstream music has electronic stuff in em...
minche
Date: Sat, May 2 2009 18:34:48

QUOTE (Zombo @ Apr 28 2009, 05:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well i think you're missing the point if you think this piece is about having a large silent section, to me 4'33" raises several difficult questions that were not properly asked until its conception:

1) Is silence music? We already know that constant sound is music (most popular music nowadays contain no silence at all). We also know that music can be a mixture of sound and silence. Can we justify silence alone as music?
2) Is ambient sound music? Can the composer rely on ambient sound produced in the context of the performance and integrate it as part of the music.
3) Does every instruction in a piece of music need to contribute to the music? In 4'33", we have instructions for resting. Surely this is a musical instruction, since almost every piece I know contain instructions for rest. But we also have instructions for closing/opening the lid. This does produce a sound, but is it really part of the music? It does contribute to the piece because it makes a sound. Furthermore, you have someone taking the time with a timer. This produces no sound yet it actually contributes to the piece because you do need to keep track of the time. Is this a musical instruction?
4) Finally, this piece challenges the definition of music on a philosophical level, yet it is presented as a musical work. Should philosophy and music be seperate notions? Can music combine with philosophy?

4'33" is an attempt to break common definitions of music. It's obviously not a piece to listen, but to think. I mentionned about how music can sound naturally good to the ear, and how some music needs to be reasoned with the brain more than the ears. This one such (extreme) example.

I think it's (like TheOnion) said, sort of Emperor's New Clothes story =/
And I don't see that piece as music, more like something to start some debate, and to raise some questions about music. That isn't a piece that you like so much, and you're gonna listen to it 'till your ears bleed, or something you son't like and makes "your ears bleed"
To me it's just a performance, like performances in all other forms of art, but it's not music. And I wouldn't compare it to Malevich's Black Square, although it is very similar idea, but Black Square is art (painting), and 4'33'' is performance.
But in the end, it all comes down to have you present it : if Malevich just posted that Black Square without any story, would anyone mention it ever again? Same goes for 4'33''.
Raem
Date: Sat, May 2 2009 19:03:09

QUOTE (Janselmi @ May 1 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I like only electronic music. Anything rock or something sounds to me lame. Its boring for me.

I hate mainstream music. Its too simple, lol and you cant find anything unique in that area.

UG till death \,,/

Umm... I understand how you can find mainstream music too simple and boring, but rock? wow o.o

about 4'33'' - I totally agree with minche.
By the way, zombo, have you heard Dax Johnson?
Zombo
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 04:51:53

the intention behind a music is as important as the music itself.

there are two types of music:

- absolute music, which is music with no meaning, just the beauty of the music
- program music, music which represents an idea, a theme, something external to the music.

both types of music are equally valid.

so yes, intention behind the music can define music.

if 4'33" was written no intention at all and presesnted as absolute music, then it has no value. but because it is presented as program music and represents philosophical ideas, it is very import piece of music.

one of the best examples I have is the technique of "limited aleatorics" I discuss in my entry on the Cello Concerto by Lutoslawski.

In this concerto, Lutoslawski asks the musicians to play a certain part in a random fashion. They can play their part in different tempos at the same time. The final result is music that sounds random.

If you take this out of context, then anybody listening to it would say "well this is just random music, anybody can do this". But because of the context, this technique now has meaning. The reason it is used is to simulate the background chatter for various people talking to each other in a crowd. Surely you agree that if you go on a busy street and listen to the noise it generates, you would hear something that sounds quite random. This represents that.

Therefore the intention behind music is important and defines music. But John Cage asks a very important question with 4'33". If we are to reason that meaning is important for music, then the meaning behind 4'33" is valid, as long as 4'33" itself is music. But as we know, silence is a fundamental building block for music, therefore we can always argue that silence itself can be music. Which means that the intention he put behind silence can be treated as music. This challenges to think deeper about the essence of music, because now you need to find what is "missing" from this that you can't theoretically classify as music.

i don't know why would anyone want to not try and intepret music and symbols hidden in music. It would be like looking at words in a novel or poem and not looking at the symbols/metaphors behind the words. It would remove the essence of the work. Music can contain hidden ideas that can be interpreted, this is the case with 4'33".

I don't know Dax Johnson
riverboy
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 05:09:59

I guess "good music" just depends on who listens to that certain music. Some people may say that good music for them is rock, some say jazz, or hip-hop. But, there is no such thing as good music (unless you mean like christian rock vs Black Metal, then yes there is good music) . Its just an opinion of someone to the certain kind of music that he/she likes.
Putzpie
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 05:42:15

I love smooth stuff that just flows together. For example. I don't like it when vocals get in the way of a song though. I like it more when they fits in with the song, or is like a sound effect. Some classic rock seems to be good with vocals though, and it usually fits more with the song.

There really isn't a universal term for good music though.

I definately wouldn't call Silence music though. Not me anyway.
KurtAB
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 05:43:30

'Good music' is any music that when your smashed and you hear this 'good music' you just get up and party.
Sidewinder
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 08:38:55

Good music is subjective.

Everybody has a different taste in music and has their own likes and dislikes. I, for example, listen to metal, mainly its subgenres such as melodic death metal/metalcore/deathcore. There are only about 5 people in my year at school who could listen to that kind of music for more than half a song. they just dont appreciate it the same way that i do and the same applies to me as i cannot stand popular mainstream music and the fact that the radio stations only ever play mainstream music enphises the fact that music is essentially a buiness to make money. Anyway, despite the fact there are few people who listen to my style of music, say for instance there is a concert on, then there will be 500+ of us in the one area all appreaciating the same type of music, once again, because it is subjective. You could not grab 500 random people and tell them to listen to heavy metal in the same way you cannot tell them to listen to classical... some people listen to music for the lifestyle associated with it, others just to be popular and other because it just appeals to them.

I play guitar and that may have affected my position on the subject but...
Zombo
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 14:20:33

actually i think the connection between classical and metal is very strong and many people agree that people who listen to metal can very easily get into classical.

however the other way around is more difficult, because there are a lot of old ppl listening to classical and they just don't agree with the culture behind metal also loud music gives them pain. But musically, metal and classical is very very similar and if you don't consider any external factor, it's very easy to be fan of both.
Raem
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 17:49:17

you've got a point about 4'33'', but still. As you said; everyone could have composed that. And I can't understand how could something called 'good' if not a professional or one not even qualified as a musician could do it.
And if you want to make some philosophy from it, you can do it from everything.
Well, this is really opinion based. But I still won't agree about 4'33'' being as "Good music"

by the way, Dax Johnson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnTUZKKjcsQ <- this is masterpiece imo. Though I am not sure if you will like it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbMpRZSovbg <- this one is not bad as well
Zombo
Date: Sun, May 3 2009 22:10:08

"everyone could have composed", everyone could have composed anything from luck. But not many people at the time could have composed 4'33" with the same intention he had to challenge the definition of music.

"And I can't understand how could something called 'good' if not a professional or one not even qualified as a musician could do it."

that makes no sense, good music doesn't have to be composed by someone who is professional or qualified. you yourself already said that good music has nothing to do with difficulty of the piece. and what does qualification mean anyway. to have X years playing an instrument? to hold a degree in music? what if I said "the qualification to play 4'33" is to be a human that understands the meaning behind the piece". if you yourself doesnt believe that 4'33" is a serious work and believe in its meaning, then you are not qualified to play it and your performance of it is meaningless.

"And if you want to make some philosophy from it, you can do it from everything."

not everything is meant to be interprated, some music is just very shallow, like most mainstream music. There is no hidden meaning at all. you can say the same thing for any art form, including literature (easiest example).
minche
Date: Sat, May 9 2009 15:11:58

QUOTE (Zombo @ May 3 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the intention behind a music is as important as the music itself.

there are two types of music:

- absolute music, which is music with no meaning, just the beauty of the music
- program music, music which represents an idea, a theme, something external to the music.

both types of music are equally valid.

so yes, intention behind the music can define music.

if 4'33" was written no intention at all and presesnted as absolute music, then it has no value. but because it is presented as program music and represents philosophical ideas, it is very import piece of music.

one of the best examples I have is the technique of "limited aleatorics" I discuss in my entry on the Cello Concerto by Lutoslawski.

In this concerto, Lutoslawski asks the musicians to play a certain part in a random fashion. They can play their part in different tempos at the same time. The final result is music that sounds random.

If you take this out of context, then anybody listening to it would say "well this is just random music, anybody can do this". But because of the context, this technique now has meaning. The reason it is used is to simulate the background chatter for various people talking to each other in a crowd. Surely you agree that if you go on a busy street and listen to the noise it generates, you would hear something that sounds quite random. This represents that.

Therefore the intention behind music is important and defines music. But John Cage asks a very important question with 4'33". If we are to reason that meaning is important for music, then the meaning behind 4'33" is valid, as long as 4'33" itself is music. But as we know, silence is a fundamental building block for music, therefore we can always argue that silence itself can be music. Which means that the intention he put behind silence can be treated as music. This challenges to think deeper about the essence of music, because now you need to find what is "missing" from this that you can't theoretically classify as music.

i don't know why would anyone want to not try and intepret music and symbols hidden in music. It would be like looking at words in a novel or poem and not looking at the symbols/metaphors behind the words. It would remove the essence of the work. Music can contain hidden ideas that can be interpreted, this is the case with 4'33".

I don't know Dax Johnson

wouldn't that apply for any other "type of art" (dunno the right word). meaning and ideas are important for everything: drama, novels, theater, music, paintings... if there wasn't any meaning behind it, then it wouldn't be art (or acknowledged art, hmm that sounds wrong, but for example, you can't consider most of today's music "art" (mostly mainstream music) because that music doesn't have any big idea or meanings, it is just to simple and shallow)

i don't see why 4'33'' is music, if you go by the idea "meaning behind the music", then i could say that some paintings are "music" because, even if i can't hear anything, i still can "feel the meaning". i still think that is "just" a performance (well it's not "just" a performance, he gave a very good question, but in a wrong form)

and that random music, okay, that is 100% music, even if it is random (so what, everyday life is music, you can find music pretty much everywhere).

as for what kind of music i find good, hmm, i like indie music (lately mostly indie pop, that sounds so silly, but it isn't like britney or beyonce and that kind of pop and r'n'b). i like the rythm in those songs, and the lyrics, and my favourite band is Belle & Sebastian; and Hot Chip (hihi i pretty much like everything then if these 2 are my favourite)
Zombo
Date: Sat, May 9 2009 15:30:51

you can't just take any paintings and claim they are music, because they cannot be interpretated that way. that's like trying to find something that just isn't there.

if you create a painting and the author claims it is music then he can argue about his reasoning. why do you consider this painting music? but most importantly, was that the best way you could communicate your intentions.

John Cage wanted to raise issues on the important of silence in music and the importance of ambient noises when listening to music. He decided that the best way to communicate this was to create a silent piece. He also added performance notes so that it looked like the piece was meant to be performed, but the actions taken during the performance do not seem to contribute to the music itself. Taking a painting and claiming it is music would not be the best way to introduce those questions. It would be a much shallower statement and would also introduce other questions. Like why you chose a painting, and how does the content of the painting relate to any of these issues. It would be a less pure form.

Like I said, you can have art with no meaning, where it's only your body that responds naturally to the art. Like easy to listen music or paintings that are well done or novels with an interesting story, interesting characters, but no real symbolism behind.
Sidewinder
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 04:20:07

QUOTE (Zombo @ May 4 2009, 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
actually i think the connection between classical and metal is very strong and many people agree that people who listen to metal can very easily get into classical.

however the other way around is more difficult, because there are a lot of old ppl listening to classical and they just don't agree with the culture behind metal also loud music gives them pain. But musically, metal and classical is very very similar and if you don't consider any external factor, it's very easy to be fan of both.

I agree totally... Alot of metal songs are composed around the same base as classial music and it is very easy for a metal fan to also like classical.
I think the issue for the older people who listen to classical is simply the social stigma associated with metal music and they simply appose the mindset they think it goes hand in hand with rather than the actual genre.