If a record plays in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is it still music?

[stevel]

This discussion about 4'33'' always brings up this other sort of sub-topic, so I wanted to get some views on it as well:

If you look at a score and "sing it" in your head, is it music?

What if you just think about a song and sing it in your head?

Is the written score music, or simply the instructions with which to create music?

What about a CD? Is it music, or is it simply the digital data that a digital to analog converter can use to create music?

If someone plays a CD in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is it music?

If the rain falling on Someguy's window is music, then, if he wasn't there, is it still music?

Is his being there a factor? He said it was a musical experience for him. So does that mean we have to be present to expereince it for it to be music?

Or is "the musical experience" (or the act of experiencing music) different from "music" itself?

Best,
Steve

[reith]

Originally Posted by stevel

This discussion about 4'33'' always brings up this other sort of sub-topic, so I wanted to get some views on it as well:

If you look at a score and "sing it" in your head, is it music?

If according to the consensus, if it were performed by an intermediary - yes. It is experienced.

What if you just think about a song and sing it in your head?

If it uses one's aural imagination and the imaginer accepts it as music, yes.

Is the written score music, or simply the instructions with which to create music?

Instructions - it might be latent music.

What about a CD? Is it music, or is it simply the digital data that a digital to analog converter can use to create music?

Music CD? To the perceiver it is a perfect/absolute score of what the producer wants to communicate.

If someone plays a CD in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is it music?

No - music is an experience activated by the perceptive processes.

If the rain falling on Someguy's window is music, then, if he wasn't there, is it still music?

Nope, but it might be to someone else present. Don't open the window in case the score is of the kind I'd write - pen on paper. Yet, if that happens you may have a new score or reinterpretation of an old one.

Is his being there a factor? He said it was a musical experience for him. So does that mean we have to be present to expereince it for it to be music?

Or is "the musical experience" (or the act of experiencing music) different from "music" itself?

Music is the experience. If the pitch frequencies lie outside the human audible range they would not be experienced except in the infrasound range from about 2-20Hz and were harmonically related to frequencies above or of sufficient pressure to cause a visceral reaction. A piece of music using only untrasonic frequencies might be music to a dog but not to a human.

Best,
Steve

Quite right. Likewise....!

[Peter Bolton]

This boils down to the old question as to whether the universe exists outside of human experience. Maybe that depends on how big our heads have grown. I am inclined to the view that it does. Anyway, what does one mean by no-one. A bird makes music, and hears it. My cat listens to music. That reminds me of Schrödinger's cat - clearly the cat is aware of its demise! Perhaps there is music of the spheres - we can't hear it, but its there just the same.

[chckn8r]

LOL - nice post Steve!

Yes, I guess it could get down to a chicken or egg kind of discussion, but I think Steve, you alluded to this in one of the "other" posts - Music, or rather, the perception of music is unique to everyone.

I agree with reith in that one can enjoy and experience music in one's own head without having to actually have sound waves hit your ears.

Here's another question though, more to the chicken/egg thing: How does one develop their own appreciation for music? Is it learned through environment or is it based in their genetic make-up? Sort of the nurture vs. nature debate. I'm sure that there's a large component of environment at work as a young child born in western culture and exposed to western scales recognizes, mimics and creates music based upon what he or she has heard, but how does the "deeper meaning" of the music, the experience, develop?

[Ron Ofir]

I'm sure that there's a large component of environment at work as a young child born in western culture and exposed to western scales recognizes, mimics and creates music based upon what he or she has heard, but how does the "deeper meaning" of the music, the experience, develop?

I know I have developed it. I wasn't very touched by music (and I mean not just "wee this fun!", I mean something closer to love) up to about 2 years ago, and my music taste keeps changing all the time (more like expanding), sometimes I need to listen to something twice or more before I start liking it.

As for the original question, I agree with chckn8r, "the perception of music is unique to everyone."

[ttw]

Depends on the record. I've heard pieces played by a symphony orchestry that were'nt music.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by ttw

Depends on the record. I've heard pieces played by a symphony orchestry that were'nt music.

Well, this is exactly the point! Was it music? Or was it music *to you*!

A simple example is Rap music. Many people say, "that's not music".

Of course it is.

It's just not a style of music that contains the same elements as that person's definition of music does.

We have to learn to separate what we like or what we personally (or even collectively in some cases) define as music from what others define as music.

So who gets to define?

Does the composer get to say that their piece is music, whether you, or any number of people think it's not.

Or do you, or any number of people get to say that a piece is music, even if the composer says it is.

My philosphy is this:
If we allow the composer to say whether what they create is music or not, we run the danger of having a few charlatians take advantage of a few easily-led believers. But outside of that, they're not very dangerous. And as time elapses, they'll be exposed for what they are.

But, if we allow the general public (including non-musicians and other otherwise non-intelligent, non-experienced creatures) to define music we run a much greater risk IMO: This opens up the possibility of a communal definition of what music is. And what does that historically lead to - book burning, banning, black listing, etc.

And I don't know how aware of this everyone is, but throughout history, most, if not all of the music you like has at one time been called "not-music". Monteverdi - not music. Wagner - not music. Jazz - not music. Rock and Roll - not music.

There will always be people who are too narrow-minded to accept change. But change will happen.

So the next time anyone decides that "this is not music" while others, or the composer are saying it is, then you (plural) should be more willing to say "well, it's not music to me", or "it's not music by my definition". That way you can choose not to listen to it and it's not going to harm you or any of your existing CD collection. But if you get on a campaing to start discrediting things you don't like, pretty soon you'll find the things you do like being discredited as well by the people who dislike what you like!

Dangerous stuff.

Steve

[LethalBunny]

I suppose the easier question to ask is: what isn't music?

[reith]

I doubt it's any easier to answer tho!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by LethalBunny

I suppose the easier question to ask is: what isn't music?

Wll certainly, that's true in a broad sense.

Music definitely has a time element, and a sound element.

But Poetry and Verbal Communication do to.

But poetry and verbal communication usually communicate on a more specific level. A good example is Morse Code. It is sound, in time, and it can even have a rhythmic element to it. But we don't typically consider it music because... well, why?

I believe it's because we know it's intent is to be a form of communication.

So I feel that "intent" must somehow be the differentiating factor when no others exist.

But again, we don't want to get into the trap of calling Rap "not-music" either. Because when we look at the definitions of what music contains, suddenly it meets all the criteria.

Tricky situation.

Steve