The Future of Music?

[stevel]

Originally Posted by some guy

4'33" came out of Cage's experience in an anechoic chamber in Berkeley. In it, he noticed two sounds, one high pitched, one low. The engineer explained that the high was Cage's nervous system and the low was his respiratory system. There is no such thing as the absence of sound, he concluded, and so came the notion that there are intentional sounds and unintentional sounds. Cage wanted to include the latter. He also figured that there's probably no such thing as noise, either. To put it pretty close to what he said, there's sound you attend to and sound you don't. The latter is what usually gets called noise. It's something that interfers with your enjoyment of something else. But what if you attend to the noise? Really listen to it? It turns into something interesting and enjoyable. Or at least the possibility exists.

I hadn't heard this anechoic chamber story, and that's an interesting bit of info. It sort of gives it even more validity (for me anyway) knowing the piece evolved out of an experience such as this (I've been in one of those chambers - freakishly quiet!).

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

How could a nervous system make sounds? Interesting story, anyway.

You don't hear things? You can't hear your own heartbeat or pulse? What about any ringing in the ears? Some people have some of that going on too. I can remember sitting in quiet rooms when I was a kid and hearing my own body's sounds (and I'm talking about blood/heard stuff, not digestive noises which are also sometimes audible to the outside world!). Unfortunately, I can't hear that stuff as well as I've aged, but if you ever go into an anechoic chamber, you'll see what I mean (do it while you're young if you are, before your ears go to far).

Steve

[Ron Ofir]

I can hear my own heartbeat, though I've never heard actual blood flowing through my veins. Anyway, I don't think the heart is considered part of the nervous system. What I thought he meant by hearing your nervous system is hearing the potassium and sodium go through your neurons, and I don't think that's possible at all. Then again, I've never been to an anechoic chamber, sounds like an interesting experience.

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

I can hear my own heartbeat, though I've never heard actual blood flowing through my veins. Anyway, I don't think the heart is considered part of the nervous system. What I thought he meant by hearing your nervous system is hearing the potassium and sodium go through your neurons, and I don't think that's possible at all. Then again, I've never been to an anechoic chamber, sounds like an interesting experience.

You'll never forget the experience of an anechoic chamber - we had a physics of sound class as part of my undergrad curriculum where we did "labs" in the anechoic chamber there.

It is odd to hear (or perceive) your blood flowing through the veins (the aforementioned "lower pitched sound"), but I from what I can gather, the high-pitched sound may not be the nervous system but rather tinnitus.

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by stevel

.
Wait a minute - think about this for a second - doesn't 4'33'' take an EXTREME amount of skill on the listener's part to be perceived as music?

Yes, agreed, but I think the point(s) made by others: The perception of a set of sounds as music is unique to everyone. Not everyone is going to enjoy 4'33", and I'd hazard to guess that not everyone is going to classify it as music.

Originally Posted by stevel

I find that it takes a high degree of skill on my part to enjoy J-Lo as music.

LOL - yes, why don't we also add Britney, Jessica, Celine ... oh I should stop now...

Originally Posted by stevel

There are some great 3 chord songs out there, and how much skill does it take?

I'd hazard to say that writing a good 3 chord song takes a lot of skill. Writing a GREAT 3 chord song takes an exponential amount of skill. Of course, I'm assuming the measure of "great" equates to popular appeal and longevity.

Crafting a piece of music that is so short, but interesting, catchy, memorable and recognizable with the parameters of 3 chords rarely comes to be from some schlep who only knows how to finger E, A and D on his or her guitar.

It may be easy to play, but my advice would be to first try to craft a hit song before mocking questioning the lack of skill required to write one.

Regards, D

[stevel]

Originally Posted by chckn8r

I'd hazard to say that writing a good 3 chord song takes a lot of skill. Writing a GREAT 3 chord song takes an exponential amount of skill. Of course, I'm assuming the measure of "great" equates to popular appeal and longevity.

Crafting a piece of music that is so short, but interesting, catchy, memorable and recognizable with the parameters of 3 chords rarely comes to be from some schlep who only knows how to finger E, A and D on his or her guitar.

Sorry, yes, I did oversimplify that. I meant that the choosing of the three chords was the easy part. We might say that, it becomes exponentially harder to write a great song within a context where there's much similar material, and when one uses so little material - but that's not really true either - it's hard to write good music whether you use 3 chords or 30 - using "more" does not necessarily equate to "better".

But wouldn't you also agree that there's a certain amount of luck to it as well (especially in popular music)? I was listening to Yellow Submarine yesterday and it struck me that had this not been released by the Beatles, or in a different time period, the likelihood of it having gotten the same amount of historical relevance would be pretty slim!

Steve

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by stevel

But wouldn't you also agree that there's a certain amount of luck to it as well (especially in popular music)? I was listening to Yellow Submarine yesterday and it struck me that had this not been released by the Beatles, or in a different time period, the likelihood of it having gotten the same amount of historical relevance would be pretty slim!

Oh yes, I agree - there's definitely a lot of luck involved in writing a great song AND having it be recognized as that. The general public is extremely fickle and unpredictable.

I don't think a lot of acts that "made it" in the past would even get a chance to try for mass appeal - look at Pink Floyd. Had they not had the luck of signing with a label that gave them a few albums to warm up with, we may never have seen Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall...

Dave

[LifeinthekeyofD]

I'm sure I don't have much business being in this string, I'm not a musician, and I can't discuss this topic from your knowledge base, yet I am a listener, and I believe that music underscores our lives.

I listen to many genres, but the music of composure Yanni has been one of my predominant 'listens' for a very long time. I've always appreciated a comment he made in an interview a few years ago...he spoke of his belief in music's role in reversing what seperates us as a humanity today...how I sincerely hope, that is true! Music has the capacity to be the universal language, but more importantly, it has the capacity to be the common bond between us all...the place where regardless of our differences we can find connection. How important that makes what you do, to the listener's lives!

Whether you choose to play by the rules, or not, as long as you are creating what is connecting your listening audience to you, and to one another, then my respect is yours.

[reith]

Nahhh, a great post. Doesn't matter how you're involved with music and we could all learn a little more from listening to listeners.

I go along with the ideal - that music has the capacity to be a universal language. Unfortunately it becomes parochial through cultures and politics (which may be the same thing in some cases). However our current times are giving it a reasonable chance. I tend to agree that an audience of some kind is important or you're composing/playing in a vacuum. Many composers have, only to be recognised later, perhaps too later. But it's equally important for composers to allow their souls to speak which doesn't always produce an audience - sometimes because of fashion, other times because the compositional style is way outside of the capture range of all but a highly specialised audience.

Another unfortunate factor is that "art music" is partly controlled by an elite: the impressarios and worse, the critics who, like it or not, exert quite some influence over the "listening public". If the critics decide that a composer goes to the wall this week, to the wall he goes. Similarly with soloists, conductors, bands, orchestras. Only artists of independent means can swim against a tide like that. If you're dependent on the "record buying public" you have to toe the elitist line. That doesn't mean you can't be contemporary. By a weird twist of fate, critics sometimes like contemporary music, afraid of being pronounced fuddy-duddies by their fellows. Most of them are shameless however and will slate new music only to praise it further down the line when the composer is more popular. Two works that suffered this way were Stravinsky's Rite and Debussy's La Mer. Thankfully, the public often pursue a scandal that makes them sit up and attend.

The contemporary music scene now, though, allows huge latitude and the elitist bunch have retreated as best they can to the 19th/early-20th century. So, any compositional style should stand a chance and it;s up to the composer to promote it.

cheers.