6 ms·

I don't like the way judging if something is or isn't art, or is or isn't music, carries an implication of judging its quality. You can think it's music if you

I don't like the way judging if something is or isn't art, or is or isn't music, carries an implication of judging its quality. You can think it's music if you don't enjoy it, think it's bad at what it sets out to achieve, or think it's trite. So I disagree with you on it not being music, there are certainly more conventional pop/rock songs with noisy sections like this piece that don't stop being music when those sections begin. But I won't add it to any playlists.

zaroth 9y ago
I have no bone to pick with Reich, but I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’.
- nugi 9y ago
  I would argue you are woefully wrong. Much great music is made of sounds only fleetingly able to be considered 'intentional'. A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music. Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    It’s certainly true you can find musical qualities in almost any noise, but “music” by definition is a purposeful structure or arrangement of sounds to convey an idea or emotion. That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent. And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
    - tjr225 9y ago
      > And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant. This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        Hah, as artwork the only thing that is relevant is our personal impressions! My impression may not be relevant to you and vice verse, but who cares? I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise. It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar. @jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
    - ssaew333 9y ago
      >And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic No it isn't.
    - clappski 9y ago
      Is Cage's 4'33" unmusic? Are the birds, tweeting birds songs, unmusic? I think you're confusing only musical styles that you recognize as music for the whole world of music we are surrounded by.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        The birds are musical, and may be music to your ears (as in metaphorical music) but whether birdsong is literal music seems to be up for debate [1] unless a human records and samples it into such. Cage is performance art certainly but not, IMO, music. Again it’s something certainly up for debate. [2] But such debate reminds me of a particular South Park episode based in SF. [1] - http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=808579 http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=... [2] - https://youtu.be/WTCVnKROlos https://youtu.be/WTCVnKROlos
- jedimastert 9y ago
  > I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’ That's exactly the kind of questions and feeling people like Steve Reich and John Cage were trying to explore with their music. What would you say the bar is?
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I don’t know enough about them but, if you’re right about that, then I’d say it’s the best support for my comment possible. If they are intentionally exploring the line between noise and music, then clearly there is one, and it is up to each of us to decide where to draw it. I would say, from the 60 odd seconds of track I listened to, they are asymptotically approaching noise from the musical side of the equation. Which is probably why the audience had such a negative reaction.
optimuspaul 9y ago
I agree. It fills me with sadness that people think they can just decide what music is or isn't. Frankly it doesn't matter what they think.

zaroth 9y ago

I have no bone to pick with Reich, but I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’.

nugi 9y ago
I would argue you are woefully wrong. Much great music is made of sounds only fleetingly able to be considered 'intentional'. A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music. Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
- zaroth 9y ago
  It’s certainly true you can find musical qualities in almost any noise, but “music” by definition is a purposeful structure or arrangement of sounds to convey an idea or emotion. That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent. And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
  - tjr225 9y ago
    > And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant. This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Hah, as artwork the only thing that is relevant is our personal impressions! My impression may not be relevant to you and vice verse, but who cares? I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise. It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar. @jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
  - ssaew333 9y ago
    >And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic No it isn't.
  - clappski 9y ago
    Is Cage's 4'33" unmusic? Are the birds, tweeting birds songs, unmusic? I think you're confusing only musical styles that you recognize as music for the whole world of music we are surrounded by.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      The birds are musical, and may be music to your ears (as in metaphorical music) but whether birdsong is literal music seems to be up for debate [1] unless a human records and samples it into such. Cage is performance art certainly but not, IMO, music. Again it’s something certainly up for debate. [2] But such debate reminds me of a particular South Park episode based in SF. [1] - http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=808579 http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=... [2] - https://youtu.be/WTCVnKROlos https://youtu.be/WTCVnKROlos
jedimastert 9y ago
> I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’ That's exactly the kind of questions and feeling people like Steve Reich and John Cage were trying to explore with their music. What would you say the bar is?
- zaroth 9y ago
  I don’t know enough about them but, if you’re right about that, then I’d say it’s the best support for my comment possible. If they are intentionally exploring the line between noise and music, then clearly there is one, and it is up to each of us to decide where to draw it. I would say, from the 60 odd seconds of track I listened to, they are asymptotically approaching noise from the musical side of the equation. Which is probably why the audience had such a negative reaction.

optimuspaul 9y ago

I agree. It fills me with sadness that people think they can just decide what music is or isn't. Frankly it doesn't matter what they think.