What's the matter with kids these days?

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

heh, and Cage is 'responsible' for 4:33 http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif.

 

The thing about 4:33 is that it's really not exactly something that is in itself "Music", as much as it is a meme. What's annoying is that the local college now makes musicians "perform" it at recitals for a grade. Totally absurd; the first time it was "performed" one can say there was something of an artistic point to it, but *regularly* doing it is JUST A JOKE. A ridiculous absurd joke. Much akin to making 14 year olds study Shakespeare; you should come to it, not be forced into it, otherwise there isn't going to be a point; you're not going to get it. A 14 year old can't "get" Shakespeare - they haven't lived enough yet. Likewise, doing 4:33 in front of a crowd that KNOWS what is going to happen is pointless.

 

But it's still a grade.

 

The absurdity of society now is getting to be almost unbearable.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: ]www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[mojo_jojo]

>>*Music* is organized by humans in some manner. This would include such models as Cage creating music from the I Ching, electronic musicians creating music from mathetical equations or theories, or other overt systems that have been created by humans. This would also include scenarios such as someone banging on a can, tree log, tapping on a desk, scratching a turntable, humming, slapping their stomach, or purposefully typing in rhythm.

 

*Sound* is naturally occurring without a human intending to organize noise into a form.<<

 

well said.

 

I'm going to back-track a little bit. TO ME sound and music ARE BECOMING synonomous. I don't think we're there yet but I feel we're heading that way.

 

An example of this evolution is the DJ. He provides more of a sound experience than live music, which I believe is dedicated to songs. And let me qualify that. Live music is mostly dedicated to songs. There are exceptions.

 

A sound experience is very important. That is after all what recording is all about. But TO ME a sound experience is best when it enhances a song, rather than accompany a beat and pretty, flashing lights.

 

What a DJ does is important. DJ's break new sonic ground, but they are an extreme of the recording process.

 

As far as Socrates is concerned, I think you could argue that he would say sound is a vehicle to find that platonic form, which I believe is song.

 

NOW LET ME GET OFF FANCY-TALKING HIGH HORSE BECAUSE ITS GIVING ME A WEDGIE.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of songwriters lurking out there. I've heard them say that their best work is more discovered than written. Possibly, they were noodling (playing with the sound) on the guitar or piano and the song just came to them.

 

That Socrates guy might say the sound of the guitar or piano led the songwriter to the song. Birds chirping, the drone of an old refrigerator, ANYTHING could lead some one to a song.

 

But that doesn't mean that all sound is musical -now bring in Julie Andrews and all the leiderhosen.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

The thing about 4:33 is that it's really not exactly something that is in itself "Music", as much as it is a meme. What's annoying is that the local college now makes musicians "perform" it at recitals for a grade. Totally absurd; the first time it was "performed" one can say there was something of an artistic point to it, but *regularly* doing it is JUST A JOKE. A ridiculous absurd joke. Much akin to making 14 year olds study Shakespeare; you should come to it, not be forced into it, otherwise there isn't going to be a point; you're not going to get it. A 14 year old can't "get" Shakespeare - they haven't lived enough yet. Likewise, doing 4:33 in front of a crowd that KNOWS what is going to happen is pointless.

 

No one should EVER be forced to study Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote PLAYS that were meant to be WATCHED as they were performed LIVE. You can't stick a print version Hamlet or As You Like It in front of anyone - 14 or 44 - and expect them to get one tenth of the effect of seeing these works performed. If you want kids to GET Shakespeare, take them to the theatre. Later, have them read some of the more important passages, when they have a clue as to what's going on.

 

No one should EVER be forced to play - or listen to - 4:33. That's like forcing people to watch Eraserhead.

[Steve LeBlanc]

Now, again, this is all my opinion, and I don't pretend to have the answer to this.

It's not a bad definition, though, and the idea is just to get people thinking about

what "music" and "sound" really are. In reality, there's probably a bit of overlap. Any

time one tries to submit a definition of anything, there's always a few little ones

that squirm away, defying definition. And that's cool -- not everything has to be

neat and clean!!!

 

I couldn't agree more, thanks for your thoughts, I think it's an interesting topic perhaps a new Thread? I too would never be so presumptious to think I have the answer but it is something I often think about.

[Steve LeBlanc]

That Socrates guy might say the sound of the guitar or piano led the songwriter to

the song. Birds chirping, the drone of an old refrigerator, ANYTHING could lead some

one to a song.

 

heh, yeah or like my Son banging somewhat indiscriminantly on the piano a year ago (when he was 1, he's starting to get good now http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif)...I just happened to have a tape recorder going one day and wrote one of my favorite songs based on the melody he didn't intend to write http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.

 

Whatever that means. hehe