Definitions of music
More space
This topic obviously deserves a ''lot'' more space than this, preferably by someone who actually knows something about the topic of how music has been defined. (I'm not such a person, myself.) Nextel ringtones User:LMS/LMS
-
Organized sound
The definition originally put in this page (that music is sound organized in time) is the definition drilled into music majors at the University of North Carolina, Asheville. It covers all genre of music, and doesn't get caught up in issues of rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, and form (which would be more appropriately discussed in detail within the music theory page). The only modification I made to the original definition drilled into us is that music is a form of art; therefore, you wouldn't say 'this radio program is music', as it isn't expressive.
It's important to avoid getting caught up in a definition of music that would involve rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, or form because not all works of music use all of these elements. For example, many modern pieces lack rhythm, and many ancient works lack harmony. But it might be nice to mention these elements within a page defining music, if for no other reason than to point out that a proper definition of music could not include them.
Hmm... rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, and form should perhaps be mentioned in the page concerning music theory.
In any event, any definition for music beyond what was originally entered would prick my interest tremendously, as I'd love to find something better to throw at my old college professors.
Many thanks go to the gentleman who corrected my reference to 4:11 as Four Minutes, Thirty Three Seconds. I felt it important to mention that composition when giving the prior definition, because it does openly challenge the definition. Unfortunately, I couldn't quite remember the title correctly . Thankfully, many eyes are watching.
Abbey Diaz User:Fleeb/Fleeb
I thought the definition was OK, on first glance. But just because something was "drilled into music majors at the University of North Carolina, Asheville" does not mean that the person(s) who so drilled it thought it was a ''generally-accepted'' definition of "music" (if they did, they were wrong and probably shouldn't be music professors). There is no such animal, and an ''encyclopedia article'' shouldn't pretend that there is. (See, once again, Mosquito ringtone :neutral point of view/neutral point of view.) The "definition of music" page is not a place for you or anyone else to decide how "music" is properly to be defined. It is a place to discuss different attempts at definition, which is something that musicologists and philosophers of music do. Sabrina Martins User:LMS/LMS
Agreed.
One might consider that a definition for music varies from person to person, such that the aforementioned definition may work for academia (or worse, one university within academia), but fail for someone from China.
And, of course, it might be possible that the doctors in UNC-Asheville have a pet project to advance a somewhat sectarian definition, apart from others who work with music. As such, I would be even more interested in hearing alternative definitions for music (I'm extremely open-minded about such things.. I want to learn more about this stuff).
So, within this [definition of music] page, we might state that, according to academics from UNC-Asheville, music may be thought of as a form of art where sound is organized in time. Further, if I were to defend this definition here (in the Talk), we might flesh out why academics might hold to such a definition, and with any luck, we might even improve upon it.
As for other potential definitions, I suppose one might say that music is whatever one thinks of as 'music', but you'll see that it rapidly comes back to the aforementioned definition again. That is, often you might hear someone who hates rap music describe it as 'noise' instead of music. But such viewpoints are influenced by a very real and interesting psychology about how we perceive music; if we cannot hear how the sounds are organized, or cannot perceive the organization of the sounds for whatever reason (cultural, physiological, etc.) such items cannot be music to us.
I find this interesting because it suggests that music must build upon various musical conventions in order for it to be perceived as music. If I played white-noise against a backdrop of yowling cats while throwing lightbulbs at a brick wall in as arhythmic a pattern as I could, people who have only listened to country-western music would be completely unable to appreciate it as music, while folks accustomed to listening to John Cage or Edgar Varese might perceive it as music, at least enough to say that it sucked.
This might also suggest why musical snobbery exists; because a given work of music cannot be perceived as music until the listener has been exposed to enough of the underlying musical traditions to perceive the organization, those who cannot perceive the organizational structure (and thus appreciate a given work) may often be perceived as being unknowledgeable. So, for example, a music student from UNC-Asheville might listen to a traditional Korean monks' chant and think of it as noise, while the monks might think the music student is uneducated for not appreciating their musical talents.
Nextel ringtones User:Fleeb/Fleeb
I'm dissatisfied w/ the "sound organized in time" bit just because sounds can be organized in time incidentally, by natural phenomena, and I think most people would not call waves lapping a beach music (though it is a pleasant enough sound). The same thing happens on man-made items, too, but often without musical intent: for instance, the puttering of a machine (which inspired at least Dave Brubeck to make something that most people agree ''is'' music). Also, humans sometimes organize sound in time for purposes other than music, for instance on various alarms. And suppose you have sounds organized in time in ways not intended: suppose a police cruiser and an ambulance go by at the same time in different directions; would that constitute music? What about a metronome itselfsound organized in time, with a recent and specific, music-related human intent. Would a metronome by itself be considered music? I'm not sure if human, music-oriented intent is an accepted component of the definition of music or not; and in fact opinions about it may vary widely. I am not a musicologist. Does anyone know? Abbey Diaz user:Koyaanis Qatsi/Koyaanis Qatsi
I felt the same way about the definition, as originally given. When I suggested that the definition allowed for too much (radio shows, for example), my instructor said, "Music connotes art." This explaination, in my opinion, is too weak; when defining a word, you cannot allow connotations to be assumed in the definition.
So I thought it made sense to add to the 'sound organized in time' definition that music is a form of art which organizes sound in time. Or, perhaps worded another way, music is a form of art that uses sound organized in time as its medium.
This would remove sirens, lapping waves, and so on, without stripping them out if they were used with musical intention.
Mosquito ringtone User:Fleeb/Fleeb
That sounds much better. Sorry, I just found your response now, in searching for "NeutralPointOfView"s to convert. KQ
Most dictionary definitions of music regard melody and harmony as two of the key points in determining music from noise or sound. when you consider this more deeply you must ask yourself about traditional music of various cultures whose music often negates all western ideas of melody or harmony. However, most of these cultures have a scale or tuning system of their own. Now if you consider the more scientific aspects of sound all sounds (other than a sine wave) consist of many notes, with one fundemental pitch or frequency being the loudest, if we disregard all western musical concepts such as scales it is easy to see that (almost) all the sounds that occur around us have some form of harmony within themselves. When you hear several sounds of varying pitch at once is that not harmony. Music occurs naturally around us all the time,(and I would like to include waves, sirens, etc.) all you have to do is listen.
At the top of this page it is said that the fact that music is a form of art is missing from the definition that states music is 'sound organised in time'. Well, i'd like to ask what is art? Art these days seems to be anything we call by that name, i am not saying that music can not be art, i am saying that all sound is music but only music labelled art is art. I think there is more to music than an art form and i will end with words used by John Cage to express a philosophy learnt from Gira Sarabhai:
::'The purpose of music is to sober and quiet the mind, thus making it susceptible to devine influences.'
::::- mcfukka_aziz@cmcaustralia.com
-
We're running into the buffers of Sabrina Martins Marcel Duchamp here. Melody and harmony would seem to be a good definition until we consider music that involves only percussion. '''Rhythm'', and more basically pattern, is a defining characteristic, as well as ''intent''. Tarquin
-
Is it worth mentioning that typewriters ''were'' considered musical instruments for railway rate regulation? I don't know where or when, but this tidbit is pointed out by Nextel ringtones Egen Moglen in http://www.glug.org/people/random/anarchism.html. BJT
-
I agree that this is a very big subject, and that the role of the entry should be to state some attempts that have been made to define music, rather than to come up with a "correct" definition (which really can't be done; you probably have to go about defining "art" and deciding if "intention" is important - it's a real minefield, and nobody can agree on it). I might have a go at doing this sometime later. For now I've just altered the Cage 4' 33" reference, about which there are a lot of misconceptions, and I may not have got it entirely right myself (my reference books are locked away on the whole), but I'm sure it's more right than it was before. It's certainly an important piece as far as defining music goes, and Cage probably deserves a decent sized chunk on this page (not before he has a page of his own though, I should think - I might write that soon as well).
Incidentally, a piece of music does exist for nothing but metronomes (albeit a large number of them, not just one). I forget the title, but it's by Gyorgy Ligeti (it was written as a half joke, if I remember correctly). Abbey Diaz User:Camembert/Camembert
I remember very vividly hearing (experiencing in a musical way) the silent rest at the end of the string quartet I just wrote about. I can hear it now. I am looking for the name of the composer and the piece, but I ask your forbearance in leaving it until I find it, or, even better, naming it, or providing a better example.
In Cingular Ringtones rock and roll even electronic feedback and noise are music. odd player User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 19:48 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)
:I hope you can find the string quartet - I don't know it myself. There is a piece by Webern which has several bars of silence in the middle of it during which changes of tempo are indicated, but your example is better, I think.
:Noise as music is another big subject, probably going back to the Italian Futurists in the early 20th century. I don't really know where to start on that one - I suppose the thing to do is to give one definition of music as being made up of pitched sounds, melody, and so on, and then debunk it. haul parking User:Camembert/Camembert
The most knowledgeable music lover I know thinks it was a Beethoven quartet, but he hasn't come up with an identification yet. epa estimates User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 08:25 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:See up this pensato. invited about Hyacinth/Hyacinth 20:44, 4 Oct 2004
Interesting stuff on 4'33 so if the length was decided at the tiem of the first performance, did they only decide on a name there and then? I suppose we could say that silence is an important part of music in the same way that space is an important part of architecture. nezavisimoye voyennoye User:Tarquin/Tarquin 03:13 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:Yep, Cage says in one of the editions of the score of ''4' 33"'' that the title of the piece should be equal to the length of the piece. So if you do a version lasting 30' 24", you call the piece ''30' 24"'', for example. It is arguably more "correct" to refer to the piece as ''Tacet'' or something similar, rather than ''4' 33"'', but nobody can agree on this either, and in any case, nobody will know what you're talking about if you call it anything other than ''4' 33"''. I'd add this to the article, but it's not really relevent to a definition of music - maybe 4' 33" needs an article of its own?
::In re this year's controversy with composer Mike Batt who had a track called "One Minute's Silence" listing the composing credit as "Batt/Cage". The Cage estate intervened, much to everyone's amusement, thinking that the estate was claiming that Batt had "stolen" Cage's silence. The point, I believe, was rather that he had stolen Cage's name, or at least used it without authorization, or paying royalties. director anita User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 08:25 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:The silence in music as space in architecture comparison is a good one, especially as music is frequently compared to architecture for other reasons. In fact, I think somebody has made that comparison between silence and space before - thanks for reminding me, I'll try to track it down. my inevitable User:Camembert/Camembert
-
*In rock and roll even electronic feedback and noise are music. Ortolan88 19:48 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)
::An excellent point: Hendrix made it so, if it wasn't before, and David Byrne repeated it but with melody (!) in the version of "Crosseyed and Painless" on ''Stop Making Sense''. buyer a User:Koyaanis Qatsi/KQ
I've added and reorganised quite a bit, but I'm a bit worried about where the structure is going to end up as the article grows (as it must). I'd like to add some stuff abt philosophical approches to music - auditory art being distinct from visual and verbal art. I'll try to do this later if nobody else does. But I've decided that things like Descartes thinking music is basically maths and Kant calling it the lowest of the arts are better located on a separate powerful catalyst Music and philosophy page, or something similar. Most philosopher's approches to music are concerned with explaining why it has the effect it does and the symbolic and expressive elements rather than defining what it is. At least that's as I see it, but I'm no philosophy expert.
I don't want to take over this article altogether, by the way (much as I'm enjoying writing it), so everyone should add whatever they can. Of course :) executives share User:Camembert/Camembert
: Don't worry about taking it over, it's looking great, Camembert! I had a thought about 4'33: the fact that people have found interpretations of the piece which the composer did not intend makes it art. advanced degrees User:Tarquin/Tarquin
::Cage would have liked that way of looking at it, I think - he hated the idea that a piece might be played the same way twice. medicare reduced User:Camembert/Camembert
Proposed outline
This article has some really wonderful pieces. I'm thinking that it could use a more coherent structure if it is to be useful as well as entertaining. Also, I think it is important to distinguish between what makes *music* in particular hard to define and what makes any word hard to define (some one's comments above about connotation made me think of this the connotative/denotative distinction in definitions is never as clear as we'd like it to be...). But back to the question of organization, here's a couple of possibilities:
Structure #1, organize by focus of definition
1. Most basic definition (sound organized in time)
2. Cultural differences in definition (across both space and time)
3. Limits of the definition tested by (mostly) avant-garde artists
Structure #2, organize by dividing the definition into part
1. Rhythm
2. Tone/Harmony with discussion
3. Intention
4. More general problems of art.
These are not completely thought out, but you get the idea.
between three User:Thomas Mills Hinkle/Tom Hinkle
:I quite agree that the article needs some structure, Tom. The last time I expanded it, I just wanted to get the info in and wasn't worrying about shape too much. Your suggestions look good - the first structure you suggest is largely how I was seeing the article turn out, with the second of your suggested structures (or something similar) helping to shape the avant-garde material. I'll probably get round to fixing this eventually (I also have some more material to add), but I'd love someone else to do it :) conductor arturo User:Camembert/Camembert
The "sound organized in time" and "art" requirements still seem
overly broad, at least to me. For example, what about somebody
reading from Moby Dick? Good prose often uses elements of
rhythm, etc. (Faulkner's prose often including long sections of
iambic pentameter.) And yet most people would not call Moby Dick
music.
:I agree with you that somebody reading from Moby Dick probably isn't music. As the article says, "sound organised in time" is a definition of music put forward by some and rejected by others. any pol User:Camembert/Camembert
An anon added the following. I (with fema User:Camembert/Camembert) have taken it out - I can't quite make sense of it, and I'm not sure it belongs anyway:
''
I just want to talk about the “Music.” What is the music? Generally, I think the music is related to
people because people create many different sounds and rhythms. When I decided this topic, I thought
everything can be the music. I don’t think this is right, because even though I hit the wall using
the stick, it is not the sound. I think the sound gives us something creative a work of great artistic
value. I think word of the
“Music” is related to genre
of art like a dancing and
performance. When I look at
many kinds of performance, I
can hear the sound, and it is
the music. If we don’t use the
music and play the concert or
performance, we will be boring
because I think everyone wants to
something special like peculiar sound.
A long time ago, in my country we call the “Ack.” It means the music.
In Korea, before we used to write down
Chinese character, and the music means
“Ack.” It is kind of relative with
ethical action and moral sense. I think
ancient time they emphasized to courtesy.
When I heard the sound, I felt this is
the music, and I think because I already
know what is the music? If I don’t have
any information about the music, I will
create the sound, and what’s going on at
that time. I feel that the music is related
to people.''
This was posted by JLK521.
A proposed definition of music:
Music is an intangible art intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
Adam T. and Jonathan O.
Our reasoning why these are the defining elements of music:
First we make a seperation of Music and the system of music. Music is the perceived sound in a listener's head. Whereas, the system of music, is all of the means to communicate, create, imply, etc. music, such as sheet music, the performer, the instrument, the composer, and other tools in creating sound.
We believe that "music is intangible" because you cannot measure music in any form other than subjectivity. Although sounds/silences can be analyzed, music cannot. Music is intangible because it only exists if it is created by the listener. Although the same production of sounds that occur in musical pieces, if created by means of like a cd player, they are simply sounds until the listener creates music in his/her mind out of them from those sounds/silences.
We believe that "music is an ...art" because it is the parrallel to visual art. And we believe that it is the process of creation that makes it art.
We believe that "Music is... intentional" because there is an intent for why it is being created in the listener's mind. Although that intent may be as simple as being based on rhythm or a motif, there is always some intent because if there were no intent it would be just noise.
We believe that "Music is...created" because with only the elements of sound and silence, there is no music. There must be some form of organization applied to that sound/silence. And once an organization is applied then there is music. "...then there" can be parralleled to 'created.' So, "and once an organization is applied music is created.
We believe that "Music...by a listener" because there must be a means by which to create organization of the sound/silence. There must be a perceiver of the sounds/silences that can interpret organization. The listener is the means.
We believe that "Music...through the organizations" that has been identified why, earlier in the post.
We believe that "...organization, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements" because there must be a way to base the means of organization. There is organization in speech, but what distinguishes that organization from musical organziation.
To start, on this statement, "Listener's" works because every individual has there own interpretation of what organizes sound into music.
"...acquired" helps define that the elements and standards will be gained through experience or formal instruction. Some people throughout the world only listen to music on the radio. So they begin to make simple sub-conscious decisions as to what makes music. These are the basics of melody, instrumentation, and rhythm. Others go into highly-detailed instruction which lead to organizations based on numbers, organizations based on disorganizations, organizations based on naturally occuring sounds/silences, organizations based on provoked naturally occuring sounds (ex. John Cage 4' 33"), etc. All of those elements of organization are acquired somehow.
"...standards" defines that not only are there elements that are used by a listener, but also certain levels of development in those elements, 'standards.' With higher knowledge in music, a greater need for higher quality musicality is needed. This is the distinction that is similar to speaking with monotone, and speaking with emotion. An advanced speaker would say that the monotone is not speaking, merely saying words, and the emotional, vibrant, and/or lively speaker is speaking. He/she is saying stuff that has meaning. A knowledgeable person in music will say that mono musicality in a piece is not music. Those are just sounds.
"Musical elements" is the problem phrase. Elements is not really a problem because there are always elements that need to be discussed when consisedering organization. Now "musical." This refers to all of the elements that a listener has that causes the organization to be music. To name a few elements: melody, harmony, rhythm, bass, instrumentation, phrasing, dynamics, articulation, duration, motifs, rows, sequences, modulations, interval vectors, orders, color, emotion, etc. There are plenty that I did not mention but that is just to get the point across. The first problem is how do you define "musical." If you list elements, there will always be more that you can add to that list. If you leave "musical", you are using a derivative of the word that you are trying to define. But for now, that word works because every person grows up learning what elements makes up music, this is just refering to those elements. This also make the distinction between speech elements and musical elements. And this still does not exclude speech elements from being musical elements, it just defines that the listener must have those elements in his/her vocabulary to organize the sounds/silences as music.
"Music is...the combinations of sounds/silences" is the most universally accepted element of music.
"To serve a variety of purposes" helps define "intentionally". The music has purpose. That purpose can be either simple or complex. Whether it is just based on the purpose of organizing the sound/silence on musical elements, or whether it is some difficult concept that is hard to accept.
We believe these are all the elements of music. Music cannot exist without any of these elements. This definition consisders the broadness of music literature and still allows for each and every piece of music to be music.
The definition of music:
Music is an intangible art intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
Adam T. and Jonathan O.
Also, if you can think of a way to reword "musical" please state.
A neat definition. I'm not sure if the "to serve a variety of purposes" part really belongs, though - it opens up a whole new can of worms ("does any art have a purpose?") that'd have to be dealt with; there's little point in getting into that. Also, according to that definition, isn't any speech music? education richard User:Lament/Lament
The following Webster quote in the article should at least have a link. Also, is it a copyvio?
: The Websters definition of music is a typical example: "the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, online edition).
comment thought Zandperl/zandperl 20:39, 29 Jan 2004
:It certainly isn't a copyright violation, as short quotes are acceptable in law under the doctrine of gay partners fair use. If you want to put a link in for reference purposes, then go ahead - their site is http://www.m-w.com/ User:Camembert/Camembert
Definition>Definitions
I propose that we organize the definitions in this article somehow. More specifically I think we should use a spectrum with Aesthetical definitions at one pole and Applicational definitions at the other.
Thus we have a "music is pleasing sounds like Bach" defnition, and a "music is anything which is composed, performed, listened to, called, or treated as music is music," definition.
In the middle would be definitions like, "music is organized sound."
ALSO, I propose that we move the page to Definitions of music, plural.
User:Hyacinth/Hyacinth
:Sounds fine to me. The article certainly needs some sort of structure, as I've said before (I'm just too lazy to do it myself). User:Camembert/Camembert
Removed Bipul Kumar quote
I've removed this, recently added, from the article:
"Music is an art of living,a sense of peace."
::Bipul Kumar
I don't know who Bipul Kumar is, or whether his opinion on what music might be is worth noting in the article, but in any case, I don't think a bare quote like this is a good idea. We could probably all add our favourite quotes on what constitute music, but the end result wouldn't be an encyclopedia article. This kind of thing is better suited to http://quote.wikipedia.org/. User:Camembert/Camembert
Social influence on perception of
The "Social influence on perception of" music has no place in the "Definitions of music" article. One's varying perception of something does not necessarily change its definition (if I get drunk music doesn't change, I do). Likewise, one's culturally influenced perception of music is more about the culture and the inividual than music. The more proper formation of this topic is "Social construction of" or "Definition as social". Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:24, 19 Aug 2004
I changed the header to "Social influence on definition of" as it mirrors the first sentence of the section. However, the article is horribly POV in that it presents organization as the only definition worth discussing in full, with the text after that section not being at all devoted to definitions. Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:30, 19 Aug 2004
:After all, the article title is "Defintion'''s'''". Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:32, 19 Aug 2004
Intro
*"The question of what the art form called music actually consists of is something that is still debated today."
I object to statements such as the one above, taken from the current introduction. The POV of this sentence is that music shouldn't ''still'' be debated today, or that it is unusual that it still is. Hyacinth/Hyacinth 18:30, 4 Oct 2004
List of definitions of music
*Organization
*Art
*Entertainment
*Total social fact
*Sound
*Subjective experience
*Category of perception
*Social construct
*Time/duration
The above are taken from the current music and definitions of music article.
*Form
*Order/regularity/stablity
*Motion
*Pleasure
As may be readily seen, however, none of these "definitions" is sufficient. "Organization" is not music, it is organization. Even if music is "organized" it must be organized something. Art includes music, but is not limited to, as with entertainment. Other things are art, other things are total social facts. There are sounds which are not music, their are subjective experiences not about music, and anything may (or may not be) socially constructed. Not all time is music. Thus none of the items on the above list are definitions, and should not be described as such on wikipedia.
Thus a second list:
*Sounds organized or ordered in time
**"The phenomenon of music is given to us with the sole purpose of establishing an order in things, including, and particularly, the co-ordination between ''man'' [sic] and ''time''."
***Igor Stravinsky, quoted in DeLone et. al. (Eds.) (1975). Aspects of Twentieth-Century Music. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0130493465, Ch. 3. from Igor Stravinsky' ''Autobiography'' (1962). New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., p. 54.
*Art of sound(s)/time
*Entertaining sound(s)
Molino
Molino's position is structuralist rather than constructionist. He (Molino 1975:37) argued that music is a "total social fact [fait social total] is "an activity that has implications throughout society, in the economic, legal, political, and religious spheres." (Sedgewick 2002: 95) "Diverse strands of social and psychological life are woven together through...'total social facts'. A total social fact is such that it informs and organises seemingly quite distinct practices and institutions." (Edgar 2002:157)" (from total social fact). Hyacinth/Hyacinth 08:36, 12 Feb 2005
This topic obviously deserves a ''lot'' more space than this, preferably by someone who actually knows something about the topic of how music has been defined. (I'm not such a person, myself.) Nextel ringtones User:LMS/LMS
-
Organized sound
The definition originally put in this page (that music is sound organized in time) is the definition drilled into music majors at the University of North Carolina, Asheville. It covers all genre of music, and doesn't get caught up in issues of rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, and form (which would be more appropriately discussed in detail within the music theory page). The only modification I made to the original definition drilled into us is that music is a form of art; therefore, you wouldn't say 'this radio program is music', as it isn't expressive.
It's important to avoid getting caught up in a definition of music that would involve rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, or form because not all works of music use all of these elements. For example, many modern pieces lack rhythm, and many ancient works lack harmony. But it might be nice to mention these elements within a page defining music, if for no other reason than to point out that a proper definition of music could not include them.
Hmm... rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, and form should perhaps be mentioned in the page concerning music theory.
In any event, any definition for music beyond what was originally entered would prick my interest tremendously, as I'd love to find something better to throw at my old college professors.
Many thanks go to the gentleman who corrected my reference to 4:11 as Four Minutes, Thirty Three Seconds. I felt it important to mention that composition when giving the prior definition, because it does openly challenge the definition. Unfortunately, I couldn't quite remember the title correctly . Thankfully, many eyes are watching.
Abbey Diaz User:Fleeb/Fleeb
I thought the definition was OK, on first glance. But just because something was "drilled into music majors at the University of North Carolina, Asheville" does not mean that the person(s) who so drilled it thought it was a ''generally-accepted'' definition of "music" (if they did, they were wrong and probably shouldn't be music professors). There is no such animal, and an ''encyclopedia article'' shouldn't pretend that there is. (See, once again, Mosquito ringtone :neutral point of view/neutral point of view.) The "definition of music" page is not a place for you or anyone else to decide how "music" is properly to be defined. It is a place to discuss different attempts at definition, which is something that musicologists and philosophers of music do. Sabrina Martins User:LMS/LMS
Agreed.
One might consider that a definition for music varies from person to person, such that the aforementioned definition may work for academia (or worse, one university within academia), but fail for someone from China.
And, of course, it might be possible that the doctors in UNC-Asheville have a pet project to advance a somewhat sectarian definition, apart from others who work with music. As such, I would be even more interested in hearing alternative definitions for music (I'm extremely open-minded about such things.. I want to learn more about this stuff).
So, within this [definition of music] page, we might state that, according to academics from UNC-Asheville, music may be thought of as a form of art where sound is organized in time. Further, if I were to defend this definition here (in the Talk), we might flesh out why academics might hold to such a definition, and with any luck, we might even improve upon it.
As for other potential definitions, I suppose one might say that music is whatever one thinks of as 'music', but you'll see that it rapidly comes back to the aforementioned definition again. That is, often you might hear someone who hates rap music describe it as 'noise' instead of music. But such viewpoints are influenced by a very real and interesting psychology about how we perceive music; if we cannot hear how the sounds are organized, or cannot perceive the organization of the sounds for whatever reason (cultural, physiological, etc.) such items cannot be music to us.
I find this interesting because it suggests that music must build upon various musical conventions in order for it to be perceived as music. If I played white-noise against a backdrop of yowling cats while throwing lightbulbs at a brick wall in as arhythmic a pattern as I could, people who have only listened to country-western music would be completely unable to appreciate it as music, while folks accustomed to listening to John Cage or Edgar Varese might perceive it as music, at least enough to say that it sucked.
This might also suggest why musical snobbery exists; because a given work of music cannot be perceived as music until the listener has been exposed to enough of the underlying musical traditions to perceive the organization, those who cannot perceive the organizational structure (and thus appreciate a given work) may often be perceived as being unknowledgeable. So, for example, a music student from UNC-Asheville might listen to a traditional Korean monks' chant and think of it as noise, while the monks might think the music student is uneducated for not appreciating their musical talents.
Nextel ringtones User:Fleeb/Fleeb
I'm dissatisfied w/ the "sound organized in time" bit just because sounds can be organized in time incidentally, by natural phenomena, and I think most people would not call waves lapping a beach music (though it is a pleasant enough sound). The same thing happens on man-made items, too, but often without musical intent: for instance, the puttering of a machine (which inspired at least Dave Brubeck to make something that most people agree ''is'' music). Also, humans sometimes organize sound in time for purposes other than music, for instance on various alarms. And suppose you have sounds organized in time in ways not intended: suppose a police cruiser and an ambulance go by at the same time in different directions; would that constitute music? What about a metronome itselfsound organized in time, with a recent and specific, music-related human intent. Would a metronome by itself be considered music? I'm not sure if human, music-oriented intent is an accepted component of the definition of music or not; and in fact opinions about it may vary widely. I am not a musicologist. Does anyone know? Abbey Diaz user:Koyaanis Qatsi/Koyaanis Qatsi
I felt the same way about the definition, as originally given. When I suggested that the definition allowed for too much (radio shows, for example), my instructor said, "Music connotes art." This explaination, in my opinion, is too weak; when defining a word, you cannot allow connotations to be assumed in the definition.
So I thought it made sense to add to the 'sound organized in time' definition that music is a form of art which organizes sound in time. Or, perhaps worded another way, music is a form of art that uses sound organized in time as its medium.
This would remove sirens, lapping waves, and so on, without stripping them out if they were used with musical intention.
Mosquito ringtone User:Fleeb/Fleeb
That sounds much better. Sorry, I just found your response now, in searching for "NeutralPointOfView"s to convert. KQ
Most dictionary definitions of music regard melody and harmony as two of the key points in determining music from noise or sound. when you consider this more deeply you must ask yourself about traditional music of various cultures whose music often negates all western ideas of melody or harmony. However, most of these cultures have a scale or tuning system of their own. Now if you consider the more scientific aspects of sound all sounds (other than a sine wave) consist of many notes, with one fundemental pitch or frequency being the loudest, if we disregard all western musical concepts such as scales it is easy to see that (almost) all the sounds that occur around us have some form of harmony within themselves. When you hear several sounds of varying pitch at once is that not harmony. Music occurs naturally around us all the time,(and I would like to include waves, sirens, etc.) all you have to do is listen.
At the top of this page it is said that the fact that music is a form of art is missing from the definition that states music is 'sound organised in time'. Well, i'd like to ask what is art? Art these days seems to be anything we call by that name, i am not saying that music can not be art, i am saying that all sound is music but only music labelled art is art. I think there is more to music than an art form and i will end with words used by John Cage to express a philosophy learnt from Gira Sarabhai:
::'The purpose of music is to sober and quiet the mind, thus making it susceptible to devine influences.'
::::- mcfukka_aziz@cmcaustralia.com
-
We're running into the buffers of Sabrina Martins Marcel Duchamp here. Melody and harmony would seem to be a good definition until we consider music that involves only percussion. '''Rhythm'', and more basically pattern, is a defining characteristic, as well as ''intent''. Tarquin
-
Is it worth mentioning that typewriters ''were'' considered musical instruments for railway rate regulation? I don't know where or when, but this tidbit is pointed out by Nextel ringtones Egen Moglen in http://www.glug.org/people/random/anarchism.html. BJT
-
I agree that this is a very big subject, and that the role of the entry should be to state some attempts that have been made to define music, rather than to come up with a "correct" definition (which really can't be done; you probably have to go about defining "art" and deciding if "intention" is important - it's a real minefield, and nobody can agree on it). I might have a go at doing this sometime later. For now I've just altered the Cage 4' 33" reference, about which there are a lot of misconceptions, and I may not have got it entirely right myself (my reference books are locked away on the whole), but I'm sure it's more right than it was before. It's certainly an important piece as far as defining music goes, and Cage probably deserves a decent sized chunk on this page (not before he has a page of his own though, I should think - I might write that soon as well).
Incidentally, a piece of music does exist for nothing but metronomes (albeit a large number of them, not just one). I forget the title, but it's by Gyorgy Ligeti (it was written as a half joke, if I remember correctly). Abbey Diaz User:Camembert/Camembert
I remember very vividly hearing (experiencing in a musical way) the silent rest at the end of the string quartet I just wrote about. I can hear it now. I am looking for the name of the composer and the piece, but I ask your forbearance in leaving it until I find it, or, even better, naming it, or providing a better example.
In Cingular Ringtones rock and roll even electronic feedback and noise are music. odd player User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 19:48 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)
:I hope you can find the string quartet - I don't know it myself. There is a piece by Webern which has several bars of silence in the middle of it during which changes of tempo are indicated, but your example is better, I think.
:Noise as music is another big subject, probably going back to the Italian Futurists in the early 20th century. I don't really know where to start on that one - I suppose the thing to do is to give one definition of music as being made up of pitched sounds, melody, and so on, and then debunk it. haul parking User:Camembert/Camembert
The most knowledgeable music lover I know thinks it was a Beethoven quartet, but he hasn't come up with an identification yet. epa estimates User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 08:25 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:See up this pensato. invited about Hyacinth/Hyacinth 20:44, 4 Oct 2004
Interesting stuff on 4'33 so if the length was decided at the tiem of the first performance, did they only decide on a name there and then? I suppose we could say that silence is an important part of music in the same way that space is an important part of architecture. nezavisimoye voyennoye User:Tarquin/Tarquin 03:13 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:Yep, Cage says in one of the editions of the score of ''4' 33"'' that the title of the piece should be equal to the length of the piece. So if you do a version lasting 30' 24", you call the piece ''30' 24"'', for example. It is arguably more "correct" to refer to the piece as ''Tacet'' or something similar, rather than ''4' 33"'', but nobody can agree on this either, and in any case, nobody will know what you're talking about if you call it anything other than ''4' 33"''. I'd add this to the article, but it's not really relevent to a definition of music - maybe 4' 33" needs an article of its own?
::In re this year's controversy with composer Mike Batt who had a track called "One Minute's Silence" listing the composing credit as "Batt/Cage". The Cage estate intervened, much to everyone's amusement, thinking that the estate was claiming that Batt had "stolen" Cage's silence. The point, I believe, was rather that he had stolen Cage's name, or at least used it without authorization, or paying royalties. director anita User:Ortolan88/Ortolan88 08:25 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:The silence in music as space in architecture comparison is a good one, especially as music is frequently compared to architecture for other reasons. In fact, I think somebody has made that comparison between silence and space before - thanks for reminding me, I'll try to track it down. my inevitable User:Camembert/Camembert
-
*In rock and roll even electronic feedback and noise are music. Ortolan88 19:48 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)
::An excellent point: Hendrix made it so, if it wasn't before, and David Byrne repeated it but with melody (!) in the version of "Crosseyed and Painless" on ''Stop Making Sense''. buyer a User:Koyaanis Qatsi/KQ
I've added and reorganised quite a bit, but I'm a bit worried about where the structure is going to end up as the article grows (as it must). I'd like to add some stuff abt philosophical approches to music - auditory art being distinct from visual and verbal art. I'll try to do this later if nobody else does. But I've decided that things like Descartes thinking music is basically maths and Kant calling it the lowest of the arts are better located on a separate powerful catalyst Music and philosophy page, or something similar. Most philosopher's approches to music are concerned with explaining why it has the effect it does and the symbolic and expressive elements rather than defining what it is. At least that's as I see it, but I'm no philosophy expert.
I don't want to take over this article altogether, by the way (much as I'm enjoying writing it), so everyone should add whatever they can. Of course :) executives share User:Camembert/Camembert
: Don't worry about taking it over, it's looking great, Camembert! I had a thought about 4'33: the fact that people have found interpretations of the piece which the composer did not intend makes it art. advanced degrees User:Tarquin/Tarquin
::Cage would have liked that way of looking at it, I think - he hated the idea that a piece might be played the same way twice. medicare reduced User:Camembert/Camembert
Proposed outline
This article has some really wonderful pieces. I'm thinking that it could use a more coherent structure if it is to be useful as well as entertaining. Also, I think it is important to distinguish between what makes *music* in particular hard to define and what makes any word hard to define (some one's comments above about connotation made me think of this the connotative/denotative distinction in definitions is never as clear as we'd like it to be...). But back to the question of organization, here's a couple of possibilities:
Structure #1, organize by focus of definition
1. Most basic definition (sound organized in time)
2. Cultural differences in definition (across both space and time)
3. Limits of the definition tested by (mostly) avant-garde artists
Structure #2, organize by dividing the definition into part
1. Rhythm
2. Tone/Harmony with discussion
3. Intention
4. More general problems of art.
These are not completely thought out, but you get the idea.
between three User:Thomas Mills Hinkle/Tom Hinkle
:I quite agree that the article needs some structure, Tom. The last time I expanded it, I just wanted to get the info in and wasn't worrying about shape too much. Your suggestions look good - the first structure you suggest is largely how I was seeing the article turn out, with the second of your suggested structures (or something similar) helping to shape the avant-garde material. I'll probably get round to fixing this eventually (I also have some more material to add), but I'd love someone else to do it :) conductor arturo User:Camembert/Camembert
The "sound organized in time" and "art" requirements still seem
overly broad, at least to me. For example, what about somebody
reading from Moby Dick? Good prose often uses elements of
rhythm, etc. (Faulkner's prose often including long sections of
iambic pentameter.) And yet most people would not call Moby Dick
music.
:I agree with you that somebody reading from Moby Dick probably isn't music. As the article says, "sound organised in time" is a definition of music put forward by some and rejected by others. any pol User:Camembert/Camembert
An anon added the following. I (with fema User:Camembert/Camembert) have taken it out - I can't quite make sense of it, and I'm not sure it belongs anyway:
''
I just want to talk about the “Music.” What is the music? Generally, I think the music is related to
people because people create many different sounds and rhythms. When I decided this topic, I thought
everything can be the music. I don’t think this is right, because even though I hit the wall using
the stick, it is not the sound. I think the sound gives us something creative a work of great artistic
value. I think word of the
“Music” is related to genre
of art like a dancing and
performance. When I look at
many kinds of performance, I
can hear the sound, and it is
the music. If we don’t use the
music and play the concert or
performance, we will be boring
because I think everyone wants to
something special like peculiar sound.
A long time ago, in my country we call the “Ack.” It means the music.
In Korea, before we used to write down
Chinese character, and the music means
“Ack.” It is kind of relative with
ethical action and moral sense. I think
ancient time they emphasized to courtesy.
When I heard the sound, I felt this is
the music, and I think because I already
know what is the music? If I don’t have
any information about the music, I will
create the sound, and what’s going on at
that time. I feel that the music is related
to people.''
This was posted by JLK521.
A proposed definition of music:
Music is an intangible art intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
Adam T. and Jonathan O.
Our reasoning why these are the defining elements of music:
First we make a seperation of Music and the system of music. Music is the perceived sound in a listener's head. Whereas, the system of music, is all of the means to communicate, create, imply, etc. music, such as sheet music, the performer, the instrument, the composer, and other tools in creating sound.
We believe that "music is intangible" because you cannot measure music in any form other than subjectivity. Although sounds/silences can be analyzed, music cannot. Music is intangible because it only exists if it is created by the listener. Although the same production of sounds that occur in musical pieces, if created by means of like a cd player, they are simply sounds until the listener creates music in his/her mind out of them from those sounds/silences.
We believe that "music is an ...art" because it is the parrallel to visual art. And we believe that it is the process of creation that makes it art.
We believe that "Music is... intentional" because there is an intent for why it is being created in the listener's mind. Although that intent may be as simple as being based on rhythm or a motif, there is always some intent because if there were no intent it would be just noise.
We believe that "Music is...created" because with only the elements of sound and silence, there is no music. There must be some form of organization applied to that sound/silence. And once an organization is applied then there is music. "...then there" can be parralleled to 'created.' So, "and once an organization is applied music is created.
We believe that "Music...by a listener" because there must be a means by which to create organization of the sound/silence. There must be a perceiver of the sounds/silences that can interpret organization. The listener is the means.
We believe that "Music...through the organizations" that has been identified why, earlier in the post.
We believe that "...organization, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements" because there must be a way to base the means of organization. There is organization in speech, but what distinguishes that organization from musical organziation.
To start, on this statement, "Listener's" works because every individual has there own interpretation of what organizes sound into music.
"...acquired" helps define that the elements and standards will be gained through experience or formal instruction. Some people throughout the world only listen to music on the radio. So they begin to make simple sub-conscious decisions as to what makes music. These are the basics of melody, instrumentation, and rhythm. Others go into highly-detailed instruction which lead to organizations based on numbers, organizations based on disorganizations, organizations based on naturally occuring sounds/silences, organizations based on provoked naturally occuring sounds (ex. John Cage 4' 33"), etc. All of those elements of organization are acquired somehow.
"...standards" defines that not only are there elements that are used by a listener, but also certain levels of development in those elements, 'standards.' With higher knowledge in music, a greater need for higher quality musicality is needed. This is the distinction that is similar to speaking with monotone, and speaking with emotion. An advanced speaker would say that the monotone is not speaking, merely saying words, and the emotional, vibrant, and/or lively speaker is speaking. He/she is saying stuff that has meaning. A knowledgeable person in music will say that mono musicality in a piece is not music. Those are just sounds.
"Musical elements" is the problem phrase. Elements is not really a problem because there are always elements that need to be discussed when consisedering organization. Now "musical." This refers to all of the elements that a listener has that causes the organization to be music. To name a few elements: melody, harmony, rhythm, bass, instrumentation, phrasing, dynamics, articulation, duration, motifs, rows, sequences, modulations, interval vectors, orders, color, emotion, etc. There are plenty that I did not mention but that is just to get the point across. The first problem is how do you define "musical." If you list elements, there will always be more that you can add to that list. If you leave "musical", you are using a derivative of the word that you are trying to define. But for now, that word works because every person grows up learning what elements makes up music, this is just refering to those elements. This also make the distinction between speech elements and musical elements. And this still does not exclude speech elements from being musical elements, it just defines that the listener must have those elements in his/her vocabulary to organize the sounds/silences as music.
"Music is...the combinations of sounds/silences" is the most universally accepted element of music.
"To serve a variety of purposes" helps define "intentionally". The music has purpose. That purpose can be either simple or complex. Whether it is just based on the purpose of organizing the sound/silence on musical elements, or whether it is some difficult concept that is hard to accept.
We believe these are all the elements of music. Music cannot exist without any of these elements. This definition consisders the broadness of music literature and still allows for each and every piece of music to be music.
The definition of music:
Music is an intangible art intenionally created by a listener through the organizations, based on the listener's acquired standards of musical elements, of the combinations of sound/silence to serve a variety of purposes.
Adam T. and Jonathan O.
Also, if you can think of a way to reword "musical" please state.
A neat definition. I'm not sure if the "to serve a variety of purposes" part really belongs, though - it opens up a whole new can of worms ("does any art have a purpose?") that'd have to be dealt with; there's little point in getting into that. Also, according to that definition, isn't any speech music? education richard User:Lament/Lament
The following Webster quote in the article should at least have a link. Also, is it a copyvio?
: The Websters definition of music is a typical example: "the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, online edition).
comment thought Zandperl/zandperl 20:39, 29 Jan 2004
:It certainly isn't a copyright violation, as short quotes are acceptable in law under the doctrine of gay partners fair use. If you want to put a link in for reference purposes, then go ahead - their site is http://www.m-w.com/ User:Camembert/Camembert
Definition>Definitions
I propose that we organize the definitions in this article somehow. More specifically I think we should use a spectrum with Aesthetical definitions at one pole and Applicational definitions at the other.
Thus we have a "music is pleasing sounds like Bach" defnition, and a "music is anything which is composed, performed, listened to, called, or treated as music is music," definition.
In the middle would be definitions like, "music is organized sound."
ALSO, I propose that we move the page to Definitions of music, plural.
User:Hyacinth/Hyacinth
:Sounds fine to me. The article certainly needs some sort of structure, as I've said before (I'm just too lazy to do it myself). User:Camembert/Camembert
Removed Bipul Kumar quote
I've removed this, recently added, from the article:
"Music is an art of living,a sense of peace."
::Bipul Kumar
I don't know who Bipul Kumar is, or whether his opinion on what music might be is worth noting in the article, but in any case, I don't think a bare quote like this is a good idea. We could probably all add our favourite quotes on what constitute music, but the end result wouldn't be an encyclopedia article. This kind of thing is better suited to http://quote.wikipedia.org/. User:Camembert/Camembert
Social influence on perception of
The "Social influence on perception of" music has no place in the "Definitions of music" article. One's varying perception of something does not necessarily change its definition (if I get drunk music doesn't change, I do). Likewise, one's culturally influenced perception of music is more about the culture and the inividual than music. The more proper formation of this topic is "Social construction of" or "Definition as social". Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:24, 19 Aug 2004
I changed the header to "Social influence on definition of" as it mirrors the first sentence of the section. However, the article is horribly POV in that it presents organization as the only definition worth discussing in full, with the text after that section not being at all devoted to definitions. Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:30, 19 Aug 2004
:After all, the article title is "Defintion'''s'''". Hyacinth/Hyacinth 23:32, 19 Aug 2004
Intro
*"The question of what the art form called music actually consists of is something that is still debated today."
I object to statements such as the one above, taken from the current introduction. The POV of this sentence is that music shouldn't ''still'' be debated today, or that it is unusual that it still is. Hyacinth/Hyacinth 18:30, 4 Oct 2004
List of definitions of music
*Organization
*Art
*Entertainment
*Total social fact
*Sound
*Subjective experience
*Category of perception
*Social construct
*Time/duration
The above are taken from the current music and definitions of music article.
*Form
*Order/regularity/stablity
*Motion
*Pleasure
As may be readily seen, however, none of these "definitions" is sufficient. "Organization" is not music, it is organization. Even if music is "organized" it must be organized something. Art includes music, but is not limited to, as with entertainment. Other things are art, other things are total social facts. There are sounds which are not music, their are subjective experiences not about music, and anything may (or may not be) socially constructed. Not all time is music. Thus none of the items on the above list are definitions, and should not be described as such on wikipedia.
Thus a second list:
*Sounds organized or ordered in time
**"The phenomenon of music is given to us with the sole purpose of establishing an order in things, including, and particularly, the co-ordination between ''man'' [sic] and ''time''."
***Igor Stravinsky, quoted in DeLone et. al. (Eds.) (1975). Aspects of Twentieth-Century Music. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0130493465, Ch. 3. from Igor Stravinsky' ''Autobiography'' (1962). New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., p. 54.
*Art of sound(s)/time
*Entertaining sound(s)
Molino
Molino's position is structuralist rather than constructionist. He (Molino 1975:37) argued that music is a "total social fact [fait social total] is "an activity that has implications throughout society, in the economic, legal, political, and religious spheres." (Sedgewick 2002: 95) "Diverse strands of social and psychological life are woven together through...'total social facts'. A total social fact is such that it informs and organises seemingly quite distinct practices and institutions." (Edgar 2002:157)" (from total social fact). Hyacinth/Hyacinth 08:36, 12 Feb 2005
posted at 5:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home