I think of more avant garde stuff as a whole different category: like you’re tired of just listening to good music and now you want something weird and interesting that may fail but definitely tried.
You know like a rough indie video game or movie that might not be the most fun but tries to communicate something (to varying degrees of success).
Edit omg reading on, this thread turned into a whole thing. Music people…
Yeah, I mean it’s perfectly valid if you want to listen to avant-garde. No one’s stopping you.
My whole point is that the whole point of avante-garde is to reject musical conventions. That’s not an opinion, it’s literally what avant-garde is.
There’s a philosophical argument to be had about what defines music, and how does it differ from noise or sound?
Some people might say dadaism counts as music, others might say it doesn’t. And that depends on your definition of music.
I’d put it this way:
Does an audio recording of a construction site count as music? Or is it just noise?
Mind you, one can edit the recording and rearrange it into something musical. However, doing this would require an understanding of rhythm, tempo, meter, pitch, harmony, etc. These are the fundamentals of music theory which I describe as a science because they’re mathematics at their core, purely quantitative and descriptive.
They tell you nothing about how to use those concepts together to create “good music.” They simply define the components of music itself. How they’re arranged is up to the artist, and that whole range of expression is the art side of music.
One could argue that music doesn’t need to be melodious or harmonic or rhythmic or any of that. But if that’s the case, then how is it different from noise? Does that make the unedited construction site audio “music”?
I mean that’s valid, I’m not claiming that music has to be defined a particular way, even though if I were personally to define it I would probably include certain characteristics that distinguish it from noise. But I’m not claiming my personal definition is the only valid one.
The whole point of philosophy is to dig into ideas a little further than we ordinarily do. People can have different opinions, and that can stimulate good discussion. At least, as long as people don’t resort to bad-faith argumentation by misrepresenting someone else’s argument or taking other cheap shots like that.
What I mean is, although you say you don’t care about categories, do you consider the sound of a construction site to be music? If so, that’s fine, and I’m curious what your definition of music is. And if not, then I’m curious how you distinguish between noise and music. Is there any defining characteristic that places a collection of sounds squarely in one camp or the other, or is it entirely ambiguous?
To each their own.
I think of more avant garde stuff as a whole different category: like you’re tired of just listening to good music and now you want something weird and interesting that may fail but definitely tried.
You know like a rough indie video game or movie that might not be the most fun but tries to communicate something (to varying degrees of success).
Edit omg reading on, this thread turned into a whole thing. Music people…
Yeah, I mean it’s perfectly valid if you want to listen to avant-garde. No one’s stopping you.
My whole point is that the whole point of avante-garde is to reject musical conventions. That’s not an opinion, it’s literally what avant-garde is.
There’s a philosophical argument to be had about what defines music, and how does it differ from noise or sound?
Some people might say dadaism counts as music, others might say it doesn’t. And that depends on your definition of music.
I’d put it this way:
Does an audio recording of a construction site count as music? Or is it just noise?
Mind you, one can edit the recording and rearrange it into something musical. However, doing this would require an understanding of rhythm, tempo, meter, pitch, harmony, etc. These are the fundamentals of music theory which I describe as a science because they’re mathematics at their core, purely quantitative and descriptive.
They tell you nothing about how to use those concepts together to create “good music.” They simply define the components of music itself. How they’re arranged is up to the artist, and that whole range of expression is the art side of music.
One could argue that music doesn’t need to be melodious or harmonic or rhythmic or any of that. But if that’s the case, then how is it different from noise? Does that make the unedited construction site audio “music”?
I would argue that but I have a very broad interpretation of music and art in general and don’t actually care that much about categories.
I mean that’s valid, I’m not claiming that music has to be defined a particular way, even though if I were personally to define it I would probably include certain characteristics that distinguish it from noise. But I’m not claiming my personal definition is the only valid one.
The whole point of philosophy is to dig into ideas a little further than we ordinarily do. People can have different opinions, and that can stimulate good discussion. At least, as long as people don’t resort to bad-faith argumentation by misrepresenting someone else’s argument or taking other cheap shots like that.
What I mean is, although you say you don’t care about categories, do you consider the sound of a construction site to be music? If so, that’s fine, and I’m curious what your definition of music is. And if not, then I’m curious how you distinguish between noise and music. Is there any defining characteristic that places a collection of sounds squarely in one camp or the other, or is it entirely ambiguous?