The Border between "Muzak" and Music

[chopintod]

OK, get your thinking caps on here, this one's serious:

What is the difference between "muzak" (I heard Bernhard use it and I loved it) and music?  In broader terms, when does the collection of sounds (vulgar sounds, to some) we hear on the radio become music, if ever?  Does time create music?  Can music ever really be considered music in its own time?  Are all classical compositions really music, or is some of it simply sounds and pretty-sounding chords?  Is the "musicality" of something based on aesthetics? science? what?  I have heard a lot of spotted and spread out discussion about this subject, so I thought I'd pull it together.  (If you want a simpler question, answer this: Can "pop" music ever be considered music?  And are the new Doritos really more flavorful?  )

I look forward to all the deep, two page responses for this one.....perhaps Bernhard himself would like to comment on this?  (I got the idea for this thread from one of his responses to teaching....about creating music appreciation)  Look for my response in a day or two...

Terry

[stevie]

'muzak' and popular music are music....simple facts.

[chopintod]

So...you are saying that every song you here, even the random collections of beeps and squeals, can be considered true music?  My definition of music in general is this: A collection of ordered tones and their respective durations and volume, which follow each other in a logical manner, whereby one can discern an intended path with the minimum of three parts: beginning (exposition), middle (development), and end (denouement). 

My question to you (as I refine this in my own mind): is "true" music more?  Or, does "true" music have to contain a message?  I understand that all collections of ordered tones that have a beginning, middle, and end can be, and are, called "music".  However, if this "music" can be considered "art" (there's a term I like!), must it contain a discernable message?  In my opinion (to be elaborated later), most pop music has no true message behind it, and therefore cannot be considered true music.   (And lyrics urging the listener to kill his mother, rape his girlfriend, or ruin his brain with drugs do not qualify as messages.)  Of course, this doesn't mean we can't enjoy them as consumers and members of society; they simply aren't true music.

Terry

[stevie]

random collections of beeps and squeals? i havent heard many songs like that...

music is and intelligible sequence of pitches and/or rhythms

by your definition african percussive drum music isnt 'real music'

pop music has as much of a message as 'classical' music, regardless of the lyrics.

pop music is simply simpler, thats by and large the only main difference.

play a pop song on piano, then play a schubert song.

the schubert song of course will be different, perhaps more complex, but really - the message behind a bunch of 'notes' is entirely subjective and any 'meaning' you get from it is based upon your own imagination and how vividly the music moves you.

[jeremyjchilds]

music is and intelligible sequence of pitches and/or rhythms

Nuff said...after that, it's just all taste...

[bernhard]

Nuff said...after that, it's just all taste...

Er… Not quite all taste.

Consider the game of chess. Moving pieces randomly – or in a different way form the established rules – will immediately be spotted by seasoned chess players as “wrong”, and it is no good to argue that the rules are arbitrary anyway (they are). Sure you could have a game where the pawns moved backwards and the knights would not be allowed to jump over other pieces, and the rooks would change places with the bishops. You could certainly do that. But chess players would argue that it is not the same game.

So ultimately, the rules of the game are fundamental for the pleasure derived form playing the game, since they show us what is possible within the constraint of the rules Humans derive unlimited pleasure from the activity of setting up rules, and then, while behaving according to them, use them to their own purposes. Without the rules, the game would be no fun at all.

In fact, we prize games that display the most complexity with the fewest rules (consider the game of GO, which has only three rules, but which surpasses chess in complexity in many orders of magnitude).

So, when one establishes musical “rules”, it is not the blind  and mediocre obedience to them that impresses us, but rather what the composer can do within those limited circumstances (a bit like that cookery program where two competing cooks are challenged to prepare a delicious meal with only 3 or 4 ingredients – the winner must go beyond just using 3 – 4 ingredients. He must show us what he can do with such limited means).

The difference then is this: Superior music surprises us with what it does within a restrict set of rules. And it does so to the extent that we may be deluded in thinking that no rules exist at all, so unlimited and limitless is the music. Muzak on the other hand, behaves according to the rules, and it shows it.

Now add to that the issue of levels - read about it here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2658.msg22805.html#msg22805
(What is classical music – comparison with wine and sports cars-  models and levels of meaning - classical music is multi level).

And you will start to get an idea of the size of the iceberg of which this is just the mere tip .

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[00range]

In fact, we prize games that display the most complexity with the fewest rules (consider the game of GO, which has only three rules, but which surpasses chess in complexity in many orders of magnitude).

GO? What is GO?

[bernhard]

It's a game.

Have a look here:

https://www.well.com/user/mmcadams/gointro.html

[chopintod]

GO? What is GO?

(from www.usgo.org)

Go is a fascinating board game that originated in China more than 4,000 years ago. Also known as baduk, wei ch'i, weiqi, and igo, it is played today by millions of people, including thousands in the United States. In Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan, it is far more popular than chess is in the West, and professional players compete for large cash prizes. Its popularity in this country continues to grow, more than fifty years after the founding of the American Go Association.

 Two players alternate in placing black and white stones on a large (19x19 line) ruled board, with the aim of surrounding territory. Stones are never moved, and only removed if they are completely surrounded. The game rewards patience and balance over aggression and greed; the balance of influence and territory may shift many times in the course of a game, and a strong player must be prepared to be flexible but resolute.

Like the Eastern martial arts, Go can teach concentration, balance, and discipline. One cannot disguise one's personality on the Go board.

 The game combines beauty and intellectual challenge. It can be played on a traditional, carved wooden board, with black and white stones made from slate and clamshell, or on a paper board with plastic stones. In either case, the patterns formed by the black and white stones are visually striking and can exercise an almost hypnotic attraction as one "sees" more and more in the constantly evolving positions.

 "Good shape" is the highest compliment one can pay to a move in the game of Go. The game appeals to many kinds of minds -- to musicians and artists, to mathematicians and computer programmers, to entrepreneurs and options traders. Children learn the game readily and can reach high levels of mastery.

 

Thanks Bernhard for your response; I agree with you completely.  Music in whole must follow a set of rules (the general definition I gave above); any music not following these rules is rejected outright by the overwhelming majority of people (for example, atonal music).  However, for a set of tones to be considered music, I feel that it must contain some message; some meaning; some extractable *emotion*.

Terry

EDIT: I see you beat me to the GO explanation bernhard.... 

[chopintod]

random collections of beeps and squeals? i havent heard many songs like that...

music is and intelligible sequence of pitches and/or rhythms

by your definition african percussive drum music isnt 'real music'

pop music has as much of a message as 'classical' music, regardless of the lyrics.

pop music is simply simpler, thats by and large the only main difference.

play a pop song on piano, then play a schubert song.

the schubert song of course will be different, perhaps more complex, but really - the message behind a bunch of 'notes' is entirely subjective and any 'meaning' you get from it is based upon your own imagination and how vividly the music moves you.

Sorry if this double post annoys people, but I've been meaning to comment on this...

Note that I'm not saying that all pop music can't be real music.  I am simply asking if some people feel this way.  And, African drum music can be music also, if it elicits a (nearly) similar response in many different people, with respect to emotions.  These percussive songs contain tones (notice tones, not necessarily notes) with set durations, volumes, etc. etc.  And by random beeps and squeals, I mean techno music.  Try listening to Madison Park (ignoring lyrics) and see if you get anything out of it...

Terry

[stevie]

the vast majority of techno music isnt random at all.

there is however a new genre 'noise-core' which you may be referring to, this isnt music of course, it is sound arranging, often it is random, but its all about making interesting sounds, but these arent intelligible in any way - they are and should just be appreciated as sounds.

anyway, you have your definition of 'real music', i think music is music.

also, i dont necesarrily think 'classical' music is superior to 'popular' music in many ways.

'popular' music is SUPERIOR in that it has the level of complexity most pallettable to most ordinary people.

it is music that is simply more ideally suited to appeal to a much wider audience.

[JCarey]

I don't really understand the question. The last I heard, the definition of "muzak" was elevator music. Therefore, there is no border. Muzak is music.

Who has the right to define what is music and what isn't? Who has the right to say that Composer A wrote music, but Composer B didn't? And who has the right to say that Genre X is music and Genre Y isn't?

Once, I was discussing the music of Xenakis, Boulez, etc. with my father, and we came to the question of whether or not it was "music". Since he could see no logical structure in it, he said it wasn't. "It is structure that separates music from noise!" he said. I argued that this wasn't true. After all, since I have always thought that the purpose of any art form was self-expression, if music by Xenakis or Boulez expresses something, it is music.

That is also why I do not believe that there is "good music" and "bad music". We all have different tastes and opinions. And we all have different ways of expressing ourselves. So if somebody's idea of expression is banging out random clusters on the piano, does that make it worse music than, say, Beethoven's 9th Symphony? If somebody's idea of expression is throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas, does that make it worse than a painting by Monet?

This is a topic that can be argued to death.

Best regards,
John Carey

[chopintod]

So if somebody's idea of expression is banging out random clusters on the piano, does that make it worse music than, say, Beethoven's 9th Symphony? If somebody's idea of expression is throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas, does that make it worse than a painting by Monet?

Worse in the popular sense?  No.

Worse in the artistic sense? Yes!

Art by definition cannot be random.  Of course, nothing human-made can be completely and utterly random.  But, if a computer were to take random colors and place them randomly on a canvas in no particular order, would that be art? Of course not!

If a human takes a selection of paints, consciously chooses colors, and splashes them on a canvas in some logical fashion, then that can be art (if the artist has a conscious motive behind it).  A bucket of paint splashed on a canvas with no motive behind it?  Not art.

Technically, the word "muzak" means background sounds.  I am using muzak to designate meaningless groups of sounds others may call music; sounds in the background of our culture and not worth noticing.  Note again that I'm not saying all pop music is muzak, and all classical compositions are true music.  I do think there is a boundary, however.

Terry

PS: I love intelligent arguments like this.     Nothing personal if I disagree with you.

[chopintod]

to bernhard: couldn't you have posted one more to get 4000?   

Have a party or something.

Terry

[JCarey]

Worse in the popular sense?  No.

Worse in the artistic sense? Yes!

I would reverse them. I think it's worse in a popular sense, but not worse in an artistic sense.

There are flaws in your agument. First of all, technically, by your definition, improvisation isn't art. And we know that isn't true.

I believe that art is about expression. Not about structure or order. Art can most certainly be "random" if it expresses something. Sure, it might not be everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it isn't art.

Art by definition cannot be random.  Of course, nothing human-made can be completely and utterly random.  But, if a computer were to take random colors and place them randomly on a canvas in no particular order, would that be art? Of course not!

Since computers are not capable of expression, no, it isn't art.

If a human takes a selection of paints, consciously chooses colors, and splashes them on a canvas in some logical fashion, then that can be art (if the artist has a conscious motive behind it).  A bucket of paint splashed on a canvas with no motive behind it?  Not art.

Well, yes. You basically just repeated what I said.

Never mind. I misunderstood what you said.

Best regards,
John Carey

[chopintod]

Of course improvisations can be art: they have a purpose and a method behind them, and the artist is attempting to elicit a certain response in the listener.  But randomly banging on the keyboard? I don't think that's art.

In the same way, tossing paint on a canvas (improvising) can be art, if it has a feeling behind it.  Dumping paint on a paper (banging randomly) isn't art; it has no feeling.

I hope you see my point; reply if you're still confused.

Terry

[00range]

Thanks Bernhard and Chopintod, interesting stuff.

Are you Go players?

[JCarey]

Of course improvisations can be art: they have a purpose and a method behind them, and the artist is attempting to elicit a certain response in the listener.  But randomly banging on the keyboard? I don't think that's art.

In the same way, tossing paint on a canvas (improvising) can be art, if it has a feeling behind it.  Dumping paint on a paper (banging randomly) isn't art; it has no feeling.

I hope you see my point; reply if you're still confused.

Terry

Either you missed my point, or we must simply agree to disagree. As I said, if somebody is expressing themselves by pounding out random notes on the keyboard or throwing paint on a canvas, it is art. You say, "it has no feeling", but this is not always the case.

[chopintod]

Of course we can agree to disagree! 

Terry

[stevie]

JCarey - whether you call the compositions of boulez or xenakis 'music' or not doesnt take away from the undeniable fact that they are art.

as i stated in an above post, sound-composition and arrangement is art.

whether they are music or not is another matter, and i would have to learn more about their music to give an informed opinion on that.

[JCarey]

JCarey - whether you call the compositions of boulez or xenakis 'music' or not doesnt take away from the undeniable fact that they are art.

as i stated in an above post, sound-composition and arrangement is art.

whether they are music or not is another matter, and i would have to learn more about their music to give an informed opinion on that.

Well, yes. You make a point in separating "music" from "art". Perhaps art is the term I should have used in place of music.

I remember coming across a humorous quote by Boulez, that went something like this:

"Music exists in the avant-garde, or not at all."

[Derek]

It seems to me music is simply : that category of sound which is distinct from speech, but which is created by humans, for humans, using the voice or devices crafted by humans, for the purpose of entertainment.

There are some who believe ambient noises can be music. What nonsense.

[chopintod]

There are some who believe ambient noises can be music. What nonsense.

Exactly.

Terry

[prometheus]

Music is simply the organisation of sound in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm.

This definition seems to hold for everything, 4'33, speech, ambiant sounds, atonal music, Xenakism etc. It's by far the best one I have seen. All others fail at some point.


Art is a lot trickier to define. The best one I have come up with is: 'Intellectually though-out self-expression'.

Humor is the hardest thing to define. I don't find jokes funny but I do laugh when a random politician is talking and is trying to make a point or avoid the question.

[al]

It seems to me music is simply : that category of sound which is distinct from speech, but which is created by humans, for humans, using the voice or devices crafted by humans, for the purpose of entertainment.

Too complicated surely?  IMO, music is: the product of human creativity where sound is the medium.

Meaning ambient noises (I'm assuming you're talking about stuff like bird noises etc., rather than ambient music) can be music, if they're recorded by a person. 

[musik_man]

Jcarey,  you can't express yourself through something random.  Something random by definition has no structure, no expression, and no purpose.  If it were to have any of those things, it wouldn't be random.  Randomly hitting keys can have no emotional or artistic value.

[stevie]

Jcarey,  you can't express yourself through something random.  Something random by definition has no structure, no expression, and no purpose.  If it were to have any of those things, it wouldn't be random.  Randomly hitting keys can have no emotional or artistic value.

tell that to my 2 year old son 

(i dont have one)

[Derek]

Too complicated surely?  IMO, music is: the product of human creativity where sound is the medium.

Meaning ambient noises (I'm assuming you're talking about stuff like bird noises etc., rather than ambient music) can be music, if they're recorded by a person. 

I would dispute this. I would say that a sound recorded by a human is only music if what was recorded was music to begin with.  Music begins and ends with humans (maybe aliens too but we haven't met any yet).  The reason I say this is because it is a vast category of sound that spans all cultures and times.  Anything else, such as ambient sound,  speech, etc.  is very distinct in purpose and intent from music. That is why I reject the notion silence can be music and ambient noise can be music.  Ambient noises can be pleasant, and musicAL, and the word "music" can be used poetically to describe it: "the music of the wind in the trees"  but that does not mean ambient sounds ARE music.

To try to stretch the concept of music beyond what it is only hampers communication, and perhaps makes the person stretching the definition feel profound. Both of which, I'm sure most of you will agree, is pretty pointless.

So if you like to use the word "music" poetically, that's just fine, so long as you know what you're doing.

[chopintod]

How about this question:

It seems that many "artists" and "critics" reject popular songs flat out, as far as art is concerned.  (I.E., Coldplay's songs can never be art....just entertainment...etc.)  However, do you think that time can change some of these songs into pieces recognized as art?  Or will music written to be "pop" music always remain pop music?

Terry

[stevie]

How about this question:

It seems that many "artists" and "critics" reject popular songs flat out, as far as art is concerned.  (I.E., Coldplay's songs can never be art....just entertainment...etc.)  However, do you think that time can change some of these songs into pieces recognized as art?  Or will music written to be "pop" music always remain pop music?

Terry

coldplay's music is art.

those critics are ignorant, and wrong.

sure times will change, but idiots will always remain.

there are only 2 things which are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the first one...

[rc]

Humor is the hardest thing to define. I don't find jokes funny but I do laugh when a random politician is talking and is trying to make a point or avoid the question.

You know, I believe that humor is one of the most effective forms of communications ever. Anything laughable is only funny if there's some grain of truth behind it. You can tell somebody the most horrible truth, and so long as they laugh they will accept it.

Now, back to the original topic: what is and isn't music.

This is very interesting to me. I'm right at the end of 'The Great Pianists' by Schonberg. It's a pretty popular title (I came across it through this forum). What strikes me is how the author illustrates the various aesthetic values throughout the ages. The romantic period having its focus on the personal interpretation, whereas our current age puts the importance on the composers original intentions (textual fidelity).

This could go on forever, and so far it has... What I'm interested in is the differences in how we value music.

I think there are a few givens in what people like in music. The most obvious attraction is the nostalgia effect - everyone attaches meaning to what they grew up with. It's almost irrelevant what we qualify the music by, if you were having a good time with that particular music in your mind it will become linked. I see this as an absolute fact, and so I see popular radio (or MTV) as a very powerful influence on peoples tastes - what they play will be what people associate with that age. That is what I would consider 'muzak' (If that means what I think it does) - where marketing has more to do with acceptance than the actual music being played.

On the tangent of Coldplay: I think they've already gone stale - their new songs too closely resemble their old songs. In the ultimate test of time, they will disappear.