Well, to each their own, I love somewhat every gerne of metal but I can't bare hardcore and rap, of which I think its just random noise.
Where do we draw the line between music and noise?
- Thread starter Froggy Slayer
- Start date
As far as I can remember from my music theory classes, the types of vibrations of a medium (air, in our case) are technically defined as one of sound, rhythm, or music.
Sound occurs in nature with or without human intervention but does not follow rules defined by a human for the sole purpose of generating sound. General noise belongs to this category, but also bird songs are sound despite sounding nicer than white noise: they are just a more focused sound with less entropy than white noise. The noise of industrial machinery, despite being created by human-made instruments, is just sound because the rules by which it is produced are not designed with the explicit purpose of producing sound (the goal is to construct whatever the industrial machinery is building).
Rhythm is a repeated sequence (or superimposition of sequences) of sounds which is human-produced with a purpose (usually because it appeals to humans). It is thought that primitive humans developed rhythm before music (they danced to the sound of drums setting the time), but it could be just a theory. Anyway, the main characteristic of rhythm is just repetition: there is intent in how the sequence of sounds is constructed, but the rules are simple - just repeat it for a while.
Music is any sequence (or superimposition of sequences) of sounds defined by humans according to rules more complex than just repetition, and those rules are also entirely defined by humans for no other purpose than producing the sounds. Often the sounds come from specifically designed "musical" instruments, but everyday items or naturally existing objects can be used too. Music can comprise rhythmic parts, and often involves sequences of sounds that each have a clearly dominant resonant frequency (i.e. notes), but it doesn't necessarily have to rely on notes.
So, as far as I know, the only "line" that is technically drawn between music and noise is whether the sequence of sounds was produced or defined by humans with some specific intent.
The OP's question in fact is very similar to another one - "in painting, where do you draw the line between art and just a random bunch of lines on a canvas?"
The seemingly random bunch of lines, if it was produced by a human with intent, is still defined as art.
Now, of course, there is also a subjective part of this - after all, not all art/music is good art/music, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion.
I personally find heavy metal very appealing, but I hate Latin-American music like samba or salsa. I don't know why, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I just don't like it and find it annoying.
Sound occurs in nature with or without human intervention but does not follow rules defined by a human for the sole purpose of generating sound. General noise belongs to this category, but also bird songs are sound despite sounding nicer than white noise: they are just a more focused sound with less entropy than white noise. The noise of industrial machinery, despite being created by human-made instruments, is just sound because the rules by which it is produced are not designed with the explicit purpose of producing sound (the goal is to construct whatever the industrial machinery is building).
Rhythm is a repeated sequence (or superimposition of sequences) of sounds which is human-produced with a purpose (usually because it appeals to humans). It is thought that primitive humans developed rhythm before music (they danced to the sound of drums setting the time), but it could be just a theory. Anyway, the main characteristic of rhythm is just repetition: there is intent in how the sequence of sounds is constructed, but the rules are simple - just repeat it for a while.
Music is any sequence (or superimposition of sequences) of sounds defined by humans according to rules more complex than just repetition, and those rules are also entirely defined by humans for no other purpose than producing the sounds. Often the sounds come from specifically designed "musical" instruments, but everyday items or naturally existing objects can be used too. Music can comprise rhythmic parts, and often involves sequences of sounds that each have a clearly dominant resonant frequency (i.e. notes), but it doesn't necessarily have to rely on notes.
So, as far as I know, the only "line" that is technically drawn between music and noise is whether the sequence of sounds was produced or defined by humans with some specific intent.
The OP's question in fact is very similar to another one - "in painting, where do you draw the line between art and just a random bunch of lines on a canvas?"
The seemingly random bunch of lines, if it was produced by a human with intent, is still defined as art.
Now, of course, there is also a subjective part of this - after all, not all art/music is good art/music, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion.
I personally find heavy metal very appealing, but I hate Latin-American music like samba or salsa. I don't know why, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I just don't like it and find it annoying.
Ah, that's just classical conservatory types. They don't even consider Jazz composers to be "serious" composers. Which is a viewpoint I have absolute contempt for. Jazz is every bit as complex and artistically viable as anything from the Classical realm. Don't get me wrong, you can learn a lot from these guys, but take it all with a grain of salt.Tragedy said:
Many of the great European composers lifted melodies straight from their respective nations folk music, but the guys that teach in these conservatories seem to have no respect for their own nations homegrown music. I don't get it. Um, this might be mostly an American phenomenon though.
Sorry if this is coming off a bit harsh, these conservatory teachers rile me up a bit.
I consider this to be music but many people disagree.
So I can only assume it's entirely subjective.
So I can only assume it's entirely subjective.
All real instruments produce broad spectrum sound. That is, you get all frequencies from any real instrument but some frequencies are much louder than others. No real instrument can produce a pure tone. Therefore, your definition means that all actual, played music is not really music.Tragedy said:
I think you're conflating how we've decided to write music down (the 12 tones) with what music actually is. Music is not defined by the 12 tones and composers often call for things that fall outside of common notation.
This is the only reasonable answer. What makes something art is the intent of the creator. Here's Google's definition of art:shadebreeze said:
1) The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
2) Works produced by such skill and imagination
So those screams were not art when they were made, but they became art when the band recorded them for artistic purposes. Cage's 4'33'' is certainly art.
If you want to say the band's recording of screams is art but not music, fine but I think that's a silly distinction. I think any art that's made up of sound is music (or partially music for multimedia stuff).
Nah, they aren't THAT bad. Even the requirements to enter the conservatory is to play at least 1 piece from a composer of our country and most of them use folklore. We also have a Jazz and Pop department. Only the really experimental stuff gets them riled up.bluepotatosack said:
Froggy Slayer said:
Music is expression. You cannot draw a line in how you perceive things. You can simply choose to avoid it
Alright, that's pretty cool. I just have a friend who's going for his masters in composition, and one of his assignments was to analyze a Jazz composition and compare it to what "serious" composers had done. The language they used was just a bit insulting. It's good to hear that your professors are a bit more open minded than that.Tragedy said:
Is there any sort of rhythm to it? Any at all? Tada! It's music. Doesn't necessarily have to be good music, mind you, but anything with a rhythm is technically music, just as how technically Twilight is a novel (or a pony, but that's another topic entirely).
The thing is, I can kind of see why that would be seen as music. It has a very strong rhythm to it, even if there is little melody to it. Saying that it isn't music would be similar to saying that a marching snare drum solo isn't music.Loop Stricken said:
You should check out Merzbow [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya3JH2kJH94] if you want some true mindfucking.
It's entirely subjective I think. Music is art through sound, and as art is expression, I would define music in its broadest sense to be expression through sound (Jesus, that sounds pretentious). The sound of a car revving isn't expression, but if you were revving it intentionally... Why not?
Read the case called Jacobellis v. Ohio. The matter at hand was about the obscenity of pornography instead of the legitimacy of music, but the question posed is the same: At what point does the general mass draw the line on the various extremes?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Potter Stewart
So, in other words, it's all a personal examination.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Potter Stewart
So, in other words, it's all a personal examination.
Music doesn't even have to involve noise, John Cage's 4:33 is an extreme example of this. It can be transcribed as music and the performance is subtly different each time, but doesn't require any instrumental skill.
OT: I'm ashamed of anyone who managed to say that music becomes just noise if they don't like a particular style. Music is a subjective performance & even if you don't like a song, that just makes it bad music in your opinion.
Structure, repetition.
Noise, true actual noise does not have this.
This is the primary reason when I hear people say dubstep is just random noises I smirk a bit.
I don't know if its because I play music, or what, but I can pick up on most repetition or patterns like that that and while dubstep does tend to use abrasive and seemingly random sounds, they still function as part of the beat, and repeat themselves.
Noise has no pattern, at least not an intentional one. Which isn't to say you can't enjoy it for any number of reasons, but it's really not music in the traditional sense.
Noise, true actual noise does not have this.
This is the primary reason when I hear people say dubstep is just random noises I smirk a bit.
I don't know if its because I play music, or what, but I can pick up on most repetition or patterns like that that and while dubstep does tend to use abrasive and seemingly random sounds, they still function as part of the beat, and repeat themselves.
Noise has no pattern, at least not an intentional one. Which isn't to say you can't enjoy it for any number of reasons, but it's really not music in the traditional sense.
This is a slippery slope, but here goes. Music should be considered music when it carries beat and tempo at some regular degree or in some manner which can be expressed as on-purpose to create a form of melody or rhythm or something like that. It is not down to how bad the singer is. If it sells, that means people think of it as music even if the singer sounds horrible, like Bob Dylan. Black metal, death metal, or ANY metal may sound to people like Grim McDarkDoom Horror-House on BloodManor Lane, but it's still consistant insofar as I've heard. People don't rock out to actual random noise. They rock out because they've found something in the sounds they hear that appeals to a personal aesthetic of their own mind. It's the Tetris effect, in that the sounds melt like honey in the brain to become agreeable to them. Okay, metal's more like hard liquor, but you get the idea!
In signal processing theory noise is considered anything that interrupts, corrupts, or delays information from reaching it's intended target. When applied to sound this definition is usually expanded to any sound that isn't intentionally created for someone to hear. So those recording's of people screaming can't be considered noise because they were made with the primary intention of being listened to.
Now that doesn't necessarily make it music. Whether it's music basically takes us back to the old "what is art" debate. Though music does usually possess some sort of basic structure.
Now that doesn't necessarily make it music. Whether it's music basically takes us back to the old "what is art" debate. Though music does usually possess some sort of basic structure.
Well, not quite.. but you can get close.FalloutJack said:
Generally, I do prefer music to have structure but at the same time I don't think it needs one to count as music. I think any sound which is designed to be listened to for pleasure is music, regardless of whether it achieves that objective through rhythm or through sonic texture.
Maybe this is an autistic trait, but I think I could just listen to some sounds all day long. The texture and the atmosphere of a sound can invoke emotion without necessarily being part of a structured song, and any definition of music which disqualifies that source of pleasure is incomplete in my opinion.
I think, largely due to the limitations of non-electronic instruments, we've become too obsessed with the idea that creating music is about composing and arranging a song from the fixed sounds of those instruments. I don't think it has to be though, and I think all electronic music (not just ambient music) could benefit from a greater focus on creating beautiful and interesting sounds as well as simply putting them together.
Not that I don't love a big melodic synth song, but I think the principle holds up.
I'd say the answer is the same as "What's the difference between Folk and Country music?"
The answer? It depends on who's listening.
It also has a huge cultural connection and what people grew up with. Imagine what people 400 years ago would have said about Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." If they didn't kill you for blasphemy or being the wrong religion, they'd probably say it's a lot of noise.
The answer? It depends on who's listening.
It also has a huge cultural connection and what people grew up with. Imagine what people 400 years ago would have said about Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." If they didn't kill you for blasphemy or being the wrong religion, they'd probably say it's a lot of noise.