Why not? Isn't that the point of a thread? Argue away!


The musician can always control conditions to the extent that they fulfill the expectations of his own will and creative intent. The musician cannot, however, control conditions to the extent that his intent will be communicated to all, or any-- the musician is really only capable of shaping sound in a manner pleasing to his or her self. The issue then becomes, does music need a second party to observe it, removed from the original creator, to give birth to it in full? I tend to sway towards the notion that music only occurs in the mind of the listener, since the way we hear and interpret a single piece of music varies from person to person. Often, this will go completely against the intended communication of the artist, but it does not keep the individual from enjoying it on their own terms.

I suppose it could be said that the original musician serves the role as listener as well, for if they don't enjoy the work, what point is there? Although, John Cage's explorations in indeterminacy would likely support my feelings that the composer really means little in comparison with the interpretation of the listener.

Think of it this way. If I put on Merzbow to the average person on the street, they wouldn't perceive it to be music in any way, shape, or form, and disregard any efforts on the part of the creator of those sounds as being productive towards any means other than pure insanity expressed. In this interaction, there is no music, and no amount of coercion by the musician or supportive parties will bring the detractor to believe is to be such. However, put on the same piece to someone familiar with the works and the artist who truly loves and appreciates the work, and he or she will immediately praise it as beautiful and meaningful. Music, as all art, I feel is completely subjective and incapable of being defined beyond one's individual perspectives.

Relevant quotes:

"What we hear is the quality of our listening."
"Listening changes what we are listening to."
"Hearing transforms sound into music."

-- Robert Fripp

The debate here isn't whether there's a sound or not...that much is obvious. The debate here is what makes that sound music...

argh... deleting my post


im tired... yeah thats my excuse. but really, i am

Another definition too is whenever someone percieves it as music.

For example, wind blowing chimes. There is no musician and it is subjective as to whether a listener would consider it music, but if a listener does, then it is!

So: "Anything made with the intent of it being music or being defined by a listener as music."

, I actually did exactly that this year. There's a piece I just never managed to 'feel' and so I hated it. But apparently I played it beautifully.

But I'm tending towards agreeing with Seba.

I've had the same problem with art and it's appriciation. The question, what is great art, was put before me. I figured that art was something that had meaning or significance to its creator. I thought that that was what made it great or worthwhile and that any resultant appreciation that came from it to others was just a bonus, but in no way necessary.

But what Seba has said is interesting. It drove the point home that aesthetics and all forms of appreciation are subjective (at least to my knowledge). I won't deny that I have stopped on occasions and listened to the sounds around me and enjoyed what I heard. It was, like music, an aural appreciation.

Just like the visual arts, we can make what we want from it. I've concluded for myself that there is absolutely no way that I would ever be abled to comprehend what any one particular artwork meant, what it was created for. That is knowledge that remains enitirely with its creator. With this in mind, we can only come to understand any art, including music, to so much of a degree of its creators intentions. So, what we do appriciate is what we can comprehend of it and there is no garauntee that any of that was intended by the creator/performer.

My conclusion (for now), similar to what Keef said, just without the intent. I think even the performer has to hear it for it to be music to them... from my own experience...

but just on that, the piece I performed without liking. It was almost entirely an intellectual performance. I didn't enjoy playing it, I didn't understand the performers intentions but I played it in what seemed to be a logical way. A crescendo here, a ritard there... it worked...

I think that's a nice recap of our conclusions. Thread finished!

excellent point. i think you've hit it there. i think it depends on how specific we are as composers. there is so much to be interpreted though. it will never come out exactly as the composer intends. none of us are the same, which is a great blessing. we're all crafted into unique human beings which gives so much room for personalization and expression.

unless the composer is performing his/her own piece, it will always be unique to every reading.

Fascinating and well-articulated discussion goin on here.

I have but a few things to further the discussion:

Now, I can certainly understand and admit the fact that music intrinsically involves subjectivity on part of the listener (and, I'd argue, the composer), and I can appreciate the following quote:
But is there not a circularity to this definition?

And another question to consider....

Could it not be the case that, although musical perception varies from person to person, there are nonetheless universal musical phenomenon which is common to the musical cognition of all humans alike? That is, couldn't music embrace both subjectivity and objectivity?

-Gabe

I don't think I can answer that. All I know is what I experience and in that way, I can't really speak on behalf of everyone else.

Today, with all the time of my life that has passed, I hear perfect 4th and 5th as a more pleasant sound than a tritone. There are many who would agree with me and if many musical cultures from around the world were studied I'd guess that they would generally think the same way.

It's the nature of many animals including humans to react negatively to harsh or sharp sounds. Using intervals as an example, perhaps the physical nature of a tritone is what makes it a generally avoided interval and similarly of 4ths and 5ths that makes them appear more frequently.

In this way, I suppose there could be something of a objective perspective on music. But then again, this relies on the senses, and any sensory stimulus is subjectively percieved.