At what point does "music" stop becoming music?

At what point does "music" stop becoming music?

during the bass solo

when the sound is not being 'arranged' by anything

music
[myoo-zik]

noun
1.
an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
2.
the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.
3.
musical work or compositions for singing or playing.
When it stops being that

When the composer doesn't consider it music.

this, it is not music when it is not presented as such

When it is fucking sucks

If your friend records that man jack-hammering the ground and shows it to you, is it not music? It is being arranged, of course.

>Field Recordings

/thread

shit definition

4'33 by John Cage is the only non-music music there is.

you can also listen to any sound as music; on that level the intent (or existence) of the composer is irrelevant

no it's not, lrn2fluxus

Any purely sonic creative expression devoid of rhythm, melody, or harmony is simply sound art.

>and color
What's that exactly?

when u cant dance to it

it doesn't

>rhythm, melody, harmony
Sound collages/atonal/avant garde/lowercase/noise/musique concrete isn't music by this definition.

Fucking pleb

Its like adding more expressive/interesting details into your musical ideas, like adding spices to a dish I suppose.

Idk I study music so it makes more sense to me

When you stop interpreting it as music.

this

...

When it stops giving the listener a musical experience. So I'd say it depends on the listener. The mere act of a listener judging sounds as being "musical" or "non-musical" makes the listener have a musical experience.

The act of composing means that it is intentional and thus whatever is created is inherently music

Examples of such added details?

define musical experience

>studying music

bet you have the most bland taste ever

When I don't get it.

You mean more like adding little arpeggios here and there (and other things in the score itself) or more like adding various samples in the background to make the song mroe interesting (and other things in the production)?

Or something else?

not music

...

holy fuck that %fat

No, because it's not silence. The point is that the audience's noise would make the music

lmao brainlet

when it's not sound or the artist making it says that it isn't music

music, like all art, is and should be determined solely by intention

Shit definition
Music is all arts whose medium is sound and silence

Everything can be music is the nu-male way of dealing with the definition of music. All current definitons seem arbitrary so they just say everything is music to avoid actually having to define it.

I'm pretty sure that they refer to tone colour, i.e. timbre.

Fourth post best post
Having been to a contemporary classical music festival, I have to say that any strict definitions of music at this point are useless and futile. It's better to just enjoy yourself.

>music, like all art, is and should be determined solely by intention
So if I fart in a microphone and loop that 2-second sound for 45 minutes to make an album and called it music, would that be music just because I, the artist (which really just meand "the creator") said so?

If we record a bird singing and it turns out being a nice melody, would that not be music just because there wasn't an intention (despite the end product clearly being music)?

If some factory machinery moved in a rhythmic fashion, making some cool rhythms that constantly change with its advancing through its process, it would essentially make a song (since the same thing would play each time the process is started), despite the complete lack of intention of its maker.
If its maker made a video of its process from start to finish to advertise the machine, and people listened to its audio for its cool rhythms and sounds, would that not be music because of lack of intention?
What if someone isolated the audio of the video and sold it on vinyl?
Would it now become music because of the "injected" intention (despite it being the exact same thing)?

Seems like an arbitrary definition to me.

Factory machinery recordings were used on some industrial records, as I'm sure you're aware. Birds, definitely on field recordings. Either way, definitions are arbitrary in most cases. I would draw the line at 4'33".

music:
acid house
birds pooping
mozart
coltrane
just a buzzing noise for five seconds followed by a blank CD
a blank CD
not music:
90's tangerine dream

>Factory machinery recordings were used on some industrial records, as I'm sure you're aware. Birds, definitely on field recordings.
I know, and my point is that they're clearly music despite not being made with the intention of making music.

I think music is whatever someone (either the creator or the listener) considers music.

But of course it's not black and white.
Something can be considered music despite barely having any musical content and/or artistic merit, but it won't be "as music" as an actual song that follows rules made to leverage our instincts to have certain emotions triggered by certain rhythms, melodies, and harmonies.

I mean, an opera composition and a microphone recording sone traffic can be both music in their own way, but it's clear that one is "more music" than the other, or in other words, one fits the definition of music much better, while the other is stretching it.
And everything else in between.

Some people considered Throbbing Gristle the wreckers of civilization and not musical, even though there have been far more extreme musicians before and after they emerged. Just goes to show that not everything is back and white.

What some people think is irrelevant.
I just posted my own opinion on what can be music and what can't.
What other people call music and non-music is part of their own definitions, which don't necessarily have anything to do with mine.

Thank you for this conversation. Apparently, there are still people who want to salvage what's left of this board.

Harsh noise is my favorite genre

Thank you as well.
It does in fact get frustrating when almost every time you post something seriously and try to discuss a certain subject, you're met with shitposters, trolls, or you're just ignored.

I mean, I understand it (we're on Sup Forums after all), but it would be nice to have a normal discussion once in a while.

At what point do "you" start becoming not a part of your mom?

They're just recordings

It never does, the universe is music.

at no point of your existence

Is there another place to discuss music that's fairly active? We could try making actual threads here, but I'm almost certain that this board is done for. It has been bad, but never this bad.

Were they that bad? I stopped at Tangram, do they really get even worse?

The only places I know of are the niche subreddits and regular bulletin forums, but I don't really like those for different reasons.

I also hear about discords, but I have yet to find a decent one.
Also I don't like how it's basically just chatrooms, so discussions tend to be one-liners and other low-effort posts.

Should we keep trying to salvage Sup Forums then?

Well, that's what I'm trying to do.

If I had a better place I'd have left Sup Forums by now.

yes

as if studying music makes you have bad taste. You're probably someone who thinks good music comes from musicians who don't know theory and that it should "just come from the heart man".

I assume you mostly listen to popular rock?

I think it stems from the sentiment that musicians who studied, get constantly taught the importance of the rules throughout their schooling years, so they end up liking things that are conforming to them, rather than music that aren't (which sounds wrong to their conformity-trained ears).

I'm not saying it's true for all musicians or at all, but this is how some people see it.

So if I enjoy to listen to silence (which I really do), is it music to me?

it's not silence though

I don't think I've ever noticed this in formally trained composers though.

Whenever you stop assigning a sound/s you hear as music.

What do you mean by formally trained composers?
If you mean people having a career in composing music, then they're different from just music students, which is what we're talking about here.

What do you mean?

music doesnt exist, its just an idea in your head, without language you couldnt pinpoint what the fuck a music is

Stop running away from definitions.

"everything can be music" is a definition that came about in the 60s, pleb

I hope you're not implying that there weren't nu-males in the 60s.

By that definition audiobooks and speaches would be music

shutup faggot, ugly fuck faggot autistic

owned

This.

'music' is a label applied to a work in order to classify it and compare or criticise it under suitable criteria.

"everything can be __________" is post-structuralist wank perpetuated by humanities students because it's the only -ism they could understand. It's a cop-out argument that people use to ruin discussions. It made sense a long time ago and helped pave the way for a lot of cool work, but now it's used as an excuse for absolute bullshit and we all need to move past it.

Being an idiot and posting random buzzwords is worse, though user-kun

All the people saying that art is defined by intention are viewing art as a very autistic process. Art should be considered by context, is not a individual operation, it is always a social process, so its 'being' should be determined by the place in history it was produced.

This

>so its 'being' should be determined by the place in history it was produced
Only when that is the context that the work relies on. 'Fountain' certainly needs that, for example, but that doesn't mean every work does. Work can also be viewed in alternative contexts and through subjective lenses.

'Should' is a dangerous and retarded word to use in the context of your argument. Also, Art is a philosophical pursuit, music is a medium - they aren't the same subject.