So when does "music" actually stop being music?

So when does "music" actually stop being music?

Never

idc...

loaded question that you might actually want to read about rather than asking about it on a chinese scarfmaking forum

when i wanted it to be

Insightful as always, never change Sup Forums

if music is a collection of sounds organized through time
then any sounds is music because it is true that organization is inescapable
and the failure of one to comprehend the arranging method behind any given collection of sounds
is no evidence of non-musical merit
this is what is meant by the music of the spheres

When the musician stops playing.

I misread that as shartfucking.

Could a field recording w/ a microphone attached to the crack of my ass while I shit and wipe my ass be considered music?

It's a combination of intent and intervention. A field recording has intent, but no intervention, and is not music. A sneeze has intervention but no intent, and is not music. A musician could take a recording of either and thereby make it music, but in either case, they would be introducing the absent intent or intervention since the act manipulating sound requires both.

So you're saying if they are lacking one of those 2 then they are just components of music until edited?

Yes, and potentially just as enjoyable as music. I love whale sounds but I would hardly call them music. Granted, I suppose they come close since they really are a kind of "song", but unless we can establish whales enjoy music and actually sing, it's just noise, like a dog barking.

it is music, all considerations notwithstanding

The definition I like to use is organized sound. Someone purposely did said thing to make it, so it's music. Nature isn't music until someone does something like record it. Recordings are used a lot in music for ambience and feeling, so yes Merzbow and field recordings are music.

Yeah. It would suck but it’s still music

it's a stupid question though

value judgments ultimately aren't necessary

>frogposter know jackshit about noise
as expected

>Nature isn't music until someone does something like record it.
Or listen to it. Recordings don't define music.

that's a pretty arbitrary distinction

>frogposters are mentally retarded subspecies, completely unable to gasp the valuable content of these (shit)posts
Sup Forums is more your style, I think

I mean no one was there to purposely have a hand in how it sounded. Yet again, the definition is organized sound (I should've added purposely made or distorted by humans). That means that no it's technically not. No one is there conducting that stuff. It's random sound. Recording it does change it into music. Even if there is no effect and it's just how it sounds when you're there.

when the artist stops presenting it as music

Noise isn't music. If there isn't patterns or counting it is by definition not music but sound.

failure to comprehend

I look at it like a spectrum between Silence/Chaos and Music/Order, where some sound is closer to one side or the other, and so sound that is closer to Music/Order is music and sound closer to Silence/Chaos is non-music. I would also say that music closer to Absolute Music/Order is more MUSIC than other music that is less close, and that this is what makes some music better than other music, or part of what makes it better.

By definition it is not music.

This

when it stops playing

Definition of music is arbitrary you retard

>A field recording...has no intervention
But the person recording picks when to start and when to stop recording, and the placement of the recording device does play a determining factor in which sounds are picked up and how they sounds will replay. That sounds like intervention to me.