There are both subjective and objective viewpoints. Definitions should be as objective as possible. Sometimes there may be convergence between those two because of learning.

LG
www.synestesia.com

@weslldeckers said:

I think music is:

any sound, sounds or combination of sounds that are made by someone and which give some form to, that part of ones creativity that needs an outlet through sound(s).

Not accepted. Music is created in a certain context and also listened in a certain context. If those don't match there may be a learning process or not. So what is "music" is subjective matter (to the listener).

LG
www.synestesia.com

If that's the case... there just can't be a valid definition of what music is.

I think my suggestion describes that sounds are music as soon as the maker of those sounds, makes them out of creative neccesaty(sp?). In other words: the urge to make the sounds, is enough to qualify the sounds as music, altough it could be possible that no one, including the maker, would classify them as music.

I tend to agree with the idea of weslldeckers. But maybe my own general definition would be:

Music is the organization of sound for artistic purposes.

Which is rather vague, but probably has to be. Anything more specific becomes an axe-grinding agenda on the part of the person doing the definition, for example the competing definitions of Atonalism, Serialism, Neo-classicism, Hip-Hop, Psychobilly, etc.

@William said:

I tend to agree with the idea of weslldeckers. But maybe my own general definition would be:

Music is the organization of sound for artistic purposes.

Which is rather vague, but probably has to be. Anything more specific becomes an axe-grinding agenda on the part of the person doing the definition, for example the competing definitions of Atonalism, Serialism, Neo-classicism, Hip-Hop, Psychobilly, etc.

Psycho Billy!!!! I have to listen to that very soon! Hahaha!

I've forgotten what music is.

The sound of a sweetly hit 7 iron approach shot that rolls to within a foot of the cup!

[H]

Music is...FUN!

Dave,
Far too cryptic.
You'll need some rampant elucidation to describe this one!

Regards,

Alex.
[[:|]]

Music is fun because:

1. You work really hard for a long time for very little money.

2. The little money you're owed is paid very very slowly.

3. The cost for equipment is huge.

4. Staying up on the latest software is very expensive.

5. Your car breaks down constantly which now effects your food supply.

6. Landlord is thrilled with your career and constant tardy rent.

7. So many fun things can't count them all!!!

8. Almost forgot! Everytime you land a great gig it falls through.

Dave,
I have few more.

1. When you get asked at the last minute to fill in, and you turn up to find the drummer has the world's biggest drum kit, and a 'Dante' gleam in his eye.

2. When you look closer, and see the Bass player has pencilled in 11 and 12 on his amplifier.

3. The singer wears more makeup than Barbara Cartland, and smells stongly of Lavender.

4. The drummer is skillful enough to play three rhythms at once, none of which have any relation to the tune you're currently playing.

5. You're told at the end of the gig, that the money will be less, because the publican wasn't totally satisfied.

6. You turn up to an orchestral rehearsal to play new music, only to find you have three notes in the first bar and tacet for the remaining 4 movements.

7. The part you're playing consists of ten minutes of noodling, and no rests.

8. That nice rastifarian Bob Marley fan next door buys a new stereo, and gets a new job which means he'll be at home at the same time you're writing that sweet tender 2nd movement.

9. The new conductor turns up with Serge, his partner, and you discover the season's programme has been changed to one long tribute to Fay Wray, and Marlene Detirich. (Serge is wearing a pink t shirt inscribed with the logo, 'Village People for President')

10. The chamber orchestra is 'in the way' so you get moved to the car park, out of sight of the guests.

11. The wedding couple, in a last minute change, want to perform their waltz to the elegant melody of 'Slam that muvver down', and you have no idea how it goes.


Regards,

Alex!


[H]

Brilliant funny stuff Alex and God bless you for busting bass players on inhuman volume levels. They have really given guitar players a run for the crown.

DC

I have to conclude from all this a new definition:

Music is masochism.

@lgrohn said:

Let me put down some provocative theses:

1) There is nothing that could called "music theory". What is called "music theory" is just a set of conventions and rules. So Music theory" in not a THEORY. It is just a useful set of rules. And there are hundreds of sets of rules in different cultures. The word has historical background. The was "practice" and "theory" (rules). The word "theory" is used in the sense that a man on the street used that word. In sciences that word has another meaning.

2) There is nothing that could called "music analysis". What is called "music analysis" is just analysis of the score but not analysis of experience. The latter chould be called as "music analysis". If one can detect the tonal mode or find Schenker level based on the score etc. that doesn't not have much to do with listeners's experience.

Lauri Gröhn
metacomposer
http://www.synestesia.com">http://www.synestesia.com

(1) I think it's important to realize that music theory doesn't seek to impose rules upon music, but rather try to explain the rules that composers do follow. Obviously, it is not a science, but most of what can be learned from it holds true in the music of the baroque and classical masters like Bach and Mozart. For example, Music theory (or music as theory states) is built around dissonances and thier resolution. It is the fundamental rule. And I, as many others I suspect, believe that for whatever reason, we want these resolutions. Therefore with music theory, one can learn how to make his audience want to hear something and either provide it to them or deny it, thus controlling how the listener feels.

(2) I think that music analysis is less analysis of what we experience than it is analysis of why we experience what we do. For example, in the final movement of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique symphony, the listener likely hears the music as unsettling, longing, depressing, etc. Music analysis shows the this is due, in part, to long sharp dissonances with few and very short resolutions. Surely, one would not experience or be moved the music if he or she were to simply analyze the piece without ever hearing it. However, analysis could be used as a tool to teach young composers how Tchaikovsky was able to get his point across so that these students may learn to be able to do the same.

I would have to agree with Williams when he says, "Music is the organization of sound for artistic purposes" for the fact that it is concise and as close to a definition as is possible. However, I think that definitions of such things as music and art in general are useless. The only way to understand music,and art is to experience them because the purpose of these things is to express that which cannot be expressed in words. No matter how well written, a definition canot begin to explain the inexplicable experience of music.

I agree to some extent with your previous post, but have to admit that lgrohn's total denial of theory is what I believe more basically. For example, the Pathetique symphony is mentioned, and it is a good point that you can intellectually determine something is going on with certain harmonies, orchestration, contrapuntal practices, etc. that seem to correspond to emotional states. But the problem is that you could have another piece of music that was a piece of junk imitating the Pathetique and it could have these exact same musical devices in a similar context. So where does that leave your analysis? Something else created the real musical effect and it cannot be analyzed. So in that sense analysis is a game of conventional knowledge that is played, usually by professors and music students. But what a composer who creates a great lasting work does is something else entirely. It reminds me of all the attempts to explain consciousness, including those by the most prominent scientists. They never explain it - they only describe it in more or less detail.

I agree; there is something intangible there that makes it what it is. However, I was just saying that theory and analysis can be valuable tools in helping to understand music, not that they provide us with the entire picture.

@DanimalSnacks said:

However, I think that definitions of such things as music and art in general are useless.

And a lot of the time, I do not understand why people even bother. One thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the scientific explanations that are offered up over art in general. There is always someone who wishes to find a way to give all this a scientific route - almost a get-out clause for narrow thought.

Art and music shouldn't need any written or spoken explanation - it either works or it doesn't. Techniques and ergo, the study of them are mere details in my view. They suddenly turn into trickery - and then you get plagiarism a plenty and ' I've seen or heard this before' quotes.

Scientific explanations do not allow for magic - magic is is not a word this type of thought recognizes. Art effects different sensory areas of the brain where logical scientific thought processes are impostors.

There is an important place for science - but not in music or art.

or golf.

[H]

@hermitage59 said:

or golf.

[H]

Oh bugger! Now you've made me come back! [:D]

I should have said - 'the effect of music or art'.

Good game yesterday - got in before the rain hit. Had a great talk afterwards about property development with my local Yank friend. Now, not even that is scientific - all to do with wants, needs and desire - bit like art! [:P]

I'm with Paul on this one.

The study of technique has one purpose. To improve our own standard, and provide the tools to achieve what we perceive as our potential. This is not to be confused with scientific analysis, because we write to invoke emotion.

Film music is designed to complete an emotional picture, and whether it's successful or not, that is its intention. And we only have to consider the blockbusters, good or not, for which a particular 'type' of music is employed. We had a discussion elsewhere a while ago about themes, and how audience acceptability was important, with many types of film generated with 'similar' types of music, and pictures to convey a 'genre'. Science Fiction, suspense, thrillers, adventure, patriotic, and romance all have generally common themes and melodies, because they're deliberately written to complliment that genre. and successful films from recent past are the reason.

Movies like ET, Alien, Star Wars, Star Trek, all have identifiable melodies, but the bulk of harmonic and instrumentation choices in a genre, sound remarkable similar. This is a specific decision based on appealling to a certain demographic group. There are exceptions, and we remember these because they ARE exceptions. (2001, Terry Gillam's Brazil, Clockwork Orange)

And then there's classical music. Why do we listen, and why does a piece we enjoy depend on whether we're in the mood to listen that particular piece?
I strongly advocate study of form, harmony, melody, part writing, etc, but not for a cold analytical assessment, rather an opportunity to attempt to write into my music the emotion i'm trying to invoke in the listener. Some will feel one thing, some another, but this has little to do with cold objective assumption, and everything to do with the almost indefineable, emotions.

And even then, i'm working in 'genres'. The genres of happiness, amusement, anger, despair, sorrow, determination, pride, etc.

To study is, IMHO, important, and that takes by neccessity, analysis. But to examine scientifically, as one would examine a motor, or other mechanical device, and write with that mindset misses the indefineable that some have you have already spoken of. That difference between ordinary and great What is the difference? The ordinary fails to invoke emotion (alright maybe irritation) and the great give us an emotional experience. Our 'scientific tools' as composers are emotions, and there's no complete scientific explanation for those, whatever the musicologists or scientists may tell you.


Regards to you all,

Alex.

Paul,
So what was the score and who won?

You made a good point though, about your conversation with your american associate.
Needs, wants, desires. About as close to analysis as music and art should get.

Regards,

Alex.