Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Jim Thompson wrote:

So when Stockhausen includes factory noises and locomotives in his music, do the industrial sounds become musical because of the change in intention or were they musical in the first place and only Stockhausen knew it?

I won't presume to have "the" answer, but I could propose one: The sound was not music in itself (although it could have been perceived as such). But when Stockhausen arranged it with musical intent (putting it in the context of his choosing etc), it became music (although some may not have perceived it as such).

Jim Thompson wrote:

If I imitate John Coltrane we would all agree that that is musical

Depends how well you play Ha ha (but half serious).

Jim Thompson wrote:

but if I imitate a bird apparently some would feel it is not music. So exactly where would you draw the line between bird calls and music?

Myself, I'm not sure I could say birds are themselves not musical. Their intent (/how their mind is during sound creation) might come under what I could term musical. Again, those lines are becoming blurred. But I think that's OK. Then, the person imitating the birds... hmm... totally thinking aloud here but I feel like if the person is not focusing on the sound itself he is making but on the mere anticipation that this will trick the bird, something in me says that is not music. But then, I might feel similarly that a violinist who is not "in" the notes but in the goal of getting applaud or some such thing, is also not playing music. So evidently I have a rather peculiar view of music.

ABRAXAS, that was interesting comparing summoning animals to summoning gods. I was thinking more of devotion, as in an offering from the heart, rather than trying to get something, though, I guess summoning is also very significant in religious music/sound making. I wonder, perhaps there is a difference between the summoning of birds and gods in that summoning the birds, they are merely copying sounds in a realistic way from the environment, wereas the forms of music I am thinking of, including perhaps summoning gods, may involve either abstract music (not directly from the environment), or, stylized representations of the environment. In that case there may be an act more creative or intentional, perhaps, in the abstracting of sound, or the stylizing of it. Art, after all, is generally not mere copying. And in that vein it might be interesting to note what was found next to the flutes in the same cave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels


Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

I actually think the intent of John Blacking with 'humanly organised sound' is to keep it open and wide enough because something that isn't music to me might be so for you. It is, of course, the basics of the basic in defining what music is. Traffic noise, although it is humanly created is then not music according to Blacking as it is not organised. One could say it is a cacophony of man-made sounds. Music is much more - but what such a simple statement like Blacking's also tell us it, that our own narrower definition doesn't have to work for everyone.
You are right, Justin, shouts of army sergeants yelling commands at their squad are certainly humanly... but it is language, which is yet another category again as it has words that convey a certain meaning. I think that is outside Blacking's intent with music as humanly organised sound. But perhaps that is music for some - I don't know. Let me clarify that I certainly don't want to be a taking part in another definition discussion, so if any of you don't like Blacking - well that is ok and sorry to bring him in!   He is a very interesting read though - and had something of an interesting life too.
This reminds me of something funny. My composition teacher when I did my MFA at Mills College, Oakland, Alvin Curran made a piece for ferry horns, hog horns and car horns and lots more... you can call that traffic noise... but that was highly organised where the delay was calculated and everything... ahhhh.... music!

So, I think I would like to share some photos he sent me last year. This guy is crazy and organising crazy sounds.... music... really - I don't know! But he is fun!
This picture is called AC waits for signal

This photo is called AC final chord

Last edited by Kiku Day (2009-06-29 15:33:17)

Even if interpreted psychologically, most intentional sound can be said to have some manipulative purpose - whether to subjectively alter the state of mind of the listener or player, pay homage to or beseech some imagined spiritual forces, or to attract or repel other creatures (birds and beasts or groupies, fans, and/or critics and paying customers).

Where does unintentional sound fit in beyond being an accidental byproduct. Even when experimental noise is made it is made to see where it goes and what the effect is on the listener, usually in search of "happy accidents" where something remarkable comes from it. It is either annoying, pleasing, neutral, or some combination of the above. The wild-card is fun, but still ultimately intentional.

An old man goes deaf working around heavy machinery all his life, while some experimental musician makes a name for himself recording and repackaging the same sound, then some consumers purchase that (and go deaf listening to it as art).

I once recorded the first 8 minutes of Fritz Lang's film THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE which takes place in a factory - there is no dialogue, just a blasting churning loud machine noise for 8 minutes - I boosted up the volume in a freeware audio program, added nothing but volume, gave the mp3 a name and sent it to an "Industrial" music radio program (run by people from a well-known Industrial record label), who played it on their show and praised not only my creativity but my audio-engineering skills. True story.

Last edited by ABRAXAS (2009-06-29 15:40:04)

Justin wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

So when Stockhausen includes factory noises and locomotives in his music, do the industrial sounds become musical because of the change in intention or were they musical in the first place and only Stockhausen knew it?

I won't presume to have "the" answer, but I could propose one: The sound was not music in itself (although it could have been perceived as such). But when Stockhausen arranged it with musical intent (putting it in the context of his choosing etc), it became music (although some may not have perceived it as such).

Jim Thompson wrote:

If I imitate John Coltrane we would all agree that that is musical

Depends how well you play Ha ha (but half serious).

Jim Thompson wrote:

but if I imitate a bird apparently some would feel it is not music. So exactly where would you draw the line between bird calls and music?

Myself, I'm not sure I could say birds are themselves not musical. Their intent (/how their mind is during sound creation) might come under what I could term musical. Again, those lines are becoming blurred. But I think that's OK. Then, the person imitating the birds... hmm... totally thinking aloud here but I feel like if the person is not focusing on the sound itself he is making but on the mere anticipation that this will trick the bird, something in me says that is not music. But then, I might feel similarly that a violinist who is not "in" the notes but in the goal of getting applaud or some such thing, is also not playing music. So evidently I have a rather peculiar view of music.

Justin,
     Let's say for the sake of discussion that we have established what is music and what is not. Now that we've got it all in its' proper place what is the value of this distinction. What can we do that we couldn't do before we got it sorted out? What advantage do we have that we didn't have before? I'm saying that establishing what is music and what is not is a pointless ego oriented activity that serves absolutely no purpose. Have I overlooked something?

Tairaku wrote:

We had a piece in the festival I curated where birds were actually playing Les Pauls. It was incredibly popular, we had over 9,000 people come through the exhibit. Was it music? Yes.

You can see a pic of it here: http://www.mofo.net.au/

WAAAAAAY back in the 19-teens lived a man named Luigi Russolo whose manifesto The Art Of Noises, discussed the use of "everyday sounds" as music.  He built instrument to mimic sounds of motors and trains, etc.  That is early 20th Century, about 100 years ago.  Today there is a strain of music using phonography as its material of choice.  Yes people listen to it, and consider it to be music. 

For example:

http://www.michaeladoherty.com/recordin … 20Sky.html
http://www.and-oar.org/

nyokai wrote:

If you change perspective and think of music as sound that you LISTEN to as sound, then it doesn't matter why somebody or something is making the sound. It becomes a non-issue.

(Kiku mentioned Alvin Curran. I think his Maritime Rites, which is mainly found sound plus some additional input from musicians, is one of the most beautiful pieces of music of the 20th century.)

I know a guitarist who doesn't play guitar as much as he is making sound, shaping it, etc.  I find this true with a lot of great musicians and composers - it is the sound that matters, the basic experience, and not... the theory, the instrument per se.

I hope that makes sense.

Michael wrote:

I know a guitarist who doesn't play guitar as much as he is making sound, shaping it, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-GPdnfbyI

As Michael wrote:

- it is the sound that matters, the basic experience, and not... the theory, the instrument per se.

edosan wrote:

But what a mean, vicious thing to do to a defenseless Steinberg...

What do you think about this one, Ed? not one of his best solos but still....
My supervisor from Mills, Fred Frith, ohhhh.... these English gentlemen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WSeZZV … p;index=80

This thread got me paying attention to music / sound.

Then i listened to the $.99 download from amazon of all 50 + minutes of "For Birds , Planes. and Cello by  Miya Masaoka with cellist  Joan Jeanrenaud

I'm having a good day !

Kiku Day wrote:

edosan wrote:

But what a mean, vicious thing to do to a defenseless Steinberg...

What do you think about this one, Ed? not one of his best solos but still....
My supervisor from Mills, Fred Frith, ohhhh.... these English gentlemen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WSeZZV … p;index=80

I generally enjoy what Frith does. He's a whack-job, but a very 'organized' whack-job, plus he can play pretty much anything from
the 'canon'.

Now this fella—Marc Ribot—he really can twist it hard....

     http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/LOy8FhHc0kU/default.jpg

     

Kiku - Great Link!

Tiraku - Great Story!

I was the first (and only, and last) kid on my block with with a Henry Cow LP collection.

Last edited by ABRAXAS (2009-06-30 00:42:36)

Jim Thompson wrote:

Let's say for the sake of discussion that we have established what is music and what is not. Now that we've got it all in its' proper place what is the value of this distinction. What can we do that we couldn't do before we got it sorted out? What advantage do we have that we didn't have before? I'm saying that establishing what is music and what is not is a pointless ego oriented activity that serves absolutely no purpose. Have I overlooked something?

Hi Jim
Well, I certainly wasn't looking for a definition or black and white boxes. But I do enjoy being in a discussion about it. It's a subject which I find very interesting, and I enjoy hearing how other people see it and think about it. For me, discussing it is both a way to know how others think, and also to challenge my own ideas and understandings. I think that's healthy.

In this case, at least my own reason for following this inquiry was for Kel's interesting question of whether this old flute was surely used for music or not. We know it was used to make sound, but the question I believe was more towards the intention behind the sound. That's always interesting for me, and central to my own musical activity.

As for what possible advantage such inquiry could have, well, I can only speak personally. Kiku mentioned any humanly organised sound as being music. I wouldn't go that far (like I mentioned, the beeping of a traffic signal for example), but, I don't totally disagree with such a wide statement. When I got into the free improvisation scene, I was challenged to broaden my listening, to use any sound in music. Any sound at all (albeit with intention). For me that had great value, even in improving my expression of traditional music, by paying attention more to the minutest details in tone colour and space, perhaps in a more open way. It also gave me more and wider appreciation when listening to certain sounds or musics. Had I defined all that away as being "not music", I may not have gained those benefits. So that served a good purpose.

Another aspect important to me, as I mentioned, is intention. And also the way of playing without wanting to get anything. I may at times link those in with my own understanding of what I think "music" is. I wouldn't want to "tell" anyone that that is what music is or has to be - I know it is an extremely narrow definition! But I may have such views at times. This view may be observation but you question what purpose it has and that it may be pointless. For me this has purposeful value if it encourages me to go into the music more, and away from a mind which grasps, or tries to get something. For me that is the most important part of shakuhachi, and the way the playing and the spiritual training are combined. Of course I would not limit this to only shakuhachi! I could say the same for devotional singing, or, any music in fact.

An example which I remember is some beggars I heard. This you may count as totally subjective so better to treat it as just a story. Anyway, some beggars I heard were singing with their intention set on getting money. I did not hear music. I heard quite noisy sound. Another beggar came - blind - and I heard the most exquisite music (before I noticed she was blind). As far as I could hear, her intention was not on getting money. She was wholly in the music. The two phenomena were entirely different. Well, you'll just have to take my word for it - but anyway I find such quality of musicianship inspiring.

Something that struck me most about free improvisation was its great potential in this area, the way it almost forces you, if you are to stay "there" in it, to be sensitive and open, and attentive to the moment. Selfishness seems to ruin it. Here I am thinking of improvising with other/s. And I found this also applying to the audience. Same of course for more regular music, but I found something in the unpredictability of the free improv aided concentration, almost forcing you to be attentive to every moment (where it can be easier to loose concentration or go into "automatic" with a more predictable or familiar melody).

Ambi wrote:

I'm not sure if I go that far, but I particularly like the music of the Baka pygmies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWEpnHZ9 … re=related) which for me is the epitome of "primitive" music

Thanks Ambi, that was fantastic!

ABRAXAS wrote:

I once recorded the first 8 minutes of Fritz Lang's film THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE which takes place in a factory - there is no dialogue, just a blasting churning loud machine noise for 8 minutes - I boosted up the volume in a freeware audio program, added nothing but volume, gave the mp3 a name and sent it to an "Industrial" music radio program (run by people from a well-known Industrial record label), who played it on their show and praised not only my creativity but my audio-engineering skills. True story.

That's so funny! How about you - did you view it as "music"? Wasn't there some story about a monkey being trained to splash paint on a canvas and they passed it off as a modern art masterpiece? Interesting times. One part of me laughs at people reading great musical/artistic intention into something where it does not exist. And another part of me delights in an openness of mind or heart which may let them find beauty in randomness and nature's self-expression.

Last edited by Justin (2009-06-30 02:11:39)