Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Justin wrote:

Kiku mentioned any humanly organised sound as being music.

Not that I really want to engage in a huge music discussion and go into details, but I feel I have to clarify this.
The Blacking quote was 'Music is humanly organised sound' and not 'any humanly organised sound is music'.

The difference is that in Blacking's quote there is the potential that any sound that humans have organised could be music. It is a potential and not a must that because humans have organised it - it is music. For example the siren of an ambulance is humanly organised - but that is to draw attention.

This broad definition - as I see it - was meant to avoid exactly what Jim is pointing at: People judging what is NOT music. The reason for this is problematic is that we are all conditioned in our perception. If your starting point is that 'music is humanly organised sound' then you would rather be thinking: this music appeals and talks to my soul; this music I don't understand - and not what is and what is not music.

I think Kel's question was good. It IS interesting to think about what these 35,000 year old flutes were used for. Music as we know it today or some other purpose. Thanks for asking this question, Kel.

Kiku Day wrote:

Justin wrote:

Kiku mentioned any humanly organised sound as being music.

Not that I really want to engage in a huge music discussion and go into details, but I feel I have to clarify this.
The Blacking quote was 'Music is humanly organised sound' and not 'any humanly organised sound is music'.

[...]

This broad definition - as I see it - was meant to avoid exactly what Jim is pointing at: People judging what is NOT music.

Hi Kiku
I guess I got the wrong end of the stick when I read how you first wrote it:

Kiku Day wrote:

In the study of ethnomusicology, music is usually defined as 'humanly organised sound'

Starting to make more sense now.
Interesting that it excludes non-humans. But then I suppose it would be biomusicology (or even geomusicology) rather than ethnomusicology

Karmajampa wrote:

That Pygmie singing sounds similar to the Gamelon.

Kel.

And even more similar to Philip Glass. It kind of bugs me that Philip Glass mentions the Gamelon influence in interviews frequently but to my knowledge never said anything about the Baka pygmies. Field recordings of them were around since at least the '70's. On the CD that I have if you chose one of the tracks out of context and played it for someone familiar with Philip Glass but not the pygmies, they'd think it was Philip Glass, at least at first. I know because it happened when I played it for a co-worker of mine once that I knew disliked Philip Glass.

Yo Justin,
         O.K. You've changed the subject from what is music or not music to what is musiCAL and what is not. I choose to take that as a yielding on the previous discussion.
          In the name of not boring everyone to death this will be my final post on this thread, I'll give you the last word. My parting thought(shot) is that if you continue to try to trap the essence of music with your intellect you will ultimately come up empty handed.  The spirit of music lies beyond analyses. beyond predictability, beyond possession and beyond control.  If I'm taking a hot bath the last thing I want is somebody standing there explaining all the scientific principals involved in heat transference etc. Science takes us to the many, religion takes us to the one.     
                      Take care my friend and watch out for those 10,000 chattering monkeys(smiley face).

Last edited by Jim Thompson (2009-06-30 12:08:18)

Hi Jim

Jim Thompson wrote:

Yo Justin,
         O.K. You've changed the subject from what is music or not music to what is musiCAL and what is not. I choose to take that as a yielding on the previous discussion.

Well, in the case of the flute and whether or not it was used for music, as for example is called into question for the older find of a bear bone with a couple of holes in it, if we simply say there is nothing which is not music, it might not help us really understand the artifacts since then there would be no artifact that is not for music, in that all inclusive sense. So I think an exclusive definition has some value, at least to help us communicate about the possible use of the artifacts. But I think every definition has its different uses in different contexts, or based on different agreements. What I explained as musical, is of course just one of my personal ways of looking at/describing things.

Jim Thompson wrote:

In the name of not boring everyone to death this will be my final post on this thread, I'll give you the last word. My parting thought(shot) is that if you continue to try to trap the essence of music with your intellect you will ultimately come up empty handed.

Perhaps that is the reward - the fruit of the inquiry - the empty hand. Or perhaps a confirmation of what one already knew.

Jim Thompson wrote:

The spirit of music lies beyond analyses. beyond predictability, beyond possession and beyond control.  If I'm taking a hot bath the last thing I want is somebody standing there explaining all the scientific principals involved in heat transference etc. Science takes us to the many, religion takes us to the one.

And yet, in understanding how the water is made hot, one might be able to take cold water, heat it by applying what one has learned, and then, forgetting everything, bathe in that hot water. Although I believe it to be ungraspable by the intellect, I believe recognition and cultivation wholly possible. Therein lies the practicality.

I believe Jim that I agree with you entirely.

While searching for the modern art monkeys I came across this interview I think applies also perfectly to music though she is talking of painting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JfYjmo5OA

I recently listened to a documentary in which Sting was being monitored in an MRI scanner to seed how his brain activity changed when thinking about particular music. There was a lot of left brain activity and when he was prompted to improvise there was a lot of activity in both hemispheres. It was very interesting though I don't recall all the information that was discussed.
After they had been at it for a while Sting started to become annoyed with the analysis of his brain processes and just wanted to go play music.
for me also, after sitting listening to Sting's music on the doco I began to lose interest in what was being observed happening in the brain and wanted to go play some music.

Kel.

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Science takes us to the many, religion takes us to the one."

Of course, on a less exalted level religion does take us to the many. For example, the Encyclopedia of American Religion  lists 2,630 so-called faith groups flourishing in the U.S. and Canada alone. Even allowing for the exigencies of tax exemption, that does seem to be multiplying entities beyond necessity. And I suspect never have so many taken so few to the one.

On the other hand, one of the major goals of contemporary particle physics is to unify the various fundamental forces in a Grand Unified Theory which could offer a more elegant understanding of the organization of the universe. In that important sense science does indeed take us to the one (assuming one exists).