"D. Stephen Heersink" wrote:
>"The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
>unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm,
>and timbre" is the definition the American Heritage Dictionary gives for
>"music." I think this definition "fits" most people's conceptual scheme
>of what makes music "music" and which distinguishes music from noise.
Doesn't do it for me, quite. Anyway, suppose "most" people agree to it,
what word shall the rest of us have to describe this thing we enjoy? I
suggest an intentional definition, something along the lines of "music is
the production and arrangement of sound in a way that suggests intent other
than signals, alarms, or strictly verbal transmission; dist. from noise,
the accidental or incidental propagation of sound." If you like that
definition, it's copyright! so don't even think about putting it in your
next dictionary unless you pay me big bux. ;-) I like it because it's
inclusive in that it allows for a lot of what we might call noise were
it not intended by the composer to be in the music. And that would
extend even to Cage's 4'33". Certainly we would have to agree that Cage
"intended" to produce 4'33" would we not? Therefore by this definition
it HAS to be music! A jackhammer produces noise, UNLESS there is a
performance of 4'33" going on within earshot.
I might refine it by adding that just as noise can rise to the level of
music, music can also become noise, which suggests that there is an element
of agreement between the propagator and the propagatee! Your neighbor
practicing trombone in the next apartment might think it's music, but to
you it's noise. There was a case about that on Judge Judy the other day,
come to think... Unfortunately my refinement allows for anyone attending
a Schoenberg concert to consider it unwanted sound and therefore noise!
So I don't know that it's a good refinement.
>Duodecaphonic compositions do not always have melody, harmony, or both,
I must disagree, because one definition of harmony is "the combination
of simultaneous musical notes in a chord." That is the definition we use
in theory classes. 12-tone compositions certainly have chords. Another
definition is "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", from the same
dictionary. It is a much more subjective definition, because what pleases
me may not you, &vv. So it's no help here, if we are trying to define
music. Take melody: "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as
an aesthetic whole." Or "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement
of sounds." These, taken also from Webster's Collegiate, are less
satisfactory. I'm only willing to accept "single tones organized" as
useful in all contexts. It is not a requirement for music. I consider
Varese's Ionisation to be music. It has no melody in the first sense, and
as for the second, "sweet" is not a word I would use to describe that piece
(though some may use it ironically.) The trouble with definitions is that
you can always show how they don't do their job, or conversely offer them
up as proof that you're right and someone else is wrong.
>...and therefore do not always fit the shared conceptual understanding
>of music. Simply ordering all twelve chromatic pitches, or the sharing of
>the use of similar instruments, aren't sufficient to merit duodecaphonic
>compositions with the appellation of "music."
That's true at times, as others have argued here. That's why I think
intent has to be part of the definition. A harmonic fifth sustained over
time could be produced by a power transformer and it wouldn't be music.
But if LaMonte Young holds a fifth for 45 minutes and names it, it's music.
I'm arguing that music can't be defined in terms of aesthetic value (that
is an independent issue), but only by intent.
>Duodecaphonic compositions that do not fit may still be interesting in
>their own right, independent of what is music, qua music. It is not
>inappropriate to identify duodecaphonic compositions by the name of
>"duodecaphonic compositions."
But they are clearly intended to serve a purpose similar to music, so what
is the value of creating a separate phylum for them?
Chris Bonds
|