Aha! You don't hear anything in some music so it is empty. Other people do so they're empty too! What's best, you don't like it so you are not empty. And with that mentality you could go even further: you listen to music you consider to be emotional and soulful, so that music is emotional and soulful. And because you listen to it you are a person with great emotions and soul. So in other words: if you don't understand other's peoples taste it's because they are empty and lack soul, and you are the person to judge that because you listen to good music.
Fantastic philosophy, I'm going to use it as well. :)
I am not saying that I am perfect, or that I am qualified to judge others music and that what I think is good is good and what I say is bad is bad. I am merely saying that there is empty music and empty listeners, to ignore that is to be blind.
I think Aaron Turner says it better than I do (look at my signature if you wish.)
"That’s what takes place when a song is written: You see something that isn’t there. Then you use your instrument to find it."
- John Frusciante
Hehe, I'm going to end it here as it's way too easy to go extremely off-topic. I might possibly agree that there are many people who might by certain criteria be considered empty. But there's no way music can be empty, it isn't even conceivable to create empty music. Just like a tree falling in a lifeless environment could not possibly create any sound because sound is the experience of vibrations in the air, any sound created can not result in empty music because music, with it's own set of properties, is the product ofindividually converted experiences of sounds, processed in the brains of anyone experiencing those sounds. In other words: a piece can be objectively in harmonic minor, in the key of Bb and using a syncopated rhythm but it cannot ever be sad, happy, enthralling, engaging or empty of itself.
Which is one of music's great strengths as this allows everyone to have his own ideas, emotions and interpretation with his song. The individuality of music could not exist if the emotion was physically present in the sound.
That's totally amazing, I don' think there's any fluff or showing off and even if there is I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd love to be able to play like that.
The dude flat out can play.
I saw a guy a couple years ago do two hand tapping with an acoustic that was just as amazing. Just goes to show you there are hundreds of talented guitarists out there playing in there bedrooms and working day jobs and there's still alot of crap on the radio.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
You got it, Cnev. He is one amazing talent. I think the discussion of whether we liked the performance or not misses the point. The guy can PLAY. AND, he is a "nobody" (meaning, he is not a famous guitarist). Perhaps this guy isn't interested in playing professionally, or maybe he just hasn't gotten the lucky break. Heck, it might just be that he doesn't have the right "look". I know there is no way I have the time and desire to come anywhere close to his talent - my hat is off to his skill.
it isn't even conceivable to create empty music
You've obviously never seen John Cage's 4'33 performed live :)
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
Indeed, the boy can play!
That's an "Elvin Bishop sittin' on a bale o' hay" kind of video.
in other words...
"He ain't good lookin but he sure can play!"
Rock On!
Ron
King: well, that brings us to what constitutes music. Personally I believe silence without context is silence, not a rest. And a piece without notes or rests is no music but sound. Or the lack thereof, in this specific case. It will become music if there would be an actual note in it to give the rests meaning, and as soon as one note is given it's no longer empty.
Oh, do I need to pay someone if I want to cover that song? :D
Like Cage's 4'33".
I think I'm beginning to understand why I like your pieces. I knew I did, but not why.
Cool.
King: well, that brings us to what constitutes music. Personally I believe silence without context is silence, not a rest. And a piece without notes or rests is no music but sound. Or the lack thereof, in this specific case. It will become music if there would be an actual note in it to give the rests meaning, and as soon as one note is given it's no longer empty.
Oh, do I need to pay someone if I want to cover that song? :D
Yes, you do have to license it if you want to perform it. And it's been covered many times, from performances by orchestral groups to being included on punk albums.
Legally, it is a piece of music.
According to Cage, who speaks from a much higher position of authority on the subject than you or I do, it's music.
According to numerous music critics it's music.
According to many professional conductors it's music.
"What is music?" is an interesting question to ponder. Certainly in the case of 4'33 it's a question that becomes the point of the composition.
"Notes" aren't required for something to be music, since there are plenty of percussive pieces out there that have none and are accepted as music.
I think the proper way to think about music is that it's a discursively defined catagory that requires contextualized explication. It is something that exists in the interaction between performer and audience, not something that exists independently of either.
That's why, in my mind, it's so hard to define what music is independent of the context of performer and audience. For any definition that someone comes up with there will be some large group someplace that points to something that doesn't fit that definition and say "well, umm, excuse me but that's music too!" Which is why, I think, so many languages lack a term for music even though music still plays an important role within the cultures that gave rise to those languages.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
Kingpatzer wrote: I think the proper way to think about music is that it's a discursively defined catagory that requires contextualized explication.
Ok, where's the damned dictionary? :shock: :lol:
Margaret
When my mind is free, you know a melody can move me
And when I'm feelin' blue, the guitar's comin' through to soothe me ~
4'33 is pretentious rubbish, calling it music is ridiculous :roll:
As for licensing - do I have to pay royalties for performing it with my backside between bouts of flatulence?
As for the legal aspect, doesn;t that get complicated real fast? If I would 'play' it a bit slower, would it still be a cover or a new song in the same genre? When am I performing his song and when am I just being quiet for some time in front of others? Can you sample it? If I record my own song, is that mine or am I just overdubbing 4'33?
"Notes" aren't required for something to be music, since there are plenty of percussive pieces out there that have none and are accepted as music.
Sorry, my bad. What I mean is some kind of sound. A rest is only a rest because it seperates sounds, you can't start or end a piece with a rest. If there are no sounds there are no rests. And if there are no rests or sounds there is nothing. Nothing can't be music because nothing is nothing, and nothing else. My best shot at a definition: music is sound (re)produced with the primary intention of (re)producing music. Which would mean that you can't know if any sound you hear is music or not unless you made it yourself and are consciously aware of your intentions. Note how the word itself is used in it's definition. :D
By the way, with all due respect to Mr. Cage, but I don't do the authority thing. I don't just accept some opinion I don't understand just because he is somebody. And while I appreciate people trying to make a statement I do believe he, with all his apparant musical prowess, could have written a slightly more... exciting song. Personally I can handle poor performances and bad compositions as long as there is a real message. But if you start with this then just write a book or some. With words, preferrably. You could just as easily argue 4'33 is a juggling act without balls or a man selling books without much succes.
4'33 is pretentious rubbish, calling it music is ridiculous :roll:
It's not hard to find someone saying the same thing about everyone from Bach to the Beatles.
It does not make a work less important.
4'33 is music. It is recognized as such by composers, performers, orchestral directors, music critics, music publishers, national and international courts, and audiences.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
As for the legal aspect, doesn;t that get complicated real fast?
Doesn't most IP law around music get complicated real fast? If I play the notes G G G G, am I stealing from Rogers and Hart becuase that's how "Night and Day" starts?
"Notes" aren't required for something to be music, since there are plenty of percussive pieces out there that have none and are accepted as music.
Sorry, my bad. What I mean is some kind of sound. A rest is only a rest because it seperates sounds, you can't start or end a piece with a rest. If there are no sounds there are no rests. And if there are no rests or sounds there is nothing. Nothing can't be music because nothing is nothing, and nothing else. My best shot at a definition: music is sound (re)produced with the primary intention of (re)producing music. Which would mean that you can't know if any sound you hear is music or not unless you made it yourself and are consciously aware of your intentions. Note how the word itself is used in it's definition. :D
By the way, with all due respect to Mr. Cage, but I don't do the authority thing. I don't just accept some opinion I don't understand just because he is somebody. And while I appreciate people trying to make a statement I do believe he, with all his apparant musical prowess, could have written a slightly more... exciting song. Personally I can handle poor performances and bad compositions as long as there is a real message. But if you start with this then just write a book or some. With words, preferrably. You could just as easily argue 4'33 is a juggling act without balls or a man selling books without much succes.
As I've got a background in epistemology, I want to address on little thing before going on: appeal to authority is a valid method of obtaining propositional knowledge. It is a fallacy of logical argument, but we aren't constructing an argument. In propositional matters, particularly those around definitional questions in specific subject areas, authority should be regarded as valid unless there is an argument to the contrary. At least, epistemologically speaking. And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that :)
Cage's point in 4'33, besides trying to get the audience to ask themselves the question of "what is music," is that there is no such thing as silence in a performance. There is always sound -- from ambient noise, to audience sounds, to unintentional sounds from the performer. Cage's view is that those are all just as much a part of the musical experience as the intentional sounds are.
Much of his compositional work focused on aleatoric and indeterminate music -- music where the outline is fixed but the specifics are left to chance.
Certainly there's an element of performance art to Cage's work. But it is also the case that the entire work can be captured correctly on a musical score.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
According to Wikipedia (hehe) Cage's goal was to have the listener hear the sounds in the room itself, that those sounds were the music. If so, then would the music not change with every performance, totally randomly? How can you legally protect a random sound?
