Using Words To Describe Music

[colcifer]

Those of you who are among me zero readers will know that I (sometimes) blog about music and will have already seen these links but I thought the topic would make for a good TB discussion so I decided to start a thread here (sorry for the run-on).

A few weeks ago I was sent an promo release of an album so that I could write a review of it but I never published an article. As a rule, when I get sent a ***** album I opt to write nothing rather than try to come up with 400 words on how much it sucked but this was different. The album (Solitary Pleasure, the new release by James Leg from Black Diamond Heavies) is great but it's ineffable. I was thinking about the futility of trying to write about this album and music when I decided to write this series of articles. The question the first article asks is, in what ways can music be defined (and by extension, discussed), if at all? Two links to the article are below, this should be a great thread if we keep it civil.

My site with no ads: Using Words to Describe Music Part I: Initial Challanges « Colcifer
Blogcritics with ads and changes made by an editor but a comments section that people might add to: Using Words to Describe Music - Blogcritics Music

Don't be shy; I want to know what yall think.

[hrodbert696]

Honest initial reaction: if you're going to present yourself as a writer, don't misspell "Challenges" in your title.

Content-wise, I will say as an educator that opening with a dictionary definition is a hoary old cliche that I ban from student papers. Either your readers know what the word means or they don't, and if they don't you can just tell them without quoting the dictionary. Your critique of the dictionary definition seems more like a quibble than a substantive point; I would have thought that "ordering sounds" includes the act of producing the sounds (how can you order what does not exist?) and the "temporal relationship" between sounds includes silences - spaces of time without sound. That does still leave the John Cage thing open when you have only time with no sound at all, but to me that was always like arguing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. 4'33" is an amount of time sitting at a piano not playing it. Next!

So, having been all harsh, I will say that the larger point is a good one and one that bothers me. As Billy Joel sang, "There's a new band in town but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine." I generally find music reviews to be the most frustrating form of reading in existence -- no matter how hard the reviewer tries, I still come away with no idea what the album actually sounds like.

[colcifer]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Honest initial reaction: if you're going to present yourself as a writer, don't misspell "Challenges" in your title.

Content-wise, I will say as an educator that opening with a dictionary definition is a hoary old cliche that I ban from student papers. Either your readers know what the word means or they don't, and if they don't you can just tell them without quoting the dictionary. Your critique of the dictionary definition seems more like a quibble than a substantive point; I would have thought that "ordering sounds" includes the act of producing the sounds (how can you order what does not exist?) and the "temporal relationship" between sounds includes silences - spaces of time without sound. That does still leave the John Cage thing open when you have only time with no sound at all, but to me that was always like arguing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. 4'33" is an amount of time sitting at a piano not playing it. Next!

So, having been all harsh, I will say that the larger point is a good one and one that bothers me. As Billy Joel sang, "There's a new band in town but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine." I generally find music reviews to be the most frustrating form of reading in existence -- no matter how hard the reviewer tries, I still come away with no idea what the album actually sounds like.

Thanks. As for the spelling, there's always one that I miss and it bugs me to ****.

[Dirk Diggler]

I agree with my hero Frank Zappa and his very famous statement:
"Talking about Music is like Fishing about Architecture".

You could easily exchange the word Talking with Writing.

Also I feel the need to include a favorite line from Packard Goose:
F#*k all them writers
With the pen in
Their hand (dah dah dah dadah)
I will be more Specific so they
Might understand

Dirk

[mambo4]

I belive it was "...like dancing about architchture"

Anyhoo, to me the only effective way to describe how specific music sounds is to rerference similar sounding , but more popularly known stuff, and genre conventions.

[Lady Kayri]

Interesting. Problem is that oft we describe music in terms of how it exists in mainstream Western Culture, and those terms don't always apply to music produced in other parts of the world. "Ordered Sounds" - does this include discordant music? And as you point out, then there are 'thought provoking pieces' like 4'33" - which I have heard some people, both musicians and listeners, who will argue whether that piece actually qualifies as music or not. Birds don't plan their songs, there is no thought as such to their calls - but there are a lot of people who consider birdsong to be music of a type (too say nothing of those who think is superior to most of that which humans produce!) I'm not sure you can even say that music is when someone puts sounds together in such a way to affect the emotions of people (including themselves) although I suspect most musicians have that as one of their goals. Unfortunately, music seems to be just as mutable as any other type of art!

[pklima]

It's often easier to describe the social impact or context of music than the sound, kinda like this only seriously.

[superbassman2000]

Merriam-Webster defines music as ‘the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity.’ That definition succeeds in encompassing all forms of composition but it fails to include the act of creating sound, something integral to music. It also excludes the use of silence. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the topic using over 900 words and brings up an important question—is John Cage’s ’4’33”’ music?—but still fails to deliver a practical definition of music.

I disagree with most of this paragraph. I don't see how creating sound is integral to the definition of "music". It's like including the definition and the history of paint in the definition of art. It's trying to get on a tangent that's not there. It sounds like you are trying to draw a link as to say "this thing makes music, that thing doesn't" and I don't subscribe to that belief. It's all subjective, and that's what makes people think the definition is incomplete. If you can draw a line between the items that make music (guitar, oboe, basson, drum, etc) and items that don't make music (bicycle, water, champagne glasses,etc), then all you've really succeeded in doing is closing yourself into a box smaller than what can actually be perceived of as music (you'll note that all the items i listed in the non-musical box all have compositions include those items). So pick out techniques that are involved in the act of creating music is a subjective task and the job of a dictionary where the aim is to be as objective as possible. I am glad that Webster didn't include that part in their definition because the methods are always changing and evolving. That's where 4'33" comes from, as does a lot of the modern classical and experimental music. Field recordings are involved in music, as is found sound methods...also using methods like tone row in existing instruments would nullify what webster already defined as music. Webster just tried to boil it down to being as objective as they could get it.

Also, using "ordered sound" as a definition can include silence, as silence is the canvas that you order the sound upon. That's why some people find 4'33" a brilliant composition, as some people find an unpainted canvas brilliant. If it weren't for silence, you don't have rhythm or melody. Even straight 64ths @ 400bpm still has silence involved...that's how your brain determines that those are in fact 64th notes.

Using distinct pitches as a qualifier isn’t acceptable as it excludes white noise.

Rhythm cannot be used either (or at least there is no reason to) because everything has it; rhythm is just a series of changes over time (we could debate about patterns but let’s not for now).

To require certain types of harmonic relationships would leave out atonality and to require premeditation would leave out improvisation. Even intention cannot be used—music is often serendipitous, though many musicians (myself included) would rather not admit it.

All things that webster left out of the definition for the same reasons that you stated.

I guess what I am reading isn't an objective look at defining music. It's your opinion on your own preconceived notion of what people say is music. People like all kinds of music. Some like Atonal music, some like pop music, some like drones, some like jazz, and some like traditional Thai music. When I read Webster's definition of the word "music", I read an objective look into why people call their particular favorite music. Why do some people like jazz improvisation? because they like how the tones and sounds are ordered. Why do some people like traditional Thai music? they like the way that the sounds and tones are ordered. Why do people like music that involves drones? They like how the sounds and tones are ordered. Why do people like silence? they like how the sounds and tones are ordered. Maybe that sounds like a stretch, but to get silence, you have to specifically *not* play or make noise, so silence can be perceived as sound being ordered as [no sound]. It's like painting a white canvas white. Would you perceive it any differently if the artist left it blank?

So to define the idea of music is just fine with me, even if what each individual perceives as music varies, but how much does that matter? We all have the idea that music is based on sounds/tones being ordered in a particular way that produces unity and continuity.

Read the book "this is your brain on music" and I think that it clears up a lot about what we perceive as music. We, as musicians, sometimes try to elevate music to something higher than it really is. I love music, and love to make it, but I don't feel that it transcends definition.