Musical philosophy discussion

[Kopachris]

Discussion about the philosophy of music, herp derp.

Some ideas to discuss:

Any judgement of music should be based solely on the elements of the music, and not on any extramusical factor, including a program, political climate, and especially audiences' reactions.

Likewise, definition of genre should be constrained to the elements of the music and the philosophy under which it was composed. Instrumentation should only be taken into account in narrow cases where a specific instrumentation is part of the genre (some EDM genres, for example, and you can't have a symphony for a single solo instrument or a concerto without a solo instrument). No broad "if it's orchestral, it's classical" or "if it's classical, it can only use acoustic instruments" definitions.

The purpose of art is always the expression of some extramusical idea or other, whether the artist knows what that idea is or not. (Often, there's no way for the artist to put into plain words the idea he's trying to express, which is why she must create art to express it.) Time and effort (as well as the idea itself) should not be considered when judging a work, as extramusical factors. (Indeed, a preoccupation with "putting in time and effort" could actually distract the artist from the idea he's trying to express.)

[Dr_Dissonance]

you can't have a symphony for a single solo instrument or a concerto without a solo instrument).

Genres are merely a marketing tool for record companies to develop an audience. If you want to write music that breaks these genres, don't label them as a genre!

I think art in general is to both express and to tell. A lot of art has a story behind it, which can coincide with the idea of expression through medium. On the other hand, it could just be to tell a story.

Up to you I guess, but that's my general idea.

[prettiestPony]

Likewise, definition of genre should be constrained to the elements of the music and the philosophy under which it was composed. Instrumentation should only be taken into account in narrow cases where a specific instrumentation is part of the genre (some EDM genres, for example, and you can't have a symphony for a single solo instrument or a concerto without a solo instrument). No broad "if it's orchestral, it's classical" or "if it's classical, it can only use acoustic instruments" definitions.

Oh man, genre is an insane question to try to properly pin down, in my opinion. (Also, an aside at the risk of being super pedantic, concerti can indeed have more than one instrument as the "solo" part (e.g. Mozart's Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra), though I suppose at some point or another it gets labelled a "concerto grosso". Or did you mean something more like "without a 'solo part'" rather than "without a solo instrument" per se?)


Anyway, on the topic of instruments and genre, I throw out the following question as an example:
Are there any instruments that are truly essential to rock songs? A guitar (or possibly a very similar guitar-like instrument, such as the bass guitar) seems like a good candidate; but here's a counterexample that comes to mind: Queen's "We Will Rock You", which doesn't contain any instruments other than percussion and voice until more than halfway through the song--yet the first half of it is still pretty recognizably rock, isn't it? (And not, I presume, just because it has the word "rock" in the chorus.) Another counterexample is the Dresden Dolls, who might be better described as "alt rock" than rock proper, but they nonetheless convey a pretty rock-y sound with nothing more than vocals, piano, and drums. Similarly, there can be rock without drums (though very rare) and obviously there can be rock without vocals.

But that's removing one instrument at a time. Can anyone think of any examples of music that is pretty recognizably "rock" yet has no drum set, no guitar, no piano/Wurlitzer/Rhodes/similar, no bass-guitar, and no voice? Apocalyptica's four-cello Metallica covers come to mind (yeah, I know, Metallica is metal, not "rock"), but they don't really convey a sense of proper rock (or metal) to me, personally. Ditto for most non-traditional rock song covers I've heard.

[Kopachris]

Likewise, definition of genre should be constrained to the elements of the music and the philosophy under which it was composed. Instrumentation should only be taken into account in narrow cases where a specific instrumentation is part of the genre (some EDM genres, for example, and you can't have a symphony for a single solo instrument or a concerto without a solo instrument). No broad "if it's orchestral, it's classical" or "if it's classical, it can only use acoustic instruments" definitions.

Oh man, genre is an insane question to try to properly pin down, in my opinion. (Also, an aside at the risk of being super pedantic, concerti can indeed have more than one instrument as the "solo" part (e.g. Mozart's Concerto for Flute, Harp, and Orchestra), though I suppose at some point or another it gets labelled a "concerto grosso". Or did you mean something more like "without a 'solo part'" rather than "without a solo instrument" per se?)


Anyway, on the topic of instruments and genre, I throw out the following question as an example:
Are there any instruments that are truly essential to rock songs? A guitar (or possibly a very similar guitar-like instrument, such as the bass guitar) seems like a good candidate; but here's a counterexample that comes to mind: Queen's "We Will Rock You", which doesn't contain any instruments other than percussion and voice until more than halfway through the song--yet the first half of it is still pretty recognizably rock, isn't it? (And not, I presume, just because it has the word "rock" in the chorus.) Another counterexample is the Dresden Dolls, who might be better described as "alt rock" than rock proper, but they nonetheless convey a pretty rock-y sound with nothing more than vocals, piano, and drums. Similarly, there can be rock without drums (though very rare) and obviously there can be rock without vocals.

But that's removing one instrument at a time. Can anyone think of any examples of music that is pretty recognizably "rock" yet has no drum set, no guitar, no piano/Wurlitzer/Rhodes/similar, no bass-guitar, and no voice? Apocalyptica's four-cello Metallica covers come to mind (yeah, I know, Metallica is metal, not "rock"), but they don't really convey a sense of proper rock (or metal) to me, personally. Ditto for most non-traditional rock song covers I've heard.

Genre is indeed a hard thing to pin down. A lot of the time, it is just a marketing gimmick, but we have no better way to organize music according to some sense of style and form as of yet. As far as concerti go, I more meant "without any solo instrument," than "without a single solo instrument," but the rest of your point stands. Other genres that rely on instrumentation that just came to mind: any genre named after the ensemble that plays it, such as string quartet, piano quintet, etc.

[itroitnyah]

Philosphy in music, you say? Very well...

One thing is certain in music. Of the songs you've made, your worst song in your opinion, will always be one of the most popular ones.

[Warbalist]

I put music in the same category as food, in that food is food and you can combine any ingredient you want with any other ingredient with no care to where those ingredients were originally cultivated. Even with food artists that combine things in new and interesting ways, you will, however, still have regional cuisine. I may believe in the flexibility of food, but I still love Mexican, Thai, Italian, etc.

Music, in my view, is much the same way. You can combine whatever instrument/theory with whatever else (because it's all sound), but that's not going to necessarily be someone's favorite, and you're still going to have genre labels.

With that said, I love the avant garde in many different fields, and am very happy there are people willing to take chances, even if what they produce isn't always great.

[Ed Viper]

I put music in the same category as food, in that food is food and you can combine any ingredient you want with any other ingredient with no care to where those ingredients were originally cultivated. Even with food artists that combine things in new and interesting ways, you will, however, still have regional cuisine. I may believe in the flexibility of food, but I still love Mexican, Thai, Italian, etc.

Music, in my view, is much the same way. You can combine whatever instrument/theory with whatever else (because it's all sound), but that's not going to necessarily be someone's favorite, and you're still going to have genre labels.

With that said, I love the avant garde in many different fields, and am very happy there are people willing to take chances, even if what they produce isn't always great.

Well put, my friend.

Now, I spare no expense on running people's ears off about how much of an "engineer" I am at heart. As an engineer, I am quick to see if something has previously been defined prior to trying to define it myself.

The definition of "music" is as follows:

"1. The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and/or expression of emotion.

2. The vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way."

One could say that music is far too subjective to be able to properly define, but I feel this couple of sentences does the job rather adequately. It is a far-reaching definition that I feel all music fits into, even EDM (which few, if not many, don't consider to truly be music).

Not convinced? Let's look at the definition more closely:

"The art or science..."
Already a very vague and subjective statement. To say that something can be an art or a science is to speak very highly of said thing. There is very little in this world that is so fluid.

"...to produce beauty of form, harmony, and/or expression of emotion."
Form, harmony, and expression, are three elements of the arts that are not solely exclusive to music. However, it notes that music is to produce "beauty" of these elements. Music is the only form of art which is wholly meant to produce beauty.

So, go, my musically-inclined friends. Keep doing what you are doing - even if you aren't the best at making music, keep doing it - because you are literally creating an amazing thing.

You are creating beauty.

[TranquilHooves]

you can't have a symphony for a single solo instrument or a concerto without a solo instrument).

Genres are merely a marketing tool for record companies to develop an audience. If you want to write music that breaks these genres, don't label them as a genre!

I think art in general is to both express and to tell. A lot of art has a story behind it, which can coincide with the idea of expression through medium. On the other hand, it could just be to tell a story.

Up to you I guess, but that's my general idea.

Hah, love this piece. But anyway, Dr Dissonance is right. The only way to make music that is NEW, instead of confining it to a certain genre before you try composing is to just compose, and let things happen instead of worrying about what 'genre' it is. Unfortunately, the general audience does care about genres, so it comes to the difficult choice of which is more appealing to you: Self worth and appreciation of music, or selling out (gaspomgnotthat) to the big labels in order to commercially succeed. Or, you could just be good at composing things that sound like they should be on the Top 40's charts. (In which case, I envy you.)