Page 1 of 2
#1
Since the response to my last thread was so lacklustre I thought I'd make another.

This thread is about organized sound. The definition of music that gets bandied about more often than any other is that it's "organized sound." What does that mean? Who thought of that originally? Surely it's just a globally understood truth that multiple people have come up with independent of one another, right? Actually no. The term was coined by a composer in the early 20th century named Edgard Varèse. Varèse was one of the most important composers of the 20th century and his influence is far reaching, especially in the area of electronic music. Sadly most guitarists experience with him is, "lol he's the guy that Zappa liked, right? He must be cool." Well, yes. He was very cool. Mostly because he wrote some amazingly kick ass music that has nothing to do with Frank Zappa.


But this thread is not about Varèse, it's about organized sound. So what did he mean when he said this? Well, the context where he first said this was something like this. He believed that anything new in music was considered by most to be "noise" and his response that was, "what is music, but organized noises." He was speaking about his own musical aesthetic, which was effectively about the organization of sound masses. This was way before electronic music made that aesthetic cool. Yeah that's right Will/Snazz, a RIMer is one of the most important people in the early aesthetic development of electronic music. s my d. #NoOneIsSafe

Of course, he pushed for new instruments in the realm of electronics and when the tools became available to him he became an electronic composer, so... #selfpar.

Here's an example:


Now, this thread could turn into a, "how do you define music thread," but frankly we've done that and more importantly I don't care what your tiny brains consider to be music. I still want to talk about organized sound. Specifically, don't you think the term is a bit nebulous? "Organized."

What does that mean, exactly?
Is it just the ordering of sounds one after another?
How organized do the sounds have to be in order for them to be music?
Can I organize sounds with the resulting thing not being music?
If I simply pick one sound and present it have I organized anything?
Is this thread turning into another "What if I ask 32 Questions?"?
Did I just invent the nested question mark?

So here's how were going to frame the discussion: Aleatoric music.

Aleatoric music can be broken up into two broad categories: indeterminacy and chance, which are two sides of the same coin (a pun that you'll hopefully understand by the end of this paragraph). Indeterminacy is creating a piece that is indeterminate in it's performance. That is, although the composer has complete control over the piece, all or some of the resulting piece is unknown to the composer at the instant of composition. Chance is creating a piece whereby the composer has no control over some or all of the composition, but the resulting piece is completely known to him at the instant of composition. That's in a pure sense. The mixing of these two elements is also very common.

Here is an indeterminate score.


And recording (first 2:30 or so)


Which aspects of the piece are undetermined?
Which aspects of the piece are fully determined?
Which aspects of the piece are partially determined?
Is this piece organized enough for you to consider it to be organized sound?

Now let's stretch the theory. Here's another indeterminate score.

And TWO recordings

Which aspects of the piece are undetermined?
Which aspects of the piece are fully determined?
Which aspects of the piece are partially determined?
Is this piece organized enough for you to consider it to be organized sound?

And the other side of the coin (seriously that's quite funny, you should laugh, or at least exhale through your nose slightly harder than normal). A chance score.

And recording


As you can see from the score, the level of detail is quite astonishing. There is very little left to be determined by the performer, if anything. Beethoven wrote far more indeterminate music than this. However, Cage didn't choose any of those notes, rhythms, dynamics, articulations or tempos. All of these things were left to chance. Here's a better explanation than I could give:
Music of Changes comprises four "books" of music. Cage used a heavily modified version of his chart system (previously used in Concerto for prepared piano). Every chart for Music of Changes is 8 by 8 cells, to facilitate working with the I Ching which has a total of 64 hexagrams. The I Ching is first consulted about which sound event to choose from a sounds chart, then a similar procedure is applied to durations and dynamics charts. Thus, a short segment of music is composed. Silences are obtained from the sounds charts: these only contain sounds in the odd-numbered cells. To introduce new material, all charts alternate between mobile and immobile states (the alteration governed by the I Ching as well); in the latter the chart remains unchanged, but in the former, once a particular cell is used, its contents are immediately replaced by something new.

Furthermore, a density chart is used in the same way to add "polyphony" to the piece. The above procedure results in a layer—a string of sound events—and then the I Ching is used to determine how many layers should there be in a given phrase. The layers are then simply combined with one another. There may be anywhere from one to eight layers in a phrase.

The structure of the piece is defined through the technique of nested proportions, just like in most of Cage's pieces from the 1940s. The proportion remains the same for the entire work: 3, 5, 6¾, 6¾, 5, 3⅛. So there are 29⅝ sections, each divided into phrases according to the overall proportion: 29⅝ by 29⅝. This is then divided into four large parts of one, two, one and two sections respectively. The tempo is varied throughout the piece, using the I Ching and a tempo chart. The rhythmic proportion is expressed, then, not through changing time signatures as in earlier works, but through tempo changes.


Do you consider this piece to be organized?
Do you consider this piece to be organized enough to be considered music?


What is "organized enough?"
What is "organized sound?"

This thread is not about whether you like new music.
This thread is not about whether you like indeterminate music.
This thread is not about whether you like chance music.
This thread is about what you think about the term organized sound with the discussion framed around aleatoric music.
Effectively, do these concepts challenge what you consider to be organized sound?
Effectively, do these concepts challenge what you consider to be music?


And finally, I found this in an old presentation I made. You're welcome Snazz.


I think we've all learned something here.
#2
To me, the issue centers around intention - the intention of the composer, the intention of the performer(s). As soon as you have any kind of intention, you have organized sound, even if at a low level. A composer can write music based on what he hears in his “inner ear,” or he can subject a group of notes or a musical idea to a pre-conceived process. Without exercising absolute control over their music, composers still set any of several of the conditions of the musical event – instrumentation, method of composition, rhythmic and melodic gestures, beginning, ending, duration, etc. Even just conceiving of the idea of a composition is intention. In aleatoric music, the composer decides what levels of control he will retain, and what he will concede to anything outside his direct control. But all of that still follows his intention (i.e., “I intend for this aspect to be out of my control&rdquo. Where the score is indeterminate, the performer completes the composition process using their own musical sensibilities.

I would consider all of your examples organized sound – organized enough to constitute music. But I can’t discount my musical background/education. I wonder if I would think the same way if I had no musical background/education. The question of “what is organized sound?” or “How organized does sound have to be in order to be music?” makes implicit the question, “What is music?” But I think the answer to this question is philosophical, not scientific. All sound exists in the physical realm, but perhaps music only exists inside your head and heart.
#4
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
That was a good post. I enjoyed reading it.

Does the audience's intent matter?

Explain what you mean

Is there a way in which I could write music that you would not consider it organized sound?

If you present me with something you call music, it is music. Not everyone will agree it is music, but it is music none-the-less



Bold
#5
I don't care. That's what I think

Why is the definition so important? We already know the definition of music is pretty much unlimited and any sound can be considered music if someone says it is. Listening to music is a different experience for everyone. We don't need to be in an agreement about what is music and what isn't.

If you like listening to this kind of stuff, good for you. It is music to you. However, to me (and probably a majority of the population) it isn't. It doesn't matter. Organized sound or not.

This is a redundant discussion.
Last edited by Elintasokas at Sep 17, 2014,
#6
note: if you accept the axiom of choice, all sound must be organized by virtue of being well-ordered. as a consequence of this, it is possible to decompose of sphere into 4 sets which upon union produce two spheres identical to the first. this question has more to do with shapes than with sounds.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#7
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
That was a good post. I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Does the audience's intent matter?


That's a good question, and my initial thought is that it does, at least to a certain degree. The audience has to listen. The audience has to let the sound in and consider it to one extent or another (or even just feel it, bypassing any intellectual process). But then, if the audience does not do this, does it negate the composition? It becomes a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum for me. But, I think that even if only the composer and/or performer listens, then that is enough to fulfill that requirement.

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Is there a way in which I could write music that you would not consider it organized sound?


I don't think so, but I would love to hear the attempt!
#8
Quote by Elintasokas
I don't care. That's what I think

Why is the definition so important? We already know the definition of music is pretty much unlimited and any sound can be considered music if someone says it is. Listening to music is a different experience for everyone. We don't need to be in an agreement about what is music and what isn't.

If you like listening to this kind of stuff, good for you. It is music to you. However, to me (and probably a majority of the population) it isn't. It doesn't matter.

This is a redundant discussion.


Well, I don't think agreement is the goal here. Composers ponder these kinds of questions, and the discussion of such things often leads to new perspectives and ideas, so they're worth having. When I was in school (as a composition major) we had a composers forum once a week, where we would often discuss topics like this, and it was always interesting and fun.
#9
Finally, some traction.

Quote by MapOfYourHead
Bold

You kind of answered your first question with your second. My question was in reference to Harmosis talking about the composers intent and performers intent (in the case of indeterminate music) defining what is and isn't art. My question was does the audience matter in that definition. Your answer was no (I think).

Quote by Elintasokas
I don't care. That's what I think

Why is the definition so important? We already know the definition of music is pretty much unlimited and any sound can be considered music if someone says it is. Listening to music is a different experience for everyone. We don't need to be in an agreement about what is music and what isn't.

If you like listening to this kind of stuff, good for you. It is music to you. However, to me (and probably a majority of the population) it isn't. It doesn't matter. Organized sound or not.

This is a redundant discussion.

A few things. I explicitly said this thread wasn't about whether or not you liked this music. It was a discussion about the organization of sound framed with this music in mind. I'm not attempting to arrive at any sort of agreement.

The other thing is, the very fact that this music challenges you make the discussion NOT redundant. The overarching question is how does this music challenge how you view organization in music.

I'll get you one of these days Linty.

Quote by Eastwinn
note: if you accept the axiom of choice, all sound must be organized by virtue of being well-ordered. as a consequence of this, it is possible to decompose of sphere into 4 sets which upon union produce two spheres identical to the first. this question has more to do with shapes than with sounds.

I don't know what any of this means, but I assume it's wicked smart. :')

Quote by Harmosis
Thanks

That's a good question, and my initial thought is that it does, at least to a certain degree. The audience has to listen. The audience has to let the sound in and consider it to one extent or another (or even just feel it, bypassing any intellectual process). But then, if the audience does not do this, does it negate the composition? It becomes a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum for me. But, I think that even if only the composer and/or performer listens, then that is enough to fulfill that requirement.

It becomes a question of the role the audience plays in the creation of art. Are they required or does music exist without them?

I imagine Will would have a very interesting comment about this in connection with some sand.

Quote by Harmosis
I don't think so, but I would love to hear the attempt!

Same.
#10
Quote by jazz_rock_feel

It becomes a question of the role the audience plays in the creation of art. Are they required or does music exist without them?


The performer/composer would be an audience to the sound as well.

Is music on paper music? No, not until it becomes physical vibrations.
Last edited by MapOfYourHead at Sep 17, 2014,
#11
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
It becomes a question of the role the audience plays in the creation of art. Are they required or does music exist without them?

If we discount the composer as his/her own audience, then the music can exist without them.

Though, in terms of popularity (meaning when a certain music style becomes more popular and therefore more widely accessible to the listener, thereby fueling new composition in said style), it could be argued that a broader audience can fuel composition. Would Jazz have been as big a force in American music, if there wasn't an audience for it? Probably not.
#12
@jazz_rock_feel: Ehh.. fine, whatever I guess. lol.

Quote by MapOfYourHead
The performer/composer would be an audience to the sound as well.
Is music on paper music? No, not until it becomes physical vibrations.

What if you're so fluent at reading music that you can hear the notes in your head just by reading the score?
Last edited by Elintasokas at Sep 17, 2014,
#13
Quote by MapOfYourHead
The performer/composer would be an audience to the sound as well.

Is music on paper music? No, not until it becomes physical vibrations.

Interesting, but you present a bit of a conundrum. The composer can be the audience for his own piece, yet the piece is not music until it's played. Does the composer need to perform the music to appreciate it? In theory he already knows what it is and the aesthetic it expresses. So doesn't it exist even if unplayed?

And we're back to the question I asked two posts up. What role does the audience play in the creation of art?


Just so you guys know: I'm not trying to be a douche (well maybe a little). All of these questions I have struggled or still struggle with.
#14
I am not my head, I am not my arm, I am not my foot, I am not my heart. You can not reduce me to my parts and hope to find what I am. I am all of it and more. I am music.
Si
#15
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
I don't know what any of this means, but I assume it's wicked smart. :')


i will expand. first, assume that any sound St may be defined as a relation on AxBxR where St: A -> BxR . Set A contains some sufficient conditions before which the sound is created and B contains those same conditions as modified by the sound at time t. S0 = A as this is our initial condition and thus A is contained within BxR.

suppose you accept the axiom of choice. as a consequence, BxR must be well-ordered for any St and any A. thus, all sound is organized.

suppose you do not accept the axiom of choice. there then must exist an initial set of conditions A, a sound St, and a time t such that one cannot choose one and only one element from BxR. in order for "unorganized sound" to exist, this hypothetical sound must be constructable. because R is obviously well-ordered, the "unchoosability" of the sound exists at any time interval must depend on B. A is a subset of B so A cannot be well-ordered. thus this property of sets A and B are independent of St. if the axiom of choice is denied, it is apparent that a sound may only be "unorganized" as it acts on "unorganized" conditions.

tl;dr: all sound is "organized sound" including the sound of me dropping this mic.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#16
Ean just cause you expand something doesn't mean us stupid-folk can understand it
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#17
I think the point is that unorganized sound becomes organized as soon as you organize the conditions.

The frame is what creates the art. The frame organizes - making sense of chaos.

This is just a guess though. I understood all the words. Just not put together in that order.
Si
#18
I know you said this isn't about the definition of music, but honestly, I made it about 1:20 into the first piece you showed and equated it to scribbling. I could open mspaint, draw multicolored scribbles and call it art, though it's certainly not artistic. In the same way you can call that music it you like, but it's certainly not musical. Don't pretend that you don't know the difference.

As to what constitutes organized sound, well, that depends entirely on what "organized" means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organize Hope that clears things up for you
#19
Quote by The4thHorsemen
I know you said this isn't about the definition of music, but honestly, I made it about 1:20 into the first piece you showed and equated it to scribbling. I could open mspaint, draw multicolored scribbles and call it art, though it's certainly not artistic. In the same way you can call that music it you like, but it's certainly not musical. Don't pretend that you don't know the difference.

As to what constitutes organized sound, well, that depends entirely on what "organized" means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organize Hope that clears things up for you

Wait. The Varese tripped you up? That's weird.

I absolutely don't know what you're talking about with the difference between music and musical. Please keep garbage discussions about feel and soul out of my thread.

And omg the whole point of the thread was to discuss what organization means in the context of music.
#20
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Wait. The Varese tripped you up? That's weird.

I absolutely don't know what you're talking about with the difference between music and musical. Please keep garbage discussions about feel and soul out of my thread.

And omg the whole point of the thread was to discuss what organization means in the context of music.

Oops, sorry. I meant the Morton Feldman one.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Organization means the same thing regardless of whether it's sounds, words, people, or tic-tacs.
#23
I honestly cannot think of what unorganised sound would sound like. Everything has patterns, and even then, a 'pattern' isn't really a good way to describe organisation.


I like the idea of the audience's role. There was that John Cage video talking about sound, and he goes on to mention traffic and how when he hears traffic, he doesn't hear a person talking (in the same way you could hear Beethoven 'talking' through his symphonies), but he hears the sound acting. Now obviously he had a unique way of listening to sound, one that I'd like to have, but it just doesn't come naturally to me, but anyway. I think as long as the sound is observed by someone (whether composer or listener), it becomes 'organised' in our brain. We instantly have reactions to every sound we hear, even if those reactions are subconscious.

I don't think 'organised sound' should refer to it's composition, or how it appears on sheet music, or its performance, or anything 'tangible' like that. The 'organisation' of sound, to me, is the intangible nature of our reactions.


What I'm trying to say is difficult to verbalise, so I'm sorry for sounding super abstract and pretentious, etc, but hopefully someone understands what I'm reaching for
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#24
Nah it's interesting. To me what you're saying is the audience is critical because that's where the organization actually occurs. It's in the mind of the audience at the point of listening, as opposed to the mind of the composer at the point of composition. This is kind of compelling because it's inclusive of pugilists like The4thHorsemen that choose to reject certain music.
#25
The organization occurring in the mind – this reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of musica universalis ("Music of the Spheres"), where the planets (and sun) of our solar system were thought to be in harmonic proportion to each other, producing music. This music is inaudible, but still considered music none-the-less; the highest form of music, in fact. Truly music of the mind.
#26
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Interesting, but you present a bit of a conundrum. The composer can be the audience for his own piece, yet the piece is not music until it's played. Does the composer need to perform the music to appreciate it? In theory he already knows what it is and the aesthetic it expresses. So doesn't it exist even if unplayed?


Music in my mind equates to something physical. It's an outer experience, not an inner one (totes just ripped off John Cage but whatevs). It's out in space. Music written down is merely a conceptual entity, an idea, until it is becomes physical.


Quote by jazz_rock_feel

And we're back to the question I asked two posts up. What role does the audience play in the creation of art?


They give opinions on it.
#27
Originally Posted by jazz_rock_feel--And we're back to the question I asked two posts up. What role does the audience play in the creation of art? //..

I think the question should be..not the creation of art..but the observation/recognition/awareness/consumption/approval/tolerance/and use of art..in any and all forms..the term audience in this context also needs to be clearly defined..is it active or passive..folks willingly going to a concert/gallery or "trapped" in a "room/shop/workplace/phone hold" with piped in musak..
#28
Quote by MapOfYourHead
Music in my mind equates to something physical. It's an outer experience, not an inner one (totes just ripped off John Cage but whatevs). It's out in space. Music written down is merely a conceptual entity, an idea, until it is becomes physical.

If you come up with a musical idea in your head, no instruments, no singing or humming, you just imagine it, isn't that a musical experience?

If you remember a song you've heard and can "reconstruct it" to an extent, isn't that a musical experience?
#29
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Nah it's interesting. To me what you're saying is the audience is critical because that's where the organization actually occurs. It's in the mind of the audience at the point of listening, as opposed to the mind of the composer at the point of composition. This is kind of compelling because it's inclusive of pugilists like The4thHorsemen that choose to reject certain music.

Essentially, yeah. I'd even group the composer and the time of composition in with the audience. Maybe 'the listener' is a better term for me to use. Just at any moment that the sound becomes consciously listened to, I would call that 'organised sound'.

Which is tricky cause does that mean that if you get a CD, press play, and then walk away and no one is hearing it, is it still making 'music'? I don't really think so. It's making physical vibrations in the air. It's producing sound waves. But music is a human interaction with sound. I don't think sound can be organised unless there is a brain to organise it, if thatmakes sense.

??? I'm kind of confusing myself lol :p
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#30
Quote by MapOfYourHead
Music in my mind equates to something physical. It's an outer experience, not an inner one (totes just ripped off John Cage but whatevs). It's out in space. Music written down is merely a conceptual entity, an idea, until it is becomes physical.


Quote by sickman411
If you come up with a musical idea in your head, no instruments, no singing or humming, you just imagine it, isn't that a musical experience?

If you remember a song you've heard and can "reconstruct it" to an extent, isn't that a musical experience?


Just to explore this dichotomy – When you imagine music, are you simply recalling physical sounds you’ve already heard, even if you’re rearranging those sounds into an ostensibly new composition? Is a thought a physical thing? If not, what is it? Does it matter whether physical vibrations, or imagination, stimulate your brain if the (musical) effects of both are identical? There is certainly a difference between hearing physical sound and imagining that same sound, but is that difference enough to say that one is music and the other is not?
#31
Alright fellas, good thread. I'm gonna wrap up my thoughts by addressing what I think is the most important question (and what the thread was about).

Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Effectively, do these concepts challenge what you consider to be organized sound?

Yes! These sorts of pieces (specifically the Earle Brown) and the destructive US avant garde of the 50s/60s are what made me reject the definition of music as organized sound.

I don't believe that these sounds are organized in the way we conventionally think about organization. I think that when the composers release control of their music (either to chance or the performers) they also release the organizational element of their sounds. The sounds are in order, but they're not organized.


Good chat guys. Let's chill o.k. Be back soon.
#32
You seem to have tried to end the thread and i know you said this thread was about organized sound and not defining music, but whatever, I have some thoughts I'd like to share.

I'm wondering why you called me a pugilist. I'm not fighting anything. It seems to me that you're fighting to come up with some concrete terms using the english language to define something that I don't think we have enough words for and never will, other than the word music.

I see you somewhat agree with me on this at least, but I'll state my point of view: The whole premise of organized sound = music doesn't quite do it for me. Organization is certainly a part of music, but it is not all of it, or even the most important. A constant Shepard Tone is certainly highly organized to create the illusion of infinitely rising or falling pitches that never actually go beyond audible frequencies, and is certainly interesting, but it doesn't become musical until it is put into context to make something... um... musical.

Ugh, now I've hit that point of feeling like I want to finish my train of thought but don't know how to express it. I do feel that how the audience, whether it be the composer or someone else, perceives it is what makes it musical, but there is a certain intangible link in the way we humans and some other animals listen that makes it so.
Last edited by The4thHorsemen at Sep 19, 2014,
#33
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
I don't believe that these sounds are organized in the way we conventionally think about organization. I think that when the composers release control of their music (either to chance or the performers) they also release the organizational element of their sounds. The sounds are in order, but they're not organized.

Why do the sounds have to be organized in a conventional way to be "organized sound"? Clearly, there was an aspect of planning involved; to me, that's what makes it organized sound. Just because the planning involved letting certain aspects run on their own, so to speak, doesn't mean it isn't organized, imho.
#34
Quote by The4thHorsemen
You seem to have tried to end the thread and i know you said this thread was about organized sound and not defining music, but whatever, I have some thoughts I'd like to share.

I'm wondering why you called me a pugilist. I'm not fighting anything. It seems to me that you're fighting to come up with some concrete terms using the english language to define something that I don't think we have enough words for and never will, other than the word music.

I wasn't trying to end the thread, I just thought everyone was done and thought I'd get the last word in.

And I just heard the word pugilist on an episode of Frasier and thought it was funny so I threw it in. I'm not trying to come up with concrete definitions at all. I'm trying to do the exact opposite. My intent was to show some music that might shake up what peoples' thoughts on defining music.

Quote by The4thHorsemen
I see you somewhat agree with me on this at least, but I'll state my point of view: The whole premise of organized sound = music doesn't quite do it for me. Organization is certainly a part of music, but it is not all of it, or even the most important. A constant Shepard Tone is certainly highly organized to create the illusion of infinitely rising or falling pitches that never actually go beyond audible frequencies, and is certainly interesting, but it doesn't become musical until it is put into context to make something... um... musical.

Ugh, now I've hit that point of feeling like I want to finish my train of thought but don't know how to express it. I do feel that how the audience, whether it be the composer or someone else, perceives it is what makes it musical, but there is a certain intangible link in the way we humans and some other animals listen that makes it so.

I know we're miles apart in terms of practice, but in principle I don't disagree with any of this.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Why do the sounds have to be organized in a conventional way to be "organized sound"? Clearly, there was an aspect of planning involved; to me, that's what makes it organized sound. Just because the planning involved letting certain aspects run on their own, so to speak, doesn't mean it isn't organized, imho.

So because you plan to leave something disorganized it becomes organized?
#35
Quote by jazz_rock_feel


So because you plan to leave something disorganized it becomes organized?


The act of someone creating anything that to be interpreted by musicians is at it's very core, organised. Even generative music is organised.

The degree of organisation can be agrued though, obviously.
#36
Quote by MapOfYourHead
The act of someone creating anything that to be interpreted by musicians is at it's very core, organised.

Why?
How?
#39
My 2cents:

If all vibrations and non vibrations have musical properties, then music is an inherently chaotic and constant process that we are powerless to stop.

We can only redirect sound energy and re-present it in a way where an audience can listen to noise in a musical way, allowing their brains to interpret vibration as music and not ambient noise.

We debate what is and what is not music, but that has nothing to do with the nature/organization of the vibrations, but the intent of the listener.

Your brain needs the filter, it cannot listen to EVERYTHING as music, you'd be mentally and emotionally overwhelmed.

But it can listen to ANYTHING as music.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#40
Quote by willT08
Why?
How?


A muscian is presented with a score, scored by a composer, for the specific purpose to play music. The act itself is an event, organised.

...

I have been looking at this from an orgainised/unorganised perspective, not an orgainised/disorganised. To have disorgainsed music, a dodgy score given to a group of musicans isn't enough, as the conductor and group organise themselves around the score. Same with soloists interpreting, as they self-organise to understand.

What you'd need to do is have everyone seperate using the same indeterminate score (or not) and have the collective fed into a mixing desk for a combined output. That way, no feeedback-based internal orgainisation can be done.

I shall call Music, Disorganised. And I will be famous
Page 1 of 2