What about strings of notes automatically generated by a computer program to generate things that sound much like the products of human composers? Yes, such a computer program does exist. My own answer to that one is "no". What about an animated visual display whose movements are structured like music, perhaps created by a deaf or synesthetic artist? I have no good answer.
What is it about an atom-for-atom replica of a painting that makes it different from the original painting? Same answer, "historical facts". If "composed with conscious intent" is part of what makes music "music", than you could have two identical sets of sound where one is music and the other is not. If that sounds absurd, perhaps that's evidence that such historical facts shouldn't be part of the definition of music. (On the other hand, the absurdity could just be from my implausible scenario, you're not likely to get Beethoven's 5th out of a random number generator.)
Not saying I support one or the other. There are probably coherent definitions of "music" that only refer to the content of the sound.
I think they are different because a replica of a painting is a copy of something that someone else created, whereas a computer-generated string of notes is fairly likely to be entirely original content. Plus, that notwithstanding, is a recording of a piece of live music (which is an exact copy of the piece of music) not really music? Is a cover song not really music?
Personally, I think it's all music. If someone thinks it's music, it's music enough for me.
Well, if you don't consider something "composed" by a computer to be "music", does that mean the birds singing isn't music? Or a chorus of Norther Chorus Frogs? What about the singing of spheres? The music of the ocean, or of wind in the trees
( ... )
The birds and frogs are at least alive. What is the singing of spheres? i'm not sure about the ocean and the wind, though they are certainly beautiful sounds. Is your view that music is made by listening, rather than playing?
(Presuming that the computer program in question does not itself have any conscious intent. Also accepting for the sake of argument that conscious intent is part of what makes music "music".)
Arguably, the human composer in that case is whoever created the program. Sure, they don't know exactly what output will result, but is there anything in the definition of music that requires composers to create music in a way that's entirely deterministic? Say a composer flips a coin to decide whether one measure will conclude with a rest or a note. Is that composition no longer music? Is the bit in question an isolated moment of noise in the middle of a piece of music? Where (approximately) do you draw the line?
You do in fact seem to understand my difficulty with computer-generated music, or any other "music" not generated by a living, preferably thinking, creature. Your question is an interesting one. I would probably give composers a lot of leeway. If they want to program a computer to generate hundreds of reasonable lines for a section of a piece, and then choose among them, even that would probably be fine. But just handing a computer a program and using whatever happens to come out disturbs me in some fashion.
Reply
Reply
Not saying I support one or the other. There are probably coherent definitions of "music" that only refer to the content of the sound.
Reply
Personally, I think it's all music. If someone thinks it's music, it's music enough for me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Arguably, the human composer in that case is whoever created the program. Sure, they don't know exactly what output will result, but is there anything in the definition of music that requires composers to create music in a way that's entirely deterministic? Say a composer flips a coin to decide whether one measure will conclude with a rest or a note. Is that composition no longer music? Is the bit in question an isolated moment of noise in the middle of a piece of music? Where (approximately) do you draw the line?
Reply
Reply
It seems to me that the word "just" hides a lot in that sentence.
Reply
Leave a comment