What defines 'real music'
I have a few friends who think that my taste in music isn't 'real' because it's mostly video game songs, covers to video game songs, or a television show soundtrack. Personally, I don't think that whether music is real or not depends on where it was used in the end. But I've seen a lot of people say that songs aren't 'real music', and it seems to me it's just because it doesn't fit their style. So, what do you think truly defines 'real music'?
- "define: music"
- # an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner
- # any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds; "he fell asleep to the music of the wind chimes"
- # musical activity (singing or whistling etc.); "his music was his central interest"
- # (music) the sounds produced by singers or musical instruments (or reproductions of such sounds)
- # punishment for one's actions; "you have to face the music"; "take your medicine"
It incorporates the use of musical instruments of some fashion. Or it could be simply recordings of the human voice used in tonal manners. It has to have melody; that's the only thing I care about. Notably, the human voice doesn't have to be the primary source of the melody when it appears - if it did, the hip-hop and black metal I listen to would not qualify as music.
What the smurf? It's 'real music' if it sounds like goddamn music. Next time someone says that, punch them in the kidney and tell them "don't cry, that wasn't a real punch".
Anything that doesn't offend me due to it's shear stupidity is real music.
Personally they may have been saying it because the music you're listening to belongs from something fictional?
..mind you most songs that are written are fictional...
...oh me oh my I know I had a point there somewhere but it's "late".
I am not a man
Doesn't have to be agreeable or pleasing or harmonious.# any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds;
There's plenty of music that's perfectly good but not tonal at all.Or it could be simply recordings of the human voice used in tonal manners.
Plenty of famous composers don't use melody... from Bach to Philip Glass.It has to have melody;
I find almost any definition of music too constrained. You could say it has to be pleasing. Night of the Electric Insects certainly isn't to most. But it's evocative. Does music have be evocative. Not really. There's plenty of music that is supposed to be incidental and purposely non-evocative.
Tonal? Schoenberg's Theme and Variations Op. 43a is a fantastic, beautiful and even pleasing piece that's completely atonal.
By most trained musician's standard video game music rises far above that of any pop music. I think when people say that they basically mean "what everyone else listens to." This isn't to put down pop. Justin Bieber's stuff is catchy as as hell and generally only uses four chords (THE four chords).
There are musics that I find displeasing, but they are still music.
EDIT: The closest all inclusive definition I could come up with is "organized sound." That's bearing in mind aleatoric music which is inherently non-organized, but still organized to be so. Even 4'33" fits that definition if you understand what Cage was on about.
Last edited by Yeargdribble; 06-12-2010 at 01:23 AM.
By "melody" I mean that it has to consist of clearly deliberately arranged tones. By conventional definitions, it's true that a lot of what Bach and Glass do isn't melodic, and a lot of what I listen to is even less "melodic" than they are. I specifically referred to "the human voice in tonal manners" to differentiate a cappella music from spoken-word performances, but my diction probably wasn't terribly precise.
Basically, what you said about "organised sound" is about right.
Whatever is currently the most profitable.What defines 'real music'
derp
:<3:Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Everyone has different tastes. I've known a lot of music elitists in my time. I don't know why people get sticks up their butts so easily about music. Tell you're friends they're lame.
Signature by rubah. I think.
I'd say that it has to be some sensation related to the aural sense. That way, even 4:33 is included (negative space)
if it's not aural, then you're getting into synesthesiac territory
You can have purely rhythmic music devoid of melody or aleatoric music which defeats melody.
Does Sprechstimme still count as music. Can beat poetry be considered a musical form?
NOTE: At this point I'm just busting your balls for the fun of it.
Not sure I'm clear on what you're saying. Not all things aural are music unless you're taking Cage's thoughts to the utmost end.I'd say that it has to be some sensation related to the aural sense. That way, even 4:33 is included (negative space)
Keep in mind that the profoundly deaf can enjoy music also, though not aurally. I do get what you're saying though. That's why I go with the "sound" thing because sound can be experienced more widely than just saying it has to be aural.if it's not aural, then you're getting into synesthesiac territory
I'm just playing devil's advocate to everything.
I don't know what Cage has said, but I know the first summer after I joined band, I was listening to the insects outside my window and equating them to various instruments
That's a good definition of Miley Cyrus' music.
As long as you like it and that's more than enough I think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
