mu·sic Noun /ˈmyo͞ozik/

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

Sorry, but rap itself has no harmony so cannot "produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion". It is poetry set to a rhythmic beat, sometimes stolen from other artists, but still lacking in harmony.

Now, some rap artists also combine in music to their rap (TLC, The Fugee's, even Slim Shady himself: Eminem) but the rap itself is not music. It can be backed by music. It can be blended into music, therebye becoming part of the music, but M.C. Hammer stealing Rick James and saying "you can't touch this" over and over is not music.

And for what it's worth, I think the Fugee's rendition of Killing Me Softly is the best cover (outside the original by Roberta Flack) ever of that song.

The theft of song elements has been going on for centuries...it's not exclusive to rap. For instance, George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" is almost exactly "He's So Fine." And one could argue that "Super Freak", to start out with, was mostly rhythmic talking. What about stuff like Tom Petty's "Here Comes My Girl?" Is that not music?

And Sting stole the melodic line to the intro fo Money for Nothing (Dire Straits) from his and the Police's 'Don't Stand So Close To Me'). Yes, stealing/borrowing rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic elements has gone on for centuries. But sampling is something pretty much exclusive to rap. Honestly, despite Rob "Vanilla Ice" Van Winkle's protest to the contrary, "Ice, Ice Baby" is a direct sample of Queen and Bowie's "Under Pressure". And I will grant that Rick James' "Superfreak" is more or less rap. But, like Eminem, he used original music and made the rhythmic vocals part of the music, much like drums are rhythmic but still part of the music. When a rap artists blends it into the music, then rap becomes music. But when the music is just there to porvide a rhythmic background for his laying down a rhyme, then it is more poetry than music.

Again, I'm *not* saying it isn't art. I'm *not* denying it takes talent. I'm just saying it lacks some of the qualities that make it music.

Rock
-Green Day
-Franz Ferdinand
-Bad Religion
-Queen
-Lynryd Skynyrd
-The Beatles
-Billy Joel
-Flobots

Rap
-Jay-Z
-Tupac
-Notorious B.I.G

Ska/Reggae (My favorite)
-Sublime
-Streetlight Manifesto
-Catch 22
-Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution
-Long Beach Short Bus
-Bob Marley (of course)
-The Skatalites

Jazz/Blues
-Django Reinhardt
-The Ink Spots
-B.B. King
-Ragtime idk why

Other
-Hungarian folk dance
-Farewell of Slavanka
-Soviet National Anthem (1945-1991)
-Various songs from the Winter War era.

Man, Obiwan, you and I could almost not agree more about music. Only, not sure what Bach is doing on that list. :-P

I love 19th century romanticism, mostly Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn (yeah, the latter two's commitment to romanticism is complicated, but whatever).

Also a lot of rock, especially older: Beatles, CCR, Zeppelin, GnR, some Keane, Queen, and almost anything from the 80s.

I dislike Mozart and Bach because I like my music, especially classical, to be deeply expressive of things I couldn't put into words. Mozart is pretty, but just not deep below the surface (or so it usually seems to me. Of course there are exceptions, such as the slow movement of the clarinet concerto, which is sublime).

And as for Bach, well, if I want to do math I do math. :-P

Oh fuck i forgot how much I love blues, jump blues, and rock roll. Chuck Berry for life. Lol. Muddy Waters anyone?

About your definition of music draug.... citing a dictionary really proves nothing to me. lol.

would you say african drumming is not music? would you say aboriginal didgeridoos are not music? if you would, i suppose you would be being consistent, but you would also be wrong.

music is when human beings get together and produce sounds for the sake of the sounds, especially when they do it in front of other people.

this was john adams' point in writing 4'33" I think. He was pointing out that any sound, even the ambient sound of a room, is music when the listeners treat it as such.

The idea that harmony is required for something to be musical is hilariously one-dimensional and disappointingly narrow. Whoever wrote that dictionary doesn't have much appreciation for what music can be.

Have you ever heard Threnody by Penderecki? So that's not music, right, cause there's not harmony, right?

As far as sampling goes, yes, first of all as was pointed out it's been going on for thousands of years, second of all, it's an art in itself. Listen to some Girl Talk or Run DMC or really any good rap and you will see that its not a joke. The layers of samples you don't even see in there are amazing.

"If the beats fat I use it, some wack shit, I lose it
Refuse it, how could you choose it, it stinks reuse it
Put down the mic kid, cause you gets no dap
How long did it take for you to see you can't rap"

You want deep Mozart? Listen to (or better yet, watch) Don Giovanni. It's not the usual light, comedic opera he is known for in Magic Flute or Figaro. And even if it was unfinished upon his death, the Mass Requiem is incredibly moving.

@Thucy - A massive thumbs up to your inclusion of Phillip Glass. Minimalism reaches new heights under his pen and baton. Have you listened to his Heroes symphony? And his work on the score to The Hours is simply incredible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records_Inc.

This case destroyed the creativity of hip hop, it's only now recovering in my opinion.

I suppose under the technical definition it is music, but i fail to find enjoyment and beauty in what can often times be a ceaseless stream of profanity.

What would be treated as outrageous in the past is now acceptable by popular culture. Liberals may not like my conservative opinions and statements on popular music, but they are truthful.

See, I don't believe Adam's 4:33 is music. It is art, but it is no more music than a poem is a short story. They use the same medium but are different art forms. But even if I allow rap and aboriginal/tribal rhythms as music, Adam's 4:33 doesn't qualify.

Merriam-Websters definiton makes it clear that Adam's *cannot* be called music.

a : 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 b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

The lack of ordered tone or sound (ambient noise is chaotic, not ordered) means it *cannot* be music by that definition. Rap qualifies under that one as does any rhythmic sound, but not ambient sound.

I agree with you on that point, Draugnar. 4:33 is not music, it is art. however, this is but one exception, and the quality and content of music being brought into question, you find a great classical song superior to a rap song consisting of profanity and sexual refrences al the time. the music you listen to can often say a lot about the kind of person you are. you should listen to music that expresses your beliefs and vlues and for your enjoyment, not because popular culture accepts and embraces something that describes morally disturbing things, at least by my opinion of morals.

And borrowing rhythms, melodies, and harmonies to turn them aroudn and make something new is different from sampling. Blood, Sweat and Tears' "Variations on a Theme by Satie" takes the theme from Gymnopedies and turns it into something new. But it isn't a digital or analogue copy of the sound. All of it is rearranged and new musicians built the new song from the arrangement. Sampling is stealing digitally and many a rapper has decided to settle out of court and credit the original artists with a writing credit.

Lest it be viewed as theft as well, the following excerpts from Wikipedia show how even rappers know what they do without the original artists permission is wrong.

"Rick James sued MC Hammer for infringement of copyright on the track "U Can't Touch This" (which sampled his 1981 song "Super Freak"), but the suit was settled out of court when Hammer agreed to credit James as co-composer, effectively cutting James in on the millions of dollars the record was earning."

"Vanilla Ice sampled the bassline of the 1981 song "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie for his 1990 single "Ice Ice Baby". Freddie Mercury and David Bowie did not receive credit or royalties for the sample. In a 1990 interview, Rob Van Winkle said the two melodies were slightly different because he had added an additional note. In later interviews, Van Winkle readily admitted he sampled the song and claimed his 1990 statement was a joke; others, however, suggested he had been serious. Van Winkle later paid Mercury and Bowie, who have since been given songwriting credit for the sample."

And to prove the point further, Weird Al Yankovic always attempts to get permission before doing a paraody of another artists song or building one of his polka medleys. He, if anyone, could claim fair use as a parody and need not get their permission, but he does any how. And yet he never takes any of the recording to make his parody, just the written music.

How about the Beach Boys and Chuck Berry? Brian Wilson was pissed that he got songwriting credit for songs that he clearly lifted from Berry (Fun Fun Fun and Surfin' USA at the minimum).

iPillage has the right idea

For all you nay-sayers about punk, check out Streetlight Manifesto and then tell me that they don't make beautiful music

@iPillage: Check out Mustard Plug. they seem up your alley

rectangular plastic frame glasses and scarf wearing thrift-store hipster indie rock

@Tom Bombadil

I agree; Mustard Plug along with Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake are 3rd Wave Ska staples

Streetlight and Catch 22 are better than all of them though

Diplomat - music that is vulgar, profane, and describes things that I find personally repulsive and awful does not mean it cannot be good music.

It is raw and the emotion expressed is oh so real.

"Mr. Deerskin Moccasins is on the fucking stalk again
Following and stalking all them larchmont soccer chicks
Chopping limbs, gnawing legs, through they fuckin' stockings
Him his grandfather sweatshirt, clockin' all them cardigans
Product of popped rubbers and pops that did not love us
So when I leave home keep my heart on the top cupboard
So I will not stutter when I'm shoutin' fuck you, son
Wolf Gang 'bout it, we ain't waitin' 'til the moon come"

Or

"Ma said "Wake up son, good morning"
I rolled out of bed, greeted mama with a yawn then
Paused to scratch an itch and went, down to the kitchen
Fixed a plate of eggs and bacon, glass of OJ Simpson
Just as I was about to dig in
A thought jumped in my head, school was to be attended, shit
I paid my thoughts no attention
Cause I wasn't tryna kick it with this bitch that just ended it with me
But mama wasn't havin it, so I grabbed my bag
And split out the door and saw the whore that I'd rather kick
It seems kinda brash but it's the hash, I mean the harsh truth
She runs shit, she's the jock, I'm the horseshoe
She's gorgeous, when niggas see it jaws hit the floor so
When she left, it didn't break my heart it broke my torso
Making my eyes ache, stalking her MySpace
Posted a new pic, I mean it when I say, that I fucking hate you, but

Maybe if you looked in this direction
I'd pick my heart up off the floor and put it in my chest then
Feel the fucking life, rushing through my body
But you got a guy, it's not me, so my wrist is looking sloppy
Come on, let's cut the bull like a matador
You light me up like lamps a chance is all I'm really asking for
Give me one, I promise I'll be back for more
Most wanna tap and score, I want a fam of four
Not like a family of four, just like.. fuck it
You'll never listen to this shit anyways, fuck you, bitch"

These are the words of a lyrical genius who understands my own generation better than anyone. Is he not allowed to express his anger? Should he not express his thoughts?

@iPillage-

Streetlight Manifesto and BotAR are awesome.

1. It's John Cage, not John Adam.
2. The arguments for 4'33 being a music, not just an art, can be found in many theories of art: in older ones like formalism, expressionism or representationalism as well as newer ones like various family resemblance theories, social constructionism or postmodern theories of art. One can of course deny it's access to the realm of music by employing various blunt definitions of "music" and that's fine, only that it doesn't really prove that 4'33 is not music.

Cage's 4.33 ...

It is surely not music (no tune, no harmony, no rhythm, etc.), though it is a "piece" in the artistic realm of music. That is, I believe it's an artwork that cannot be properly understood without a reference to the norms or conventions that apply to musical works.

Cachimbo +1

@Ulytau - how can something be part of a larger group when it doesn't conform to even *one* aspect of the larger group. That is illogical. By even the most lax definition of music. 4'33" does not confirm to even one part. Whale songs are more musical.

Intent makes the piece art, but form is required to make it music. Anyone who argues otherwise is arguing out of ignorance and/or with an agenda.

"Intent makes the piece art"

Intentionality might not be enough to make a piece an artistic one. That is, you also need that intention to properly relate its content (categorial (what kind of art) and semantic (what the artist wants to "say") ) to the conventions that provide a normative context where the "piece" can also be received as something situated (or demanding to be situated) in an artistic realm.

If so much is right, one can see that "conformity" to the norms is not as important as "situating the piece in relation with" these norms. Picasso's Guernica is surely to be counted in the art category of "paintings", but it obviously runs counter to many of the norms that establish "standard" properties of paintings. Readymades are also counted as art pieces, even if they run counter to almost any definition of art prevailing at the time. What makes both of these pieces "artworks" is not how they conform to the norms, but how their production was accomplished under an intention of specifying a piece that would be situated in the "artworld" or relevant artistic category.

The same is true of Cage's piece. It is very much situated in the "music" category, though the piece itself does not conform to the standard properties of "musical pieces". So when I say it's not music, what I mean is that it doesn't fit UNDER the standard definition of musical pieces. But the piece does require to be situated in that category and interpretation of the work must attend to it with those properties in mind since the artist's accomplishment was very much made possible in virtue of that relation obtaining. Once that relation is accepted by the institution, once it's integrated in our practices as a "musical piece", the effect is a change in the matrix of norms that make up the artistic category of music. Now, musical pieces need not fit under the old definition to be counted as such. .
Cage is not the only one to have operated such transformations. Schoenberg is another.

No, intent makes it art. Effectively conveying the emotion or impression makes it recognizable (i.e. good) art, and doing so in such a way that someone may want to experience it repeatedly and takes some form of pleasure (even if that pleasure is through sorrow or some other emotion) makes it good art to that individual.

Example:

Dogs Playing Poker is art.
Dogs Playing Poker is also functional in that it conveys a whimsical setting, so it is "good" art, objectively speaking.
Dogs Playing Poker makes me say "meh" and I could care ess if I ever saw another print of it, so it is not good art to me (subjectively).

DPP, is, arguably, not good art to most individuals.

Schindler's List is art.
Schindler's List conveys lots of emotions, so it is objectively good art.
Schindler's List ranks in my top 10 films of all time so it *is* good art to me (subjective).

Schindler's List is probably good art to most individuals.

Phillip Glass' Heroes Symphony is art.
Heroes conveys a range of emotions in it's minimalism so it is objectively good art.
Heroes is one of my favorite minimalist compositions and is subjectively good art to me.

Heroes is not for everyone and many find minimalist music to be boring and don't like it (except, of course, Tubular Bells which everyone likes until they hear the entire 45 minutes of both movements, not just the excerpts used in The Exorcist). Subjectively good? Up in the air and up to the individual.

No; thats not true draug and cachimbo, because any SOUND that is meant to be apppreciated for its own sake IS music.

cages point, and thank you for correcting, was that its never really silent. youre supposed to listen to the sounds around you, like the AC and the people coughing and the little noises that happen all the time. cages whole point was that these things are music too if they are treated as such


and anyway, your whole claim that music needs "form" implies you know what the fuck that is and have a monopoly on the definition.

tell me, what is form? is aleatoric music like some of penderecki not music because it lacks form?

why quibble about whether such and such is music, as if to demean the "non music"? if people think it is music you should probably shape up and accept it as such: it is always like this in art.

the people who drone on and on about how such and such a thing is "not art" sound more antiquated and out of touch every day

Intent is not enough for all sorts of reasons.
One important reason is the "private language" problem. Kripke does a good job at bringing up the reasons (from a Wittgensteinian point of view) that explain why private language is not possible. That is, he gives principled reasons as to why one can't use just any linguistic vehicle to express what he intends to express.

The problem is the similar in art.

You are right, however, in distinguishing "good" art from art "tout court". Those are indeed different issues. As for artistic vehicles "conveying emotions or impressions", some would argue that it need not be the case. "Fountain", for example, conveys neither yet is considered an art piece. "Erased De Kooning", by Rauschenberg, also conveys neither. The examples are too numerous to list.

All that to say that, "being a candidate for aesthetic appreciation" might be quite different from "being an art piece". But it remains that specifying something as an art piece requires that one mobilizes the proper conventions, whether to submit her production to their normativity, or to explicitly run counter to them (which still makes it the case that a relation obtains). Farting, and declaring the product of that process an art piece doesn't make it such for all that. An arbitrary decree is not enough. That decree must situate the production in some relation to the proper normative horizon.

My fart does not comply.

The "form" is whatever the artist shaped it to be. Musically, it could be the artists sitting with a cow bell striking at random intervals whenever he feels like it. But if the artist isn't in some manner controlling the environment or what the listener hears, then it isn't music any more than a completely blank canvas is a painting or film developed while having never been exposed (don't know if this has been tried) is a photo.

Why are we having this conversation again? Didn't we go through both of these examples late last year or something?

OK, maybe emotion was the wrong word. I was more trying to say it conveys the artist's intent. That is what makes it objectively good.