Debut of Music July 2, 2006 6:19 PM   Subscribe

http://music.metafilter.com/

Congrats to Matt and all the contributors.

This is the most fun I've had since I got the internet on dial-up way back in '92.
posted by snsranch to MetaFilter-Related at 6:19 PM (27 comments total)

Yep, even better than free porn!
posted by snsranch at 6:20 PM on July 2, 2006


Party's in the back room.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:57 PM on July 2, 2006


i'm so glad you made a whole new thread for this.
posted by shmegegge at 8:56 PM on July 2, 2006


Thanks, but considering that there were 300+ comments I thought I'd bring it out to the patio!
posted by snsranch at 10:09 PM on July 2, 2006


Just please get that one-song-a-day limit implemented soon...some people just don't know how to play nice.
posted by mediareport at 11:18 PM on July 2, 2006


Yeah, and some of those don't know what "music" means.
posted by kindall at 11:33 PM on July 2, 2006


Oh, I think found sound recordings should have a place there. You don't?
posted by mediareport at 12:29 AM on July 3, 2006


Not 16 of them in one day, no.
posted by blag at 6:22 AM on July 3, 2006


Consider it seeding the database. We were all pretty crazy back in those early days of July '06.
posted by cortex at 6:44 AM on July 3, 2006


think found sound recordings should have a place there. You don't?

Well, maybe on foundsound.metafilter.com. Which could actually be interesting, come to think of it.
posted by kindall at 10:34 AM on July 3, 2006


Great. As if arguing whether single-links and YouTube and NewsFilter were valid FPPs wasn't enough, now we have to discuss whether we think other people's music is music?

"Your Add N to X-esque band makes noise, not music."
"This classical/electronic shit has been done before."
"Prog rock? Ugh, that's not music, it's a way of life. For homeless people."
"Spoken Word will lead directly to the downfall of society."
etc.
posted by Plutor at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2006


The "one song a day" thing should be a minimum for some users.
posted by Eideteker at 11:11 AM on July 3, 2006


now we have to discuss whether we think other people's music is music?

There's a distinct difference between saying "that's not music" to put down music that you don't like and saying "that's not music" to point out that something is not music.
posted by kindall at 12:53 PM on July 3, 2006


*dances about architecture*
posted by cortex at 1:08 PM on July 3, 2006


There's a distinct difference between saying "that's not music" to put down music that you don't like and saying "that's not music" to point out that something is not music.

It's silly to act like there's some kind of clear, simple definition of music which we're all willfully ignoring or something. There isn't. If Matt needs to set limits on exactly what's appropriate for MeFi Music, that's fine, but it's going to be faily arbitrary no matter what.

What are you, rockist?
posted by ludwig_van at 2:49 PM on July 3, 2006


I am, unsurprisingly, in total agreement with Ludwig van. Show me a definition of music, and I will show you someone who considers it wrong.
posted by Plutor at 5:24 PM on July 3, 2006


Yes, but show me someone who considers my definition wrong, and I will show you someone who is stupid and ugly.
posted by cortex at 6:12 PM on July 3, 2006


Simple.

Somebody set out to make music = music.

Some sounds happened = not music.
posted by kindall at 12:31 AM on July 4, 2006


Somebody set out to make music = music.
Some sounds happened = not music.


Example 1: My neighbour has some wind chimes. I set up a microphone in my garden while she's out and record them clanging in the wind.

Example 2: I have some wind chimes. I set up a microphone in my garden and do some free improv thang on them using my fingers and maybe also a stick.

By your definition, Example 1 is Not Music, whereas Example 2 is Music. They both sound the same. How will you tell which is music and which isn't, just by listening to them?

Example 3: Some kid with a broken Casio keyboard makes some moody dark ambient music by holding all the keys down at once for over 10 minutes. Somebody set out to make music.

Example 4: Acclaimed artist, musician and biologist Alan Lamb straps a contact mic to a telegraph pole in the Australian outback and taps into the world's biggest aeolian harp, capturing modulated drones, roars, twitches and undulating overtones far more affecting than anything possible on a Casio as the varying windspeed causes the miles of telegraph cable to resonate. Some sound happened.

I think your definition is wrong.
posted by nylon at 4:52 AM on July 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


My point is simply that not all sound recordings are musical recordings, which is so obvious I'd think it doesn't even need to be stated, but apparently it does. So: not all sound recordings are musical recordings. When you make your definition of music so inclusive that everything is music, we have no need for the word "music" at all.

Exactly where you draw the line is open for debate, of course, but intentionality obviously plays an important role. At a bare minimum there should be evidence of human participation in the result; music shows the imprint of a creative spirit. (The "did you set out to make music" guideline is a reflection of this. For example, I would say in your example #2, if there's no difference between the result and #1, you didn't actually set out to make music, you set out to emulate a wind. If I can't tell you set out to make music, then how am I supposed to know that's what you did?)

Another way to define music of course is to insist that it contain evidence of pattern or at least some traditional musical qualities such as melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. However, this sort of definition can be limiting, so I used the broadest definition I could think of. That way no one could possibly find fault with it. Silly me -- I should have remembered that there are people here who can find fault with virtually anything.

You can try to stump me with edge cases all you want -- but I'm not going to fall for that rhetorical quagmire. (Though the answers to the supposedly puzzling examples are thuddingly obvious.) If people are willing to argue for their edge cases and they can muster even a semblance of an argument then fine, let 'em slide. I do not object to rules being bent here now and then. But c'mon, a sound recording made at a beach is not music unless there's a busker playing in it or something. It's just not. I cannot conceive of a definition of music that would encompass it.

I suppose some of you might be objecting because you think I'm saying a found sound recording can't be art, or that it isn't interesting, or that it should be scoured from the earth, or something else that I didn't actually say. If you're doing that, please stop.

And that's all I've got to say about that.
posted by kindall at 11:51 AM on July 4, 2006


You're way off the mark, kindall.

Somebody set out to make music = music.
Some sounds happened = not music
.

That's not a useful definition at all. Someone uploading their track to music.metafilter.com obviously considers it music. A tape recorder and an editing suite is just as much an instrument as a guitar or piano.

Are you some sort of music scholar? Or do you just think you've figured out what's been eluding all of those types? Seriously, this is not an argument you can win.

I think later today I'll upload my cover of 4'33"!
posted by ludwig_van at 3:46 PM on July 4, 2006


Perhaps a better way to put it would be: if we accept your definition, there is still no way to tell from listening to something if it is music or not, because it depends on the author's intentions, which only he knows. Since he's uploading it to a music site, he seems to be asserting that his intentions were to make music.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:06 PM on July 4, 2006


Since he's uploading it to a music site, he seems to be asserting that his intentions were to make music.

You're confusing the map with the territory. I'm talking about making the sound, not the recording.
posted by kindall at 9:25 PM on July 4, 2006


I'm not sure what you're saying. Making a recording has been a legitimate way of making music for about 50 years.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:27 PM on July 4, 2006


He's talking about the process, not the result.
posted by Eideteker at 11:42 PM on July 4, 2006


John Cage was a provocateur. No firm definition of music is ever going to satisfy everyone, but I think it's fair to say we can identify what's going to cause an argument:

If you have to say, "well, no, it is music, and here's why," then it's going to cause an argument, and that argument can't be won from either side.
posted by cortex at 6:33 AM on July 5, 2006


I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we can solve the argument of what constitutes art and what doesn't. Cortex is right: no firm definition is going to be satisfactory, but in the end, only one definition matters: Matt's. Oh, and Jessamyn's.

/me sends Matt and Jess complimentary copies of Plutor's Neighboorhood Ambiance, wrapped with crisp Benjamins.
posted by Plutor at 6:52 AM on July 5, 2006


« Older An update on MiHail memorial donations.   |   Is it kosher to solicit Ask MeFi for feedback on... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments