Who else thinks that rap should not be considered music?

[QUOTE="tsb247"]I would also like to point out that it takes less talent to be a rapper. Can they play any kind of instrument? Most can't. Can they sing (and I mean REALLY sing... As in carry a note)? I have yet to see it. Haven't you noticed that there are new rappers popping up almost every day, but rarely do you hear of any other kind of musician. That's because rapeprs are a dime a dozen nowadays. It's just too easy.pianist

Virtuosity is not a requirement of music, nor is the amount of skill required to play it a measure of how musical something is. By comparison to avant garde cIassical music, rock music is pathetically easy to play. Does that make rock music any less 'musical' than avant garde cIassical music?

A good point, sir. However, there is a subtle beauty in rock/metal that many people miss. If you really listen (and think) to rock and/or metal, you can sometimes hear its origins quite clearly. There is very little difference between a modern metal band and a symphony orchestra (bear with me here). Think about it for a minute. Squeeze the violin and viola sections down and you get a guitar (about the same range of notes anyway). Squeeze all the cellos and basses down, and you get the bass. Drums are self-explanatory, and there is no accounting for some instruments (the bassoon for instance). It may be a crude representation, and sometimes shoddy, but metal and other forms of rock form from the rich background of classical. Case and point, look up the band Apokalyptica (try looking up "Apokalyptica - Hope live on youtube). "Lost Reality" by Mercenary is also a good example. Heck, some orchestra even did an entire Seether album.

You won't find that in rap. To be honest, I have no idea where it comes from, but its heritage is most likely not as well defined, and I am pretty darn sure it doesn't stem from classical music. While I'm sure it has a rich history all of its own, I simply don't get any notions of talent when I hear it. All I hear is spoken word to a generic beat. I don't hear it like I do when I listen to metal; rap doesn't make me use my imagination.

Am I saying rock is better just because of where it originates? Certainly not. I am just saying I get a much richer enjoyment out of rock/metal than I ever have from rap.

I am exhausted, so I hope I haven't rambled off the subject too much.

What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"] What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. Godly_Cure

Either artistic intent was there or it wasn't. It's not really subjective at all. The person who created the sound knows whether or not he or she intended it to express something beyond the sound itself.

A good point, sir. However, there is a subtle beauty in rock/metal that many people miss. If you really listen (and think) to rock and/or metal, you can sometimes hear its origins quite clearly. There is very little difference between a modern metal band and a symphony orchestra (bear with me here). Think about it for a minute. Squeeze the violin and viola sections down and you get a guitar (about the same range of notes anyway). Squeeze all the cellos and basses down, and you get the bass. Drums are self-explanatory, and there is no accounting for some instruments (the bassoon for instance). It may be a crude representation, and sometimes shoddy, but metal and other forms of rock form from the rich background of classical. Case and point, look up the band Apokalyptica (try looking up "Apokalyptica - Hope live on youtube). "Lost Reality" by Mercenary is also a good example. Heck, some orchestra even did an entire Seether album.

You won't find that in rap. To be honest, I have no idea where it comes from, but its heritage is most likely not as well defined, and I am pretty darn sure it doesn't stem from classical music. While I'm sure it has a rich history all of its own, I simply don't get any notions of talent when I hear it. All I hear is spoken word to a generic beat. I don't hear it like I do when I listen to metal; rap doesn't make me use my imagination.

Am I saying rock is better just because of where it originates? Certainly not. I am just saying I get a much richer enjoyment out of rock/metal than I ever have from rap.

I am exhausted, so I hope I haven't rambled off the subject too much.

tsb247

Interesting idea... but a rock band really isn't much like a symphony orchestra. It's more like a Hindustani cIassical ensemble in size and composition (Hindustani ensembles make great music, but are not at all like a Western orchestra). A rock band is designed, like most popular Western music ensembles, to present a melodic component and bass line (the basic requirement of harmony is these two voices) and a rhythmic component. The other instruments complement the harmony with loosely structured material. And all of this plays an accompanimental role to the vocal melody if one is present. If not, it's usually the lead guitar that dominates, but the effect is the same, since it too is a high instrument that is harmonically supported by the bass and rhythmically supported by the drums. This is very different from a symphony. It's the range of colour that makes a symphony what it is, and that range of colour is a direct result of the sheer variety of instruments employed. Obviously, you won't find nearly as much variety in a typical rock band. Even when a keyboardist is employed to add special effects, one person isn't capable of playing many of these effects simultaneously in a contrapuntal manner, which is standard fare for orchestral music.

That ties into the other big difference between rock ensembles and orchestras - the compositional styIe is extremely different. Rock music typically features one instrument or voice which dominates the texture, while all the other instruments are almost always playing a purely accompanimental role. Again, this is very much like Hindustani cIassical music. By contrast, in orchestral music it is not at all uncommon for the melody to be passed around from one instrument or group to another, imitated, or developed in a conversational manner (counterpoint and motivic development). So while melody is a very important component of both compositional styIes, there tends to be much more interesting musical development in orchestral music, along with a greater variety of textures, which is again a product of the large variety of instruments available. There's also much more emphasis on motivic development in orchestral music, whereas rock music tends to rely on simple, non-developmental repetition of individual motives.

In reality, rock music is only loosely related to cIassical music from both a musical and historical point of view. It does employ tonal harmony, but when it comes to form, development, rhythm, colour, instrumentation, and so forth, there isn't much compositional similarity at all. Rock is much more a product of blues and other early forms of Western popular music than it is a product of the European cIassical tradition. Rap is also tied to blues, and to the African griot tradition (griots deliver stories rhythmically over sparse drum accompaniment). But one can also trace influences of a wide variety of other 20th century popular genres to the development of rap as we know it today. What's important to realize, though, is that rock and rap are more closely related to each other in heritage than either is to cIassical music, and that's why I don't really agree with your reasoning. And even if rock and cIassical music were joined at the hip, it wouldn't make them superior to rap. They're just different kinds of music, after all.

In the end, you like what you like. It really doesn't matter what you like. But don't get the notion in your head that a form of music you don't really like isn't music simply because it doesn't speak to you. And for the record... I do believe some rappers have rapped to orchestral accompaniment. Some of the rap fans may be able to tell you who they were; I don't recall, since I'm not a fan of the genre at all. But that doesn't mean the music is cIassical. It's still rap - there's just a symphony providing the accompaniment instead of electronics. Same goes for symphonies accompanying rock bands. It's still rock music.

blah blah blah music music schmusic.pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]blah blah blah music music schmusic.yomamafat532

Seeing as it wasn't directed at you, I could care less what you got from it. Rest assured that the people who are actually interested in this discussion will read it. Go troll somewhere else.

[QUOTE="yomamafat532"][QUOTE="pianist"]blah blah blah music music schmusic.pianist

Seeing as it wasn't directed at you, I could care less what you got from it. Rest assured that the people who are actually interested in this discussion will read it. Go troll somewhere else.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="yomamafat532"][QUOTE="pianist"]blah blah blah music music schmusic.yomamafat532

Seeing as it wasn't directed at you, I could care less what you got from it. Rest assured that the people who are actually interested in this discussion will read it. Go troll somewhere else.

:lol:

Whatever floats your boat. But again... take it somewhere else. May I suggest Youtube?

Music is made of Rhythm, Melody and Harmony, that's just basic musical theory. Rap only has one of those elements, which is Rhythm, it has no Melody because the singers don't even try to sing in tune, they're so busy sounding tough and gangsta' and whatnot, so there's no musical notes, and without notes there's no Melody, and without Melody there can't be Harmony.

So I agree with the TC, rap may be a kind of poetry (sometimes), but it is not music.

By the way, pianist, if you're around here somewhere, you're the music master around here and since I just started studying music about a year and a half ago I really look up to you. So please come and tear apart my argument if all I did was spill bs.

Music is made of Rhythm, Melody and Harmony, that's just basic musical theory. Rap only has one of those elements, which is Rhythm, it has no Melody because the singers don't even try to sing in tune, they're so busy sounding tough and gangsta' and whatnot, so there's no musical notes, and without notes there's no Melody, and without Melody there can't be Harmony.

So I agree with the TC, rap may be a kind of poetry (sometimes), but it is not music.

By the way, pianist, if you're around here somewhere, you're the music master around here and since I just started studying music about a year and a half ago I really look up to you. So please come and tear apart my argument if all I did was spill bs.

black_cat19

No need, dude. This was all addressed in my wall of text a few posts up. :P

The Reader's Digest version is that music need not have melody and harmony to be considered music. If melody and harmony were a requirement of the definition, then unpitched percussion solos would not be music, nor for that matter would any form of drumming. A few pages back I posted a couple of Youtube links to some neat percussion music. Nothing but rhythm. No melody, no harmony, and yet unmistakably music.

Rap is no different. It very strongly emphasizes the rhythmic component of music, but rhythm is the most basic, fundamental characteristic of music. Remember that the most accurate definition of music is 'purposefully organized sound,' where purposefully implies artistic intent. Rhythm is organized sound. If you have that, and it was intentionally created that way by a human, you have music.

Another little side note - harmony is not dependent on melody. You can play a single solid chord and you'll have harmony, but no distinguishable melody (harmony's just two or more pitches simulataneously occurring). And you can also have a melody which provides no distinguishable harmony (an atonal melody, for instance). But most melodies do imply some sort of traditional harmonic progression, since most melodies are tonal.

In reality, rock music is only loosely related to cIassical music from both a musical and historical point of view. It does employ tonal harmony, but when it comes to form, development, rhythm, colour, instrumentation, and so forth, there isn't much compositional similarity at all. Rock is much more a product of blues and other early forms of Western popular music than it is a product of the European cIassical tradition. Rap is also tied to blues, and to the African griot tradition (griots deliver stories rhythmically over sparse drum accompaniment). But one can also trace influences of a wide variety of other 20th century popular genres to the development of rap as we know it today. What's important to realize, though, is that rock and rap are more closely related to each other in heritage than either is to cIassical music, and that's why I don't really agree with your reasoning. And even if rock and cIassical music were joined at the hip, it wouldn't make them superior to rap. They're just different kinds of music, after all.

pianist

You know there's even a subgenre of blues called talking blues? Listen to John Lee Hooker's "Boogie Chillun" and you can see how easily blues can be tied to rap.

But like you said, hip-hop and rock are much more similar to each other than rock is to cIassical. Rock is basically a 1st generation descendant of the blues, while hip-hop is a 2nd generation descendant of the blues. The genres that most heavily influenced hip-hop were jazz, funk, R&B, and soul and all of those genres are descendants of blues.

Rap is also a descendant of scat singing found in jazz, where the voice is used as an instrument.

Rap is also a descendant of toasting which is an Afro-Caribbean music that uses spoken word or chanting over a beat. It's similar to the griots (jelis) of Western African who were wandering poets/musicians who were responsible for passing down stories, history, traditions, etc. from generation to generation like you earlier mentioned.

Rap is also a descendant of jazz poets from the 1960's and 70's such as Gil Scott-Heron.

Rap battles and it's competitive nature are a descendant of the Dozens which is an African-American tradition where people compete by trading good natured trash talk/insults.

In the end, you like what you like. It really doesn't matter what you like. But don't get the notion in your head that a form of music you don't really like isn't music simply because it doesn't speak to you. And for the record... I do believe some rappers have rapped to orchestral accompaniment. Some of the rap fans may be able to tell you who they were; I don't recall, since I'm not a fan of the genre at all. But that doesn't mean the music is cIassical. It's still rap - there's just a symphony providing the accompaniment instead of electronics. Same goes for symphonies accompanying rock bands. It's still rock music.

pianist

Of course its music, and good music at that depending on what you listen too, just like any other genrezepman71

Yup, too many people give rap a bad name because of **** like Soulja Boy and Hurricane Chris and whoever the hell is ruining pop music nowadays.

People need to go to the older stuff like NWA, Wu-Tang, Nas, etc. and then maybe they'll see that it's meaningful.

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="pianist"] What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. pianist

Either artistic intent was there or it wasn't. It's not really subjective at all. The person who created the sound knows whether or not he or she intended it to express something beyond the sound itself.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="pianist"] What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. LJS9502_basic

Either artistic intent was there or it wasn't. It's not really subjective at all. The person who created the sound knows whether or not he or she intended it to express something beyond the sound itself.

Artistic intent is not subjective. If you did make a horrible sound, with artistic intent, it would be crappy and horrible, but it would still have artistic intent.

Artistic intent is not subjective. If you did make a horrible sound, with artistic intent, it would be crappy and horrible, but it would still have artistic intent.

Funky_Llama

According to him.....

What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. pianist

And what is "intent" but subjective. Whether you like the sounds I created or not...it was my INTENT to be creative and thus since artistic intent was there it's music. Period.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Artistic intent is not subjective. If you did make a horrible sound, with artistic intent, it would be crappy and horrible, but it would still have artistic intent.

LJS9502_basic

According to him.....

What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. pianist

And what is "intent" but subjective. Whether you like the sounds I created or not...it was my INTENT to be creative and thus since artistic intent was there it's music. Period.

Ah, right, I think I see now.

"tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies"

Thats the definition according to wikipedia. It doesn't mention artistic intent....how odd.

"tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies"

Thats the definition according to wikipedia. It doesn't mention artistic intent....how odd.

-Austin-

Heh... I've never thought of it like that, with the horizontal and vertical thing. I like that.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

"tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies"

Thats the definition according to wikipedia. It doesn't mention artistic intent....how odd.

Funky_Llama

Heh... I've never thought of it like that, with the horizontal and vertical thing. I like that.

I think some Greek philosopher came up with it, but I dont know who.

I think some Greek philosopher came up with it, but I dont know who.

-Austin-

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

I think some Greek philosopher came up with it, but I dont know who.

LJS9502_basic

"Greek philosophers and ancient Indians defined music as...."

Apparently not

wow, this thread is still going....well let me put some other facts in here about the origins of Rock and how it was treated the same as way Rapp is treated today. Maybe this will calm some of the blind arrogance.

The United States was divided by racial problems during the 1950's, but many people sensed a spirit of equality in Rock and Roll. With the rise of Rock and Roll's new popularity, black artists were becoming more popular with audiences of all colors.

In the early days of Rock and Roll "race records" were sold mainly to black customers. This practice started to change as Rock and Roll became more popular with young people. Chuck Berry was one of the first black Rock and Roll performers to appeal to black and white audiences by combining the popular black Rhythm-and-Bluessound with Rock and Roll. His powerful guitar playing and energetic dancing thrilled audiences.

Before Elvis Presley sang "Hound Dog," Big Mama Thornton had house-trained that canine. Before Bill Haley & the Comets popularized "Shake, Rattle & Roll," Big Joe Turner had done all three. The Crewcut's "Sh-Boom" was originally sung by The Chords, and The Beatles' "Roll Over Beethoven" was rocked by Chuck Berry well before the boys from Liverpool "invaded" America.

Lost is the reality that rock `n' roll was actually born out of the belly of Black blues music and raised by Black artists in the 1950s in smoke-filled clubs along Beale Street in Memphis, 47th Street in Chicago and 125th Street in Harlem. Only years later, when White teenagers began openly digging the electric guitars and the pounding drum beats that Black artists were playing - a sound their parents had disparagingly labeled "race" and "rhythm and blues" music - did White disc jockey Alan Freed re-name it "rock `n' roll," and White artists entered the lucrative field without stigma.

Thus is it safe to say that Graceland was built off the backs of Black artists and that the "British Invasion" only served to prove that White America would pay for music that had been taken from its backyard, shipped overseas, watered down, whitewashed and sent back to the States by messengers with funny accents? Tim Moore, communications director for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, says it's sad but true. "The contribution of Black artists to rock `n' roll can't be overstated," he says. "The music of the Black Church and the music of the blues are the bedrock of what became known as rock `n' roll in the early 1950s."

The rock `n' roll museum opened last year with the goal of telling the truth about the roots of the rock music industry. Moore says people "are surprised" to see Black displayed so prominently in the museum. Many visitors enter the museum, thinking rock `n' roll is solely White music, he says.

The museum tells the history of rock music, of the segregation that was riding high during its heyday and how putting a White face on the music opened up acceptance of the music. Once White companies and radio stations saw the success of such performers as Elvis, many got behind the music and began to push White artists to the forefront. "If there is any doubt that some of the early White artists, such as Elvis Presley, were influenced by Blacks, consider that Elvis used to go to all-night gospel sings in Memphis where they would have Black quartets and choirs," Moore says. "That's how he developed his singing, voice and style.

Now today we go through the same with Rap/Hip Hop.

If you hate rapp music then maybe you should hate motion pictures more. which is more influential? they are just sources of entertainment ..... jealousy and ignorance can be so bliss here.

lol, i thought this thread was bashing "hiphop or rap" again.

I'm not sure myself but to me its music.

[QUOTE="tsb247"]

A good point, sir. However, there is a subtle beauty in rock/metal that many people miss. If you really listen (and think) to rock and/or metal, you can sometimes hear its origins quite clearly. There is very little difference between a modern metal band and a symphony orchestra (bear with me here). Think about it for a minute. Squeeze the violin and viola sections down and you get a guitar (about the same range of notes anyway). Squeeze all the cellos and basses down, and you get the bass. Drums are self-explanatory, and there is no accounting for some instruments (the bassoon for instance). It may be a crude representation, and sometimes shoddy, but metal and other forms of rock form from the rich background of classical. Case and point, look up the band Apokalyptica (try looking up "Apokalyptica - Hope live on youtube). "Lost Reality" by Mercenary is also a good example. Heck, some orchestra even did an entire Seether album.

You won't find that in rap. To be honest, I have no idea where it comes from, but its heritage is most likely not as well defined, and I am pretty darn sure it doesn't stem from classical music. While I'm sure it has a rich history all of its own, I simply don't get any notions of talent when I hear it. All I hear is spoken word to a generic beat. I don't hear it like I do when I listen to metal; rap doesn't make me use my imagination.

Am I saying rock is better just because of where it originates? Certainly not. I am just saying I get a much richer enjoyment out of rock/metal than I ever have from rap.

I am exhausted, so I hope I haven't rambled off the subject too much.

pianist

Interesting idea... but a rock band really isn't much like a symphony orchestra. It's more like a Hindustani cIassical ensemble in size and composition (Hindustani ensembles make great music, but are not at all like a Western orchestra). A rock band is designed, like most popular Western music ensembles, to present a melodic component and bass line (the basic requirement of harmony is these two voices) and a rhythmic component. The other instruments complement the harmony with loosely structured material. And all of this plays an accompanimental role to the vocal melody if one is present. If not, it's usually the lead guitar that dominates, but the effect is the same, since it too is a high instrument that is harmonically supported by the bass and rhythmically supported by the drums. This is very different from a symphony. It's the range of colour that makes a symphony what it is, and that range of colour is a direct result of the sheer variety of instruments employed. Obviously, you won't find nearly as much variety in a typical rock band. Even when a keyboardist is employed to add special effects, one person isn't capable of playing many of these effects simultaneously in a contrapuntal manner, which is standard fare for orchestral music.

That ties into the other big difference between rock ensembles and orchestras - the compositional styIe is extremely different. Rock music typically features one instrument or voice which dominates the texture, while all the other instruments are almost always playing a purely accompanimental role. Again, this is very much like Hindustani cIassical music. By contrast, in orchestral music it is not at all uncommon for the melody to be passed around from one instrument or group to another, imitated, or developed in a conversational manner (counterpoint and motivic development). So while melody is a very important component of both compositional styIes, there tends to be much more interesting musical development in orchestral music, along with a greater variety of textures, which is again a product of the large variety of instruments available. There's also much more emphasis on motivic development in orchestral music, whereas rock music tends to rely on simple, non-developmental repetition of individual motives.

In reality, rock music is only loosely related to cIassical music from both a musical and historical point of view. It does employ tonal harmony, but when it comes to form, development, rhythm, colour, instrumentation, and so forth, there isn't much compositional similarity at all. Rock is much more a product of blues and other early forms of Western popular music than it is a product of the European cIassical tradition. Rap is also tied to blues, and to the African griot tradition (griots deliver stories rhythmically over sparse drum accompaniment). But one can also trace influences of a wide variety of other 20th century popular genres to the development of rap as we know it today. What's important to realize, though, is that rock and rap are more closely related to each other in heritage than either is to cIassical music, and that's why I don't really agree with your reasoning. And even if rock and cIassical music were joined at the hip, it wouldn't make them superior to rap. They're just different kinds of music, after all.

In the end, you like what you like. It really doesn't matter what you like. But don't get the notion in your head that a form of music you don't really like isn't music simply because it doesn't speak to you. And for the record... I do believe some rappers have rapped to orchestral accompaniment. Some of the rap fans may be able to tell you who they were; I don't recall, since I'm not a fan of the genre at all. But that doesn't mean the music is cIassical. It's still rap - there's just a symphony providing the accompaniment instead of electronics. Same goes for symphonies accompanying rock bands. It's still rock music.

Well, I can't argue with that... You certainly seem to know your history. I did a little research myself, and you are pretty muc hdead on.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="pianist"] What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. LJS9502_basic

Either artistic intent was there or it wasn't. It's not really subjective at all. The person who created the sound knows whether or not he or she intended it to express something beyond the sound itself.

And if you say so, then it can be considered music, providing it's more than just a couple of random sounds. Scratching your fingernails across a chalk board twice and calling it music obviously isn't the same a producing a sustained, organized series of sounds.

You know, it's not at all uncommon for composers to produce horrible sounds to express certain emotions (like anguish). Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima and numerous other avant garde compositions use just such a technicque.

Again, artistic intent is NOT subjective. If you produce a sustained combination of organized sounds intended to express, you are creating music, and it really doesn't matter if most people think it sounds awful or not. Believe it or not, a lot of people like Penderecki's Threnody (though I can't count myself amongst them).

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="pianist"] What that means is that if a person produces a sequence of sounds with artistic intent, it could be considered music. pianist

Either artistic intent was there or it wasn't. It's not really subjective at all. The person who created the sound knows whether or not he or she intended it to express something beyond the sound itself.

And if you say so, then it can be considered music, providing it's more than just a couple of random sounds. Scratching your fingernails across a chalk board twice and calling it music obviously isn't the same a producing a sustained, organized series of sounds.

You know, it's not at all uncommon for composers to produce horrible sounds to express certain emotions (like anguish). Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima and numerous other avant garde compositions use just such a technicque.

Again, artistic intent is NOT subjective. If you produce a sustained combination of organized sounds intended to express, you are creating music, and it really doesn't matter if most people think it sounds awful or not. Believe it or not, a lot of people like Penderecki's Threnody (though I can't count myself amongst them).

Urgh... I don't like atonal music at all.

"tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies"

Thats the definition according to wikipedia. It doesn't mention artistic intent....how odd.

-Austin-

Is music an art form or is it not? If you don't demand that artistic intent be part of the definition of music, then random noise becomes music. Certain avant garde composers have certainly advanced that theory (such as Cage with his 4'33"), but I've never agreed with it.

Nature can certainly exhibit musical properties, but it does not produce music any more than a whirlwind will manufacture a computer. Incidentally, what the heck do you think is required to "order pitches horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies?" Conscious thought, that's what. In other words, intent.

Urgh... I don't like atonal music at all.

Funky_Llama

I'm not a fan of it either. But there's no argument that it's music, since Penderecki obviously wrote the score, choosing those specific sounds to evoke emotions.

Whether you like the sounds I created or not...it was my INTENT to be creative and thus since artistic intent was there it's music. Period.

LJS9502_basic

True. And so why did you bring this up again? Because that's exactly what I was arguing. Either a person had artistic intent or he didn't. If he was designing a car alarm, in all likelihood he didn't intend the ordered sound to be artistic in nature, and so it wouldn't be considered music. But if he's using a car alarm in a composition, he did intend the noise to be part of the music, and so it is... music.

It's not subjective at all. The person who created the organized sound can clearly say that it was intended to be music or it wasn't. If it was, then we will evaluate it as music. If not, we won't.

I would say yes, eventhough I'm not a fan.

Behind all the F words and shootings and N words, theres a musical arrangement, so yes, rap is music.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

"tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies"

Thats the definition according to wikipedia. It doesn't mention artistic intent....how odd.

-Austin-

Heh... I've never thought of it like that, with the horizontal and vertical thing. I like that.

I think some Greek philosopher came up with it, but I dont know who.

You think wrong. Records indicate that nearly all music from Ancient Greece was monophonic, and though they did play some music that involved more than one pitch occurring simultaneously, there certainly aren't any historical writings on the subject of harmony, nor would their heterophonic music be considered polyphonic the way it eventually developed in the Medieval church. The word 'harmony' wasn't even used in an historical treatise until Rameau's "Traité de l'harmonie" from 1722.

Ancient Greece is primarily responsible for giving us knowledge of harmonics (the study of the mathematical relationship between overtones, not the use of harmony) through the work of Pythagoras, the notion that certain sounds evoke different emotions (from Plato's writings), and the development of the early church modes. In fact, the only mention of harmony in Greek philosophy is Plato's definition of a melos as being made up of speech, rhythm, and harmony (defined by him as an agreeable combination of pitches in a melody). Obviously this is not referring to the vertical arrangement of tones and has nothing at all to do with harmony as we know it.

It is convenient to think of harmony and melody as being independent elements when analyzing music, but it is not an accurate way of thinking about the overall effect of a passage. A tonal melody - even when monophonic - will always imply a harmonic progression. And a harmonic progression involving any movement in the uppermost voice will imply a melody. These two elements of music are fused in a practical sense, even if they can be evaluated individually in a theoretical sense.

This thread is becoming a music theory discussion;

How about a round of Minor 7th's for everyone? On me.

This thread is becoming a music theory discussion;

How about a round of Minor 7th's for everyone? On me.

Shmiity

I think a circle of fifths would be more appropriate...

Would you like your C#5th mixed?

C# G# C#

G# C# G#

its on the house.

Would you like your C#5th mixed?

C# G# C#

G# C# G#

its on the house.

Shmiity

Waiter! There's a fourth in my fifths!