Natural music

[Magnus Anderson]

Still thinking that it's being electronically altered. In which case, I wouldn't think that it would fit the definition of "natural music" posited in the OP - even if limited to reverb and echo.

Here's Improver in the Uber driver setting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyLczCE5uCI

[ThinkOfOne]

Still thinking that it's being electronically altered. In which case, I wouldn't think that it would fit the definition of "natural music" posited in the OP - even if limited to reverb and echo.

Here's Improver in the Uber driver setting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyLczCE5uCI

What about it? It's obvious that not all the sounds heard on that video are coming out of his mouth.

No comments about the truly "natural music" from my previous post? I'd really like to hear about what you think of it.

[Janoah]

Listen to the following from a quartet using only sax, violin, cello and percussion without electronic alteration of any kind.
https://meenna.bandcamp.com/album/sounds-of-assembly

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of it.

'much "farting" about nothing'..?

[Janoah]

Janoah has not made it quite clear why electronic music does not deserve to be called music.

Art, and music in particular, expresses the soul of the performer; that is its meaning.
Electronic music cannot technically fully express the soul of the performer; it expresses only the illusion of art, a "pleasantly" programmed sound.
By comparison, in a vacuum, a singer can sing, but he cannot be heard in principle.
Do you feel the falseness of electronic music?
I think that someone who doesn’t sense falsehood won’t accept the explanation.

[ThinkOfOne]

Listen to the following from a quartet using only sax, violin, cello and percussion without electronic alteration of any kind.
https://meenna.bandcamp.com/album/sounds-of-assembly

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of it.

'much "farting" about nothing'..?

Curious how many have a strong aversion to that which they don't understand.

How likely do you think it is that you don't understand enough about music to understand what does and does not constitute "art" in music? The problem isn't necessarily the use of electronics.
For that matter, how likely do you think it is that you don't understand enough about music to capably differentiate between "good" from "bad" music? Or even what is and what is not "music"? There's much more to music than rhythm, melody and harmony.

Before you answer, consider the violinist from the quartet. From what I gather, she is a classically trained violinist that studied music at York University and was working on a post-graduate degree from Goldsmith University when she started attending workshops led by the percussionist from the quartet. Evidently they find value in that type of music. Think either of them might understand more about music than you do?

Perhaps you should reevaluate your views on music.

[Magnus Anderson]

No comments about the truly "natural music" from my previous post? I'd really like to hear about what you think of it.

I am not a fan of that type of music. Of course, that alone does not make it unnatural. Nor does it make it something other than art. Although often used that way, the word "art" does not imply a level of quality. A work of art can be bad just as it can be good. And it can be really really bad and still be a work of art. A work of art, like everything else, is as good as it serves the purpose it is assigned by its user. In the case of music, that purpose is usually to entertain, so to the extent that it entertains, and to the extent it is free from negative side effects, it is good.

[MikeNovack]

Natural vs unnatural is complicated.

A natural instrument sounds like it does because of the particular mix of harmonics. For that reason I am less inclined to think of in terms of a physical instrument. A pipe organ is a physical instrument but the "stops" can alter the harmonic content to sound like something else.

And "electronic music" might be music programmed OR music played by a an "electronic instrument". The latter in some cases very like JUST amplified physical vibration or very unlike and PASSIVE signal "distorters" could be in the circuit.

I believe usually when sounds wanted not possible from physical instruments wanted, programmed is used. BUT no obvious reason why somebody couldn't make an instrument that made these sounds as a musician played the instrument. For example, a typical "electronic keyboard" with different programming.

AND, confusion between natural and electronic can be fun. On a CD lost in our 2006 house fire (didn't know the name so couldn't replace) was "avant guarde" compositions for didgeridoo and percusion, the drums being electronic, the didgeridoo real << but listening to this had you picturing the natural and electronic instruments reversed >>

[Janoah]

to understand what does and does not constitute "art" in music?

I'm curious, in your opinion, what does and does not constitute "art" in music?
And by the way, why are you against musical farting, because "what is natural is not ugly"?

[Magnus Anderson]

The Sretensky Monastery Choir - When We Were At War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gydz4DmuqgI

[Magnus Anderson]

Veryovka Ukrainian Folk Choir - Arkan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2QdVw6OriM

[popeye1945]

Please define 'music'.

Music is a genre of art. Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.

Music is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. Biology is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. Music, as sounds, affects the rhythms of life and alters one's moods and life's chemistry. It is, according to some, a means of experiencing the rapture of being alive, even if it is just in moments.

[Janoah]

Please define 'music'.

Music is a genre of art. Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.

a means of experiencing the rapture of being alive

yes, indeed

[ThinkOfOne]

No comments about the truly "natural music" from my previous post? I'd really like to hear about what you think of it.

I am not a fan of that type of music. Of course, that alone does not make it unnatural. Nor does it make it something other than art. Although often used that way, the word "art" does not imply a level of quality. A work of art can be bad just as it can be good. And it can be really really bad and still be a work of art. A work of art, like everything else, is as good as it serves the purpose it is assigned by its user. In the case of music, that purpose is usually to entertain, so to the extent that it entertains, and to the extent it is free from negative side effects, it is good.

Seems simplistic and misguided. Seems as if you believe that the medium determines what is and is not "art". Seems as if you believe that all entertainment is art.

Is photography an "art"? Are all photographs "art"? What about films? Novels? Glass blowing? WWE?

[ThinkOfOne]

to understand what does and does not constitute "art" in music?

I'm curious, in your opinion, what does and does not constitute "art" in music?
And by the way, why are you against musical farting, because "what is natural is not ugly"?

C'mon. Your earlier comment about "farting" was cheap and juvenile. No sense trying to save it.

The better question is what does and does not constitute "art" in general.

You and I seem to agree that not all music is "art". So what is it that is being recognized with the label "art"?

Some chess games are considered to be works of art.

Some of Einstein's theories are considered to be works of art.

"My father worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay. It was his true medium; a master,"

[accelafine]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.
I haven't heard Einstein's theories described as 'art'. 'Beautiful' yes. Physicists and mathematicians like to describe certain equations as beautiful.