It is impossible to make truly structureless music. All music is inherently structured

No. I don’t think so, when I’m confronted with supposed structureless music I tend to try to find structure where I can, and can only appreciate those aspects of said song.

If it isn't just someone randomly mashing on a synthesizer there are often subtle grooves and repeated textures in noise music. Even if it is totally freeform, that in itself is a type of structure

Most artists use delay effects that do give it a form of structure, and oftentimes even Avery rudimentary form of rhythm.

Attached: rlynga.jpg (1199x1200, 300K)

the whole appeal of improvised or free-form music is in the organic emergence of structure from chaos

So are songs like this rooted in God's spirit?

youtu.be/i5Jk--LkHms

Or are you going to tell me some gay preachy bullshit about how "that doesn't count as music" or "only Satan is responsible for this kind of music".

Based on what?

indeterminancy? or would you call the act of leaving music to fate structured because the act itself is deliberate?
any sound released with the intention of being music is music
hows harsh noise NOT have structure? of course it has structure

>So are songs like this rooted in God's spirit?
yes.
>Or are you going to tell me some gay preachy bullshit about how "that doesn't count as music" or "only Satan is responsible for this kind of music".
no.

Acousmatic music and musique concrète don't have any form of structure most of the time, they are a form of music whose goal is to explore timbre more than any other musical parameters.

youtube.com/watch?v=c_JHjUFfOs8
youtube.com/watch?v=5375I5LXt1I
youtube.com/watch?v=th_Pqchfo3o
soundcloud.com/aedact/amnidsill

Attached: DPB84isWkAAZ5lh.jpg (800x450, 105K)

Would you care to elaborate?

Not that I want to refute your argument, just interested to hear you go into further detail about this matter.

ugh, you atheist incels are so tiresome

i'll break it down easy so you can comprehend
>if you and your buddies are in a band
>and you and your buddies get together every week and play music
>while playing music, you all feel connected to each other and enjoy the spirit of the music you have made (even if the music is satanic pornogrind)
>after the music is done, you feel you and your friends grew a little closer together
That's all glory to the spirit of God, dumbass. That's why "satanic" bands are pure comedic cringe to me. They're only raising God even higher.

oh well I'm not that other user and I'm not a Christian so basically my conception of "God" is a bit different.
The Monad us the sum of all potentialities, whether we subjectively appraise some of them to be positive or negative says more about us than God.
Ialdabaoth actually wants us to dislike harsh noise because doing so is a roadblock to apotheosis.

You're serious, aren't you

The sheer contrarianism of this board boggles the mind. If I scatter a bundle of loose pages into the wind and call it a book, that doesnt make it a book.

Based Kierkegaardian nigger

No it can't.
>any sound released with the intention of being music is music
Field recordings aren't sounds structured and composed with the intention and deliberacy of being music. Recording itself isn't music. It's a method of recording it.

>any sound released with the intention of being music is music
The thing is that field recordings often are not released with intention of being music. just sound art.

/thread

It does if you release it bound in a series of pages, aka a book

a book... isnt music... are you well in the head user?
well if it isnt released with the intention of being music then its not music... thats actually LITERALLY what i said... and you just repeated it

still has structure and patterns

I'd argue that the process of recording, selecting and arranging field recordings, and packaging them for market, can to an extent make them music but ONLY by imposing structure on them in the process.

just to give an extreme example of imposing structure (although not necessarily creating music), imagine if you recorded farts. nobody considers a fart particularly structured, unless someone is intentionally expelling or restricting the gas flow from their butthole.
but say someone, let's call him Ryan Pepper from Cascade Way, Dudley. Say Ryan goes around recording peoples' farts - the pervert - simply from his collection of fart recordings being recognisable as a collection of like things, he has imposed structure on the otherwise unstructured. Dirty boy.

ok well hows this. if i stapled a bunch of random shit like a dead frog, a pancake, my mom's underwear, a tupperware lid, and the DVD case to Love Actually together so that you could flip through the contents like a book, that doesn't make it a book.

If that's your definition of structure (that even freeform harsh noise has a structure, by virtue of being freeform) and your definition of music doesn't include things like field recordings, then obviously all music has structure.

yeah i mean youre still comparing apples and oranges. books arent music. like i get your idiotic point but it just doesnt apply here.

how doesn't my point apply? recording passing cars, a dog biting its ass, a gurgling stream, TV static, and the sound of 100 eggs cracking and putting those sounds on an album doesn't make them music.

okay, youre still confused, music really only needs 2 elements to be considered music: it needs to have something to do with sound (or lack of sound) and it has to be made with the intention of being music (or, analyzed with the assumption that it is music). tahts really all, because its just sound, its really simple. its so simple that it has very little limitations. books, i guess, are a physical object (please dont argue that soundwaves are physical as well, you know what i mean) so a book (probably, im not an avid reader) needs to have some structure or form that allows it to be actually read. like, were not talking about mathematics here, or physics. its art (in a literal sense, not in "ahh, true art" way) and theres very little limit to what you consider art. music isnt just for fun. theres a lot of (a LOT of) music that isnt made with the intention of being pleasant, or even heard. its experimental, sure, but going out of your way to deligitimize it seems very weird.

>okayyyy, lets unpack this
yikers. field recordings aren't made with the intent of being music.

>im only pretending to be retarded!

some of them are, and AS I ALREADY SAID, if its not intended to be music then its not music. youre the third guy to repeat what i said thinking that its somehow a counterargument. yeah, its not with an intent of being music, its not music, wow. lots of field recordings ARE made with intent of being music.

suck my willy

what if it does have that intent? and dont say "well it doesnt" because you arnt the great decider

also
>yikers

Attached: MV5BN2RhOTA4YzAtNTg3NC00NmYxLWI1YjQtYzM4NTJlYzVhZGYwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182 (182x268, 16K)

intent doesnt matter. music needs structure. even power electronics, abrasive OG industrial, and experimental music has structure.

cup my balls

based spiritual user
every act of creating something you think is beautiful is good

thats the type of comparison a 15 year old would make

present them.
refute it.

>intent doesnt matter
your whole argument was ruined right then and there

see

Field recordings that a are supposed to be musical in nature have structure. A field recording of arctic winds, for example, as opposed to stuff like The Conet Project or NASA recordings (both of which still actually contain musical elements)

id argue that it does matter, especially since id agree with the sound of waves has structure, even if it wasnt orchestrated by the author

All these retards in this thread ignoring this post.

well people are arguing that it doesnt matter what the contents of the piece hold just as long as it has the intention to be listened to as music, just as much as anything else, but youre sitting here like "WELL WHAT IF YOU TOOK PEEPEE AND POOPOO AND PUT IT TOGETHER THAN WHAT?"

by the way, i really like this thread, its the first time in a while anons (bar a few retards) are actually semi discussing things. we might not agree at the end but i hope everyone leaves this thread with a few new perspectives

what's with all these retarded semantics
it's not important if it's music or not
if you enjoy it - listen to it

why do you have to categorize eveything?

Attached: 64706284_2279365428808578_4405372071748567040_n.jpg (768x960, 47K)

ok then it should be easy for you to refute what i said
nice poopman

true, but its a nice discussion

Not an argument.

>ok then it should be easy for you to refute what i said
it is, look
>intent does matter
there

Because language and communicating information using it is a useful thing you fucking idiot.
>HURR WHY EVEN HAVE WORDS LIKE "BLUE" AND "YELLOW" AND "RED" JUST ENJOY THE SPECTRALS BRAH WHY CATEGORISE EVERYTHING

lowercase

noone is saying field recordings have a 4/4 structure we are saying that if you release something on vinyl or cd than you can enjoy as a musical experience as you would with any other style or genre. hence making it a musical experience on a more personal level. saying "r-refute it" over and over again is some gay ass shit not gonna lie to you

>if you release something on vinyl or cd than you can enjoy as a musical experience
That's not how it works you fucking idiot. Music is organised sound utilising rhythm, pitch, dynamics and timbre composed with the conscoius intention of being artistic expression. If you make a field recording of cars passing by a highway, it's not music, because that sound was created by the cars (or rather the people driving them) without the intention of beign artistic expression. You recording it with the purpose of relabeling it as "music" doesn't make you a musician, the same way the person recording a session of the Vienna Philharmonic isn't a musician either.

how is arguing on a bhutanese finger-puppet forum over the definition of a word that even experts struggle to define "a useful thing", you absolute retard?

it has all been said before and will be repeated a thousand times, why retread the same topic when you know you will never reach a consensus?

it is at best an infertile and masturbatory intellectual excercise and at worst just pointless shit-flinging

>Music is organised sound utilising rhythm, pitch, dynamics and timbre composed with the conscoius intention of being artistic expression.

it doesnt need every single one of those characteristics to be music. noise music is timbre based and has little to no structure. this isnt the 1700s where you have to check all the right boxes for it to be classified as music. you are speaking from the perspective that music is somehow a goal that you have to reach by doing all the correct things, art isnt about following rules.

>because that sound was created by the cars (or rather the people driving them) without the intention of beign artistic expression.

its not up to the cars whether its intended to be an artistic experience. you dont look at a guitar and tell it to have a different intention. its not up to the devices at play to decide whether it can be classified as an artistic experience. the intent comes from the creator of the "piece".
the argument is that a musical piece is still a musical piece. whether its music or not

I think one can make impromptu music.

Structureless? Hmm. Probably not, because someone will argue that the intentional lack of structure is, itself, a structure.

>artistic experience.
meaningless buzzword. It absolutely is up to the person creating the sound whether it is music or not. Music is created by a musician. Recording music does not make one a musician, much less recording non-music.

do you also spend time arguing with people online that "orange" is more "yellow" than "red"?

noone is arguing that it makes you a musician or not. it seems like we are saying completely different things here

you don't need to be a musician to create music

You don't know much about art in general do you?

What are your thoughts on those Andy Warhol experimental films, like empire? is that art? or would you disqualify that as cinema?

Why are you bringing up film?
That's a rhetorical question by the way. Your shallow intellectual posturing is blatantly obvious, you pathetic cock.

its a decent comparison because every artform has a side that can be so experimental that it asks the viewer or listener whether it can be considered what it claims to be while not expecting an answer to that question. the same goes for literature.

And how does that change the fact that field recordings are not music? Can you articulate an argument as opposed to superficial namedropping?

It HAS to be a sound. Because of this, structure is inherent, because to be music it has to adhere to structure enough to be a sound.

i actually did many times and yet you keep telling me too, which indicates that youre just waiting until i say something specific so you can greentext it and call me a retard. it shows that you dont have any more cards up your sleeve. face it, youve lost this one

>how is it fun to discuss controversial things? It’s better to not say anything.
What a great contribution to this message board

are you actually braindead? like i hope to honest god that you're just larping as a colossal faggot
intent is all it takes. multiple anons have straight up spelled that out for you, with proof and reason, yet your ENTIRE argument has been nothing but a retarded "no is not" and somehow you demand that we articulate an answer for you? look at that user: have you even read his post? can you even fucking read?

>intent is all it takes
Exactly. And there is no intent in the people creating the sound recorded within field recordings. Hence not music. Which part of this is so diffcult for you to wrap your head around?

>intent is all it takes
brainlet spotted. so if i fart and claim it
is music that magically makes it so. you sound like typical snowflake that thinks everything you do is correct and everyone gets a trophey for trying and all that stupid shit. your parents ruined you, son. like when you claim you're a girl or a fox but born a male... FALSE! haha

for the most part people dont release anything without giving it some artistic intention. that artistic intention is all that needs to be present

first timer spotted

based

>that artistic intention is all that needs to be present
When creating music, yes. Music and recording of music are two separate things. A poem is words strung together in rhyme and meter. A piece of paper onto which the words have been recorded is not a poem. The organised sound created by a person with the intent of making music is music. The recording itself isn't. Recording is not making music.

pure chaos

the combination of sounds and the recording of sounds so they can be played back to you is what it takes for it to be classified as art through audio form. i agree with your argument that a recording device is not music the same way that a piece of paper is not music. but once you write something on that piece of paper it can be inherently artful if the creator says its such. minimalist art is definitely a thing. its just a lot more sillier to think if its the sound of a train passing by or the sound of the ocean. but those sounds are still personal to you and you alone just like drawing a line is personal to you. id say even more so because no two field recordings are exactly the same. the same that no two pictures are exactly the same. and its that uniqueness which makes it into an artistic experience

field recordings are music but they are a shitty form of music when not thoroughly altered or combined with something else.
>b-b-but i like listening to field recordings
then go outside.

>but once you write something on that piece of paper it can be inherently artful if the creator says its such
And that writing comes from the writer's conscious decision of artistic expression. Those phrases are the result of his creative thought process. Field recordings are not. The person recording and compiling is the consumer, and the consumer isn't the one who decides if there's intent behind the creation or not.

the person who listens to the field recording is the consumer, the person who makes the recording is more like the curator

>go to a Swans gig
>turn my phone on record
>release it as bootleg
>I am now a curator
okay this is epic

>And that writing comes from the writer's conscious decision of artistic expression.
and what if its not writing. what if its just a dot on a piece of paper, does it lose all artistic value? would it become more valuable if you drew a second dot? can it be measured on a scale?
>Field recordings are not. The person recording and compiling is the consumer
once you are done writing on that piece of paper forever you become the consumer just as you would with a recording. the state of being a consumer is the inevitable ending for every possible creation.
>and the consumer isn't the one who decides if there's intent behind the creation or not.
its not the consumer to decide the intent but its the consumer who figures out and decides whether or not there was any to begin with. its also not up to the consumer to have a final conclusion that can be universally agreed apon. it doesnt matter if the consumer decides anything or not, it matters if it was there in the first place. which there would be if it existed. everyone is the consumer

>definition of music is literally organized noise
> mm grayons music is inherently structured i’m smart

>and what if its not writing. what if its just a dot on a piece of paper, does it lose all artistic value?
You're assuming a position from me which I do not hold. You are desperately trying to fit me into a strawman so you could lead me to a conclusion that is favourable to you. You're an intellectually dishonest shitbag. Come back when you're willing to drop the sleaze or fuck off.

>atheist incels
uhh

promiscuity is christian af get with the times gramps

i didnt say anything that would put you in some sort of view point, im merely giving you an example that i pulled from the top of my head. youve lost the last reminents of your argument and now pulling the "YOURE SAYING IM DOING THIS" card. it was a good debate until you did that.

>i didnt say anything that would put you in some sort of view point
And yet you're trying to turn the conversation from my initial and only point that intent defines art to moving the goalposts into "how complex something has to be before it's considered art". That was NEVER any part of this conversation. Fuck off.

jew

like i said retard, it was an example. and im saying even if something has the most basic form of simpleness than the only person stopping it from being inherently artful is the choice to decide its not, just like the choice is there to decide that it is. and because every choice is either one or the other than it becomes both and neither at the same time.
dont get mad now

Given that all music is ORGANISED sound, this is true. Not necessarily a very valuable observation though.

Wanna try rewriting that into something more grammatically coherent?
Also
>it becomes both and neither
Simply fucking epic. I take it you're done with bothering to put in any effort at this point?

Easy... One only has to forget the song while actually playing it.

youtube.com/watch?v=VJjfOpdkQ-U

you have no other points to present other than being mad as fuck. thats what i thought

Points in response to what? You aren't even capable of offering up a coherent post at this point.

>i dont understand so it must be incoherent
people have been spelling it out over and over and you still cant wrap your head around it.

I wouldn't put much faith in the spelling ability of a shit-for-brains that can't tell the difference between tha and then and who resports to such fucking nonsense as "it's both and neither at the same time, man". Go hit another bowl instead of trying to spell things while being completely illiterate, you fucking waste.

^
good talk boys

youre literally retarded user. everyone has been spelling out clear, concise arguments for you the entire thread which youve been derailing with incoherent "muh strawmans" "grammar luls" and repeating the same asinine points that weve debunked like 50 posts ago ("bu-but there ISNT any intent b-behind field recordings!")
just admit it user, you are an emotionless retard who cannot comprehend art. i recommend a healthy dose of pearl jam or whatever and then perhaps killing yourself

dude face it lost you lost the argument and it really shows

youre literally retarded user. I've been spelling out clear, concise arguments for you the entire thread which youve been derailing with incoherent "everything and nothing" "recording is art" and repeating the same asinine points that weve debunked like 50 posts ago ("bu-but the musical experience man")
just admit it user, you are an emotionless retard who cannot comprehend art. i recommend a healthy dose of sucking my dick or whatever and then perhaps killing yourself

Attached: 1565021552500.gif (280x210, 1.41M)

im not even the user you've been arguing with. he established long ago that you have no arguments so no reason to keep proving that really. check out gabi losoncy for some tight ass MUSIC. although i imagine death grips would be more up your alley.

I disagree with every post in this thread
Everything has a form, especially field recordings

you might have just agreed with half the posts in this thread

WHERE ARE THE BLOODY SONGS??

Attached: 740515b1e1043c0eaca1bea2dcf4a771.jpg (236x298, 14K)

>Thinking field recordings are music
Lmao

Attached: 242ead43-edfd-476e-a3ce-dcc2eac1220d.png (540x627, 108K)

>tfw a bird flies into your window and dies mid-song
so, what, am I listening to a field recording now?

d-damn...

Attached: 51100886_761686657545760_6229286580318633984_n.jpg (640x619, 53K)

Ok, I record traffic, then I sample it and I shift the pitch upward by 3 cents, bam, organized sound. Checkmate atheists

this post reeks of student debt