[LAU] Re: Re: That must suck. For me it's about beauty?--musicisjustone path

[david]

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalladt at punkass.com> wrote:
>> Marcos Guglielmetti escribe:
>> > 60 minutes CD with only and just only pure white noise, you will be 
>> still
>> > thinking this is music?
>>
>> It depends on your capacity of sounding in a musical way using just
>> white noise. Schoenberg resulted amazingly musical using no
>> harmony. Or what about John Cage using a detuned piano, or Ligeti
>> using a hundred metronomes.
> 
> Schoenberg used lots of harmony.  He wrote a textbook on harmony.  His
> atonal systems even had some highly-developed ways of using harmony.
> I think I'll write a piece for a hundred and one metronomes.  It won't
> sound anything like the Ligeti piece.  This is a genre that really
> needs to be developed.
> I too laugh at the idea of someone buying a 60 minute CD of pure white
> noise.  The novelty is cute, but how do you know the composer whose
> name is on the album really composed that white noise?  Maybe he
> plagiarized someone else's 60 minutes of white noise.

Even if the composer composed 60 minutes of white noise, all he or she 
is doing is recording a sound, a natural phenomenon. If nothing else is 
done to it, it's a simple recording, not music. If something IS done to 
it - filter applied, etc, etc, then it is no longer purely natural and 
could be perhaps considered music.

Or so it seems to me.

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community