What Do You Classified as Real Music?

[chaojimbo]

Similar thread: "Is True Music Talent Dying..." (I think my thread is too different to be classified as the same.)

I had no idea Smashboards contained a debate forum! Anyway...

This topic is entirely opinion-based but I want to see what others think about it and how it plays out among posters.

I enjoy and listen to all types of music. A lot of people tell me this is a good trait, but I constantly get nagged at for some of the stuff I listen to by others. It has gotten to the point where I am self-conscious about what I listen to around people. I am sure we have all had this issue when talking about our favorite band to someone who severely dislikes them. For example, my favorite band is Linkin Park. Whenever I mention this, people tend to tell me to "grow up," or "listen to real music."

W-...What? Real music? What is "real" music?

A lot of arguments I see for "real" music regard:

1. The mainstream of present day or what is currently popular.
2. Relative to the individual's interest. (Including generation.)
3. Natural, non-synthesized sounds.
4. Classical (Believe it or not.)

Just to give an idea about some situations...

1. (Example of argument 1.) Going back to Linkin Park, these comments of "grow up" are usually by individuals of my own generation. These people are between 17-20 years old.
2. (Example of Arguments 2. and 3.) I also listen to a lot of more unknown electronic/techno genres, one being breakcore (example: This Could've Been Nice - Renard Queenston). When I listen to stuff like this, I get my dad on my case telling me to turn it off, that it is not "real" music. He does the same for video game music. I remember him getting pissed off a couple years ago because he heard this playing.
3. (Example of Argument 2.) Just yesterday, I started singing Wait and Bleed - Slipknot while I was in a Skype call with friend. He said "EW, you listen to Slipknot!? Why!?" I replied "Because I like them...?" He said "They're so generic" and the proceeded to compare it to the idea that it is not real music due to how generic it is in the genre. I personally think Slipknot is just the stereotype for the genre...not that it is generic.

Anyway, just wanted to post this thread since it was on my mind due to what happened in situation 3 yesterday.

 

[Sehnsucht]

All music is real music.

For something to be music, it has to be considered music by a minimum of one person. Music is noise arranged in patterns and structures, after all, though the form such patterns might take can vary wildly (hence the multitudes of genres out there). If someone finds meaning and enjoyment in (structured) sounds, then it is music -- even if it's just one person jamming as they impose structure on chaotic sounds.

You can certainly discuss what consists good or bad music, or what music you like or don't like. But even if you think a certain kind of music is bad, or you don't like it, that doesn't make it "non-real" music. It's just music you don't like, or find underwhelming for whatever reason(s).

It's a hollow label. For what is non-real music? "Fake" music? How can you produce "fake" music? If it isn't music, it would be its opposite. The opposite of music would be naked noise, much as the opposite of structure would be disorder. The moment you impose structure and order is the moment noise becomes music. Much as you impose language upon the world to bend it to your understanding.

It's an issue of definitions and implications, for me. "Fake" music sounds like an oxymoron, so I can't take the term "real music" seriously.

For the record, my main musical niche is metal, though I like classical and minimalism and VGMs/OSTs and acoustic stuff as well. I don't listen much of Pop and Rap and R&B and Jazz and Country and EDM and so on, but I consider it all "real" music, and wouldn't think to dissuade others from their preferences.

 

[chaojimbo]

I highly agree with all you've said here. I listen to essentially everything- including noise in some cases.

What about this though: Ambiance that was unintentional. Think of the sound of waves on a beach and seagulls. The sounds of nature in a forest. Is that music?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I highly agree with all you've said here. I listen to essentially everything- including noise in some cases.

What about this though: Ambiance that was unintentional. Think of the sound of waves on a beach and seagulls. The sounds of nature in a forest. Is that music?

I think music is like logic, and math, and language -- the human mind imposes these things onto the world to make sense of it.

Although, I also find that music does have a connotation of intention. For something to be music, it has to be a pattern emergent of (human) intent and output. Something is music, therefore, if sounds are intentionally arranged along certain structures and patterns.

Things like ocean waves and seagulls aren't of human intention. They aren't the product of any self-aware intention. Their patterns are beyond our control. You could therefore characterize these non-authored sounds as musical (i.e. having a certain musical quality), but I don't think they would qualify as music. At least, not by the definitions I've been proposing.

 

[Sucumbio]

This topic is entirely opinion-based but I want to see what others think about it and how it plays out among posters.

And so it is moved, to Media Metropolis.

 

[Sehnsucht]

And so it is moved, to Media Metropolis.

Sick burn, bro.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This Messiaen symphony is "real music". I enjoy this on an artistic level far beyond most other musical endeavors. It's also largely atonal and damn near unlistenable if you don't have an understanding and respect for modern classical music and what this piece stands for.

I'd worry less about what other people consider to be "real music". John Cage has an important piece he wrote with radios (as in, the sheet music involves instructions to "turn radio to wavelength such-and-such", which if you're keeping up means that depending on where you play it, it's going to be vastly different) and another where the music is literally the reaction of the audience to the musicians (generally an entire symphony orchestra plus conductor) playing absolutely nothing for about four and a half minutes. At this point, the question is less "what is real music" and more "what doesn't qualify as music".

And by the way? The people saying "listen to real music" probably don't mean "Linkin Park doesn't qualify as music for some arbitrary reason". They probably mean "Linkin Park is awful, you should listen to something that doesn't sound like crap". I'd say that too, but right now I'm about 2/3rds of my way through the above-mentioned Messiaen, so I'm not one to judge unless you're also listening to Nickelback.

What about this though: Ambiance that was unintentional. Think of the sound of waves on a beach and seagulls. The sounds of nature in a forest. Is that music?

To add to what Sehnsucht said: not until some pretentious douchebag puts it on a CD and sells it as music.

 

[Sehnsucht]

To add to what Sehnsucht said: not until some pretentious douchebag puts it on a CD and sells it as music.

"Yeah, bro. It's called Post-Ambient. Totally rad. It's the future of music."

 

[zero sum]

i just listen to noise, ambient, soul, and a little bit of rap and modern classical these days

i don't worry about what people say is “real music” because i feel like people who are going to target you over your taste in music and tell you to listen to “real music” [i.e., music they think is good] typically have (tbh) worthless opinions on music and know no more about it than you do. listen to what you like; life's too short to try to like led zeppelin or something that just doesn't vibe with you

there is no such thing as “real music” honestly