I would argue that this is music simply because there are notes and melodies. Where there is singing or playing, there is music. Any word or syllable held for a period of time longer than that of the spoken word becomes a note, and any combination of notes arranged in a pattern becomes a song.
I can understand why one might not consider these chants to be music. They differ significantly from today's music in that they are slow and predictable. However, I could envision seeing these songs remixed and sampled in trance or hip-hop.
I would definitely consider these chants to be music. I have a fairly liberal idea of what music is - I think that if it evokes emotion then it can qualify as music. This means it is up to the listener to individually decide if what they are hearing is music. For me, these chants evoke some emotion and so they are music.
I agree with stephan's conception of music although at the same time i think we are already at a point where notes and melodies are not the defining factor- i'm sure many people would argue otherwise, but i feel about music, as i feel about poetry, that essentially anything called "music" or "poetry" by its creator or its listener/reader must be that. it's too subjective to judge (with some exceptions, perhaps). as for the chants, they are absolutely music in my head. first, intuitively, because my dad likes to play them in the wintertime especially around the holidays, but secondly, for the same reason that stephan said. i really enjoyed listening to these, the syllabic more than the melismatic.
I think that this is music because the chants contain a melody and rhythm. After listening to the chants I do, however, question the definition of music. Does music only consist of vocals, is it only sounds created by instruments, or is it noise (either vocal or through instruments) that possess a rhythem?
I think Genevieve also brings up an interesting topic by leaving the meaning of music up to the person creating and the person interpreting the music to define it. This rational reminds me a lot of the modern movement in art, with styles like "dada" and the idea of "readymades". The point of this movement was to accept ordinary things as art because the artist said it was art. It really empowered the artist and the observer.
I would call it music. When I learned of the religious element of these pieces, I was reminded of music in my own religion: Reform Judaism. One of the most noticeable differences at a Reform service as opposed to a Conservative one is the inclusion prayer set to music. It isn't rare for a Reform congregation to have a choir, organ, and cantor--some songs are actually quite catchy. However, at Conservative services, prayers are chanted in a way that notes and melodies are difficult to find.
So it's early and I'm talking about religion--how proud my mother would be.
The chants that we listened to sounded quite melodic to me and hence reminded me of religious music that I've grown up with, especially high holidays music where verses are repeated and notes are drawn out. I tried to think of why these chants WOULDN'T be music and my conclusion is that it depends on what your definition of music is to begin with.
I definitely think chant is music, especially after listening to Puer Natus Est. The chant is not at all what I expected, monotone shouts or something of that sort, rather it has up and downs with the notes and a clear melody. It strikes me as interesting that Puer Natus Est which is supposed to celebrate the coming of Christ doesn't at all seem celebratory...
Before the discussion in class, I agreed with the notion that anything is music, as long as the maker says so. However, I do think it is important for one to substantiate one's claims with some type of reason or logic, and not just simply say,"This freaky loud noise is music." There has to be a reasonable explanation or rationale for why, to the maker, it's music.
I would add to Amanda's comment, and I realize this is totally taboo, but I refuse to believe that whether music is good or bad is completely subjective. This goes for all of the arts actually. There is such a thing as quality. I think everyone would agree on some level, at least within a genre. When we say that anything is art that is so called by the maker, our open-mindedness may be blinding us to real beauty. I'm not disagreeing with that definition of art or music, I'm only saying that one ought to be careful, in accepting such a broad definition of art, that one doesn't loose sight of quality.
11 comments:
I am curious too see the link between Plato's creationism and Gregorian chants...
we won't see it too much in the chants but more when we get into the polyphony.
I would argue that this is music simply because there are notes and melodies. Where there is singing or playing, there is music. Any word or syllable held for a period of time longer than that of the spoken word becomes a note, and any combination of notes arranged in a pattern becomes a song.
I can understand why one might not consider these chants to be music. They differ significantly from today's music in that they are slow and predictable. However, I could envision seeing these songs remixed and sampled in trance or hip-hop.
I would definitely consider these chants to be music. I have a fairly liberal idea of what music is - I think that if it evokes emotion then it can qualify as music. This means it is up to the listener to individually decide if what they are hearing is music. For me, these chants evoke some emotion and so they are music.
I agree with stephan's conception of music although at the same time i think we are already at a point where notes and melodies are not the defining factor- i'm sure many people would argue otherwise, but i feel about music, as i feel about poetry, that essentially anything called "music" or "poetry" by its creator or its listener/reader must be that. it's too subjective to judge (with some exceptions, perhaps).
as for the chants, they are absolutely music in my head. first, intuitively, because my dad likes to play them in the wintertime especially around the holidays, but secondly, for the same reason that stephan said. i really enjoyed listening to these, the syllabic more than the melismatic.
I think that this is music because the chants contain a melody and rhythm. After listening to the chants I do, however, question the definition of music. Does music only consist of vocals, is it only sounds created by instruments, or is it noise (either vocal or through instruments) that possess a rhythem?
I think Genevieve also brings up an interesting topic by leaving the meaning of music up to the person creating and the person interpreting the music to define it. This rational reminds me a lot of the modern movement in art, with styles like "dada" and the idea of "readymades". The point of this movement was to accept ordinary things as art because the artist said it was art. It really empowered the artist and the observer.
I would call it music. When I learned of the religious element of these pieces, I was reminded of music in my own religion: Reform Judaism. One of the most noticeable differences at a Reform service as opposed to a Conservative one is the inclusion prayer set to music. It isn't rare for a Reform congregation to have a choir, organ, and cantor--some songs are actually quite catchy. However, at Conservative services, prayers are chanted in a way that notes and melodies are difficult to find.
So it's early and I'm talking about religion--how proud my mother would be.
The chants that we listened to sounded quite melodic to me and hence reminded me of religious music that I've grown up with, especially high holidays music where verses are repeated and notes are drawn out. I tried to think of why these chants WOULDN'T be music and my conclusion is that it depends on what your definition of music is to begin with.
I definitely think chant is music, especially after listening to Puer Natus Est. The chant is not at all what I expected, monotone shouts or something of that sort, rather it has up and downs with the notes and a clear melody. It strikes me as interesting that Puer Natus Est which is supposed to celebrate the coming of Christ doesn't at all seem celebratory...
Before the discussion in class, I agreed with the notion that anything is music, as long as the maker says so. However, I do think it is important for one to substantiate one's claims with some type of reason or logic, and not just simply say,"This freaky loud noise is music." There has to be a reasonable explanation or rationale for why, to the maker, it's music.
I would add to Amanda's comment, and I realize this is totally taboo, but I refuse to believe that whether music is good or bad is completely subjective. This goes for all of the arts actually. There is such a thing as quality. I think everyone would agree on some level, at least within a genre. When we say that anything is art that is so called by the maker, our open-mindedness may be blinding us to real beauty. I'm not disagreeing with that definition of art or music, I'm only saying that one ought to be careful, in accepting such a broad definition of art, that one doesn't loose sight of quality.
Post a Comment