ihatemusic

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:49 am**

Keith Rowe wrote:an interesting question that arises for us can we only achieve a certain degree of abstraction through electricity?

kp* wrote: This depends entirely on what you mean by abstraction. Do you mean something akin to what Schaeffer called "reduced listening" (a listening mode that focuses on the traits of the sound itself, independent of its cause or source) or do you mean a kind of timbral shift that makes the sound distant or alien from its source? What does it mean for a sounds to be "abstract"? Some folks take "abstract" in the context of music to mean music that is not goal oriented or "narrative".

This seems to me to merit its own thread.

I got into an argument here w/ fear&panic when I used abstract meaning devoid of harmony, melody, rhythm, tonality. The analogy with visual art being pretty simple - these things, to my mind, amount to music's figuration. Fear maintained that as melodies have no outside referent all music is essentially abstract and the term is therefore meaningless in the context of music. But it seems to crop up an awful lot.

What does abstraction mean to you?

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:11 am**

I agree with fear on that--but I also think we can all generally agree on what people mean when they talk about "abstract music." The difference between that and overtly melodic music, however, is altogether removed from the difference between abstract and figurative visual artwork (and I've never really understood the urge to equate the two).

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:24 am**

I thought he meant abstraction as in lack of relation to the other material.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:58 am**

The idea of music being "abstract" relies in part, on proving that it can be otherwise. The question, it seems to me, is: is there music that is not abstract? Is there music that is narrative, or figurative (or is analogous in to those things in some way) which by contrast provides us with a music which is generally abstract. To a Hanslick all instrumental music is "abstract." Yet intuitively folks often want to make some connection between our experience of a narrative, and the way something like a piano sonata unfolds. Additionally many of us think we know what is meant by "abstract," but only if we don't poke at it too hard or are really asked to explain it to someone else.

This is a tough nut to crack. Many have tried. It's a big issue. Many a big brain has throbbed on it. Look at folks like Cone, Kivy, McClary, Maus, Hanslick, Nattiez... all have touched on this difficult topic and a few have addressed it head on.

What was F & P's take? I can't seem to uncover it in a search.

cheers,

kevin

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:23 am**

fear and panic wrote:A painting (or design) is abstract if it doesn't depict or derive from a specific object in the world; ones that do preserve that connection in the work itself. To what "concrete" aspect of the world does a melody or theme refer? Nothing except itself. Where in previous centuries it was required of music that it refer to something, a grand chimera was draughted in--Nature--and much sophistry was engaged in to "justify" untexted instrumental art music. And yet other battles raged over "absolute music" and "programme music".

The question of representation is probably the oldest and most intractable debate in the history of musical aesthetics, stretching back to Aristotle and being played out again and again over the centuries in many stages of society and culture. To think that "eai" or "electroacoustic music" has broken out of this, and that all music of all cultures previous to it somehow emerges "concrete" and with an "established language" is a grand conceit.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:22 am**

I think fear's take is very interesting and well thought out, however this doesn't jibe with what most people i've encountered think about music that does not fit the modes they can comprehend. not that that makes it wrong, but maybe less useful to your average person.

don't we have to take into account that when normal people hear normal music, they hear it in figurative, representational relationship to previous music they have heard? music that has been around long enough to have emotional meaning built in to the degree where a couple chords trigger a reproducible emotional response.

wouldn't this make all music made in one of these well defined styles figurative and therefore having relation to figurative painting? if you accept this then it stands to reason that there are musical versions of your pop artists, your abstract expressionists, etc? after all, i find most of the people i encounter hear music in a figurative way. music that is a good representation of the standard of music they subconsciously hold is good, that that is not is bad.

the only difference to me between visual art and music is that music involves a fixed component of time.

(side note: in my experience when people question the validity of the "abstract" music i listen to, mentioning abstract expressionism, specifically pollock seems to not only resonate with them, but also make the music much more approachable for them)

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:55 pm**

faster wrote:(and I've never really understood the urge to equate the two).

I'm not really trying to equate them, but compare them, and simply because we discuss them in the same language. It is only useful because it is so clear when visual art is abstract and what we mean by that. And as it happens I think the comparison bears some fruit.

I have just started reading In the Blink of an Ear by Seth-Kim Cohen. He begins by saying that Clement Greenberg's argument for abstract painting can be boiled down to the difference between looking 'out of' the painting (i.e. into its illusory space) to looking at the painting (a stretcher, some canvas, and most importantly, paint). He then analogises this to Schaeffer's "object sonore" and Cage's "let sounds be themselves", a concurrent focus in both the visual arts and music on the immanent materiality of the medium.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:57 pm**

in visual art, abstract seems to need to refer to a representation of something that doesn't exactly mimic that thing in reality. in this sense, clement greenberg's ideas about pollock seem to indicate that pollock's painting are not abstract at all, since they are paintings of exactly what you see-- they are paintings of paint on canvas. donald judd and carl andre cannot be said to be abstract-- they're making objects that are nothing other than themselves. a cube of solid aluminum is only abstract if the artist claims he's created a portrait of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

in this way, classical programmatic music seems to me to be abstract-- an orchestra evoking "winter" or something like that. whereas a noise track that sounds like a refrigerator hum seems less abstract, because it actually sounds like the thing as it exists in reality. (not sure if anybody has ever used noise electronics to represent a fridge-- probably GX).

don't know if this is useful, or totally ignorant...

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:08 pm**

Melody and the likes are (repetitive) structures and therefor are perceived figurative, and not "abstract".

If you think fear's reference to painting fully through, and consider what William has said in the first paragraph of the previous post, one should acknowledge that most abstract visual art represents state of affairs in the world as well, such as colors. representation shouldn't be limited too just physical objects. there's lots of abstract painting that represents and reflects on something like "the history of painting" or "a reflection about the use of paint in Art" or simply "beauty" or "awe" or "the sublime", whatever.

Hence representation is not the key distinction here, the distinction lies within the structural properties of music itself:
music is perceived to be more abstract if it has less repetitive structures (like melodies, rhythm, chorus-verse, etc.) in it.

It is true though that since music is (generally) not a representative art, the term abstract gets a different meaning when applied to music than applied to painting. So I agree with Stephen: abstract in music does mean "devoid of harmony, melody, rhythm, tonality",... (comma and points added)

Comparison to non-sound art is only confusing the conversation, since, to my eye, it's quite clear what is meant by abstract music, and it's a great, easy to use set of words.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:31 pm**

So if we take abstract in music to have a completely different meaning than abstract in visual art, then what can we say about it? Is it just the search for sounds and sets of sounds that are new and hard to connect to existing musical expectations? That seems to be willfully ignoring agreed-upon meanings of "abstract," and linking it to the search for new and disorienting that infuses all the arts.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:32 pm**

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote:If you think fear's reference to painting fully through, and consider what William has said in the first paragraph of the previous post, one should acknowledge that most abstract visual art represents state of affairs in the world as well, such as colors. representation shouldn't be limited too just physical objects. there's lots of abstract painting that represents and reflects on something like "the history of painting" or "a reflection about the use of paint in Art" or simply "beauty" or "awe" or "the sublime", whatever.

I agree with this,
music is inseparable from reality. people have developed ways to communicate a reality at various levels of abstraction regardless of where they are or how they do it (music, painting...)
Abstraction can be a reason someone from place A can enjoy music from place B even if they've never been there (art is another). Simply by making their own inferences/associations or by not having any reaction to it at all.
In a strange way, I think that abstraction (or higher levels of) can make the music more personal. it is true though that most people don't have the time to figure it out.

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote: Hence representation is not the key distinction here, the distinction lies within the structural properties of music itself:
music is perceived to be more abstract if it has less repetitive structures (like melodies, rhythm, chorus-verse, etc.) in it.

Not sure I can see this clearly. There is a lot of music with beat (tribal music, drum n bass...) that is quite abstract.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:34 pm**

William Hutson wrote:in visual art, abstract seems to need to refer to a representation of something that doesn't exactly mimic that thing in reality. in this sense, clement greenberg's ideas about pollock seem to indicate that pollock's painting are not abstract at all, since they are paintings of exactly what you see-- they are paintings of paint on canvas. donald judd and carl andre cannot be said to be abstract-- they're making objects that are nothing other than themselves. a cube of solid aluminum is only abstract if the artist claims he's created a portrait of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

in this way, classical programmatic music seems to me to be abstract-- an orchestra evoking "winter" or something like that. whereas a noise track that sounds like a refrigerator hum seems less abstract, because it actually sounds like the thing as it exists in reality. (not sure if anybody has ever used noise electronics to represent a fridge-- probably GX).

don't know if this is useful, or totally ignorant...

I think this adds to the confusion in a way. I do think that Donald Judd etc are perceived generally as abstract art, and I think there abstract too. If you allow representation of nothing but itself as valid enough to be called "figurative" art you shortcut the system. Artist that would make art in order to do so (for instance if the sculptor of that cube would want to make a reflection on the nature of "abstraction") is in a totally different category altogether, that of "conceptual art". (That and the fact that there's probably a slight difference to the notion in painting and sculpting, I wouldn't use both in the same analogy about abstration.)

It's crucial to keep a distinction between "figurative" and "representative". The nottion of abstraction in painting has more to do with "figurative" or not, not so much with being "representative" or not. Representation is a much broader term than figurative, and it's hence not as easy to use for making distinctions in the level of abstraction. (And this goes for abstraction in music as well.)

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:38 pm**

bedouin wrote:
schiksalgemeinschaft wrote: Hence representation is not the key distinction here, the distinction lies within the structural properties of music itself:
music is perceived to be more abstract if it has less repetitive structures (like melodies, rhythm, chorus-verse, etc.) in it.
Not sure I can see this clearly. There is a lot of music with beat (tribal music, drum n bass...) that is quite abstract.

"Quite" abstract is the key here: it's a matter of degree. Drum 'n bass is more abstract than pop because it usually has less of repetitive structures, like melody, than pop - it's mostly rhythm.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:44 pm**

So repetition is representational? Huh? Does this mean "In C" or one of those Reich pieces is not abstract at all? This seems like semantic yoga at this point. What does a rhythm or melody represent?

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:48 pm**

faster wrote:So if we take abstract in music to have a completely different meaning than abstract in visual art, then what can we say about it? Is it just the search for sounds and sets of sounds that are new and hard to connect to existing musical expectations? That seems to be willfully ignoring agreed-upon meanings of "abstract," and linking it to the search for new and disorienting that infuses all the arts.

Not "completely different meaning" but "slightly" different.

And that's pretty normal, because music and painting (albeit both Arts) are obviously not the same thing. And so the meaning of (general) words in any conversation about them will change to various degrees depending on the domain your talking about. 'Abstract' is a general word in this conversation, since it occurs in both domains of music and painting. 'Sound' would be a specific word, it only occurs in the music domain.

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:54 pm**

faster wrote:So repetition is representational? Huh? Does this mean "In C" or some of those Reich pieces is not abstract at all? This seems like semantic yoga at this point. What does a rhythm or melody represent?

No, it's not about representation. In music it's about (the repetition of) structures. It forms a "figure" in sound. Figuration and representation are not the same.

I think 'representation' doesn't have a lot to do with abstraction in music. It's probably relevant when you want to discuss abstraction in sculpting, but not so much in painting, since you can rely on the notion of "figuration", you don't really need representation there either - you might need it when you paint in a certain conceptual manner though.

In general I think we shouldn't bust our heads too much on the meaning of "abstraction" - when we talk about music, I think it's generally clear what is meant. The Room is more abstract than EL007 and Musik - Ein... To answer Keith's question I'd say something like: people make highly abstract sounds with acoustic instruments all the time. (I must say I haven't checked the original context of the question, so it might be a stupid answer.)

Posted: **Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:18 am**

William Hutson wrote:donald judd and carl andre cannot be said to be abstract-- they're making objects that are nothing other than themselves. a cube of solid aluminum is only abstract if the artist claims he's created a portrait of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

I think this is muddled, the bit in the middle is spot on, but your statements at either end seem to have it inverted.

Andre's bricks are bricks, nothing more, nothing less. They are not representations of bricks but actual things, real objects - barely even removed from the context in which one would usually encounter them. Steel bent into the shape of a cube is not a representation of a cube - it is a cube. It is exactly is lack of aiming to represent anything other than what it is that makes it abstract, which is exactly what Schaeffer was striving for in his object sonore.

faster wrote:Simply by making their own inferences/associations or by not having any reaction to it at all.
In a strange way, I think that abstraction (or higher levels of) can make the music more personal.

I don't think of this as being strange at all, but perfectly natural, and this is one of the things that abstract artists and musicians want from their audiences - to provoke the listener to be part of making the work resonate, rather than being a disembodied pair of eyes and ears with no brain or history.

Posted: **Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:23 am**

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote:It's crucial to keep a distinction between "figurative" and "representative".

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote:No, it's not about representation. In music it's about (the repetition of) structures. It forms a "figure" in sound. Figuration and representation are not the same.

Huh? What are you placing in opposition to abstraction--representative (then representing what?) or figurative (what in music isn't a figure?)? I'm not good at yoga.

Posted: **Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:55 am**

i think the parallel between abstraction in music and art can very simply be seen if we understand that many people's way of judging quality in either is based on how close a work comes to representing it's cultural ideal.

a cultural ideal will differ somewhat from person to person of course, but in general, works that are farther from an individual's cultural ideal will be seen as more abstract, whether perceptually, or emotionally.

we can't base it squarely on the idea of representation, as it is also what is being represented that is either ideal or abstract.
ie: a person who sees a very lifelike, technically adept, painting of a beautiful bird, may see a beautiful painting. whereas the same person may see a lifelike, technically adept, painting of an open wound, and may see a very ugly (emotionally abstract) painting.

a person may see keith rowe as abstract because their cultural ideal is rock n' roll.
a person may see cy twombly as abstract because their cultural ideal is whistler.

Posted: **Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:00 pm**

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote:In general I think we shouldn't bust our heads too much on the meaning of "abstraction" - when we talk about music, I think it's generally clear what is meant. The Room is more abstract than EL007 and Musik - Ein...

You're jumping the gun here. I wouldn't agree at all that this ranking of degrees of abstraction is accurate. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Stephen wrote:
William Hutson wrote:donald judd and carl andre cannot be said to be abstract-- they're making objects that are nothing other than themselves. a cube of solid aluminum is only abstract if the artist claims he's created a portrait of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
I think this is muddled, the bit in the middle is spot on, but your statements at either end seem to have it inverted.

Andre's bricks are bricks, nothing more, nothing less. They are not representations of bricks but actual things, real objects - barely even removed from the context in which one would usually encounter them. Steel bent into the shape of a cube is not a representation of a cube - it is a cube. It is exactly is lack of aiming to represent anything other than what it is that makes it abstract, which is exactly what Schaeffer was striving for in his object sonore.

Right. They are just what they are. There is NOTHING abstract about them. And I'm glad you wrote that Schaeffer "was striving" for that ideal with l'objet sonore. Because I don't think he accomplished it.

edit: I'd actually go so far as to say I don't think it is is possible for an audio recording to ever be completely not-abstract.

ihatemusic

Abstraction

Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction

Re: Abstraction