I think this is music, it even has a proper beat, although some weird backkick 7/33 or something. By the other posters description I imagined something way more extreme haha
Reminds me of listening to my non-buffering CD player on the bus ride to school.
I’d argue that nobody could call this music in the way that normal people understand what music is. It feels like an experiment in sound more than anything.
A common definition I just looked up on “Music” is:
vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
There is none of those in what you’ve linked. No rhythm, no melody, and nothing harmonious.
So no, it doesn’t fit the definition of Music; therefore, I probably wouldn’t listen to it. I did sample other of the artists tracks like Wat Dong Moon Lek, Himalaya, Ahirya, and all of his pieces are like this. They aren’t really music.
It’s interesting to me how different people interpret what music means to them. To me I would call this music as it fits the definition of melody
A pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds.
Of course that is subjective to everyone. To me Carl Stone’s tracks do have a beautiful melody. To others they feel chaotic, and to some they feel minimalist.
A melody (from Greek μελῳδία (melōidía) ‘singing, chanting’),[1] also tune, voice or line, is a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity.
The problem here is with the compositions absolute randomness of nature. It sounds exactly like what was being produced by computers, before some of the more advanced audio models came about. It doesn’t sound like any kind of single entity, and it would be nearly impossible for anyone to distinguish it from random sounds.
In a cacophony of random elements, I couldn’t hear this song. But I could hear most others without issue. It doesn’t meet the sniff test.
The melodies existing in most European music written before the 20th century, and popular music throughout the 20th century, featured “fixed and easily discernible frequency patterns”, recurring “events, often periodic, at all structural levels” and “recurrence of durations and patterns of durations”.
All of which this lacks. It simply doesn’t meet the definition of music. Though I bet it’s a great source of inspiration for those experimenting with music themselves. Honestly, I had to load it up in YouTube to make sure the web-based music player wasn’t glitching out or something; it was bad enough as “music” that I thought something was wrong with the computer.
But I’ll just kindly agree to disagree - if you enjoy it, great. I just wouldn’t even consider this music and would immediately ask for music to be put on.
So you’d listen to https://carlstone.bandcamp.com/track/sumiya?
I think this is music, it even has a proper beat, although some weird backkick 7/33 or something. By the other posters description I imagined something way more extreme haha
I thought it would be Woodpecker No.1 or something in that vein.
Reminds me of listening to my non-buffering CD player on the bus ride to school.
I’d argue that nobody could call this music in the way that normal people understand what music is. It feels like an experiment in sound more than anything.
A common definition I just looked up on “Music” is:
There is none of those in what you’ve linked. No rhythm, no melody, and nothing harmonious.
So no, it doesn’t fit the definition of Music; therefore, I probably wouldn’t listen to it. I did sample other of the artists tracks like Wat Dong Moon Lek, Himalaya, Ahirya, and all of his pieces are like this. They aren’t really music.
No rhythm? It’s complicated, changing, but to my ears the whole thing is an exercise in rhythm.
It’s interesting to me how different people interpret what music means to them. To me I would call this music as it fits the definition of melody
Of course that is subjective to everyone. To me Carl Stone’s tracks do have a beautiful melody. To others they feel chaotic, and to some they feel minimalist.
The problem here is with the compositions absolute randomness of nature. It sounds exactly like what was being produced by computers, before some of the more advanced audio models came about. It doesn’t sound like any kind of single entity, and it would be nearly impossible for anyone to distinguish it from random sounds.
In a cacophony of random elements, I couldn’t hear this song. But I could hear most others without issue. It doesn’t meet the sniff test.
All of which this lacks. It simply doesn’t meet the definition of music. Though I bet it’s a great source of inspiration for those experimenting with music themselves. Honestly, I had to load it up in YouTube to make sure the web-based music player wasn’t glitching out or something; it was bad enough as “music” that I thought something was wrong with the computer.
But I’ll just kindly agree to disagree - if you enjoy it, great. I just wouldn’t even consider this music and would immediately ask for music to be put on.