hey mu im writing a paper on what can and cannot be defined as music. i want to say that music was not experimented with very much before the 1900s but im not sure, can someone confirm or deny this claim? thanks
>>59608900
Depends on your definition of experimented. I'd deny that claim though, Bach is the base of most music nowadays
somebody needs to make some electronic music in frequencies too high and low for human hearing
>>59608900
Reading David Byrne's book 'How Music Works' will help a lot. He talks about how before the 1900's music was often made under the circumstances of a specific social climate. This means that music was being made strictly in places like churches and because these were times where religious freedom was uncommon, music never quite evolved until after cultural revolutions,
>>59608900
Obscenely, ridiculously wrong. Experimentation has been a part of the Western Art tradition for forever, and at least since the early 20th century if you want to use the modern concept of experimentation.
That's true, I've read a few studies recently that suggest that what we call music wasn't actually created until 1910 at the earliest.
noise
was here
before
rock
remember russolo
>>59608900
Listen to a bach fugue and a mozart sonata
Then listen to a chopin ballad
Next try liszt's hungarian rhapsodies
Perhaps instrumentation was similiar, but harmonic and rhythmic complexity was far more expirimental the modern music.
>>59609233
yeah but rock made a real use of it
African tribal songs are the best tbh
You're looking for John Cage and the Dadaists.
Beethoven's Grosse Fugue would be an example of pre-1900s experimentation, I guess.
>>59609081
Ryoji Ikeda
