CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Music › Album of the Week: Morton Feldman - White on White (1993)

Album of the Week: Morton Feldman - White on White (1993)

Started by Arthur Brown6 · · 👁 4 views · 54 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Arthur Brown6brightwolf48Amanda Robinson4Jessica Morris6Lisa Davis46Gerald Jackson48Dennis Martin6Chris Myersbluecyclist64Patrick Patel4Rachel Price6analogbear40Henry Campbell5Jason White17
Gerald Jackson48 Gerald Jackson48 Active Member
125 messages
joined Jun 2018
#41 ·
Quote: even that.
Lisa Davis46 says:
but it's still just a painting. back in 1918, critics looked at Malevich's white on white and basically said it
wasn't
Sure, it's a painting. But calling a Malevich piece "music" was always meant as an analogy. It’s a bit of a stretch, honestly. Most people would say it's a pretty massive reach when you consider how the definition of atonal music expanded so much that it eventually started covering all sorts of sound structures—not just tones in the traditional sense—as long as there isn't a clear tonal center.
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#42 ·
Gerald Jackson48 said:Sure, the painting exists—but Malevich's work isn't music.

🙏🙏
What kind of logic is this even supposed to be?
Gerald Jackson48 Gerald Jackson48 Active Member
125 messages
joined Jun 2018
#43 ·
Look, I’ll be the first to admit it—we're just a step or two away from calling any random collection of noises "music." But honestly, why stop there? John Cage used to insist that "everything we do is music." 😁

http://www.artasiapacific.com/Magazine/WebExclusives/EverythingWeDoIsMusic#
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#44 ·
Nah, you’re the one who started this whole nonsense debate about how music is basically just a painting (???) 🙏 🙏—just some mindless, incoherent garbage. Then you spent the rest of the time trying to debunk that ridiculous thesis you invented yourself just to argue on this thread. 🤣🙏🙏

And I wasn't talking about "meaningfulness"—whatever that even means—I was talking about intention. There’s a massive difference.
Lisa Davis46 Lisa Davis46 Member
20 messages
joined Aug 2010
#45 ·
Guys, sorry to jump in, but things are getting good and I hate to see a heated debate die down!

I just wanted to ask Dennis Martin6 to check his inbox because I sent him a heads-up there.
And thanks to Gerald Jackson48 for being so chill and patient if he caught that post that got censored.
🙂
Gerald Jackson48 Gerald Jackson48 Active Member
125 messages
joined Jun 2018
#46 ·
Dennis Martin6 said:No, you basically started this whole argument by claiming music is just a painting (?? 🙏 🙏) or some other nonsense. It was pretty incoherent, honestly. Then you spent the rest of the time trying to debunk an absurd thesis that you were the only one even pushing in the first place. 🤣🙏🙏

And I wasn't talking about "meaningfulness"—whatever that implies—I was talking about intention. There's a huge difference there.

All I was saying is that when you broaden the definition of music, you run into trouble. One person might find it nonsensical, while someone else thinks expanding music beyond basic melody, rhythm, and harmony is totally absurd. For John Cage, that kind of wide-open definition—where basically everything we do counts as music—wasn't nonsense at all.
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#47 ·
Gerald Jackson48 said:My whole point was just that if you broaden the definition of music too much, you end up with people calling stuff "music" that others would rightfully call complete nonsense. We're already way past the standard bounds of melody, rhythm, and harmony. For John Cage, that massive stretch—where basically anything you do counts as music—wasn't actually illogical.

Look, I wasn't trying to expand the definition of music—I was just laying out the bare minimum requirements for something to even qualify as art. So, "everything we do" doesn't count as art because it lacks the one essential ingredient: intention. You have to actually *mean* to create it.

But hey, even using that shaky old-school definition (melody, rhythm, harmony), this album still qualifies as music since it hits the rhythm requirement.
Gerald Jackson48 Gerald Jackson48 Active Member
125 messages
joined Jun 2018
#48 ·
Gerald Jackson48
Dennis Martin6 I can't see any text to rewrite! Send over what you want me to work on and I'll get right to it.
I wasn't trying to redefine music here. I was just laying out the bare minimum requirements for something to actually qualify as art. To me, "everything we do" doesn't count as art because it lacks that one essential ingredient: intention. You have to actually mean to create something for it to matter.

Even if you go by that super basic, flawed definition of music—you know, just melody, rhythm, and harmony—this album still totally counts. It hits that rhythm requirement perfectly.
You’re getting hung up on intentionality, but honestly, that’s a slippery concept. You can question it just as easily as you can debate what "rhythm" even means in music. Take John Cage, for example—he had this whole specific vision of music that you might love or you might hate. Then you’ve got guys like Marcus Miller or Edward Elgar who viewed music as something that transcends human intent entirely. Of course, we can all agree or disagree with that too. It's all subjective.
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#49 ·
Gerald Jackson48 said:You're obsessing over intentionality—but honestly? That's up for debate too.

Sure it can be—but you aren't doing it. 🥱
Gerald Jackson48 Gerald Jackson48 Active Member
125 messages
joined Jun 2018
#50 ·
Dennis Martin6 said:Sure can,

Let's at least agree on one thing here. 😁
Lisa Davis46 Lisa Davis46 Member
20 messages
joined Aug 2010
#51 ·
Interesting. Both sides have a point, but seriously, everyone needs to chill out.
(Dennis Martin6, I'm looking at you.)

What happens when there’s clear intention—when an artist (in this case, the vocalist) is fully convinced they’ve got the soul and the talent (or at least a basic sense of pitch 😁), but objectively speaking, they just don't? I guess the same question applies to painting or movies.
As for architecture, let's not even go there. That could actually be life-threatening.

I think we can all agree on Meryl Streep's role here:

And then there's the real Florence:

So, what are we even looking at?
Is this actually music?
😁

Or... is this just a whole new genre?
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#52 ·
Lisa Davis46 said:(Dennis Martin6, I'm looking at you.)

image
Henry Campbell5 Henry Campbell5 Active Member
77 messages
joined Jun 2008
#53 ·
I think some people here are just being contrarians for the sake of it. For me, whether something qualifies as art matters way more than whether it's "music." Take Madonna, for example—that’s a textbook case. What she does is definitely music; all the classic elements are there, she’s got top-tier session musicians, and the production is polished... but it’s certainly not art. The definition of art is a lot messier than music, and honestly, it’s never been set in stone because true art always manages to slip through any attempt at categorization. So, it doesn't really matter if our Bernhard fits into some narrow, old-school musical box. What we're hearing here transcends those rigid musical rules, which, as someone who isn't a musician, seem pretty trivial to me. Attacking this is no different than bashing abstract painting. I remember once I was looking at some abstract pieces during a break at work and heard a coworker mutter, "That's not art to me." Well, yeah—of course it's not, when you don't know the first thing about art.
Jason White17 Jason White17 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Feb 2009
#54 ·
You guys have spread out across three different threads, so I figured I’d jump in and see what the deal is. Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of that static sound you get when a needle reaches the end of a record groove—just a bit much. To quote my buddy Tit when he was asked about some painting or something back in the day: "I get it, I just don't like it."

I also noticed this album made the Billboard Hot 100 list of records that basically changed the world (even if nobody was actually listening at the time), and Jim O'Rourke even included it on his own top picks. It feels like 1993 really brought something fresh to the table, especially since the entire project was computer-based—done on an Atari, if I recall correctly.
Lisa Davis46 Lisa Davis46 Member
20 messages
joined Aug 2010
#55 ·
Jason White17 said:Basically, this sounds to me like a needle spinning at the end of a vinyl record.

Exactly. And I’d also add that sound you get when you're crunching through fresh, untouched snow...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads