Talk:Experimental music/Archives/2017

Language or music genre?
Although I clearly understand Jerome's POV about the subtracted term 'experimental music', I still have doubts about this topic with 2400 wrong interwiki-links to it. The topic Experimental mentions:In scientific inquiry, an experiment (Latin: ex- periri'', "to try out") is a method of investigating particular types of research questions or solving particular types of problems. The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the world and is used in both natural sciences as well as in social sciences. An experiment is defined, in science, as a method of investigating less known fields, solving practical problems and proving theoretical assumptions.''

So if you combine this with music, 'experimental rock' for instance is 'experimental' 'music'. Therefore I propose a different name for this topic, for instance Experimental music (music genre) and Experimental music as the main topic refering to all involved genres and related topics which are regarded being 'experimental' according to the definition of that particular word. I understand this new topic will raise quiet some debat what is experimental and what is not. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cage was quite specific that he did not mean the word "experimental" in the scientific sense of trying to solve a problem. I suppose that, in this sense, Cage was grossly misusing the term, but it has stuck nevertheless. Apart from Cage's own writings on the subject, I recommend Frank X. Mauceri's article "From Experimental Music to Musical Experiment", which explains quite clearly why Experimental Music, as an "historical category . . . informed by a social agenda" cannot be regarded as either a language or a genre. As I have said before, the term "experimental" has been used in conjuction with "music" in a bewildering variety of ways, but this article is about the Cage/Nyman definition. If you wish to start a new article on some other application of the term, then that is your prerogative, but please don't add to the general confusion by trying to incorporate every conflicting usage in one blanket article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, I'm going to find that article somewhere. I didn't mean this article should be named Experimental music (music genre) specifically. Experimental music (Cage/Nyman) could also be an alternative. Think one out to exclude discussions about the liguistic content and how Cage/Nyman perceives the term. Cage wrote the text before pop music went into experimenting (1961, long before Pet Sounds and Sergeant Pepper). I might be a bit out dated to stick to a term someone used that long ago. And as you also mention he misused the word in the scientific sense. What's your opinion about the name of Experimental music (....?) for this article?83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear, the Mauceri article is cited amongst the Sources at the end of this article, and is the second source used in the opening sentence. You will find it in Perspectives of New Music 35, no. 1 (Winter): 187-204. As to when pop music "went into experimenting", I suppose that depends on how you define "experiment" in the pop-music context. I think that most people familiar with his work would describe much of Les Paul's work from the 1940s onward as experimental within the field. At around the same time, Bebop was certainly very innovative, "experimenting" with what jazz might be. One large problem here is that popular genres are extremely restrictive by nature. They are in fact defined as genres by those restrictions. As a result, a rock song in 3/4 time might easily be described as "experimental", whereas it is unthinkable that a waltz composer would be so radical as to "experiment" by trying to write one in any other meter. This is why terms like "experimental jazz" or "experimental rock" are on a completely different plane than "experimental music". It is perfectly true that jazz and rock are music, but it does not necessarily follow that their experimental fringes constitute experimentalism within the broader field of all music. Indeed, what one so often finds in these areas is that "experimentation" involves nothing more than the incorporation of some alien elements that are perfectly ordinary in other genres.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I never said that any interwiki links are "wrong"—only that a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reliable source to establish verifiability in another Wikipedia article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 2400 is not a reliable source, but it is pointing out the term is widely used, or misused if you prefer, in a much broader sense. The fact that it is being misused must not be overlooked and must plainly be described IN the article, I would prefer in the 2nd sentence to clear this out as much as possible. Just like for instance acupuncture is a alternative medicine, while it is regarded by some people as a contemporary medicine. Do you see the difference? I'm not saying you are wrong in perception, but pointing out the difference between 'experimental music' and 'experimental' 'music' seems very reasonable to put in an article with so many wrong interlinks. Otherwise this discussion will come back again. Therefore I propose a move of this article to Experimental music (...you may fill in) and move Experimental music genres to this place. Prepared guitar, Scordatura, Circuit bending and Experimental musical instrument are not a music genres, but very obvious have to do with experimenting and music, so it should have a very prominent place in an article about 'experimental' 'music'. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About reliable sources. You have a tendency to cite people who have an opinion and regard this as a reliable source. I'm not very fond of that approach. Although Cage for sure is a well known person his POV is never a reliable source on its own. Cage's or whoever's definition of what 'experimental music' is is not 'experimental' 'music' at all in the linguistic way. Starting a topic with a quote is not very strong. A quote added to a general explanation of the term is nice to do, but in paragraph 2 and not in the heading. What you assume to be a reliable source must be taken with some accurate reconsideration. Cage doesn't have a proof for the correctness of his definition. It's not science based on facts, but an artistic opinion. An opinion is never a reliable source. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cage's statement is a definition, not an opinion. This is reinforced by the citations from Mauceri, Nyman, and others. If you like, I can dredge up a few hundred more, but the present number seems sufficient to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * this is a pointless discussion, the definition as presented by Kohl is representative of the bulk of sources that use the term, anon IP has not presented any evidence of reliable secondary sources that support the contrary interpretation, and until such sources are offered, it's an opinion push based on an OR perspective, therefore is has no place in this encyclopedia. Measles (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not so pointless. I took a step to Google and just typed 'Experimental Music Radiohead' or 'Experimental Music Bjork'. You find tons of links mentioning their music is experimental music. Maybe you will notify this as unreliable, I think you are just wrong if it is so broadly used. Here a few examples:


 * http://hollowtreestudios.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-musical-acts-you-wont-read-about-at.html
 * http://www.scaruffi.com/vol6/radiohea.html
 * http://www.kindamuzik.net/achtergrond/radiohead/and-then-there-was-kid-a
 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15964311
 * http://www.last.fm/tag/experimental

Now for sure these are not very reliable, I agree, I just mention them, because my claim lies within the general use of the term, whether it is used correct or incorrect doesn't matter. If it is so widely misused, this should be mentioned prominent in the artcile.

Besides that I also found more reliable sources also using the term:
 * http://www.oddmusic.com/aboutodd.html (explanation, this site is no2 in the world dedicated to experimental musical instruments. Bart Hopkin's EMI site is no1.)

And this is probably the most convincing source:
 * http://www.amazon.com/Avant-Rock-Experimental-Music-Beatles/dp/0812695003

A book about Experimental Music from the Beatles to Bjork, that should do right? If you need more sources I can find some on google. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)