My vote? Noise, not music.
The truth is, any time you try to draw a bright line between what is and isn't a form of art, someone will try to bisect the line in hopes of creating something new and interesting.
I think when teenagers' music starts to sound like noise to me, it just means I'm getting old.
So I disagree with you on it not being music, there are certainly more conventional pop/rock songs with noisy sections like this piece that don't stop being music when those sections begin. But I won't add it to any playlists.
A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music.
Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent.
And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs.
Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant.
This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise.
It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar.
@jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
Cage is performance art certainly but not, IMO, music. Again it’s something certainly up for debate. [2] But such debate reminds me of a particular South Park episode based in SF.
[1] - http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=...
No it isn't.
That's exactly the kind of questions and feeling people like Steve Reich and John Cage were trying to explore with their music.
What would you say the bar is?
If they are intentionally exploring the line between noise and music, then clearly there is one, and it is up to each of us to decide where to draw it.
I would say, from the 60 odd seconds of track I listened to, they are asymptotically approaching noise from the musical side of the equation. Which is probably why the audience had such a negative reaction.