I don’t know if it’s a real artist or artwork or not, but the Mr. D.o.B. album would sound like a great value if the artwork is anything to go by (pretty accurate image of how I felt on DOB – very similar visual aspect was on my menu as well). (Monster Loop note: “DOB” is a widely used acronym which stands for many things, such as “Department of Buildings.” It also stands for “Brolamfetamine” an amphetamine and hallucinogen and, as discussed below, is the signature character of Japanese contemporary artist, Takashi Murakami.)

So I say Mr. D.o.B. is a real one, same as the experience he had after taking DOB and, if I’m wrong, then someone should use that artwork as it is pretty f** mental and the album would be 18 hours of madness.

[Concerning real vs. fake artist]: Patterns of sounds played to a timed beat gives you music, so surely anything that matches this criteria is music, and it does not matter what your instrument is – it’s all the same. Some people play a piano, others play electronic instruments, so if the electronic artists are “fake,” so are the pianists, and if a pianist is a “real” artist, then so is an “electronicalist.” If I was pulling my dogs tail and making him scream to a beat, I would be an artist also; the artist could be called “dogeter” or “tail pullyist.”

We quite like this comment, and have the following response.

Dear Kitch,

Thanks for your interesting comment. First, for the benefit of our readers, here is the Mr. D.o.B. cover art at issue.

We did a little research and learned the print is by Takashi Murakami, a very talented contemporary Japanese artist from Tokyo. In 2008, Murakami was named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People”, the only visual artist included. In September, 2010 Murakami became the third contemporary artist, and first Japanese, to exhibit his works at the Palace of Versailles in France, filling 15 rooms and the park with his sculptures, paintings, a decorative carpet, and lamps.

As to the other part of your message – when we indicated some of the artists were “fake,” we did not mean this word in any pejorative sense (i.e., that certain Electronica musicians should not be considered “real” artists). We actually did make up those names – other than the 5 that are real flesh and blood bands – and did artwork for the 7 fictitious artists we made up. There is no band, for example, named “Beautiful Dream” – at least not in this dimension of space and time and/or in the traditional sense of the term. Perhaps by our creating these fictional artists they have become in some sense real, and who is to say what’s “real”? (i.e., does it have to be visible? tangible? perceivable to human senses? etc.) But we digress. Mr. D.o.B. is quite real; you may find him and stream his D.o.B. brand of music on Reverbnation.

You make an interesting point – i.e., that one should not have too narrow of a definition of what constitutes music. We agree.

In attempting to define music, Wikipedia itself begins with the caveat that “[h]ow to define music has long been the subject of debate by philosophers of art, lexicographers, composers, music critics, musicians, semiologists, linguists, sociologists, and neurologists.” Wikipedia then provides a definition of music, coined by Edgard Varèse, that it is “organized sound.” This definition seems to support your point.

Some argue, however, that this broad definitional approach – which focuses on the terms construction – delimits the meaning of music. The definition needs, it is argued, to also include a subjective component. Following this line of thought, “music” might be considered any wavelength produced by natural phenomena (or algorithm) which may be received and interpreted by means of aesthetic, cognitive processes. There are a couple of obvious problems with this definition. One, it incorporates the ambiguous term “aesthetic” (whose taste counts here and how is that defined?). Two, it is anthropocentric (defines music in strictly human terms).

On the other end of the spectrum, some may consider your definition too narrow. First, is a “timed beat,” for example, necessary for sound to constitute music? The great and legendary electronic music artist Aphex Twin, who we suspect is from your neck of the woods, might not qualify as a musician. Second, it assumes the sounds emitted by nature and the universe itself are not “organized.” And third, what exactly do we mean by “time”? We at Monster Loop believe it is a mere illusion and that all “times” actually exist simultaneously.

Were he alive today, the great Jacques Derrida might conclude the discussion by saying that no definition can ever truly convey meaning because any definition must, of necessity, refer to something beyond itself. That is, meaning is never fully present in a definition. Thus – and we suspect you would not disagree with us, it’s best to sit back and enjoy the sound, er uh, music. But please don’t be a dogeter and pull poochie’s tail; we love animals.

Sincerely,
Monster Loop

Comments