The interesting thing is that music composers don't do this. They know music theory. They don't hit a bassoon with a tennis racquet and say, "Your definition of music may vary."
back
2 comments
The dancer in Stomp may or may not know music theory. And analogies may or may not be useful.
I will argue or grant that most visual artists do learn to see - even though they very much do not all see the same thing because seeing is also subject to preferences and intellectual choices. Visual arts have certainly gone far and wide. For much of it, even calling it "visual" is a stretch. Sure.
Dancers aren't normally trained in music theory. Percussionists are but, having studied modern drums for five years at a conservatory, I can tell you with some confidence that most drummers don't know music theory, because they don't really need it. Because most of music theory has nothing to do with percussions. Why do I need to know harmony to play the drums?
So, bad example.
A better example would be the intonarumori by Luigi Russolo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intonarumori
But the truth is that this kind of wild experimentation with the limits of musicality has never caught up in the same way as modern art has. There is possibly a reason for that. I suspect that it's far easier to ignore something Duchamp's fountain than Russolo's instruments... just because the latter make noise and you can't stop hearing it unless you run away.
Btw, I heard some recordings of the intonarumori at a modern art museum in Switzerland, and I thought they were actually ... pleasant? In some sense. But then I find Cannibal Corpse pleasant so I probably have uncommon tastes (though not rare).
John Cage certainly did.