IQ and BACH
Lolita
Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
'intelligence'
Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
'intelligence'.
Any other mythical theories on this?
LSA
Ioannis Galidakis
About a month or two ago, there was a huge thread about this subject
here. Do a search on alt.music.j-s-bach on Deja.com with the words
intelligence/Bach/Mozart to find the header titles. Many of us had
participated, so I would hate to rehash it all over again. It was quite
a big thread, and I believe it was crossposted to other groups as well.
--
Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
<http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
______________________________________
1070063870,528999180
101462211,818688780
101122300,1070334972
100720835,818676492
101462211,818688780
516418814,818406156
Clavichord
<lol...@q-net.net.au> schreibt:
>Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
>'intelligence'
>Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
>'intelligence'.
Some people say that if you listen to Cage, it destroys what is left of your
intelligence.
Some people say that if you listen to yourself, it shows that Bach was more
intelligent.
Michael, who believes that music is about emotional, and not verbal,
intelligence.
Michael Zapf (Germany) - clavi...@aol.com
Thomas Bonk
>
> Mozart vs J S Bach
>
> 'intelligence'
> Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
> 'intelligence'.
>
> LSA
Some people think, that if you listen to Bach and/or Mozart and believe
in such theories its a prove that the theorie cannot be valid.
In my opinion such theories are not scientific at all because you cannot
prove them. Its very hard if ever possible to prove if a person ist more
intelligent than another person.
Thomas Bonk
Lolita
Ioannis Galidakis <jg...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in message
news:37FD81...@ath.forthnet.gr...
> Lolita wrote:
> >
> > Mozart vs J S Bach
> here. Do a search on alt.music.j-s-bach on Deja.com with the words
> intelligence/Bach/Mozart to find the header titles. Many of us had
> participated, so I would hate to rehash it all over again. It was quite
> a big thread, and I believe it was crossposted to other groups as well.
> --
> Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
> <http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
oh.
ok!
I'll try that..thanx
I' was away in Europe at the time and didn't access the net for many weeks,
so wasn't aware of this thread.
Lolita
Nelms
> Mozart vs J S Bach
>
> Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
> 'intelligence'
> Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
> 'intelligence'.
> Any other mythical theories on this?
>
LOL.
Both are smart musicians, so there is something to the idea that if you
surround yourself with smart people some of it will rub off. I think reading
Shakespeare is good for you as well. I find the research on the achievement
of greater intelligence because of exposure to intelligent music
unconvincing. My biggest problem with it is the size of the sample of music
to which the subjects are exposed. Did these researchers just play their
favorite Mozart and their least favorite popular music (likely) and decide
based on that? Hardly scientific. A more scientific approach would involve
playing examples of intelligent music making from everywhere. Does listening
to Charlie Parker make you smarter? You can't be stupid and play his music
either. Some of this Mozart makes you better smacks of the same old tired
"European music is the voice of God" viewpoint.
I have no misgivings about Bach's music. I adore his music, or I wouldn't
come in here.
Morris
Bob Lombard
>so wasn't aware of this thread.
>
>Lolita
>
bl
Denis C.
<nine...@sanmarcos.net> wrote:
The French Writer Michel Tournier once said that in Heaven the Angels play
Bach, but when God is gone, they play Mozart!...
DC
--
Pour m'écrire / To e-mail me
Remplacez "NoSpam" par "albatros"
Replace "NoSpam" with "albatros"
Bob Lombard
>The French Writer Michel Tournier once said that in Heaven the Angels play
>Bach, but when God is gone, they play Mozart!...
>
>DC
>
bl
Edward Rands
Bob Lombard <blombard*@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:rvtc2c...@corp.supernews.com...
ECR
Denis C.
<blombard*@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>The French Writer Michel Tournier once said that in Heaven the Angels play
>>Bach, but when God is gone, they play Mozart!...
>>
>>DC
>>
>God is never gone; but he may lose interest.
>
>bl
Well, on the second level this is whole point of the joke. Does God leave
Heaven on occasions? And why? That being said, I think I should have used
the word "away" instead of "gone".
DC
ps By the way there is an article on the Mozart Effect or Non Effect there :
Boston Globe Online
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/280/metro/Discordant_note_little_heardP.shtml
Here is the beginning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discordant note little-heard
Mozart effect disputed, but devotees are many
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 10/07/99
Much as he likes Mozart's ''Requiem,'' Christopher Chabris never bought
into the notion that it could make him smarter.
There was something too mystical, too easy, the Harvard neuropsychologist
said, about the so-called Mozart effect, the well-publicized theory that
listening to classical music can boost a person's IQ.
''Why is it that it's classical music from the 1800s? Why isn't it show
tunes?'' said Chabris, 32, who admits that his own musical tastes run
more to modern rock. ''Because it sort of fits a cultural stereotype. To
create a cultural myth like this, it has to hook up with what people
already believe.''
In the last year, Chabris has done his best to debunk the Mozart effect.
His research paper, published last summer, analyzes more than a dozen
studies on classical music and intelligence, and concludes that the
numbers don't support the claims.
________________
Lolita
:P
doin' the continental
lsa
>
Premise Checker
Kurt Nauck's Vintage Record Auction #26 is underway. It contains his usual
wonderful collection of 78s, cylinders, and books. Only a minority of the
material is classical, but there are a great many worthy items that will
never be reissued. I'd love to have Cecile Chaminade, one of the first
women composers of note, playing her Les Sylains, but the minimum bid is
$1500. She recorded several of her works, making up a set. I have it
listed in my upcoming "Acoustic Chamber Music Sets (1899-1926): A
Discography," _Journal of the Association for Recorded Sound Collections_.
E-mail Mr. Nauck at na...@78rpm.com for a catalog, or visit his site, at
www.78rpm.com. Beautiful photographs of the labels of some of the choicer
items.
---------------
RESOURCES FOR RECORD COLLECTORS OF CLASSICAL MUSIC
1999 October
I. SOCIETIES
II. JOURNALS
III. DEALERS IN USED RECORDS
IV. REFERENCE WORKS
V. DISCOGRAPHIES
VI. USENET GROUPS
VII. GLENN GOULD E-MAIL LISTS AND WEB SITES
I. SOCIETIES
The American Beethoven Society
Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beeethoven Studies
San Jose State University
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0171
Benefits include a subscription to The Beethoven Journal,
published twice a year
$20 Students
$45 Non-Students
[There is a chapter located at Hunter College in New York City.
Contact: Susan Kaga, Dept. of Music, Hunter College of CUNY, 695
Park Av, NY, NY 10021.]
Association for Recorded Sound Collections
Executive Director
Box 543
Annapolis, MD 21404-0543
Benefits include the ARSC Journal, published twice a year and
devoted to the results of major research, technical developments,
discographies, record and book reviews, and a current bibliography
of related articles in other publications; a quarterly ARSC
Newsletter; an ARSC Membership Directory in odd-numbered years;
and the ARSC Annual National Conference.
$30 USA
$35 Rest of the World surface
$40 Rest of the World air (recommended)
Friends of Glenn Gould
John A.Miller, Administrator
The Glenn Gould Foundatiom
c/o Cultural Support Services
Box 190
260 Adelaide St., East
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1N1, Canada
Benefits include a subscription to GlennGould, edited by Kevin
Bazzana and published twice a year.
US$50
Wilhelm Furtwa"ngler Society of America
Box 620702
Woodside, CA 94062
(415) 851-3808 (voice)
(405) 851-3151 (fax)
www.wfsa.org
Membership is $25/year USA, $30 rest of world.
Benefits include quarterly newsletter of 20+ pages.
[For some reason, I am no longer much of a Furtwa"ngler fan,
though I have a large number of his recordings. But he is
certainly the most popular conductor on the Internet. Be wary of
John Hunt's discographies of Furtwa"ngler and other composers.
They contain many errors and even more omissions, esp. of American
issues. They undergo heavy criticism in the _ARSC Journal_.]
Willem Mengelberg Society
Ronald Klett
1408-A Marshall Street
Manitowoc, WI 54220
No Fone
No Fax
No Web Site
No e-mail
Benefits include a newsletter published four times as year
$7.00 US
$7.50 Canada and Mexico
$8.00 Rest of the World surface
$9.00 Rest of the World air
Members abroad can by in cash (United States currency), by
International Postal Money Order, or by check drawn on a bank in
the United States or an American branch of a foreign bank.
II. JOURNALS
ARSC [Association for Recorded Sound Collections] Journal
Executive Director
Box 543
Annapolis, MD 21404-0543
Published twice a year and devpted tp the results of major
research, technical developments, discographies, record and book
reviews, and a current bibliography of related articles in other
publications. Annual Subscription with membership in the
Association, which includes a quarterly ARSC Newsletter, an ARSC
Membership Directory in odd-numbered years, and the ARSC Annual
National Conference:
$30 USA
$35 Rest of the World surface
$40 Rest of the World air (recommended)
American Record Guide
44412 Braddock Street
Cincinnati, OH 45204
Published six times yearly. Annual subscriptions:
$36 U.S.
$43 Canada
$45 Other Western Hemisphere surface
$64 Other Western Hemisphere "air-speeded"
$45 Rest of World surface
$75 Rest of World "air-speeded"
Payment must be in US$ or credit card
Fanfare: The Magazine for Serious Record Collectors
Box 720
Tenafly, NJ 07670
Fone: (201) 567-3907
Fax: (201) 816-0125
Published six times yearly. Annual subscription:
$34 USA
$49 Rest of the World
International Record Collector
135 Greenford Road, Sudbury Hill, Harrow
Middlesex HA1 3YD, England
Fone: +44 (0) 181-422 4562
Fax: +44 (0) 181-869 8400
Published four times a year. Annual subscription:
L15.20 Great Britain
L19.20 Europe
$37 USA
L21.20 Rest of the World
III. DEALERS IN USED RECORDS
You will get quite a number of lists from other dealers when you
join the Association for Recorded Sound Collections! To give you
incentive to join, I am only listing a few.
Ars Antiqua
3378 Disc Drive
Ellettsville, IN 47429
Fone: (812) 876-6553
Answering Machine: (812) 876-6552
Fax: There is one.
Largest dealer, at least in the U.S.
Inernational Sound Archive
Kevork Marouchian
Box 86 04 08
81361 Munich, Germany
Fone: (4989) 957 76 19
Fax: (4989) 929 52 72
VAT-Reg. DE 129 916 710
Deals mostly in 78 rpm rarities
Irvington Music
9580 NW Cornell Road
Portland, OR 97229
http://www.spiritone.com/~irvmusic/irvmusic.htm
irvm...@spiritone.com
Fone: (503) 297-2117
Fax: (503) 297-2138
If you sell on consignment, this dealer gives you the best prices.
Lawrence F. Holdridge
54 East Lake Drive
Amityville, NY 11701
Fone: (516) 598-2409, accepted 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Fax: (516) 691-5207
lar...@bway.net
Another 78 rpm specialist
Mikrokosmos Mail Order Co.
314 Churchill Ave.
North York, Ontario
M2R 1E7 Canada
http://www.interlog.com/~mikro
mi...@interlog.com
Fone: (416) 224-1956
Fax: (416) 224-2964
The proprietor, Peter Fu"lo"p, moved from Hungary. Very good
assortment of the once-"unfree" nations.
Nauck's Vintage Records
(The World's Premiere Record Auction Company)
Kurt & Diana Nauch
6323 Inway Drive
Spring, TX 77389-3643
Fone: (713) 370-7899
Fax: (713) 251-7023
http://www.78rpm.com
na...@78rpm.com
another 78 rpm specialist
Parnassus Records
51 Goat Hill Road
Saugerties, NY 12477
Fone: (914) 246-3332
Fax: (914) 246 6584
http://www.parnassusrecords.com
parn...@ulster.net
Oldest LP dealer in the U.S. Accepts want lists.
Try Tone Classical
1614 Francis St.
Carrollton, TX 75006
Fone: (972) 242-4767
ele...@aol.com
IV. REFERENCE BOOKS
(Schwann) Opus catalog, quarterly listing of classical records
availbale in the United States.
(Schwann) Opus Artist Issue, comes out from time to time, never
more than once a year. Same coverage as the catalog.
The Gramophone Classical Catalog. Twice a year. Includes a not
very thorough artist index and listing by label. Fat and
expensive.
Bielefelder and Diapason, German and French versions of Opus.
Stanlie Sadie, editor, The New GROVE Dictionary of Music and
Musicians. Sixth Edition. Macmillan Publishers, 1980. Now in
paperback for $500. I picked up a review copy for $300.
V. DISCOGRAPHIES
A. Greenwood Press
88 Post Road
Box 5007
Westport, CT 06881-5007
Fones: (800) 225-5800
(203) 226-3571
Faxes: (203) 222-1502
(800) 474-4329 for title information
http://www.greenwood.com
Especially worthy are:
Nancy Canning, compiler, _A Glenn Gould Catalog_, 1992, 272 pp.,
$47.95
Joan Evans, _Hans Rosbaud: A Bio-Bibliography_, 1992, 328 pp.,
$59.50
Michael Gray, 1946- , _Classical Music Discographies, 1976-1988:
A Bibliography_, 1989, 334 pp. Gray and Gerald D. Gibson
coauthored, _Bibliography of Discographies, Volume 1, Classical
Music, 1925-1975. NY: R.R. Bowker Commpany 1180 Avenue of the
Americas (10036)), 1977, 184 pp. I don't know if this is still
available.
John L. Holmes, _Conductors on Record_, 1982. Covers recordings
through 1977. There is an abridged second edition which extends
the coverage for selected conductors. As in all discographies,
there are lots of errors, and this one misses a great many
acoustics.
[The Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., comprises Auburn House,
Bergin & Garvey, Greenwood Press, Praeger Publishers, and Quorum
Books and publishes books on a vast variety of topics.]
B. Other discographies to KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR USED COPIES OF:
"GSE": Gramophone Shop Encyclopedia of Recorded Music. These were
catalogs of the fabled Gramophone Shop at 18 East 48th Street in
New York City and listed what they had for sale and what they
could get as imports. By no means as complete as "WERM," these
books are invaluable aids in resolving conflicts and ambiguities
in "WERM."
1st edition, compiled by R.D. Darrell and published by the
Gramophone Shop, Inc. in 1936. Especially noteworthy is its
thorough listing of Wagner recordings, displayed so that the
enthusiast could acquire every note recorded, including those from
the acoustic era.
2nd edition, supervised by George Clark Leslie and published by
Simon & Schuster (NYC) in 1942. The least valuable of the three
editions but the hardest to find.
3rd edition, supervised by Robert H. Ried and published by Crown
Publisher (NYC) in 1948. This edition is the only one to contain
an artist index.
Earlier the shop had produced two paperback editions of
_Encyclopedia of the World's Best Recorded Music_ (25 cents).
These are quite hard to come by but have more detailed listings of
the exact contents of the recordings. The first edition appeared
in 1930, when the shop was located at 47 East 47th Street. By the
time of the second edition in 1931, the shop had moved to 18 East
48th Street.
"Music Library": A CD-ROM of holdings of sound recordings (of all
sorts on disc) in libraries throughout the United States and in
several in other countries. This source suffers from the fact that
book librarians do not know how to treat sound recordings, esp.
when a record has multiple tracks of multiple composers and
artists. It is produced by Silver Platter and costs $450. I would
recommend it for those with a very high interest in finding out
whether a particular work has been recorded and for purchase by
libraries. It is not for the casual listener. Music Library is
available online as part of the OCLC series.
"Myers & Hill": Kurtz Myers, compiler, and Richard S. Hill,
editor, _Record Ratings: The Music Library Association's Index of
Record Reviews_. New York: Crown Publishers, 1956, 440 large pp.
Covers long-playing records issued in the United States through
sometime in 1955 (a little earlier than the closing of the third
volume of "WERM"). Unlike the Schwann catalogs, it includes
records available by subscription only, such as the Concert Hall
Society. The contents of individual records are quite detailed,
and each record that was reviewed in some thirty publications is
listed with an overall sumary (excellent, adequate, inadequate,
mechanical fault, no clear cut opinion). Contains an artist index.
"WERM": F.F. Clough and C.G. Cuming, The World's Encyclopedia of
Recorded Music. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, Ltd. Basic Volume
[covers electrical classical records from the beginnings in 1925
through March 1950] and First Supplement [April 1950 through
May-June 1951], 1952; Second Supplement [1951-1952], 1953; Third
Supplement [1953-1955], 1957. Covers electrical recordings and LPs
through sometime in 1955 of classical composers issued in all
countries. The most valuable of all discographies.
C. Online discographies
1. Yvgeny Mravinsky:
http://plaza19.mbn.or.jp/~yemravinsky/index.htm
I can e-mail a text-only version of the main discography to anyone
who wishes to load it into a word processor and do searches. It is
111 KB, too long post to Newsgroups!
2. Links to Beecham and Koussevitzky: Brendan Wehrung's page at
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1947
VI. USENET GROUPS
[the ones that get this monthly posting]
rec.music.classical
rec.music.classical.recordings
alt.music.beethoven
alt.music.j-s-bach
rec.music.makers.chamber-music
VII. GLENN GOULD E-MAIL LISTS AND WEB SITES1
Gou...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca
Send "subscribe gould-l yourname" to
lis...@inforserv.nlc-bnc.ca.
f_m...@cornell.edu
Send "subscribe f_minor yourname" to
majo...@mail.rutgers.edu.
See also http://erebus.rutgers.edu/~mwatts/glenn/f_minor.html,
maintained by Mary Jo Watts <mwa...@rci.rutgers.edu>.
Sony maintains a Gould page at
http://sony.com/music/ArtistInfo/GlennGould.
Max Schmeder
Is that a dance?
:)
Max
>
>
> lsa
> >
Lolita
Max Schmeder <schm...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3802D16F...@sonic.net...
Could be.
but it could also be called ISLAND HOPPING.
LSA
>
> >
> >
> > lsa
> > >
>
J. Howard Collingsworth
mechanically inclined.
Howard
Max Schmeder
Max
Max Schmeder
types of people also relates to what is missing in Bach, namely, extroverted
Romantic passion as exemplified by Wagner, for example. This is the case for
music from Bach's time, in general, and I think people who are mild-mannered
prefer the controlled emotionalism of Bach. I can think of several reasons why
people might disagree with me, but that's just my opinion.
Max
Ioannis Galidakis wrote:
> Your sarcasm has been duly noted and recorded. However, a couple of
> points:
>
> Bach naturally appeals to a wide spectrum of minds. But *because* a
> certain mathematical order is inherent in the music (mind you, not
> everywhere), people of occupations (if occupation can be an indication
> of likes) that relate to methods of patternization or characterization
> or organization of data, do indeed have an affinity for it, or should I
> say, they "fall" for it a bit faster than non-technical people, assuming
> an equal chance of exposure to the music.
>
> This should not be taken to mean that whoever likes or listens to Bach
> is necessarily "smarter", yet the whole experience becomes much more
> interesting if one is able to pick up those patterns while listening.
>
> The most common harmonic tricks that Bach uses most of the time, from
> the very basic "linear" progression of voices (which maps naturally to
> musical multi-dimentionality) to the less common ones, inversions,
> reflections, symmetries against fixed points in the score or reversal of
> the melody, map naturally to their corresponding mathematical notions,
> which have very specific definitions.
>
> The process of listening to Bach's music is actually quite complex and I
> really doubt whether most people can perceive fully the dimentionality
> of the music without additional external aids. That does not mean that a
> non-technical listener will not enjoy the music, but it' s one thing to
> "enjoy" a melody, and another to recognize, for example, that at a
> specific moment there are 5 instances of the theme, delayed by x seconds
> from each other, two of them in normal and 3 of them in retrograde
> motion, with the 2 themes modulated exactly at distances of fifths from
> the rest. Without wanting to make it sound extreme, the point of this is
> to simply demonstrate that at any given moment, the potential amount of
> info that may be lurking in a piece by Bach, may be quite far fetched,
> and a person with some additional skills on "organizing" this info, may
> be able to "appreciate" it better.
>
> Bach's music has the "potential" of being a "data organizer" in a way
> perhaps higher than even mathematics could achieve. It may be a case of
> a "denser carrier" of information (mathematics does not convey emotion,
> for example) so a technical person, *may* be able to spot some of this
> easier.
>
> Bach exploits harmony to the max, so it is not surprising to find places
> in the music which "appeal" to certain areas in our brains that are
> responsible for "recognition of patterns".
>
> Specifically, in Computer science, the area of "pattern recognition" is
> quite underdeveloped relative to the corresponding human area,
> (naturally) and progress in this area is very slow.
>
> You would be amazed at how much Statistical info has to be analyzed in
> order for a program to say, with probability 95% that this piece is by
> Bach. Yet, it can be done. Perhaps because Bach is drawing from some
> "template" for which we, have no clear description.
>
> On the other hand, there are people who can tell you after half a
> minute, if a piece is or is not by Bach.
>
> The point of the above, is to demonstrate that some crude generic
> "template" probably exists for his music, and people who deal with
> "templates" (read, "analysts") may be have a stronger affinity towards
> the music, as it presents them with the challenge of "organizing" the
> data therein.
>
> I don't know if they will ever be successful in analyzing the music (I
> hope not), but you see it's like giving a gifted child with an affinity
> in piano playing, a grand Steinway at age 5.
> --
> Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
> <http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
Ioannis Galidakis
Lanark
too analytical of the music. Perhaps much more than Bach himself might have
been. The possibility exists that where the analyst hears complex
mathematical equations, Bach just heard something that sounded really cool.
I'd also have to argue that perception of patterns and "data
organization" are not necessarily a function of pure intelligence. To give
a really simplistic example take the Jumble in the newspaper, there are
folks who aren't rocket scientists who can solve it at a glance. One can
also think of an improvising musician (and Bach was a great improviser) who
can throw together quite complex harmonies without being able to do the
math. The intelligence may help you explain how and why something works, but
it doesn't necessarily preclude being able to actually perceive it.
Which is not to take anything away from Bach's achievements, he knew
exactly what he was doing. But this whole debate seems to me to be
indicative of a pretentious mind set that keeps most people from actually
listening to classical music. it's a sort of cultural elitism, if you will,
that assumes that only a person of a certain level of refinement can truly
appreciate the music to the exclusion of other forms. (You'll have to
pardon me here, this a pet peeve of mine.) It's music, pure and simple. It
moves you or it doesn't and has little to do with IQ or cultural refinement.
As to Bach's lack of "extroverted passion" I'd chalk that up to a very
dry sense of humor and a very basic contentment with the state of his life.
Judging by his prodigious output on both counts it would seem that the two
things Bach did most in his life was write music and have sex (and to look
at contemporary portraiture, all without missing a meal) so I doubt that he
had any great demons he needed to purge in his music.
The "controlled emotionalism" would also stem from convention and the
function of the music at the time as a form of light entertainment or worshi
p as opposed to high art. You have to admit that when thinking about party
music, "Der Ring des Nibelungen" isn't exactly the first thing to spring to
mind.
Clavichord
schreibt:
>The possibility exists that where the analyst hears complex
>mathematical equations, Bach just heard something that sounded really cool.
Ahhh, the voice of reason! Every painter will be able to divide a line at the
golden mean without knowing that s-he pointed to the square root of five minus
one, divided by two.
Michael
Tjako van Schie
I think to be a good composer/painter you need to have some basic insights
in simply 'what works' and 'what doesn't work'. Often it is like using
language. It is not only 'semantics' but 'syntax' or 'grammar rules' or
spelling as well.... A child learns these by imitating first, but on school
he learns to distinguish and use the differences between e.g. nominativus &
genetivus etc. A both mathematical AND linguistical background might have
helped Bach to realise both his architectural concepts as well as the way he
uses and molds the contents into his work.
For the listener it is the same: first the experience with a new work (like
a child) then the understanding of different aspects of this work, which
might lead to even more joy and deeper emotions. This is not an elitaristic
point of view but just common sense. (I.m.o.)
--
Tjako van Schie, Dutch pianist & teacher at the Amsterdam Conservatory
tjakov...@castel.nl
http://users.castel.nl/~schic02 (the Tjako van Schie - pianist - homepages)
Clavichord <clavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991013143640...@ngol04.aol.com...
Zachary Uram
Ti kaneis?
Thanks for info on Bach and math!
I am studying mathematics. I see symmetry and mathematical
precision in Bach's music. I see order and complexity. Bach
wasn't trained as mathematician but he was very well learned and
very brilliant so I think this mathematical notions were already
encoded in his brain. Music has many sets of different rules.
Bach's music is certainly not mechanistic and he as you said does
not follow strict mathematical formulas however there is
definitly evidence of the mathematical natures of Bach's music.
I agree Bach's music carries much info, very densely packed and
spread out on different dimensions. I think appreciating Bach's
music on a high level of cognition is a very demanding and
intellectually stimulating task. What is great about Bach is
these structures built into music in such a manner they can be
appreciated by casual listener who knows nothing of the
intricacies of harmony etc. and also musicologist or
mathematician or computer scientist will find much for them
to be edified with. Bach's music is truly universal,
multidimensional and transcendental. Some modern forms music set
out to follow strict compositional rules and try to appeal to
abstract patterns and I find them tiresome and boring to thev
extrme, such as the Minimalist movement. I don't care for 99.9%
of modern music and even in Classical and Romantic periods there
is more selective set of music that really appeals to me. But in
Renaissance/Early Music and Baroque periods there is abundance of
that which I find most edifying. Some like music from many
diverse periods equally. I don't know if this means my interest
in mathematics and a preferenc eofr certain types of
complexities and musical orderings means I thus am drawn to
certain periods. I have heard a good deal of music from these
other periods but most of it just doesn't appeal to me. for
whatever reasons. If I could listen to only one composer for the
rest of my life, it would a bit sad to not hear certain works I
love but the decision to chose Bach would be easy one to make :)
I realized most of my friends are people who 1) are involved or
interested in mathematics/physics/computer science/engineering or
professional musicians and 2) share interest in Bach's music.
Regards
Zach
________________________________________________________
ur...@cmu.edu
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29
e
Lanark
one iota. He wrote brilliant music. And at the time there were certain rules
and structures and methods and formulas to composing which he certainly knew
and knew very well. What separates his works from the hacks is what he did
within these formal frameworks, the "architectures" as you put it. He was a
genius of great invention, which is an innate talent that cannot be taught.
The point that I was trying to make was that perhaps for Mr. Bach all these
things just came naturally and with very little effort. He just heard music
that way.
For me I think the dangers of over analysis are a lot like going to see
a magic show and spending the whole time figuring out how the tricks are
done. While you may appreciate the artistry of it all but you'll also tend
to miss the magic part of the show.
The concept of elitism as to debates of IQ's and music that I referred
to comes in (and I speak from the experience of selling records and Cd's for
a while) in regards to those folks who gravitate towards listening
exclusively to classical music because they buy into the bourgeois notion
that that is what a truly "cultured" person does. They give a haughty sneer
at the idea that anybody would actually listen to something other than
Mozart. They roll their eyes in disgust if you mention Hank Williams or a
rock and roll band. They balk at buying a Naxos Cd because since it's not
expensive it can't be good. The "see how smart I am, I like Brahms" folks.
They buy and listen to the music for the sense of social status and
superiority that it imparts on them. (they see themselves like in the
commercial where the guy in the tux is driving the Lexus and pops a copy of
"The Four Seasons" or something in the deck.)
It's also an attitude that I think prevents a lot of other people from
exploring the world of the classics because they think "I won't be able to
understand all this high falutin' stuff." and then drives them in droves to
buy pseudo-classical dreck like Charlotte Church and Andre Reiu.
(And when you get down to it, most classical composers really were
writing the commercial pop tunes after the style of their time. Instead of
two guitars, bass and drums you get two violins, a viola and a cello. You
might easily make a comparison to Mozart and the Beatles or Beethoven and
Nirvana. Same concept, different eras.)
My point is that, at least for me, music is music, be it J.S. Bach or
Neutral Milk Hotel or George Jones. You like it or you don't. And that you
don't need a P.H.D to hear the complex patterns in Bach's works, just to be
able to explain why they work as they do.
Max Schmeder
> Perhaps you misunderstand me, I'm not denigrating Bach's achievements
> one iota. He wrote brilliant music. And at the time there were certain rules
> and structures and methods and formulas to composing which he certainly knew
> and knew very well. What separates his works from the hacks is what he did
> within these formal frameworks, the "architectures" as you put it. He was a
> genius of great invention, which is an innate talent that cannot be taught.
> The point that I was trying to make was that perhaps for Mr. Bach all these
> things just came naturally and with very little effort. He just heard music
> that way.
No, Bach worked very hard to do achieve his level of mastery. He said so
himself.
> For me I think the dangers of over analysis are a lot like going to see
> a magic show and spending the whole time figuring out how the tricks are
> done. While you may appreciate the artistry of it all but you'll also tend
> to miss the magic part of the show.
That's not always the case. Analysis of Bach's music and methods can heighten
one's appreciation of the music. It can give us pointers of what to listen
for. When I listen to a fugue, I am more appreciative of the music when I can
recognize the subject being played in retrograde. Yet, I would need to turn
toward analysis because my ears alone aren't perceptive enough.
> The concept of elitism as to debates of IQ's and music that I referred
> to comes in (and I speak from the experience of selling records and Cd's for
> a while) in regards to those folks who gravitate towards listening
> exclusively to classical music because they buy into the bourgeois notion
> that that is what a truly "cultured" person does.
No argument there. I dislike musical snobbery, as well, but I do think that
Bach has a stronger appeal for people with certain types of intelligences and
dispositions. But I also believe that there are thousands of equally valid
kinds of intelligences, and that the IQ test only measures a few of them.
> They give a haughty sneer
> at the idea that anybody would actually listen to something other than
> Mozart. They roll their eyes in disgust if you mention Hank Williams or a
> rock and roll band. They balk at buying a Naxos Cd because since it's not
> expensive it can't be good. The "see how smart I am, I like Brahms" folks.
> They buy and listen to the music for the sense of social status and
> superiority that it imparts on them. (they see themselves like in the
> commercial where the guy in the tux is driving the Lexus and pops a copy of
> "The Four Seasons" or something in the deck.)
It's interesting that today's elite intentionally choose the music of
yesterday's elite to identify with.
> It's also an attitude that I think prevents a lot of other people from
> exploring the world of the classics because they think "I won't be able to
> understand all this high falutin' stuff."
To be fair, it's not only that people are intimidated by classical music, but
that many people look down on classical music.
> and then drives them in droves to
> buy pseudo-classical dreck like Charlotte Church and Andre Reiu.
> (And when you get down to it, most classical composers really were
> writing the commercial pop tunes after the style of their time. Instead of
> two guitars, bass and drums you get two violins, a viola and a cello. You
> might easily make a comparison to Mozart and the Beatles or Beethoven and
> Nirvana. Same concept, different eras.)
I think there is a stronger parallel between today's pop music and the *folk*
music that existed at the time of Mozart and Beethoven.
> My point is that, at least for me, music is music, be it J.S. Bach or
> Neutral Milk Hotel or George Jones. You like it or you don't. And that you
> don't need a P.H.D to hear the complex patterns in Bach's works, just to be
> able to explain why they work as they do.
You certainly don't, but a little learning helps.
best,
Max
Max Schmeder
> I find that very often discussions of Bach's music are based on the idea that
> some music is "intellectual" and some is "emotional," and that Bach's music
> falls into the former category, as if a Chopin nocturne must appeal only to the
> heart while a Bach fugue must appeal only to the head. But personally I'm
> unable to separate the emotional effect of Bach's works from their highly
> ingenious construction. In other words, Bach's music carries emotional weight
> because of, not in spite of, the complex contrapuntal devices he so masterfully
> employs.
Yes, Bach wrote music according to the Doctrine of the Affections, in which a mood
or feeling is expressed by a piece. So you are experiencing the emotionalism of
the music as it was meant to be experienced.
Max
> The idea that compositional complexity drains the emotional life from
> music is, it seems to me, a legacy of the Romantic era which many people still
> accept without question. Maybe I'm just eccentric, but a clever passage of
> invertible counterpoint from a Bach fugue can make my heart beat faster, while
> more often than not a heart-on-its-sleeve Romantic piece leaves me yawning.
ContraPunct
some music is "intellectual" and some is "emotional," and that Bach's music
falls into the former category, as if a Chopin nocturne must appeal only to the
heart while a Bach fugue must appeal only to the head. But personally I'm
unable to separate the emotional effect of Bach's works from their highly
ingenious construction. In other words, Bach's music carries emotional weight
because of, not in spite of, the complex contrapuntal devices he so masterfully
Franneke
> Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
> 'intelligence'
> Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
> 'intelligence'.
> Any other mythical theories on this?
Yes, mine.
Intelligent people don't care.
Frank
Bob Lombard
>
>Yes, mine.
>Intelligent people don't care.
>
>Frank
>
bl
Sven Berglund
wrote:
>Mozart vs J S Bach
>
>Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
>'intelligence'
>Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
>'intelligence'.
>Any other mythical theories on this?
There is a (fairly serious) general hypothesis about musical enjoyment
that relates to this. The idea is that when listening to music, you
exercise parts of the brain that are not otherwise much used except by
people on the genius level. Therefore, the (temporary) enjoyment of
listening to music is akin to the (presumably more permanent) joy of
possessing genius.
This would explain the fact that almost everyone enjoys (some kind of)
music - lack of that capacity is generally considered a handicap - and
that all cultures possess it (really somewhat curious, is it not?).
There is no real proof so far AFAIK. But I suppose that if this
hypothesis holds, the degree of enjoyment would be an indicator of
neurological effectiveness. And surely, both Mozart and Bach seem to
interact with my nerves ...
(But why, then, did Einstein have to play the violin?)
____________________________________________________
Sven Berglund
To answer by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block.
Harpsichordist
>precision in Bach's music.
One of my college professors had a theory which I found fascinating concerning
the human perception of beauty. In the course of analyzing Bach fugues he
brought up the concept of "The Golden Mean" - a mathematical ratio that
produces pleasure to the human senses. The facade of the Parthenon is built
according to this relationship; the faces painted by Leonardo da Vinci employ
this ratio. When we employed this approach to the work of Bach, the results
were quite interesting. We examined a fugue, counted the number of measures ,
then applied the ratio- at precisely the measure the professor told us to look
at we found the stretto- all four voices entering in different fashion-
subject, inverted subject, retrograde, inverse retrograde. The works of Mozart
produced similar results. The mathematical equivalent of beauty!
Mark
Nobody
ContraPunct wrote in message
<19991013215059...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
There is an understated and "appropriate" amount of feeling in Bach's music.
He sneaks it in past the complexity. Also a lot of trickery which is very
appealing. The most I listen to it, the more tricky it sounds. The only
other composer I know who even attempts this is Jan Dismas Zelenka. Handel
and Vivaldi wrote good solid music, but their tricks are transparent, easy
to see coming and sometimes, I'm sad to admit, disappointing.
This is not to see that their affect is bad. Just that the structure is
laid bare. Perhaps one day I'll see an exception to this, but not today.
I often find that Bach's rules and the paths he take have multiple
interpretations and multiple destinations. Sometimes I find myself chuckling
with admiration at where he takes a theme. Zelenka also does this, but his
output was so minimal. His affect was also much stronger, sharper and
seemed to reflect dispair than Bach's. Bach seemed to be more content than
Zelenka, at least to judge from his music.
Bach reminds me of older computer programmers. Competent, content and ready
to apply what is necessary without being vulgar. And yet, sometimes, he goes
a little bit futher...
Eugene Herron
Zachary Uram
has been confirmed Sir Anthony Hopkins will return in the role of
Dr. Lecter.
Clavichord
(Sven Berglund) schreibt:
>all cultures possess it (really somewhat curious, is it not?
Not at all. Ditto all cultures dance, use body language, paint, sculpture, etc.
All are forms of communication which cannot be substituted by the others (you
cannot sing sculptures, and you cannot speak music). As communication systems,
they denote something outside their physical existence, and very often
something which itself has no physical existence at all, like emotions. Music
is a communication which denotes emotions, and thus makes them communicable. As
this is very important for humans, all of them make music.
Michael, re-re-re-reading Kant
Clavichord
harpsic...@aol.com (Harpsichordist) schreibt:
> In the course of analyzing Bach fugues he
>brought up the concept of "The Golden Mean"
Wait until Tjako finds this message.
Michael
Zachary Uram
> harpsic...@aol.com (Harpsichordist) schreibt:
>
> > In the course of analyzing Bach fugues he
> >brought up the concept of "The Golden Mean"
>
> Wait until Tjako finds this message.
hehe.
yes Tjako give us some analysis on the "Golden Mean" in Bach's
music.
we would like to hear :)
Zacg
Tjako van Schie
Well, what should I say in order to NOT end into an endless debate here?
I personally believe Bach used the Golden Mean (be it subconscious or
deliberate...in order to create harmony in the structure of his works, like
Rembrandt did in his paintings) in many of his works, but of course there
are many arguments against it... how precise should one measure for
instance, in order to get the exact Golden Means...
I think a ratio of 4 decimals behind the comma is not so unaccurate, but
others might want to dispute this.
The Golden Mean is a derivate from Fibonacci's numbers
(1:1:2:3:5:8:13:21:34:etc.). In nature we often can see this series of
numbers as a building block for 'fractal' growth, e.g. in a sunflower. I
think human mind percepts this ratio as a harmonical one. A sheet of paper
with hight:widht in Golden Ratio just looks nicer than a simple A4 (which
origines from a more technological ratio: an A0 paper =1m2)
regards,
--
Tjako van Schie, Dutch pianist & teacher at the Amsterdam Conservatory
tjakov...@castel.nl
http://users.castel.nl/~schic02 (the Tjako van Schie - pianist - homepages)
Clavichord <clavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991018035212...@ngol02.aol.com...
| Im Artikel <19991015122647...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
| harpsic...@aol.com (Harpsichordist) schreibt:
|
| > In the course of analyzing Bach fugues he
| >brought up the concept of "The Golden Mean"
|
| Wait until Tjako finds this message.
Tjako van Schie
Your challenge is good. As a matter of fact
I am currently working on a new and elaborate article on the Golden Ratio in
some of Bach's music.
When this article is finished, I shall publicize it here and on my site, ok?
regards,
--
Tjako van Schie, Dutch pianist & teacher at the Amsterdam Conservatory
tjakov...@castel.nl
http://users.castel.nl/~schic02 (the Tjako van Schie - pianist - homepages)
Zachary Uram <zu...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96L.9910...@unix12.andrew.cmu.edu...
Harpsichordist
deliberate...in order to create harmony in the structure of his works
Just so that I dont sound like a believer in Voodoo and mysticism, I think the
subconscious route is the better one. I think that the metrical nature of
Bach's compostion techniques perhaps makes this easier- groups of four bars and
such.
Mark
Denis C.
<nob...@noone.com> wrote:
>Bach reminds me of older computer programmers. Competent, content and
>ready to apply what is necessary without being vulgar. And yet,
sometimes, he >goes a little bit futher...
>
>Eugene Herron
Talking about computers, today's Britannicas's Site of the Day is "Music,
Mind, Machine " (Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen) at
<http://www.nici.kun.nl/mmm/>. Here is a short description :
"This project is about the computational modeling of music cognition with
an emphasis on the temporal aspects of music perception and music
performance such as rhythm, timing and tempo." Sounds pretty dry, doesn't
it? And, in fact, there's enough academic-speak on this site to satisfy
even the most reclusive inhabitant of the ivory tower. But there's plenty
for the rest of us to enjoy here, too, as the Music, Mind, Machine Group
at the University of Nijmegen has exhaustively documented its successes
and failures on the daunting task of getting a computer to play music the
way a human being would. Through online papers and QuickTime sound
recordings, the researchers richly illustrate the problems confronting
artificial intelligence research, and the fascinating insights into the
nature of humanity that such research can produce. Be forewarned, though:
unless your Net connection is screamingly fast, you'll need a good book to
get you through the download times."
DC
--
Pour m'écrire / To e-mail me
Remplacez "NoSpam" par "albatros"
Replace "NoSpam" with "albatros"
Tjako van Schie
Harpsichordist <harpsic...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991018114209...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
Well, Bach often uses other groups than 4 bars, as his style in many works
is more additive instead of divisive. Even when Bach uses the "forma
bipartita" the phrases many times consist of irregular groups of measures.
The advantage is that Bach could easily adapt the lengths of his pieces and
thus place important moments on better spots in the music. Also this
additive style has the advantage that Bach might get better away with his
numerological stuff. (A few notes are easlily added or subtracted in an
additive style.)
This in contrast to e.g. Mozart who writes quite symmetrical (maybe we
should say more 'binary' in 4-8-16 bar segments.)
light...@my-deja.com
right brain", "analytical vs. holistic", "masculine vs. feminine" type
of discussion....
In article <9393519...@hearts.q-net.net.au>,
"Lolita" <lol...@q-net.net.au> wrote:
> Mozart vs J S Bach
>
> Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new
found
> 'intelligence'
> Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have
acquired
> 'intelligence'.
> Any other mythical theories on this?
>
> LSA
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ethel Jean Saltz
>Oh dear...I hope this doesn't turn into a tired old "left brain vs.
>right brain", "analytical vs. holistic", "masculine vs. feminine" type
>of discussion....
==========================
How about this: Bach had an overdeveloped rational brain.
I don't know composers well enough to analyze. Some might have an
overdeveloped limbic brain and others, (Wagner, of course :) an
overdeveloped reptilian brain.
Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net
light...@my-deja.com
<5D6B7D103B3213B7.185AC416...@lp.airnews.net>,
nie...@airmail.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:44:44 GMT, light...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Oh dear...I hope this doesn't turn into a tired old "left brain vs.
> >right brain", "analytical vs. holistic", "masculine vs. feminine"
type
> >of discussion....
> ==========================
> How about this: Bach had an overdeveloped rational brain.
If that really were true, Bach would have been a scientist, engineer,
mathematician or "egoist" (like Rene Descartes).
I don't know if it's just me or if Bach's music really packs a punch in
emotion and sentiment, especially in his choral music. Works like St.
Matthew's Passion, the Mass in B Minor, Cantatas #4 and #150 (especially
when performed by Masaaki Suzuki), and practically all of the organ
works have a place in my heart.
I just can't agree with the impression that Bach was a "rational-only"
composer. In fact, I feel his music is more well-balanced than say,
Mozart (sorry -- I tend to agree with Glenn Gould on this) and Beethoven
(whose music I really like, but find to be too slow and too sad).
Ethel Jean Saltz
>If that really were true, Bach would have been a scientist, engineer,
>mathematician or "egoist" (like Rene Descartes).
==================
Well, in a way he was through music and organ construction. I believe
he was consulted all over the world for organ construction.
What music dis Descartes compose?
Sven Berglund
Well, but that does not explain why it *works*. Which is IMHO the
heart of the mystery.
Ethel Jean Saltz
Berglund) wrote:
>>All are forms of communication which cannot be substituted by the others (you
>>cannot sing sculptures, and you cannot speak music).
==============================
Didn't poetry predate music? Isn't music a natural by-product of
poetry? In fact, I read in the Encyclopedia Britannica that poetry was
considered a separate Muse by the ancients and in fact the word
"music" comes from the word "muse" and mostly related to poetry.
Now do you consider poetry as part of the "speech" field?
Actually, my first composition is going to rely on the lyrics. The
Theory-Composition prof says that if you have a describable theme in
words, before he sees the composition, he wants to see the lyrics.
Writing lyrics can be therapy. I'm looking forward to that time next
year. (Just occurred to me, wonder if he practices what he preaches.
Sure would like to see some of his lyrics :)
Sven Berglund
<nie...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:51:34 GMT, sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven
>Berglund) wrote:
>>>All are forms of communication which cannot be substituted by the others (you
>>>cannot sing sculptures, and you cannot speak music).
No, Ethel, I did not. I was *quoting* the above (IMHO somewhat
trivial) statement, which is a different matter. Please keep track of
who you are arguing with.
Inotmark
>Didn't poetry predate music? Isn't music a natural by-product of
>poetry?
no. priests etc. like to contain the power of music by their words, but they
can't create the effect they want without the music.
music is a separate function from language in human consciousness which
projects order onto chaos through relationships rather than through a lexicon.
light...@my-deja.com
<1361DE0B59FF5503.C8F00B1B...@lp.airnews.net>,
nie...@airmail.net wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:43:10 GMT, light...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >If that really were true, Bach would have been a scientist, engineer,
> >mathematician or "egoist" (like Rene Descartes).
> ==================
> Well, in a way he was through music and organ construction. I believe
> he was consulted all over the world for organ construction.
> What music dis Descartes compose?
That's something I did not know. I just wanted to say that Bach's music
is more emotional and heartfelt than most people give him credit for.
Then again, most people (for some weird reason) don't like Bach's music
at all.
Either there's something strange going on in the human race, or I'm the
weird one, being last non-musician who thinks Bach's music is the
best...
Sven Berglund
Agreed. And IMHO much more basic. I am not quite sure whether birdsong
is "music", but the extended, melodious morning duets of the gibbon (a
close relative of ours) surely are. Precisely what is being "ordered"
(if that is the answer) in the case of human music? Gibbon couples
are, I believe, coordinating themselves emotionally by duet singing
(and the gibbon is the only primate species that is totally
monogamous).
However, the question remains: why does it work?
Sven Berglund
<ebo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sven Berglund wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:43:42 -0700, Doug Livingston
>> <ebo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Sven Berglund wrote:
>> >> .... Therefore, the (temporary) enjoyment of
>> >> listening to music is akin to the (presumably more permanent) joy of
>> >> possessing genius.
>> >But don't you know that genius is pain?
>> No. Do you? If so, are you reporting personal experience or just
>> hearsay? :-)
>I'm quoting John Lennon.
Hearsay, then. Thanks.
Rochelle Mehr
<light...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7uv4hb$ci2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I am also a non-musician who thinks Bach's music is the best. There
is great emotion and passion, much of which emanates from his great
faith. There is often a rhythm and vitality to his work which I don't
find in the music of other composers. And the best part of it, to me,
is that the more I listen, the more I pick up -- it is like the
unfolding of a perfect universe in all of its simplicity and all of
its complexity -- at once -- each part perfect unto itself and
perfectly aligned with the other parts. He never had formal
university training. His father taught him the violin. He worked
very hard. He studied and copied scores from other composers (and
transcribed scores as well, such as some violin concertos of Vivaldi
for the harpsichord).
But how did he do it, integrate such passion and technical ability in
such a way that we are still moved today emotionally, intellectually,
and even spiritually? I don't know.
Harpsichordist
>such a way that we are still moved today emotionally, intellectually,
You must remember that Bach is the culmination of the Baroque Era. Many
composers worked around him. There is a reason that his birth and death dates
define the Baroque as far as music is concerned. We are looking at him from a
distance of 250 years. Other great composers lived then: Couperin, Scarlatti,
Telemann, Handel, Purcell. But Bach mastered all the forms and wrote pure
music.
Mark
Ethel Jean Saltz
Berglund) wrote:
>I guess Marvin Minsky is as good an example of modern genius as anyone
>can come up with at short notice. OK, AI has not exactly flourished
>lately, but the man has made respectable contributions in half a dozen
>disciplines normally c
===================
Well maybe you can explain to me how we can have artificial
intelligence when no one can really define intelligence? All the
computer software does is take secure repetitive mental operations
that are common to most humans and store them outside our bodies and
feed them back to us. It's extended human memory and that's all it is.
Now does Minsky explain the triune brain and what chemicals are
involved in each separate operating system. In other words, real
intelligence depends on 3 operating systems working simultaneously.
Clavichord
(Sven Berglund) schreibt:
>Well, but that does not explain why it *works*. Which is IMHO the
>heart of the mystery.
Why does verbal language "work"? Wittgenstein dedicated his entire
intellectual life to this single one question. But, this is a graffitti board,
not a philosophical debate club, so I tried my best to fit the idea to the
form, and now you accuse me of triviality, ah well...
Sven Berglund
>Im Artikel <38128d6...@n1.864.telia.com>, sven.b...@xyz.telia.com
>(Sven Berglund) schreibt:
>
>>Well, but that does not explain why it *works*. Which is IMHO the
>>heart of the mystery.
>
>Why does verbal language "work"? Wittgenstein dedicated his entire
>intellectual life to this single one question.
Well, Michael, I guess at least part of the effectiveness of language
is because it (maybe even graffitti) carries an intellectual message.
>But, this is a graffitti board, not a philosophical debate club,
This is an unmoderated newsgroup; anyone can post anything they like
on it, and that includes both grafitti and debate. However, I have a
hunch that most people on it prefer the latter, even if a bit of
philosophy should creep in.
>so I tried my best to fit the idea to the
>form, and now you accuse me of triviality, ah well...
Only a partial success, then. By grafitti standards, your post was
excessively high-brow. Just a delicate hint: stay off Kant and
Wittgenstein if you plan a seriously non-philosophical career in that
field. :-)
Nevertheless, I still do not consider the observation that you cannot
sing a sculpture very profound (unless you are reporting an actual
experiment in which case it is, at the very least, quite interesting -
please give details!). Indeed, it is the sort of thing I myself am
capable of only after a few drinks. (But maybe that, rather than Bach,
is what it takes to liberate my inhibited brilliance.)
(By the way, IMHO the fact that something has been considered by
Wittgenstein proves it is not worth discussing.)
Clavichord
(Sven Berglund) schreibt:
>By grafitti standards, your post was
>excessively high-brow. Just a delicate hint: stay off Kant and
>Wittgenstein if you plan a seriously non-philosophical career in that
>field. :-)
>
Actually, I consider graffitti a challenge. To try to condense something
complicated into a few sentences is good mental training, so I indulge in the
exercise. But after your IMHO I don't think discussing Wittgenstein on a Bach
board, with the only opponent being somebody who declares front-end he does not
care, makes any sense.
Re singing sculptures, the graffitti idea which I tried to picture was that we
have several communication modes which exist independently and which cannot be
translated into each other - if we could speak music we would do it because we
all have been taught proper speaking. But we can't, and therefore all cultures
make music (which was the original question btw). "Speak music" = "sing
sculptures". What is so trivial about that approach? But, Sven, you don't have
to bother to answer, because frankly I am getting bored, and we are boring
others.
Eugene Herron
>Either there's something strange going on in the human race, or I'm the
>weird one, being last non-musician who thinks Bach's music is the
>best...
>
You're not wierd at all. I'm not a musician either and I think the world of
Bach's music.
Gene Herron
Sven Berglund
>But after your IMHO I don't think discussing Wittgenstein on a Bach
>board, with the only opponent being somebody who declares front-end he does not
>care, makes any sense.
>Re singing sculptures, the graffitti idea which I tried to picture was that we
>have several communication modes which exist independently and which cannot be
>translated into each other - if we could speak music we would do it because we
>all have been taught proper speaking. But we can't,
The Finnish maverick-musician M.A.Numminen sings Wittgenstein, with
great success: see, for example,
http://www.kaapeli.fi/~nytid/borg/LWITTGEN.HTM
http://www.bgnett.no/~kalle/proj_ge.html
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~blomster/art/olus.htm
http://ubista.ubi.pt/~soccom/ccscript20curtas.html
http://www.students.llaky.fi/~peter/dare/man/lpt3.html
Why not have a go at Kant? Just as a warmup before attempting the
three-dimensional stuff? ;->
Sven Berglund
Berglund) wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 03:05:20 GMT, "Lolita" <lol...@q-net.net.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Mozart vs J S Bach
>>
>>Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new found
>>'intelligence'
>>Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have acquired
>>'intelligence'.
>>Any other mythical theories on this?
>There is a (fairly serious) general hypothesis about musical enjoyment
>that relates to this. The idea is that when listening to music, you
>exercise parts of the brain that are not otherwise much used except by
>people on the genius level. Therefore, the (temporary) enjoyment of
>listening to music is akin to the (presumably more permanent) joy of
>possessing genius.
I found some interesting quotations that have a bearing on this -
funny the way that sort of flotsam just comes your way on occasion.
I guess Marvin Minsky is as good an example of modern genius as anyone
can come up with at short notice. OK, AI has not exactly flourished
lately, but the man has made respectable contributions in half a dozen
disciplines normally considered separate, and was in addition a
musical child prodigy.
Interviewed by John Horgan (The End of Science), Minsky states he
considers music a sopoforic. His office has a piano (!) and he still
occasionally cannot resist the urge to compose what he describes as
"Bach-like things" but thinks "the reason people like music is to
*suppress* thought - the wrong kind of thought - not to produce it".
"I had to kill the musician at some point. It comes back every now and
then, and I hit it."
So, trying on a hypothesis for size (still mostly metaphor of course):
Music tickles low-lying brain layers, turning us into happy idiots
while it continues (producing in a receptive subject a partial
anaesthesia that I believe is well documented). Then, just maybe,
after the music ends, awakened but no longer tickled neurons eagerly
await useful stimulus - permanently, or just temporarily? (Minsky, of
course, has them going all the time so to him, music is just a
distraction.)
Quite possibly, Bach is particularly efficient in this respect. For
some people, at least. Us, that is. :-)
Now, if he is, it would of course also be intelligent to use him so,
unless you are a Minsky (explaining Lolita's second point).
Also, this explains what muzak does to you (and why it is found
useful).
(Anyone planning to bring Wittgenstein into this line of reasoning
should IMHO first consider than man's most famous dictum. I do not
find it particularly fruitful to philosophize about objects that, by
definition, cannot be known, such as the "unconscious", which would
presumably be where music hits you really hard. Neurophysiology, on
the other hand, is tangible science. Just give me a magnetotomograph,
and some Bach records, and let me stick some electrodes in your
frontal lobes ...)
Lolita
> About a month or two ago, there was a huge thread about this subject
> here. Do a search on alt.music.j-s-bach on Deja.com with the words
> intelligence/Bach/Mozart to find the header titles. Many of us had
> participated, so I would hate to rehash it all over again. It was quite
> a big thread, and I believe it was crossposted to other groups as well.
> --
> Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
> <http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
>
sheesh!
for a post that is being 'rehashed' as you put it Ioannis, this post sure
has generated a lot of new discussions!
IMO, not one real answer to this mystery.
Bach will always remain an enigma, and his followers also.
Lolita
Clavichord
Mmmm, I am lazy, and therefore I would start one generation down, with
Cassirer. Or one further down, with Susanne Langer. As she wrote in English,
that is the PC thing to do in this newsgroup.
Lanark
neurophysical sense. I've always likened my obsessive music collecting to a
form of addiction. (but unlike proper drugs I get to use them over and over
again) The right kind of music will definitely stimulate certain pleasure
centers in a drug like manner as well. But I'm not sure I'd necessarily
classify this as always having a soporific effect. The right kind of music
at the right time I find can get those pesky neurons firing along unexpected
lines. The ability to translate a physical stimulation (i.e.. soundwaves)
into something conceptual (i.e.. music) is certainly what I might classify
as a higher brain function. If you go back to the original postulation
about whether or not this particular brand of brain stimulation increases
I.Q. points, I can't say. The evidence seems inconclusive. But it must have
some sort of consequence somewhere along the line.
The thing is too, that while most everyone can hear music. Not everyone
knows how to actually listen.
I think you also have to take into consideration at some point , that
different folks utilize music in different ways as well. for some people
music is a form of aural wallpaper. Sonic decoration to go with the poster
on the wall and the vase of flowers. For others listening to music is and
end unto itself. The effect of either approach is going to be different.
The "singing sculpture" bit reminds me of an old saw that says "that
writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
The thing is that it can be done.
Clavichord
schreibt:
>The "singing sculpture" bit reminds me of an old saw that says "that
>writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
>The thing is that it can be done.
Of course you can, because music is an object which can become the subject of a
verbal sentence. But that does not mean that what music denotes can be denoted
with words. You can talk "about it" with words, but you cannot talk "it" with
words.
Ioannis Galidakis
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:54:28 GMT, sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven
> Berglund) wrote:
>
> >I guess Marvin Minsky is as good an example of modern genius as anyone
> >can come up with at short notice. OK, AI has not exactly flourished
> >lately, but the man has made respectable contributions in half a dozen
> ===================
> Well maybe you can explain to me how we can have artificial
> intelligence when no one can really define intelligence? All the
> computer software does is take secure repetitive mental operations
> that are common to most humans and store them outside our bodies and
> feed them back to us. It's extended human memory and that's all it is.
> Now does Minsky explain the triune brain and what chemicals are
> involved in each separate operating system. In other words, real
> intelligence depends on 3 operating systems working simultaneously.
Techically speaking, AI has been stalled long time ago. The processes
that started the trend, around 1968-75 with Claude Shannon and John von
Neumann are still in effect and only the area of neural networks is
promising.
The basic mistake (on the start) was the "brute force" approach which
was used both for "intelligent" game play and for finite state machines.
The "brute force" approach has been plaguing Mathematicians and CS
scientists for a long time. Trying to forcefeed AI outcomes even on a
finite state machine comes nowhere close to how the human mind works.
Mathematicians also disregarded another basic factor which characterises
the human brain: Gradual learning through coveting and experience. These
two are tied together, and without AI trying, at least to incorporate
both in a AI programming environment, it leads to quite bad results. To
make a long story short: ANY AI program will "eventually" be limited, if
it is not allowed to draw resources though some sort of sensory input,
be it a camera, audio or tactile stimulus.
To expect that a program will become consious without such devices is
futile.
On the other hand, trying to incorporate computer vision (which lately
is very popular) involves very hard math and the state of optical
pattern recognition is very primitive.
An example from Wittkenstein (sp?): Suppose you see a trail of ants that
form the outline of a human head. Do you recognize it as ants, or as a
"virtual face" shape?
These problems, and others basically rely on distinguishing between
"foreground" or "background" and are not at all easy (if not impossible)
to program, just because we have no clue how the human brain does it.
The Fore/Background issue in computer vision is a major pain in the *ss
to program. And even if the two notions can be differentiated, how is
one to program the famous "vision identity" problem?
The last problem is particularly accute. Take an example: You give a
baby 3-4 months close to its mother, and after putting it in a crowd of
500 people, it can visually recognize from afar its mother easily. That
includes all possible variations, angles, and sizes of the image of
"mom".
This very elementary problem on humans, is horrendously difficult to
achieve with computer vision. One needs to have "extrapolation"
algorithms, which provide for all possible views, sizes and shapes of
mom's face. You can see that not only many such extrapolations are
impossible to program, but even if they *could* be programmed, the
program would only respond with the famous "this is my mom, with
probability 58%". That's not good enough.
To make a long story short, scientists also forget that if ever
complexity of the machine becomes such that it can "start conscious
algorithms", the machine will probably start being miserable from the
very start. If I was such a program, without the ability to move like a
human, or be otherwise limited in that regard or with limited sensory
input, I'd immediatelly commit suicide.
Pondering all these questions, leave one with a very vivid feeling, that
the careful orchestration of all the events from birth to consciousness,
can only be the work of "something" or "someone" with capabilities very
much above the capabilities of a single mind.
I don't care if you want to call this "chemical engineer" God or nature,
yet the very fact remains that the part cannot understand the whole. And
we are "the part".
Not only we are "the part", but we have VERY limited knowledge about
even that part. The development of a human, is necessarilly tremendously
complex, and most attempts to "copy" such behaviour without
understanding it first would be futile.
It was not a coincidence that Bach was religious. Barring the details
which have been discussed here ad nauseam, a mind with Bach's caliber,
would naturally find solace in a higher mind, even a fake one.
--
Ioannis Galidakis jg...@ath.forthnet.gr
<http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~jgal/main.html>
______________________________________
1070063870,528999180
101462211,818688780
101122300,1070334972
100720835,818676492
101462211,818688780
516418814,818406156
Clavichord
that does not mean that what music denotes can be denoted with words. You can
talk "about it" with words, but you cannot talk "it" with words.<<
Or, to put it into more user-friendly words: If you could express with words
what you express with music, you would use words because those you know
already, and you wouldn't have to learn composing and playing instruments. The
very fact that all cultures undergo the ordeal of practising music would imply
that music CANNOT be translated into words, that language is completely
inefficient to transport musical meaning. This has nothing to do with language
talking ABOUT music.
Clavichord
that does not mean that what music denotes can be denoted with words. You can
talk "about it" with words, but you cannot talk "it" with words.<<
Or, to put it into more user-friendly words: If you could express with words
what you express with music, you would use words because those you know
already, and you wouldn't have to learn composing and playing instruments. The
very fact that all cultures undergo the ordeal of practising music would imply
that music CANNOT be translated into words, that language is completely
inefficient for transporting musical meaning. This has nothing to do with
Clavichord
that does not mean that what music denotes can be denoted with words. You can
talk "about it" with words, but you cannot talk "it" with words.<<
Or, to put it into more user-friendly words: If you could express with words
what you express with music, you would use words because those you know
already, and you wouldn't have to learn composing and playing instruments. The
very fact that all cultures undergo the ordeal of practising music would imply
that music CANNOT be translated into words, that language is completely
inefficient to transport musical meaning. This has nothing to do with language
Lanark
music. It is in essence of poetry. If "music" as I define it (and I listen
to a lot of unmusical "music" so for my own purposes, the definition has to
be broad to cover things like improvisational noise and such) is the human
manipulation of sound then the spoken word can fit into the idea of being
musical.
I might even rationalize this by pointing to Kurt Schwitter's "Ur
Sonata" as an example. He was one of those pesky Dadaists who composed a
"sonata" consisting of long strings of nonsense syllables. It's really kind
of a hoot.
( I also find the works of people like Nabakov to be quite musical.)
Besides what is music if it isn't a language itself? It has its own
forms of grammar and sentence construction. It is used to convey ideas and
emotions like speech and is alike in myriad other ways as well. (I'm just
trying to be concise here.)
I would also like to throw out that I've read anecdotes that Charles
Mingus was said to be actually able to "speak" to his musicians by playing.
He would talk about having long philosophical arguments on stage with his
musicians while playing. The anecdote I've read in a couple of places is
that somebody came to interview him and had heard about this ability and
asked for a demonstration. He took Mingus across the room and whispered into
his ear the phrase "Mingus is a genius" to him. Mingus picked up his bass
and played a little bit and Dannie Richmond (Mingus' usual drummer) picked
up on it.
Clavichord
schreibt:
>I do believe that language can be
>music. It is in essence of poetry.
Correct of course. Because also language is sound, and because it also develops
in linear structures over time, you can use it "musically".
>Besides what is music if it isn't a language itself? It has its own
>forms of grammar and sentence construction.
Of course, by argument exactly. Although I probably wouldn't use the word
language because it is associated with verbal language. Let's call it
communication.
>It is used to convey ideas and emotions like speech and is alike in myriad
other >ways as well.
"Like" definitively not. What makes music a special communication system is
found in its differences to, not in its likenesses to verbal language (like its
use of sound over time). "Ideas" I don't think so, this word is again a verbal
concept. Emotions yes, all thinkers and treatises have accepted that, but
differed in the way they interpreted the "conveying emotions". My own
interpretation, for what it's worth, and for what I can put into words (which
is an acute problem), and after having read most of what many musicians and
philosophers have said about it, is that it communicates our knowledge about
our emotions, not the emotions themselves. As we are never sure about other
people's emotions, and as therefore we are never sure about our own ones (how
do we "learn" that an emotion we have is comparable to an emotion somebody else
has?), music is a means of getting it out in space, and make it a matter of
discourse.
Harpsichordist
As I recall, the ancient Greek poetry was sung. The Illiad and the Odyssey for
example.
mark
Clavichord
harpsic...@aol.com (Harpsichordist) schreibt:
>As I recall, the ancient Greek poetry was sung. The Illiad and the Odyssey
>for
>example.
>
Please - yes you can sing a song, because both music and words develop
linearily over time (unlike paintings for instance). Ditto can you dance to
music, because body movement also develops over time. But the similarity of
spacial usage does not imply that the communicative content is similar. Both a
tree and myself are threedimensional, but I would never confuse the two.
Sven Berglund
>Re singing sculptures, the graffitti idea which I tried to picture was that we
>have several communication modes which exist independently and which cannot be
>translated into each other - if we could speak music we would do it because we
>all have been taught proper speaking. But we can't, and therefore all cultures
>make music (which was the original question btw). "Speak music" = "sing
>sculptures". What is so trivial about that approach?
Trivial on the superficial level, just like "you cannot go to Iceland
by train" (just a technical problem) or "you cannot watch TV in movie
theatres" (technology exists, only the demand is lacking).
Going below the surface, it is just a matter of developing a code for
what is desired. A competent Indian musician can tell me that "this is
a morning raga for the cool season" and then continue to describe its
mood in minute, precise detail, whereas I cannot possibly do any of
this, lacking the code (even though I have spent a lot of time getting
to grips with Hindustani music, which I find quite enjoyable despite
this partial lack of understanding). Moreover, there exists an
established painting genre in which the moods of ragas are depicted
visually; I see no reason to contest Indian claims that this is
perfectly feasible.
There is, I believe, no great demand for sung sculpture; therefore,
there is no code (although I guess it would be no more difficult to
work out a way of singing, say, second rate funerary sculpture than
for translating Picander texts into music, which Bach did with great
success, vastly improving them in the process). On the other hand, the
ability to set down music on paper has long been considered useful, so
detailed codes exist. And with sufficient training, you can then -
read music!
To conclude, I think your thesis proves a fairly narrow view of
culture. If it is Kant's, I guess it illustrates the fact that the man
did not travel (and probably had little exposure to other cultures by
any other means); it is then rather easy to fall into the mistake of
elevating your own culture to a set of eternal principles. IMHO there
is no such thing as a set of "mutually orthogonal modes of
communication".
So, Michael: I am sorry if I bore you, but you did let the cat out of
the bag, and your thesis is trivial (on the surface) and bad (below
it).
Clavichord
I inadvertedly clicked off your latest reply, the cats in the bag one, and I
cannot find it in the NG anymore - you either deleted it or my browser is
faulty. Can you send it again to my e-mail address, so I can address it.
Sven Berglund
<nie...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:54:28 GMT, sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven
>Berglund) wrote:
>
>>I guess Marvin Minsky is as good an example of modern genius as anyone
>>can come up with at short notice. OK, AI has not exactly flourished
>>lately, but the man has made respectable contributions in half a dozen
>>disciplines normally c
>===================
>Well maybe you can explain to me how we can have artificial
>intelligence when no one can really define intelligence?
No. And I never claimed one *can* have it: I just happened to mention
Marvin Minsky (who is reasonably well defined). But there are a lot of
things I believe one *can* have that have not been defined, either.
For example, I do believe I am conscious. (Maybe I even have
intelligence, at least a little bit, even though undefined.)
clavi...@aol.com
sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven Berglund) wrote:
> A competent Indian musician can tell me that "this is
> a morning raga for the cool season" and then continue to describe its
> mood in minute, precise detail, whereas I cannot possibly do any of
> this, lacking the code
Of course he can, but is the raga describing the morning in the cool
season, or is it describing how a morning in the cool season FEELS?
> There is, I believe, no great demand for sung sculpture; therefore,
> there is no code
mein Gott, I was using that as an example for non-combinable
communication, is my English that bad?
> To conclude, I think your thesis proves a fairly narrow view of
> culture.
I doubt the content of my thesis has reached you. Seems that even
verbal communication does not work between the two of us.
> So, Michael: I am sorry if I bore you, but you did let the cat out of
> the bag, and your thesis is trivial (on the surface) and bad (below
> it).
Fine with me. My wife is the only person who can insult me, apart from
that I am only interested in learning. I am not learning anything from
comments like these, so guess they bore me.
____________________________________________________
Michael Zapf (Germany) clavi...@aol.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Clavichord
>As I recall, the ancient Greek poetry was sung. The Illiad and the Odyssey
>for
>example.
>
Yes you can sing a song, because both music and words develop
linearily over time (unlike paintings for instance). Ditto can you dance to
music, because body movement also develops over time. But the similarity of
spacial usage does not imply that the communicative content is similar. Both a
tree and myself are threedimensional, but I would never confuse the two.
Inotmark
>What makes music a special communication system is
>found in its differences to, not in its likenesses to verbal language ....
"Ideas" I don't think so, this word is again a
>verbal
>concept. Emotions yes, all thinkers and treatises have accepted that, but
>differed in the way they interpreted the "conveying emotions". My own
>interpretation, ... is that it communicates our knowledge about
>our emotions, not the emotions themselves. As we are never sure about other
>people's emotions, ... music is a means of getting it out in space, and make
it a matter of
>discourse.
an interesting statement. looking at music as music one finds that the only
way it has of creating meaning is through relating different elements one to
another. in the abstract, those elements have no meaning: what does 512
vibrations per second held for 1.5 seconds mean in isolation? in the context
of music that sound acquires meaning: in the key of Db major it has an intense
need to move upwards, in the key of C major it is the essence of absolute
stability, in the key of B minor it is strange and strangely attractive, in the
key of etc......
in otherwords, the principal method with which music communicates is through
relationships in context.
a secondary method is through imprinting a kind of lexicon onto sounds. In
fact C is used consistently by a number of composers to convey rather specific
concepts such as light, marriage, joy, wisdom etc.
in addition, various rhythmic and melodic gestures are assigned emotive
significance, the 'affects' of baroque music.
music relates these elements of melodic/rhythmic gesture, and tone significance
in a grammatical structure which accomplishes two things: formalization of the
discourse at hand, and its liberation from time constraints. thus whatever is
experienced in music is experienced outside of its normal time constraints, and
(in bach anyway) has a course of development that includes its completion.
for example: the opening movement of cantata 60 (o ewigkeit du donnerwort) is
in D major. the cantata is a dialogue between hope and fear: the alto solo
is fear and sings the chorale melody (o eternity thou thunder-word that cuts
through the soul ). the tenor solo is hope and sings Herr ich warte auf dein
heil (lord i wait on your healing/help).
before the voices even enter, though, the dialogue is taking place in the
orchestra: the cantata opens with repeated notes traditionally utilized to
characterize the trembling associated with great fear, and they are answered
with legato oboe lines descending from above to suggest grace descending from
above as the object of hope.
D major is traditionally used to represents the hero, the king, the father,
the ruler, etc. it is one the note at the center of the pythagorean scale
arranged in the circle of fifths, which was still the basis of bach's harmonic
style (even though he wrote in all 24 keys).
F C G D A E B
The movement, therefore suggests the heroic struggle between hope and fear as
the soul approaches death. the virtues music has to offer to elucidation of
this struggle are 1) because music exists in its own time, no other art form
can deal with issues of eternity as effectively as music 2) music brings that
struggle to a full and satisfying close, which we can experience prior to
having to undergo that struggle in earnest. The logic of the music creates the
experience of that issue being resolved. the grammar of the music contains and
limits the effect of that struggle. the symbolism of the music makes the
elements come alive apart from the words, and makes the struggle vital and real
for those who understand the language.
music is much more than an expression of emotions, it is the deepest level at
which humans project order onto chaos. the cheapening of music into mere
emotional discourse began after Bach (stylistically at least) and is really
only a product of industrial/modern/consumer culture, where music just becomes
one more disposable artefact for the individual's entertainment and
consumption.
needless to say, the entire mechanism is cultural and must be learned by
exposure. it is well documented that no emotions whatsoever are experienced by
cultures which have no access to western music when they are exposed to it
other than disgust at all the noise.
Clavichord
inot...@aol.comnospam (Inotmark) schreibt:
>an interesting statement. looking at music as music one finds that the only
>way it has of creating meaning is through relating different elements one to
>another.
>in otherwords, the principal method with which music communicates is through
>relationships in context.
Yes. And this is true of any communication system.
>a secondary method is through imprinting a kind of lexicon onto sounds.
>in addition, various rhythmic and melodic gestures are assigned emotive
>significance, the 'affects' of baroque music.
Yes.
>music relates these elements of melodic/rhythmic gesture, and tone
>significance
>in a grammatical structure which accomplishes two things: formalization of
>the
>discourse at hand, and its liberation from time constraints.
> 1) because music exists in its own time, no other art form
>can deal with issues of eternity as effectively as music 2) music brings that
>struggle to a full and satisfying close, which we can experience prior to
>having to undergo that struggle in earnest.
Yes, and it is interesting how you phrase it, I hadn't thought about the time
element. My own thinking had been that music is code of our "emotional
intelligence", to use a Howard Gardner term. But the result is the same - the
discourse about emotions without having to undergo them.
>music is much more than an expression of emotions, it is the deepest level at
>which humans project order onto chaos. the cheapening of music into mere
>emotional discourse began after Bach (stylistically at least) and is really
>only a product of industrial/modern/consumer culture, where music just
>becomes
>one more disposable artefact for the individual's entertainment and
>consumption.
Yes.
>needless to say, the entire mechanism is cultural and must be learned by
>exposure. it is well documented that no emotions whatsoever are experienced
>by
>cultures which have no access to western music when they are exposed to it
>other than disgust at all the noise.
Yes. But they can be learnt. And when your own code has become suspicious, for
whatever reasons, then eras of crossover begin.
Inotmark
>the principal method with which music communicates is through
>>relationships in context.
>
>Yes. And this is true of any communication system.
actually, this is not true of any other system, since all other systems have a
lexicon and the relationships themselves cannot exist devoid of association
with an object. in this music transcends all other forms of communication and
mirrors very deep psychological structure. music shows how we relate things
without necessarily having anything to say about what is being related.
though various aspects of meaning can be imprinted on musical ideas as they
were in the baroque period, this imprinting was not universal even in western
music.
Sven Berglund
wrote:
> While I'd have to agree that music is certainly stimulating in a
>neurophysical sense. I've always likened my obsessive music collecting to a
>form of addiction. (but unlike proper drugs I get to use them over and over
>again)
OK, I will give you another Minsky quotation.
"If there's something you like very much, then you should regard this
not as you feeling good but as a kind of brain cancer, because it
means that some small part of your mind has figured out how to turn
off all other things."
Sort of depressing IMHO.
> The "singing sculpture" bit reminds me of an old saw that says "that
>writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Architecture used to be called "frozen music". Maybe the freezing
inhibits the dancing a bit. :-)
Sven Berglund
>>>music is an object which can become the subject of a verbal sentence. But
>that does not mean that what music denotes can be denoted with words. You can
>talk "about it" with words, but you cannot talk "it" with words.<<
>
>Or, to put it into more user-friendly words: If you could express with words
>what you express with music, you would use words because those you know
>already, and you wouldn't have to learn composing and playing instruments. The
>very fact that all cultures undergo the ordeal of practising music would imply
>that music CANNOT be translated into words, that language is completely
>inefficient for transporting musical meaning.
Not necessarily. Perhaps just moderately less efficient, in some
contexts. You seem to be arguing against the idea that all
communication techniques are equally good for all purposes, but AFAIK
nobody has proposed that. On the contrary, some techniques (notably,
sculpture) are remarkably cumbersome and would presumably only be
ideal in special cases (such as in an architectural context, or when
permanence is at a premium).
Sven Berglund
>In article <381bc73...@n1.864.telia.com>,
> sven.b...@xyz.telia.com (Sven Berglund) wrote:
>> A competent Indian musician can tell me that "this is
>> a morning raga for the cool season" and then continue to describe its
>> mood in minute, precise detail, whereas I cannot possibly do any of
>> this, lacking the code
>Of course he can, but is the raga describing the morning in the cool
>season, or is it describing how a morning in the cool season FEELS?
Neither. The raga is for playing in the morning, in the cool eason; it
is supposed to embody within itself the essence of that concept (along
with a list of far more specific ones), an essence also shared (to a
variably degree) by actual mornings.
(Please feel free to use the above in any linguistic context you like.
The problem is, Indian thought really *is* that convoluted. I guess,
in your language, one could say that "one cannot speak [Western]
descriptions [Indian]".)
> I am not learning anything from comments like these, so guess they bore me.
You have my compassion. But aren't your toes a bit long?
Clavichord
inot...@aol.comnospam (Inotmark) schreibt:
>the principal method with which music communicates is through
>>>relationships in context.
>>
>>Yes. And this is true of any communication system.
>
>actually, this is not true of any other system, since all other systems have
>a
>lexicon and the relationships themselves cannot exist devoid of association
>with an object.
I am either not getting your point, or I am disagreeing. Let's take a simple
example: clothing. You do communicate with clothing, arguably your status and
social group, and you do it without much thinking, other than the usual morning
questions. There is cultural training, and there is a code with which to
understand the signals. You cannot dress semantically neutral, because even
having no dress at all would be a statement. Now, I would call this a
communication system, because the arrangement of clothes denotes something
beyond their mere physical properties as body protection.
Inotmark
>I am either not getting your point, or I am disagreeing. Let's take a simple
>example: clothing. You do communicate with clothing, arguably your status and
>social group, and you do it without much thinking, other than the usual
>morning
>questions. There is cultural training, and there is a code with which to
>understand the signals. You cannot dress semantically neutral, because even
>having no dress at all would be a statement. Now, I would call this a
>communication system, because the arrangement of clothes denotes something
>beyond their mere physical properties as body protection.
>Michael
the clothes have a specific symbol attached to their arrangement/designer, etc.
clothes are an object with a function.
music has no specific significance, the tonal associations and affects of the
baroque aside, music is purely abstract.
you can look clothes and understand their function even if you don't know their
"status" in society. you can't tell anything at all about a middle C in
isolation. it has no meaning whatsoever that is not projected upon it.
the meaning in music is primarily how order is projected onto sound and
secondarily what associations and affects are attached to those sounds. the
secondary aspects are far from universal. the primary aspects are ubiquitous
throughout the world.
Clavichord
inot...@aol.comnospam (Inotmark) schreibt:
>clothes are an object with a function.
>music is purely abstract.
The relative merits and level of intellectuality aside, both are communication
systems. The communicative side of clothing is very complicated, you define
both your status, group, and your differentials to the norm. You try do differ
and not look itdentical to somebody else, even in very homogeneous environments
like the army. At the same time, without thinking about it, your choices define
your social associations. These are very complicated signals for a "functional"
object, and people spend "irrational" amounts of money to comply to them. Looks
to me like clothes denote something outside their clothing function, and by
definition that outside denotion makes them communication.
Bob Lombard
>you can look clothes and understand their function even if you don't know
their
>"status" in society. you can't tell anything at all about a middle C in
>isolation. it has no meaning whatsoever that is not projected upon it.
Well hell, you can't "tell anything at all" about any single sound in a
spoken language either. You are slicing exceedingly small.
bl
Inotmark
> Looks
>to me like clothes denote something outside their clothing function, and by
>definition that outside denotion makes them communication.
a fact not in contention in anything i have said.
Inotmark
>Well hell, you can't "tell anything at all" about any single sound in a
>spoken language either. You are slicing exceedingly small.
a number of very significant words that have only one phoneme. for example:
SHHHHHHHH!
Bob Lombard
Inotmark wrote in message <19991031174959...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
starting to say shucks, or surely, or...
You are slicing exceedingly small.
bl
Lanark
I'd much enjoy his company. He sounds rather humorless and not a little
Puritanical in his intellectual process.
I'd take listening to Free Jazz with a hangover over the cold hard logic
of pure reason any day of the week.
I'll also argue with him that enjoying something does not preclude other
mental functions. Very often listening to music will help blot out the
mental white noise so that the unlit back sections of my brain can work out
solutions without my direct involvement.
Clavichord
schreibt:
>Very often listening to music will help blot out the
>mental white noise so that the unlit back sections of my brain can work out
>solutions without my direct involvement.
>
Yes, this actually is how I came to become a professional musician. Back a
life, when I ran investment banks over here across the water, I realised that
the "problems" that circulated in my mind did that in verbal form. So every
evening, I would go to the piano, willingly exclude any words that floated
around, and get into the musical system. After an hour of being without words,
I also had been without my problems, and after that hour they had lost a lot of
their weight. Others do it with working out, or running marathons, or playing
sqash or whatever. I did it with music, and I ended up switching sides.
min...@media.mit.edu
"Lanark" <lan...@uswest.net> wrote:
> From the sound of Mr. Minsky's opinion of musical enjoyment, I doubt
that I'd much enjoy his company. He sounds rather humorless and not a
little Puritanical in his intellectual process.
I doubt you'd enjoy my company. I'm nearly as humorless as Steve
Martin. But try reading the paper. It's at
http://www.media.mit.edu/people/minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.ht
Richard Thurston
"Lolita" <lol...@q-net.net.au> wrote:
> Mozart vs J S Bach
>
> Some people claim that if you listen to Mozart, you acquire a new
found
> 'intelligence'
> Some people say that if you listen to J S Bach, you already have
acquired
> 'intelligence'.
> Any other mythical theories on this?
>
> LSA
>
>
--
I lissened to them Godberg variashuns all day ong yesteday and i dont
feal no smarter. put me down as a Bache man.
Richard Thurston
Ethel Jean Saltz
Berglund) wrote:
>"If there's something you like very much, then you should regard this
>not as you feeling good but as a kind of brain cancer, because it
>means that some small part of your mind has figured out how to turn
>off all other things."
===================
I feel sorry for anyone who is in his "loving" circle. Couldn't trust
him to tell his true feelings. Obviously doesn't have any. Also,
wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face, it seems. The only
truths are his own lonesome depressing findings? :)
Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net
Zachary Uram
> In article <zvgT3.13$QS5....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Lanark" <lan...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > From the sound of Mr. Minsky's opinion of musical enjoyment, I doubt
> that I'd much enjoy his company. He sounds rather humorless and not a
> little Puritanical in his intellectual process.
>
> I doubt you'd enjoy my company. I'm nearly as humorless as Steve
> Martin. But try reading the paper. It's at
>
> http://www.media.mit.edu/people/minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.ht
Wow so Dr. Minksy reads our Bach newsgroup :)
Watch what you say "Lanark" you never know who is listening! hehe
Zach
________________________________________________________
ur...@cmu.edu
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29
Ethel Jean Saltz
>www.media.mit.edu/people/minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.ht: 404 Not Found
However after writing this post I went back and added ml to ht and got
it. Now to read it.
=================================================================
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 21:47:10 GMT, min...@media.mit.edu wrote:
>In article <zvgT3.13$QS5....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Lanark" <lan...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> From the sound of Mr. Minsky's opinion of musical enjoyment, I doubt
>that I'd much enjoy his company. He sounds rather humorless and not a
>little Puritanical in his intellectual process.
>
>I doubt you'd enjoy my company. I'm nearly as humorless as Steve
>Martin. But try reading the paper. It's at
>
>http://www.media.mit.edu/people/minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.ht
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Ethel Jean Saltz
>The old distinctions among emotion, reason, and aesthetics are like the earth, air, and fire of an ancient alchemy. We will need
>much better concepts than these for a working psychic chemistry.
=========================
I myself have talked to my brain all my life. I could never find an
explanation until I found this Brazilian neurologists site last
summer. Now I know I've been talking to my brain all my life. It has a
lot to do with the reptilian, limbic and rational operating systems
trying to be master of each other. According to the following site,
they have observed the development of the triune brain in the womb.
I was purely rational for the past 11 years and then I embarked on a
music ed. My limbic system started waking up and I was getting
flashbacks to an awful incident 20 years ago that I put behind me. In
fact, I don't even feel I've been whole until I took music. FYI, I'm
70YO and am retired from computer programming, systems analysis after
26 years (didn't start until I was 37 YO). Music is much more
difficult than programming because music involves the body as well as
the mind.
The site is: http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n05/mente/limbic_i.htm
You know it well. They published their interview with you. I wonder if
you really have read this site.
=========================================================================
Ethel Jean Saltz
men's minds. So does the Ayatollah as we speak. I think a person isn't
truly intellectual unless he understand music theory. Can you imagine
having 20th century music without having conventional music theory.
ATonal if there weren't tonal. How can you have an Atheist without the
bible existing?
And he mentions nothing about acoustics. We are talking about
frequencies and vibrations here. Environmental events outside our body
which surely must effect our bodies. I don't think we've even
scratched the surface of intelligence.
The ultimate of Intelligence is the Rosenthal Experiment where they
mixed up all the elementary class's IQ's and reassigned them to names
randomly. To their complete amazement, the kids with the highest
assigned IQ did the best in school. This is stupid. A teacher simply
is a jobholder. The teachers salary depends on how well she teaches.
You can bet she's going to make sure the kids with the highest IQ's
are going to have the highest school scores. Otherwise, she's a lousy
teacher. That's a given in the teaching marketplace.
People forget that famous saying "genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration". I doubt that Bach or Mozart ever stopped working.
Now Bach's INVENTIONS, that's true intelligence as far as I'm
concerned because it's all encompassing. BTW, the student recital
today, two guitarists using their electric ones played Invention #4. I
happen to have been in piano class with both these young guitarists.
They were really amazed by the piano and using two hands and ten
fingers and two staves, all at once. Interesting that the same teacher
that turned them on to Bach turned me on to Bach. She must be doing
something right. It was wonderful to see their performance. I'm sure
it was done pretty fast and they did foul up around the climax, but
they kept right on striking and it was a treat to behold.
Isn't it strange that a person who loves their job and sticks to it
above the 8 hours except when asked to is called a workaholic but
people like Bach and Mozart are not called workaholics. I don't think
there is such a thing as a workaholic. I just think it pure jealousy
on the part of others who would rather play than work. To some of us
work IS play.
===================================================
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:17:19 -0600, "Lanark" <lan...@uswest.net> wrote:
>From the sound of Mr. Minsky's opinion of musical enjoyment, I doubt that
>I'd much enjoy his company. He sounds rather humorless and not a little
>Puritanical in his intellectual process.
> I'd take listening to Free Jazz with a hangover over the cold hard logic
>of pure reason any day of the week.
> I'll also argue with him that enjoying something does not preclude other
>mental functions. Very often listening to music will help blot out the
>mental white noise so that the unlit back sections of my brain can work out
>solutions without my direct involvement.
>
Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend