Theory Screwed me up!
kaetae
amount of time I decided to delve deeper into musical theory. That was
in the early '70's.
I got all the books I could get my hands on including fanfares to many
classical tunes and I signed up for mail order jazz courses from a
reputable school in Boston along with joining a local fusion band (but
not called fusion yet).
I had been working much overtime in the previous few years and had
enough money saved up to devote my entire life to learning music.
After almost three years I had completed my mail order course and bought
a keyboard so that I could put my newly learned theory to better use by
being able to play up to 10 note chords.
When I went back to the guitar I found that I had lost almost all my
senses of rhythm and could not figure out how to play the same chords
that I played on the keyboard. Even though I had professional drum
instructions before I started the guitar, it was so deep in my mind that
I couldn't find it.
So then came another year of percussion and harmony studies.
By the early 80's I was so confused that I gave it all up completely and
went back to restoring old cars.
About a year or so later I decided that I wanted to play guitar again
and to my surprise, even though I was quite rusty, all my newly learned
theory was easily retrieved when needed. I was able to think theory as
related to a keyboard and convert it to guitar in a matter of seconds.
Even though I was slow, I had a grasp on it all.
Today there is little or no thought involved. I know what I want to
sound like and I just do it. But without my theoretical background I
would not be able to do this, nor would I have any knowledge of what and
how to play what I want.
Theory is the language of music. It might as well have been Greek for
me when I started.
Most music theory is created for piano and converting it for the guitar
can be an awesome task, especially when it has to be done in your mind
in a split second.
In my case practice did not make perfect nor did study. Although I am
far from perfect, I found that getting away from it all for a time
improved my understanding of music theory considerably.
I will never stop learning and I learn something new everytime I play
with a group or another instrumentalist. But learning new things now is
easy because I understand the how's and whys.
Just thought I'd mention that.
Pt
Bob Russell
wrote on 6/13/01 10:42 AM:
(snip)
> Theory is the language of music. It might as well have been Greek for
> me when I started.
> Most music theory is created for piano and converting it for the guitar
> can be an awesome task, especially when it has to be done in your mind
> in a split second.
> far from perfect, I found that getting away from it all for a time
> improved my understanding of music theory considerably.
You probably just needed some time to assimilate the new stuff you'd
learned. A lot of things in music are like that; they have to sink in for
awhile before one can really put them to good use. In the end, it sounds
like it didn't really "screw you up"; it just slowed you down for awhile.
Theory is just a tool. You can give me everything in the Stewart MacDonald
catalog, including all the 'how-to' books and videos, and I'll still
probably build you a really crummy guitar. Give Bob Benedetto a good
pocketknife and some sandpaper and he'll still probably come up with
something decent! Of course, the best scenario is Bob B. with all the tools
he's got. Does this make sense?
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Joey Goldstein
kaetae wrote:
>
>
> Most music theory is created for piano
Music theory is not related to any specific instrument. It is related to
the range of audible tones in use in the musical scale. Theory,
especially theory related to 12 tone equal temperament, might be easier
to visualize on piano than on any other instrument, except for possibly
a computer.
> and converting it for the guitar
> can be an awesome task,
Well that's one of the big challenges in being a guitar player, isn't it?
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/joey_goldstein
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
kaetae
One of the reasons I posted this is to let some of the newer players not to
expect to be a virtuoso in a matter of weeks, months or even years.
Each of us has a different learning speed and ability. For me it has taken
over 40 years and I'm still learning. I am not saying that I'm slow but
learning all there is about guitar, theory and practical use takes more than
one lifetime.
Pt
A_Riot
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> Music theory is not related to any specific instrument. It is related to
> the range of audible tones in use in the musical scale. Theory,
> especially theory related to 12 tone equal temperament, might be easier
> to visualize on piano than on any other instrument, except for possibly
> a computer.
I find it very interesting that it has only been in the last few hundred
years that being a musician actually meant playing an instrument. In
medieval times being a musician meant studying the mathematical
relationships between musical tones, far removed from playing an actual
instrument. Musical theory is based on mathematics, which, being entirely
abstract, needs no external mechanism to exist.
Jonathan Byrd
theorists take actual working examples, and attempt to postulate general
rules that are consistent with all the examples.
The problem occurs when we try to use theory in the opposite direction,
to try to figure out specific notes to play based on the general rules
of the theorists. You can't just reverse the crank on the sausage
machine, and get the cow back.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Andy Bullington
>Musical theory is based on mathematics, which, being entirely
> abstract, needs no external mechanism to exist.
>
>
Andy
Martin Porto
Music.
But in any case it's not "theory's fault", is how you take it.
best from MP
"Andy Bullington" <abull...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:gjQV6.25894$_Y5.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Paul kirk
A_Riot wrote:
>
>
> I find it very interesting that it has only been in the last few hundred
> years that being a musician actually meant playing an instrument. In
> medieval times being a musician meant studying the mathematical
> relationships between musical tones, far removed from playing an actual
> instrument. Musical theory is based on mathematics, which, being entirely
> abstract, needs no external mechanism to exist.
I am not sure I believe that being a musician ever meant what you claim.,
but in any case, any music theory "based on mathematics" is likely to be
utterly uninteresting to mathematicians, and
mostly useless to musicians in the usual accepted (modern?) sense of the
word. Like it or not, mathematics is much deeper structurally than anything
that appears anywhere in music, and most attempts to use math to produce
music results in something boring (or at best "novel") to listen to, and
completely elementary and dull to a mathematician.
I think one point of confusion is semantic: the use of the term "music
*Theory*". Analyzing certain pieces of music (or improvisations) in terms of
established terminology (e.g. "in bars 4-10 he uses dorian mode on a minor
chord") is not theory in the scientific sense of the word, but rather
suggestions on how to manipulate sounds to obtain certain musical results
(or to provide terminology to explain how sounds were used in a musical
example). There is nothing theoretical about it, nor is it a set of rules
that must be followed, it's just a language to convey information about
music. Difficult music requires a sophisticated language.
Think about joey's triad pairs examples. He never says you must use this
method, or that all jazz is a version of this (at least I dont think he
does), but rather here's an organizing approach that leads you to create some
sounds you might not have run across. what is theoretical about that?
An improvisor might as well learn some "theory" so that he can better
understand the approaches discovered by his predecessors, rather than trying
to re-discover everything from scratch. You dont have to learn any of course,
but it cant hurt, just as it cant hurt to learn to read music. It might not
help, and lots of great players do without it, but for most people it will.
So I dont see how theory can screw anyone up, except maybe to make you feel
stupid if you dont understand it right away. I feel stupid all the time, so
that's not a problem for me.
Paul Kirk
Andy Bullington
the running joke we had at Berklee: "Its all just tension and release, man....tension
and release." And I would say music has more to do with physics than pure
math anyway. I don't really see what pure math has to do with music, to tell you the truth.
Its like saying there's no such thing as true love...only a sort of gene driven pairing up
for the survival of the species. Thats not gonna help you negotiate the pitfalls of a marriage.
Nor is the math angle gonna help you play a solo with any emotional impact on Body and Soul.
Andy
"Martin Porto" <marty...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zCQV6.80191$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Andrew Lee
wrote:
>
>I find it very interesting that it has only been in the last few hundred
>years that being a musician actually meant playing an instrument. In
>medieval times being a musician meant studying the mathematical
>relationships between musical tones, far removed from playing an actual
>instrument. Musical theory is based on mathematics, which, being entirely
>abstract, needs no external mechanism to exist.
>
>
This may be true but, western music (as opposed to,say, ragas and
talas) has gotten a LOT more sophisticated than medieval church music.
If you think about it, music existed a long time before writing or
calculation -- and coexisted with those forms of music that were
written down. Now we call that aboriginal or folk music (depending on
what culture we are talking about). Most music is folk music. Jazz
started life as folk music. It was not a German fuzzy haired composer
who sat down at the beginning of the last century and said, "Enough
vit dis twelve tone crap -- I vant to sving!" *insert image of
Schoenberg with saxaphone* (ok .. Schoenberg was bald).
This is non-trivial stuff (from a mathematical point of view). Music
does not exist inside of a formal system (nor does math). It is a
different beast than Russell's formulaic approach to the Hilbert
Program (which bit the dust when Kurt Goedel published his paper on
the incompleteness of formal systems).
IMO music happens and then people run in to fill in the theory ... not
the other way around. This does not mean that knowing theory inhibits
you in anyway ... just that there are always going to be people way
ahead of the curve.
But enough of my ranting.
I'm sorta the opposite of Pt. I learned a wee bit of reading and
theory and said, ok -- bring on the tunes. I played for years without
the benefit of a language much more precise than, "I'm feelin' that!",
"That's smokin", "Man -- you are deep in the pocket!"
So, now that I am really devoting myself to learning I might be
tempted to think that nothing I did was music. Bah! It was all music
and it some of it was pretty good and I'm glad I played and I am happy
to study now and I am playing stuff that I like and theory is just
giving me more precise language to desribe some things that I already
knew and to try out things I would never have thought of.
Thanks for letting me wave my flag ... I'll be here all week ...
:-)
Bob Russell
wrote on 6/13/01 11:14 PM:
> theory is just
> giving me more precise language to desribe some things that I already
> knew and to try out things I would never have thought of.
Bingo! Jackpot.
kaetae
Bob Russell wrote:
When I was 5 I took piano, at 8 I took trumpet, 11 drums and 13 guitar and
bass.
There was one or another sort of music theory in my life from as far back
as I remember.
In grammar school music was a daily course. I was also in the choir.
Since music was a part of my life I never put much thought into it.
I could sight read before I could read words.
I loved to improvise from when I first sat down at my grandmothers baby
grand.
But everyone frowned on improvisation. My first learned pieces were Sousa
marches.
Even though I did have some knowledge of theory when I started playing
jazz, I never realized it. I did not intentionally try to learn theory, it
just happened.
But somehow I forgot everything I learned all my life and started over.
It made everything much more complicated that it really was.
But I will always remember FACE and Every Good Boy Does Fine.
Pt
A_Riot
"Martin Porto" <marty...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> Cheap music theory is based in Mathematics, good music theory is based on
> Music.
>
> But in any case it's not "theory's fault", is how you take it.
>
> best from MP
I think you are missing my point. There is no getting around the fact that
music is based on mathematics. To try and deny it would be like saying that
acoustics are not based on physics. This is not to say that music should be
composed according to mathematical rules although it can be. That would be
like analysing the sound of a room using only formulas without actually
listening to the room itself. My point wasn't
music = math.
My point was that the fundamental theory of music relies on mathematics.
For instance, if you play a note on the 12th fret you get an octave.
Therefore to double the pitch of the A string from 440 to 880 you decrease
its length by half. This was discovered, as you probably know, by
Pythagoras, supposed originator of Pythagoras theorem a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
Using two monochords (a board with a taught string and a sliding
bridge), Pythagoras discovered that the interval between the two notes
sometimes sounded good together (consonant) and sometimes not (dissonant).
He found three particular consonant intervals that he called the diapason,
the diapente, and the diatesaron or the octave, fifth and fourth notes of
the Pythagorean scale. They were produced by shortening the string length
by ½, ? and ¾ respectively, with their ratios of 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3. The
Pythagoreans appreciated the beauty inherent in the fact that these ratios
of whole numbers produced consonant intervals. The numbers in these ratios,
1, 2, 3 and 4 added together made 10, the Pythagorean holy number, and the
idea that small number ratios could harmonize led to the theory of means
(arithmetic, geometric and harmonic) by Boethius in Fundamentals of Music.
By continually shortening the string by these whole number ratios,
Pythagoras was able to create his diatonic scale consisting of 7 notes from
A to G represented by the white notes on a piano.
Hence, music and mathematics are indelibly intertwined.
Stravinsky said that the musician should find in mathematics a study “as
useful as the learning of another language to a poet.”
Quoting mathematician Marston Morse,
“Mathematics are the result of mysterious powers which no one understands,
and in which the unconscious recognition of beauty must play an important
part. Out of an infinity of designs a mathematician chooses one pattern for
beauty’s sake and pulls it down to earth.”
Morse, could just as well have been talking about music and the infinity
of combinations used in composition. Replace the word mathematics with the
word music and the above quote is just as true.
That is what I meant by stating that musical theory originated in
mathematics.
It just amazes me that it works out that the best sounding intervals end up
being whole number ratios. There is no reason for this to be that way, but
it seems kind of neat that it is.
Music is riddled with the Fibonacci numbers as well, apparently for no
reason. The Golden Ratio (1.6~:1) derived from the Fibonacci numbers shows
up in the compositions of Mozart, Beethoven and Stravinsky as well as in the
shape of a snail's shell and in the pattern of seeds in a sunflower. To
me, that is cool. It says something about music being more than just a
figment of the human mind but part of the larger structure of the universe.
Sorry for the rambling but I wanted to be clear.
Martin Porto
More than math, I was reffering to that kind of "anecdotic" theory that
unfortunatelly represent maybe 99% of books and curriculums as today.
you know..., most crapy "music" I can hear is done by people who is somewhat
"literate" about music, and I don't think is completely their fault or their
lack of talent, but have more to do with the state of education as a whole.
IMO people normally approach art (music) and then little by little most of
them become more and more unrelated with the reasons they are musicians in
first place.
You know the tale...,
Salieri: How you did composed those pieces being 6 years old ?????
Mozart: Without asking anybody!
;o)
Math aspects of music can be very helpfull, specially permutation stuff,
which I love and keep present all I can, it's very powerful once is
dominated.
I would replace "theory" with "techniques", which is more aimed to the
"production of music" instead of being just "I know about the existence" of
the Major Scale.
Good teachers, good musicians, good books, good students always find the way
to look at theory in a way that agree with your primary reasons why you are
a musician.
MP
"Andy Bullington" <abull...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:i3VV6.26137$_Y5.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
kaetae
Martin Porto wrote:
> Agree of course.
>
> More than math, I was reffering to that kind of "anecdotic" theory that
> unfortunatelly represent maybe 99% of books and curriculums as today.
>
> you know..., most crapy "music" I can hear is done by people who is somewhat
> "literate" about music, and I don't think is completely their fault or their
> lack of talent, but have more to do with the state of education as a whole.
>
> IMO people normally approach art (music) and then little by little most of
> them become more and more unrelated with the reasons they are musicians in
> first place.
>
> You know the tale...,
>
> Salieri: How you did composed those pieces being 6 years old ?????
>
> Mozart: Without asking anybody!
> ;o)
>
> Math aspects of music can be very helpfull, specially permutation stuff,
> which I love and keep present all I can, it's very powerful once is
> dominated.
>
> I would replace "theory" with "techniques", which is more aimed to the
> "production of music" instead of being just "I know about the existence" of
> the Major Scale.
>
> Good teachers, good musicians, good books, good students always find the way
> to look at theory in a way that agree with your primary reasons why you are
> a musician.
>
> MP
>
Had I thought of music being a scolastic acheivement I probably would have never
got involved in it.
Pt
Andrew Lee
>
>But I will always remember FACE and Every Good Boy Does Fine.
>
>Pt
:-)
I suppose the upside of FACE and Every Good Boy Deserves Chocolate is
that you learned all your triads in the same lesson. The fact that no
one told me this till much later is another issue.
Martin Porto
I actually love math, and find it very interesting and can be very helpful.
Did you already tried the 5040 permutations of C major scale ?
I think there are two main approaches about studying music, one is based in
the study of musical "possibilities" in which math is obviously the queen.
But the other approach which is "supossedly" the one that most people is
into, is based in the study of what other musicians did "before".
And that's why I said good theory is always based on "music", it is mostly
"autobiographic" in the sense that is "after the fact".
Anyway it can still have a lot of mathematical content, like if I ask a
student to practice the 120 permutations of a pentatonic phrase, but it
doesn't make any grow in the student if he is "not listening", and if I
don't give him specific ways to "use" that in order to do "music".
I rather preffer him to be a composer like Kurt Cobain than a Kenny G (NOT
Kenny Garrett) cause as I understand music, there's more "music" in one
Nirvana song than in all KG career.
Best
MP
"A_Riot" <a_r...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:APWV6.43098$QE4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> by ˝, ? and ž respectively, with their ratios of 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3. The
Bob Russell
wrote on 6/14/01 1:01 AM:
> I suppose the upside of FACE and Every Good Boy Deserves Chocolate is
> that you learned all your triads in the same lesson.
Every Good Boy Deserves ... Favour, right? At least that's what the Moody
Blues said. :)
Josh
However, a very famous mathematician once said "mathematics is about
discovery, not proof."
It is in this statement that the similarities and differences between math
and music can be discerned.
Making music (composition and improvisation) are about discovery as is
mathematics.
However, to my knowledge, mathematics cannot be used to "discover" new and
beautiful music.
I know many researchers are trying, but as far as I can tell its not leading
to a simulated Bach or Ellington.
Mathematics applied to the study of music serves the same purpose as the
techniques of chaos theory applied to say the stock market. One can uncover
patterns and measure statistical trends, but one cannot use chaos theory to
predict what the stock market is going to do.
Mathematics can explain relationships and patterns in music but will not
generate music which is both truly new and beautiful.
Josh
"A_Riot" <a_r...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:APWV6.43098$QE4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
Andrew Lee
wrote:
>
>"Martin Porto" <marty...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
>> Cheap music theory is based in Mathematics, good music theory is based on
>> Music.
>>
>> But in any case it's not "theory's fault", is how you take it.
>>
>> best from MP
>
>I think you are missing my point. There is no getting around the fact that
>music is based on mathematics. To try and deny it would be like saying that
>acoustics are not based on physics. This is not to say that music should be
>composed according to mathematical rules although it can be. That would be
>like analysing the sound of a room using only formulas without actually
>listening to the room itself. My point wasn't
>music = math.
>
> My point was that the fundamental theory of music relies on mathematics.
<< interesting stuff snipped >>
>Sorry for the rambling but I wanted to be clear.
>
No apologies required. Good post.
But .... you are a Platonist ... be honest ;-)
And the musicians counter example (among others) is that no one uses
perfect temperment anymore (or even Pythagorean) except in odd period
pieces. Even if you stay in the same diatonic scale, the overtones
all clash terribly for 'modern' instruments.
Ok -- what the hell -- we are already way off topic here :
I see your point and appreciate your post. At one time I would have
agreed with you. But my take has changed. I would say that math
attepts to explain music ... and often does it quite well ... but
fails because music -- like physics -- can't be completely codified.
The result is that one has to invent new math (e.g. superstings) to
explain the disparity between theory and observation.
All that said, there are very crafty mathematicians who take the
opposite view -- that math is uncovered by observation and underlies
physical principles.
Have a look at
http://www.maa.org/reviews/wheremath.html
This is a continuing debate in mathematics.
Joe Finn
--
"A_Riot" <a_r...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:APWV6.43098$QE4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> I think you are missing my point. There is no getting around the fact
that
> music is based on mathematics.
First of all, music is most certainly not based upon mathematics.
Mathematics can be used to describe a good many things, even music.
Mathematics is also the basis of several interesting ideas, but music is not
one of them.
> To try and deny it would be like saying that
> acoustics are not based on physics.
Again, physics is in this instance, descriptive. "Acoustics" is
perception ...... and expression.
> This is not to say that music should be
> composed according to mathematical rules although it can be. That would
be
> like analysing the sound of a room using only formulas without actually
> listening to the room itself. My point wasn't
> music = math.
>
> My point was that the fundamental theory of music relies on
mathematics.
OK, but a "theory" that *relies* upon mathematics is not the same as the
"practice" of an art form that expresses the universality of the eternal
human condition.
> For instance, if you play a note on the 12th fret you get an octave.
> Therefore to double the pitch of the A string from 440 to 880 you decrease
> its length by half. This was discovered, as you probably know, by
> Pythagoras, supposed originator of Pythagoras theorem a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
>
> Using two monochords (a board with a taught string and a sliding
> bridge), Pythagoras discovered that the interval between the two notes
> sometimes sounded good together (consonant) and sometimes not (dissonant).
> He found three particular consonant intervals that he called the diapason,
> the diapente, and the diatesaron or the octave, fifth and fourth notes of
> the Pythagorean scale. They were produced by shortening the string
length
> by ˝, ? and ž respectively, with their ratios of 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3. The
> Pythagoreans appreciated the beauty inherent in the fact that these ratios
> of whole numbers produced consonant intervals. The numbers in these
ratios,
> 1, 2, 3 and 4 added together made 10, the Pythagorean holy number, and the
> idea that small number ratios could harmonize led to the theory of means
> (arithmetic, geometric and harmonic) by Boethius in Fundamentals of Music.
> By continually shortening the string by these whole number ratios,
> Pythagoras was able to create his diatonic scale consisting of 7 notes
from
> A to G represented by the white notes on a piano.
>
> Hence, music and mathematics are indelibly intertwined.
>
This argument is fundamentally flawed. I will grant you that the conclusion
that music and mathematics are "intertwined" is somewhat more palatable than
the previous "music is based on mathematics". However this is a mighty
leap.
Olympian.
Besides, music predates mathematics. Would you have us believe that
prehistoric man contemplated the mathematical properties of the intervals
prior to having sung them?
Ouch.
Music is human expression. Others came along later on to describe things in
terms of mathematics. The sterility of this viewpoint is incredible.
Look, I'm a humble musician. I don't know anything about the mathematicians
or the other illustrious scholars to whom you refer. The problem with your
argument does nevertheless put me in mind of another quote from one of my
great heroes: the great Maestro Igor Stravinsky who observed that "too many
pieces of music finish too long after the end."
> Sorry for the rambling but I wanted to be clear.
>
At least you tried. ...joe
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul Graham
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <APWV6.43098$QE4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com> :
>
>I think you are missing my point. There is no getting around the fact that
>music is based on mathematics.
Music is based on sounds, sounds which can be *explained*
mathematically. Big difference.
-SNIP-
> To me, that is cool. It says something about music being more than just a
>figment of the human mind but part of the larger structure of the universe.
To that extent, I agree with you and yes it is cosmically cool.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.onestopjazz.com/kvansant
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
http://www.onestopjazz.com
for a comprehensive index of internet jazz resources
kaetae
(although I like catsup on a hot-dog).
What would a triad be without math?
Maybe Do, Me, Sol?
Cycle of Fifths.
Tri-tone Subs.
13th chords.
Pentatonic scales.
Octaves.
12 tone scales.
4/4 time
Quavers.
Intervals.
Frequency.
Concert Pitch (440hz).
Harmonics.
Percussion.
These things are all math related.
I suppose it would be possible to change the language of theory to something
like:
Tree=triad
House=Octave
If you wanted to play a 3 note chord an octave higher you might just end up
with a big Oak Tree in your bedroom.
Pt
Andrew Lee
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>in article 3b2847fa.1304675589@news, Andrew Lee at nos...@earthlink.net
>wrote on 6/14/01 1:01 AM:
>
>> I suppose the upside of FACE and Every Good Boy Deserves Chocolate is
>> that you learned all your triads in the same lesson.
>Every Good Boy Deserves ... Favour, right? At least that's what the Moody
>Blues said. :)
Ooops .... what the hell clef am I in???
Now I am trying to remember the phrase .. Every Good Boy Deserves ...
Fudge!
ROFL!
Andrew Lee
>you might just end up
>with a big Oak Tree in your bedroom.
>
>Pt
>
I had one of those -- it was an Aria copy of a Les Paul, shit brown
and heavy as a park bench.
Bob Russell
wrote on 6/14/01 11:57 AM:
> It seems to me that math and music go hand in hand like hot-dogs and mustard
> (although I like catsup on a hot-dog).
There are a lot of things in music that can be analyzed mathematically
(harmonic ratios, etc.). There are also a lot of things in music that can't
be analyzed mathematically (Lester Young, "swing", etc.)
Somebody appeared to be saying earlier that music was "based on
mathematics"; I think that's untrue. People through the ages have sought
mathematical explanations for things that occur in music. Some explanations
have been more successful than others. Music and mathematics can be
interrelated if a person chooses, but it is certainly not necessary to
consider mathematics in the making of music.
Max Leggett
>perfect temperment anymore (or even Pythagorean) except in odd period
Sure they do. All non-fretted string players use Pythagorean
temperment. I was trained that the F# in G is sharper than the F# in
D, and it is, too. And G in Ab is sharper than G in C. Or G for that
matter. And F# in A is very slightly flatter than F# in D. You can
hear it. Playing jazz [double bass] I always made sure the leading
tone was right up there. That's why string quartets have that lovely
bite - Pythagorean temperment. It's also why a lot of classical
players look down on the guitar. I remember one fatuity of a music
teacher telling us that the guitar was always out of tune because it
relied on tempered, i.e., non-perfect, tuning. A bright spark stuck up
his hand and asked about Horowitz. "Is he out of tune, too, sir?"
Harrumphs, ers, and uhs followed while he explained that the piano, in
the hands of a classical musician, was in tune, but a guitar,
especially in the hands of a Beatle, was not. But all string players
uise Pythagorean. Guitarists do, too, when they bend a leading tone
up. Pythagorus lives.
Max Leggett
arithmetic terminology for ease of use. Schoenberg's music involved
analysis of the overtone series, whisch is getting mathematical. He
used to argue music with Einstein, who could add and subtract a bit.
Jonathan Byrd
>
> Had I thought of music being a scolastic acheivement I probably would have never
> got involved in it.
"Good morning students. Today we'll finish the chapter on subdominant
minor theory, then we'll begin the chapter on impressing chicks."
Max Leggett
>minor theory, then we'll begin the chapter on impressing chicks."
>--
Joey Goldstein
I think it's fair to say that music itself is "based on" mathematical
principles as they relate to certain acoustic phenomenon. But an actual
piece of music that people find enjoyable is rarely "based on"
mathematics in any important way.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/joey_goldstein
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Joe Finn
news:3B2922C7...@nowhere.net...
>
> I think it's fair to say that music itself is "based on" mathematical
> principles as they relate to certain acoustic phenomenon. But an actual
> piece of music that people find enjoyable is rarely "based on"
> mathematics in any important way.
I'm glad this "what is music based on" question has come up. I had always
thought that music was based on the human need for communication and self
expression and or the desire to create something beautiful. Yet there have
been many instances in which different formulas have been employed to create
music.
Serialism remains controversial to this day. Some of the early electronic
composers seemed a bit formulaic as well.
I was also thinking about some of the music of Frank Zappa. He composed a
piece called "The Black Page" in which he set up some device to play complex
tuplet figures that could probably not be played by actual musicians. It's a
fascinating piece on a conceptual level. I have never been too sure that the
piece works on a musical level in any satisfactory way.
Another thing that many of us are familiar with is the Band in a Box
"soloist" feature. Melodies are generated according to various algorhythms
written into the software. The resulting tunes are very strange to behold.
I'm not sure I like them. Other computer programs generate compositions that
have similar qualities of artificiality.
The contention that music is based on mathematics has been around for a long
time. I don't subscribe to this view. People who have pursued this idea
courageously have come up with some fascinating results that are
conceptually fresh and thought provoking, too.
But does it really work on a musical level?
Martin Porto
"vehicle" in hands of a "good musician"
IE, the melody in "Close Encounters of 3rd Type" by John Williams
(D4,E4,C4,C3,G3)
was choosed by Spielberg after Williams showed all pentatonic permutations.
Pat's "First Circle" is another good example of what great musicians can
come with when considering Math aspects.
Problem is when math represent what I call "anecdotic" knowledge, by meaning
of know about the existence of something without actually make "use" of it.
Best
MP
"Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message news:3b2937e9_2@newsfeeds...
Joe Finn
> principles as they relate to certain acoustic phenomenon. But an actual
> piece of music that people find enjoyable is rarely "based on"
> mathematics in any important way.
Joe Finn
screwed me up!" but in point of fact I just plain screwed up. <8o)
....joe
--
Joey Goldstein
Joe Finn wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3B2922C7...@nowhere.net...
> >
> > I think it's fair to say that music itself is "based on" mathematical
> > principles as they relate to certain acoustic phenomenon. But an actual
> > piece of music that people find enjoyable is rarely "based on"
> > mathematics in any important way.
>
> I'm glad this "what is music based on" question has come up. I had always
> thought that music was based on the human need for communication and self
> expression and or the desire to create something beautiful.
Sure, but it is also based on Man's fascination with the Universe in
which he finds himself. In most cultures, and especially in the West,
until very recently the philosphers, the scientists the artists and the
musicians have all been the same people. The nuts and bolts, the
materials, of music have been worked out over the millenia according to
principles that are more or less in keeping with what has now become
know as the scientific method of experimentation.
Music, no matter how you slice it, no matter what culture you look at,
is about periodicity, the experience of time. Musical pitch is a
phenomenon caused by regularly vibrating objects. Rhythm is the division
of time into discrete units. Something happens, then something else
happens. That is the essence of music. The discovery of and the utility
of any musical scale from any culture (yes even the Javanese) will
involve exposure on some level to what we now call the overtone series.
Whether or not the musicians investigating this phenomenon are aware
that it is "the overtone series" that they are investigating or not,
they are still using mathematics of some kind, no matter how rudimentary
or intuitively they use it.
> Yet there have
> been many instances in which different formulas have been employed to create
> music.
>
> Serialism remains controversial to this day.
I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves her Joe. We should
probably be talking about Pythagoras and earlier rather than Shoenberg
if we are discussion music's underpinnings. And serialism has no more
math associated with it than Bach or Pallestrina except perhaps for the
fact that serialism has a prerequisite of the 12 tone equally tempered
scale much more so that its predecessors.
> Some of the early electronic
> composers seemed a bit formulaic as well.
All music that is intelligible has some type of an ordering principle at
its core IMO. Ordering principles and formulas are hardly the same thing though.
> I was also thinking about some of the music of Frank Zappa. He composed a
> piece called "The Black Page" in which he set up some device to play complex
> tuplet figures that could probably not be played by actual musicians.
I dunno about that. I heard the this was his auditioning piece. I heard
that when Dave Samuels auditioned for the vibes/marimba chair with FZ
that he had to try to sight read the Black Page. He didn't get the gig
BTW, as I recall.
> It's a
> fascinating piece on a conceptual level. I have never been too sure that the
> piece works on a musical level in any satisfactory way.
In music, satisfaction is in the ear of the behearer.
> Another thing that many of us are familiar with is the Band in a Box
> "soloist" feature. Melodies are generated according to various algorhythms
> written into the software. The resulting tunes are very strange to behold.
> I'm not sure I like them. Other computer programs generate compositions that
> have similar qualities of artificiality.
>
> The contention that music is based on mathematics has been around for a long
> time. I don't subscribe to this view. People who have pursued this idea
> courageously have come up with some fascinating results that are
> conceptually fresh and thought provoking, too.
>
> But does it really work on a musical level?
In music that has any subtlety the obvious links to the mathematics
involved will usually be of little importance. Still the very substance
that the music is created with is mathematical in essence. There is a
different between the materials of music, which are based on
mathematical principles, and the art of an actual piece of music, which
is based on aesthetics.
Joe Finn
This is good stuff. We are pretty much in agreement. That last part is a
little bit of a problem for me though. Let's say we have some theoretical
ancient preliterate society to whom mathematics is unknown. Could they not
sing? I think the music comes first. Little kids sing and play instruments
for a long time before the more advanced elements that you listed are known
by them.
> I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves her Joe. We should
> probably be talking about Pythagoras and earlier rather than Shoenberg
> if we are discussion music's underpinnings. And serialism has no more
> math associated with it than Bach or Pallestrina except perhaps for the
> fact that serialism has a prerequisite of the 12 tone equally tempered
> scale much more so that its predecessors.
>
Good point. The serialists though did employ compositional approaches that
were highly formulaic. You could say that the tone row systematized the
process by making sure that no one tone got any extra gravity thus insuring
the absence of a harmonic center. The resulting controversy is apropos to
this point, I think. Some would say the imposition of a "system" or a
formula of some kind was stifling, arbitrary and took the spontaneity out of
the music. Others saw it as a bold step into the musical future.
>
> All music that is intelligible has some type of an ordering principle at
> its core IMO. Ordering principles and formulas are hardly the same thing
though.
>
Again, I agree. I think a human creation will display the order you refer to
on some level even when chaos is the goal. Can man create something that is
truly random?
.
>
> I dunno about that. I heard the this was his auditioning piece. I heard
> that when Dave Samuels auditioned for the vibes/marimba chair with FZ
> that he had to try to sight read the Black Page. He didn't get the gig
> BTW, as I recall.
Wow! This amazes me, man. I mentioned this piece because you and I are both
familiar with it. I can't imagine anyone reading it. I had thought that
Zappa had used the synclavier to realize the polyrhythmic concept he had
been developing. I can't imagine anyone even playing that thing!
A pianist friend of mine, Jon Sauer, auditioned for Zappa. I'll have to ask
him about the sight reading when I see him.
.
> In music that has any subtlety the obvious links to the mathematics
> involved will usually be of little importance. Still the very substance
> that the music is created with is mathematical in essence. There is a
> different between the materials of music, which are based on
> mathematical principles, and the art of an actual piece of music, which
> is based on aesthetics.
When you put it that way it's a lot easier to digest. The materials are not
the art. We describe a tone as 440 and call it "A". A mathematical
description of a physical phenomenon. If Bernie Williams hits a home run we
could describe the flight of the ball mathematically or perhaps we could
write a poem describing it. That doesn't mean baseball is based on poetry or
mathematics. ...joe
Lumpy
See what you think of this theory...
Music (broadest definition) is an energy
that is constantly floating through time
and space. It is all around us. It is
not at the frequencies, tempos etc that
we generally think of it and it's ALL
going on at the same time (jazz, rap crap,
R&R, elevator etc).
We (musicians) have the job of 'tuning in'
to that musical energy, floating through
space and transforming it into frequencies
and rhythms that the listener will understand.
When we're having a good night, our transformer
is working well. When our combo is tight, all
of us are in close synch; our transformers
are tuning into the same energy and transforming
it at the same rate.
That's the math part of it all. Your transformer
and my transformer must have the same ratio of
windings to make a good transformation.
Living things vibrate at a measurable rate, from
the cellular to the organisim level.
That's math, baby! Indeed, math is just a way
to 'explain' natural events. If there weren't
two rocks, we couldn't invent the concept of
adding 1+1=2.
Maybe?...lumpy
kaetae
My assumption of mathematical music is that of Kraftwurk, Cluster and Neu.
Pt
Tom Walls
the performer or composer, but rather the fact that both engage the
development of spacial relationships. The creation of order from chaos.
Rhythm, melody and harmony all employ a systems of either time or pitch that
are measurable. Whether the performer/composer is aware of the mathematical
characteristic of the material isn't necessarily relevant. He/she will relate
to the relationships on an intuitive level.
Let's see if this gets anyone going. ;<)
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Mel Wilson
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Music, no matter how you slice it, no matter what culture you look at,
>is about periodicity, the experience of time. Musical pitch is a
>phenomenon caused by regularly vibrating objects.
For a couple of years now I've wanted to mention Hermann
Helmholtz's book _On the Sensations of Tone_ (published by
Dover), but it never seemed quite on topic. How do we know
that sound depends on vibration? This book describes a lot
of 19th-century pre-electronic lab setups that settle the
question. There's also a mathematical approach to harmony
theory, alternate scales, etc. I have trouble imagining
anybody reading the whole thing (a v. large book) but
anybody interested in music=math should have a look at it.
You can also strip-mine it for interesting facts:
Apparently in Aristotle's time higher frequency pitches were
called low notes, and vice versa, because of the
construction of the lyre. As though we called 660 Hz low E
and 165 Hz high E, because when you hold the guitar, the
string sounding 660 Hz is closest to the ground.
Regards. Mel.
paul kirk
> I'm glad this "what is music based on" question has come up. I had always
> thought that music was based on the human need for communication and self
> expression and or the desire to create something beautiful.
As a research mathematician with a fairly decent understanding of music
joey's statement sums up how I see it. Its possible that the best musicians
might have made good mathematicians and vice versa, but although I know a
few who are good at both, most aknowledge that they are fairly separate
activities.
I also wanted to add to this discussion that much of what has been called
mathematics in this discussion is not what mathematicians consider
mathematics. things like permutations and algorithms used in music no
more mathematics than "Every good boy does fine" is music.
this is mostly a sematic point, but there is (understandably) a
misunderstanding about what mathematics is, especially by people who have
either never learned any or who studied philosophy and focus on the logical
quirks in math.
Paul Kirk
! =-----
Joey Goldstein
paul kirk wrote:
>
> "Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message news:3b2937e9_2@newsfeeds...
> > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> > I'm glad this "what is music based on" question has come up. I had always
> > thought that music was based on the human need for communication and self
> > expression and or the desire to create something beautiful.
>
> As a research mathematician with a fairly decent understanding of music
> joey's statement sums up how I see it.
That was not me. That was Joe Finn. Please try to be a little more
careful how you use quotes.
> Its possible that the best musicians
> might have made good mathematicians and vice versa, but although I know a
> few who are good at both, most aknowledge that they are fairly separate
> activities.
That is not really the question a I see it. The question is whether or
not music is "based on" mathematics and I still think it is.
Joe Finn
news:9gd5lp$pbi$1...@hercules.iupui.edu...
>
>
> As a research mathematician with a fairly decent understanding of music
> joey's statement sums up how I see it. Its possible that the best
musicians
> might have made good mathematicians and vice versa, but although I know a
> few who are good at both, most aknowledge that they are fairly separate
> activities.
>
> I also wanted to add to this discussion that much of what has been called
> mathematics in this discussion is not what mathematicians consider
> mathematics. things like permutations and algorithms used in music no
> more mathematics than "Every good boy does fine" is music.
>
> this is mostly a sematic point, but there is (understandably) a
> misunderstanding about what mathematics is, especially by people who have
> either never learned any or who studied philosophy and focus on the
logical
> quirks in math.
>
> Paul Kirk
>
>
>
> ! =-----
>
>
a clue. I'd be interested in your ideas about what it is at least to the
extent that the definition may pertain to the dicussion.
....joe
Richard
> That is not really the question a I see it. The question is whether or
> not music is "based on" mathematics and I still think it is.
The physical phenomenon of, say, vibrating strings exists apart from its
mathematical representations--just as all physical phenomena do (unless
you believe, as some people do, that all physical phenomenon is an
expression of an underlying mathematical reality. That's well beyond the
scope of my comments, however. :)
Mathematical analysis of phenomena provides a means of applying them
towards some given end. That's usually what somebody actually means when
they say a given thing is "based on" mathematics. Math doesn't create
pitch and timbre--it permits them to be modeled (more or less well).
It sounds like you're saying that music is engineering--which, loosely
put, means that music is the structured application and exploitation of
the mathematically organized view of sound, to achieve human ends.
Once, during a period in school when I was studying mathematical analysis
very intensely, I had what I still believe was a minor ephiphany
regarding how complex (i.e., orchestral) musical scores could be used to
represent the evolution of non-linear systems. It seemed so obvious to
me at the time that I was certain I could never forget it, so I didn't
write it down. Sure enough, a day or two later the details of the idea
had completely evaporated.
It was probably nothing, really, but I'm still left with the impression
that a modestly valuable idea got away--and I'm still very pissed at
myself for not writing it down, so that I could evaluate the idea later
and see then whether it was useful or not.
--
The post simply expresses some of my personal opinions.
ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
Joe Finn
news:MPG.1593ff5ce...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> The physical phenomenon of, say, vibrating strings exists apart from its
> mathematical representations--just as all physical phenomena do
>
> towards some given end. That's usually what somebody actually means when
> they say a given thing is "based on" mathematics. Math doesn't create
> pitch and timbre--it permits them to be modeled (more or less well).
>
When I said earlier that music was not based upon mathematics I wish I had
said it as well as you just did. Thank you. ...joe
paul kirk
>
>
> paul kirk wrote:
> >
> > "Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message
news:3b2937e9_2@newsfeeds...
> > > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > I'm glad this "what is music based on" question has come up. I had
always
> > > thought that music was based on the human need for communication and
self
> > > expression and or the desire to create something beautiful.
> >
> > As a research mathematician with a fairly decent understanding of music
> > joey's statement sums up how I see it.
>
> That was not me. That was Joe Finn. Please try to be a little more
> careful how you use quotes.
>
Sorry Joey. I still get confused by outlook express. I think I must have
been quoting Joe finn?
> > Its possible that the best musicians
> > might have made good mathematicians and vice versa, but although I know
a
> > few who are good at both, most aknowledge that they are fairly separate
> > activities.
>
> That is not really the question a I see it. The question is whether or
> not music is "based on" mathematics and I still think it is.
>
>
I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on mathematics
as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be "based
on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant by
mathematics, then I guess
I can see that music is related to it.
Paul Kirk
paul kirk
> I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on
mathematics
> as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be
"based
> on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant
by
> mathematics, then I guess
> I can see that music is related to it.
>
Let me add that I'm a bit defensive about the use of the word mathematics in
an art context because math is so misunderstood. Its a deep, beautiful
subject, but only a those who put in many years of hard work have any idea
what its about. this is in stark contrast to art, and music in particular,
where anybody can react to it on some level and form tastes and opinions.
I'll concede that music has structure which can be organized using
elementary (if complicated) combinatorial concepts.
Paul Kirk
Joey Goldstein
paul kirk wrote:
>
>
> I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on mathematics
> as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be "based
> on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant by
> mathematics, then I guess
> I can see that music is related to it.
Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
Division is a mathenatical process.
paul kirk
>
> Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
> properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
> Division is a mathenatical process.
I cant argue with that.
I cant really argue with anything or anybody said in this thread.
from your perspective joey, would you say painting is based on mathematics?
e.g. color is related to wavelengths(so the rainbow colors are analogous to
notes), mixing colors corresponds to juxtaposition of wavelegths (i.e.
chords!) maybe placing colors next to each other is analagous to sequenceing
notes in time..etc.
If not, why is it different?
My feeling is that although one can make such claims, and even use them to,
say, make paintings, the artistic value of a painting is unlikely to come
from the employment of such methods..
I guess that's why I involved myself in this discussion. the assertion
"Music is based on math" gave me the impression that somehow math plays a
role in the production of music.
For what its worth, I'm one of the people here who read and look forward to
your "theory" posts, and I certainly see the merit in the approach you
outline in those discussions.
Paul Kirk
Bob Russell
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 6/15/01 4:58 PM:
> Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
> properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
I always thought that music was based on the physical (acoustical)
properties of vibrating objects, which can be explained and/or predicted to
a fair degree using mathematics.
nasrudin
> paul kirk wrote:
> >
> >
> > I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on mathematics
> > as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be "based
> > on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant by
> > mathematics, then I guess
> > I can see that music is related to it.
>
> Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
> properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
> Division is a mathenatical process.
"Regular divisions of time"? Pretty limiting...is that a Wynton Marsalis quote?
love,
nas
Bob Russell
6/15/01 5:49 PM:
(Joey Goldstein)
>> Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
>> properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
>> Division is a mathenatical process.
(Nasrudin)
> "Regular divisions of time"? Pretty limiting...is that a Wynton Marsalis
> quote?
Well, things like 16th notes and such are, theoretically speaking, "regular
divisions of time". The notational system basically assumes this. How it all
comes out in actual playing is a different story, eh?
Joey Goldstein
paul kirk wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3B2A76F1...@nowhere.net...
> >
> > Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
> > properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
> > Division is a mathenatical process.
>
> I cant argue with that.
>
> I cant really argue with anything or anybody said in this thread.
>
> from your perspective joey, would you say painting is based on mathematics?
> e.g. color is related to wavelengths(so the rainbow colors are analogous to
> notes), mixing colors corresponds to juxtaposition of wavelegths (i.e.
> chords!) maybe placing colors next to each other is analagous to sequenceing
> notes in time..etc.
>
> If not, why is it different?
The difference is that, with music, the people who invented the musical
scales and instruments that we all play have been intimately aware of
the mathematics involved when using their methods of equally dividing
strings into various lengths, etc. I think the relationship of color to
vibratory frequency has had a much less intuitive beginning. Also,
painting is not presented with reference to time so there is no need to
divide lengths of time into discrete units. On the other hand, painters
have always been involved with proportion on an intimate level. Painters
used to be people like Michaelangelo not too long ago. They may not have
been mathematicians so much as they were scientists.
> My feeling is that although one can make such claims, and even use them to,
> say, make paintings, the artistic value of a painting is unlikely to come
> from the employment of such methods..
Artistic value is a whole other topic and has little to do with anything
other than subjective experience.
> I guess that's why I involved myself in this discussion. the assertion
> "Music is based on math" gave me the impression that somehow math plays a
> role in the production of music.
It plays a role in the production of some music but more importantly it
plays a big role in the production of the very materials of music.
> For what its worth, I'm one of the people here who read and look forward to
> your "theory" posts, and I certainly see the merit in the approach you
> outline in those discussions.
Thanks man. I dig you too. What are you wearing? I'm not wearing
anything. I'm sitting here buck naked eating a big piece of cheese.
Joey Goldstein
Bob Russell wrote:
>
> in article 3B2A76F1...@nowhere.net, Joey Goldstein at
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 6/15/01 4:58 PM:
>
> > Let me put it this way then. Music is based on the mathematical
> > properties of vibrating objects and on regular divisions of time.
>
> I always thought that music was based on the physical (acoustical)
> properties of vibrating objects, which can be explained and/or predicted to
> a fair degree using mathematics.
Well if you insist on looking at it that way then I guess I must be
wrong! <g>
paul kirk
>
> Thanks man. I dig you too. What are you wearing? I'm not wearing
> anything. I'm sitting here buck naked eating a big piece of cheese.
>
Paul Kirk
George4908
>Once, during a period in school when I was studying mathematical analysis
>very intensely, I had what I still believe was a minor ephiphany
>regarding how complex (i.e., orchestral) musical scores could be used to
>represent the evolution of non-linear systems. It seemed so obvious to
>me at the time that I was certain I could never forget it, so I didn't
>write it down. Sure enough, a day or two later the details of the idea
>had completely evaporated.
>
>It was probably nothing, really, but I'm still left with the impression
>that a modestly valuable idea got away--and I'm still very pissed at
>myself for not writing it down, so that I could evaluate the idea later
>and see then whether it was useful or not.
This kind of thing used to happen to me all the time on dope. I came up with
some hourglass analogy for time consciousness, complete with sand passing
through a compressed present moment, or something like that. Thought it was
pretty hep, I did. It's one of the reasons I no longer indulge.
Florian Schmidt
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I think it's fair to say that music itself is "based on" mathematical
> principles as they relate to certain acoustic phenomenon. But an actual
> piece of music that people find enjoyable is rarely "based on"
> mathematics in any important way.
<hardcore nitpicking>
music is from my point of view not "based on" mathematics, it can't be,
cause there was hardly any mathematics before the first music was made
(like my neandertal (i = 1...n) great1.....greatn - grandfather was
banging in a steady rythm on a block of wood). the interesting point is,
that mathematics provided a somewhat usable language to describe, what's
going on, when somebody plays a 4/4 beat and a 2-5-1 over it.. but on the
other side math provided a pretty good language to describe a whole lot
of stuff thats happening (physics and most sciences use math as their
language). the things are happening, regardless of us humans using some
math to describe it. therefore none of these things are in any way "based
on mathematics"... music is based on he question "hey, what does sound
good?" or "i have this sound in my ear! how do i get it out" then with the
help of some math, these questions can be answered to a certain degree
</hardcore nitpicking>
hope u folks didn't mind..
Bob Russell
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 6/15/01 7:08 PM:
> Well if you insist on looking at it that way then I guess I must be
> wrong! <g>
Doesn't matter. I'm still not telling you what I'm wearing and you're not
getting my Bud Light. ;)
A_Riot
called
> > mathematics in this discussion is not what mathematicians consider
> > mathematics. things like permutations and algorithms used in music no
> > more mathematics than "Every good boy does fine" is music.
Hmmm...in my math classes we did permutations and algorithms along with
calculus, linear algebra, statistics, logic etc. I'm not sure what you
refer to when you say mathematics, and even mathematicians argue (quite
passionately in fact, much like musicians) about what is mathematics.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what mathematicians consider mathematics
as I am certainly interested. But surely you see the parallels between the
two that clearly indicate an inherent relationship. According to Richards'
post, he experienced insight into non-linear systems from symphonies. I
think this is a good indication of a symbiosis.
Another strange thing comes to mind as well. The phenomenon of the prodigy
also lies almost strictly in the domain of math and music. Mozart,
Mendelssohn and Schubert were all composing before the age of 12 and Gauss,
Leibniz and Pascal were all considered child prodigies. I don't think it a
coincidence that most prodigy's come from within these two fields.
French composer Jean-Philippe Rameau in 1722 began his Traité de l'harmonie
with the words “I must confess that only with the aid of mathematics did my
ideas become clear and did light replace a certain obscurity.” Chopin is
known to have said “The fugue is like pure logic in music” while Leibniz
countered, “Music is a hidden practice of the soul that does not know that
it is dealing with mathematics.” If Leibniz is not what you would call a
mathematician then I am truly confused as to what mathematics really is.
It seems obvious to me that math and music are "intertwined" to the point
that they could be just 2 different ways of expressing the same thing.
Bob Russell
a_r...@sympatico.ca wrote on 6/16/01 1:04 AM:
> It seems obvious to me that math and music are "intertwined" to the point
> that they could be just 2 different ways of expressing the same thing.
(Orchestra swells on soundtrack)
In the end, isn't it all just a humanly limited search for ... Truth?
(Visual of sunbeams protruding through clouds; fade to black; diminuendo on
majestic chord of your choice)
-- Bob R.
A_Riot
In the end, isn't it all just a humanly limited search for ... chics?
Joe Finn
news:mHBW6.19337$Sd.17...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> It seems obvious to me that math and music are "intertwined" to the point
> that they could be just 2 different ways of expressing the same thing.
And just what the heck "thing" might that be?
I'm sorry my good friend, but I don't buy it. Music is music. Mathematics
must be something else. Lots of musicians with whom I am acquainted concern
themselves not in the slightest even with music theory [especially
classical, country, rock, folk and even jazz players] let alone mathematics.
Sheeeeit ! a lot of these guys can't even balance their checking accounts.
Sometimes when a person has had the experience of studying two unrelated
subjects they may begin to draw specious, nonexistent parallels based on
their own personal, subjective gestalt. I, for instance thought at one time
that that astronomy was based upon cannibalism. ...joe
Joe Finn
>
> I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on
mathematics
> as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be
"based
> on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant
by
> mathematics, then I guess
> I can see that music is related to it.
Related, yes.
Can music be described, quantized and even rendered in terms of mathematics?
Yes.
The popular movie "Pearl Harbor" is "based" on the historic event we
Americans refer to as Pearl Harbor.
Is music "based" on mathematics? No way.
Even if we could create a music based on mathematics it would suck. Don't
take my word for it. Go listen to BIAB "soloist" or acid loops.
.....joe
Bob Russell
6/16/01 2:00 AM:
> I, for instance thought at one time
> that that astronomy was based upon cannibalism. ...joe
ROTFLMAO! Care to elaborate, Joe?
-- Bob R.
Gordon 101
Music (Arts): Mans attempt to reproduce nature. IMHO. Gordo
Andy Bullington
> Sometimes when a person has had the experience of studying two unrelated
> subjects they may begin to draw specious, nonexistent parallels based on
> their own personal, subjective gestalt. I, for instance thought at one time
> that that astronomy was based upon cannibalism. ...joe
Wait a minute....for years I thought music was based on SEX.....are you saying its not??
Andy
kaetae
A_Riot wrote:
> (Orchestra swells on soundtrack)
>
> In the end, isn't it all just a humanly limited search for ... chics?
And in the end the love you get is equal to the love you give.
Pt & Jl & Pm
Joe Finn
--
"Bob Russell" <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B75079AA.99A3%bobrus...@hotmail.com...
It's awfully hard to explain that one but it reminds me of the time a group
of us astronomy students went on safari in Africa. We asked the tour guides
if there were any cannibals left in Africa but the guides said no, not any
more. I said, "Certainly, there must a few of them left." to which the chief
tour guide responded, " Don't worry, we ate the last one yesterday."
....joe
Max Leggett
>I'm sitting here buck naked eating a big piece of cheese.
Oh, man. That's just disgusting. Y'oughta be ashamed of yourself.
Eating cheese at the computer .........
Andrew Lee
<pkirk...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
>I guess I'm saying I dont see any way that music can be based on mathematics
>as I and other mathematicians practice it, any more than music can be "based
>on" quantum mechanics or architecture. If " patterns" is what is meant by
>mathematics, then I guess
>I can see that music is related to it.
>
>
>Paul Kirk
>
Had to chime in on this one ... again, sorry.
Paul, I agree with you. The mathematics we are casually reffering to
is the mathematics of the Renaissance, which is not very interesting
to a research mathematician.
The more interesting philosophical questions are probably of interest
to some logicians -- certainly people studying artificial
intelligence.
I gotta side with Dyson wrt math and the man in the street. Math is
difficult. But it is also -- to some extent -- designed to be
inaccessible.
Often, Jazz hapens to have that property ... go figure!