[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek by the way... If you come to the table with a predetermined value judgement, your opinion on the matter will be just a tad bit biased, no? Of course you're going to think intellect is related to enjoyment/understanding/whatever of complex forms of music, because you think the other forms of music aren't as good. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that doesn't prove anything.

What are you on about?

There's no doubt that rap and pop music are a bit more plain in nature! They don't stride out of the 4/4 time area, so wouldn't that make them lowly compared to classical, jazz, which is known for going outside of those boundaries?

PS: Is it NECESSARY to post 4 times in a row? There's a friggin' edit button, you know.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Well then what you are getting into is the philosophy of language. I use the words I see on the screen to formulate what they've said, using the definitions I understand of said words.

well, with my arguments you have repeatedly formulated incorrectly, assigning to me words and statements that i never made.

Quote:

If that's attributing things they haven't said to them, then you are opening a big can of worms.

i've already pointed out the specific statements you have misconstrued, so i won't bother repeating.


Quote:

Now if you said "perhaps you don't understand correctly the definition of the word endeavor", now that's a different thing entirely isn't it?

and other words, apparently.

Quote:

EDIT: Also, the short sentence - "Music is a mathematical endeavor" - to me implied that you were saying that music is only math and nothing more. It seemed you were ignoring the rest. (Which isn't too shabby of an assumption, considering almost all you've talked about in this thread is math and how math relates to music)

the thread is titled "complex simplicity." the discussion is rooted around the value of complexity in music. complexity in music is rooted in math. the composition of music is based on math. the same way math is used to bake a freakin' cake or design a building. you can't design a building without math. is the building math? yes! as is music. even if one is not aware of it while composing music, it is still math. is it more than math? yes! just as the guggenheim museum or the empire state building is more than math.

Quote:

Don't blame me for finding fault in your faulty phrasing, you could have easily corrected yourself and moved on.

Quote:

If, however, you do believe music is just math, then you are wrong

music is math. do you see the word "just" in there?

music is a mathematical endeavor. do you see the words "and nothing else" in there?

i'm not arguing that music is math and nothing more. i never said it. it has nothing to do with anything i said anywhere, and it's not my argument. you imagined it. you made it up.

reread my posts.

as the french filmmakers say...

fin.

 

[drarthurwells]

Music is math - it communicates, and its communications can be translated into the language of math. Actually a written musical score is a mathematical transcription of music. Other mathematical forms of transcription could also be devised - Beethoven's ninth could be expressed in mathematical terms. Waveforms of all the individual instruments playing the ninth could be mathematically coded - each waveform has encoded data. We record waveforms, translate them digitally, then decode them in analogue playback - all of this can be expressed mathematically.

A CD is nothing but a mathematical statement.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Music is math - it communicates, and its communications can be translated into the language of math. Actually a written musical score is a mathematical transcription of music. Other mathematical forms of transcription could also be devised - Beethoven's ninth could be expressed in mathematical terms. Waveforms of all the individual instruments playing the ninth could be mathematically coded - each waveform has encoded data. We record waveforms, translate them digitally, then decode them in analogue playback - all of this can be expressed mathematically. A CD is nothing but a mathematical statement.

Dr. Arthur: You rule.

Honestly, you do .. you are a very intelligent and well-spoken man! Where did you obtain your doctorate from? (If you do not mind me asking).

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Where did you obtain your doctorate from? (If you do not mind me asking).

I'm sure you have heard of the 'Church of Perpetual Pleasure', founded by Father Divine.

I met Father Divine in Las Vegas and was immediately attracted to one of the beautiful young girls who followed him wherever he went. In talking with her I got Father Divine's notice and started talking with him.

The divine father took an interest in the salvation of my soul and agreed to let me become a student under his mentorship and tutelage, to earn my doctorate in theology. I agreed to pay him $10,000, and within a few months I earned my degree.

Father divine taught me that in the highest levels of sexual passion we unify with the universe in becoming closer to God. The more such pleasure we can find, whether self-induced or with any other person (no discrimination as to sex, age, or disability was enthusiastically advocated), the holier we become.

It was really tough work. Have you ever been required to experience such pleasure multiple times a day?

It was a hard earned doctorate, so to speak. The oral exams were particularly draining.

I continually strive to fulfill Father Divine's passion.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells I'm sure you have heard of the 'Church of Perpetual Pleasure', founded by Father Divine. I met Father Divine in Las Vegas and was immediately attracted to one of the beautiful young girls who followed him wherever he went. In talking with her I got Father Divine's notice and started talking with him. The divine father took an interest in the salvation of my soul and agreed to let me become a student under his mentorship and tutelage, to earn my doctorate in theology. I agreed to pay him $10,000, and within a few months I earned my degree. Father divine taught me that in the highest levels of sexual passion we unify with the universe in becoming closer to God. The more such pleasure we can find, whether self-induced or with any other person (no discrimination as to sex, age, or disability was enthusiastically advocated), the holier we become. It was really tough work. Have you ever been required to experience such pleasure multiple times a day? It was a hard earned doctorate, so to speak. The oral exams were particularly draining. I continually strive to fulfill Father Divine's passion.

I knew it! I knew you were nuts.

But seriously, self-pleasuring yourself multiple times a day is easy. I'm pretty sure this post was a joke, but if it's serious, then you're a joke.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek I knew it! I knew you were nuts.

Those of us on a religious mission, doing the work of the Master, are accustomed to such persecution from others.

All I can say is that my rod and my staff comfort me, with the help of my female followers. Often.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Those of us on a religious mission, doing the work of the Master, are accustomed to such persecution from others. All I can say is that my rod and my staff comfort me, with the help of my female followers. Often.

Many things can be used to reach the Divine, there's about 25 altogether. Sex isn't the only way. Mr Educated.

And as mentioned before, pleasuring/being pleasured multiple times a day really isn't that hard.

let's talk about ducks now. Discussion about ducks would be apt right about now.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Alright, here's an infinite loop that'll monkey with your turing machine: what if what I like about music is that it is complex? That automatically makes it better to my ears. Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Quote: music is a mathematical endeavor... prove this.

The perfect response.

 

[periurban]

Guys, guys, what happened to the nice polite thread? Let's disagree by all means, but why not remain calm and try to see what the other side is talking about?

Maths? OK, here's how I see it. Let's say maths hadn't been discovered. I could no doubt find instances of musical populations who knew little about maths. It is entirely possible to make music and listen to it without knowledge of maths.

But, when you begin to quantify and transmit musical ideas it turns out that mathematical techniques work pretty well. Depending on how much computing power you have you can pretty much model an entire musical performance mathematically. I'm not sure that's the same thing as the reproduction of sound by digital means, but I take the point Dr Art.

But maths can be applied in that manner to every aspect of reality, so I don't think that just because we can describe a musical performance by mathematics our understanding or appreciation of what we are listening to is enhanced. The only way that would be possible would be if you were somehow doing the math in real time as the piece progressed. Is that even possible?

Yes, a mathematical analysis of a musical event will reveal the degree of complexity, but so it would about an ocean wave or a tree. Which is more "complex", the tree that stands 100m tall with two hundred branches, or the tree that stands 50ft tall but has a thousand branches? How many leaves does each tree have? What about the root system? Do you include the microflora and fauna that live on each tree? The texture of the bark?

OK, lets say that mathematics could determine the relative complexity of our two trees, and one of them was determined empirically to have more "complexity" than the other.

What would mathematics say about the aesthetic appeal of each tree? Can mathematics determine the beauty of a tree?

The aesthetic appreciation of a tree (or of music) is entirely independent of complexity.

Complexity does not equal beauty, neither does simplicity. They are both equally apt to produce admiration.

Mathematics is an analytical technique that reveals the nature of the universe in an entirely objective manner, but no-one listens to music that way. I've never heard anyone say that they liked a piece of music purely for it's complexity. Sure, people like complicated music, but that doesn't mean that they like complicated music more than less complicated music.

Aside from all the arguments, is anyone here saying that the reason they like any individual piece of music is because of its complexity, and its complexity alone? Are there people out there who prefer complicated, ugly looking trees to the simple, beautiful ones regardless of any other consideration?

 

[Aman]

Well, I think that you hit some good points, Peruriban... but I disagree with some as well.

Just on the point of math -- Music is very OBVIOUSLY Math-based. Time signatures require one to count, octaves, scales, notes, rests, measures -- there are multiple things that one could count. The more complex these get, the more complex the music gets. And, well, these are fundimentals of music that don't go untaught to anyone today. Unlike other things which Math can be APPLIED to, music requires math - similar to how programming would. You could make a computer application without using Math once, but it would really suck immensely - it would be basic, hard to use, and pointless.

Even societies which only used a drum made from bones and buffalo skin still USED mathematics - they just didn't know it yet. Their emotional feelings for beat and pace, and splitting up one long note into many more smaller ones, were all fundimentals of which were really directly related to mathematics.

Excellent post, by the way -- I agree with your idea about the mathematical analyses of trees -- but I disagree with your final point:

I think that people DO and CAN appreciate music for their complexity. I think that I do. For example, when I was first starting out on my musical adventures, I heard Rush for the first time and immediately fell in love with their music because I heard Neil Pert. Being a drummer, I really appreciated the amount of tallent he had - I was quite amazed with what he could do. I didn't even like Geddy Lee, nor his voice, but I came to love it after repeated listens. The first time I heard Yes, for example, I was just simply shocked that somebody was able to arrange and produce a song that was just SO complex and beyond its time. I'm speaking of Close to the Edge. I was simply distraught that somebody could pull that off. But after my intial appreciation for their tallents, I grew to love the actual music more and more.

Being a musician, I appeciate what other musicians do, and when they produce work, I normally can look at it from the creator's perspective, and not a listener's. In that case, the complexity of a song, because of my aspiration to be as tallented as other musicians, has always been a huge factor for drawing me closer to the music.

 

[periurban]

I can't argue with you about how you appreciate music, and my experience echoes yours. I too fell in love with Yes, but at the age of 13 I wasn't analysing my reasoning much. I've since grown to appreciate the technical proficiency of their playing, but I equally appreciate music that is entirely devoid of virtuoso performance.

I think of mathematics the opposite way around from you. I think the task of quantifying an actual musical performance using mathematics can be done, but can it tell you anything about whether that piece of music is worth listening to? I don't think so.

Mathematics is an analytical tool, and has nothing to tell us about beauty.

I'm almost sure that you also appreciate music of apparently stunning simplicity. John Coltrane said, "It's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play and the space in between". In that sense a mathematically simple piece can be musically complex!

And you must have heard terrifically complex music that left you cold. I'm afraid Rush falls into that category as far as I'm concerned......

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban Aside from all the arguments, is anyone here saying that the reason they like any individual piece of music is because of its complexity, and its complexity alone? Are there people out there who prefer complicated, ugly looking trees to the simple, beautiful ones regardless of any other consideration?

I'm going to say the same thing I said to someone else recently -- you can't take it out of context. I would never say what you're saying, but let's say there's two pieces of music, and one is more complicated than the other. I suspect that I would like the more complicated one more.

For example, somewhere along the line, I have realized that I love off-kilter time signatures, and have begun looking for bands that do odd time-signature stuff (Lamb and Soundgarden should be mentioned, as well as the seminal Yes). Because I love it. But it would suck if someone did it just for the sake of doing it, and there weren't great songs there to begin with.

 

[drarthurwells]

periurban: Guys, guys, what happened to the nice polite thread? Let's disagree by all means, but why not remain calm and try to see what the other side is talking about?

Art: OK, Mom. Actually we have been fairly well behaved, albeit not as polite as yourself perhaps.

periurban: Math? OK, here's how I see it. Let's say maths hadn't been discovered. I could no doubt find instances of musical populations who knew little about maths. It is entirely possible to make music and listen to it without knowledge of maths.

Art: Math could have been born in the birth of music. Music is a form of math. Actually language too is a form of math, or vice-versa, rooted in logic and set theory.

periurban: But, when you begin to quantify and transmit musical ideas it turns out that mathematical techniques work pretty well. Depending on how much computing power you have you can pretty much model an entire musical performance mathematically.

But math can be applied in that manner to every aspect of reality, so I don't think that just because we can describe a musical performance by mathematics our understanding or appreciation of what we are listening to is enhanced.

Art: True. But, we do use a type of math that is not symbolized - the math of the data of the universe - the math of perceptual intellectual processing of phase relationships among events as wholisitically integrated in the brain. We see a tree but it is constructed as such from data emanating from the tree. This is encoded (hologramic) data, carried in waves of light, and the eye focuses these waves to do decoding of the data (much as a camera lens focuses an image on the film plane). This data is then encoded again as neural pulses (representing hologramic products) and stored, where it can be either retrieved in perception (either to match with sensation or with memory reconstructions). The point of all this is that brain processing is a type of mathematical operation, as is music, as is language, as is the material universe and every material event in it.

The whole point of discussing music as math was to point out that classical music is generally more complicated, as could be mathematically shown, tha tother types of music. This does not mean that it can't be very simple (Satie's Gymnopedias), or that pop music (or any other type) can't be very complex.

periurban: Yes, a mathematical analysis of a musical event will reveal the degree of complexity, but so it would about an ocean wave or a tree. Which is more "complex", the tree that stands 100m tall with two hundred branches, or the tree that stands 50ft tall but has a thousand branches? How many leaves does each tree have? What about the root system? Do you include the microflora and fauna that live on each tree? The texture of the bark?

OK, lets say that mathematics could determine the relative complexity of our two trees, and one of them was determined empirically to have more "complexity" than the other.

The aesthetic appreciation of a tree (or of music) is entirely independent of complexity.

Complexity does not equal beauty, neither does simplicity. They are both equally apt to produce admiration.

What would mathematics say about the aesthetic appeal of each tree? Can mathematics determine the beauty of a tree?


Art: No, but proper perception of complex stimuli takes more brain processing than than of less complex stimuli. We would likely get bored more quickly in studying a small simple tree than a more complex one. The complex stimuli communicates more data. Complex music communicates more data than simple music. The data of music is emotion and cognitive exercise stimuli (like a crossword puzzle is stimulating), and more complex music can convey more emotional variations and be more cognitively stimulating than simple music.

Tchaikovsky is more emotionally communicative.

Bach is more like a crossword puzzle - cognitively stimulating.

People who like rap music generally do not like Tchaikovsky or Bach, and vice -versa.

 

[drarthurwells]

periurban: Mathematics is an analytical tool, and has nothing to tell us about beauty.


Art: The sensory/memory/intellectually-processed data of the brain differentially activates emotion at an unconscious level. This data is of a non-symbolized nature but is a mathematical language of data encoded in waves. Music is a mathematical language as are light waves, other sound waves, etc.

Beauty is an evaluation we make from emotional activations (from music or any other stimuli) - a type of moral evaluation of worth or goodness. This evaluation, like any brain product, is a result of prosessing of instinct, conditioned memory, and creative, perceptual and conceptual processing.

How do I know this to be true?

Because Father Divine told me so.