[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk The perfect response.

You being sarcastic or what?


Anyways, as far as the math thing goes, I was thinking about it (which is why i've been away from HeadFi for a bit) and came to some conclusions about why the statement "music is math" struck me so violently.

From the time I was a tiny child, a toddler even, my Dad was teaching piano lessons. He taught out of the home, it was his fulltime job. So I was constantly day-in day-out hearing classical and jazz pieces played by many different hands and many different skill levels. I've probably got 300 peices memorized in my head, it's crazy that I still remember them

Anyhoo, he told me once that just playing the notes means nothing. I truly believe this. You can play every note exactly like the composer wrote it on the page, down to the very last 32nd note, but you know what? No one would listen to it. It would be a lifeless piece of garbage. Music is NOT math. There are mathematical elements to music, yes. Music can be expressed in mathematical forms, yes. Math is required to play music, yes. But music is not math. The passion, *emotion*, and most of all, flair, of the performer is what matters. Emotion, passion, and personal creative flair cannot be represented by math

If Aman played lines from a Jimi Hendrix song, it just wouldn't sound the same. Because he does not have the soul/talent/whatever of Jimi. He has the right math (sheet music), but that doesn't even matter. Anyone but Jimi playing his stuff would sound cold. This is not an opinion, it's fact. I've witnessed it hundreds of times, when students of his attempted to play difficult pieces, and spent so much time focusing on getting the notes (math, logical, analytical brain) right, that they put no personality into the music. It wasn't music at all, it was just noise.

Music could be called "math", but it's a completely arbitrary point. If you follow that point to its end, everything is math. So what? It's like Nihilism. Dime-store philosophy, dime-store arguement.



I believe that the artist (original creator), performer, and listener are all part of producing the final product in a work of art. It's not a singular solitary thing, it's a social event. If you've built up preconcevied notions about the superiority of certain genres, or the "complexity" of music actually mattering (which it doesn't, at all, in fact the opposite may be true), or similar ideals, these will affect the art. They will shape and change the piece of music for you to make it less enjoyable, and thus you're proven yourself right. But at what cost? In the end only you are losing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman And, well, these are fundimentals of music that don't go untaught to anyone today.

********. Jimi Hendrix never learned any Music Theory at all. Neither did I. I think it's boring as hell.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman 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.

Maybe it is your emotions causing you to enjoy the music more, not your attachment to complexity. You say you aspire to be as good a musician as them, so when you hear these really complex (i.e. well-musicianed) songs, you go "wow, cool!" and it brings you into the music. Well, what is bringing you into the music, to put it simply? You enjoy what you hear. That's what really matters. Stop with all the math and complexity stuff, and just listen to stuff because you want to hear what sounds good. Everything else is just footnotes imho/. You can easily open yourself up to things you were apprehensive about (such as the singer's voice for the band Neil Peirt was in) without ever having to think about math or complexity. Just do what you claim you already do anyways.... see from the musician's perspective. Try to see where they were coming from in making the song. Trust me it works. You'll start enjoying a lot more music, and you'll have a lot less to worry about and be angry about, to boot

 

[periurban]

Dr Art's point seems to be that maths matters because the universe can be entirely described by maths, and that our brains function according to mathematical rules.

I agree (for the purposes of this discussion), but I can't agree that just because something is mathematically complex it neccessarily carries more emotive content. That's simply not the case. A more complex musical piece may convey more emotion, but equally it may not. The objective complexity of the music has nothing to do with it. Neither does complexity offer more potential for beauty. It offers just as much potential for ugliness.

The complicated tree may be just plain ugly, and regardless of how interesting it is, may only be appreciated by those who seek to examine the tree for reasons other than aesthetic ones. The beautiful tree may be mathematically simple, and it may be that simplicity that appeals.

If you are saying that you listen to music as an intellectual exercise, to figure out the maths as the piece progresses, then you may well appreciate more complex and interesting pieces of music. It seems that many people here are suggesting that's the way they listen.

Perhaps there's something in this "complexity is good" argument after all.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban If you are saying that you listen to music as an intellectual exercise, to figure out the maths as the piece progresses, then you may well appreciate more complex and interesting pieces of music. It seems that many people here are suggesting that's the way they listen. Perhaps there's something in this "complexity is good" argument after all.

A scream can communicate deep emotion. Very simple music but very emotionally moving.

Music does two things:
1. Communicates emotion: Tchiakovsky.
2. Stimulates intellectually (as does a crossword puzzle): Bach.

Simple music can do both (Satie) but does not communicate the many shades of emotion, or provide for the greater intellectual stimulation, as can more complex music.

However, more complex music requires more intellectual ability to appreciate than does simple music. Someone with an IQ of 85 or less is most unlikely to ever like Mahler or Prokofiev.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek ......just playing the notes means nothing. I truly believe this. You can play every note exactly like the composer wrote it on the page, down to the very last 32nd note, but you know what? No one would listen to it. It would be a lifeless piece of garbage. Music is NOT math. There are mathematical elements to music, yes. Music can be expressed in mathematical forms, yes. Math is required to play music, yes. But music is not math. The passion, *emotion*, and most of all, flair, of the performer is what matters. Emotion, passion, and personal creative flair cannot be represented by math....

Music is math prior to perceptual integration in the brain.

A CD can be expressed mathematically.

However if you look at the binary code of a CD it is not music. If you hear this code as decoded by a CD player and related equipment it becomes music as a result of perceptual/conceptual/creative/conditioned/innate processing.

The way a particalur composition is played is critical in distinguishing passionate from sterile music. However, the score may be mathematically equivalent but that score is modified in being played, and no matter how differently it is played, it can be mathematically expressed as different in each case.

The mathematics of a richly pasionate rendition of the Moonlight Sonata is markedly different from my own rendition, and I am sure you know which one is worse.

 

[VicAjax]

music is math

2+2=4
a simple song that makes me smile. it reminds me of my childhood, of learning to hold my pencil correctly (i never did). i pull it out occasionally, to refresh my memory and recall that warm glow of innocence. but it doesn't hold my interest for long.

pi(r^2)
a summertime song of adolescence. it recalls the cold, liquid thock of my knuckles on an ice-cold canteloupe before i slice it open. it has strange, almost rebellious, energy and enough mystery to give it repeated listens.

7, 13, 5
the magical numbers of music. in my own synaesthesia, seven is always green, thirteen is yellow and five is red.

tone tone semitone tone tone tone semitone

music is math.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax music is math 2+2=4 a simple song that makes me smile. it reminds me of my childhood, of learning to hold my pencil correctly (i never did). i pull it out occasionally, to refresh my memory and recall that warm glow of innocence. but it doesn't hold my interest for long. pi(r^2) a summertime song of adolescence. it recalls the cold, liquid thock of my knuckles on an ice-cold canteloupe before i slice it open. it has strange, almost rebellious, energy and enough mystery to give it repeated listens. 7, 13, 5 the magical numbers of music. in my own synaesthesia, seven is always green, thirteen is yellow and five is red. tone tone semitone tone tone tone semitone music is math.

I really like your style in this post

It was a fun read.

But alas, I think I will have to just agree to disagree. You, as Dr Arthur, are coming from a purely logical/analytical/mathematical perspective of reality. I used to hold such a perspective, but I realized that it was limiting and moved onto what for me was better things. Along with this left-brained view of the world comes your opinion/assumption/belief that complex music is better, which as noted I disagree with.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Music is math prior to perceptual integration in the brain.

I've already explained why this is a moot point.

Quote:

The way a particalur composition is played is critical in distinguishing passionate from sterile music. However, the score may be mathematically equivalent but that score is modified in being played, and no matter how differently it is played, it can be mathematically expressed as different in each case.

Probably, but can you measure the amount of personality they are injecting into the piece? You are only measuring mathematically the final product, not anything else. And music is not a "final product" it's an active experience. So, again, your point is totally moot. Notes on a page is not music, music only exists as an experience that we perceive through our sensory apparatus.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek I really like your style in this post It was a fun read.

Quote:

But alas, I think I will have to just agree to disagree. You, as Dr Arthur, are coming from a purely logical/analytical/mathematical perspective of reality.

more than you, indeed... but not purely.

Quote:

I used to hold such a perspective, but I realized that it was limiting and moved onto what for me was better things. Along with this left-brained view of the world comes your opinion/assumption/belief that complex music is better, which as noted I disagree with.

interestingly, i used to hold your perspective, until i realized that it was limiting and moved onto what for me were better things.

everyone has emotions.
not everyone has talent.

 

[drarthurwells]

Art: Music is math prior to perceptual integration in the brain.


Sduibek: I've already explained why this is a moot point.

Art: No, you continually overlook this critical point in asserting that music is not math. Music is mathematically expressible (potentially), either as scored on paper, or as played, or as recorded. Furthermore, all of brain processing, including the interpretation of music and the activation of emotion that this brings about, is a matter of data processing that can also be potentially expressed in mathematical terms. Further from this, the unfolding of the universe, from moment to moment, is a matter of data processing at its essence that could potentially be expressed mathematically.

The way a particular composition is played is critical in distinguishing passionate from sterile music. However, the score may be mathematically equivalent but that score is modified in being played, and no matter how differently it is played, it can be mathematically expressed as different in each case.

Sduibek: Probably, but can you measure the amount of personality they are injecting into the piece?

Art: Yes, potentially - this is a matter of data processing. All personality processes, including creativity and emotion, are a matter of data processing. All data processing is potentially expressed mathematically.

Sduibek: You are only measuring mathematically the final product, not anything else. And music is not a "final product" it's an active experience. So, again, your point is totally moot. Notes on a page is not music, music only exists as an experience that we perceive through our sensory apparatus.

Art: Yes, as I said above. Experience is a product of personality data processing, like responding is. And what you say is true - the thing is not the same as the thing experienced. This is because the mathematics of the thing is greatly different from the mathematics of the thing as experienced. The tree we see is not as it actually exists. It exists as data encoded into a configuration of waves - we say this is a particle but it really isn't. Now we experience the tree, not as waves, but as a particle (actually a collection of many particles at different levels). The sound waves of music are likewise data encoded in waves, and we perceptually decode this data and process it in our brain to produce a data conclusion on a millisecond by millisecond basis.

All reduces to data. All data conforms to mathematical expression (potentially expressible). This doesn't mean that Bill Gates is God, or even an angel. Maybe Father Divine is though!

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Jimi Hendrix never learned any Music Theory at all.

sduiebek: If you believe that you learn time signatures and quarter notes from Music Theory classes, then you indeed are no musician. In your case and mine, being drummers, we HAVE to know that stuff. Hendrix had to learn those kinds of things, and scales, and learning how to do chord progressions, etc. -- EVERY good musician needs to learn how to make music

Music IS math. Every note you play is expressed in math. It gives it a value of how many notes of the measure it takes up. It gives a value of number (octave, pitch, tone, whatever). It gives a letter (note) which can be converted to a number. To play music, one must be able to use math. If one performs an incorrect mathematical equation (playing a steady 4/4 rock beat on the drums, for example, and wanting to do a 2-beat fill but end up doing a 3-beat fill - you'll end up on the 2 of the next measure, instead of 1 to begin your beat again) then you're screwed. If one uses math correctly -- if one COUNTS (math) and if one uses LOGIC to COMPUTE (both math) what kinds of combinations of notes they can play, then they are using math to perform music. Isn't music, therefore, math? You can't perform music without math being there -- sure, the musician might be unaware or not care of the mathematical techniques used to perform, but they're still there -- and that would also make them a pretty crappy musician

Quote:

The objective complexity of the music has nothing to do with it. Neither does complexity offer more potential for beauty. It offers just as much potential for ugliness.

peruriban: Complexity of music isn't very objective. To a certain degree maybe, but on the main scale it is not. In addition, complexity DOES offer more potential for beauty -- but as you mention, more potential for ugliness. Therefore, the suckiest rap song ever made could still not suck more than the suckiest classical piece ever made. However, the most beautiful rap song ever made could still never be as beautiful as the most beautiful classical piece ever composed/performed. I believe this is very logical -- and indeed quite accurate. Again, it's all in the math.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman If you believe that you learn time signatures and quarter notes from Music Theory classes

Quite the opposite, actually. I learned these through my subconscious

Just from hearing music growing up, I developed a natural talent with rythym and timing. As I said, i've never studied Music Theory; bores me to tears. I was attempted to say the same about Hendrix, but didn't phrase myself very well

He probably learned certain skills from the great guitarists he played with in his jazz and blues days, but he never officially studied theory like you would in a class, where they lay all the mathematical rules out on paper and tell you what's what. You don't need that to learn to play music. At least IMO. It's possible to just pick up knowledge as you go, off the cuff.

So, yes, you are right, he probably learned those things, but I was arguing that he probably wasn't *taught* them. (Anyways I remember reading it somewhere, that's why I brought it up

) There's a difference between being taught music theory, and just knowing it in your bones, alternatively just sitting down and figuring it out for yourself.

Quote:

Complexity of music isn't very objective. To a certain degree maybe, but on the main scale it is not. In addition, complexity DOES offer more potential for beauty -- but as you mention, more potential for ugliness. Therefore, the suckiest rap song ever made could still not suck more than the suckiest classical piece ever made. However, the most beautiful rap song ever made could still never be as beautiful as the most beautiful classical piece ever composed/performed. I believe this is very logical -- and indeed quite accurate. Again, it's all in the math.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax interestingly, i used to hold your perspective, until i realized that it was limiting and moved onto what for me were better things.

lol

Quote:

everyone has emotions. not everyone has talent.

HMmmm. Indeed, not everyone has musical talent, my friend Zach has a horrible sense of rythym. And he wants to be a bass player.... lol.

Well I suppose with a lot of practice........

Anyhoo, i'm not sure exactly where you were headed with this talent thing. I don't want to put words in your mouth like earlier

So, could you please phrase it a little less succinctly? Maybe then I can wrap my brain around what you're trying to say

Quote:

Art: Yes, potentially - this is a matter of data processing. All personality processes, including creativity and emotion, are a matter of data processing. All data processing is potentially expressed mathematically.

I'm really not sure I believe this. You're saying you can mathematically measure creativity? What about virtuosity? Genius? That's a tall order. So who's the "bigger genius", Einstein or Plato? Who is more creative, a lyricist or the most technically skilled drummer in the world?

Also, I will quote myself because you seem to not realize why i'm fighting all the talk of math:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Music could be called "math", but it's a completely arbitrary point. If you follow that point to its end, everything is math. So what? It's like Nihilism. Dime-store philosophy, dime-store arguement.

 

[Aman]

Sdubiek: Stop this!

How could you possibly doubt that music is not founded on math?!

The very FUNDIMENTALS are math! Playing notes in an allotted time signature -- MATH! Just strumming a chord -- MATH! Even if you do not realize it, and are only playing by pacing the rythm to yourself in your head, music only works along the restrictions and capabilities of math.

Look at this website. http://www.amarilli.co.uk/piano/theory/mus-sci.asp

EVEN IF you do not take ANY of those things into consideration, they still exist!

 

[s m @]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Music is mathematically expressible (potentially), either as scored on paper, or as played, or as recorded. ...all of brain processing...can also be potentially expressed in mathematical terms.

I will attempt a post without sarcasm now. You say, and I accept, that a piece of music (as composed or performed) could be expressed as a function. This function would be arcane and would mean nothing to anyone, but it could be done. But the same could be also done verbally, and just as exactly if you used enough pages (lots). So is music a purely mathematical art, or is it a purely verbal art? Obviously neither.

What is being missed here, even though it was stated earlier, is that mathematics is simply a language, used by us to describe the world. And in the case of music, it would be inappropriate and cumbersome to use math to describe it (unless you happen to be a computer processor). Further, math only describes the objective (yes, even in the case of quantum mechanics, please don't provoke me to discuss this, I won't), which is not nearly the whole picture for music because the effect it has on people is very subjective. No one says that the frequency oscillations at that concert happened at this speed, they say it was beautiful, or not.

From what I can gather here there are two approaches being used to support the 'music is math' position. One is as above, that music can be described by math, so it is math. The other more common one seems to be that because music (actually just the time, the frequencies are again only described) is most often organized in terms of simple arithmetic. This is again misleading, missing the subjectivity, but mainly because this organization is only applied to make composition and listening easier (simpler) for us. Buttousethelanguageanalogyagainthisisequivalenttop unctuationandspacingwhichishardlytheessenceoflangu ageletalonethemeaningbehindthewords

That's all I have to say on the subject.