[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy I wish we could put to rest the old canard that classical music is more "mathematically complex" than rock music. The opposite is true, using your choice of either information-theoretic or Fourier analyses.

i was comparing Bach to Limp Bizkit, no generalisations meant.

 

[MartinJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears They have been able to mathematically analyze Jackson Pollock's works and they find it so complex that they can write programs that can distinguish his work from would be forgers! I'm sure that if a mathematician is so motivated, we will learn a good deal about how music also has different levels of complexity, organization, etc. that most people understand either intuitively or after some study. See: Order in Pollock's Chaos Scientific American, December 2002. For sale from their archives.

Hehehe couldn't forgers then use that program to create more fakes? And objectivity based on subjective measures and goals/criteria? I think it is a lot about just taste and some people want to be "choosen" ones to be able to waff his hand and decide which music is good.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan i was comparing Bach to Limp Bizkit, no generalisations meant.

Mathematically, Limp Bizkit is more complex than Bach.

 

[Alexhifi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Although, those of us that DO have the proper knowledge to be able to judge musical quality are able to see past taste. Dream Theater is an example of a band that I really dislike, but know how tallented they are and how much virtuosity it takes to perform this kind of music live. This is why I have many of their albums and have listened to them many times - because I know it's GOOD music, even though I can't necessarily get into it myself.

That just comes off weird to me...

-Alex

 

[elmoe]

Not composition wise my good friend

Just because the range of noise limp bizkit makes is wider doesnt mean that scientifically speaking, the composition of the songs is more advanced.

 

[periurban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman No, you could never do that. Recording quality varries, for one thing. In addition, it would probably be too complex of an equation to come up with. And, as far as commercial estimation goes, trends change... you could never get a computer to tell you that kind of information or not. As I said in another thread, you can like terrible music - that's your TASTE. However, QUALITY music is something that is measureable, but that by all means, you are not SUPPOSED to like it. Some people just don't have the appreciation for it and will never be able to look past dancers and poor lyrics, as most fans of pop music need some way of being able to relate to the song... and lyrics are the way that most artists choose to be able to do so. I've not heard of a single "instrumental" song/album ever being on the charts, after all. Although, those of us that DO have the proper knowledge to be able to judge musical quality are able to see past taste. Dream Theater is an example of a band that I really dislike, but know how tallented they are and how much virtuosity it takes to perform this kind of music live. This is why I have many of their albums and have listened to them many times - because I know it's GOOD music, even though I can't necessarily get into it myself. GOOD is subjective. QUALITY is mathematics.

That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

For something to be measurable it must be quantifiable, and music cannot be quantified.

What your argument fails to account for is that music does not exist independently of the listener. There is no objective standard by which "quality" can be measured, whether it relates to complexity or value.

To take a real world example, imagine an orchestra plays a simple minor chord for an extended period. The mathematical rules are very simple, yet the result can be complex due to the way the ear and brain work.

This isn't yet anything to do with the mind or the cognitive ability of the listener. It's simple physiology. The ear and brain matrix will hear detail in that simple chord that was not written, was not part of the performance, and which cannot be analysed. It's the auditory equivalent of the visual illusion where identical shades of colour look different depending on the surrounding colours.

To this extent music is fractal in nature. The apparent detail percieved by the listener is preserved regardless of any objective measurement of complexity.

This can be tested by listening to very "complex" music, where the complexity is both musical in nature and sonic. Something like an avante garde noise performance, where there may be no order or rules at all, isn't actually percieved or assessed in terms of its complexity.

The quality you talk of in Dream Theatre's music seems to be related to its complexity, but that determination is only possible through a rational examination of the rules that are used to make it, and follows on the false assumption that higher numbers, or more numbers, are somehow more complex, or have an intrinsically higher "quality".

But it isn't the case that 13/8 is more complex that 4/4, or that 32nd notes are any more complex than 16ths. It may be harder to do, but that is no measure of anything meaningful either (because if it was the guy who played the piano upside down whilst swinging from a tightrope would have the claim to the highest "quality").

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan Not composition wise my good friend Just because the range of noise limp bizkit makes is wider doesnt mean that scientifically speaking, the composition of the songs is more advanced.

"Scientifically speaking"? Using what scientific concept, exactly?

It may be counter-intuitive to people without a background in these concepts, but the notion of information-theoretic complexity is equivalent to, not the inverse of, entropy. That applies to whatever measure you use (Kolmogorov complexity, Shannon's self-information, etc.).

The only people who claim classical music is "mathematically complex" are the music theory people, and they just throw this claim around as a form of elitism, without an underlying justification or understanding. Basically what they mean is they can name some patterns in classical music. But being pattern-based and rule-based is the opposite of mathematical complexity (indeed, that's basically the inverse definition of Kolmogorov complexity). Or, put in a more tangible way, the sheet music for traffic noise is far more complex than the sheet music for any Bach composition.

 

[trains are bad]

So you say, objective criteria exist in music.

Say one work A is found to be, by these these objective criteria, better than some work B.

Say, Vivaldi's Spring vs. Small Brown Bike's 'Unsung Zero'.

If I like SBB better, it's better. I'm not one of those people that will listen to the Vivaldi just because the critics say it is supposed to be better, see:

Quote:

I have many of their albums and have listened to them many times - because I know it's GOOD music, even though I can't necessarily get into it myself.

I can't even wrap my head around such thinking. There is no objectivity in assigning musical merit. There is only what I like.

 

[Enverxis]

Here's My Rule.

Where
Sounds good to me = 1.
or
Doesnt sound good to me =-1.
and
Technically more complex music =0.

0+1 = 1
1 = Good Music
0 = Indifferent
-1 = Bad Music

 

[periurban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy "Scientifically speaking"? Using what scientific concept, exactly? It may be counter-intuitive to people without a background in these concepts, but the notion of information-theoretic complexity is equivalent to, not the inverse of, entropy. That applies to whatever measure you use (Kolmogorov complexity, Shannon's self-information, etc.). The only people who claim classical music is "mathematically complex" are the music theory people, and they just throw this claim around as a form of elitism, without an underlying justification or understanding. Basically what they mean is they can name some patterns in classical music. But being pattern-based and rule-based is the opposite of mathematical complexity (indeed, that's basically the inverse definition of Kolmogorov complexity). Or, put in a more tangible way, the sheet music for traffic noise is far more complex than the sheet music for any Bach composition.

Yes!

To measure music objectively you'd need to be able to describe it by some means other than music itself, but since music exists only in the mind of the individual listener, there is no objective means of doing that.

We may intuitively think that 2+2=4 is a less complex equation than 1+1+1+1=4, but both equations can be described adequately by "4". Just as the structure one piece of music may appear to be more "complex" than another, the end result may be the same.

A very simple piece of music that has no obviously discernable complexity may have hidden complexity in the form of cyphers or codes within the score. Does the chord progression C-A-G-E have more complexity than G-C-A-E simply because the former spells the composer's name?

If a melody is played twice as fast, is it more complex?

Is dissonance more complex?

How does any of this relate to Aman's "quality"?

 

[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy "Scientifically speaking"? Using what scientific concept, exactly? It may be counter-intuitive to people without a background in these concepts, but the notion of information-theoretic complexity is equivalent to, not the inverse of, entropy. That applies to whatever measure you use (Kolmogorov complexity, Shannon's self-information, etc.). The only people who claim classical music is "mathematically complex" are the music theory people, and they just throw this claim around as a form of elitism, without an underlying justification or understanding. Basically what they mean is they can name some patterns in classical music. But being pattern-based and rule-based is the opposite of mathematical complexity (indeed, that's basically the inverse definition of Kolmogorov complexity). Or, put in a more tangible way, the sheet music for traffic noise is far more complex than the sheet music for any Bach composition.

What I mean is that, as you said, there are many ways to calculate mathematically the complexity of music, and those ways sometime contradict themselves. IMHO, music theory is what is important in terms of mathematical complexity, although I do not like classical myself. Generally speaking, the more advanced the music theory the more technique is needed to play an instrument or sing certain lyrics, this is IMHO one of the most important criterias as to judging for myself wether some music is to my liking or not. Of course that isnt the only criteria, far from it, but you understand my point im sure.

 

[saint.panda]

Lots of great contributions and I've learned a lot in and through this thread, thanks. I gave all this some thought and also had this discussion over lunch today and a friend of mine asked me which is better: a classical / jazz piece of music that is considered very high class (leaving the complexity issue aside for the moment) or a rock piece that might use some simpler themes and harmony changes and even a less artistic musicianship, but manages to grab the hearts of thousands of people at a live concert, and draws the listener into the music's emotion like there's no tomorrow, while the classical piece of music might not even reach or move that many listeners in its entire life time? Same goes for: A national anthem played at the beginning of the world cup finals, or a chamber orchestra piece that satisfies on a much more intellectual level? A simple but strikingly beatiful melody - merely hummed - yet in the most fitting circumstances and by the most fitting person, or a free jazz piece played within an energising club atmosphere?

I wonder whether it's possible to attribute "better" to each of this examples because what does this "better" refer to? Popular appeal, complexity, emotional bond, intellectual stimulation, number of notes or patterns, etc.? Are even things like creativity a measure for "goodness" and how do you measure creativity anyway, objectively? Of course a bad guitarist is a bad guitarist but can it not be that a less trained voice might sound more raw and therefore direct than a trained voice in some cases?

And assuming there is a frame of reference, a so-called set of standards, what if we move from one frame of reference to another, e.g. by changing the cultural frameset? Play Beethoven's 5th to a Tibetan nomad and he'll be scared out of his wits.

Perhaps Ellington wasn't so wrong when he said "If it sounds good, it is good."
But then again, the same man also said "There are only two kinds of music - good and bad". Perhaps I'm just struggling to believe that there's no way to determine that the Goldberg Variations are better than a 50 cent track, objectively speaking.

 

[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda Lots of great contributions and I've learned a lot in and through this thread, thanks. I gave all this some thought and also had this discussion over lunch today and a friend of mine asked me which is better: a classical / jazz piece of music that is considered very high class (leaving the complexity issue aside for the moment) or a rock piece that might use some simpler themes and harmony changes and even a less artistic musicianship, but manages to grab the hearts of thousands of people at a live concert, and draws the listener into the music's emotion like there's no tomorrow, while the classical piece of music might not even reach or move that many listeners in its entire life time? Same goes for: A national anthem played at the beginning of the world cup finals, or a chamber orchestra piece that satisfies on a much more intellectual level? A simple but strikingly beatiful melody - merely hummed - yet in the most fitting circumstances and by the most fitting person, or a free jazz piece played within an energising club atmosphere? I wonder whether it's possible to attribute "better" to each of this examples because what does this "better" refer to? Popular appeal, complexity, emotional bond, intellectual stimulation, number of notes or patterns, etc.? Are even things like creativity a measure for "goodness" and how do you measure creativity anyway, objectively? Of course a bad guitarist is a bad guitarist but can it not be that a less trained voice might sound more raw and therefore direct than a trained voice in some cases? And assuming there is a frame of reference, a so-called set of standards, what if we move from one frame of reference to another, e.g. by changing the cultural frameset? Play Beethoven's 5th to a Tibetan nomad and he'll be scared out of his wits. Perhaps Ellington wasn't so wrong when he said "If it sounds good, it is good." But then again, the same man also said "There are only two kinds of music - good and bad". Perhaps I'm just struggling to believe that there's no way to determine that the Goldberg Variations are better than a 50 cent track, objectively speaking.

The man was right, if it sounds good (to you) it is good (to you), just as there are only two kinds of music (to him) good and bad. I enjoyed reading your post, thanks

 

[Zanth]

This is always an interesting topic and I enjoy reading it. I agree with the subjectivists who state: "If it sounds good it is good." I am not a huge Chopin fan, I try, but I don't feel like "working" at liking something. Though I am not opposed to "acquired tastes" akin to beer, wine, port, scotch, cigars etc., with music, I have so many options I already do enjoy that forcing myself to understand/like/enjoy a particular artist is often too much for me. Though I agree with Aman about owning certain albums because of their widely acclaimed artistic merit, I tend to collect these rather than listen to them.

I also agree with the understanding of chaos, entropy, music complexity and order. Fine fine, this may merit the title - more complex, but one could then counter argue with: it takes far more human effort to order something into a Bach piece than a Limp Bizkit piece. By that I mean, practically anyone with musical ability could whip up Limp Bizkit music, but it takes true genius to work a Bach piece.

So then, what music is more "complex." Well, complex then is a relative term. If we consider mathematics alone, ordered chaos in particular, then sure I will agree, but if we gauge complexity by the capacity of a human to compose a certain piece, then without a doubt, Bach is far more of a genius than Sir Freddy. Which piece of music is "better"? Subjective. Which is more difficult to compose? Objective.

 

[Jeff E]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Anyone care to disagree? Attempting to assign objectivity to music is completely pointless. Bach !> Limp Bizkit. Objectively.

I believe the problem is confusion with word subjective. Objective data are gathered from the physical world while subjective data are based on phenomenology (inner world of experience). We may collect objective data about wine, e.g. acidity, as well as subjective data, "How did you like that glass of wine?" Once we have data, then we can use it to infer mental experience objectively. So we might objectively study whether folks prefer one vintage of a burgundy to another. A quick look at the history of psychology might be illuminating. Behaviorism dominated scientific psychology with the claim that internal states could not be studied objectively, ruling significant psychological phenomena such as emotions out of bounds. In the 50's scientific psychology underwent a cognitive revolution when scientists began using objective data derived from internal mental states.

As another example, consider a movement in decision theory that uses weighted linear models based on subjective judgements to improve the quality of decisions. So, for instance, medical school admissions decisions can be improved (higher chance of success) by incorporating the interview score (subjective) in the model. Just because data originate in the head, doesn't mean that they can not be objectively used.