Re: Who is this imitating?

I see no real disagreement here, but maybe one or two additions. I
will snip a bit even though I usually don't like to do that.

On Jan 31, 6:09 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


In mathematics one person can define all the definitions he wants but if
they make no sense then he's just a kook.

Of course - but while mathematics can be very useful in music theory, the
two fields are too different for this type of comparison.

Here again, Jon, your statement is very subjective. Who defines
"kook"? It seems as though you are the great decider here! It doesn't
seem much of a stretch to say that based on your comments that you
think Cage is a kook! But others may think that he is one of the most
perceptive musicians of our time and has pointed out pathways for new
directions in music that will help to guide us for at least decades
into the uncertain path of the future of music. You may not like it,
but that is your opinion and ONLY your opinion. If you get on a stump
and win over more votes for your beliefs, that is politics. You may
even get a majority, but that certainly does not mean that you have
defined art. The only thing you can define in that manner is
prejudice.



I believe probably the main reason is that those who study it refuse to
define it the best they can. This is the difference between science and
non-science. Science started out with people trying to understand without
prejudice and it involved into a formal method of too understand. With
music theory people don't want to taint music with science because they
feel it will take away the creativity(because most of those people did not
do well in science and feel its bad. Although music theoriest are much
closer to scientist's)


Not quite, Jon. Music theorists simply attempt to break music down into
manageable chunks in order to better understand their interrelationships.
The purpose is to enhance performance, composition and listening. To say
that "music theory hasn't progressed very far in a scientific way ..." due
to an anti scientific bias among musicians shows a lack of knowledge of
music theorists. I suggest you investigate the work of Heinrich Schenker -
you'll like him as he would not deal with post-tonal music.

Right or wrong, you (Jon) are switching the argument here. Your
paragraph here is now talking about Science and you state that
Musicians (theorists) are afraid or don't want to inject science into
music as it will stun creativity. This is not the way that musicians
really think about it. In general, they don't think about the science
of music at all. They don't think of Music Theory as science at all
and rightfully so. Music, Music Theory and composition is historically
not scientific at all! It is ART. You can't hide this from a musician
simply by stating a truism about the difference between science and
not-science and apply it to music! It just doesn't fit. Music is not
traditionally a science! The physics of music may shape more than some
would like to admit in the music through the Romantic period and even
beyond, but the physics is NOT the music, nor is it he theory. Yes
there is science involved in the production of sound, in the
perception of sound and in the sound of the sound itself. This is not
music. Only when a musician organizes it in some manner does the
arrangement of the sounds become music.


I guess people interested in understanding music do not want there "art"
to become unimpassioned and "scientific". They do not want to be
mathematicians who they see as emotionless.

Duh! Isn't that self evident?


Maybe they are right but a gut
feeling is not enough.

Only you are saying that it is.




If you haven't read it, you might enjoy Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of
Motor Cycle Maintenance" - especially his comments on the thinking-feeling
(Classic-Romantic) dichotomy.

Or maybe John Cage's "Indeterminicy" might show the same things! ( 90
Zen stories )


I do not claim sampling is the best approach except that it does offer a
possible answer that could be true.

So along with music, should we now poll the populace to define truth and
beauty? And who will determine which subset of the planet's billions of
souls will provide these definitions?



If you are arguing that sampling is wrong and never give sthe right answer
then you need to learn more about it. Its used all over the place. It has
to be used right and not blindly.

Of course sampling is useful - but not in defining art!!

And I am disappointed that you would even think that either of us said
that sampling was useless in some cases. BUT certainly not in deciding
what is ART. Maybe you are not old enough to remember the book burning
days in some states when they decided what was and was not art in the
world of literature. Take a look at Farenhight 451 (or whatever the
number is) and see where sampling leads when applied to art.


In any case the point is that you use statistics to get some idea of what
something is. I am suggesting to use it to get a definition of music as
there will be some truth to that definition. Once you have a definition
that every agrees somewhat on then you can use that and build on it.


See, here you are back to the majority determines everything! The
saving grace of Democracy ( when we actually had it in the US) is that
this is NOT the case. When we had a constitution, this prevented a
majority from simply doing what you are professing. ART as a concept
is not something that can be decided by how many people think it is.
History has proven this so many time over. It just isn't that way.
Grammy awards are good examples. People chose on popularity, net
profit, and consensus for their awards. Art enters the picture only
occasionally by happenstance.

"A definition that every[one] agrees somewhat on" might work in the
sciences, but not in the arts (nor in religion, since you've brought that
one up). So far on this board, Steve, LJS and I have already disagreed with
your definition of music (actually with your attempt to define music), so my
sample beats your sample:)

The fact of the mater is, is that neither you, me, or anyone else in this
NG know the true definition of music. You might want to believe your
definition is right but its not. I hate to break it to you.

Eggzactly!

Well, that is hard to say one way or the other. Taken from a sampling
standpoint, I would think that a sample of what ALL people considered
music to be would be a good place to start. Yes, even if one person
thinks that a particular "thing" is music, then that would be part of
the sample. The only scientific thing that I can see right away is
that any definition that does not take into account ALL the items of
the sample is NOT the best definition. And even if it does, then it
must also take into account what MAY be considered music by someone in
the future. The more you exclude the less likely that that definition
is not a good definition of MUSIC. So, If my definition takes into
account of more than Tom's or Steve's or Joh's, then mine is the most
true. But if Tom's takes into account more then mine, his would be the
best. If however, Steve's takes into account ALL that we can possibly
conceive, then his would be the TRUE definition of music, at least
until someone came up with a concept that was musical, but was outside
of his definition.


Now what do you propose? All of use use our own definitions, try to find
common ground, leave it undefined, or take your definition as the
definition? (and if you think there are other possibilites I'd like to
hear it)

See above!


I propose we forget the whole thing and get on with making and enjoying
music.

But Tom, how will we know if what we are enjoying is really music?
lol


Jon, are you seriously suggesting that only certain Western music genres
from roughly 1600 qualify as music?

Did I say that? Sheesh, you sure do read a lot into it. You need to read
literally what I said and not add what you think I said. Does asian music
not have melodies? Does africian music not have rhythms(and pitches even)?
Did the ancent greek music not have melodies? Where the hell did you get
1600 from or western music?

Because you said music involves melody, harmony and rhythm. The systematic
use of all three really doesn't occur until CPP. If I misunderstood you,
I'm sorry.

Yes, and maybe music cannot be defined. But the interactions of atoms
cannot be defined nor the phenomena of life. Yet we has humans have
progressed to where we are because we have defined things. Definitions are
all only about simplifying... but simplifying is the process of
understading. We cannot grasp the complex meaning of anything(and I mean
anyhing, no matter how simple it seems) yet we can grasp the simple
meanings... hence simplifying the complex is how we understand the world.

I suppose that this statement means that since this is a complex
statement that we can't understand it? Analysis attempts to make the
process simple to understand. But complex analysis can make things
even more simple if you work to understand them. In music, the more
complex you look at a simple thing, the simpler it becomes. This is
only to say that a particular piece of music can be defined relative
to how the sounds are organized. A particular piece of music can be
defined to at least this extent and maybe even more so through other
means including physics and logic and other scientific procedures. BUT
never forget that this is really only a description of this particular
piece and any particular piece is such a small subset of the larger
set called music that this can not by any stretch of imagination be
called defining MUSIC as a whole.


Right. So in the area of musical form (for example), we define the section,
the period, the phrase, and perhaps the sub-phrase and motive to more
clearly understand the piece as a whole. And these definitions change from
style to style and even piece to piece within the same style, to say nothing
of culture to culture.

A musician does the same... the difference between him and a mathematician
is only that the musician chooses to rely on "gut feelings"

You're kidding - right? I'm sure Beethoven's myriad thematic reworkings
relied as much on intense logic as "gut feelings".

Tom is certainly on the button. This last statement shows that you
have no clue to the make up of Beethoven's music! If there was ever
one phrase that does not apply to Beethoven's works, "gut feelings" is
the best example that I have heard to date!


Thanks,
Jon

You're welcome,
Tom K.

Thank you both for allowing me to jump in here.
LJS

.

Loading