>> Paul Davis<paul@email-addr-hidden>:
>>
>>> this might be how users of ableton live think about making music, and more generally, users of computer software aimed at pattern-based music composition/creation.
>>>
>>> but i would submit that if you offered this description of making music to musicians who play instruments or sing, they would find it unrecognizable.
>>>
Well... I guess one important element in the tiling/sequencing issue
(forgive me for my lack of the exact mathematical knowledge) is
time-domain. Much of Music and it's drama, versus for instance painting,
is time: suspense, arousal/relaxation etc. have to do with time. So if
you take a piece which are the 'tiles'? Measures? themes of the 'sonata'
form? Simply recurring elements?
So if on the one hand many academics disregard 'quality' composition as
a mere juxtaposition of cool sounding melodies or progressions, on the
other hand it's true that the time-domain calls for some sort of tiling
in the sense that something comes after something
>> Mathematics is fundamental to music -- everything from the
>> relationship of notes to frequency, to what people consider musical,
>> or rhythmic... has to do with math, group theory, etc.
>>
>
> This is putting the cart before the horse. People were making music
> long before there was any remotest concept of mathematics. Many of us
> still work on the basis of just noodling about and 'ooo, that sounds
> nice' without the slightest thought of relationships etc.
>
Ok but the fact that people used mathematical relationships without
being fully aware of them (e.g. I IV V I progression) doesn't mean the
relationships don't exist or aren't important. The whole 'western' tonal
system is heavily dependent on this 'maths' we like it or not :)
> The only time I ever think about chords, progressions, is when I've
> more-or-less finished a composition and/or want to collaborate with
> someone else.
>
> When I was a child, I put together a construction of timber and waxed
> string. To this day I don't have the faintest idea what the string
> tunings were. I just know it produced some lovely sound combinations.
>
> Group/orchestral instrument& synth makers are no doubt deeply involved
> in the mathematics of their designs, but the players don't necessarily
> have any concept of this.
>
> A friend of mine is a member of a local choral group. He can't read
> music, just uses the dots as a vague reminder of when bits go up, down
> speed up or slow down. He seems quite happy like that.
>
> There may be incredible mathematical 'truths' in music, but I think it
> will be a very sad day when people concentrate on these rather than
> just having fun.
>
Being (as I said) a musician and not a mathematician I have to say that
I don't like much this kind of maths=boring=kills the fun etc. When I
started studying electronic music and also some of the physics and maths
behind it I was clearly fascinated to learn some of the things behind
music, and I still have great fun making it.. but of course that's me :)
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed May 26 12:15:01 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 26 2010 - 12:15:01 EEST