Re: [microsound] math anxiety

[Beni Borja <beni.borja@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Isn't math a language as well??  Mathematics is the language best suited to
describe the physical phenomena , music being  "air sculpting" in it's
physical nature is therefore best described by math.

What's the purpose of music??  that is the question I supose bothers me the
much these days..



Beni


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Sorg" <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:40 AM
Subject: RE: [microsound] math anxiety


> > From: Michal Seta [mailto:mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >
> > Since the beginning of the sixth century music was considered, at
> > least by Boethius, as part of what later became the four Platonic
> > scientific disciplines: arithmetic, music, geometry and
> > astronomy.  Boethius wrote a treatise 'De Institutione Musica'
> > which was intended to be read along with his 'De Institutione
> > Arithmetica'.  So the idea of music being part of mathematical
> > (arithemtic, really) education is not new.  In fact, the books
> > Boethius wrote were not his orignal work.  They were records of
> > what he studied in Greece so it goes further than that, at least
> > back to Pythagoras.  And for Pythagoras music is related to
> > numbers very clearly.  Not only music but sound.  And thanks to
> > the quantitative nature of sound one can make music which is
> > related to the sound of instruments through the same numbers.
> > Think of Pythagorean tunning system, which was based on the
> > numerical ratios of harmonics of a vibrating string.  This
> > relationship has been further explored by physists and
> > mathematicians ever since.  One of the most interesting reads and
> > perhaps most influential is 'On the Sensations of Tone' by
> > Helmholtz.  So there is a very obvious relationship.
>
> I know I'm bringing this up from another thread, but this is a great
> example.
>
> Who said music wasn't a language?  Xenakis?  Kind of a strange comment
> coming from someone whose compositions could be described by statistics.
I
> suppose it's really that music *can* be used as a language, just as a
> painting can be used to describe something.  Who can't recall the specific
> lion's roar for Warner Brothers, or Intel's little ditty, or tell the
> difference in the guitar tone between Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page?  That's
> language.  Sound is used as language in any culture, from jungle drumming
> and church bells, train whistles to commercial jingles.  Synthesis
> techniques could be considered to carry a certain specific message,
perhaps
> not one that the author intended, but a discourse that the author is
engaged
> in nonetheless (academically, mathematically, socially).  I can see that
the
> written score (or the statistical formula) is just a description of the
> sound, not truly the sound itself, but music/sound is always going to be
> experienced in a social context which carries not only it's abstract self
> but that secondary meaning.  I also think that the occidental take on
sound
> is to make it concrete, like it's language, relating it to mathematics in
> order to describe it fully.  In so much of occidental music, math and
music
> are linked philosophically, structurally and perceptually.
>
> It would be difficult to suggest that Tuvan or Tibetan throat singing is
> mathematical, although you could certainly use math (in part) to describe
> the phenomena, but that doesn't describe the experience.  Interestingly
> enough, Trevor Wishart demonstrates just how difficult that is by
discussing
> the limits of discrete time domain functions in describing/predicting
> timbral changes.  Sort of a Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for sound.
> Our math has limited our ability to perceive certain aspects of sound.
The
> piano is a perfect example of this, the rigorous establishment of math
> applied to tone, while eliminating significant timbral effect.  Also
> interesting is that Wishart uses Xenakis as an example of a composer who
> moves away from these limitations.  Perhaps complexity introduces a
> difficulty in applying structure.  My reaction upon first hearing Xenakis
> was that it was stoic and mechanical, which would certainly jibe with
> his -particular- architectural background.  Of course, humans attempt to
> apply structure to everything they encounter, so I guess it shouldn't
really
> be suprising that we hear math in sound.  I hear the arrangement of my
> living room in sound, and the recipe for a great garbonzo bean salad.
>
> Another rambling post by....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      Christopher Sorg
>    Multimedia Artist/Instructor
>  The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
>    http://csorg.cjb.net
>      csorg@xxxxxxxxx
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>