RE: [microsound] minimal anxiety

[David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrei wrote: Because music doesn't exist by itself and would not exist if
humans didn't
create it. And like I said earlier, you don't encounter sound organized as
"music" the way we organize it anywhere else in nature.

humbug. once i heard wind through wires on the grasslands and it was better
"music" than some of the stuff i've paid for.



David Fodel
Publishing Systems Manager
Wild Oats Markets
3375 Mitchell Lane
Boulder, CO 80301
Direct: 720-562-4831
Fax: 303-938-8474


> ----------
> From: 	Andrei
> Reply To: 	microsound
> Sent: 	Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:10 PM
> To: 	microsound
> Subject: 	Re: [microsound] minimal anxiety
> 
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, anechoic wrote:
> 
> > >As mathematical as Reich's compositional methods may be, I don't think
> that
> > >the intended effect is to "hear mathematics."  One could say the same
> of
> > >Bach.
> >
> > a fugue is also a mathematical construct which can be heard that way if
> so
> > desired...m
> 
> I dunno, I'm a supporter of the math and music connection but I think
> saying that one can hear a piece of music as a mathematical construct is
> nonsensical. What does that mean anyway ? That you're consciously thinking
> of equations, calculations, etc. while listening to the music ?
> 
> Personally I don't take the connection between mathematics and music
> beyond the underlying physics of sound. I mean that math is just a tool to
> explain aspects of how sound works. And using mathematical concepts in
> composing is purely a subjective and aesthetic choice just as much as
> saying "I'm gonna write a (happy/fast/dense/etc.) piece".
> And any pleasing result that comes out of it, such as the interlocking
> patterns of Reich or whatever, is just something we find aesthetically
> pleasing and has nothing to do with some "deeper" connection between math
> and music.
> 
> 
> > music has no ultimate goal...the receptor is programmed with these
> > goals...there is no inherent message or meaning in music; only what the
> > receptor brings to it based on their associations...
> 
> I think that's a bit absolute.
> I think it's perhaps more accurate to say that *sound* has no ultimate
> goal, not music.
> Because music doesn't exist by itself and would not exist if humans didn't
> create it. And like I said earlier, you don't encounter sound organized as
> "music" the way we organize it anywhere else in nature.
> And you keep mentioning the receptor, but what about the sender ?
> Can't the sender be sending messages through the music ?
> 
> I guess music is sort of a protocol. The sender and the receptor agree on
> how and what kind of messages are gonna be shared. And perhaps all human
> beings are "hardcoded" to use the same protocol ?
> 
> Andrei
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
> 
>