[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] minimal anxiety
one last (and long) post about math and music. first, i was responding to
the idea that math and music were somehow -equivalent-. i think it is far
too general a statement (as are other statements that say math underlies all
music, or all music is organized mathematically) . to give one explicit
example of a musical event where math has no explanatory power, consider the
political sonic metaphors in trevor wishart's Red Bird- human voices
transforming into machine sounds or birdsong. such sound events are best
understood semiotically (probably), not mathematically. this is hardly an
isolated example- the ability to exploit sounds with signifying/referential
power is one of the main features in certain aesthetics of recording-based
composition.
/js:
>So I think math tools can be applied to pretty much any music;
accordingly, all music can be looked at mathematically. How revealing
any particular analysis is is usually more dependent on the
perceptiveness of the analyzer than the tools being used. <
-everything- is susceptible to mathematical analysis of some form. a
slightly facetious example- you can analyze a novel by counting the number
of vowels in it; this will tell you essentially nothing. to avoid making
nonsensical analyses, it is vital to choose relevant criteria. now, i'm not
saying mathematical criteria are always irrelevant, but my main point is
that the deep formal significance we find in music is not generally
reducible to a mathematical explanation. while it is tempting to draw
parallels between local structures and mathematical concepts, i have yet to
see a non-speculative explanation of overall musical forms in mathematical
terms. a Beethoven sonata is not profound because the ABA structure is
symmetrical (anyone can use an ABA structure). there is something much
deeper going on and i don't think it has to do with group homomorphisms or
category theory.
kim cascone points out that we hear patterns in music (and i would say that
pattern recognition is an absolutely fundamental aspect of structural
listening in most musical aesthetics). however, the significance we read
into patterns and how they change is not, in my view, related to some
underlying -mathematical- logic, but instead with how they relate to the
understood -musical- logic established by cultural codes and the specific
context created by the musical work. i'll give one example- ivo malec's
dahovi is full of breath sounds (indeed the title means "breaths"). a
trilling clarinet concludes the piece, a logical translation of breath into
sound/music, which the musical discourse has been struggling to do
throughout the work. there is no underlying mathematical significance or
rule here; for meaning we have to look elsewhere.
/js
I don't even know what that means- mathematical music<
a good point, the phrase is meaningless. i mean music that is illuminated by
a mathematical listening strategy.
/js:
There seems to be an attempt to deny the fact that mathematical tools
might be useful or pleasing for writing or listening to music. Why?<
i've been discussing reception, not production of music. however, composers
using mathematical structures should be aware that listeners may not hear
them (cf listener response to 1950s total serialism). as for listening, i
agree that some listeners may find mathematics rewarding or useful, but in
my experience, parallels with other areas are more illuminating- aesthetics,
poetics, abstract narrative forms, abstract forms in language... emotion
needn't be involved- as kim points out, there is no need to oppose emotion
and math, they are separate issues.
an important discussion to have, in my view- thanks to those who have
replied.
best,
ian
PS
There's a nice piece by an Ian Stewart on the "Cache 2001" disc.
http://cec.concordia.ca/CD/index.htm
Andrei <
thanks andrei!
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com