hearing math

[anechoic <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>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 ?
interesting question...we view the world in some sort of quantitative
manner...we size things up, estimate volumes, distances, weights, time...we
count items at the supermarket...we are always running a low level
mathematical computation on the outside world...so music is no different IF
you have been trained to be able to decode music in this manner...e.g. 1/4
note rhythm is half as 'slow' as an 1/8th note rhythm played at the same
tempo...intervals are heard in some sort of ratio...overall structure can
be heard: ABA, ABACA, etc and all of these are patterns...so while you are
not "consciously thinking of equations, calculations, etc" you are finding
certain patterns (harmonic, structural, melodic, etc) interesting based on
cultural coding...
all music is organized by rules and these rules can be mathematically
represented...case in point: the Schillinger System
<http://www.geodyne.com/schillinger/>...I was taught this in music school
and hated it at the time...but since then I came by a copy of his
"Mathematical Basis of the Arts" and started to understand more of what he
was saying...but it wasn't until encountering probability and statistics
that the light went on for me...'distributions' represent natural
organizations of events and can be used in the creation of art...

>is just something we find aesthetically
>pleasing and has nothing to do with some "deeper" connection between math
>and music.
hmmm...on the one hand you mention how important causality is: "Because
music doesn't exist by itself and would not exist if humans didn't create
it." yet you seem to diminish its importance above...there is a connection
between all of your senses and mathematics...
as an aside: there was a funny cartoon in the New Yorker (or Harpers?) a
while back that had a picture of a small wooden house that was haphazardly
built: all cock-eyed, tilting on its frame, no right angles etc...the title
read "a world without algebra"

>And like I said earlier, you don't encounter sound organized as
>"music" the way we organize it anywhere else in nature.
how do you explain sound art made with "location recordings"? nature
generates some wonderful patterns that can be viewed as art...and often
times I hear some amazing "compositions" in certain locations...my wife and
I went to see a movie in Japantown in SF and I heard the sound of an
industrial air duct in the parking garage that could easily have been
considered a composed piece if it were released...so I don't buy your
observation becauee your definition is too narrow...also it flies in the
face of the philosophy of John Cage: music is everywhere all you need to do
is listen (excuse my bad paraphrase)...


>And you keep mentioning the receptor, but what about the sender ?
>Can't the sender be sending messages through the music ?
only via lyrics spoken in a language you can understand...what is the
message in instrumental music? any message is constructed on the part of
the listener based on cultural codes...
what is the message in Merzbow's "A Taste Of..."?
http://www.mego.at/mego040.html
there is only the receptor in art...the sender's role is mainly that of a
catalyst