Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[David Powers <dpowers3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

What you are referring to is a matter of viewpoint, the effect of a
positioned observer on observations.  A piece of orchestral music might
be viewed differently from the point of view of the composer, the
conductor, the performers, the audience, a student learning to compose,
and a recording engineer who is capturing the performance.  It may be
that only the recording engineer needs to understand the music from a
"scientific" point of view.  Or perhaps the composer also needed some
understanding of the science of music to compose the piece.  Regardless,
I would posit that all viewpoints may have validity, it is the problem
to be solved or the purpose of observation that would determine which
type of description or understanding of the music is best.

If you want to save money on your electric bill, after all, some
scientific understanding of "light" might be in order.

Also, watch out for statements implying that light is an "ideal" thing
- sounds dangerously Platonic - besides, would a scientific description
be a better description of the "essence" of light then some
phenomenological description?  Regardless, I'm an anti-essentialist
personally, (special thanks to Gilles Deleuze and Manual DeLanda for
that).

~David

David Powers
Faculty Assistant
DePaul University, School of Education
Department of Leadership in Education, Language, and Human Services
773-325-4806

>>> plugcs_123@xxxxxxxxxxx 04/12/05 05:41AM >>>
I am exploring the concept that music, maths and science are not
intrinsically linked. I would like to hear your views on the subject.
 
This may seem a question with an obvious answer to most, as alot
electronic musicians believe that music, maths and science, are
intrinsically linked. However i would like you to consider music as a
kind of thing in itself. That is, as an entity in its own right. 
 
To make this rather garbled concept of mine a bit clearer, i have found
an unsatisfactory analogy (its unsatisfactory because it has some
flaws). Here it is:
 
Okay when you switch on the light at home, you experience it as Light,
and light only. When you talk about it to someone, you talk in terms of
the tone or whatever...you know you might say "this light is to bright"
or "maybe we should dim the lights". What you dont do is talk about the
complex history of invention that has led up to the possibility of
artificial light. When the light is on, you dont experience it as a
fusion of electronics, and truth table logic. You experience it as an
entity in its own right. 
 
It would seem a slightly bizarre occurence if instead of someone
refering to the quality of light tone in a room, they started spouting
abstract equations. That is to say the language of science and
mathematics has nothing to do with the appreciation of light as an
entity, or ideal thing. Light comes on you can see, you pecieve it in
qualitative terms. 
 
So mathematical and scientific discussion is out of place in
qualitative discussion, but it is accurate in disscusions on how light
is made. 
 
so i guess im saying, macking music can be mathematical and scientific,
but music as the finished product is not?
 
{told you the reasoning was a bit shaky but you get the idea}
 
It is, if you like, the seperation of process and outcome.
 
let me know what you think

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org