Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[andrew benson <cloudmachine99@xxxxxxxxx>]

In the making of digital sound and art there is a
necessity for the maker to be well aquainted with math
and science in order to master the tools available. 
Without a rudimentary understanding of
psycho-acoustics, signal-processing, general systems
theory, and college-level math, I would find it very
difficult to produce anything.  Thus, in discussions
regarding process, we are obliged to refer to those
tools that make our work possible.  To ignore that
side of contemporary digital arts is pure romanticism.
 

That said, a teacher of mine used to refer to the "3%"
in any piece that made it music.  Meaning you can fill
the rest with science and math and aleatory, etc., but
you need that 3% to make it interesting. I like that
way of looking at it.  If you haven't, you should read
"Emblems of the Mind".  I don't necessarily agree with
it's thesis, but there are some interesting passages. 


I'm not sure I could listen to Xenakis without seeing
his tables and charts in my mind.

andrew

--- morgan quaintance <plugcs_123@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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! 

Andrew Benson
www.cloud-machine.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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