| I'm a---
"n-th day (of) whatever month of what's it year"
... kind of guy myself. I know, someone out there is saying "the
non-conformist,... what a surprise".
At least I get that from my family. Where I work though, I follow
their formats. It's their place, it's their way. the rest of the
time, I'm like Sinatra, I do it my way. Each to their own, that's
what makes the arts so interesting.
-Partev
=============================================================
--- aaron@akjmusic.com wrote:
From: Aaron Krister Johnson
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] re: music theory (was 'xenakis')
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:27:12 -0600
Great summary of the issues here, I think.
I too find agree with Chuck that the more abstractly intelligent way
of discussing intervallic relationships would, in an ideal world, be
better for it's total consistency and clarity. But, as has been
mentioned, we don't live in an ideal world.
While we are at it: I prefer YYYY-MM-DD to the braindead way my fellow
Americans do it: MM/DD/YY or MM/DD/YYYY. In the grand scheme it's not
important, but I fight my little one man battle everyday with this
one, insisting on filling out dates this way. After all, in *every*
other realm, leftmost digits are the most significant!
AKJ
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Robert or Gretchen Foose
wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> I think part of the problem here is a kind of 'apples vs oranges' issue.
> Most of the terminology in traditional theory is devoted to understanding
> the 'functional' relationships of the pitches and other structures, relative
> to Tonal music. At its inception, Western music theory was created by
> musician/philosophers for whom the then relatively new notion of counting
> from 'zero' was unfamiliar and unintuitive...the beginning pitch of the
> scale was the 'first' note you heard. Guido and his contemporaries, had they
> a little more foresight, and the benefit of understanding 'Infidel maths',
> might have chosen otherwise. And of course, the 'error' was passed along,
> and compounded by the slow accretion of amplifications of these basic ideas,
> until we ended up where we are today. The problem wasn't helped by
> composers who pushed the original system to, and then beyond, its
> limitations.
>
> The fact that we are intelligently having this discussion shows me two
> things..first, that we all understand there is another way of viewing the
> resources of music, and second that we seem to be doing okay with the one we
> inherited, as long as we use it for the purpose intended..that being
> communication with our fellow practitioners. As with most human languages,
> imperfections, idiosyncrasies, and obfuscations are tolerable in our musical
> 'language(s)' as long as intelligible communication occurs. In those cases
> where it doesn't, ideas such as you suggest, and are actually used in some
> of the contemporary music theories, are always there to fall back on, or
> perhaps 'fall forward to' might be more accurate.
>
> Just a side note..I really do enjoy these discussions, even though their
> relevance to csound itself is somewhat tenuous.
>
> Bob Foose
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org
Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
_____________________________________________________________
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
|