Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc
Date | 2011-01-21 04:07 |
From | "Partev Barr Sarkissian" |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
Pythagoras and proportions or divisions of frequency intervals and how they relate to one another. -Partev ========================================================== --- PeterArmstrong@aya.yale.edu wrote: From: PMA |
Date | 2011-01-21 05:27 |
From | Chuckk Hubbard |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
There is something scientific in frequency intervals, but I think the implication was that deciding which ones are more and less pleasant is still subjective. -Chuckk On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Partev Barr Sarkissian |
Date | 2011-01-21 05:38 |
From | Brian Redfern |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
Xenakis has a different perspective than a lot of other western composers because greece is a different culture and language. He has the concept of music first and foremost taking you to a place, putting your imagination into a journey. He's got very ancient influences going on from the folk traditions of greece and the near east. He's also an archatect as well as a composer, so he composes boths with sound and with physical and even virtual space. But its not music meant for entertainment, its mysterous and sometimes terrifying. That's why modern classical composers can see the most success with film scoring, though these days lots of sound tracks use the music from rock or hip hop groups. On Jan 20, 2011 9:27 PM, "Chuckk Hubbard" <badmuthahubbard@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is something scientific in frequency intervals, but I think the > implication was that deciding which ones are more and less pleasant is > still subjective. > -Chuckk > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Partev Barr Sarkissian > <encino_man@netscape.com> wrote: >> Pythagoras and proportions or divisions of frequency intervals >> and how they relate to one another. >> >> -Partev >> >> ========================================================== >> >> >> --- PeterArmstrong@aya.yale.edu wrote: >> >> From: PMA <PeterArmstrong@aya.yale.edu> >> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk >> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Xenakis etc >> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:56:07 -0500 >> >> Why all this talk of traditional music theory being somehow not >> mathematical? >> Aren't we simply seeing two styles of arithmetic: an older, 1-based and >> adding >> inclusively; and our newer, 0-based and adding exclusively? >> >> And of course we're uncomfortable with the old. If there's more to it >> than this, >> then of course I'm missing what. >> >> Let's just all be glad Harmony I doesn't *add* with those Roman numerals! >> >> >> Richard Dobson wrote: >>> On 19/01/2011 00:53, Robert or Gretchen Foose wrote: >>>> "add"..an example of operator overloading..the same as Python (et al.) >>>> use "hot"+"dog" = "hotdog". There the '+' is used for joining two >>>> strings. In music 'add' is a matter of combining two theoretical >>>> structures (thirds) into one larger structure. Quite similar, but NOT >>>> identical, to its use in math. I agree that the similarity is close >>>> enough to be misleading, and/or confusing..but only if you expect the >>>> two areas of knowledge to be the same. >>> >>> >>> >>> As a final footnote, I will "add" that I will believe it when: >>> >>> the standard pack of playing cards is redesigned so that the suit order >>> is not A,2,3...10,J,Q,K but A,1,2...9,J,Q,K. Redefining every card game >>> on the planet is but a small price to pay! >>> >>> >>> Richard Dobson >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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" >>> >>> >> >> >> 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" >> >> > > > > -- > http://www.badmuthahubbard.com > > > 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" > |
Date | 2011-01-21 10:38 |
From | Richard Dobson |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
On 21/01/2011 05:27, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > There is something scientific in frequency intervals, but I think the > implication was that deciding which ones are more and less pleasant is > still subjective. > -Chuckk > The general understanding is that consonance and even tuning is dependent on the timbre of the notes concerned. There was an experiment done asking people to tune two pure sine tones to specified intervals, and apparently even experienced musicians couldn't do it reliably; because, whatever the interval, it did not sound "dissonant" in any way, and everything somehow sounded "in tune". And there is the added complication that when listening to a sine tone (with two ears...), the slightest head movement can cause an apparent shift in pitch. Play it alternating between two loudspeakers and the two notes will sound different in tuning, more often than they will sound the same. Play a tritone on two recorders, and it will sound mellow, sweet, maybe even boring. Play it on two trumpets, and it may cause walls to tumble, and be anywhere between thrilling and terrifying. So there is a way in which the consonance of two notes can be measured objectively, by looking at the proximity or otherwise of common partials. Richard Dobson 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" |
Date | 2011-01-21 12:21 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
There is an article by Parncutt worth reading for anyone interested in this subject. Fascinating stuff. http://www-gewi.uni-graz.at/staff/parncutt/publications/PaStr94.pdf On 21 January 2011 10:38, Richard Dobson |
Date | 2011-01-21 14:18 |
From | Michael Gogins |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
Music theory has both a scientific aspect, and an ideological or philosophical aspect. Certainly there are falsifiable hypotheses, as well as controlled experiments, on the scientific side of music theory. And there is a real mathematical component to it. It is a scientific discovery -- i.e. a fact that would be unknown without science -- that the major and minor triads of the 12 tone equally tempered scale have a mathematical structure called the Riemannian group. It is a scientific observation that chords progress much more often by going down a perfect fifth than by going up a perfect fifth. It is a scientific hypothesis, well supported by the evidence, that composers' use of the Riemannian group and the rules of voice leading are at least in part caused by the empirical fact, also established by experiment, that people can distinguish polyphonic voices much more easily if voices move in few, small motions between the first three to five harmonics of the harmonic series. It is an ideological or philosophical claim that there is something "good" or "right" about this. But, as a composer, I certainly do make that claim. But also, I do not claim that this is the ONLY way to organize sound in composition. Regards, Mike On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Richard Dobson |
Date | 2011-01-22 09:56 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
Yes exactly. There is naturally a science of music but that doesn't make music a science. P On 21 January 2011 06:27, Chuckk Hubbard |
Date | 2011-01-23 13:24 |
From | DavidW |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: Xenakis etc |
True, as long as one interprets 'naturally' to mean something like 'in accord with the psychophysical and culturally constrained phenomenological perceptions of humans.' And thus there are sciences (plural) of music (and most other things) and while none of this 'makes' music a science, it does allow for the possibility of there being a type of science that is based on the musical-ness of phenomena. Ah the loveliness of words, language, thoughts - layers of imprecision and ambiguity wrapped in vagueness (i.e waveness). It is variously difficult to separate even differences in terminology from differences in phenomena. Sunset and sunrise are examples previously cited in this thread (and oft used by Bucky Fuller who spoke of lots of them - up/down which is really in/out, north-blow which is really south-suck, etc etc) The words themselves are 'coined' according to, in the the context of, an understanding of a world (the domain of human -centredness (Heidegger) cf. the universe) which changes. The terms remain, despite their newly formed incongruities, for the sake of a semblance of continuity and as a means of communalising ('communication' in its older sense). Eg. 'note'::= notice (NB), notation, but since the prevalence of notation for sounds, has also come to mean 'tone' (related to 'tonic' - a sound sound cure, a 'pick-me-up', a resolver of tensions. So there are terminologies, phenomena implicit in their conceptionalisationness, and there are physical properties. A pebble is a boulder to an ant. Physical interval ratios are not the same as musical intervals which are psychophysical phenomena, which is not to even approach their psychologically and culturally constrained perception by humans (and other life-forms). My 2.5 cents worth - (have to allow for 'inflation' in a 'depression') David On 22/01/2011, at 8:56 PM, peiman khosravi wrote:
________________________________________________ Dr David Worrall. - Experimental Polymedia: worrall.avatar.com.au - Sonification: www.sonification.com.au - Education for Financial Independence: www.mindthemarkets.com.au |