Dear List,

I'm working on a UDO that is supposed to record a small part of an audio signal in a table using zero crossing as loop start stop (to minimize as much as possible clicks - see the attached files).

My goal is to record this small sample (with the udo) and than play it back in loop to extend the duration of the input sound.

I'm quite satisfied with the result (even if very far from perfect) but I want to try to improve the "fidelty" of the looped sound to the original one (for example in the attached csd instr 3 try to do some filtering to remove the additional sound components introduced by the looping).

Is there a simple way (with envelope or by a better tuning of the filters but without psv or other spectral opcodes) to improve these files to acieve a better result?

Thank you

Stefano

Thought this might be of interest, given the recent discussions on score 
language systems:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=rhythm-and-music-help-math-students-12-03-27


Which is to say, they have discovered something musicians have known for 
centuries...

Richard Dobson

i.e., a Non-discovery

Richard Dobson wrote:
> Thought this might be of interest, given the recent discussions on score
> language systems:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=rhythm-and-music-help-math-students-12-03-27
>
>
>
> Which is to say, they have discovered something musicians have known for
> centuries...
>
> 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"
>
>

Yes, this does seem to have been a Non-discovery for a very long time.
If I recall correctly, the Pythagorian Quadrivium's "music" category was
content-wise actually *physics* -- specifically, acoustics of the vibrating
string ("monochord"), which was at that time the only physics domain
empirically well enough in hand to support mathematical theorizing.

...unless, of course, I've got my memory cells in wrong....


Richard Dobson wrote:
> Thought this might be of interest, given the recent discussions on score
> language systems:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=rhythm-and-music-help-math-students-12-03-27
>
> Which is to say, they have discovered something musicians have known for
> centuries...
>
> 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"
>
>

I don't know what the situation is for those of you elsewhere; but for those of us in the US, the worst aspect of these kinds of non-stories is the way they seem to provide a "practical" justification for music study (implying that one is needed). As if music is only worth studying because it can improve test scores in mathematics...
It hurts the cause of music education more than it helps. 

Best,
Chris

CW / NCAT / SLU
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:14 PM, "PMA"  wrote:

> Yes, this does seem to have been a Non-discovery for a very long time.
> If I recall correctly, the Pythagorian Quadrivium's "music" category was
> content-wise actually *physics* -- specifically, acoustics of the vibrating
> string ("monochord"), which was at that time the only physics domain
> empirically well enough in hand to support mathematical theorizing.
> 
> ...unless, of course, I've got my memory cells in wrong....
> 
> 
> Richard Dobson wrote:
>> Thought this might be of interest, given the recent discussions on score
>> language systems:
>> 
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=rhythm-and-music-help-math-students-12-03-27
>> 
>> Which is to say, they have discovered something musicians have known for
>> centuries...
>> 
>> 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"
> 

On 13/04/2012 02:36, Christopher Watts wrote:
> I don't know what the situation is for those of you elsewhere; but
> for those of us in the US, the worst aspect of these kinds of
> non-stories is the way they seem to provide a "practical"
> justification for music study (implying that one is needed). As if
> music is only worth studying because it can improve test scores in
> mathematics... It hurts the cause of music education more than it
> helps.
>

In the UK we need all the help we can get, especially with people such
as Stephen Pinker (who is the sort of "scientist" who has the ears of
government) writing that music is merely "auditory cheesecake". Dawkins
(in a similar position of influence) was asked once who he would have
from all history in his "dream" dinner party, and he actually said he
would not have any musicians as they would not be very interesting, and
he would not expect to learn anything. That interview is online somewhere.

Maths and science are core subjects in the new "English Bacc", plus "one 
or two" humanities such as French and geography. Music is strictly 
optional - scarcely even mentioned except with the usual platitudes. My
hope is to get the mathematicians and physicists themselves
to appreciate (and therefore be inclined to promote) the fundamental
educational value of music, based on the ~fact~ that as subjects go, it
is the best "brain training" there is - possibly the only one which not
only exercises both hemispheres of the brain, but also promotes
communication between them. I do not think that view hurts music
education, but rather takes it from being regarded as a social pastime 
that is nice to have but non-essential, to something absolutely 
indispensable for general physical, mental and emotional health, 
something that enhances learning generally. At least as important as a 
proper diet.

So music education is ~already~ being hurt by all those with the ear of
the policy-makers who have no problem with it being sidelined in the
curriculum. And now they are for the best of possible reasons promoting
computer programming as a curriculum subject, rather than the somewhat
tired old ICT curriculum, which basically taught kids how to use
Microsoft Office. So there is a new mission, to make sure that music
programming is also recognised for its high general educational value.

The point being that while (most) musicians already know this, and have 
done for ages, those in positions of authority to decide what is core
curriculum and what is not, do not know this. For them, it is totally a
"discovery". Musicians will of course argue the importannce of music - 
"well, they would, wouldn't they" - but we need ~everyone else~ to argue 
its importance too. And if music study enhances maths ability, I think 
that is really rather cool. Maths is fully an aspect of music, as is, 
among other things, its therapeutic application in such things as music 
therapy and special needs support.



Richard Dobson

Richard Dobson wrote:
...
> In the UK we need all the help we can get, especially with people such
> as Stephen Pinker (who is the sort of "scientist" who has the ears of
> government) writing that music is merely "auditory cheesecake".
> ...
> My hope is to get the mathematicians and physicists themselves
> to appreciate (and therefore be inclined to promote) the fundamental
> educational value of music....
> ...
Has anybody collected quotes meaningfully respectful of music
as a serious pursuit, from history's mathematicians & scientists?
Did Einstein the amateur violinist, for instance, leave anything?
Or for that matter (a little farther afield), Frederick of Prussia?

This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
exist.

In point of fact, regarding music, for reasons we do not completely
understand, most grownups _do_ like music and therefore, music is an
integral part of human society. It is part of what makes us who we
are. People who think they can be confirmed or bar mitzvahd or
whatever (or not),  go to the prom, graduate from school, join the
army, fight in a battle, watch a movie or TV, get married, have a
birthday party for their kids, celebrate their holidays, worship God
(or not), and get buried without music are barking mad. They are
taking an extremely odd view of human life. (Frankly, I think it's not
art itself that such people don't like or don't value, but rather that
such people don't like the kind of people who make art.)

It's not possible to separate the "use" of music from the "art" of
music. You can't have "practical" music without high art in the music
(you start out with nightclub music and end up gazing at your shoes),
and you can't have "absolute music" without finding a handy use for it
(you start out with a choral symphony and end up singing it as the
anthem of Europe or something).

With a song in my heart,
Mike

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM, PMA  wrote:
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> ...
>>
>> In the UK we need all the help we can get, especially with people such
>> as Stephen Pinker (who is the sort of "scientist" who has the ears of
>> government) writing that music is merely "auditory cheesecake".
>> ...
>>
>> My hope is to get the mathematicians and physicists themselves
>> to appreciate (and therefore be inclined to promote) the fundamental
>> educational value of music....
>> ...
>
> Has anybody collected quotes meaningfully respectful of music
> as a serious pursuit, from history's mathematicians & scientists?
> Did Einstein the amateur violinist, for instance, leave anything?
> Or for that matter (a little farther afield), Frederick of Prussia?
>
>
>
>
> 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"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

On 13/04/2012 13:57, PMA wrote:
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> ...
>> In the UK we need all the help we can get, especially with people such
>> as Stephen Pinker (who is the sort of "scientist" who has the ears of
>> government) writing that music is merely "auditory cheesecake".
>> ...
>> My hope is to get the mathematicians and physicists themselves
>> to appreciate (and therefore be inclined to promote) the fundamental
>> educational value of music....
>> ...
> Has anybody collected quotes meaningfully respectful of music
> as a serious pursuit, from history's mathematicians & scientists?
> Did Einstein the amateur violinist, for instance, leave anything?
> Or for that matter (a little farther afield), Frederick of Prussia?
>
>


That is a collection I do indeed hope to assemble over time.

Re Frederick, among other things he invited Euler to come to Berlin 
(Euler being the author of a substantial treatise on harmony). J.S Bach 
followed the Newton/Leibniz debate with some intensity. No arbitrary 
division between arts an sciences in those times.

Einstein said quite a lot. A quick Google on "Einstein + music" finds 
this, among other things:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine/201003/einstein-creative-thinking-music-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination


In Manjit Kumar's book "Quantum" (a history of the development of 
quantum mechanics) we learn that Ludwig Boltzmann had piano lessons from 
Bruckner, and as a student Max Planck was sufficiently talented in music 
that he seriously considered entering the music profession.

It would be nice to think that Planck's deep familiarity with both 
musical scales and acoustics (not least the harmonic series) made it 
that much easier for him to come up with ("in desperation ") the idea of 
the quantum, to begin with thought of merely as a mathematical "device" 
to fit theory with observation (blackbody radiation and the famous 
"ultraviolet catastrophe"). Planck in effect discovered the fundamental 
frequency of the Universe. Not bad for a music student!

Richard Dobson

On 13/04/2012 14:18, Michael Gogins wrote:
> This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
> God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
> means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
> That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
> anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
> exist.
>

This is not an issue of existentialism. Unfortunately, in the UK at 
least, music education has been made a political issue, rather than a 
philosophical one - how much funding should be provided for practical 
music education, and what are the justifications for the decision. In 
the last recession (80's), music was one of the first to go - my county 
council just sacked all its peripatetic music teachers. This time around 
they simply cut the whole arts budget. Literally, 100%. Even though it 
represented some 0.04% of the whole council budget.

Listening to music is a great thing to do of course, but for children 
whose brains are still growing and developing, the crucial thing is to 
~do~ - whether by singing or by playing. Music needs above all to be an 
~activity~. Otherwise, it is like learning to read without learning to 
write. Learning to clap your hands in time, or to pitch a note, is brain 
food like no other. The brain is innately adapted to respond to and 
comprehend a symbolical language such as music, but it can only work 
with what it is given. The endless romanticising of music (of the "it is 
its own justification" kind) does not serve the education argument at 
all well (after all, every subject has its special pleading); and 
cohorts of honourably vehement and articulate musicians will continue to 
underwhelm the fund-holders. Music ~is~ expensive - in resources, 
curriculum time, and in teachers, especially at secondary level. Very 
easy and tempting to cut; less easy to build up again, and in the 
meantime a whole generation is deprived, in ways even beyond what 
musicians themselves understand.

See for example "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist for a 
comprehensive neurological view of all this. Not always easy reading, 
especially for an unapologetic "modernist", but IMO ~necessary~ reading.



Richard Dobson

> I don't know what the situation is for those of you elsewhere; but for
> those of us in the US, the worst aspect of these kinds of non-stories is
> the way they seem to provide a "practical" justification for music study
> (implying that one is needed). As if music is only worth studying because
> it can improve test scores in mathematics...
> It hurts the cause of music education more than it helps.
>

I am often annoyed at the trivialisation of mathematics as just a
problem-solving useful skill, rather than a deeply beautiful area of
thought.  (Similar for computation as well I guess).

Utility is not everything in the universe

==John ff

On 04/12/2012 09:36 PM, Christopher Watts wrote:
> As if music is only worth studying because it can improve test scores in mathematics...
> It hurts the cause of music education more than it helps.

hmm ... not too sure about this.

to my way of thinking, there is no right way to study music. there is 
just music and time spent working on/with/in it.
of course, if you want to make money with music, some things are better 
than others to do [who you know, ...].

what is the problem if people do math with music? or do music because of 
math? how is it different from people who do music because they hear 
sounds in their imagination?

-- 
http://or8.net/~johns "yeah yeah yeah" -beatles

Hear hear!  But I didn't see this talk as being about music's "right to
exist", or about "liking it".  I thought the gist was: What can be said
to modify the prejudice of musically ignorant people empowered to
decide the fate of music education?

Pete


Michael Gogins wrote:
> This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
> God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
> means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
> That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
> anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
> exist.
>
> In point of fact, regarding music, for reasons we do not completely
> understand, most grownups _do_ like music and therefore, music is an
> integral part of human society. It is part of what makes us who we
> are. People who think they can be confirmed or bar mitzvahd or
> whatever (or not),  go to the prom, graduate from school, join the
> army, fight in a battle, watch a movie or TV, get married, have a
> birthday party for their kids, celebrate their holidays, worship God
> (or not), and get buried without music are barking mad. They are
> taking an extremely odd view of human life. (Frankly, I think it's not
> art itself that such people don't like or don't value, but rather that
> such people don't like the kind of people who make art.)
>
> It's not possible to separate the "use" of music from the "art" of
> music. You can't have "practical" music without high art in the music
> (you start out with nightclub music and end up gazing at your shoes),
> and you can't have "absolute music" without finding a handy use for it
> (you start out with a choral symphony and end up singing it as the
> anthem of Europe or something).
>
> With a song in my heart,
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM, PMA  wrote:
>> Richard Dobson wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> In the UK we need all the help we can get, especially with people such
>>> as Stephen Pinker (who is the sort of "scientist" who has the ears of
>>> government) writing that music is merely "auditory cheesecake".
>>> ...
>>>
>>> My hope is to get the mathematicians and physicists themselves
>>> to appreciate (and therefore be inclined to promote) the fundamental
>>> educational value of music....
>>> ...
>>
>> Has anybody collected quotes meaningfully respectful of music
>> as a serious pursuit, from history's mathematicians&  scientists?
>> Did Einstein the amateur violinist, for instance, leave anything?
>> Or for that matter (a little farther afield), Frederick of Prussia?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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"

I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not that we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding in our schools.
In NY, and the US in general, the educational system is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable test format like that, so they are typically left out of the conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system of charter schools that operate outside of the department of education. They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are evaluated based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and music entirely in order to focus on the tests that determine their funding. Pinker's opinions are definitely not being involved in the conversation. Having evidence that music education will directly impact math test scores might be the best way to support the arts in this crummy system.

A

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Richard Dobson  wrote:

> On 13/04/2012 14:18, Michael Gogins wrote:
>> This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
>> God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
>> means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
>> That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
>> anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
>> exist.
>> 
> 
> This is not an issue of existentialism. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, music education has been made a political issue, rather than a philosophical one - how much funding should be provided for practical music education, and what are the justifications for the decision. In the last recession (80's), music was one of the first to go - my county council just sacked all its peripatetic music teachers. This time around they simply cut the whole arts budget. Literally, 100%. Even though it represented some 0.04% of the whole council budget.
> 
> Listening to music is a great thing to do of course, but for children whose brains are still growing and developing, the crucial thing is to ~do~ - whether by singing or by playing. Music needs above all to be an ~activity~. Otherwise, it is like learning to read without learning to write. Learning to clap your hands in time, or to pitch a note, is brain food like no other. The brain is innately adapted to respond to and comprehend a symbolical language such as music, but it can only work with what it is given. The endless romanticising of music (of the "it is its own justification" kind) does not serve the education argument at all well (after all, every subject has its special pleading); and cohorts of honourably vehement and articulate musicians will continue to underwhelm the fund-holders. Music ~is~ expensive - in resources, curriculum time, and in teachers, especially at secondary level. Very easy and tempting to cut; less easy to build up again, and in the meantime a whole generation is deprived, in ways even beyond what musicians themselves understand.
> 
> See for example "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist for a comprehensive neurological view of all this. Not always easy reading, especially for an unapologetic "modernist", but IMO ~necessary~ reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 

My point is that the political fight arises because of a philosophical
presumption, which can only be corrected in a philosophical way. That
presumption is a kind of crass utilitarianism, in which education, and
persons, are not ends in themselves, but means in the service of some
"greater end", such as society, or business, or the state, or the
volk, or something that doesn't actually exist apart from the persons
who enact it. Frankly, that's a form of idolatry.

Trying to fight this on some other level is tilting at windmills. It
needs to be fought for what it is. Proposing pragmatic justifications
and allies for music education cedes too much of the argument
implicitly to the other side. The only real reason for teaching music
is to enable more people to enjoy it, and to make it, and that is
quite sufficient.

Regards,
Mike

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Aidan Collins
 wrote:
> I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not that we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding in our schools.
> In NY, and the US in general, the educational system is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable test format like that, so they are typically left out of the conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system of charter schools that operate outside of the department of education. They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are evaluated based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and music entirely in order to focus on the tests that determine their funding. Pinker's opinions are definitely not being involved in the conversation. Having evidence that music education will directly impact math test scores might be the best way to support the arts in this crummy system.
>
> A
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Richard Dobson  wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2012 14:18, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>> This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
>>> God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
>>> means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
>>> That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
>>> anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
>>> exist.
>>>
>>
>> This is not an issue of existentialism. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, music education has been made a political issue, rather than a philosophical one - how much funding should be provided for practical music education, and what are the justifications for the decision. In the last recession (80's), music was one of the first to go - my county council just sacked all its peripatetic music teachers. This time around they simply cut the whole arts budget. Literally, 100%. Even though it represented some 0.04% of the whole council budget.
>>
>> Listening to music is a great thing to do of course, but for children whose brains are still growing and developing, the crucial thing is to ~do~ - whether by singing or by playing. Music needs above all to be an ~activity~. Otherwise, it is like learning to read without learning to write. Learning to clap your hands in time, or to pitch a note, is brain food like no other. The brain is innately adapted to respond to and comprehend a symbolical language such as music, but it can only work with what it is given. The endless romanticising of music (of the "it is its own justification" kind) does not serve the education argument at all well (after all, every subject has its special pleading); and cohorts of honourably vehement and articulate musicians will continue to underwhelm the fund-holders. Music ~is~ expensive - in resources, curriculum time, and in teachers, especially at secondary level. Very easy and tempting to cut; less easy to build up again, and in the meantime a whole generation is deprived, in ways even beyond what musicians themselves understand.
>>
>> See for example "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist for a comprehensive neurological view of all this. Not always easy reading, especially for an unapologetic "modernist", but IMO ~necessary~ reading.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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"
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

On 04/13/2012 10:55 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:
> The only real reason for teaching music
> is to enable more people to enjoy it, and to make it, and that is
> quite sufficient.

people have all kinds of reasons for teaching music. why do we have to 
divide them into 'real' and 'not-real' bins?

sadly, lack of support for music is endemic of a lack of support for 
non-tangible aspects of our lives [like music].

-- 
http://or8.net/~johns "yeah yeah yeah" -beatles

Richard Dobson wrote:
> ...
> Re Frederick, among other things he invited Euler to come to Berlin
> (Euler being the author of a substantial treatise on harmony). J.S Bach
> followed the Newton/Leibniz debate with some intensity.No arbitrary
> division between arts an sciences in those times.

And I just got a Google faceful with "Mozart + math".

(Of course, the thing we'd want to press is, not that
math sparked Mozart, but that music sparked Euler.)

> Richard Dobson wrote:
>> ...
>> Re Frederick, among other things he invited Euler to come to Berlin
>> (Euler being the author of a substantial treatise on harmony). J.S Bach
>> followed the Newton/Leibniz debate with some intensity.No arbitrary
>> division between arts an sciences in those times.
>
> And I just got a Google faceful with "Mozart + math".
>
> (Of course, the thing we'd want to press is, not that
> math sparked Mozart, but that music sparked Euler.)
>

of course Ada Lovelace thought of computers weaving music like they would
weave mathematics.

Trouble is the narrow utilitarian attitude of "authority".  Definitely
again things have intrinsic worth, and most certainly against enjoyment.

==John ff

I'm afraid I am resigned, that the real reason for teaching music
will never serve to leverage the field's needed political support.

P

Michael Gogins wrote:
> My point is that the political fight arises because of a philosophical
> presumption, which can only be corrected in a philosophical way. That
> presumption is a kind of crass utilitarianism, in which education, and
> persons, are not ends in themselves, but means in the service of some
> "greater end", such as society, or business, or the state, or the
> volk, or something that doesn't actually exist apart from the persons
> who enact it. Frankly, that's a form of idolatry.
>
> Trying to fight this on some other level is tilting at windmills. It
> needs to be fought for what it is. Proposing pragmatic justifications
> and allies for music education cedes too much of the argument
> implicitly to the other side. The only real reason for teaching music
> is to enable more people to enjoy it, and to make it, and that is
> quite sufficient.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Aidan Collins
>   wrote:
>> I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not that we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding in our schools.
>> In NY, and the US in general, the educational system is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable test format like that, so they are typically left out of the conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system of charter schools that operate outside of the department of education. They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are evaluated based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and music entirely in order to focus on the tests that determine their funding. Pinker's opinions are definitely not being involved in the conversation. Having evidence that music education will directly impact math test scores might be the best way to support the arts in this crummy system.
>>
>> A
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Richard Dobson  wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2012 14:18, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>> This kind of talk about music drives me crazy. I am a person. I am not
>>>> God, but I am definitely like God in that I am an end in myself, not a
>>>> means to an end. And therefore, if I like music, music is justified.
>>>> That's good enough. If a grownup likes something and it doesn't hurt
>>>> anyone, that something has a right to exist and, indeed, _should_
>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not an issue of existentialism. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, music education has been made a political issue, rather than a philosophical one - how much funding should be provided for practical music education, and what are the justifications for the decision. In the last recession (80's), music was one of the first to go - my county council just sacked all its peripatetic music teachers. This time around they simply cut the whole arts budget. Literally, 100%. Even though it represented some 0.04% of the whole council budget.
>>>
>>> Listening to music is a great thing to do of course, but for children whose brains are still growing and developing, the crucial thing is to ~do~ - whether by singing or by playing. Music needs above all to be an ~activity~. Otherwise, it is like learning to read without learning to write. Learning to clap your hands in time, or to pitch a note, is brain food like no other. The brain is innately adapted to respond to and comprehend a symbolical language such as music, but it can only work with what it is given. The endless romanticising of music (of the "it is its own justification" kind) does not serve the education argument at all well (after all, every subject has its special pleading); and cohorts of honourably vehement and articulate musicians will continue to underwhelm the fund-holders. Music ~is~ expensive - in resources, curriculum time, and in teachers, especially at secondary level. Very easy and tempting to cut; less easy to build up again, and in the meantime
 a whole generation is deprived, in ways even beyond what musicians themselves understand.
>>>
>>> See for example "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist for a comprehensive neurological view of all this. Not always easy reading, especially for an unapologetic "modernist", but IMO ~necessary~ reading.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>>
>
>
>

I might add that my recent readings on "music and the brain" and on the 
neurological aspects of music cognition (and including among other 
things literature on Auditory Processing Disorder) are already informing 
my music teaching at undergraduate level, and strengthen rather than 
weaken my enthusiasm and appreciation for music both "in itself" and as 
a core curriculum subject; especially given that any consideration of 
biology has to look at musics in all cultures, not only those of the 
West (one stated limitation of McGilchrist's book, and an unaware 
limitation of many others). It also therefore necessarily has to 
consider even the most abstruse, abstract and "experimental" musics such 
as those associated with e/a music and "sound art". Such studies do not 
in my view undermine in any way the importance of music, but simply 
reveal new added importances beyond those already recognised.

In the end, a teacher is not simply teaching "the subject", they are 
teaching the person, who may not necessarily suffer the same categorical 
divisions and exclusions the teacher is habituated to. Imagine me saying 
to a music student "I can't tell you what "très modéré" means, you need 
to ask a French teacher".

It is one thing if scientists fail to embrace the importance of music 
(I still believe such people are the exception rather than the rule, but 
that some of them are rather strident on the matter, coming from a 
somewhat limited pseudo-Darwinian viewpoint), but that is not a reason 
for musicians to avoid embracing the broadest extents of music, 
including science and "brain training" - even "utilitarianism" Music 
~is~ useful! The fact that we may not be consciously aware of an effect, 
does not mean the effect is not real. The same argument applies to the 
arts in general. I have even very recently met an academic in "the arts" 
who expressed some sort of resentment at "being forced" [their very 
words] to know about science. Perhaps some scientists feel a 
corresponding resentment? I managed to express disapproval, despite 
being genuinely shocked. We really do have to do better than that!



Richard Dobson



On 13/04/2012 15:33, Aidan Collins wrote:
> I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not
> that we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're
> grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding
> in our schools. In NY, and the US in general, the educational system
> is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many
> disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable
> test format like that, so they are typically left out of the
> conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system
> of charter schools that operate outside of the department of
> education. They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are
> evaluated based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and
> music entirely in order to focus on the tests that determine their
> funding. Pinker's opinions are definitely not being involved in the
> conversation. Having evidence that music education will directly
> impact math test scores might be the best way to support the arts in
> this crummy system.
>

Along the lines of music being 'useful' to our lives outside of artistic and spiritual benefits, the rehabilitation power is undeniable.  

Just got turned on to this film, which resonates with the work that Dr. Boulanger, his son, and our Berklee Music Therapy software design group have been doing.

http://www.ximotionmedia.com/

Cheers to a great thread!

John Clements


On Apr 13, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Richard Dobson  wrote:

> I might add that my recent readings on "music and the brain" and on the neurological aspects of music cognition (and including among other things literature on Auditory Processing Disorder) are already informing my music teaching at undergraduate level, and strengthen rather than weaken my enthusiasm and appreciation for music both "in itself" and as a core curriculum subject; especially given that any consideration of biology has to look at musics in all cultures, not only those of the West (one stated limitation of McGilchrist's book, and an unaware limitation of many others). It also therefore necessarily has to consider even the most abstruse, abstract and "experimental" musics such as those associated with e/a music and "sound art". Such studies do not in my view undermine in any way the importance of music, but simply reveal new added importances beyond those already recognised.
> 
> In the end, a teacher is not simply teaching "the subject", they are teaching the person, who may not necessarily suffer the same categorical divisions and exclusions the teacher is habituated to. Imagine me saying to a music student "I can't tell you what "très modéré" means, you need to ask a French teacher".
> 
> It is one thing if scientists fail to embrace the importance of music (I still believe such people are the exception rather than the rule, but that some of them are rather strident on the matter, coming from a somewhat limited pseudo-Darwinian viewpoint), but that is not a reason for musicians to avoid embracing the broadest extents of music, including science and "brain training" - even "utilitarianism" Music ~is~ useful! The fact that we may not be consciously aware of an effect, does not mean the effect is not real. The same argument applies to the arts in general. I have even very recently met an academic in "the arts" who expressed some sort of resentment at "being forced" [their very words] to know about science. Perhaps some scientists feel a corresponding resentment? I managed to express disapproval, despite being genuinely shocked. We really do have to do better than that!
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Dobson
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/04/2012 15:33, Aidan Collins wrote:
>> I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not
>> that we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're
>> grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding
>> in our schools. In NY, and the US in general, the educational system
>> is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many
>> disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable
>> test format like that, so they are typically left out of the
>> conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system
>> of charter schools that operate outside of the department of
>> education. They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are
>> evaluated based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and
>> music entirely in order to focus on the tests that determine their
>> funding. Pinker's opinions are definitely not being involved in the
>> conversation. Having evidence that music education will directly
>> impact math test scores might be the best way to support the arts in
>> this crummy system.
>> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 

I would have said the same about biologists, except I married one.

On 13 Apr 2012, at 09:47, Richard Dobson wrote:

> Dawkins
> (in a similar position of influence) was asked once who he would have
> from all history in his "dream" dinner party, and he actually said he
> would not have any musicians as they would not be very interesting, and
> he would not expect to learn anything

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

There is an interesting and relevant observation by C.P. Snow in his famous book "The Two Cultures" where he describes the scientist with these words: 

«Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is in many ways an exacting and admirable one. It doesn't contain much art, with the exception, an important exception, of music»

The rest of the book is used to describe the gulf between science and humanities. It is quite disappointing that we haven't gotten any further since then (1953).

Sigurd

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dobson [mailto:richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:40 PM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] music and maths at grade school

I might add that my recent readings on "music and the brain" and on the neurological aspects of music cognition (and including among other things literature on Auditory Processing Disorder) are already informing my music teaching at undergraduate level, and strengthen rather than weaken my enthusiasm and appreciation for music both "in itself" and as a core curriculum subject; especially given that any consideration of biology has to look at musics in all cultures, not only those of the West (one stated limitation of McGilchrist's book, and an unaware limitation of many others). It also therefore necessarily has to consider even the most abstruse, abstract and "experimental" musics such as those associated with e/a music and "sound art". Such studies do not in my view undermine in any way the importance of music, but simply reveal new added importances beyond those already recognised.

In the end, a teacher is not simply teaching "the subject", they are teaching the person, who may not necessarily suffer the same categorical divisions and exclusions the teacher is habituated to. Imagine me saying to a music student "I can't tell you what "très modéré" means, you need to ask a French teacher".

It is one thing if scientists fail to embrace the importance of music (I still believe such people are the exception rather than the rule, but that some of them are rather strident on the matter, coming from a somewhat limited pseudo-Darwinian viewpoint), but that is not a reason for musicians to avoid embracing the broadest extents of music, including science and "brain training" - even "utilitarianism" Music ~is~ useful! The fact that we may not be consciously aware of an effect, does not mean the effect is not real. The same argument applies to the arts in general. I have even very recently met an academic in "the arts" 
who expressed some sort of resentment at "being forced" [their very words] to know about science. Perhaps some scientists feel a corresponding resentment? I managed to express disapproval, despite being genuinely shocked. We really do have to do better than that!



Richard Dobson



On 13/04/2012 15:33, Aidan Collins wrote:
> I really agree with Richard here. The reason we're excited is not that 
> we feel music needs philosophical justification, but that we're 
> grateful to have any support in the political fight for music funding 
> in our schools. In NY, and the US in general, the educational system 
> is evaluated by standardized tests (which is not popular and many 
> disagree with). Music and art can't really be fit into a quantifiable 
> test format like that, so they are typically left out of the 
> conversation and ignored. Especially in NY, where there is a system of 
> charter schools that operate outside of the department of education. 
> They don't have to meet board of Ed requirements, but are evaluated 
> based on standardized tests. Many of them drop art and music entirely 
> in order to focus on the tests that determine their funding. Pinker's 
> opinions are definitely not being involved in the conversation. Having 
> evidence that music education will directly impact math test scores 
> might be the best way to support the arts in this crummy system.
>


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"

Sigurd Saue wrote:
> ...C.P. Snow in..."The Two Cultures"...describes the scientist ...:
>
> «Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is
> in many ways an exactingand admirable one. It doesn't contain
> much art, with the exception, an important exception, of music»

Thanks for this!

Peter

PMA wrote:
> Sigurd Saue wrote:
>> ...C.P. Snow in..."The Two Cultures"...describes the scientist ...:
>>
>> «Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is
>> in many ways an exactingand admirable one. It doesn't contain
>> much art, with the exception, an important exception, of music»
>
> Thanks for this!
>
> Peter
>
I imagine the exception as due firstly to music's being quantitative.

Never was happy with C P Snow's analysis.  I am certainly on the
mathematics side (what I studied at school, university and postgraduate)
but arts are important (words, music, painting, sculpture) in my life. 
Not sure I recognise the two culture divide -- unless one takes
mathematics as an art; after all my degrees are in Arts.
==John ff

> PMA wrote:
>> Sigurd Saue wrote:
>>> ...C.P. Snow in..."The Two Cultures"...describes the scientist ...:
>>>
>>> «Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is
>>> in many ways an exactingand admirable one. It doesn't contain
>>> much art, with the exception, an important exception, of music»
>>
>> Thanks for this!
>>
>> Peter
>>
> I imagine the exception as due firstly to music's being quantitative.
>
>
> 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"
>
>
>
>

It was real enough when I was at school, a mere ten years after his 
famous lecture. I was not allowed to take both music and maths/physics 
at A level - the choices had to be either all humanities or all sciences 
(nobody said anything about maths being an art),  but not a combination. 
So the "two cultures", at least in that prominent London public school 
proud of its Oxbridge successes,  was fully embedded in the academic 
model. I can flatter myself I was ahead of my time, at least in terms of 
that school, but still live with the consequences of that restriction.

Richard Dobson




On 15/04/2012 15:20, jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:
> Never was happy with C P Snow's analysis.  I am certainly on the
> mathematics side (what I studied at school, university and postgraduate)
> but arts are important (words, music, painting, sculpture) in my life.
> Not sure I recognise the two culture divide -- unless one takes
> mathematics as an art; after all my degrees are in Arts.
> ==John ff
>
>> PMA wrote:
>>> Sigurd Saue wrote:
>>>> ...C.P. Snow in..."The Two Cultures"...describes the scientist ...:
>>>>
>>>> «Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is
>>>> in many ways an exactingand admirable one. It doesn't contain
>>>> much art, with the exception, an important exception, of music»
>>>
>>> Thanks for this!
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> I imagine the exception as due firstly to music's being quantitative.
>>