On 7 Feb 2005 at 11:32, Andrew Stiller wrote: > >ere is nothing important in music that comes from science. > > > >-- > David W. Fenton > > You've really got to stop blurting out things like that w.o thinking. > Valved brasses? Boehm-system woodwinds? Electric and electronic > instruments? MIDI? Nylon strings? Computer composition? Computer sound > synthesis? Sound recording?
None of those things is MUSIC. > Are these things not important? not musical? not "from science?" The carpenter's tools are not the point of his work. > Beyond that, there is the less measurable by very important influence > of acoustic and music-psychological theories upon compositional > styles, going back at least to Berlioz. I would be interested to see specific examples in pieces of music where these things produced events in the musical foreground that are traceable back to these theories. Musical meaning has *nothing* to do with acoustics, any more than meaning in language has anything to do with phonemes. Yes, patterns of phonemes produce patterns that convey meaning, but the phonemes themselves MEAN NOTHING. A perfect fifth is one of the phonemens of music. And it's just as meaningless. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
