> From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain
beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so.
Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery
of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rather
David W. Fenton wrote:
But there is no single pattern that can be imposed on every measure
of a piece, so that means adjustments need to be made constantly
according to the flow of the music, and it is the ability to perceive
the need for those adjustments and the sense to know the extent of
necess
Or as Materlinck would have it --
"In some strange way we devalue things as soon as we give utterance to them"
Gerald Berg
Richard Huggins wrote:
From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain
b
David Fenton:
While I can shoot down what was wrong with the whole endeavor -- the
main problem was the goal of having definitive "factual" answers to
questions that are not scientific -- I sure as hell wish I could run
MIDI data through an activity analysis program, and get a score that
had 3 act
First you'd have to get everybody to agree on what constitutes a
"beautiful" woman, something I don't think will ever happen, no matter
how many scientists are on the case!
Richard Huggins wrote:
From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is
What will be really intriguing will be when they figure out one person
thinks one thing is beautiful and another thinks the same thing is a
piece of crap -- the way my parents thought Lawrence Welk's orchestra
was beautiful and I definitely did not share their opinion.
That will take some expla
>>Stu McIntyre:
>We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between
>mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old
argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by
>Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is stil
> From: Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...at the rate things are going the beauty of music is unlikely to remain
> beyond understanding for more than another 20 years or so.
Oh let's hope not! I mean, would you really want to "understand" the mystery
of a beautiful woman? Wouldn't you rathe
Stu McIntyre:
We can simply disagree about mysicism. I do make a distinction between
mystery and mysticism, however. This argument reminds me of the old
argument about knowledge or understanding deflating mystery (what was it by
Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey?). The *beauty* of music is still beyon
On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 16:35 America/Vancouver, David W. Fenton
wrote:
Indeed, I don't know of much in the way of computerized analytical
tools at all. I raised this subject a few years ago on the this list
and was pointed in the direction of a handful of programs that seemed
to be design
On 3 Jun 2003 at 13:31, Stu McIntire wrote:
> I don't think what the percussionist's tutor was trying to get out of the
> hapless mechanical student in the original post was really all that
> mysterious; sounds to me like the teacher wasn't very clear or resourceful.
> "Musicality" in this case, m
On 3 Jun 2003 at 9:23, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> Back in my undergrad days I had lunch with one of my theory teachers
> and we discussed some interesting research that had been done into
> finding out how the brain reacts to different types of music. I said
> I thought this might have big i
I am most profoundly not saying that by getting out a magnifying glass, or a
sequencer, to objectify the differences between a student's and a teacher's
realization of a piece, to identify as fully as possible what is different,
that the student can subsequently get to the "IT" of the piece, that t
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Huggins
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:09 PM
To: Finale List
Subject: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of
clefs)OT
So, say you "de-mystify it" by figuring out some measurable unit, which of
course is p
At 2:50 PM -0400 6/03/03, Stu McIntire wrote:
I'm picking a nit, but I think holding that these changes are measurable is
important to me because that is the quality that deflates mysticism, in
general one of my missions in life. To me, if anything different between
two items is discernible, that
At 10:08 PM 6/3/03 +0200, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
>You don't draw up a formula first and then see how it sounds.
Somewhat, but not entirely, tangentially: In algorithmic composition, you
do exactly that. Because there is no way to imagine the results of most
formulas, it is created and then e
: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs)OT
> I'm picking a nit, but I think holding that these changes are measurable
is
> important to me because that is the quality that deflates mysticism, in
> general one of my missions i
So, say you "de-mystify it" by figuring out some measurable unit, which of
course is possible technologically (SMPTE time code comes to mind). The
achievement is there but what have you gained that is of practical use? With
time code you could lock (synchronize) a second something-or-other against
I'm picking a nit, but I think holding that these changes are measurable is
important to me because that is the quality that deflates mysticism, in
general one of my missions in life. To me, if anything different between
two items is discernible, that means that if the quality that is different
is
I wouldn't have given up on you! 'Still not convinced, in principle. Maybe
a few people really can't be, but as a general rule it seems like a theory
that is just not very useful. I've known too many people with apparently no
talent find their way through to something remarkable. I think if you
> From: "Stu McIntire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the
> machine that can't be measured; it is quite simply small but measurable
> changes in "real" attributes of the sounds, and spaces between the sounds,
> that comprise the music.
At 06/03/2003 01:31 PM, Stu McIntire wrote:
>that comprise the music. You can tweak a midi file to sound musical in the
>sense meant by this post, I am convinced. Small adjustments to velocity,
>duration, and pitch as appropriate in a musical context can do the trick. I
>sometimes wonder if met
I don't think what the percussionist's tutor was trying to get out of the
hapless mechanical student in the original post was really all that
mysterious; sounds to me like the teacher wasn't very clear or resourceful.
"Musicality" in this case, maybe most of the time, is not some ghost in the
machi
ct: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musical meaning (or not) of clefs) OT
> At 06/03/2003 11:48 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>
> >At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
> >>Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been
> >>started
At 06/03/2003 11:48 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
>>Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been
>>started?
>>
>>The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart
>>Sonata in C is:
>>
>>sin
> Dang! It only includes pitches, durations, and rhythms. *MY* theory
> includes EVERYTHING,
And I thought I was pretty good at maths... Uh... does your theory come in
shots or pills ...? ;-)
Liudas
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://m
At 4:31 PM +0200 6/03/03, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
Did you know that it [The Grand Unified Music Theory] has already been
started?
The mathematical expression for the first 7 right hand notes of the Mozart
Sonata in C is:
sin(2^((48*(step(t-0)-step(t-.8))+52*(step(t-.8)-step(t-1.2))+55*(step(t-
That's the sign of a mature program where the most commonly encountered
bugs are either gone or the workarounds are such common knowledge that
we don't need to discuss them anymore except occasionally to explain
them to newbies.
It's been years since I was seriously puzzled by how to do things
component. (Pi = 3.1416...)
Liudas
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher BJ Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dennis Bathory-Kitsz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Musicality (was Musica
At 8:18 AM -0400 6/03/03, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote:
Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to
identify.
Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions
newsgroup. :)
Yesterday it was music too fancy
At 12:28 PM 6/3/03 +0100, Steven D Sandiford wrote:
>Musicality - it's a hard thing to define, but such an easy thing to
>identify.
Sometimes I think I've wandered into the alt.finale.romantic-notions
newsgroup. :)
Yesterday it was music too fancy to be notated, today it's mysterious
musicality.
on 31/5/03 11:04 pm, Mark D. Lew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 1:41 PM 05/31/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
>> I'm using the term "musical" in the same sense that you would when
>> you say "well, he may have a conservatory degree, but he's just not
>> very musical." Obviously, that wasn't clear,
32 matches
Mail list logo
