Discussion:
music & mathematical analysis
(too old to reply)
meeso
2003-10-25 00:45:09 UTC
Permalink
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way. I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music. As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music. I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music. However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.

Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*. I cannot think of a piece
of music as a punch of physical acoustical values that are understood in a
mathematical methodology.

I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).

Maysara
Margo Schulter
2003-10-25 01:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).
Maysara
Dear Maysara,

Please let me agree that indeed the Greek theory relates to tuning ratios
and the like, as does some medieval European and Near Eastern theory: one
of the questions here is just how far is a "mathematical" analysis being
carried. I can tune a neutral second as 12:11 or something very close, as
attributed to Zalzal by al-Farabius, and used in other descriptions of
Near Eastern scales. However, what I improvise should be more intuitive,
based on what I feel, and also my experience and knowledge of making a
_sayr_ or "road" through a _maqam_ or mode. Of course, since I don't have
the benefit of training in the Near Eastern tradition, my _sayr_ may often
reflect medieval European modal patterns, or something that happens when I
perform which might not exact match either cultural tradition -- but I'd
rather do that than come up with some mathematical formula for each note.

In other words, the math (along with synthesizer technology) helps me
tune, but the performance should be more spontaneous, although, again, I
can use mathematics to describe the steps I am making, if I so care (in
the middle of a performance, it would be more a kind of a meditation on
numbers while I am performing intuitively rather than an attempt to
control each step by numbers -- rather like meditating on a poem while I
play music).

Some forms of music do involve intricate mathematical relationships in
form, such the isorhythmic motet of the 14th century; here, the special
charm is that a form which is so precise is also made beautiful in
intuitive ways that a listener can grasp who might not even notice the
fine structural organization.

However, having tuned a scale, I learn about it by performing in it --
with some analysis of the notes and possible melodic patterns and vertical
organization, the latter if I'm playing two or more voices -- but mainly
by the experience or performing and finding a _sayr_ -- a good concept for
medieval European modes as well as the _maqaam_ system.

Of course, a modal system _does_ involve some mathematical permutations,
as with Near Eastern tetrachords with different arrangements of what we
might call in European theory minor, major, and neutral second steps as
well as sometimes augmented seconds or the like (as in Hijaz).

However, the permutation theory, if I might call it that, is relatively
simple -- in comparison to the fine technique of taking a relatively few
notes and tracing out a modal path or road which can carry the music along
artfully and flowingly. Even on a fixed-pitch keyboard, this is an
intricate art; and traditional Near Eastern musicians on flexible
instruments, of course, spend years cultivating both the feeling for a
_sayr_ in a given maqaam (often with shifts from one maqaam to another),
and the fine points of intonation which theory can only very partially
capture.

These are the kinds of distinctions I draw: I love mathematics, and
analysis, but hope that improvisation can carry into an intuitive
territory where these provide a foundation for freedom and spontaneity.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
***@calweb.com
Albert Silverman
2003-10-25 03:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Margo Schulter
These are the kinds of distinctions I draw: I love mathematics, and
analysis, but hope that improvisation can carry into an intuitive
territory where these provide a foundation for freedom and spontaneity.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
No matter how you cut it, Margo, the "theory" which you expound, day in
and day out, does NOTHING AT ALL to help you understand CHORD
RELATIONSHIPS--which is where it at in the music developed during the
common practice period and continuing into today's more generaized
"chord-based" music.

We have been round and round and round on this subject many times in the
past, and we always arrive at the same standoff.


Albert Silverman
(tuned in, but not by the Greeks)
Dr.Matt
2003-10-25 01:01:13 UTC
Permalink
I'd just like to point out that Pitch Set Class Theory is not particularly
mathematical. Certainly the observation that a certain chord is
a member of [0167] is no more mathematical than the observation
that another is serving the function V7.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-25 01:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way.
You might consider whether grammar is a useful tool in describing literature.
Post by meeso
I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music.
Exactly so. Why does it need to? Just as a consideration of grammatical
structure does little or nothing to help in the aesthetic interpretation of
Shakespeare or Hardy, so mathematical methods will probably not yield much of
an aesthetic interpretation of music--unless you first construct an aesthetic
model essentially based on grammar or mathematics. As to "theoretical
interpretation", I hardly know what that might mean in this context. A
mathematical theory is of course subject to interpretation as mathematics,
but ...
Post by meeso
As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music.
I'm not at all clear what you mean by this. If what you are saying is that an
understanding of grammar is of no use to a person who wants to write poetry,
that may well be true, but a certain adherence to the grammatical rules--or a
deliberate deviation from them, which implies that they are understood--is
nevertheless usually expected.
Post by meeso
I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music.
"Mathematics" is used to examine music of all sorts--depending a bit on what
you mean by "mathematics", of course.
Post by meeso
However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.
One could argue (and it has been so argued for centuries) that music has no
"meaning", apart from itself. If that "self" is wholly describable by
mathematics, then there is no distortion possible, and no abstraction at all.
Why are you assuming that a mathematical device is "non-descriptive"?
Post by meeso
Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*.
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-10-25 03:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.....................

etc., ad infinitum


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-25 04:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.....................
etc., ad infinitum
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that even good workmen blame their
tools?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-25 12:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.....................
etc., ad infinitum
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Al.
Where's your music already? We've been patient. Twelve years.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2003-10-26 06:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.....................
etc., ad infinitum
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Al.
Where's your music already? We've been patient. Twelve years.
And we've been patients for a great many years. But the "doctor" has not
cured us yet.

Perhaps if he would explain the difference between homophony and
polyphony? And oh yes, perhaps he would explain how a sequence of block
chords constitutes polyphony!


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the difference between "doctors" and patients.
Dr.Matt
2003-10-26 11:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
None of this in any way denies mathematics (or more specifically set theory)
from being used to describe the resulting music. You might just as well
object that playing upon the piano invalidates the music you produce--it's
only a tool and, as the proverb goes, "only a poor workman blames his tools".
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.....................
etc., ad infinitum
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Al.
Where's your music already? We've been patient. Twelve years.
And we've been patients for a great many years. But the "doctor" has not
cured us yet.
Perhaps if he would explain the difference between homophony and
polyphony? And oh yes, perhaps he would explain how a sequence of block
chords constitutes polyphony!
Al, I've been through that for you publicly right here several
times. And if you like, I'll demonstrate it at the piano. My answer
to your question is archived. Where's your answer to mine?
Post by Albert Silverman
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the difference between "doctors" and patients.
Admit it, Al, the whole of your presentation is ad hominems against
anybody who doesn't worship you. There's no actual music backing your
claims, and thus you're in no position to help youngsters to better
make *their* music.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
meeso
2003-10-26 00:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
You might consider whether grammar is a useful tool in describing literature.
It's not. I firmly believe that one *attain* language. one does not learn
it.
Yes grammar could be used as an aid to literature interpretation. But I
don't think it could be used as the only or the basic method of
interpretation.
Lookup here, I couldn't even say literature *analysis* (& I never heard of
it). while the word *interpretation* suggests that one will conduct a
philosophical thinking rather than the mechanical abstracting grammatical
analysis. I think of analyzing literature using Grammar exactly the same
as analyzing music using Mathematics or/& acoustics.

I certainly want music interpretation to be very similar to *text*
interpretation. Because in text, we spontaneously look for a meaning. We
do not compare words to each other in a sentence or paragraph, we do not
consider words, prefixes, suffixes, as meaningful in itself. we do not
even isolate them form the context. what is the context ? isn't it the
*meaning* ? the intellectual construction ? As much as words have no
constructive intellectual meaning without a context, I want for *notes* to
have no meaning without a musical constructive context. (& whatever that
may be). Further more, I wish that a music theory will enable children
some day to attain music language rather than learn it. Including a
sufficient interpretation, to different musics from different places &
epochs.
Post by Jerry Kohl
One could argue (and it has been so argued for centuries) that music has
no "meaning", apart from itself. If that "self" is wholly describable by
mathematics, then there is no distortion possible, and no abstraction at
all. Why are you assuming that a mathematical device is
"non-descriptive"?
In the same tune: Everything has no meaning apart from itself. &
mathematics is descriptive to music as much as *anything in the world*
that could be used for describing (I think I read once that someone was
teaching & interpreting music by dancing). I just like to think about *how
sufficient* these tools (devices). What methodology they have to follow.
what kind of output they offer. & before all, how exactly they *overload
or abstract* (distortion) the content of the subject described (add their
complexities & self-deconstruction as languages of interpretation to the
subject described) . & that's what I was trying to demonstrate about
Mathematical analysis in my first post. (re-read it then).

Maysara
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 04:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
Post by Jerry Kohl
You might consider whether grammar is a useful tool in describing literature.
It's not.
Nothing I can say then.
Post by meeso
I firmly believe that one *attain* language. one does not learn
it.
Yes grammar could be used as an aid to literature interpretation.
Isn't that a contradiction to what you just said? Or are you saying that
grammar is a tool for literary *interpretation*, but not for *description*?
If so, then how do you distinguish description and interpretation?
Post by meeso
But I
don't think it could be used as the only or the basic method of
interpretation.
Of course not. That is exactly what I said. No more, no less.
Post by meeso
Lookup here, I couldn't even say literature *analysis* (& I never heard of
it). while the word *interpretation* suggests that one will conduct a
philosophical thinking rather than the mechanical abstracting grammatical
analysis. I think of analyzing literature using Grammar exactly the same
as analyzing music using Mathematics or/& acoustics.
That was the analogy I suggested you try, yes.
Post by meeso
I certainly want music interpretation to be very similar to *text*
interpretation. Because in text, we spontaneously look for a meaning. We
do not compare words to each other in a sentence or paragraph, we do not
consider words, prefixes, suffixes, as meaningful in itself. we do not
even isolate them form the context. what is the context ? isn't it the
*meaning* ? the intellectual construction ? As much as words have no
constructive intellectual meaning without a context, I want for *notes* to
have no meaning without a musical constructive context. (& whatever that
may be). Further more, I wish that a music theory will enable children
some day to attain music language rather than learn it. Including a
sufficient interpretation, to different musics from different places &
epochs.
OK, fine. So what? You asked for some help in understanding what set theory
was good for. Now it sounds like you are telling me it's good for nothing at
all, simply because what it is good for is not what you *want* it to be good
for! I can't make it do something it's not designed for, any more than I can
make a microscope good for cutting down a tree.
Post by meeso
Post by Jerry Kohl
One could argue (and it has been so argued for centuries) that music has
no "meaning", apart from itself. If that "self" is wholly describable by
mathematics, then there is no distortion possible, and no abstraction at
all. Why are you assuming that a mathematical device is
"non-descriptive"?
In the same tune: Everything has no meaning apart from itself. &
mathematics is descriptive to music as much as *anything in the world*
that could be used for describing (I think I read once that someone was
teaching & interpreting music by dancing). I just like to think about *how
sufficient* these tools (devices). What methodology they have to follow.
what kind of output they offer. & before all, how exactly they *overload
or abstract* (distortion) the content of the subject described (add their
complexities & self-deconstruction as languages of interpretation to the
subject described) . & that's what I was trying to demonstrate about
Mathematical analysis in my first post. (re-read it then).
I'm sorry, but I'm not following this. You seem angry about something, but
what it might be, I cannot tell.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-26 12:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
Post by Jerry Kohl
You might consider whether grammar is a useful tool in describing literature.
It's not. I firmly believe that one *attain* language. one does not learn
it.
Hm.
Compare the first pages of "Last of the Mohicans" by James F
Cooper, "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville, "Ulysses" by James Joyce,
"Slapstick" by Kurt Vonnegut, and "Midnight's Children" by Salman
Rushdie. Somehow, these strike me as five very different, uniquely
personal approaches to *grammar* as well as to storytelling. The
business of getting used to how the words go together is an inextricable
part of "falling under the spell of" the story.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2003-10-25 03:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way. I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music. As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music. I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music. However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.
Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*. I cannot think of a piece
of music as a punch of physical acoustical values that are understood in a
mathematical methodology.
I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).
Maysara
You are of course absolutely correct in your assessment. Hopefully I have
helped you come to this conclusion.

In short, what is so commonly referred to as musical "theory" *has little
if any relation to the manner in which the music is HEARD*. The very
essence of "chord-based" theory (developed during the common practice
period of musical composition) is a *man-made* construct, without any
acoustic (i.e., mathematical) basis. I am referring here to "chord
relationships." It matters not one whit to me that those who inhabit this
newsgroup have not, do not, and never will understand this basic fact.
They can talk about "tuning" and other such acoustic-related phenomena
until they are blue in the face, and this will not help them to understand
this music.

NEVER.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-25 04:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by meeso
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way. I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music. As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music. I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music. However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.
Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*. I cannot think of a piece
of music as a punch of physical acoustical values that are understood in a
mathematical methodology.
I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).
Maysara
You are of course absolutely correct in your assessment. Hopefully I have
helped you come to this conclusion.
Maysara, I think you may be in trouble here ...
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, what is so commonly referred to as musical "theory" *has little
if any relation to the manner in which the music is HEARD*. The very
essence of "chord-based" theory (developed during the common practice
period of musical composition) is a *man-made* construct, without any
acoustic (i.e., mathematical) basis. I am referring here to "chord
relationships." It matters not one whit to me that those who inhabit this
newsgroup have not, do not, and never will understand this basic fact.
They can talk about "tuning" and other such acoustic-related phenomena
until they are blue in the face, and this will not help them to understand
this music.
NEVER.
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-10-26 07:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
You are of course absolutely correct in your assessment. Hopefully I have
helped you come to this conclusion.
Maysara, I think you may be in trouble here ...
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, what is so commonly referred to as musical "theory" *has little
if any relation to the manner in which the music is HEARD*. The very
essence of "chord-based" theory (developed during the common practice
period of musical composition) is a *man-made* construct, without any
acoustic (i.e., mathematical) basis. I am referring here to "chord
relationships." It matters not one whit to me that those who inhabit this
newsgroup have not, do not, and never will understand this basic fact.
They can talk about "tuning" and other such acoustic-related phenomena
until they are blue in the face, and this will not help them to understand
this music.
NEVER.
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
I am talking specifically about *chord-based* music, not about what some
refer to as "atonal" music--but without having any reasonable and
consistent definition of what this means.

There are different branches of music theory, and it is simply not
possible to lump them all together into one grand "theory of everything."
The idea of "chord relationships," for example, has no applicability to
the works of Schoenberg, Weber, Varese, and Wolpe. So my point of view
certainly does not apply to these works.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 07:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
I am talking specifically about *chord-based* music, not about what some
refer to as "atonal" music--but without having any reasonable and
consistent definition of what this means.
OK, I can live with that. (And I take it that you mean both "chord based" and
"atonal" when you say we are not insisting on any reasonable and consistent
definition.)
Post by Albert Silverman
There are different branches of music theory, and it is simply not
possible to lump them all together into one grand "theory of everything."
No, of course not.
Post by Albert Silverman
The idea of "chord relationships," for example, has no applicability to
the works of Schoenberg, Weber, Varese, and Wolpe. So my point of view
certainly does not apply to these works.
Well, if we are bracketing "chord" (along with "chord based"), then we have no
reason to suppose that relationships among such things are of importance to our
discussion. So, tell me some more about the music of these composers, and how we
ought to be describing (i.e., theorizing about) them. Unless you mean to say that
your "point of view ... does not apply to these works" precisely *because* "chord
relationships" have no applicability there.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-26 11:45:35 UTC
Permalink
There are, of course, chords all over the works of Schoenberg, Wolpe,
Varese, etc. Just not the kinds of chords Mr. Silverman is prepared
to discuss. There are also chords all over the works of e.g. Schubert,
but again these are not chords Mr. Silverman is prepared to discuss
(ten years waiting for his account of Erlkoenig, folks). Mr Silverman
is prepared to discuss Old Folks At Home in his own simplified arrangement.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 17:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
There are, of course, chords all over the works of Schoenberg, Wolpe,
Varese, etc. Just not the kinds of chords Mr. Silverman is prepared
to discuss. There are also chords all over the works of e.g. Schubert,
but again these are not chords Mr. Silverman is prepared to discuss
(ten years waiting for his account of Erlkoenig, folks). Mr Silverman
is prepared to discuss Old Folks At Home in his own simplified arrangement.
Which is why I am prepared to bracket the word "chord" when talking with AS.
There are, after all, differing understandings of the word, and clearly he is
opposed to one such interpretation, though he is not very good about
explaining what it is. OK, so let's use different words, like "sets" or
"note-groups" or something.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-26 22:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
There are, of course, chords all over the works of Schoenberg, Wolpe,
Varese, etc. Just not the kinds of chords Mr. Silverman is prepared
to discuss. There are also chords all over the works of e.g. Schubert,
but again these are not chords Mr. Silverman is prepared to discuss
(ten years waiting for his account of Erlkoenig, folks). Mr Silverman
is prepared to discuss Old Folks At Home in his own simplified arrangement.
Which is why I am prepared to bracket the word "chord" when talking with AS.
There are, after all, differing understandings of the word, and clearly he is
opposed to one such interpretation, though he is not very good about
explaining what it is. OK, so let's use different words, like "sets" or
"note-groups" or something.
But of course, outside of the wonderland of Albert Silverman,
the harmonies of Erlkoenig (which was picked when Al started harping
about dim7 chords a decade ago) are known as chords.

Consider Bach's 2-part Invention No.1, mm.15-19. Al hasn't
reported an analysis of these bars, though he claimed 9 years
ago on the newsgroups that he had one.

Using the methodology posted in Al's messages, though, we get
{4}-{3}-{2}-{1}-{11}, where the motion from {1} to {11} is not a
continuation of the previous falling fifths motion but a leap to an
arbitary location so far from {1} that absolutely anything can follow
from it.

Using ordinary methodology, we get vi - ii - V6 - I - IV, i.e.
that the falling fifths motion reaches the tonic and CONTINUES
PAST IT one more step to IV, after which we expect a series of cadences
V-I, IV-V-I (and indeed this is what Bach writes).

I claim the second description, which is totally contrary to
everything Silverman has posted up to now, is how ordinary
listeners hear the music, and the explanation generated by
mechanically applying Silverman's methods does not describe
how the music sounds.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 23:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
There are, of course, chords all over the works of Schoenberg, Wolpe,
Varese, etc. Just not the kinds of chords Mr. Silverman is prepared
to discuss. There are also chords all over the works of e.g. Schubert,
but again these are not chords Mr. Silverman is prepared to discuss
(ten years waiting for his account of Erlkoenig, folks). Mr Silverman
is prepared to discuss Old Folks At Home in his own simplified arrangement.
Which is why I am prepared to bracket the word "chord" when talking with AS.
There are, after all, differing understandings of the word, and clearly he is
opposed to one such interpretation, though he is not very good about
explaining what it is. OK, so let's use different words, like "sets" or
"note-groups" or something.
But of course, outside of the wonderland of Albert Silverman,
the harmonies of Erlkoenig (which was picked when Al started harping
about dim7 chords a decade ago) are known as chords.
Consider Bach's 2-part Invention No.1, mm.15-19. Al hasn't
reported an analysis of these bars, though he claimed 9 years
ago on the newsgroups that he had one.
Hmm. Ten years, nine years ... but who's counting, right? I hope you've not been
holding your breath (and I, for my part, won't be expecting his analysis of
Erwartung anytime soon).

BTW, I've changed the subject line--it's been driving me crazy, because no-one
yet on this thread has suggested even the possibility that we might be discussing
the analysis of mathematics throufg music!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-27 00:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Hmm. Ten years, nine years ... but who's counting, right? I hope you've not been
holding your breath (and I, for my part, won't be expecting his analysis of
Erwartung anytime soon).
You had Erwartung in the pipeline? NO, really, when asked to describe
Schubert's Erlkoenig (not Schoenberg's Erwartung), he said he would
get around to it as soon as somebody posted the score to the Internet.
I served the entire score as GIFs from my web site for over 6 months.
He said he'd get around to posting an analysis as soon as sombody
transcribed the score into text in a newsgroup. Finally somebody started
posting it, 16 bars at a time. Albert posted 8 different chords in m.2.
Post by Jerry Kohl
BTW, I've changed the subject line--it's been driving me crazy, because no-one
yet on this thread has suggested even the possibility that we might be discussing
the analysis of mathematics throufg music!
Yeah, usually I use a cover made of open balls, a metric space, and limits
to do analysis of mathematics... yow, it's been a long time since I did that.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-27 01:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Hmm. Ten years, nine years ... but who's counting, right? I hope you've not been
holding your breath (and I, for my part, won't be expecting his analysis of
Erwartung anytime soon).
You had Erwartung in the pipeline?
Well, that was the piece I suggested he use to illustrate his point. He didn't
actually agree to anything but, when the gauntlet is thrown at one's feet, it is
customary either to pick it up or, by not doing so, tacitly concede defeat and beg
forgiveness.
Post by Dr.Matt
NO, really, when asked to describe
Schubert's Erlkoenig (not Schoenberg's Erwartung),
They are anagrams of each other (well, near enough ;-)
Post by Dr.Matt
he said he would
get around to it as soon as somebody posted the score to the Internet.
I served the entire score as GIFs from my web site for over 6 months.
He said he'd get around to posting an analysis as soon as sombody
transcribed the score into text in a newsgroup. Finally somebody started
posting it, 16 bars at a time. Albert posted 8 different chords in m.2.
I thought he said chords don't exist? (Oh, never mind, I don't think I want to know
...)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
ElectricWind
2003-10-27 07:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Yeah, usually I use a cover made of open balls, a metric space, and limits
to do analysis of mathematics... yow, it's been a long time since I did that.
I don't get it.
Post by Dr.Matt
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
2003-10-27 12:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ElectricWind
Post by Dr.Matt
Yeah, usually I use a cover made of open balls, a metric space, and limits
to do analysis of mathematics... yow, it's been a long time since I did
that.
I don't get it.
Look up +"Real analysis" +mathematics on the web and see what you come up with.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
paramucho
2003-10-27 02:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by ElectricWind
Post by Dr.Matt
Yeah, usually I use a cover made of open balls, a metric space, and limits
to do analysis of mathematics... yow, it's been a long time since I did
that.
I don't get it.
Look up +"Real analysis" +mathematics on the web and see what you come up with.
And then subtract the number you first thought of...
Greg M. Silverman
2003-10-28 16:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by ElectricWind
Post by Dr.Matt
Yeah, usually I use a cover made of open balls, a metric space, and limits
to do analysis of mathematics... yow, it's been a long time since I did
that.
I don't get it.
Look up +"Real analysis" +mathematics on the web and see what you come up with.
I have very fond memories of Rudin! Who can forget constructing the
Dedekind numbers. :-)

gms--
Albert Silverman
2003-10-27 23:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
I am talking specifically about *chord-based* music, not about what some
refer to as "atonal" music--but without having any reasonable and
consistent definition of what this means.
OK, I can live with that. (And I take it that you mean both "chord based" and
"atonal" when you say we are not insisting on any reasonable and consistent
definition.)
Post by Albert Silverman
There are different branches of music theory, and it is simply not
possible to lump them all together into one grand "theory of everything."
No, of course not.
Post by Albert Silverman
The idea of "chord relationships," for example, has no applicability to
the works of Schoenberg, Weber, Varese, and Wolpe. So my point of view
certainly does not apply to these works.
Well, if we are bracketing "chord" (along with "chord based"), then we have no
reason to suppose that relationships among such things are of importance to our
discussion. So, tell me some more about the music of these composers, and how we
ought to be describing (i.e., theorizing about) them. Unless you mean to say that
your "point of view ... does not apply to these works" precisely *because* "chord
relationships" have no applicability there.
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
You are missing the point. My "point of view" is *not* that the works to
which you refer are "unimportant" and have no real place in the music
spectrum. Rather, it is my firm belief that chord-based music theory
(namely, so-called "traditional" theory) is *improperly formulated* and
cannot possibly serve as a basis for understanding this music. In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.

In other words, I am not interested in attempting to define a theoretical
basis for the works of the composers whom you mention. Rather, it is my
purpose to develop a *rational* explanation of chord-based principles. I
do *not* see such an explanation anywhere on the academic horizon. Their
purpose and focus is to promulgate an archaic, absurd Ancient Theory, *in
the interest of historical preservation*--and to hell with any
understanding of the underlying musical principles.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-28 01:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
I am talking specifically about *chord-based* music, not about what some
refer to as "atonal" music--but without having any reasonable and
consistent definition of what this means.
OK, I can live with that. (And I take it that you mean both "chord based" and
"atonal" when you say we are not insisting on any reasonable and consistent
definition.)
Post by Albert Silverman
There are different branches of music theory, and it is simply not
possible to lump them all together into one grand "theory of everything."
No, of course not.
Post by Albert Silverman
The idea of "chord relationships," for example, has no applicability to
the works of Schoenberg, Weber, Varese, and Wolpe. So my point of view
certainly does not apply to these works.
Well, if we are bracketing "chord" (along with "chord based"), then we have no
reason to suppose that relationships among such things are of importance to our
discussion. So, tell me some more about the music of these composers, and how we
ought to be describing (i.e., theorizing about) them. Unless you mean to say that
your "point of view ... does not apply to these works" precisely *because* "chord
relationships" have no applicability there.
[snip]
You are missing the point. My "point of view" is *not* that the works to
which you refer are "unimportant" and have no real place in the music
spectrum.
Well, if you think that is what I am saying, then I'm not the only one who is missing
the point. Let me clarify: I do not believe that you are dismissing the music of
Schoenberg, Webern, Varese or Wolpe.
Post by Jerry Kohl
Rather, it is my firm belief that chord-based music theory
(namely, so-called "traditional" theory) is *improperly formulated* and
cannot possibly serve as a basis for understanding this music.
Well, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it seems to me that it makes no
difference whether traditional theory is formulated properly or not, since it is
intended to describe music of quite a different nature that most of that composed by
hese four composers. Until someone comes up with a truly amazing demonstration, I
don't believe Erwartung can be explained by this traditional theory.
Post by Jerry Kohl
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
Post by Jerry Kohl
In other words, I am not interested in attempting to define a theoretical
basis for the works of the composers whom you mention.
Why on earth not, if understanding their music is essential in order to be musically
literate?!
Post by Jerry Kohl
Rather, it is my
purpose to develop a *rational* explanation of chord-based principles.
OK, I now understand that you are not opposed at all to the idea of "chords", just
that you feel the traditional theory of them is faulty.
Post by Jerry Kohl
I
do *not* see such an explanation anywhere on the academic horizon. Their
purpose and focus is to promulgate an archaic, absurd Ancient Theory, *in
the interest of historical preservation*--and to hell with any
understanding of the underlying musical principles.
I think you're dead wrong here, but I'm open to persuasion. Can we just clarify one
thing: are you or are you not interested in discussing theoretical approaches to the
atonal music of Schoenberg, Webern, Varese and Wolpe--music the understanding of
which, in your words, "is essential if one is to be considered musically literate"? Or
am I misunderstanding you in some way?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-10-28 20:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
I am talking specifically about *chord-based* music, not about what some
refer to as "atonal" music--but without having any reasonable and
consistent definition of what this means.
OK, I can live with that. (And I take it that you mean both "chord based" and
"atonal" when you say we are not insisting on any reasonable and consistent
definition.)
Post by Albert Silverman
There are different branches of music theory, and it is simply not
possible to lump them all together into one grand "theory of everything."
No, of course not.
Post by Albert Silverman
The idea of "chord relationships," for example, has no applicability to
the works of Schoenberg, Weber, Varese, and Wolpe. So my point of view
certainly does not apply to these works.
Well, if we are bracketing "chord" (along with "chord based"), then we have no
reason to suppose that relationships among such things are of importance to our
discussion. So, tell me some more about the music of these composers, and how we
ought to be describing (i.e., theorizing about) them. Unless you mean to say that
your "point of view ... does not apply to these works" precisely *because* "chord
relationships" have no applicability there.
[snip]
You are missing the point. My "point of view" is *not* that the works to
which you refer are "unimportant" and have no real place in the music
spectrum.
Well, if you think that is what I am saying, then I'm not the only one who is missing
the point. Let me clarify: I do not believe that you are dismissing the music of
Schoenberg, Webern, Varese or Wolpe.
Post by Jerry Kohl
Rather, it is my firm belief that chord-based music theory
(namely, so-called "traditional" theory) is *improperly formulated* and
cannot possibly serve as a basis for understanding this music.
Well, I couldn't agree with you more. However, it seems to me that it makes no
difference whether traditional theory is formulated properly or not, since it is
intended to describe music of quite a different nature that most of that composed by
hese four composers. Until someone comes up with a truly amazing demonstration, I
don't believe Erwartung can be explained by this traditional theory.
Post by Jerry Kohl
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
In other words, I am not interested in attempting to define a theoretical
basis for the works of the composers whom you mention.
Why on earth not, if understanding their music is essential in order to be musically
literate?!
See my above statement.
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Rather, it is my
purpose to develop a *rational* explanation of chord-based principles.
OK, I now understand that you are not opposed at all to the idea of "chords", just
that you feel the traditional theory of them is faulty.
At last, it looks like you get my point!
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
I
do *not* see such an explanation anywhere on the academic horizon. Their
purpose and focus is to promulgate an archaic, absurd Ancient Theory, *in
the interest of historical preservation*--and to hell with any
understanding of the underlying musical principles.
I think you're dead wrong here, but I'm open to persuasion. Can we just clarify one
thing: are you or are you not interested in discussing theoretical approaches to the
atonal music of Schoenberg, Webern, Varese and Wolpe--music the understanding of
which, in your words, "is essential if one is to be considered musically literate"? Or
am I misunderstanding you in some way?
As I said above, you are misunderstanding my statement about it being
"essential" to understand certain music. To repeat: my statement was
referring to the music of the common practice period. Because this music
is so poorly "explained" by traditional theory, I am concentrating my
efforts upon formulating a *relevant* explanation of chord-based theory.

Furthermore, it is of course this same *theory* (don't confuse it with
"style") which underlies so-called "popular" music. The tragedy of musical
theoretical educationn is that those who perform and compose this music do
*not* understand the underlying theory of it!


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
-- > Jerry
Kohl <***@comcast.net> > "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-28 20:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Ooops, now you're referring to the common practice period.
Have you ever actually had any contact with music of the commn practice
period? How come your analysis of Erlkoenig, which you promised
9 years ago, has still not appeared, when most of us did it in
a week or two when we were undergraduates?
Post by Albert Silverman
As I said above, you are misunderstanding my statement about it being
"essential" to understand certain music. To repeat: my statement was
referring to the music of the common practice period. Because this music
is so poorly "explained" by traditional theory, I am concentrating my
efforts upon formulating a *relevant* explanation of chord-based theory.
Explain Erlkoenig.
Post by Albert Silverman
Furthermore, it is of course this same *theory* (don't confuse it with
"style") which underlies so-called "popular" music. The tragedy of musical
theoretical educationn is that those who perform and compose this music do
*not* understand the underlying theory of it!
A common theory underlies common-practice music and pop music in
the same way that a common theory underlies common-practice music and
the collected works of Arnold Schoenberg.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-28 22:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?


--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-29 01:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-29 04:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-10-29 06:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.
I thought that I explained this! My motivation is to present a *rational,
coherent, relevant, and aurally-correlatable* theory of chord
relationships. This is the portion of traditional theory which deals with
chord progression and the *dynamic* connection among chords.

This is also the subject that is *not* understand by this group's Doctor
Strangelogic, whose purpose here is to impress others with his knowledge
of a horde of irrelevant musical trivia. A few of us around here are smart
enough to know what he is up to, and to know what he does *not* know--the
fundamentals of chord-based theory.

It is amazing how Ancient Theory erects an almost impenetrable barrier to
understanding. Authoritarianism at its finest (well almost; there is one
superior purveyor of Authority in this universe). In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
just listen to Papa (one spelling of the word; perhaps you can think of
another)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-29 07:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if
one is to be
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.
I thought that I explained this!
No, you did not explain why you horned in on a thread about set-theoretical
analusis of atonal music.
Post by Albert Silverman
My motivation is to present a *rational,
coherent, relevant, and aurally-correlatable* theory of chord
relationships. This is the portion of traditional theory which deals with
chord progression and the *dynamic* connection among chords.
But, what does "traditional theory" have to do with the analysis of atonal music?
Post by Albert Silverman
This is also the subject that is *not* understand by this group's Doctor
Strangelogic, whose purpose here is to impress others with his knowledge
of a horde of irrelevant musical trivia.
So what? The question you are meant to be answering here is: Why did you horn in on
a discussion of atonal music analysis?
Post by Albert Silverman
A few of us around here are smart
enough to know what he is up to, and to know what he does *not* know--the
fundamentals of chord-based theory.
A few of us around here are smart enough to figure out what this thread started out
being concerned with, and wish to stick to that thread.
Post by Albert Silverman
It is amazing how Ancient Theory erects an almost impenetrable barrier to
understanding.
Especially when it is not even remotely relevant to the subject under discussion?
Post by Albert Silverman
Authoritarianism at its finest (well almost; there is one
superior purveyor of Authority in this universe). In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Authoritarianism is yet *another* subject that was not being discussed on this
thread. So why are you trying to impose your agenda on a completely unrelated
discussion unless, as Dr. Matt said, "others were presenting information without
any of his control"?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-29 12:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if
one is to be
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.
I thought that I explained this! My motivation is to present a *rational,
coherent, relevant, and aurally-correlatable* theory of chord
relationships. This is the portion of traditional theory which deals with
chord progression and the *dynamic* connection among chords.
This is also the subject that is *not* understand by this group's Doctor
Strangelogic, whose purpose here is to impress others with his knowledge
of a horde of irrelevant musical trivia. A few of us around here are smart
enough to know what he is up to, and to know what he does *not* know--the
fundamentals of chord-based theory.
It is amazing how Ancient Theory erects an almost impenetrable barrier to
understanding. Authoritarianism at its finest (well almost; there is one
superior purveyor of Authority in this universe). In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
just listen to Papa (one spelling of the word; perhaps you can think of
another)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
While demonstrating exactly what I was describing--making ad hominem remarks
about your betters--you still did not explain why you interrupted a
discussion of mathematics and particularly atonal theory to talk about
your theory. That was Jerry's question, and while you may feel you have
answered it, really you have just supplied evidence supporting my answer to it.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2003-11-01 07:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if
one is to be
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.
I thought that I explained this! My motivation is to present a *rational,
coherent, relevant, and aurally-correlatable* theory of chord
relationships. This is the portion of traditional theory which deals with
chord progression and the *dynamic* connection among chords.
This is also the subject that is *not* understand by this group's Doctor
Strangelogic, whose purpose here is to impress others with his knowledge
of a horde of irrelevant musical trivia. A few of us around here are smart
enough to know what he is up to, and to know what he does *not* know--the
fundamentals of chord-based theory.
It is amazing how Ancient Theory erects an almost impenetrable barrier to
understanding. Authoritarianism at its finest (well almost; there is one
superior purveyor of Authority in this universe). In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
just listen to Papa (one spelling of the word; perhaps you can think of
another)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
While demonstrating exactly what I was describing--making ad hominem remarks
about your betters--you still did not explain why you interrupted a
discussion of mathematics and particularly atonal theory to talk about
your theory. That was Jerry's question, and while you may feel you have
answered it, really you have just supplied evidence supporting my answer to it.
The title of this thread does *not* mention "atonal" theory--whatever that
may be.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-01 08:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if
one is to be
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because his sole purpose is to attempt to discredit his betters, and
others were presenting information without any of his control.
Well, I concede that it looks that way to me, as well, but I'd still like to
hear from AS himself about his motivation.
I thought that I explained this! My motivation is to present a *rational,
coherent, relevant, and aurally-correlatable* theory of chord
relationships. This is the portion of traditional theory which deals with
chord progression and the *dynamic* connection among chords.
This is also the subject that is *not* understand by this group's Doctor
Strangelogic, whose purpose here is to impress others with his knowledge
of a horde of irrelevant musical trivia. A few of us around here are smart
enough to know what he is up to, and to know what he does *not* know--the
fundamentals of chord-based theory.
It is amazing how Ancient Theory erects an almost impenetrable barrier to
understanding. Authoritarianism at its finest (well almost; there is one
superior purveyor of Authority in this universe). In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
just listen to Papa (one spelling of the word; perhaps you can think of
another)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
While demonstrating exactly what I was describing--making ad hominem remarks
about your betters--you still did not explain why you interrupted a
discussion of mathematics and particularly atonal theory to talk about
your theory. That was Jerry's question, and while you may feel you have
answered it, really you have just supplied evidence supporting my answer to it.
The title of this thread does *not* mention "atonal" theory--whatever that
may be.
If you had been paying attention, instead of merely jumping into the middle of a
thread that you did not understand, you would have been aware that meeso had
Post by Albert Silverman
I just don't get it. I've been reading for the last couple of days about
that issue & I still don't get it.
how exactly terms like "inclusion under transposition/inversion"
*describe* atonal music ? In what manner this theory is used ?
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-11-01 18:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.

*MEANINGLESS*


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-01 19:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any number of
people on this group who could enlighten you.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Richard White
2003-11-01 19:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any number of
people on this group who could enlighten you.
Jerry,

Feeding the resident troll only keeps him here. He's not playing with a
full deck; and what he doesn't tell people is the "Joker Is Wild."
This, unfortunately, can only be discovered after they've sat down to
play and been fleeced by him a number of times. ;-)

Respectfully,
Richard White
--
Visit me at: http://www.whitcopress.com
Newly Updated With Many Sample Scores and Sound Files (Mp3)
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
'A Merry Little Christmas' - Elektra #62572-2/4
Albert Silverman
2003-11-03 05:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any number of
people on this group who could enlighten you.
Jerry,
Feeding the resident troll only keeps him here. He's not playing with a
full deck; and what he doesn't tell people is the "Joker Is Wild."
This, unfortunately, can only be discovered after they've sat down to
play and been fleeced by him a number of times. ;-)
Respectfully,
Richard White
Golly gee, Richard. I haven't heard *your* definition of "atonal." Let's
hear it now, so that I can be educated.



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Albert Silverman
2003-11-03 05:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any number of
people on this group who could enlighten you.
And *I* reiterate: There is not even *one* here who has a definition of
"atonal." The reason, of course, is that this "concept" is undefined, and
therefore

*MEANINGLESS*

But if you think that *you* know what it "means," then let's hear it--and
I will tear it into little bits and pieces.



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-03 06:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask? There are any
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any number of
people on this group who could enlighten you.
And *I* reiterate: There is not even *one* here who has a definition of
"atonal." The reason, of course, is that this "concept" is undefined, and
therefore
*MEANINGLESS*
But if you think that *you* know what it "means," then let's hear it--and
I will tear it into little bits and pieces.
Well, at least I now know which word you were referring to. What puzzles me is, where
did you ever get the idea that I (of all people) know what "atonal" *means*? I've been
railing about the meaninglessness of this word for decades!!

Now, as for "Atonal Theory", and the prior discussion thereof, I of course assumed
(incorrectly, it would seem), that you were already familiar with "The Structure of
Atonal Music" (that is, the book by Allan Forte), and the many associated books and
articles by such luminaries as Donald Martino, Milton Babbitt, the late David Lewin,
amongst many others. It is to this body of literature that I refer and, if you are also
familiar with my own published writings on the subject, you will be aware of my own
critical (but by no means dismissive) attitude to this corpus.

Now, go ahead, tear me into little bits and pieces. I don't mind in the least. In fact,
I look forward to it. But it is only fair to warn you: I give as good as I get--usually,
quite a lot better, in fact.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-11-03 07:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask?
There are any
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any
number of
Post by Jerry Kohl
people on this group who could enlighten you.
And *I* reiterate: There is not even *one* here who has a definition of
"atonal." The reason, of course, is that this "concept" is undefined, and
therefore
*MEANINGLESS*
But if you think that *you* know what it "means," then let's hear it--and
I will tear it into little bits and pieces.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Al, everybody else here has been able to follow the vocabulary
of ordinary music theory. It's only you who suffers this peculiar
form of aphasia.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-03 08:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Now, if you don't know what "atonal" theory is, why don't you ask?
There are any
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
number of people on this group who know, and could enlighten you.
No, there are NOT. Furthermore, YOU do not know, although you have some
self-perceived definition of a MEANINGLESS word.
*MEANINGLESS*
And what word would that be, pray tell? And I reiterate: there are any
number of
Post by Jerry Kohl
people on this group who could enlighten you.
And *I* reiterate: There is not even *one* here who has a definition of
"atonal." The reason, of course, is that this "concept" is undefined, and
therefore
*MEANINGLESS*
But if you think that *you* know what it "means," then let's hear it--and
I will tear it into little bits and pieces.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Al, everybody else here has been able to follow the vocabulary
of ordinary music theory. It's only you who suffers this peculiar
form of aphasia.
Pity it's not asphyxia ... wait! I didn't say that! It was my evil twin!!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Hans J. Ude
2003-11-01 21:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Takr a look at www.chordwizard.de . Some say it's bullshit, some don't
understand but some others do understnd

Hans
Albert Silverman
2003-11-03 05:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans J. Ude
Takr a look at www.chordwizard.de . Some say it's bullshit, some don't
understand but some others do understnd
Hans
Yes, they do understand that it is indeed Bullshit--spelled with a capital
B.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-03 06:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Hans J. Ude
Takr a look at www.chordwizard.de . Some say it's bullshit, some don't
understand but some others do understnd
Hans
Yes, they do understand that it is indeed Bullshit--spelled with a capital
B.
Oh, very droll, Herr Troll. But how would *you* know, one way or the other?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-11-03 07:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Hans J. Ude
Takr a look at www.chordwizard.de . Some say it's bullshit, some don't
understand but some others do understnd
Hans
Yes, they do understand that it is indeed Bullshit--spelled with a capital
B.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Wow, Al, you're in rare form tonight!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Richard Ratner
2003-10-29 14:56:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Prove it. Analyze a piece using traditional methods and then analyze
the same piece using your method. Dr Matt, whom you love to ridicule
because in your "mind" it puts you on the same level as a person who
has earned a doctorate in music, has proposed Schubert's Erlkoenig.
Why don't you ask yourself why you will not do it?
Albert Silverman
2003-11-01 07:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Ratner
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Prove it. Analyze a piece using traditional methods and then analyze
the same piece using your method. Dr Matt, whom you love to ridicule
because in your "mind" it puts you on the same level as a person who
has earned a doctorate in music, has proposed Schubert's Erlkoenig.
Why don't you ask yourself why you will not do it?
You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a "doctor"!



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Richard Ratner
2003-11-01 14:01:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 07:49:23 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Richard Ratner
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Prove it. Analyze a piece using traditional methods and then analyze
the same piece using your method. Dr Matt, whom you love to ridicule
because in your "mind" it puts you on the same level as a person who
has earned a doctorate in music, has proposed Schubert's Erlkoenig.
Why don't you ask yourself why you will not do it?
You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a "doctor"!
It took so much time to find this irrelevant, neurotic reply? This is
nothing but another pathetic attempt to evade the task requested.
Either do the two analyses or admit that you cannot and leave rmt
forever. Go elsewhere to find a social life because you do not belong
here.

By the way, did you ask yourself why you will not do it? It is your
first step towards self-diagnosis.
Post by Albert Silverman
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Daniel Seriff
2003-11-01 15:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Richard Ratner
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Prove it. Analyze a piece using traditional methods and then analyze
the same piece using your method. Dr Matt, whom you love to ridicule
because in your "mind" it puts you on the same level as a person who
has earned a doctorate in music, has proposed Schubert's Erlkoenig.
Why don't you ask yourself why you will not do it?
You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a "doctor"!
You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes "analyze a piece". Either
analyze the pieces you've been asked to analyze or STFU.

It amazes me that as dogmatic as your views on music theory are, you put
absolutely no effort into explaining them clearly or even demonstrating that
they work by PUTTING THEM INTO PRACTICE. What further amazes me is that you
express nothing but scorn for anyone who asks you to do so.

Is that because you actually know that you're full of shit, or are you just
an asshole?
--
Daniel Seriff

He who has the last word loses.
Richard Ratner
2003-11-01 23:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Is that because you actually know that you're full of shit, or are you just
an asshole?
I believe that at one point or another during the course of a day,
most assholes are full of shit.
Daniel Seriff
2003-11-02 00:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Ratner
Post by Daniel Seriff
Is that because you actually know that you're full of shit, or are you
just an asshole?
I believe that at one point or another during the course of a day,
most assholes are full of shit.
Well, then I guess Albert's only possible answer is "both of the above".
--
Daniel Seriff

Où est-ce qu'on loue des chameaux?
Albert Silverman
2003-11-03 05:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Ratner
Post by Daniel Seriff
Is that because you actually know that you're full of shit, or are you just
an asshole?
I believe that at one point or another during the course of a day,
most assholes are full of shit.
*You* would certainly know.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Dr.Matt
2003-11-03 07:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Richard Ratner
Post by Daniel Seriff
Is that because you actually know that you're full of shit, or are you just
an asshole?
I believe that at one point or another during the course of a day,
most assholes are full of shit.
*You* would certainly know.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
This is the cleverest thing you've ever said on Usenet. Cleverer by
far than anything you attempted to say about music.

My cat can type cleverer things still, but that's no matter--keep
up the good work and maybe you'll graduate to kibbles.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
2003-11-01 12:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Richard Ratner
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
In short, Authority is
the curse of musical education--or what passes for it.
Prove it. Analyze a piece using traditional methods and then analyze
the same piece using your method. Dr Matt, whom you love to ridicule
because in your "mind" it puts you on the same level as a person who
has earned a doctorate in music, has proposed Schubert's Erlkoenig.
Why don't you ask yourself why you will not do it?
You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a "doctor"!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Al, perhaps you can tell use why you keep running away from this
question of analyzing Erlkoenig. Pointing the finger at Richard,
Jerry, or me accomplishes nothing.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2003-10-29 05:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because people have routinely attempted to use "mathematical analysis" in
connection with chord-based music, when it has no connection at all to
*chord relationships*.

That's why.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Daniel Seriff
2003-10-29 06:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because people have routinely attempted to use "mathematical analysis" in
connection with chord-based music, when it has no connection at all to
*chord relationships*.
That's why.
Dude, chords don't have relationships. They're celibate.
--
Daniel Seriff

Honey, those aren't children, they're packets of creamcheese.
- SG
Albert Silverman
2003-10-29 18:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Dude, chords don't have relationships. They're celibate.
This statement demonstrates the extent of your musical "knowledge".


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Dr.Matt
2003-10-29 18:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Daniel Seriff
Dude, chords don't have relationships. They're celibate.
This statement demonstrates the extent of your musical "knowledge".
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
More off-topic ad hominem, Al. You're providing more evidence supporting
my assertion that the only reason you interjected on the thread titled
"music & mathematical analysis" was to make ad hominem attacks on your betters.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-29 19:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Daniel Seriff
Dude, chords don't have relationships. They're celibate.
This statement demonstrates the extent of your musical "knowledge".
And *that* statement demonstrates that you've had a sense-of-humour bypass
operation.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Daniel Seriff
2003-10-29 22:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Daniel Seriff
Dude, chords don't have relationships. They're celibate.
This statement demonstrates the extent of your musical "knowledge".
Guy, if you're not even smart enough to know when you're being ridiculed and
STFU accordingly, you don't have a hope in hell of being respected for your
mind.
--
Daniel Seriff

Honey, those aren't children, they're packets of creamcheese.
- SG
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-29 07:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because people have routinely attempted to use "mathematical analysis" in
connection with chord-based music,
That's a fairly broad expression, but by now I understand that by "chord based
music" you do not mean, for example, Stravinsky's Variations: Aldous Huxley In
Memoriam, which is definitely "chord based", but not "Chord Based(tm)". And
while I can imagine "mathematical analysis" being applied to Stravinsky's
composition, I have not myself done this, nor am I aware of this being
"routinely done".
Post by Albert Silverman
when it has no connection at all to
*chord relationships*.
It can do, always supposing you know how to use it but, as I said (about five
messages back on this thread), by no means does every published author have the
capacity or the inclination to do so, which gives set-theory analysis a very bad
name, indeed.
Post by Albert Silverman
That's why.
Very poor reason. Good night.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-29 12:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because people have routinely attempted to use "mathematical analysis" in
connection with chord-based music, when it has no connection at all to
*chord relationships*.
That's why.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Maybe they have, and maybe they haven't, but that still doesn't explain
why you interrupted a discussion of the use of musical set theory in
the analysis of atonal music.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-29 19:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
Because people have routinely attempted to use "mathematical analysis" in
connection with chord-based music, when it has no connection at all to
*chord relationships*.
That's why.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Maybe they have, and maybe they haven't, but that still doesn't explain
why you interrupted a discussion of the use of musical set theory in
the analysis of atonal music.
I said that!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Albert Silverman
2003-11-01 07:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
The name of this thread is "music and mathematical analysis." It is *not*
"the music of Shoenberg, Webern, Varese and mathematical analysis."

By the way, why don't you ask our "doctor" Strangelogic why he is always
horning in on *every* thread, whether or not he understands it? You see,
if you are out to impress people, you will feel compelled to blow your
horn, even though it is filled with muck.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2003-11-01 09:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
In my
opinion, an understanding of this music is *essential* if one is to be
considered musically literate, no matter what type of music may be
composed.
By "this music" I take it you mean Schoenberg's, Webern's, etc.
No. I am referring to the "chord-based" music of the common-practice
period, the principles of which are effectively obscured by the irrelevant
Ancient Theory presented routinely in "Harmony" textbooks.
Oh. Why on earth did you horn in on this thread, then?
The name of this thread is "music and mathematical analysis." It is *not*
"the music of Shoenberg, Webern, Varese and mathematical analysis."
Track the thread back to its origin, Albert, and you will discover that meeso
Post by Albert Silverman
I just don't get it. I've been reading for the last couple of days about
that issue & I still don't get it.
how exactly terms like "inclusion under transposition/inversion"
*describe* atonal music ? In what manner this theory is used ?
A little further on, you will discover that meeso then branched the thread to
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Jerry Kohl
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way.
Schoenberg, Webern, and Varese (and, I should add, Wolpe), were only introduced
Post by Albert Silverman
OK, Al. I could agree with you here (thousands wouldn't). But which music is
"this music" that we are talking about here? My understanding is that we are
talking about something vaguely described as "atonal"--presumably including
works of Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and Wolpe. Tell us how to approach, say,
Erwartung from your point of view.
Do you remember now? If not, I suggest you review the thread.
Post by Albert Silverman
By the way, why don't you ask our "doctor" Strangelogic why he is always
horning in on *every* thread, whether or not he understands it? You see,
if you are out to impress people, you will feel compelled to blow your
horn, even though it is filled with muck.
I presume you are referring here to Dr. Matt. Well, we have had our differences
on many a point, but I am not his keeper, and if he horns in on threads where
*you* believe he does not understand things, then that is between you and him. I
am not your umpire.

Now, if you are making an attack on *my* integrity, and not on Dr. Matt (who is
more than capable of defending himself, as I am sure you must know by now) with
those offensive remarks about "if you are out to impress people", please just
say so, and I shall take your horn full of muck and blow it back at you in such
a way that your eyes will bulge right out of your head. All right?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Richard Ratner
2003-10-29 14:51:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:21:29 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
I
do *not* see such an explanation anywhere on the academic horizon.
Your incapability is not relevant to musical reality.
Dr.Matt
2003-10-25 12:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by meeso
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way. I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music. As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music. I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music. However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.
Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*. I cannot think of a piece
of music as a punch of physical acoustical values that are understood in a
mathematical methodology.
I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).
Maysara
You are of course absolutely correct in your assessment. Hopefully I have
helped you come to this conclusion.
In short, what is so commonly referred to as musical "theory" *has little
if any relation to the manner in which the music is HEARD*. The very
essence of "chord-based" theory (developed during the common practice
period of musical composition) is a *man-made* construct, without any
acoustic (i.e., mathematical) basis. I am referring here to "chord
relationships." It matters not one whit to me that those who inhabit this
newsgroup have not, do not, and never will understand this basic fact.
They can talk about "tuning" and other such acoustic-related phenomena
until they are blue in the face, and this will not help them to understand
this music.
NEVER.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Nevernever-land)
Al,
You've been telling us for 12 years now that the bunch of
us--especially the actual musicians--don't know anything about how
music is heard. Yet there's not a sign that you've ever actually heard
music, or, more saliently, tried to make some yourself. It's time for
you to own up to the fact that you know nothing at all about music because
you've never had any contact with it.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
meeso
2003-10-26 01:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Al,
You've been telling us for 12 years now that the bunch of
us--especially the actual musicians--don't know anything about how
music is heard. Yet there's not a sign that you've ever actually heard
music, or, more saliently, tried to make some yourself. It's time for
you to own up to the fact that you know nothing at all about music because
you've never had any contact with it.
of course he knows about music. Go read his work Go. & if you didn't
understand, then it's YOU who don't know about music.

m
(I'm keeping alt.fan.albert-silverman)
Dr.Matt
2003-10-26 11:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
Post by Dr.Matt
Al,
You've been telling us for 12 years now that the bunch of
us--especially the actual musicians--don't know anything about how
music is heard. Yet there's not a sign that you've ever actually heard
music, or, more saliently, tried to make some yourself. It's time for
you to own up to the fact that you know nothing at all about music because
you've never had any contact with it.
of course he knows about music. Go read his work Go. & if you didn't
understand, then it's YOU who don't know about music.
m
(I'm keeping alt.fan.albert-silverman)
I read his work and compared it with actual music. And I make music.
And I understand his work fully--and I also understand things like
Occam's Razor, and musical sounds. There's biographical information
on the web indicating that you make music, too.
Your theory that Near Eastern Music is intrinsically easier for
ordinary people to enjoy and be moved by than any other music is
interesting, but really, people all over the world are moved to tears
by all sorts of musics. You did get at an underlying truth about
*popular* musics (both monophonic and otherwise), i.e. that often the
performer limits themselves to things which the *audience* *already*
knows. An audience member may, if they hear something attractive, want
to imagine themselves in the role of the performer, and this is easier
for most audience members if the performer sticks to the tried-and-true
and doesn't engage in any heroic extremes. Yet people everywhere also
enjoy novelty and virtuosity and displays of extreme ability, in music
as much as in sport. So, in many cultures, there is an ongoing tension
between popular participation activities and the cheering on of an
elite. Sometimes people take fierce sides one way or the other, but
of course it's the contrast between the two which gives each its
distinctive flavor.

Alt.usenet.kooks re-added, as kooky notions remain on the thread.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2003-10-27 23:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by meeso
Post by Dr.Matt
Al,
You've been telling us for 12 years now that the bunch of
us--especially the actual musicians--don't know anything about how
music is heard. Yet there's not a sign that you've ever actually heard
music, or, more saliently, tried to make some yourself. It's time for
you to own up to the fact that you know nothing at all about music because
you've never had any contact with it.
of course he knows about music. Go read his work Go. & if you didn't
understand, then it's YOU who don't know about music.
m
(I'm keeping alt.fan.albert-silverman)
I read his work and compared it with actual music. And I make music.
And I understand his work fully--and I also understand things like
Occam's Razor, and musical sounds. There's biographical information
on the web indicating that you make music, too.
Your theory that Near Eastern Music is intrinsically easier for
ordinary people to enjoy and be moved by than any other music is
interesting, but really, people all over the world are moved to tears
by all sorts of musics. You did get at an underlying truth about
*popular* musics (both monophonic and otherwise), i.e. that often the
performer limits themselves to things which the *audience* *already*
knows. An audience member may, if they hear something attractive, want
to imagine themselves in the role of the performer, and this is easier
for most audience members if the performer sticks to the tried-and-true
and doesn't engage in any heroic extremes. Yet people everywhere also
enjoy novelty and virtuosity and displays of extreme ability, in music
as much as in sport. So, in many cultures, there is an ongoing tension
between popular participation activities and the cheering on of an
elite. Sometimes people take fierce sides one way or the other, but
of course it's the contrast between the two which gives each its
distinctive flavor.
Alt.usenet.kooks re-added, as kooky notions remain on the thread.
If anyone knows what a kook is, it is *you*, "doctor." As the old saying
goes: "It takes one to know one."


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the kooks from the "doctors"
Peter J Ross
2003-10-28 01:00:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:24:39 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman wrote in
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by meeso
Post by Dr.Matt
Al,
You've been telling us for 12 years now that the bunch of
us--especially the actual musicians--don't know anything about how
music is heard. Yet there's not a sign that you've ever actually heard
music, or, more saliently, tried to make some yourself. It's time for
you to own up to the fact that you know nothing at all about music because
you've never had any contact with it.
of course he knows about music. Go read his work Go. & if you didn't
understand, then it's YOU who don't know about music.
m
(I'm keeping alt.fan.albert-silverman)
I read his work and compared it with actual music. And I make music.
And I understand his work fully--and I also understand things like
Occam's Razor, and musical sounds. There's biographical information
on the web indicating that you make music, too.
Your theory that Near Eastern Music is intrinsically easier for
ordinary people to enjoy and be moved by than any other music is
interesting, but really, people all over the world are moved to tears
by all sorts of musics. You did get at an underlying truth about
*popular* musics (both monophonic and otherwise), i.e. that often the
performer limits themselves to things which the *audience* *already*
knows. An audience member may, if they hear something attractive, want
to imagine themselves in the role of the performer, and this is easier
for most audience members if the performer sticks to the tried-and-true
and doesn't engage in any heroic extremes. Yet people everywhere also
enjoy novelty and virtuosity and displays of extreme ability, in music
as much as in sport. So, in many cultures, there is an ongoing tension
between popular participation activities and the cheering on of an
elite. Sometimes people take fierce sides one way or the other, but
of course it's the contrast between the two which gives each its
distinctive flavor.
Alt.usenet.kooks re-added, as kooky notions remain on the thread.
If anyone knows what a kook is, it is *you*, "doctor." As the old saying
goes: "It takes one to know one."
Never mind that. Where's your analysis of Erlkönig, kookboi?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
news:alt.fan.pjr
news:alt.alcatroll
Usenet Valhalla (Circle Three)
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
meeso
2003-10-26 01:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
You are of course absolutely correct in your assessment. Hopefully I have
helped you come to this conclusion.
In short, what is so commonly referred to as musical "theory" *has little
if any relation to the manner in which the music is HEARD*. The very
essence of "chord-based" theory (developed during the common practice
period of musical composition) is a *man-made* construct, without any
acoustic (i.e., mathematical) basis. I am referring here to "chord
relationships." It matters not one whit to me that those who inhabit this
newsgroup have not, do not, and never will understand this basic fact.
They can talk about "tuning" and other such acoustic-related phenomena
until they are blue in the face, and this will not help them to understand
this music.
NEVER.
Albert, My true theorist,

let me quote you:
"In other words, _the relationship of one chord to another has NOTHING to
do with acoustics_, despite never-ending attempts (by
"scientifically-oriented" theorists) to link them together. Rather, chord
relationships are a MAN-MADE creation, peculiar to Western music.

_THE BASICS OF CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (1)
HARMONIC ORGANIZATION_

I cannot do more than agree that many a theory has gone far from
human physics, what we hear in music, & overloaded or abstracted the music
which becomes totally distorted.
I find music theory a very interesting field. The fact that theorist, have
spent so long time completely absent-minded. & composers, who worked-out
their music with an *irrelevant* theory, all that just makes me more
interested in music theory. & I think that my awareness of the inadequacy
& sometimes the superfluousness of music theory, was the factor that made
me understand your work. & in many ways, appreciate it a lot.

I just want to say here, as will as you, that music is a *HUMAN-MADE
creation*. That leaves me pretty understanding & also appreciative to
music made by composers who followed a non-descriptive theory. (even
non-descriptive to their own music. or irrelevant as you like to say).
Like you I think, I experience the worst feelings when I encounter a
totally irrelevant theory. Specially when it's eagerly supported by a
bunch of blind *good* academics. & specially when they encounter me with
full astonishment & misunderstanding (& sometimes inability & dislike to
understand). (that makes me remember the species counterpoint). I just
think that Human-made things are inevitably imperfect. & I kinda like that.
It's dogmatism that derives me crazy (that's why I'm sometimes psychotic
in this newsgroup). I hope you'll not be a dogma in order to stand still
against their's. Make their noise a melancholic image of true humans'
despair.

It's indeed a pleasure to have you here. :)
Maysara
paramucho
2003-10-25 08:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by meeso
The relation between the set descriptors and perception is
controversial. Too many writers using this methodology become so
involved with the mathematical relationships that they forget to listen
to the music. But that is often a problem with other analytic
approaches, as well.
Aha,
I seem to be very against mathematical analysis for the very reason that I
think it does not describe the music in any *useful* way. I mean that it
does not offer any kind of aesthetical or/& theoretical *interpretation*
to actual music. As far as I know, it also does not *propose* any variety
of material theory that could be used in further music. I know that it's
used widely in comparing specially in atonal music. However, I think that
in using mathematical analysis methods, one have to abstract the music to
a much distorting degree. Hence, it is the *meaning* of the music that
becomes distorted by an excessive abstraction that only serves a
non-descriptive theory.
Yes, I like to believe that music have a humanly-aesthetical values. wait
! I do not mean it like that. I usually do not contemplate highly
philosophical notions when ever I improvise on the piano. I basically
contemplate the properties of what I'm doing (which is theory I think), &
consult the memory of my ears. & I enjoy it a lot. sometimes good stuff
come up. & that's what I mean by the *meaning*. I cannot think of a piece
of music as a punch of physical acoustical values that are understood in a
mathematical methodology.
I know that the association between music & mathematics was firmly
established since the Greek intellectual civilization. however, it was
used in a qualitatively different way. Tuning & the like (Margo ?).
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.

That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-25 18:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that. Implicit in the concept is that we do not hear pitches in a piece
of music as an undifferentiated mass of relationships between all the notes.
Instead, we hear relatively small groups of notes, and compare these to other
small groups. So far, there is still no advantage to using numbers over
letters and accidental-symbols.

However, think about how long it took you to learn that a minor-seventh chord
on Gb is spelled Gb-Bbb-Db-Fb, or that an augmented triad on F# is spelled
F#-A#-Cx, and all the associated confusion over why you couldn't just spell
them with A and D, respectively. Now, this distinction has meaning in an
essentially diatonic context, but more importantly, you are also dealing with
a fairly restricted number of possible combinations (and before Al Silverman
busts a blood vessel, the same thing applies to melodic connection types).

In an atonal, chromatic context, *all* combinations of tones are potentially
of equal value, and in combinations of up to perhaps seven or eight tones.
Identifying all of these possibilities as categories suddenly becomes several
orders of magnitude more difficult. Let us take for example D-F#-E-B-C (a
chord from Stockhausen's Klavierstück VII) and then compare it with a melodic
succession written Ab-Bb-C#-C-F#. What is the relationship? It can be worked
out, but it is very much easier to use numerals which can be quickly
transposed by simple addition or subtraction, and the notes compared with each
other by numerical intervallic distances.

This is an extremely elementary example, since it involves comparison of two
sets of the same size, and relationships more complex than simple inversion,
transposition and re-ordering (which is what is involved in the example above)
benefit still more from the possibilities of simple arithmetical
manipulations.

That said, it is not sufficient to note a relationship between those two pitch
sets, any more than it is meaningful to observe that the chord in bar 173 of
the first movement of Haydn's "Clock" symphony is the same type of chord that
opens Beethoven's C-major String Quartet, op. 59, no. 3 (diminished-seventh
chords on E# and F#, respectively). There is a great deal more to analysis
than drawing circles around groups of notes and identifying their set-types
(or putting roman numerals under bass lines). For one thing, pitch is not the
only thing that matters in music, and indeed may not even be the most
important aspect. For another, such pitch relations may not take into account
crucial distinctions (such as, what is the functional difference between a
major and a minor triad on the same root?, or to what degree is register a
factor in creating relationships between notes?). But it is a useful tool that
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-25 20:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that. Implicit in the concept is that we do not hear pitches in a piece
of music as an undifferentiated mass of relationships between all the notes.
Instead, we hear relatively small groups of notes, and compare these to other
small groups. So far, there is still no advantage to using numbers over
letters and accidental-symbols.
However, think about how long it took you to learn that a minor-seventh chord
on Gb is spelled Gb-Bbb-Db-Fb, or that an augmented triad on F# is spelled
F#-A#-Cx, and all the associated confusion over why you couldn't just spell
them with A and D, respectively. Now, this distinction has meaning in an
essentially diatonic context, but more importantly, you are also dealing with
a fairly restricted number of possible combinations (and before Al Silverman
busts a blood vessel, the same thing applies to melodic connection types).
In an atonal, chromatic context, *all* combinations of tones are potentially
of equal value, and in combinations of up to perhaps seven or eight tones.
Identifying all of these possibilities as categories suddenly becomes several
orders of magnitude more difficult. Let us take for example D-F#-E-B-C (a
chord from Stockhausen's Klavierstück VII) and then compare it with a melodic
succession written Ab-Bb-C#-C-F#. What is the relationship? It can be worked
out, but it is very much easier to use numerals which can be quickly
transposed by simple addition or subtraction, and the notes compared with each
other by numerical intervallic distances.
This is an extremely elementary example, since it involves comparison of two
sets of the same size, and relationships more complex than simple inversion,
transposition and re-ordering (which is what is involved in the example above)
benefit still more from the possibilities of simple arithmetical
manipulations.
That said, it is not sufficient to note a relationship between those two pitch
sets, any more than it is meaningful to observe that the chord in bar 173 of
the first movement of Haydn's "Clock" symphony is the same type of chord that
opens Beethoven's C-major String Quartet, op. 59, no. 3 (diminished-seventh
chords on E# and F#, respectively). There is a great deal more to analysis
than drawing circles around groups of notes and identifying their set-types
(or putting roman numerals under bass lines). For one thing, pitch is not the
only thing that matters in music, and indeed may not even be the most
important aspect. For another, such pitch relations may not take into account
crucial distinctions (such as, what is the functional difference between a
major and a minor triad on the same root?, or to what degree is register a
factor in creating relationships between notes?). But it is a useful tool that
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
I certainly agree with all of this, but point out that once more, it
is about conveniently identifying and drawing attention to such features
as are *musically* important, and the *mathematics* involved is rudamentary
(clock arithmetic) at most. Serial theory is no more merely a way
of labeling chords than tonal theory is--there's more to it than that.
But it's also no more mathematical than tonal theory is--there's less to it
than that!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-25 21:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that.
[snip]
Post by Jerry Kohl
But it is a useful tool that
Post by Jerry Kohl
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
I certainly agree with all of this, but point out that once more, it
is about conveniently identifying and drawing attention to such features
as are *musically* important, and the *mathematics* involved is rudamentary
(clock arithmetic) at most. Serial theory is no more merely a way
of labeling chords than tonal theory is--there's more to it than that.
But it's also no more mathematical than tonal theory is--there's less to it
than that!
Serial theory is a whole different thing (well, it can be), but the point about
"mathematics" in musical set theory is quite true, and I didn't emphasize that
enough. However, my point remains that set theory (when properly used) involves
rather more than merely labeling groups of notes (let's not say "chords", out of
deference to Al Silverman, who I hear gurgling in the background), and its use of
numerals is more effective for certain purposes than letter-names.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
paramucho
2003-10-26 02:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that. Implicit in the concept is that we do not hear pitches in a piece
of music as an undifferentiated mass of relationships between all the notes.
Instead, we hear relatively small groups of notes, and compare these to other
small groups. So far, there is still no advantage to using numbers over
letters and accidental-symbols.
However, think about how long it took you to learn that a minor-seventh chord
on Gb is spelled Gb-Bbb-Db-Fb, or that an augmented triad on F# is spelled
F#-A#-Cx, and all the associated confusion over why you couldn't just spell
them with A and D, respectively. Now, this distinction has meaning in an
essentially diatonic context, but more importantly, you are also dealing with
a fairly restricted number of possible combinations (and before Al Silverman
busts a blood vessel, the same thing applies to melodic connection types).
In an atonal, chromatic context, *all* combinations of tones are potentially
of equal value, and in combinations of up to perhaps seven or eight tones.
Identifying all of these possibilities as categories suddenly becomes several
orders of magnitude more difficult. Let us take for example D-F#-E-B-C (a
chord from Stockhausen's Klavierstück VII) and then compare it with a melodic
succession written Ab-Bb-C#-C-F#. What is the relationship? It can be worked
out, but it is very much easier to use numerals which can be quickly
transposed by simple addition or subtraction, and the notes compared with each
other by numerical intervallic distances.
This is an extremely elementary example, since it involves comparison of two
sets of the same size, and relationships more complex than simple inversion,
transposition and re-ordering (which is what is involved in the example above)
benefit still more from the possibilities of simple arithmetical
manipulations.
That said, it is not sufficient to note a relationship between those two pitch
sets, any more than it is meaningful to observe that the chord in bar 173 of
the first movement of Haydn's "Clock" symphony is the same type of chord that
opens Beethoven's C-major String Quartet, op. 59, no. 3 (diminished-seventh
chords on E# and F#, respectively). There is a great deal more to analysis
than drawing circles around groups of notes and identifying their set-types
(or putting roman numerals under bass lines). For one thing, pitch is not the
only thing that matters in music, and indeed may not even be the most
important aspect. For another, such pitch relations may not take into account
crucial distinctions (such as, what is the functional difference between a
major and a minor triad on the same root?, or to what degree is register a
factor in creating relationships between notes?). But it is a useful tool that
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math than letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 04:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that.
[snip]
Post by Jerry Kohl
But it is a useful tool that
Post by Jerry Kohl
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math than letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Hmm. Back to my analogy to grammar. Maybe we should add syntax to the list, as
well. Would you like to try that again? I can't make head nor tail of it.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
paramucho
2003-10-26 00:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Each generation seems to produce it's own variation on the Music-As
-Science theme. In general these attempts are neatly dropped by the
succeeding generation. As you indicate, the actual relationship
between music and number was an area of fundamental importance to the
ancient Greeks. It's interesting to note that we haven't got much
further than the Greeks did in that sort of domain in the intervening
two thousand years. Thank goodness for that -- may we never ever lift
the veil.
That said, Matt is right when it comes to sets -- they're just another
way of labelling the notes and no more intrinsically mathematical than
A, B, C, D, E, F and G -- indeed, they have less naming function.
That isn't quite true, though. If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that.
[snip]
Post by Jerry Kohl
But it is a useful tool that
Post by Jerry Kohl
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math than letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Hmm. Back to my analogy to grammar. Maybe we should add syntax to the list, as
well. Would you like to try that again? I can't make head nor tail of it.
Post by Jerry Kohl
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math **in** letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-26 18:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that.
[snip]
Post by Jerry Kohl
But it is a useful tool that
Post by Jerry Kohl
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math than letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Hmm. Back to my analogy to grammar. Maybe we should add syntax to the list, as
well. Would you like to try that again? I can't make head nor tail of it.
Post by Jerry Kohl
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math **in** letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Ah, much better. Now I can see where I agree and where I don't. "More obviously
mathematic"? Yes, I suppose so, in the sense that people with little mathematical
background tend to see numerals as "mathematic" but letters and symbols as something
else. Ironic, really, given that those same people are liable to think of arithmetic
as more simple-minded than, say, algebra.

"Blander"? That word really has no meaning for me in this context.

"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a meaning for
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two different things
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more subcategories that may
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??

I am prepared to accept that letter notation may be used in math just as much as
numbers are, even if ordinary musicians do not tend to see things that way. But if
you are arguing that traditional letter notation is to be preferred to numerical
notation for the purposes of analysing pitch relationships in atonal music, then you
had better find a more compelling argument than that "practical" musicians will be
"put off" by having to learn a different way of representing those pitches.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
paramucho
2003-10-27 00:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
If assigning *numbers* to notes was all that is
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
involved, then you would be right, but (musical) set theory goes a bit further
than that.
[snip]
Post by Jerry Kohl
But it is a useful tool that
Post by Jerry Kohl
has several advantages over using letter-names with a diatonic basis, when
describing pitch relations in a chromatic context.
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math than letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Hmm. Back to my analogy to grammar. Maybe we should add syntax to the list, as
well. Would you like to try that again? I can't make head nor tail of it.
Post by Jerry Kohl
That's also true -- I guess my point is that while sets are more
obviously mathematic they are in fact blander and more orthogonal than
the implicit math **in** letter notation or the matching harmonic/tonal
analysis thereof.
Ah, much better. Now I can see where I agree and where I don't. "More obviously
mathematic"? Yes, I suppose so, in the sense that people with little mathematical
background tend to see numerals as "mathematic" but letters and symbols as something
else. Ironic, really, given that those same people are liable to think of arithmetic
as more simple-minded than, say, algebra.
"Blander"? That word really has no meaning for me in this context.
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a meaning for
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two different things
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more subcategories that may
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
from this usage:

The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal

In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
Post by Jerry Kohl
I am prepared to accept that letter notation may be used in math just as much as
numbers are, even if ordinary musicians do not tend to see things that way. But if
you are arguing that traditional letter notation is to be preferred to numerical
notation for the purposes of analysing pitch relationships in atonal music, then you
had better find a more compelling argument than that "practical" musicians will be
"put off" by having to learn a different way of representing those pitches.
I wasn't arguing *any* form of preference at all (you must be quoting
someone else) but I would be perfectly delighted if someone could find
a viable alternative to letter notation.
Dr.Matt
2003-10-27 14:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a
meaning for
Post by Jerry Kohl
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two
different things
Post by Jerry Kohl
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more
subcategories that may
Post by Jerry Kohl
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
Huh? I'm in the software world...
Post by Jerry Kohl
The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal
That's the sense I'm accustomed to, it's just a generalization
of "at right angles", and it always is applied to at least two
things at once.
Post by Jerry Kohl
In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
I understand and agree with the usage of "orthagonal" in the
dictionary reference--it's the same sense in which it's used
in algebras--but I don't see how your follow-up paragraph relates
to it, nor have I encountered a "has simple and complete mappings"
meaning where "orthagonal" gets applied to a single thing.
In any case, there's lots which pitch collection theory only
hints at, and because of the underlying algebra, operations within
it are only rarely independent of each other (e.g. in the case of
special rows within which certain motifs are preserved at absolute
pitch level after retrograde-inversion, etc., the sort of idempotent
thing Babbitt blathers on about in his famous "Invariants" paper).
Post by Jerry Kohl
I wasn't arguing *any* form of preference at all (you must be quoting
someone else) but I would be perfectly delighted if someone could find
a viable alternative to letter notation.
There are all sorts of different more or less viable alternatives,
depending on what exactly you're trying to accomplish with them.
Heck, even MIDI note numbers are viable in an obvious sense!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
paramucho
2003-10-28 01:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Jerry Kohl
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a
meaning for
Post by Jerry Kohl
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two
different things
Post by Jerry Kohl
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more
subcategories that may
Post by Jerry Kohl
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
Huh? I'm in the software world...
It was used in particular in the seventies and eighties to describe
instruction sets. The idea was that sixties instruction sets tended
not to be able to address operands generally (we still see that with
the Intel 16- and 32-bit instruction sets). The PDP-11, as an example,
implemented so-called general register addressing. Even the program
counter and stack pointer were implemented as such.
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal
That's the sense I'm accustomed to, it's just a generalization
of "at right angles", and it always is applied to at least two
things at once.
Post by Jerry Kohl
In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
I understand and agree with the usage of "orthagonal" in the
dictionary reference--it's the same sense in which it's used
in algebras--but I don't see how your follow-up paragraph relates
to it, nor have I encountered a "has simple and complete mappings"
meaning where "orthagonal" gets applied to a single thing.
In any case, there's lots which pitch collection theory only
hints at, and because of the underlying algebra, operations within
it are only rarely independent of each other (e.g. in the case of
special rows within which certain motifs are preserved at absolute
pitch level after retrograde-inversion, etc., the sort of idempotent
thing Babbitt blathers on about in his famous "Invariants" paper).
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
Dr.Matt
2003-10-28 14:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards. The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-28 19:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards. The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
Well, in true Gumby Theatre fasion I have to say "My brain hurts" ;-) However,
I can't help but notice that two similar but different words appear to be in
use here: "orthogonal" and "orthagonal". Is there a difference, or is the
latter merely a typo for the former?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2003-10-28 19:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards. The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
Well, in true Gumby Theatre fasion I have to say "My brain hurts" ;-) However,
I can't help but notice that two similar but different words appear to be in
use here: "orthogonal" and "orthagonal". Is there a difference, or is the
latter merely a typo for the former?
Yes.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-28 22:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards. The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
Well, in true Gumby Theatre fasion I have to say "My brain hurts" ;-) However,
I can't help but notice that two similar but different words appear to be in
use here: "orthogonal" and "orthagonal". Is there a difference, or is the
latter merely a typo for the former?
Yes.
Aha! I just *knew* it!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
hs
2003-10-29 11:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards. The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
All this reminds me a thread here som eyears ago where somebody (Ken Moore?)
said that the terms "dodecaphonic", "atonal" and "serial" are othogonal to each
other...
--
Hans Straub
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub
Dr.Matt
2003-10-29 12:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by hs
All this reminds me a thread here som eyears ago where somebody (Ken Moore?)
said that the terms "dodecaphonic", "atonal" and "serial" are othogonal to each
other...
Well, yes, they are, actually....
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
paramucho
2003-10-28 23:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by paramucho
There's a direct, complete and non-overlapping one-to-one mapping
between set numbers and notes/tones/pitchs. That's not the case for
letter notation.
That of course assumes a definite temperment, and works on keyboards and
fretboards.
I'm assuming that that's outside the notation.
Post by Dr.Matt
The implications for serial musics in general are still being
discovered. And that's the sort of thing I'd call "A bijection", whereas
if you had e.g. 2 or 3 simple ideas that could be combined to cover a whole
intended universe of ideas, I'd call it "a basis", and if you could
show that each of the simple ideas operates completely independently of
all the others, then I'd call it "an orthagonal basis". Whew, it's been
a while since I did stuff like that, though.
It's probably good for you.
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-27 17:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
"Blander"? That word really has no meaning for me in this context.
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a meaning for
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two different things
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more subcategories that may
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal
Aaaaaaaagh! Enough!! OKOKOK! I get the idea!
Post by paramucho
In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
I now see, and it completely changes my understanding of what you are saying. Funny how a
single word can lead to misunderstanding an entire paragraph.
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
I am prepared to accept that letter notation may be used in math just as much as
numbers are, even if ordinary musicians do not tend to see things that way. But if
you are arguing that traditional letter notation is to be preferred to numerical
notation for the purposes of analysing pitch relationships in atonal music, then you
had better find a more compelling argument than that "practical" musicians will be
"put off" by having to learn a different way of representing those pitches.
I wasn't arguing *any* form of preference at all (you must be quoting
someone else) but I would be perfectly delighted if someone could find
a viable alternative to letter notation.
Message understood (at last--I can be *so* thick at times :-)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Margo Schulter
2003-10-27 19:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Hello, there, and I might use "orthogonal" something like this: "The
variable of style trinic/triadic and homorhythmic/polyphonic (where
"polyphonic" means with rhythmically noncoinciding parts) are orthogonal."

That is, a piece based on the stable trine (Gothic or neomedieval) might
have either a homorhythmic or note-against-note style like that typical
for a three-voice conductus around 1200; or a rhythmically diverse
contrasting of the parts, as in a Petronian motet around 1280 or a motet
of Machaut around 1350.

Similarly, a piece around 1600 based on the stable triad might have either
a note-against-note style (as with many villanellas or hymns or the like)
or a more elaborate rhythmic diversication of the voices (as in some
Renaissance/Manneristic motets).

The term "orthogonal" suggests to me a kind of table or diagram which
brings out the two dimensions, and the idea of their being at "right
angles" to each other -- or, in other words, independent, so that they can
combine in different patterns.


Rhythmic relation of parts

1 2
Homorhythmic Polyphonic
--------------------|------------------|
| | |
Trinic | 13th c. conductus | 13th c. motet |
| | |
Vertical |--------------------------------------|
sonority | | |
| Villanella | Motet |
Triadic | c. 1590 | c. 1590 |
| | |
|--------------------------------------|

Here I should note, of course, that in music such categories are often
matters of degree: one could have a 15th-century piece, for example, which
is apparently somewhere between the trinicism of the 13th-14th centuries
in Continental Europe and the triadicism of Lippius (1610, 1612) in its
vertical style, with pervasive use of thirds and sixths but with fifths,
octaves, and upper fourths as the points of stable repose; and with a
texture mixing note-against-note and more divergent rhythmic relations
between the voices.

We can come up with various combinations and shadings of these stylistic
variables, but the idea is that they are independent.

What I wanted to do suggest an application of "orthogonal" in the context
of music theory. I'm simplifying concepts a bit, also, for the sake of the
illustration. For example, possibly some term other than "triadic" might
be best for 16th-century verticality, since the term itself doesn't
apparently get used until the two treatises of Lippius early in the next
century. How about "senarian" harmony, after Zarlino's senario: a music
harmoniously combining concords based on the ratios of the first six
natural numbers, plus the number 8 (to accommodate the 8:5 minor sixth)?

I like this -- so people can substitute "senarian" for "triadic" above,
and have a period-appropriate term. Looking back, I'd guess that I was
still wise to use "triadic" in the discussion, because "orthogonal" might
be enough of a problem to describe without immediately throwing in another
unfamiliar term.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
***@calweb.com
paramucho
2003-10-28 01:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
"Blander"? That word really has no meaning for me in this context.
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a meaning for
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two different things
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more subcategories that may
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal
Aaaaaaaagh! Enough!! OKOKOK! I get the idea!
Post by paramucho
In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
I now see, and it completely changes my understanding of what you are saying. Funny how a
single word can lead to misunderstanding an entire paragraph.
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
I am prepared to accept that letter notation may be used in math just as much as
numbers are, even if ordinary musicians do not tend to see things that way. But if
you are arguing that traditional letter notation is to be preferred to numerical
notation for the purposes of analysing pitch relationships in atonal music, then you
had better find a more compelling argument than that "practical" musicians will be
"put off" by having to learn a different way of representing those pitches.
I wasn't arguing *any* form of preference at all (you must be quoting
someone else) but I would be perfectly delighted if someone could find
a viable alternative to letter notation.
Message understood (at last--I can be *so* thick at times :-)
Not at all -- I just forgot which vocabulary I was using...
Jerry Kohl
2003-10-28 19:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
"Blander"? That word really has no meaning for me in this context.
"More orthogonal"? Now you have me really puzzled. Unless you know of a meaning for
this word with which I am unfamiliar, there need to be at least two different things
involved, and they are either perpendicular or they are not. In what way does
set-theory (or numerical notation) break down into two or more subcategories that may
be in varying extents at right angles to one another??
In the software world we use the word "orthogonal" to describe a space
with relatively simple and complete mappings. It's possibly derived
The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well
separated. It is used to describe sets of primitives or
capabilities that, like linearly independent vectors in
geometry, span the entire "capability space" and are in some
sense non-overlapping or mutually independent. For example,
in logic, the set of operators "not" and "or" is described as
orthogonal, but the set "nand", "or", and "not" is not
(because any one of these can be expressed in terms of the
others).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal
Aaaaaaaagh! Enough!! OKOKOK! I get the idea!
Post by paramucho
In that sense, sets are simple and complete whereas letter notation is
more complex and has both gaps and overlap. Thus I also think of the
set notation as "blander".
I now see, and it completely changes my understanding of what you are saying. Funny how a
single word can lead to misunderstanding an entire paragraph.
Post by paramucho
Post by Jerry Kohl
I am prepared to accept that letter notation may be used in math just as much as
numbers are, even if ordinary musicians do not tend to see things that way. But if
you are arguing that traditional letter notation is to be preferred to numerical
notation for the purposes of analysing pitch relationships in atonal music, then you
had better find a more compelling argument than that "practical" musicians will be
"put off" by having to learn a different way of representing those pitches.
I wasn't arguing *any* form of preference at all (you must be quoting
someone else) but I would be perfectly delighted if someone could find
a viable alternative to letter notation.
Message understood (at last--I can be *so* thick at times :-)
Not at all -- I just forgot which vocabulary I was using...
Even Homer nods ;-)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...