meeso
2003-10-25 00:45:09 UTC
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,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.
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