|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Happy birthday to J.S. (w/ hats off to his forebears and his offspring). And thank you to Mendelssohn, who revived him from obscurity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
No special Google logo; dang.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 39
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 39 |
For me, there have been none greater or more annointed.
KELLY123
Bach is thus a terminal point. Nothing comes from him; everything merely leads to him.
ALBERT SCHWEITZER (1875-1965)
Bach is Bach, as God is God.
BERLIOZ (1803-1869)
Study Bach. There you will find everything.
- Johannes Brahms
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Great avatar for the occasion, Kelly! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
> Ah, Bach. RADAR O'REILLY and don't forget the gentle flip of the wrist...  "jocularity!" FATHER MULCAHEY
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 39
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 39 |
Eta - I do think the good Father was more partial to Palestrina.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
On this 3/21 comes his 321st.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Cool, musick! Thanks for that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Mendelssohn is Mendelssohn, Musick, but a Bach, whichever, is still a Bach.
Whatsamatter u? You don't like math?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Math is math, music is math, music is music. Math is not music. Otherwise we'd use the same term to de/pre/proscribe them both.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133 |
Some math heads can find math in most anything. I understand, of course, that pitch is related to vibrational speed, can be expressed in NUMBERS, volume is related to vibrations, can be expressed in NUMBERS. But the closest I come to finding music in numbers is listening to the touchtone phone when I dial.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Ears are not calculators.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
My temporary position as beelzebub's barrister failed, almost completely! Ears are not calculators. Some are better at it than others, I suppose. When we speak to each other we process a very complex set of *equations that are quite quickly and accurately (for the most part  ) resolved into meaning, intent, accent and perhaps even *direction. Language is quite firm in most of those four divisions (I'm sure there are plenty other ways to analyze that I'm missing, but... and notwithstanding what we'all doing here) Music doesn't make hardly any of those as clear as speech, yet in spite of this can be transcribed about as easily (with training, of course). Scribing the semantics of music is futile even if meaning is often prescribed (eg "fate"=Beethoven's 5th Symph. theme), but the meanings of 'musical' sounds are a personal overlayment. Intent, like language, draws from context, but unlike language (ie: without consistant meaning) is again strictly a personal endeavor. An "accent", comparing music and language, is probably the most mathematically based of those as the ear can tell the style of music (again, if trained) with about as much of a sample as one would need to tell what general accent a person is speaking... an "aural statistic" (so-to-speak). The rules for music are much less stringent and at the same time, within this universality, we only listen/hear a fraction of the possibilities it offers and therefore create more anticipation of understanding of it than we do a wonder of its newness. This may speak toward my suggestion of 'direction'... perhaps a musical application of Chomsky's Syntactical Hierarchy will yeild a "Universal Music Theory"... but I imagine you can hear where this suggestion could lead *us. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>some are better at it that others<<
[/where's the angry icon?]
Music can be described mathematically, and has developed mathematically. The brain functions engaged in hearing and interpreting it can probably be described mathematically as well. But ears hear. The experience is aesthetic. To say that the immediacy of experience is calculative is, it seems to me, a very popular category error.
Yes, some ears are better than others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
abridged by themilum without proper permission
When we speak to each other we process a very complex set of equations that are quite quickly and accurately resolved into meaning, intent, accent and perhaps even direction. Language is quite firm in most of these four divisions.
Music doesn't make hardly any of those as clear as speech, yet in spite of this can be transcribed about as easily.
Scribing the semantics of music is futlie even if meaning is often prescribed, but the meanings of 'musical' sounds are a personal overlayment. Intent, like language, draws from context, but unlike language, music is again strictly a personal endeavor.
The rules for music are much less stringent and at the same time, within this universality, we can only hear a fraction of the possibilities that it offers and therefore it creates more anticipation of understanding of it than we do at a wonder of its newness. This may speak toward my suggestion of 'direction'... perhaps a musical application of Chomsky's Syntactical Hierarchy will yeild a "Universal Music Theory"...
As for me, Musick, I think that Chomsky is a jerk and a joke and I think you are certainly not. But I don't understand your overall point within your remarks above. Can you give your "meaning" in a different way?
Here is what I think...
I think that music is older than language - obviously - bird songs, the whistling winds in tall trees; all the variable sounds of nature.
Then after we learned to talk some enterprising unknown shaman found out that rhymes and chants gave legs to the myths that gave his tribe social cohesion. Social cohesion is an imperative when your group is fighting other groups and the very esssence of our music today is simply an echo of the social contract that was made a long time ago by tribal man.
What? You think music "Holy"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Quote:
I think that Chomsky is a jerk and a joke.
That's funny, Milo. He's always spoken very highly of you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I think we are on the same page here, Insel. it is why I went so far to say "music is math" yet "math is not music". Being more successful at making math out of music is a function not an aesthetic (IMHO). A theory should not be the driving force in composition any more than technique should be the driving force in a performance... yet, often it is what some give highest regard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
I think that Chomsky is a jerk and a jokeWhoa, dude, pretty harsh words. Learn some linguistics and get back to me on why Chomsky is what you say he is. In fact, since music is a a language, hum me a few bars of your thesis. Far be it from me to defend Chomsy's linguistic theories, as I studied with one of his alienated grad students, but to listen to you talk about language is like listening to Bart Simpson scratch out Beethoven's 9th Symphony on a chalkboard. Go back to bird watching and leave language to linguists.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
Whoa, dude, pretty harsh words. Learn some linguistics and get back to me on why Chomsky is what you say he is. In fact, since music is a language, hum me a few bars of your thesis. Far be it from me to defend Chomsy's linguistic theories, as I studied with one of his alienated grad students, but to listen to you talk about language is like listening to Bart Simpson scratch out Beethoven's 9th Symphony on a chalkboard. Go back to bird watching and leave language to linguists.
Ah! Zmjezhd, the quintessential modern man speaks.
And he says in effect...
Well, I don't know enough to know what Mister Chomsky is talking about but Mister Chomsky is so smart that I don't know what he is talking about.
Say Zmjezhd, can you or Faldage or any of you other manly Awad cats discuss the nature of music and language without your tart remarks?
Maybe not. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
discuss the nature of music and language without your tart remarksOh, Milo, baby. Did you fall down and bruise your ego? Maybe you can get one of your geese to kiss it. I simply said that, on linguistics, Professor Chomsky knows more than Mr Milo. I know this because I have read what the both of them have to say on the subject. I may disagree with Chomsky on his theory of language, but you've never really said anything substantive about language, so there.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Quote:
I think we are on the same page here, Insel. it is why I went so far to say "music is math" yet "math is not music". Being more successful at making math out of music is a function not an aesthetic (IMHO). A theory should not be the driving force in composition any more than technique should be the driving force in a performance... yet, often it is what some give highest regard.
Good enough. Yeah, I forgot your >>"music is math" yet "math is not music"<< thing.
(I wuz gonna say, if ears did all that calculating, most of us would be much better mathematicians. But I guess I don't have to, now  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Well?I said I disagree with Chomsky, and you still don't know squat about language.  There, satisfied? I especially disagree with, as you point out, his theory of innateness of language. I also disagree with what you said about music and language. They are not the same thing, and Chomsky still knows more about language than you do about language, music, bullspit, or hog jowls. You, sir, are a troll. Always have been, always will be, either hiding behind Gripholdo's skirts, your smilies, or not. Good night, sir.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
All right, folks. Everybody back off. The referees are here with the tape measure to see who's pissed the farthest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I thought it was supposed to be the highest?
Just asking, like.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Bach shot farther, higher and longer than anyone else so shall we declare this convo moot, already? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
Bach shot farther, higher and longer than anyone else so shall we declare this convo moot, already?
Define moot.
But I'll agree that Bach (most of 'em) were in some ways more adept than I. And then after me and the Bachs comes the babbling Chomskies of the world, and then comes the zmjezhdies.
Last edited by themilum; 03/29/06 06:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I don't know about 'longer and higher'... methinks Mozart was a much bigger *wanker. I'll give you 'farther' but you ommited 'denser' and a number of other *countries. "Moot" it is! (ps - I think I'll start *this again somewhere free of all this subtle antonomasia) 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
( I think I'll start "this" again somewhere free of all this subtle antonomasia)
And if you do, Mister Musick, then I'll (meaning Mister Milum) will be your most staunchworth supporter.
Say "high five", big jigger, say hey to your number one "gasser".
Oh, I do love so much to talk jive talkto the people
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
A theory should not be the driving force in composition any more than technique should be the driving force in a performance While I agree with your desideratum, I think the two cases are not really parallel. Technique is a necessary condition for a performance, though by no means a sufficient one. Theory is not a necessary condition for a creative act. It tends to be applied by those who try to "explain" it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
To posit a clean distinction between theory and "the creative act" once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
To posit a clean distinction between theory and "the creative act" once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
(broken down for elucidation)
To posit a clean distinction
between theory and "the creative act"
once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity
is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
(rephrased for clearity)
If we hypothesize a clear difference
between a theory of creativity and the act of creativity
we have, by doing so, paradoxly precluded any worthwhile
theory of creativity but have been creative in the process.
Oh really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
I have no idea. I don't understand what you wrote; perhaps it was the clearity.
Last edited by inselpeter; 04/02/06 09:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Well, Inselpeter, would you yourself be so kind to explain what you wrote?
Will ya?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
The notion of "creative acts" arises in a conceptual/practical frame that is already completely saturated with theory. Therefore, to posit a non-porous divide between the theoretical and the "creative" is to sight a phantom. Such a divide does not and cannot exist, except as seduction.
Last edited by inselpeter; 04/02/06 10:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
The notion of "creative acts" arises in a conceptual/practical frame that is already completely saturated with theory. Therefore, to posit a non-porous divide between the theoretical and the "creative" is to sight a phantom. Such a divide does not and cannot exist, except as seduction.
Tell you what, inselpeter, it's late and I need to get up early but I'm gonna pull out a bottle of Evan Williams Black and drink and think about the meaning of your strangely arranged words until either I pass out or I find some degree of coherency within your odd juxtaposition of English words.
Only thirty minutes and four fingers of bourbon later
I got it! Inselpeter you are a poet. You think in "nuance".
"saturated with theory" "posit a non-porous divide" "to sight a phatom" "except as seduction" That's not science, that's intuition.
Ok, inselpeter, here is what you have said...
The concept of the "creative act" has been framed by the general conception of what constitutes a "creative act" and so by definition a "creative act" is delimited by it's own definition and any deviation from that definition is specious and incoherent.
Aren't you glad that I am here to tell you what you said?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
to tell you what I said<<
No, but it's nice of you to try to figure it out.
Whether or not I'm a poet, I don't know. I'm just trying to save myself a couple of thousand keystrokes, so I'm writing shorthand. That said, you did get part of it. But, for example, what has been more thoroughly studied than the diatonic scale and its permutations in music? The way we think about, hear and compose music in our tradition has been thoroughly shaped by the theoretical understanding of our system of its tonality. While there is, "no doubt," that the diatonic scale was originally simply "heard," that event, if it ever was, is long ago and far away. Our system of notation takes into account the steps of the scale and attempts to reconcile it with the "ergonomics" of sight (the five-line staff) and a system of absolute intervals (half-steps) which has been derived theoretically from the eight tones that compose the scale which we hear as an aesthetic unity. This, in a simple way, is a part of the frame. All cultural transmission exists in such frames. But I do not mean to say that such frames merely form the background or "horizon" of transmission. There is an active interplay between what we call the theoretical and what we call the creative. I do not mean to suggest that there is no distinction between these, whatsoever, only to cast doubt on the the notion of "creativity," which, as it is commonly used, I find to be an offensive term. Anyway, it's always nice to have something to drink to.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
889
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
