Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Apr 2010, 9:58 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Am I truly insane? Why do I see things fitting into place where others do not even those on the spectrum?


Sorry, I'm not a psychiatrist.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Apr 2010, 10:05 am

Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Infinity is not a goal, it is an unending process.


In the end, this unending process becomes the goal. The continuous refinement and improvement is the goal.


I disagree with that last statement, that refinement and improvement is a goal unto itself, unless I've misunderstood. Continuous refinement and improvement are means to an end, that is, to achieve perfection. If perfection is unattainable, why should we bother reaching for it at all?

If there is an end, how can the process said to be unending?

(I have an answer, but I'd LOVE to see what someone else comes up with!)


In practical engineering the refinement of a machined part is determined by how close it matches the engineering specifications. Each closer approach is more expensive. And the rate of expense also rises with each refinement. There comes an economic point where this approach to perfection is no longer worth the expense and the component becomes satisfactory at that point. The comparison is obvious.


That makes sense, and it reminds me of recent events in my life.

Almost a year ago, I ordered a Synclavier, and now I'm just saving enough money to cover the shipping expense. The designers of this instrument set out basically to do the impossible (at the time): To create an all-in-one musical instrument that could never be obsoleted. The trap they ran into was they actually succeeded. Nothing even remotely close to the sound and capability of this device has been invented since. At the time of its invention, big music studios, wealthy musicians, successful producers, and film post-production houses were the only people who could afford one because the parts were extremely rare and expensive. The company that made them got used to this and never figured out a way to bring costs down. When they actually did produce a less expensive model, current owners were infuriated because they'd spent so much money buying new parts and software upgrades for existing systems. So people just stopped buying them. Japanese manufacturers began mass-producing cheap electronic components, as opposed to the "hand-made" custom parts in the Sync, making digital workstations affordable for even the every-day keyboard player like myself. Producers and studios stopped caring that they might have to work a little harder because the effort was largely offset by the cost of the machines. If a Korg Triton blows up, the repair/replacement cost is trivial, which might cost at most a few hundred dollars, as opposed to the Synclav which could potentially run up into the thousands.

To this day, Synclaviers are prohibitively expensive to buy and maintain, though not quite as bad as they used to be. But just to give you an example, shipping cost alone on my machine (to include insurance) is $1,800. The only people still buying these are really just music enthusiasts who still love the sound or want a piece of music history, and film studios still keep them running for sound effects.

What's my point? Those guys built a machine that, for its time, EXCEEDED any current standard and got about as close as anyone has ever gotten to the "perfect" musical instrument/workstation and could very well remain competitive with current technology today. The problem with perfection is they left nowhere to go. The rapid influx of cheaper alternatives removed any justification for charging whatever they wanted for high quality, custom parts. They might have succeeded if they had reinvented themselves and released a variety of products. But in perfecting a product from the outset and not looking toward the future, by reaching the goal of infinity, they basically killed it.

Apply that principle to what we're talking about. We are forever seeking truth and human perfection. What happens when you find it?

Another application of this principle is when I teach piano lessons. I teach my students to never be satisfied. If they play each note exactly, then I place greater emphasis on rhythm. If they do that perfectly precise, and stress dynamics. If they succeed with dynamics, I stress phrasing. If they interpret a piece of music perfectly, I change the rules and make them start all over with a different interpretation. At a certain point, the piece ceases to have value on its own. If we've gone the distance with it, we have to put it away and start again with another.

If we as human beings were to actually reach perfection, then we'd be living beyond our purpose. In a spiritual sense, it is possible to make infinity a goal. In reaching infinity, a human being can no longer exist physically.

The process, therefore, is not infinite. It is finite, though in physical terms this is variable from person to person. It must necessarily END. The only end there can be, because human beings are incapable of reaching absolute or infinite perfection, is death.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Apr 2010, 10:27 am

Although I have very much a layman's understanding and appreciation of music I have heard that perfect playing of a musical piece makes it sound mechanical and it may require some imperfection to give it an extra something to make it extraordinary.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

20 Apr 2010, 10:31 am

You got it, you got it, you got it. AngelRho, you truly understand dynamic honesty. Simplfying it all down we as humanity have to keep striving for better and better things including character and morality. We have come a long way but we have a long way to go and none of us can truly be perfect or acheive perfection. We will always be striving, overcoming challenges, and discovering new things unless humanity perishes.

What we consider truth today may have been misinterpreted and could be non-true or false. Truth could be subject to change. Ultimately the ultimate truth is the process of discovering the ultimate truth is the ultimate truth. It is kind of strange huh?

You're example of music lessons and changing pieces is a great example.

Do you know about tonality and atonality? The folks who created tonality said that tonality reached it's limit. They wanted to see if something was beyond tonality which was atonality. I would ask what is beyond tonality and atonality? What is beyond that and then beyond that ... all the way to infinity?

Check this out as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_hand_clapping_(phrase)#The_sound_of_one_hand It could better explain what I'm saying. It is not only the answer it is the process of finding the answer as well. It is the activity itself that could be the answer in itself as well the actual answer or goal.



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 20 Apr 2010, 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Apr 2010, 10:35 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
You got it, you got it, you got it. AngelRho, you truly understand dynamic honesty. Simplfying it all down we as humanity have to keep striving for better and better things including character and morality. We have come a long way but we have a long way to go and none of us can truly be perfect or acheive perfection. We will always be striving, overcoming challenges, and discovering new things unless humanity perishes.

What we consider truth today may have been misinterpreted and could be non-true or false. Truth could be subject to change. Ultimately the ultimate truth is the process of discovering the ultimate truth is the ultimate truth. It is kind of strange huh?

You're example of music lessons and changing pieces is a great example.

Do you know about tonality and atonality? The folks who created tonality said that tonality reached it's limit. They wanted to see if something was beyond tonality which was atonality. I would ask what is beyond tonality and atonality? What is beyond that and then beyond that ... all the way to infinity?

Check this out as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_hand_clapping_(phrase)#The_sound_of_one_hand It could better explain what I'm saying. It is not only the answer it is the process of finding the answer as well. It is the activity itself that could be the answer in itself..


The concept of "beyond" is inappropriate to creative efforts. They are not on a linear scale. If an atonal piece is successful it merely widens the range of appreciation, it does not cancel out all the great music that came before.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Apr 2010, 11:56 am

Sand wrote:
Although I have very much a layman's understanding and appreciation of music I have heard that perfect playing of a musical piece makes it sound mechanical and it may require some imperfection to give it an extra something to make it extraordinary.


I'm starting to believe that a layman's understanding is perhaps the best one.

Yes, that is very true, with the exception that some kinds of music sound best if they ARE mechanical (most electronica, other forms of computer composition). Keep in mind that digital recordings (of ANY performance) result in "perfect" playing EVERY time, yet we don't perceive them as mechanical. To call a live performance of music "perfect," one has to establish some kind of standard. One of the main reasons why composers abruptly ceased writing symphonies in the 19th century is Beethoven left the art form nowhere to go after the 9th. Some succeeded, of course, but there was always a fear of Beethoven's ghost.

To me, being a composer myself, the standard is how well the performer maintains the integrity and message of the piece given it by the composer. This is an oral tradition, of sorts, but we do know that performers have a long history of trying to keep and pass along what they know of how music was initially performed.

Back in Beethoven's day, instructions weren't quite so specific as they are now, and that's why every performance of, say, the 9th symphony is unique. What constitutes a "fortissimo" dynamic level for one performer is completely different from that of another performer. To make a phrase come alive, a conductor might write in various markings that never existed in the original and maybe exaggerate the markings that are there. It was also a convention that the composer left score markings fairly sparse, assuming that the conductor and performers would interpret the score according to performance practices of that time.

A performance, then, may be considered "perfect" if: 1) The composer's markings are observed, and 2) the performance reflects the composer's intentions. You can satisfy both requirements and still get a lot of variance from one performance to another. Whether one performance is better than another in the ears of an audience will depend on the tastes of the listeners. One "perfect" performance may fall completely flat to a particular audience, while another "perfect" performance may get as many as 3 or more standing ovations.

Whether this is actually true from a practical perspective is up for debate, of course, as shrinking audiences reflect a growing trend away from classical performances in favor of more commercial forms of entertainment.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Apr 2010, 12:21 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Am I truly insane? Why do I see things fitting into place where others do not even those on the spectrum?


More likely, you are in error. We all make mistakes and jump to wrong conclusions now and again.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Apr 2010, 1:09 pm

Sand wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
You got it, you got it, you got it. AngelRho, you truly understand dynamic honesty. Simplfying it all down we as humanity have to keep striving for better and better things including character and morality. We have come a long way but we have a long way to go and none of us can truly be perfect or acheive perfection. We will always be striving, overcoming challenges, and discovering new things unless humanity perishes.

What we consider truth today may have been misinterpreted and could be non-true or false. Truth could be subject to change. Ultimately the ultimate truth is the process of discovering the ultimate truth is the ultimate truth. It is kind of strange huh?

You're example of music lessons and changing pieces is a great example.

Do you know about tonality and atonality? The folks who created tonality said that tonality reached it's limit. They wanted to see if something was beyond tonality which was atonality. I would ask what is beyond tonality and atonality? What is beyond that and then beyond that ... all the way to infinity?

Check this out as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_hand_clapping_(phrase)#The_sound_of_one_hand It could better explain what I'm saying. It is not only the answer it is the process of finding the answer as well. It is the activity itself that could be the answer in itself..


The concept of "beyond" is inappropriate to creative efforts. They are not on a linear scale. If an atonal piece is successful it merely widens the range of appreciation, it does not cancel out all the great music that came before.


I understand what you're saying, although perhaps we can help you clarify some of your positions. For example, I would change your wording of "unless humanity perishes" to read "until humanity perishes."

Also, I don't think you meant that "truth is subject to change." It would be better to say "our perception of truth," because ultimate truth is, was, and forever will be, and truth is not concerned with whether or not we recognize it (in my opinion. I've never asked "truth" what it thought of me, and I'm not sure I'd get an answer or even that I'd like the answer if I did! ;) ).

And YES, I'm familiar with tonality/atonality. My master's thesis was a 12-tone electroacoustic concerto grosso for quadraphonic tape (yes, TAPE!) and chamber orchestra (strings, piano, woodwind quintet). I hit upon this Webern-esque idea of constructing an invariant 12-tone row based on the word "CAGE," a reference to the composer John Cage. I constructed a cube model on which were placed various musical parameters (timbre, pitch, articulation, time point) and used a spreadsheet program to show the various combinations. That was all programmed into a sequencer from which the score was derived. That way, I combined invariance with integral serialism. I was also inspired by Iannis Xenakis' use of game theory, which I incorporated into the 3rd movement, and my use of chance operations were a deliberate tribute to John Cage.

Also, just to clarify: Atonality didn't arise so much because tonalists felt they'd reached the limit. What was happening was that more and more composers were experimenting with dissonance, and it wasn't always possible to resolve dissonances, especially so many pervasive ones, without sounding contrived or incoherent. Many works by Bartok exhibit a strong tie to folk music and folk music-making and yet seem to avoid a tonal center. Schoenberg, who invented 12-tone composition, wasn't really trying to add that much to what was there--he just saw a problem with atonal music in general, that it was very random and incoherent. The idea of the "tone row" was to give atonal music organic unity, something inherent in tonal systems but that atonal systems lacked.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

21 Apr 2010, 8:15 am

Quote:
I understand what you're saying, although perhaps we can help you clarify some of your positions. For example, I would change your wording of "unless humanity perishes" to read "until humanity perishes."


I do not agree. I like the wording unless humanity perishes better. Here is why. We do not truly know with absolute certainty if humanity will perish. Let's say the universe has an end. If humanity still exists in some form it could be past a type IV civilization and go to other universes.

By the way, I would love for you and as many others as possible to contribute to this. This is exactly what I want because it keeps it open and dynamic. We can have improvement upon improvement this way. We need NTs to contribute as well to this because there are other perceptions to the truth.

Quote:
Also, I don't think you meant that "truth is subject to change." It would be better to say "our perception of truth," because ultimate truth is, was, and forever will be, and truth is not concerned with whether or not we recognize it (in my opinion. I've never asked "truth" what it thought of me, and I'm not sure I'd get an answer or even that I'd like the answer if I did! ;) ).


I will agree with this one. This needs to be corrected accordingly.

Quote:
And YES, I'm familiar with tonality/atonality. My master's thesis was a 12-tone electroacoustic concerto grosso for quadraphonic tape (yes, TAPE!) and chamber orchestra (strings, piano, woodwind quintet). I hit upon this Webern-esque idea of constructing an invariant 12-tone row based on the word "CAGE," a reference to the composer John Cage. I constructed a cube model on which were placed various musical parameters (timbre, pitch, articulation, time point) and used a spreadsheet program to show the various combinations. That was all programmed into a sequencer from which the score was derived. That way, I combined invariance with integral serialism. I was also inspired by Iannis Xenakis' use of game theory, which I incorporated into the 3rd movement, and my use of chance operations were a deliberate tribute to John Cage.


I would be honored to see your model?

Quote:
Also, just to clarify: Atonality didn't arise so much because tonalists felt they'd reached the limit. What was happening was that more and more composers were experimenting with dissonance, and it wasn't always possible to resolve dissonances, especially so many pervasive ones, without sounding contrived or incoherent. Many works by Bartok exhibit a strong tie to folk music and folk music-making and yet seem to avoid a tonal center. Schoenberg, who invented 12-tone composition, wasn't really trying to add that much to what was there--he just saw a problem with atonal music in general, that it was very random and incoherent. The idea of the "tone row" was to give atonal music organic unity, something inherent in tonal systems but that atonal systems lacked.


correction noted



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

21 Apr 2010, 9:21 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
I would be honored to see your model?


It's actually fairly easy to describe. You have six sides of a cube onto which you superimpose some kind of musical parameter. Let's suppose you only use three sides. On one side are pitch classes (i.e. notes), another is time point (related to rhythm), and another is timbre (or instrument). Each side of the cube is organized into 12 blocks which represent the 12 pitch classes. To understand time point, think about a 12-hour clock. Serial music is dependent on an ordered series. So if you have the series 1, 3, 2, then that refers to events which happen at 1, another event that happens at 3, and still another that happens 11 hours later at 2. In musical terms, you can simply organize blocks of time into groups of, say, sixteenth notes or eighth notes--for example 12/8 time (12 eighths for each measure) or 3/4 time (12 sixteenths for each measure). On the third side you can have a timbre, i.e. tone color or a specific instrument. You need at least 12 individual performers to make this work, although there's nothing wrong with coming up with creative work-arounds.

So each musical element forms one side of a 3-D figure (cube), and the master matrix cube is made up of 144 component cubes representing 1,728 combinations. So any given pitch class could be handed off to different performers at different times and played various ways (Elliot Carter-style), any given time point could be played in turn by different instruments on a different note, or any one performer could play a series of different time points on different notes. It was a wonderful way to compose. The most significant error I made in my thesis was using an invariant tone row and linking other musical parameters to it directly, hence severely limiting my options--but by the time I realized the horrible truth it was too late to start over! ;) It was a good composition, though, if I do say so myself and obviously I earned my degree. Since then, any work I've attempted in a similar fashion came about in either a less deliberate way or purely the result of chance (I like using shuffled playing cards). Perhaps one day I'll use more stochastic methods of determinance, but in the meantime I've got to worry more about feeding my children.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

21 Apr 2010, 6:55 pm

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I would be honored to see your model?


It's actually fairly easy to describe. You have six sides of a cube onto which you superimpose some kind of musical parameter. Let's suppose you only use three sides. On one side are pitch classes (i.e. notes), another is time point (related to rhythm), and another is timbre (or instrument). Each side of the cube is organized into 12 blocks which represent the 12 pitch classes. To understand time point, think about a 12-hour clock. Serial music is dependent on an ordered series. So if you have the series 1, 3, 2, then that refers to events which happen at 1, another event that happens at 3, and still another that happens 11 hours later at 2. In musical terms, you can simply organize blocks of time into groups of, say, sixteenth notes or eighth notes--for example 12/8 time (12 eighths for each measure) or 3/4 time (12 sixteenths for each measure). On the third side you can have a timbre, i.e. tone color or a specific instrument. You need at least 12 individual performers to make this work, although there's nothing wrong with coming up with creative work-arounds.

So each musical element forms one side of a 3-D figure (cube), and the master matrix cube is made up of 144 component cubes representing 1,728 combinations. So any given pitch class could be handed off to different performers at different times and played various ways (Elliot Carter-style), any given time point could be played in turn by different instruments on a different note, or any one performer could play a series of different time points on different notes. It was a wonderful way to compose. The most significant error I made in my thesis was using an invariant tone row and linking other musical parameters to it directly, hence severely limiting my options--but by the time I realized the horrible truth it was too late to start over! ;) It was a good composition, though, if I do say so myself and obviously I earned my degree. Since then, any work I've attempted in a similar fashion came about in either a less deliberate way or purely the result of chance (I like using shuffled playing cards). Perhaps one day I'll use more stochastic methods of determinance, but in the meantime I've got to worry more about feeding my children.


Music can become a mathematical science. I like that.

AngelRho, will you help to implement dynamic honesty around the world. One way you can do that is to keep pointing out flaws so I can continue to perfect the system. In addition, I need others to help to correct these flaws to continue to perfect the system. Only if they want to. Is there a way to get the NTs to understand it? They need to be apart of it as well. This system can't be about only me. It must eventually leave me even though I can continue to add to it and correct.

Will you apply it to your music as well? Keep making your music better and better.