Music is math divested of subjection and directing the consciousness beyond sublimation. Entropy beckons to ignorance, withering wanton and wasted abandonment without purpose. Illuminated without reduction the alternatives are in concert. Certainty no less than imagination. Comprehension dances upon condescension.
>Music is math
No, it’s not. We’ve already established that.
sigh
Bubblecar said:
>Music is mathNo, it’s not. We’ve already established that.
sigh
I have always thought maths was short for mathematics, if so the word math seems very awkward.
Bubblecar said:
>Music is mathNo, it’s not. We’ve already established that.
sigh
You might have established that. I still think of music as maths. Maths is just a numerical way of sorting out the world.
>Maths is just a numerical way of sorting out the world.
Yes, but music isn’t.
Anyway that’s my last word on the subject. I’ll just have to accept that realism isn’t very popular in this forum :)
>if so the word math seems very awkward.
‘math’ is fine
Music is math in that it has structure originating from physics (evolution and stuff inclusive), beyond that it’d require a book to explain it, or unexplain it. I’m not sure that book has been written yet.
Probably a look at lulling sounds humans make to their babies, or even those babbling sounds babies make that resemble self-lulling might b a good introduction to what makes for the pleasant sounds grownups might call or apply the word-concept ‘music’ or consider to be ‘musical’. There is likely though mental activity that might precede such a word-concept of which the word concept is agreed and built from, or learned, and applied of.
What of field hollors too, for example.
And there’s pillow talk (to broaden the scope).
Above is of what is vocally appealing, or a vocal style or voice related, then there is something else, like percussion instruments which hardly resemble voice at all, far as I can see/hear, they are something else I think.
The high fequencies of cymbols (think drum kit), which might be as high as 16KHZ, these sort of sounds don’t or hardly exist this way in nature, and haven’t through evolution, though of life through time there must have been some survival advantage from being able to hear to this frequency range. This range of frequencies though may exist as noise about us, amongst a pink noise like profile, like of the slightest breeze through the leaves of a tree. The thing is though to knock out the very high frequencies too much may filter or attenuate a few octaves down.
What makes for a ‘sharp sound’, like that of a branch breaking, or a twig snapping as someone approaches while napping. Anyway without going into it there’s something in the sharpness or brightness of such sounds that displaces a type of noise, or types of noise.
So some of what we like of that ‘musical’ is by way of the processing against (involving contrast with) what is or would have been background noise through evolutionary history. The wind most certainly. What wind (ranging to stillness of air inclusive) does to the propagation of sound also.
So structure (appealing sounds inclusive) comes from processing against ‘noise’ also, or it may be accurate to say much of it is done from noise.
The word, math is an Americanism. In English it is maths.
Let’s dissect this post a little…
Music is math
divested of subjection and directing the consciousness beyond sublimation.
Entropy beckons to ignorance, withering wanton and wasted abandonment without purpose.
Illuminated without reduction the alternatives are in concert. Certainty no less than imagination. Comprehension dances upon condescension.
My suggestion is that if you have a question, or a statement, then you try your best to communicate it in a way that people can understand
wanton withering?
Hints of all is learned courtesy culture, or derived from lifetime exprience alone…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
“…The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means “that which is learnt”, “what one gets to know”, hence also “study” and “science”, and in modern Greek just “lesson”. The word máthēma is derived from μανθάνω (manthano), while the modern Greek equivalent is μαθαίνω (mathaino), both of which mean “to learn”. In Greece, the word for “mathematics” came to have the narrower and more technical meaning “mathematical study” even in Classical times……”
>In English it is maths
If a goodly part of our grunts is to be efficient, why not drop the “s”.
I bet you say aluminium ‘al you min ee um’….
:) just messin’ with you.
transition said:
>In English it is mathsIf a goodly part of our grunts is to be efficient, why not drop the “s”.
I bet you say aluminium ‘al you min ee um’….
:) just messin’ with you.
:) I’m not a yank.
Bubblecar said:
>Music is mathNo, it’s not. We’ve already established that.
sigh
And I so carefully put together words alluding to music being math come to life and directing the orchestra of life.
sigh
:P
roughbarked said:
wanton withering?
What is entropy but a maw that deludes the conscience into self destruction?
Postpocelipse said:
roughbarked said:
wanton withering?
What is entropy but a maw that deludes the conscience into self destruction?
not using any conventional definition of the word… maybe you are confused with some other term.
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
roughbarked said:
wanton withering?
What is entropy but a maw that deludes the conscience into self destruction?
not using any conventional definition of the word… maybe you are confused with some other term.
Conventional terms aren’t preclusively technical. Entropy is a default condition of the universe that informs the mind that degradation of condition is inevitable. The conscientious seek to overcome rather than succumb to the gaping jowels of this factor.
If you believe I supplied this as an academically technical explanation then you would be the one confused. If there is a technical description here it is the(attempted) illustration that testing the limitations of the physical may not accurately measure the potential of the mind which dares and dances beyond destruction.
That’s because our brains are inclined to think linearly, not exponentially.
Read more at
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:What is entropy but a maw that deludes the conscience into self destruction?
not using any conventional definition of the word… maybe you are confused with some other term.
Conventional terms aren’t preclusively technical. Entropy is a default condition of the universe that informs the mind that degradation of condition is inevitable. The conscientious seek to overcome rather than succumb to the gaping jowels of this factor.
If you believe I supplied this as an academically technical explanation then you would be the one confused. If there is a technical description here it is the(attempted) illustration that testing the limitations of the physical may not accurately measure the potential of the mind which dares and dances beyond destruction.
maybe it’s just me but I have no idea what you are talking about but please note what ever it is it isn’t insightful or poetic… it’s gibberish…
If there is a directly technical explanation here it might be that the common definition of music might be limited. Music might better be described as the organisation and implementation of harmony. Under this definition sentience itself might be percieved as music.
Postpocelipse said:
If there is a directly technical explanation here it might be that the common definition of music might be limited. Music might better be described as the organisation and implementation of harmony. Under this definition sentience itself might be percieved as music.
music need not exhibit harmony
diddly-squat said:
maybe it’s just me but I have no idea what you are talking about but please note what ever it is it isn’t insightful or poetic… it’s gibberish…
And you are an expert on insight and poetry? I provided thoughts for discussion. You would prefer not analysing the substance so why bother Diddly? It is entirely coherent provided you make the effort to absorb the content.
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
If there is a directly technical explanation here it might be that the common definition of music might be limited. Music might better be described as the organisation and implementation of harmony. Under this definition sentience itself might be percieved as music.
music need not exhibit harmony
BULLSHIT!!!!!
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:maybe it’s just me but I have no idea what you are talking about but please note what ever it is it isn’t insightful or poetic… it’s gibberish…
And you are an expert on insight and poetry? I provided thoughts for discussion. You would prefer not analysing the substance so why bother Diddly? It is entirely coherent provided you make the effort to absorb the content.
the point Postpoc is that these thoughts are meaningless… I’m all for philosophical conversation, but you first need to start with a comment or a question that means something…
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
If there is a directly technical explanation here it might be that the common definition of music might be limited. Music might better be described as the organisation and implementation of harmony. Under this definition sentience itself might be percieved as music.
music need not exhibit harmony
BULLSHIT!!!!!
I should qualify this. Order is itself harmony. Deliberate structuring of order promotes contrast and explores the variability of harmony. Therefore it should be acceptable to describe life as music…….
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
If there is a directly technical explanation here it might be that the common definition of music might be limited. Music might better be described as the organisation and implementation of harmony. Under this definition sentience itself might be percieved as music.
music need not exhibit harmony
BULLSHIT!!!!!
harmony is just the playing multiple notes at the same time… I can pluck individual strings on a guitar, or even strike a drum head, and produce no harmonies
>Entropy is a default condition of the universe that informs the mind that degradation of condition is inevitable
Not sure accretion at work in galaxies etc supports that.
Right down to solar systems and individual planets, to the ordering of things with structure, as in the evolution of life on earth for example, absolute heat death and equilibrium looks to be a long way off yet.
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:maybe it’s just me but I have no idea what you are talking about but please note what ever it is it isn’t insightful or poetic… it’s gibberish…
And you are an expert on insight and poetry? I provided thoughts for discussion. You would prefer not analysing the substance so why bother Diddly? It is entirely coherent provided you make the effort to absorb the content.
the point Postpoc is that these thoughts are meaningless… I’m all for philosophical conversation, but you first need to start with a comment or a question that means something…
I have illustrated my thoughts, which might be meaningless to yourself. The question of music’s relationship to math was raised and in my estimation the subject required deeper consideration, which I have addressed in a limited fashion in order to minimise unnecessary pedantry. Conclusions that don’t examine the content are simply cogitation.
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:music need not exhibit harmony
BULLSHIT!!!!!
harmony is just the playing multiple notes at the same time… I can pluck individual strings on a guitar, or even strike a drum head, and produce no harmonies
The nature of any wavelength is an expression of the harmony that sustains the manifestation of any wavelength. Limiting universal definition to various vehicles of observation minimises that definition to meaninglessness. Harmony is order and exploration of order creates music irregardless of the instrument that supports it.
transition said:
>Entropy is a default condition of the universe that informs the mind that degradation of condition is inevitableNot sure accretion at work in galaxies etc supports that.
Right down to solar systems and individual planets, to the ordering of things with structure, as in the evolution of life on earth for example, absolute heat death and equilibrium looks to be a long way off yet.
it’s never over till the fat lady……….
:P
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:BULLSHIT!!!!!
harmony is just the playing multiple notes at the same time… I can pluck individual strings on a guitar, or even strike a drum head, and produce no harmonies
The nature of any wavelength is an expression of the harmony that sustains the manifestation of any wavelength. Limiting universal definition to various vehicles of observation minimises that definition to meaninglessness. Harmony is order and exploration of order creates music irregardless of the instrument that supports it.
rollseyes
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:harmony is just the playing multiple notes at the same time… I can pluck individual strings on a guitar, or even strike a drum head, and produce no harmonies
The nature of any wavelength is an expression of the harmony that sustains the manifestation of any wavelength. Limiting universal definition to various vehicles of observation minimises that definition to meaninglessness. Harmony is order and exploration of order creates music irregardless of the instrument that supports it.
rollseyes
a good exercise for waking the brain………..
:P
hehehe
>it’s never over till the fat lady………. :P”
The energy of moving mass, say M when you give it Velocity (hence direction), K the Kinetic Energy doesn’t have linear relationship to M*V (I think it goes like that), this must contribute to informing our insights of the world, not just from the experience of a lifetime?
transition said:
>it’s never over till the fat lady………. :P”The energy of moving mass, say M when you give it Velocity (hence direction), K the Kinetic Energy doesn’t have linear relationship to M*V (I think it goes like that), this must contribute to informing our insights of the world, not just from the experience of a lifetime?
A good point for consideration.
diddly-squat said:
Postpocelipse said:
diddly-squat said:harmony is just the playing multiple notes at the same time… I can pluck individual strings on a guitar, or even strike a drum head, and produce no harmonies
The nature of any wavelength is an expression of the harmony that sustains the manifestation of any wavelength. Limiting universal definition to various vehicles of observation minimises that definition to meaninglessness. Harmony is order and exploration of order creates music irregardless of the instrument that supports it.
rollseyes
To clarify, constructed music is an external expression of internal observations. The composer seeks to illustrate and expose harmonies that are everpresent. Are our musical endeavors creating music or reflecting our experience of the harmonics in nature and living experience?
>A good point for consideration.
I think much is descended from geometry of sorts. We have this lovely invisible thing we call ‘gravity’ for starters, a force, invisible, you can walk through it, provides a very good compass for up, down, sideways and more. More impressive though is that it provides for abstract geometries, you can overlay planes, overlay the abstract on real things.
Add the ‘magic’ (I think it is anyway) of the relationship between M and V that makes for Kinetic Energy, and between them (and quite a few other things) I think there is some basis for computation, and the potential for structure ordering exists.
transition said:
>A good point for consideration.I think much is descended from geometry of sorts. We have this lovely invisible thing we call ‘gravity’ for starters, a force, invisible, you can walk through it, provides a very good compass for up, down, sideways and more. More impressive though is that it provides for abstract geometries, you can overlay planes, overlay the abstract on real things.
Add the ‘magic’ (I think it is anyway) of the relationship between M and V that makes for Kinetic Energy, and between them (and quite a few other things) I think there is some basis for computation, and the potential for structure ordering exists.
Rather than overlaying the term magic on this relationship I would describe geometry as the thoughts of maths. Deliberation between geometries expresses harmonics and impresses disharmonics, ie, harmonics build/create while disharmonics provide limitations and confinement. In this way disharmonics are not in opposition to harmony but defining of it.
roughbarked said:
The word, math is an Americanism. In English it is maths.
Saved by the Roughbarked Chronicle.
Bubblecar said:
>Maths is just a numerical way of sorting out the world.Yes, but music isn’t.
Anyway that’s my last word on the subject. I’ll just have to accept that realism isn’t very popular in this forum :)
You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correct
Mathematics might measure the notes of music, but it is the emotions expressed that creates music. However, music means different things to different people and what might express deep emotion to some. will not do the same for others who might regard it as just a jumble of notes. It does not seem to have an answer.
PermeateFree said:
Mathematics might measure the notes of music, but it is the emotions expressed that creates music. However, music means different things to different people and what might express deep emotion to some. will not do the same for others who might regard it as just a jumble of notes. It does not seem to have an answer.
The tool we name maths is an investigation of the natural harmonics of interval, modulation and aperture. We apply the tool of math to achieve harmony of result. Without our conscientious measurement of phenomena those phenomena continue to exist as they are spontaneously apparent. We apply maths to maintain coherent pace with spontaneous events. It is not simply a tool of explanation but a tangible observable that defines the evolution of phenomena.
Music is initially the observation of the existence of form before it is an expression of preference or experience. Both music and maths are tools used to describe observable regularities and contrasts.
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correct
Hmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Postpocelipse said:
PermeateFree said:
Mathematics might measure the notes of music, but it is the emotions expressed that creates music. However, music means different things to different people and what might express deep emotion to some. will not do the same for others who might regard it as just a jumble of notes. It does not seem to have an answer.
The tool we name maths is an investigation of the natural harmonics of interval, modulation and aperture. We apply the tool of math to achieve harmony of result. Without our conscientious measurement of phenomena those phenomena continue to exist as they are spontaneously apparent. We apply maths to maintain coherent pace with spontaneous events. It is not simply a tool of explanation but a tangible observable that defines the evolution of phenomena.
Music is initially the observation of the existence of form before it is an expression of preference or experience. Both music and maths are tools used to describe observable regularities and contrasts.
Maths is not emotional, whereas music is.
Bubblecar said:
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correctHmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Consider the major and minor scales. The major scale expresses gaiety and the minor is somber. This suggests that there is geometry that defines experience as well as the geometry that defines the physical realm and necessitates maths. Both maths and music measure spontaneous geometry as experience is defined by the physical.
Postpocelipse said:
Bubblecar said:
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correctHmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Consider the major and minor scales. The major scale expresses gaiety and the minor is somber. This suggests that there is geometry that defines experience as well as the geometry that defines the physical realm and necessitates maths. Both maths and music measure spontaneous geometry as experience is defined by the physical.
Yeah whatever :)
don’t need to know equations of motion
to write a heart felt song of love & devotion
love & devotion
love & devotion
come on along & do
the loco motion
the loco motion
there, that’s settled
Bubblecar said:
Postpocelipse said:
Bubblecar said:
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correctHmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Consider the major and minor scales. The major scale expresses gaiety and the minor is somber. This suggests that there is geometry that defines experience as well as the geometry that defines the physical realm and necessitates maths. Both maths and music measure spontaneous geometry as experience is defined by the physical.
Yeah whatever :)
I bet if Labor were running things I wouldn’t have so much time for idle rumination. ;)
Bubblecar said:
Postpocelipse said:
Bubblecar said:
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correctHmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Consider the major and minor scales. The major scale expresses gaiety and the minor is somber. This suggests that there is geometry that defines experience as well as the geometry that defines the physical realm and necessitates maths. Both maths and music measure spontaneous geometry as experience is defined by the physical.
Yeah whatever :)
All the authorities agree with me.
Almost a sure sign one is talking out of ones bee-hind
Postpocelipse said:
Bubblecar said:
>You should also accept the fact your opinion is not necessarily correctHmm, all the authorities on the subject tend to agree with me that music and maths are actually different things, but yeah, we’re all opinionated cranks.
Consider the major and minor scales. The major scale expresses gaiety and the minor is somber. This suggests that there is geometry that defines experience as well as the geometry that defines the physical realm and necessitates maths. Both maths and music measure spontaneous geometry as experience is defined by the physical.
A composer will record their musical thoughts on paper, but then most listeners to fully appreciate it, will interpret that information emotionally. They are not thinking of how the music was created or documented, so the maths are at the beginning, with emotions at the end and probably a great deal of overlap between.
One of these days perhaps I’ll write a computer program to compose music. All I can guarantee is that
a) the result will be better than most attempts to compose music solely by computer.
b) the result will be much worse than mrs m’s piano compositions, which she does by sitting at the piano and letting her hands and ears do the work in a single take.