The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 7th April 2010
  #331
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotr View Post
I did not say that everything would be resolved.
I said that some things may be settled.

But if you want philosophy:

Here is Wittgenstein's take on the music/language issue:
ok - as you say below - this is from the Tractatus - an approach which he later repudiated. But he is always interesting.....

quote] 4.014 A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the
sound-waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation
of depicting that holds between language and the world. They are all
constructed according to a common logical pattern.[/quote]

I think that it would be dangerous to infer from this that music is 'a language'. It's also very dangerous in general to find a single passage and try to interpret it without reading the whole argument, which can go on for quite awhile and be rather esoteric. But simply, the main idea seems to be that a musical passage can be 'described' in a number of ways - but he's not saying that music is language/communication because of emotions, etc, that are being conveyed.

Quote:
4.0141 There is a general rule by means of which the musician can obtain
Quote:
the symphony from the score, and which makes it possible to derive the
symphony from the groove on the gramophone record, and, using the first
rule, to derive the score again. That is what constitutes the inner
similarity between these things which seem to be constructed in such
entirely different ways. And that rule is the law of projection which
projects the symphony into the language of musical notation. It is
the rule for translating this language into the language of gramophone
records.


But there are 2 different senses that people here have spoken about music being a language, and they have confused them. I differentiated much earlier between the notion of a musical score and its relation to the music, and the notion that the music itself is conveying things like emotions and feelings. Those really are 2 different ideas entirely. It doesn't follow that music is a language in the latter sense because one can notate it, or encode it in other ways.

Quote:
This is from his "ractatus Logico-Philosophicus".
Now, I will not say that this will settle anything. In fact: I thought that I could contribute to this conversation by simply providing some factual points of reference, instead of stoking the emotional fires here.
So the above passages from Tractatus (as well as other texts and materials I posted earlier) are meant to serve that purpose exclusively: references.

Sincerely,
p.
Well, I just don't think that he is addressing here what is the more central issue of music/communication/language - not whether one can develop a formal system that can denote how music should be played, but whether the music itself, as composed and heard, is a language/communication. If so, analogous to notating pitch and time in a musical score, one could notate emotions.....but that isn't the same thing at all.
Old 7th April 2010
  #332
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotr View Post
I did not say that everything would be resolved.
I said that some things may be settled.

But if you want philosophy:

Here is Wittgenstein's take on the music/language issue:

4.014 A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the
sound-waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation
of depicting that holds between language and the world. They are all
constructed according to a common logical pattern.

4.0141 There is a general rule by means of which the musician can obtain
the symphony from the score, and which makes it possible to derive the
symphony from the groove on the gramophone record, and, using the first
rule, to derive the score again. That is what constitutes the inner
similarity between these things which seem to be constructed in such
entirely different ways. And that rule is the law of projection which
projects the symphony into the language of musical notation. It is
the rule for translating this language into the language of gramophone
records.


This is from his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus".
Now, I will not say that this will settle anything. In fact: I thought that I could contribute to this conversation by simply providing some factual points of reference, instead of stoking the emotional fires here.
So the above passages from Tractatus (as well as other texts and materials I posted earlier) are meant to serve that purpose exclusively: references.

Sincerely,
p.
Of course Wittgenstein fails to see that what he thinks is the similarity between language and music is actually the similarity between the language of notes and language.

Notes could be said to be "the language of music" in so far as we have attached meaning (note pitch and length) to arbitrary symbols making then a very effective way to communicate musical ideas.

But the actual music has no similarities to language.
Old 7th April 2010
  #333
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Music can use formulas to 'communicate' certain emotions. The less formulaic, the less likely that the listener will derive the same emotion or feeling, and the further therefore that it strays from the meaning of communication. This does not mean that one cannot react emotionally to music, and legitimately. But the emotion is not a part of the music, and it's certainly not a language, else there'd be rules, and correctness/incorrectness about the interpretation of the feelings/emotions.

As I've said again and again - feelings and emotions can be conveyed in music to various degrees. If Penderecki's piece didn't have that title, and you just heard it without any knowledge of what it is, would you make the same associations? I suspect not. That doesn't mean that the piece is any less effective.

But you really want to believe that you deny that music IS communication or language that it somehow loses something, or that it is somehow more 'dry' and devoid of feeling. The fact that you are doing so suggests time and time again that you don't understand what's being said.
Oh, so you've never heard the piece? It's a very famous ground breaking work.

Yes, you get all kinds of association with Hiroshima, not just B52 bombers letting go of their load. Things quite unrelated.

Communication doesn't mean you have to DUPLICATE what originated at source. In literal communications, sure. But not in artistic communication. The things that are communicated aren't suppose to be literally the same. They can't be. You bring, as a listener, your life experience with you when you listen.

I gave examples of communications that weren't with words -- friends, wife, husband. A look. A "notion." A baby can scream, and you may not have a literal concept of what the child wants, but that child is communicating to you, in no uncertain terms.

Novels are often literal communications. It gets further from this intention when you read Faulkner, Joyce, Cummings, etc.. They wrote more like composers, or visual abstract artists. Words didn't necessarily mean literally what was being written, in the traditional form.

This discussion is continuing to be very silly. I'm opting out because there simply is no ability or willingness to see the other side. It's all "I'm right and you're wrong!" Well I have no time or patience for his kinds of discussion. They bear no fruit.
Old 7th April 2010
  #334
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

huh?When did I claim that if ol'Beermaster wept at some Xenakis music that this wasn't emotion?

But somehow I don't think that Xenakis was attempting to make ol'Beermaster cry, and that therefore this wasn't the result of communication on Xenakis' part. Or are you saying that the music itself is communicating?

Perhaps it is my 'feelings of inadequacy' that are communicating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
There are certainly structures and forms that evoke all kinds of feelings in people but its the performance and arrangement of instruments that really makes or brakes the power of the emotion and feeling in hand. If this isn't emotion and communication then what is ? ..... on that basis you could describe away emotion as merely being electrical pulses in the the brain with various combinations chemical reactions...



Depending on which work of Xenakis and who's performance I have all kinds of emotional responses to his music.
Old 7th April 2010
  #335
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
I can't understand what you're saying, really.
Sure you do back at you.

Quote:
Sure you do.
No I don't. "essence" Sounds like some vague spiritual concept masking as pseudo-logic in a strained attempt at rationalism. Do all objects in your reality contain this "essence"?

See how easy the game you play is? Wheee... what fun...

Quote:
This is really just nonsense. Entirely. The thing is that you can go on with this belief system, even though you can't back it up in any way other than stoned out statements about 'universality' etc. And nothing bad will happen. So, I suppose I should just ignore it.
Nope it is not nonsense. It is peer reviewed rigorous philosophy, also called science etc... your opinion is nonsense. The irony truly makes me laugh.

Yep ignore it. I will ignore your posts also and this thread will be better for it.
Oh And even better, make an attempt to answer the question posed by the OP and the reason for this thread.

You can lead a stubborn horse to water but you can't make him drink. Not my purpose in life to convince you of anything. But I appreciate many of the comments on here and hopefully someone here appreciates mine. It's still all good for me. No need for validation here. Wrong place, wrong people wrong time.

So if later in this thread I get quoted and bashed and others opine negatively on what I have to say. That's nice. I am no longer reading this.

Quote:
Now, I will not say that this will settle anything. In fact: I thought that I could contribute to this conversation by simply providing some factual points of reference, instead of stoking the emotional fires here.
Awesome piotr! Keep it up. I will read the links you have posted and see what I can get from that. Maybe check out the references I have posted as well and maybe new threads will pop up.
Old 7th April 2010
  #336
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post

Well, I just don't think that he is addressing here what is the more central issue of music/communication/language - not whether one can develop a formal system that can denote how music should be played, but whether the music itself, as composed and heard, is a language/communication. If so, analogous to notating pitch and time in a musical score, one could notate emotions.....but that isn't the same thing at all.
chomsky claimed that language wasn't learned: language was innate to human behavior. if communication is the expression of language, and the result of expression is emotion, then the point of contention within the now obtuse music vs sound debate is: is music language?

Carrying lingual theory one step higher, if language is innate--a part of being human--and creation (the implementation of a grammar) is the expression of our language--a language of grammars of languages--then comsky theory lends me to believe that there is a universal language that describes all creation, that controls all poetry, music, drawing, etc, every possibility in history and in future, that originates from the innate source that is the same and inside every human. If we knew what this was, then ABSOLUTELY you could create music that did in fact express exactly what you wanted to express, including emotion, the same way you can speak and have the same effect.

Right now its hit or miss kinda sorta because I'm not sure we're able to describe all human spoken languages from a universal language perspective much less a global human language.


droolmaster0 -- languages have been explored to death as has the cognitive nature of communication. i have done all i can within limited resources to prove that music is a language (though some would say its more a thought process)...if you don't believe it to be true then thats where we part ways
Old 7th April 2010
  #337
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by choice_of_meat View Post

No I don't. "essence" Sounds like some vague spiritual concept masking as pseudo-logic in a strained attempt at rationalism. Do all objects in your reality contain this "essence"?
Well, I guess the 'game' you refer to below is simply to ignore my actual points, for instance, what I said about 'essence'.

Quote:
See how easy the game you play is? Wheee... what fun...
I'm not playing a game. I'm trying (in vain, apparently) to have you think about some of this stuff in a different way.

Quote:
Nope it is not nonsense. It is peer reviewed rigorous philosophy, also called science etc... your opinion is nonsense. The irony truly makes me laugh.
Oh, that's quite hilarious. I haven't seen any 'peer reviewed' rigorous philosophy coming from you at all. I do see somewhat of a need to study it though.
Old 7th April 2010
  #338
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
chomsky claimed that language wasn't learned: language was innate to human behavior.
Now, I've mostly read his politics, but I don't think that this is what Chomsky says about language - you are much distorting it. I don't think that he would disagrees that you'd need to learn English, Spanish, or whatever.

I believe that what he says is that there is a deep syntactical similarity amongst languages, and that this fundamental structure is inborn. But you still have to learn language. Obviously.

Quote:
if communication is the expression of language, and the result of expression is emotion, then the point of contention within the now obtuse music vs sound debate is: is music language?
huh?

Quote:
Carrying lingual theory one step higher, if language is innate--a part of being human--and creation (the implementation of a grammar) is the expression of our language--a language of grammars of languages--
Dude - this really is nonsense.

Quote:
then comsky theory lends me to believe that there is a universal language that describes all creation, that controls all poetry, music, drawing, etc, every possibility in history and in future, that originates from the innate source that is the same and inside every human. If we knew what this was, then ABSOLUTELY you could create music that did in fact express exactly what you wanted to express, including emotion, the same way you can speak and have the same effect.
I think that what this all boils down to is that I'd love some of what you're smoking.

Quote:
...
droolmaster0 -- languages have been explored to death as has the cognitive nature of communication. i have done all i can within limited resources to prove that music is a language (though some would say its more a thought process)...if you don't believe it to be true then thats where we part ways
You haven't proven anything at all. Stoned out philosophizing isn't the same thing as philosophy.
Old 7th April 2010
  #339
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Oh, so you've never heard the piece? It's a very famous ground breaking work.
Yes - I'm very familiar with it. That's why I was talking about it.

Quote:
Yes, you get all kinds of association with Hiroshima, not just B52 bombers letting go of their load. Things quite unrelated.
Perhaps I remember incorrectly - it's been years since I heard it - it's an instrumental piece, isn't it? I made, I thought, the very rational suggestion that if you didn't know what the piece was, and you heard it out of the blue, that you probably wouldn't make connections with Hiroshima.

Quote:
Communication doesn't mean you have to DUPLICATE what originated at source. In literal communications, sure. But not in artistic communication. The things that are communicated aren't suppose to be literally the same. They can't be. You bring, as a listener, your life experience with you when you listen.
But here is where your argument becomes so circular. You attempt to clarify what music is by saying it's communication - which in order to elucidate anything would have to use a common meaning of communication, not simply one which is used (metaphorically) to refer to what art does. You admit that artistic communication is different, that ideas are not exactly expressed, that there is not a right or wrong to the interpretation - so it is only communication in the sense that we talk about art as being communication. It doesnt' elucidate what art or music is by bringing it under a larger category.

Quote:
I gave examples of communications that weren't with words -- friends, wife, husband. A look. A "notion." A baby can scream, and you may not have a literal concept of what the child wants, but that child is communicating to you, in no uncertain terms.
Well obviously - a baby can scream, and it is communicating - but if there were no common interpretation of a baby's scream - that it is in some distress, then we wouldn't say that it was communicating to us. We know what a baby's scream means. However, the less that a piece of music relies on common formulas to denote specific emotions, the less of a commonality there is in what is 'understood' from it. There is a vague similarity to communication, and hence that's why the metaphor is so commonly used. But it is not communication in the same sense as a real language, or even a baby's scream - it is communication only in its own particular sense, and to say, in a linguistic/philosophical sense, that it is communication isn't really saying much more than music is music.

Quote:
Novels are often literal communications. It gets further from this intention when you read Faulkner, Joyce, Cummings, etc.. They wrote more like composers, or visual abstract artists. Words didn't necessarily mean literally what was being written, in the traditional form.

This discussion is continuing to be very silly. I'm opting out because there simply is no ability or willingness to see the other side. It's all "I'm right and you're wrong!" Well I have no time or patience for his kinds of discussion. They bear no fruit.
I understand entirely what you're saying. I disagree with your contextual classification of it. I don't see any effort to really struggle through what's being said on this end.
Old 7th April 2010
  #340
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Now, I've mostly read his politics, but I don't think that this is what Chomsky says about language - you are much distorting it.
ahhh...it is what he is saying! It's almost a quote.
Metalinguistic awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The concept of Metalinguistic Awareness is helpful in explaining the execution and transfer of linguistic knowledge across languages (e.g. code switching and translation among bilinguals.)"


this ability is what henry uses when he goes from playing funk to metal effortlessly. He has a meta-music awareness that allows him to read music and 'get it'. This is what I'm talking about!

I don't have it, with music anyway.

Quote:
I don't think that he would disagrees that you'd need to learn English, Spanish, or whatever.
haha! yes, language we speak is indeed learned.

Learning is a big part! BUT: what is key, and what was mind blowing to me, is that if we had NO spoken language present at birth, we'd make our own. And that this made up, new language, would develop and mature as it was passed down from generation to generation. And after 1000 years, it would not be very different from every other human language EVER made even if it was developed in a complete vacuum.

apply this to art...see where i'm going?

Quote:
You haven't proven anything at all. Stoned out philosophizing isn't the same thing as philosophy.
well, i tried.

grammar and languages are very well defined. It is not easy stuff to grasp and I am certainly no master. fun to think about. if you want to refute instead of calling me a stoner i'm willing to be convinced i'm wrong.
Old 7th April 2010
  #341
Lives for gear
 

To try to make this discussion more concrete again, here's a piece of dance music. It gets particularly interesting about 27 seconds in.

Your thoughts?
Attached Files

Dance.mp3 (1.31 MB, 27 views)

Old 7th April 2010
  #342
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
We know what a baby's scream means.
Actually no.
We don't always know what a babys scream means, and that can be frustrating.

Because the baby does not really communicate.

A baby just reacts to impulses it senses as negative by screaming, but there is no intent to communicate to anyone (especially since babies do not yet realize that they are individuals that are separate from the rest of the world) and the receiver of this so called communication has no way to identify what the sender of the screams actually wishes to express.
Furthermore the sender itself has no idea of what is wrong.
And the sender has no idea that there might actually be someone there to receive the communication.

Of course, if someone wants to label a biological reaction (screaming), and failing to correctly decode this (resulting in parental frustration), communication, be my guest.
In that case you would also think that music is communication...
Old 7th April 2010
  #343
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Once you know your baby you can tell the difference between a Scream for attention, a scream for tiredness, a scream for delight, a scream for frustration, a scream for crocodile tears, a scream for real upset pain...

All screams all without words all with precise messages.
Old 7th April 2010
  #344
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

i love lamp
Old 7th April 2010
  #345
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
ahhh...it is what he is saying! It's almost a quote.
Metalinguistic awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The concept of Metalinguistic Awareness is helpful in explaining the execution and transfer of linguistic knowledge across languages (e.g. code switching and translation among bilinguals.)"
Sorry - this doesn't say what you said, though I don't have the quote in front of me.


Quote:
this ability is what henry uses when he goes from playing funk to metal effortlessly. He has a meta-music awareness that allows him to read music and 'get it'. This is what I'm talking about!
But Chomsky isn't talking about music. Not at all. You can't use the fact that there is some kind of "meta-awareness" to other things as an argument that these things are similar, or are the same.

Quote:
....
haha! yes, language we speak is indeed learned.

Learning is a big part! BUT: what is key, and what was mind blowing to me, is that if we had NO spoken language present at birth, we'd make our own. And that this made up, new language, would develop and mature as it was passed down from generation to generation. And after 1000 years, it would not be very different from every other human language EVER made even if it was developed in a complete vacuum.
it's also very different to say that there is a deep grammar (or whatever he calls it) that is fundamental to the human brain and helps generate a commonality among languages - to the notion that language would simply develop among humans if somehow all adults disappeared and only babies were left, or whatever. That deep grammar can exist, but language isn't something that 'just comes about' like that.

Quote:
apply this to art...see where i'm going?
I see where you're going but you're very, very, very far from getting there.

Quote:
well, i tried.

grammar and languages are very well defined. It is not easy stuff to grasp and I am certainly no master. fun to think about. if you want to refute instead of calling me a stoner i'm willing to be convinced i'm wrong.
You're making these HUGE leaps without any kind of justification. I'm trying to get you to try to see that. If you want to go from the strict definition of a language to 'music is therefore a language' you can't just do it by wild philosophizing - you have to show how music actually fits that definition.
Old 7th April 2010
  #346
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Once you know your baby you can tell the difference between a Scream for attention, a scream for tiredness, a scream for delight, a scream for frustration, a scream for crocodile tears, a scream for real upset pain...

All screams all without words all with precise messages.
Sigh - have you tried to understand what I'm saying at all? Doesn't seem like it. (scream for utter frustration)
Old 7th April 2010
  #347
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 

I think what Drool is trying to say is that there is a difference between a language and just a personal expression - the language implies that two people understand it, while the impression matters only to the one person that emits it (so if anyone gets it, that's ok, but if they don't, it doesn't really matter).

In that sense, music would be an expression, not a language.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me...
Old 7th April 2010
  #348
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
We know what a baby's scream means.
Yes. It means I have to get up again at 2 AM because the missus did it the previous time. Teething. Argh.
Old 7th April 2010
  #349
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beermaster View Post
Once you know your baby you can tell the difference between a Scream for attention, a scream for tiredness, a scream for delight, a scream for frustration, a scream for crocodile tears, a scream for real upset pain...

All screams all without words all with precise messages.
Not in the first 6 months.

...and once again, the baby does not even know it is "communicating" because to the baby there is no "other" in the world.
It just reacts to negative stimuli.
Old 7th April 2010
  #350
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
I think what Drool is trying to say is that there is a difference between a language and just a personal expression - the language implies that two people understand it, while the impression matters only to the one person that emits it (so if anyone gets it, that's ok, but if they don't, it doesn't really matter).

In that sense, music would be an expression, not a language.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me...
To some of us you are right, if that helps heh
Old 7th April 2010
  #351
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
I think what Drool is trying to say is that there is a difference between a language and just a personal expression - the language implies that two people understand it, while the impression matters only to the one person that emits it (so if anyone gets it, that's ok, but if they don't, it doesn't really matter).

In that sense, music would be an expression, not a language.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me...
Pretty close - not exactly what I'm saying, but much closer than the distortions that I'm hearing. In the case of music, a person may believe that he is communicating, and the listeners may believe that they are being communicated with, but yet they both derive something entirely different from it. I just don't think that this (or countless other argumentsthat one can come up with) fits anything really but a very particular notion of communication that is used to talk about art/music, and hence while it is at this point common usage, it doesn't elucidate anything about music or art itself.
Old 8th April 2010
  #352
Lives for gear
 
piotr's Avatar
 

Hi,

Here is a really nice video showing a graphical analysis of a beautiful composition by Arvo Pärt:



I think the video gives an insight into the structure of the piece, which (called "Spiegel im der Spiegel" which roughly translates into "Mirror inside a Mirror") builds a sonic "image" it describes. I think that a thoughtful/critical listener can understand that image from the composition itself.

I study structure. In all forms: visual, sonic, conceptual, formal, etc. etc. I am a big believer that one can gain a deep understanding of any given thing or idea from the careful analysis of its structure.

As an educator I often draw (sometimes very complex, sometimes very simple) diagrams to augment a point I am trying to make as I speak. I do this because some ideas are communicated more efficiently through such visual language. I believe music can offer similar strategies, because it is, by nature, so intensely structural.

There are many ways a "language" can be used. A poet is not necessarily interested in the exact meanings the language offers (if that is the case at all). In fact, often poetry is very much about what is actually NOT spoken. Could it be that music, if one is inclined to think of it as language, is designed to communicate much in the way poetry does?

Anyway, just wanted to share that Pärt piece, and I do believe that it represent another meaningful point of reference in contemplating the formal/conceptual relationship between the idea of language and the idea of music.

Sincerely,
p.
Old 8th April 2010
  #353
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
You're making these HUGE leaps without any kind of justification. I'm trying to get you to try to see that. If you want to go from the strict definition of a language to 'music is therefore a language' you can't just do it by wild philosophizing - you have to show how music actually fits that definition.
The leaps I'm making are fairly academic; linguistic theory is too deep and unhelpful to really dive in here. Plus its been many years since I've even thought about it. It really is quite mind blowing stuff once you get your arms around it: the implications of languages and grammars and what they mean to our ability to solve problems is really crazy. For starters, it means someone who is improvising and creating on the fly is actually following a pattern of improvisation, pre-existing rules baked into our genetic code.

A common way languages are proven is via grammars and comparing unknown languages/grammars and proving that they are identical to known languages/grammars, of which there are very discrete definitions. To do this with music is possible but what would it buy the rest of the forum? So it is an exercise for the reader.

Music as a language, blues as a grammar would be a very obvious masters thesis if you have access (and time, and energy) to sift thru journals from the 70s/80s.

Consider and research the following terms:
- Set theory
- Chomsky languages
- Chomsky grammars
- Turing machines
- Turing completeness
- Decidability
- Rewrite rules

@ark I like the envelope automation hehheh

@yoozer thats exactly what it means. @grumph, babies usually don't start screaming by the way. That is a pattern we teach them, but most babies will first try cooing and other sounds to get parental attention. When parents don't respond because they are sleeping or in another room, the volume gets ramped. Soon babies learn that screaming is the best way to get attention and so go straight to the solution that works, using a hammer in all cases when a lighter approach would also work.
Old 8th April 2010
  #354
Bio
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
eg the deaf
Eg the percussionist...
Old 8th April 2010
  #355
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
@ark I like the envelope automation hehheh
If you're referring to the music I posted, I was actually trying to make a different point -- but it hasn't gotten many plays yet so I'll wait.

The sound is pretty crude -- just a straight rendition of a MIDI file through a General Midi softsynth (Native Instruments Bandstand). I posted it for a different reason entirely...there are three things I find interesting about it, but I don't want to prejudice people by saying what they are quite yet.
Old 8th April 2010
  #356
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
The leaps I'm making are fairly academic; linguistic theory is too deep and unhelpful to really dive in here. Plus its been many years since I've even thought about it. It really is quite mind blowing stuff once you get your arms around it: the implications of languages and grammars and what they mean to our ability to solve problems is really crazy. For starters, it means someone who is improvising and creating on the fly is actually following a pattern of improvisation, pre-existing rules baked into our genetic code.
But you're not making arguments - you essentially saying - 'I've read all of this stuff. Trust me - it works'. But I know enough to know that you're taking bits and pieces of some complex stuff and just fancifully winging it.

And even suppose that what you say is true - if it's like what Chomsky says about deep grammar (is that what he calls it? I forget) - then there would be very deep structural rules in the kinds of patterns that we create/find pleasing in music. But your argument would still be essentially: Chomsky believes in this deep grammar as an underpinning for all human languages. Music has a similar kind of structural underpinning - therefore music is a language. As an argument, well, it just doesn't fly.

Quote:
A common way languages are proven is via grammars and comparing unknown languages/grammars and proving that they are identical to known languages/grammars, of which there are very discrete definitions. To do this with music is possible but what would it buy the rest of the forum? So it is an exercise for the reader.
What do you mean by 'languages are proven'? I really doubt that, if that phrase actually exists in the field, that what it means is to prove something is a language. It might have something to do with finding its origins, or how it works, etc.

Quote:
Music as a language, blues as a grammar would be a very obvious masters thesis if you have access (and time, and energy) to sift thru journals from the 70s/80s.

Consider and research the following terms:
- Set theory
- Chomsky languages
- Chomsky grammars
- Turing machines
- Turing completeness
- Decidability
- Rewrite rules
Again - you haven't done the slightest thing at all to prove that music is a language other than say, oh, well, years ago I read a lot of 'stuff'. And sorry - but you really should consider what I'm saying rather than just jumping to all of these wild conclusions.
Old 8th April 2010
  #357
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
But you're not making arguments - you essentially saying - 'I've read all of this stuff. Trust me - it works'. But I know enough to know that you're taking bits and pieces of some complex stuff and just fancifully winging it.
fair comment. there are limitations we all face...i'm not really winging it so much as avoiding dusting off long dormant knowledge.

Quote:
Music has a similar kind of structural underpinning - therefore music is a language. As an argument, well, it just doesn't fly.
why? What is an innate, deep grammar/language?
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of description
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of expression
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of communication

why would deep grammar / language only be speech and not music, sculpture, painting?

Quote:
What do you mean by 'languages are proven'? I really doubt that, if that phrase actually exists in the field, that what it means is to prove something is a language. It might have something to do with finding its origins, or how it works, etc.
this is why i listed those topics of conversation. You are asking a question that really needs a year or two of solid study, for us to discuss it here would involve pages and pages of back and forth, and I would be a horrible teacher. What is a language and what is not a language is not so important, because even flower arrangement has a language and grammar: what type of language a language is is very important because it describes the limitations of said language, and limits the grammars that can apply.

Do some research and see that languages/grammars are proven--i have reluctantly written a few myself--and hopefully you will begin to see that a lot of what I have written isn't pot smoking bs but actual fields of academic study, with thousands of people researching / advancing it each year!

I'm sure there are significant flaws with my armchair amateur knowledge, but then again this is just pub-side bs anyway. Make of it what you will--it is too hard for me to go any deeper then this. If you aren't willing to look into it yourself to see if I'm right or wrong--no great loss either way. I think its worth you checking out at least casually so you can see there is this whole other world which I'm not sure you have seen yet. It is mind expanding, and the process of learning this stuff can open doorways of perception that were previously closed.
Old 8th April 2010
  #358
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotr View Post

I think the video gives an insight into the structure of the piece, which (called "Spiegel im der Spiegel" which roughly translates into "Mirror inside a Mirror") builds a sonic "image" it describes. I think that a thoughtful/critical listener can understand that image from the composition itself.
First of all the title is not proper german (Correct german would be "Spiegel im (in dem) Spiegel), so someone has made a mistake somewhere.

Second - if it had no title (or was called "wild giraffe on a calm afternoon") no one on earth would be able to construct any meaning relating to mirrors from it.

All meaning that a composer can give to a piece of music is in the title - any meaning derived from a piece of untitled music is entirely the listeners creation.

The notes of this piece alone cannot in any way provoke an image of a mirror in your head - nor make your thoughts center on the concept of mirroring if you are not primed by its title.

Language is what carries the meaning, music is sound without meaning.

Quote:
I study structure. In all forms: visual, sonic, conceptual, formal, etc. etc. I am a big believer that one can gain a deep understanding of any given thing or idea from the careful analysis of its structure.
Falling in love with a theoretic approach that works for certain subjects and then trying to extend that approach to encompass other subjects is not very good. (See also my response to your structure argument further down).
All you are getting out of that excercise is a ****load of totally wrong conclusions.
Such as the notion that music is a form of language...



Quote:
I believe music can offer similar strategies, because it is, by nature, so intensely structural.
Molecules have structures - and studying these is indeed very rewarding - provided you use the right tools and especially if the molecules are proteins and you happen to be a molecular biologist.

However, just because a molecule has a structure that can be studied it does not mean that it is a language.



Quote:
Could it be that music, if one is inclined to think of it as language, is designed to communicate much in the way poetry does?
No.

Poetry works because words have meanings from which new meanings can be constructed through precise use of the language.

Notes have no meanings and thus any sequence or combination of notes will still not contain any meaning.
Old 8th April 2010
  #359
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
fair comment. there are limitations we all face...i'm not really winging it so much as avoiding dusting off long dormant knowledge.

why? What is an innate, deep grammar/language?
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of description
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of expression
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of communication
But in this case, if this existed (and this is certainly open to debate - not everyone agrees with chomsky, even about spoken language) - the fact that there is a deep structure to the way that music is played/created says NOTHING about whether it actually FUNCTIONS as a language. If you had some kind of human endeavor that had a deep structure similar to language, but was only used for something totally mundane (make something up here) you wouldn't call it a 'language'. It would have to DO what languages do, and my entire argument has been based on that - therefore you can't refute it by what you're doing - you're simply ignoring it.

Quote:
why would deep grammar / language only be speech and not music, sculpture, painting?
How can you possibly ask the question 'why' here? It makes no sense. You can't just assume it, and you can't use circular reasoning - 'deep grammars exist in spoken languages, therefore why wouldn't they exist in art. Therefore music is a language'.

Quote:
this is why i listed those topics of conversation. You are asking a question that really needs a year or two of solid study, for us to discuss it here would involve pages and pages of back and forth, and I would be a horrible teacher. What is a language and what is not a language is not so important, because even flower arrangement has a language and grammar: what type of language a language is is very important because it describes the limitations of said language, and limits the grammars that can apply.
Sorry - but I don't defer to your education - it's like you're saying to trust you because you have all of these credentials, but I'm saying that the argument is entirely different. I could just say, trust me, I was in a PhD philosophy program - but that's ridiculous.

Quote:
Do some research and see that languages/grammars are proven--i have reluctantly written a few myself--and hopefully you will begin to see that a lot of what I have written isn't pot smoking bs but actual fields of academic study, with thousands of people researching / advancing it each year!
You really have to go a LOT further to even tempt me to research this stuff because I'm saying that this isn't the argument at all. You're simply avoiding it, or you don't understand it. Plus - I asked you very simply what 'proving' a language means - and you again are telling me to research the field. Tell me what it is.

Quote:
I'm sure there are significant flaws with my armchair amateur knowledge, but then again this is just pub-side bs anyway. Make of it what you will--it is too hard for me to go any deeper then this. If you aren't willing to look into it yourself to see if I'm right or wrong--no great loss either way. I think its worth you checking out at least casually so you can see there is this whole other world which I'm not sure you have seen yet. It is mind expanding, and the process of learning this stuff can open doorways of perception that were previously closed.
but you ARE wrong. And you really should try to understand why you are simply going off in entirely the wrong direction and engaging in circular reasoning.
Old 8th April 2010
  #360
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
fair comment. there are limitations we all face...i'm not really winging it so much as avoiding dusting off long dormant knowledge.



why? What is an innate, deep grammar/language?
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of description
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of expression
- deep grammar / language is innate ability of creation of communication

why would deep grammar / language only be speech and not music, sculpture, painting?



this is why i listed those topics of conversation. You are asking a question that really needs a year or two of solid study, for us to discuss it here would involve pages and pages of back and forth, and I would be a horrible teacher. What is a language and what is not a language is not so important, because even flower arrangement has a language and grammar: what type of language a language is is very important because it describes the limitations of said language, and limits the grammars that can apply.

Do some research and see that languages/grammars are proven--i have reluctantly written a few myself--and hopefully you will begin to see that a lot of what I have written isn't pot smoking bs but actual fields of academic study, with thousands of people researching / advancing it each year!

I'm sure there are significant flaws with my armchair amateur knowledge, but then again this is just pub-side bs anyway. Make of it what you will--it is too hard for me to go any deeper then this. If you aren't willing to look into it yourself to see if I'm right or wrong--no great loss either way. I think its worth you checking out at least casually so you can see there is this whole other world which I'm not sure you have seen yet. It is mind expanding, and the process of learning this stuff can open doorways of perception that were previously closed.
Man, you have no clue whatsoever- great fun reading your stuff though.

Like watching a Cheech and Chong movie heh

Or possibly like reading an essay on chord substitutions written by me...

Good trolling, i give you that. heh
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump