25 May
2010
25 May
'10
11:14 p.m.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 03:46:23PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Niels Mayer
<nielsmayer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
True. After probably more than half of the time I'll have to
understand how music works and why we are so sensitive to it,
I'm nowhere at all. It's way too complicated.
The 'math' relation can't be ignored. Clearly our brain loves
to discover and decode patterns, and see expectations based on
them either first contrasted and then confirmed.
I'm not a big Arvo Part fan, but I do like some his works. One
of the best known ones, 'Fratres' [*] is very 'mathematical',
you can describe it by 3 or 4 nested for() loops with very
little code inside. But it has this haunting beauty that
works even if you don't consciously discover the structure.
Ciao,
[*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4UecUwdalI
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what musicians "recognize"... what
matters is what music *is*
i believe it was lord kelvin who once said "don't mistake your models for
reality".
anyone who thinks that there is a single way to adequately describe music
clearly hasn't listened to enough of it yet.