math be damned

George Zelenz wrote:

>So, the question is, how many people here write a larger percentage of
>their
>music without the
>"background" of systems both compositional, and scalar? Who just writes
>music
>from the heart, math
>be damned?

There's a story from a set-theory class, when the students were introduced
to using the numbers 1 to represent 1 12tet half-step, 2 to represent a
12tete whole-step, on through 7 for a fifth, etc., one student cried,

"Why can't we just forget about these damn numbers and just call it a
FIFTH?!"

This illustrates the point that math is 1) merely a way of describing what
we do, and 2) pretty much unavoidable in music-making.

When someone says, "Let's not 'use math' and just write from the heart"
what they're really saying is "Let's only use the music-descriptive math I
learned when I first took up the guitar at age 9."

I try to keep abreast of different musical communities--computer music,
tuning, serial modernism, folk-rock-singer-songwriter people, etc. etc.
Often, one community blames another for writing "emotionless
mathematical music" or they make fun of each other for being obssessed
with ratios, or guitar fingerings, or whatever. And yet they all use
mathematical description to talk and think about what they're doing.

I mean, if a piece sucks eggs, and is totaly inexpressive, then fine. But
I'm quite sure the reason will not be that mathematical thought, in
general, was used in some way to cognize the musical actions of the
creators. I daresay it would be impossible to find a piece, good or bad,
expressive or inexpressive, where this didn't happen.

I'm sure that the "go fish" method of scale generation you described
involves all sorts of approximations, rules-of-thumb, etc. that you use to
figure out which note might be a good "next note" in the scale. And these
rules-of-thumb and so on could be described mathematically. I'd be
willing to bet that you are thinking that way, even if on the
near-subconscious level of "I feel that if I put my finger about here [a
thought of measurement] on the fretboard, then the chances are high
[statistics] that that scale tone will sound good. . ."

Obviously the borderline between, what seems to us like
sub-conscious "feeling your way" and the overt mathematical description of
such, if very fuzzy. . .but that's sort of my point.

you can't escape.

(although you can, perhaps, pretend to escape. . . . . )

***From: Christopher Bailey******************

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris

**********************************************

Christopher,

As a prelude, one of the most valuable lessons for me from this
tuning list, if not *the* most, has been the acceptance and
understanding that people can view what they call "the creation of
music" in very, very different ways and methodologies. It is the
passionate and sincere beliefs and devoted and hard work that has
convinced me, not the output, because frequently there is little or
none.

But I honor their efforts, knowing that at some point there is high
potential for musical usage. With that bit before us...

--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> When someone says, "Let's not 'use math' and just write from the
> heart" what they're really saying is "Let's only use the music-
> descriptive math I learned when I first took up the guitar at age
> 9."

In the same light that I don't happen to like people putting down
math-centric methodologies in patently simplistic ways, I'm sure that
there could be other phrases or statements you could use without
being overtly condescending.

> I try to keep abreast of different musical communities--computer
> music, tuning, serial modernism, folk-rock-singer-songwriter
> people, etc. etc.
[snip]
> And yet they all use mathematical description to talk and think
> about what they're doing.

I don't agree with that last statement in the least. All? All with
great world musics, from many cultures, discussing their music in
mathematical terms? Great music from non-professionals? Folk musics?

I think it is a stretch beyond the boundaries to say that all music,
if that is what you are saying, is tied into a math-oriented language.

> I mean, if a piece sucks eggs, and is totaly inexpressive, then
> fine. But I'm quite sure the reason will not be that mathematical
> thought, in general, was used in some way to cognize the musical
> actions of the creators.

I think it is too large an arena to make this kind of generalization.
I am sure that there are pieces of 'music' that have been made
strictly with mathematical constructs that, as you say, "suck eggs",
just as there are endless amounts of 'music' written and played by
incompetent musicians with no knowledge of the numbers, that are
equally bad. And good math music, and good non-math music.

> Obviously the borderline between, what seems to us like
> sub-conscious "feeling your way" and the overt mathematical
> description of such, if very fuzzy. . .but that's sort of my point.
>
> you can't escape.
>
> (although you can, perhaps, pretend to escape. . . . . )

I think the converse point is not about escaping. Where to you,
George appears to want to "escape" from the tyranny of the numbers,
I'd hazard a guess that to him and others, many people actively
*hide* under a blanket of theorems, postulates, and measurements,
hoping that being able to prove the piece of music will make it
worthy.

If he can't escape, they can't hide.

What is "sort of my point"? That there is validity in all methods, if
the end result is pleasing to the creator and an audience, no matter
how large and small.

Cheers,
Jon

At 11:22 AM 6/29/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>George Zelenz wrote:
>
>>So, the question is, how many people here write a larger percentage of
>>their
>>music without the
>>"background" of systems both compositional, and scalar? Who just writes
>>music
>>from the heart, math
>>be damned?
jAY wILLIAMS HERE,
tHANKS, cHRIS, FOR YOUR INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE WHICH i LEAVE INTACT BELOW IN
CFASE SOMEONE MISSED IT.
mY FEELING IS THAT THE METHOD BY WHICH A PIECE IS COMPOSED HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH WHAT IS EXPRESSED: IS WHAT _INFORMS THE METHOD THAT MATTERS. i, FOR
ONE, HAVE COMPOSED VERY LITTLE MUSIC BY DIRECTLY APPLYING MATHEMATICAL
FUNCTIONS. wHEN i HAVE, THOUGH, THE RESULTS WERE AS GRATIFYING AS i HAD
HOPED. wHEN i'VE NOT CONSCIOUSLY APPLIED SUCH FUNCTIONS, i'M STILL JUST AS
GRATIFIED WITH THE RESULTS, PROVIDED THE PROJECT WAS SOMETHING i WAS
BASICALLY "IN TUNE" WITH.
tHE GROOVEY THING ABOUT MATH, i THINK, IS THAT ITS PATTERNS AND FUNCTIONS
SEEM TO BE REFLECTED IN ALL ARTISTIC MEDIA. sO, IF YOU HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE
WITH IT, YOU HAVE A READY TOOL WHICH, WHEN CALLED UPON, CAN CUT DOWN ON THE
"RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL_ ASPECT THAT GOES ALONG WITH ANY CREATIVE EFFORT.
aS AN ODD EXAMPLE OF HOW MATH CAN INFORM THE PROCESS, i ONCE COMPOSED A
LONGISH PIECE THAT LOOKED AS THOUGH THE TRADITIONAL SONATA FORM WOULD BE MY
BEST BET FOR TELLING ITS PARTICULAR STORY. i'D NEVER TRIED ANYTHING
REMOTELY LIKE THAT BEFORE, BUT AS i PAID MORE CLOSE ATTENTION TO HOW THOSE
PAST MASTERS WORKED IT OUT, IT DAWNED ON ME THAT IT OFTEN CAME DOWN TO
MAKING SURE THAT, WHATEVER i DID ON ONE SIDE OF AN EQUATION -- SAY, UPPER
VOICES OR WIND INSTRUMENTS -- OUGHTA BE BALANCED BY SOME RESPONSE INA
COMPLEMENTARY GROUP. nO MATTER THAT mOZART WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF IT IN
THOSE WORDS OR VISUALIZATIONS, BUT MAYBE HE DID. aNWAY, ONCE i CONCEIVED OF
THAT FORM AS BEING IN THE SAME SET AS xENAKIS'S CONCEPT OF ARCHITECTURE AND
SET THEORY, THE PIECE RAN ALONG WITH MUCH LESS STATIC.
aND OF COURSE, IT'S NOT JUST MATH. lITERATURE, PAINTING, SPIRITUAL
DISCIPLINE, ALL THESE AND MORE CAN AND SHOULD INFORM THE CREATIVE PROCESS.
wITHOUT SUCH INFORMING, WHAT IN BLAZES WOULD THERE BE TO TRANSLATE AN
INSPIRATION INTO REALITY?
bACK TO c. bAILEY.
>There's a story from a set-theory class, when the students were introduced
>to using the numbers 1 to represent 1 12tet half-step, 2 to represent a
>12tete whole-step, on through 7 for a fifth, etc., one student cried,
>
>"Why can't we just forget about these damn numbers and just call it a
>FIFTH?!"
>
>This illustrates the point that math is 1) merely a way of describing what
>we do, and 2) pretty much unavoidable in music-making.
>
>When someone says, "Let's not 'use math' and just write from the heart"
>what they're really saying is "Let's only use the music-descriptive math I
>learned when I first took up the guitar at age 9."
>
>I try to keep abreast of different musical communities--computer music,
>tuning, serial modernism, folk-rock-singer-songwriter people, etc. etc.
>Often, one community blames another for writing "emotionless
>mathematical music" or they make fun of each other for being obssessed
>with ratios, or guitar fingerings, or whatever. And yet they all use
>mathematical description to talk and think about what they're doing.
>
>I mean, if a piece sucks eggs, and is totaly inexpressive, then fine. But
>I'm quite sure the reason will not be that mathematical thought, in
>general, was used in some way to cognize the musical actions of the
>creators. I daresay it would be impossible to find a piece, good or bad,
>expressive or inexpressive, where this didn't happen.
>
>I'm sure that the "go fish" method of scale generation you described
>involves all sorts of approximations, rules-of-thumb, etc. that you use to
>figure out which note might be a good "next note" in the scale. And these
>rules-of-thumb and so on could be described mathematically. I'd be
>willing to bet that you are thinking that way, even if on the
>near-subconscious level of "I feel that if I put my finger about here [a
>thought of measurement] on the fretboard, then the chances are high
>[statistics] that that scale tone will sound good. . ."
>
>Obviously the borderline between, what seems to us like
>sub-conscious "feeling your way" and the overt mathematical description of
>such, if very fuzzy. . .but that's sort of my point.
>
>you can't escape.
>
>(although you can, perhaps, pretend to escape. . . . . )
>
>
>***From: Christopher Bailey******************
>
>http://music.columbia.edu/~chris
>
>**********************************************
>
>
>
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> many people actively
> *hide* under a blanket of theorems, postulates, and measurements,
> hoping that being able to prove the piece of music will make it
> worthy.

Got any examples? A lot of serialism strikes me sort of this way.

> What is "sort of my point"? That there is validity in all methods,
if
> the end result is pleasing to the creator and an audience, no
matter
> how large and small.

100% agreed. But unfortunately, the worth of a work of art is not
always immediately apparent . . . nor is the immediately apparent
worth necessarily a sign of much of anything about the art itself. See

http://slate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-06-28_110492.asp

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Got any examples? A lot of serialism strikes me sort of this way.

I suppose that would work well enough for me. I must also say that
while I found the snippet of Carter Scholz's work mildly interesting
(and with that said, you know I haven't hear more than that of it), I
noted that it came with a preamble of the germination of the piece,
with it's numerical underpinnings. The preamble, if anything, might
have prejudiced me away from it, but I listened a few times. It
didn't draw me in.

But I know it fascinated you, among others, and he is well-known and
prolific. So, it doesn't matter if I liked it, and it also means that
utilizing a math-based aesthetic is viable.

Just not for all, which should be kind of clear at this point.

> But unfortunately, the worth of a work of art is not
> always immediately apparent . . . nor is the immediately apparent
> worth necessarily a sign of much of anything about the art itself.

Sure, maybe. If I write music for me, it only has to please me; if I
write for anyone else, then it only has to please somebody; and if I
write for a specific audience/group (say, a commission), it should
please them. Any other please people are bonuses.

I don't care about an ephemeral "worth", really. If I didn't like the
outcome, and no one else did, no amount of "but it clearly shows the
development of ..." blather makes it any more valid for me. And in
the same token, I'm happy to walk by a truly rank band, with someone
flailing ineptly at a blues progression, and even if they were
playing sincerely and from the depths of their soul, if it reeks I
probably will keep walking.

So we end with this: "Blues harmonica great Charlie Musselwhite said
yesterday that when you listened to John Lee Hooker's music, you
were 'listening to his heart.'"

What's right, what isn't: the endless question on this list...

Cheers,
Jon

On 6/29/01 1:12 PM, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> As a prelude, one of the most valuable lessons for me from this
> tuning list, if not *the* most, has been the acceptance and
> understanding that people can view what they call "the creation of
> music" in very, very different ways and methodologies.

Sort of almost kinda like comparative religion eh?

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_25814.html#25815

> Christopher,
>
> As a prelude, one of the most valuable lessons for me from this
> tuning list, if not *the* most, has been the acceptance and
> understanding that people can view what they call "the creation of
> music" in very, very different ways and methodologies. It is the
> passionate and sincere beliefs and devoted and hard work that has
> convinced me, not the output, because frequently there is little or
> none.
>

Szanto, I feel you are seriously "out of line" with this statement.
Since one of your favorite "pastimes" on this list is telling *other*
people when or if they are "out of line" I believe I will return your
kind favor by this reply.

A quick glance at the Tuning Punks pages might be instructive.

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/72/the_tuning_punks.html

Jacky Ligon, although not presently a list participant, has
vigorously participated and writes *lots* of music, John
deLaubenfels, a frequent contributor, is actively producing retuned
audible music, Kees von Proojian, who reads and posts occasionally,
consitently writes music, Joe Monzo, when not doing some terrific
theorizing, writes some *great* tunes... even if only a few they are
great, Kraig Grady is a *substantial* and constantly composing
musician, probing new landscapes and always writing; he posts
frequently to this list, Rick McGowen is a consistent composer, of
some large ballet works and he posts here, Herman Miller, the creator
of some wonderful tuning paradigms, writes *lots* of great music (and
he's shedding GM soon, too!) Joseph Pehrson, well he's a pile of
s***, Charles Lucy posts sometimes to this list and writes all too
much music, Jay Williams consistently writes some far out music, Neil
Haverstick is a thorough musician who is *always* writing and
playing... and he posts regularly to this list, and reads
regularly... maybe not as much as some, but his posts are sigificant,
Pat Pagano has written a s**tful of music and continues to explore
some far out great stuff, same with David Beardsley, who
*consistently* writes music, Gary Morrison continues to write music,
William Sethares, although not a frequent contributor, *does*
sometimes contibute, and he is a magnificent composer. Oh gee, I
should mention my friend Johhny Reinard (your good buddy) who posts
regularly and is a thorough producer and composer, always working...
no more *practical* musician exists anywhere, John Starrett
consistently writes funny and interesting music in a variety of
styles.

So, Szanto... what in the hell are you talking about??

_______ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

I just checked the site before leaving my house. I have not used the
English language well, and therefore have caused you a fair amount of
heartburn -- i.e., I think you may have misunderstood my point, and
I'll be happy to try and clear it up. I'll reply more when I get back
in a few hours, in summary that I have given you a somewhat false
impression.

Beyond that, even if you don't like my opinions, or some sub-set of
my opinions, was that subject header really necessary? In light of so
much of the acrimony lately?

Regards,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I just checked the site before leaving my house. I have not used
the English language well, and therefore have caused you a fair
amount of heartburn -- i.e., I think you may have misunderstood my
point, and I'll be happy to try and clear it up. I'll reply more when
I get back in a few hours, in summary that I have given you a
somewhat false impression.
>

Jon... that was terrifically annoying and seemingly insulting to a
lot of people.

I will be anxious to see how you manage to "backpedal" out of _this_
one! :)

> Beyond that, even if you don't like my opinions, or some sub-set of
> my opinions, was that subject header really necessary? In light of
so much of the acrimony lately?
>

Here I *do* agree, Jon, and as you can see, I have modified the
header "post haste..."

______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

I agree that there are other useful roles for tuning-list participants to take on. The theorists
on the list have provided some useful directions to some of the composers and performers on the
list. Still, the particular question I'm responding to here was how successful the tuning-list
has been encouraging its members to compose and perform actual microtonal music. Is that the most
important question? Well, I'm sure there are lots of different opinions along those lines, but
assuming that it is an important question, then here are some thoughts along those lines.

> A quick glance at the Tuning Punks pages might be instructive.
> ...
> Jacky Ligon, although not presently a list participant, has
> vigorously participated and writes *lots* of music,
> ...
> So, Szanto... what in the hell are you talking about??

I hope that everybody will understand that what I'm saying below should not be interpreted as a
complaint, but an invitation and a challenge to non- or infrequently-composing list members to
"just do it," so to speak: take a crack at composing and performing.

I had just about given up on the list a year ago with respect to any real musical results coming
from it, and then, recently some of you challenged me to take another look. I've been impressed
with how much the tuning list seems to have improved over the past year or so with respect to
producing actual music. I definitely see some real progress there, for which I'm grateful to the
people mentioned in the above message from 30 June listed, and to others.

Still, consider this: This tuning-list message mentioned 17 active microtonal composers and
performers on the tuning list as examples. I'm sure there are other active microtonal composers
and performers on the list than these 17 examples, but still, 17 people constitutes something like
3 1/2% of the total number of people subscribed to the list. All accounted for, how many active
composers are we up to? Would it be about three times that, or 10%? Even if it's twice that
number, we're only up to 20%.

Here's another statistic to consider: In the month between 4/21 and 5/21, I see 2058 messages
having been posted to the list by a total of (best I could factor out duplicate Email IDs by
"eyeball" inspection) 81 people, or an average of about 25 messages per poster - a little less
than one message a day on the average. I recently asked myself how many hours I spend reading and
writing tuning-list Email compared with the time I spend performing and composing microtonal
music, and wasn't very happy with the answer. Perhaps some of you might find that question
enlightening to ask yourselves too? (For the record, I haven't spent much time on either the list
or composing over the past couple years or so. Although I've composed a fair amount of microtonal
music in the past, I've mostly been practicing the saxophone in an effort to recover some
performance skills. I really have to get back to composition!)

I suppose we could factor out the tuning-list members who are only casually interested in the
topic by comparing those 17 known composers to the 81 active posters during that month? That's
only 21%. If we suppose that that list of examples is only accounts for half of the active
composer/performers on the tuning list, then we'd be up to 42%, which is still under half.

Once again, my goal is not to complain or to criticize anybody, and certainly none of the people
on that list of 17 example composers (other than myself perhaps). I'm just suggesting to those of
you who haven't composed much music recently to have a crack at it. I at least learn a lot more
from writing and performing than just by reading or writing or calculating about microtonality.