The Misinterpretation of Dreams

It is my understanding that, with the exception of certain areas ('fuzzy
math'? imaginary numbers?), mathematics is a language of *precision* (why
else would one choose actually frequencies, or ratios, over a notation?). I
would therefore hope that our given area of interest -- tuning -- and all
the related topics would be expressed in as precise a manner as possible.
It is the imprecision that caused me to misinterpret Johnny's comment thusly:

[Johnny]
>Math is music. Math is the true universal language.

[Jon]
>Therefore, music is also a universal language.

I must have taken the implication if (all) math is music then (all) music
is math. My mistake (I'm being generous); however, statements such as
Johnny's, made with such broad generalities, will frequently be subject to
misinterpretation. The tone of my post was to refute the idea that music is
intrinsically or primarily a mathematical construct. So Johnny writes:

>I am misrepresented in his charming anti-mathematical Sunday sermon.

It was _not_ in any way, shape, or form, *anti*-math. This was not unclear
in my post; I referred to my afternoon being non-mathematical. Not anti-.

[Johnny]
>While not every parameter of music is fully grasped mathematically, digital
>recording is certainly more than a quantam leap past Pythagoras.

Digital recording has nothing to do with music, it only has to do with
sound. While you can record music, you can also digitally record the sound
of my taking a pee, and even Jesse Helm's will tell you that isn't music.
The point of the statement is completely unclear.

>IMHO, math in intrinsic to all music

That makes as much sense as saying math is intrinsic to all pieces of wood,
since you can measure and weigh the wood. Math is certainly not intrinsic
to *my* music, save for in the most incredibly banal ways, such as a time
signature (if I choose to use one). I do not look at a painting and say
"Wow...math." I do not listen to my music, or for that matter, most music,
and say "Wow...math." While others may luxuriate in the patterns that spin
out of a particular tuning schemata, tone row, or rhythmic periodicity, I
don't.

But, for crying out loud, that does not make me anti-math.

Clarity.
Clarity.
Clarity.
Music is not math.

Cheers,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

even IF all math is music, this does NOT mean necessarily <sp?> that all
music is math...
if all A is B... this means merely that A is a subset of B
there are parts of B that are remaining outside of the subset A.
--------
/ _____ \
| / A \ |
| | | |
| \ / |
\ ----- B/
--------

The sound of one man urinating is still music... if intended to be so.

my 2^(1/600)
Alex

Saying math is music doesn't mean _all_ math is music. True. Clarity is not
so easy with email. I've always tried to take the mystery out of music, to
explain it even when it seems stubbornly ineffable. It seems that as the
mysteries are solved (usually through number juggling), the lessons drawn are
filtered through the composer and me and the audience is mystified more than
ever.

I suspect each of us has a different take on math and music, possibly due in
large part to the nature of the interaction of the two in their respective
artistic lives.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM