Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Modulation and other confusing terms

What has rhythmic variations got anything to do with melodic modulation? It
is a very poor example as far as I can see.

It is a bias to insist that `esoteric genres` such as Indian Music is bereft
of modulation, before one has sampled enough material to conclude so -
IMNSHO.

Conversely, a single classical instance reminiscent of modulation is enough
to proclaim that it is part of the aforementioned practice.

What is actually dangerous is monopolizing scientific terms based on
xenophobia and excessive conditioning.

I still expect someone to come forward and tell me that the first 40 seconds
of the `dronal` exposition of the St. Mattheus Passion by J.S. Bach is
devoid of modulation.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 01 Mart 2006 Çarşamba 18:21
Subject: [tuning] Modulation and other confusing terms

> Try to be simple:
>
> A recording of 3+3+2 rhythm can be percieved two ways: 1. like a 4/4
measure with
> syncopation, or 2. as three beats of uneven length. These are totally
musically different. I
> am able to change this in myself by MOVING differently, tapping my foot
differently.
>
> Likewise, "modulation" is the same way. It is certainly possible to
"modulate" from D
> dorian to E phrygian, but only if it is percieved that way.
>
> I've been reading the discussions. I view "modulation" as a change of
"home" note or a
> change of the relative mode surrounding a "home" note. I can believe the
Ozan percieves
> this in his CFG example, but I do not. My feeling listening to his
example is a somewhat
> ambiguous sense of tonic, and it is short so I don't feel sure until the
end what the tonic
> is, and then at the end, in hindsight, I percieve the whole thing as
having one mode, with
> some focus changes. But I bet it could be different if I listened a lot
and intentionally
> worked to percieve modulation, just like I can intentionally change my
perception of a
> rhythm.
>
> It seems certain to me that such modulation can exist. However, in an
Indian raga, with an
> unchanging drone, I have never been able to perceive such modulation. The
drone keeps
> me centered, and with no change of scale in relation to the drone, I
perceive no
> modulation. Focusing on Ga or Re or shifting that serves only to provide
more or less
> tension in relation to the "home" note of the drone, which never changes.
Maybe it is
> possible that someone else actually percieves the "home" note as changing,
even despite
> the drone, but I have a very hard time imagining that. Hence, when I
listen to an Indian
> raga, there is NO modulation.
>
> I think it can be dangerious trying to tell other people what they are
perceiving.
>
> I'd like to define modulation as: the perception of a change in "home"
note or in modal
> relation around that note. Does anyone want an even broader definition
than that? It's
> pretty broad, but still absent (to me) in most Indian drone-based music.
>
> -Aaron
>
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Aaron,

SNIP

>
> Sorry to break it to you, but music is a perceptual art form.

I could never have known were it not for your gracious wisdom!

Music
> cannot be objective.

Oh the misery! Stupid theorists laboring for millenia wishing in vain to
establish objective criteria in order that they may teach and explain the
rules of music-making. How facetious.

> There is no such thing as objective music.

Indeed? Does music actually require the a priori existence of a subject
qualified to evaluate whether orderly sounds can be categorized as music or
not? What if a primordial lifeless world DID at one time or another embody
orderly sounds occuring haphazardly in nature without the existence of any
creature - sentient or no -to either make, understand or appreciate it? Will
it no longer be classifiable as music just because somebody was not there to
listen?

Will anyone know if a fallen tree in the midst of the woods made a sound
upon impact if no one was there to hear it?

Won't stalagtic drips falling in constant rhythm to resound the
walls of an ageless cavern form diverse musical intervals?

How about if an ancestral nightingale inhabiting an eternal forest never had
any human being hear its magnificent song? Will it no longer be music?

What was I thinking... objective music! Wow.

> That does not mean, however that anything counts and it's *all*
> relative. But objectivity in music can only be based on two things:
> acoustical facts, and objective facts about the way human hearing,
> and perception work anatomically and chemically. That can be
> extended to reasonable assumptions about continuity between
> how everyone perceives things.

So there can be no such thing as super-sonic or sub-sonic music according to
you? What if an alien culture from outer space contacted us and played their
songs which we could not hear because our ears were devoid of their hearing
range?

Dog whistle?

>
> At its roots the only thing beyond acoustics and anatomy that
> we can discuss in music is theory based entirely on math and
> notation and other symbols.
>
> So I think it is simply faulty to use subjective theories of music
> to discuss factual acoustic ideas. Look, in this discussion about
> modulation, we are discussing some combination of acoustic
> factual issues and human perception. In acoustics, the term
> "modulation" needs more specificity in order to mean anything.
>

I have already proposed my own broad definition of it.

> I'll put it this way: the idea that a particular pitch is "tonic" is
> not something that can be stated factually and objectively. It
> can be stated that in a particular peice, musicians and theorists
> consider a particular pitch to be "tonic" but before people existed,
> there was no "tonic" because that is a human idea.

Is it? Or is it the word designed to represent what already existed in
nature beforehand?

Is it worth
> debating whether that note is or isn't "tonic?" Well, in some cases
> we can reasonably assume that all people will sense that same
> note as tonic. In other cases it may be more illusive.

I am cynically amazed at your words.

As I've said
> before, it is extremely arrogant and careless to project one's own
> perceptions on others and state that if you feel a particular note
> as tonic that it must be objectively true.
>

And it is not extremely arrogant and careless to remain ignorant of science?
I don't believe for a minute that music is based on perception alone. Music
is surely a science left much unexplored.

> And as far as modulation goes, if you feel a change in where "tonic"
> is, and I do not, then you experienced "modulation" and I didn't.

Ah! Vatican missed the fact that Galilean satellites do orbit Jupiter. Does
that mean that the orbits of the Galilean satellites are relative in regards
to the one trying to perceive them?

So you missed modulation... does it mean that there wasn't one?

Relativity in modulation... what a novel idea!

> For everything you've said, I haven't heard you address the idea
> that there exists music where it *is* vague enough to have this
> range of differing perceptions from person to person. Do you
> admit that this is *sometimes* the case?
>

I admit that neither knowledge nor experience is equally distributed in all
human beings.

`Can those who truly understand be like those who cannot?`

> -Aaron
>
>
>

Oz.

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Ozan, you miss the issue of words vs. phenomena. It seems we've stumbled
on a difference of understanding the word "music." And while I hate to get
so seemingly pedantic, I use the word to describe the human
organization of sound, and you seem to be using a much more broad
definition. Do we call the billowing sounds of the wind "music?" Let's
stop and just say that we both appreciate and marvel at it and both
understand that there is both subjective and scientificly objective occurences
in this example. We aren't disagreeing about the nature of reality, we just
have different ways of using the language to talk about it. I don't want
to have that discussion. I'd be very happy if you can do as I'm doing and
admit to me that you understand what I'm talking about even if you don't
happen to like my less broad wording that I used to describe it.

In other words, my concept of modulation deals with the question of
how it is perceived, because I feel that is an important question to be
artistically considered in the making and presenting of music. Certainly,
you won't say that there doesn't exist variations in people's perceptions.
So I'm saying that being aware of how much range in perception exists
is an important thing to be studied. I'm not saying to forget it all because
it is all relative. I'm saying that as human beings, we do have a range
of common perceptions and I care to note where we have commonalities
and where we perceive different subjective experiences. I find that
and important step to understanding music.

Likewise, I love and appreciate studying the objective sciences of this
issue as well. I don't deny that objectivity exists.

In the case of the word "modulation," I truly do not know exactly
what you are talking about when you claim that "modulation" exists
objectively, outside of perception. That, to me, implies that there
is some sort of heirarchical structure of tones in relation to each
other that exists scientifically, and that makes no sense to me. It
seems to me to be a particularly human trait to try to make patterns
of everything and say what is the center or the most important or the
order etc. etc. of naturally occuring things. The external universe
does not order importance, as importance (as I use the word) is a
value judgment, and the external world doesn't hold values, it just *is*.

I can easily admit that your concept of objective modulation could
exist, but I don't understand it, and you'll have to try to use other
words or explain it again for me to see what you're talking about.
I'll give you credit enough to assume that whatever you are talking
about is valid, I just don't understand it yet, and it definitely is not
the same thing that I'm talking about. Do you understand what
I'm talking about when I say "modulation?" Meaning the way the
tonic or importance of tones is perceived?

> Will anyone know if a fallen tree in the midst of the woods made a sound
> upon impact if no one was there to hear it?
>

Ah, but I have an answer: It is a trick question! This question exploits a
confusion in the word "sound" in order to seemingly be a deep, unanswerable
question! See, the ancient word "sound" is not clearly defined as to whether
it means "our brain's perception of transverse waves through a medium and
then through our ear mechanism" or whether it means "the existence of such
waves in a medium." In other words, sound can mean sometimes what we hear
and sometimes the wave itself. So what is this "rhetorical" question? It is an
expose, and exploitation, of the lack of clarity or the multi-use of the word
"sound." Nothing more!

If we use the sound as perceived definition, then obviously it made no sound,
as we are defining sound as that which is perceived.

If we use the sound = sound wave definition, then we'd say yes it makes a
sound, because we'll assume that this hypothetical situation is the same
as the basic world we know, where those events do make sound waves. And
if you care to say something like "but how do you KNOW?" I'll respond,
"well, you tell me: it's your hypothetical made-up situation anyway. How
much am I allowed to assume or not? You're the one setting up the
premise. We aren't talking about a specific actual real event. And if
we are talking about an actual real event, then of couse I can't KNOW, but
I'll go ahead and assume that it makes a sound wave because that's how
the world as I know it works."

So that question seems "clever" or "deep" on the surface, but all it does is
state this: "we can use the word 'sound' to mean different things!!!"

If our language used the word "savound" (I'm making this up) to mean
sound wave, and the word "spound" to mean our brain's perceptioin, and
it had always been that way, then would we ask "if a tree falls and nobody
is around to hear it, does it make a spound?" (or the other way around,
a "savound"). That question would be foolish- obviously a piece of
philisophical, sophomoric, existential nonsense. Every normal person
would say that we CAN answer either of those questions.

-Aaron

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Hey there,

>
> Ozan, you miss the issue of words vs. phenomena.

Certainly not. I use objective wording to describe actual phenomena.

It seems we've stumbled
> on a difference of understanding the word "music." And while I hate to
get
> so seemingly pedantic, I use the word to describe the human
> organization of sound, and you seem to be using a much more broad
> definition.

Here are two bland definitions from MS Bookshelf - BRC:

1. `Art of combining sounds into a coherent perceptual experience, typically
in accordance with conventional patterns and for an aesthetic purpose. Music
is generally categorized as classical, jazz, pop music, country and western,
and so on.`

2. `the art of expression in sound, in melody, and harmony, including both
composition and execution; (the art of) instrumental performance, as
distinct from singing; the science underlying it; a musical composition
(obsolete); the performance of musical compositions; compositions
collectively; a connected series of (pleasing) sounds; pleasing sound
generally; melody or harmony; sound of a definite pitch, not mere noise; a
band of musicians (archaic); musical instruments (obsolete or dialect);
written or printed representation of tones, expression, etc, or of what is
to be played or sung; sheets or books of parts or scores collectively;
harmonious character; fun (US).`

This human-centric definition can be broadened to yield scientific
perspectives that necessitate a cosmic organization and - consequently -
underlying universal laws for the organization of sound. That's what I do. I
scientize `music` to include undiscovered possibilities in the universe.

>Do we call the billowing sounds of the wind "music?"

If one can mathematically express patterns in pitch and rhythm that appear
to be `meaningful to sentience`, why not?

And since that last statement could tend to careen toward subjectivity, you
can delete it altogether. It all boils down to music you like, music you
don't... music you perceive, music you can't.

Let's
> stop and just say that we both appreciate and marvel at it and both
> understand that there is both subjective and scientificly objective
occurences
> in this example. We aren't disagreeing about the nature of reality, we
just
> have different ways of using the language to talk about it.

Your language is greatly biased and lacking. You try to judge with emotions
and perceptions, ignoring the fact that you are a biological construct
subject to similar quantitative and/or qualitative physical laws.

I don't want
> to have that discussion. I'd be very happy if you can do as I'm doing and
> admit to me that you understand what I'm talking about even if you don't
> happen to like my less broad wording that I used to describe it.
>

I indeed do glimpse where you are getting at. I simply avoid it with dread.

> In other words, my concept of modulation deals with the question of
> how it is perceived, because I feel that is an important question to be
> artistically considered in the making and presenting of music.

Shall we also ask a 3-year old kid if he perceives modulation in a certain
piece of music? Shall we say that modulation is relative given that %60 of
the world populace is ignorant of it?

Certainly,
> you won't say that there doesn't exist variations in people's perceptions.
> So I'm saying that being aware of how much range in perception exists
> is an important thing to be studied.

This has little bearing on the physical laws of music exemplified and
explained by music theory. It is an entirely different field of scientific
study.

I'm not saying to forget it all because
> it is all relative. I'm saying that as human beings, we do have a range
> of common perceptions and I care to note where we have commonalities
> and where we perceive different subjective experiences. I find that
> and important step to understanding music.

Certainly! But our lives don't depend on it. Varieties of perception of
sound concern more psycho-acoustic researchers, and less music theorists.

Modulation is first a theoretical, then a perceptual phenomenon. The latter
does not define the former.

>
> Likewise, I love and appreciate studying the objective sciences of this
> issue as well. I don't deny that objectivity exists.
>

You had said that there can be no objective music.

> In the case of the word "modulation," I truly do not know exactly
> what you are talking about when you claim that "modulation" exists
> objectively, outside of perception.

Simply that the laws governing the music-making process must have existed a
priori to our realization and discovery of their existence. Call it a
Celestial Order, if you will.

Can you claim that `modulation` did not exist prior to human life on Earth?

The job of theory is to shed light on what already is there to begin with,
and propose methods to represent on paper what is actually being performed.

That, to me, implies that there
> is some sort of heirarchical structure of tones in relation to each
> other that exists scientifically, and that makes no sense to me.

Then what more is there to discuss?

It
> seems to me to be a particularly human trait to try to make patterns
> of everything and say what is the center or the most important or the
> order etc. etc. of naturally occuring things. The external universe
> does not order importance, as importance (as I use the word) is a
> value judgment, and the external world doesn't hold values, it just *is*.
>

There are constants and there are variables. We measure them with our tools
and try to quantify them in order to correlate one with another to help our
understanding. Correct measurements works all the time, so these values must
have been in operation prior to our discovery of scientific knowledge.

The attributes of the universe already exist within a wholesome order. There
are indeed objective values that are all important for the purposes they
serve.

> I can easily admit that your concept of objective modulation could
> exist, but I don't understand it, and you'll have to try to use other
> words or explain it again for me to see what you're talking about.

This is a whole new science for me. I propose it for those interested in
pursuing it further.

> I'll give you credit enough to assume that whatever you are talking
> about is valid, I just don't understand it yet, and it definitely is not
> the same thing that I'm talking about. Do you understand what
> I'm talking about when I say "modulation?" Meaning the way the
> tonic or importance of tones is perceived?

Not importance, sequence.

>
> > Will anyone know if a fallen tree in the midst of the woods made a sound
> > upon impact if no one was there to hear it?
> >
>
> Ah, but I have an answer: It is a trick question!

No it is not.

This question exploits a
> confusion in the word "sound" in order to seemingly be a deep,
unanswerable
> question! See, the ancient word "sound" is not clearly defined as to
whether
> it means "our brain's perception of transverse waves through a medium and
> then through our ear mechanism" or whether it means "the existence of such
> waves in a medium." In other words, sound can mean sometimes what we hear
> and sometimes the wave itself. So what is this "rhetorical" question? It
is an
> expose, and exploitation, of the lack of clarity or the multi-use of the
word
> "sound." Nothing more!

Here is a definition that almost agrees with you:

`Physiological sensation received by the ear, originating in a vibration
that communicates itself as a pressure variation in the air and travels in
every direction, spreading out as an expanding sphere. All sound waves in
air travel with a speed dependent on the temperature; under ordinary
conditions, this is about 330 mï¿½1,070 ft per second. The pitch of the sound
depends on the number of vibrations imposed on the air per second, but the
speed is unaffected. The loudness of a sound is dependent primarily on the
amplitude of the vibration of the air.`

But does it imply that an `ear` has to be PRESENT in the vicinity of a sound
wave?

It would be scientifically ludicrous to claim that a sound wave does not
exist if no one was there to hear it.

The only logical answer to the question would be that the sound wave is
known to have occured irrespective of the presence of a listener, but the
definition depends on the hearing capabilities of the listener nevertheless.

>
> If we use the sound as perceived definition, then obviously it made no
sound,
> as we are defining sound as that which is perceived.
>

ROFL.

> If we use the sound = sound wave definition, then we'd say yes it makes a
> sound, because we'll assume that this hypothetical situation is the same
> as the basic world we know, where those events do make sound waves. And
> if you care to say something like "but how do you KNOW?" I'll respond,
> "well, you tell me: it's your hypothetical made-up situation anyway. How
> much am I allowed to assume or not? You're the one setting up the
> premise. We aren't talking about a specific actual real event. And if
> we are talking about an actual real event, then of couse I can't KNOW, but
> I'll go ahead and assume that it makes a sound wave because that's how
> the world as I know it works."

It is not KNOWN to work otherwise. Surely, Allah knows best.

>
> So that question seems "clever" or "deep" on the surface, but all it does
is
> state this: "we can use the word 'sound' to mean different things!!!"
>

Not in science, you don't.

> If our language used the word "savound" (I'm making this up) to mean
> sound wave, and the word "spound" to mean our brain's perceptioin, and
> it had always been that way, then would we ask "if a tree falls and nobody
> is around to hear it, does it make a spound?" (or the other way around,
> a "savound"). That question would be foolish- obviously a piece of
> philisophical, sophomoric, existential nonsense. Every normal person
> would say that we CAN answer either of those questions.
>
> -Aaron
>
>

Our mutual communication is hampered due to the shortcomings of our language
then, I'll credit you with that much!

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Jeremy Targett <jeremy.targett@gmail.com>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

Jeremy Targett escreveu:
> J.Smith:
> > >>An intricately devised, mathematically perfect, logically modulated-
>>through-1200edo "composition" may very well prove it's creator's
>>genius with fractions.... but may equally fail to evoke any
>>sympathetic, or even enjoyable, response from a listener. The dullest
>>musical composers I can think of (with the rare exception), were the
>>12-tone "serialists" after Webern. They followed their mathematical
>>proclivities all the way into an obscure cul-de-sac, losing whatever
>>audiences they might have had along the way. Their "rarefied" number-
>>based "music" aroused very little enthusiasm.
> > > Ah, the argument by failure of imagination. So tedious. [...]

Really. There is no reason to think that someone could not be good in both mathematics and music practice. But that is not the worse error, as Jeremy has pointed out -- incomprehension of the nature of music and mathematics and of the possible relations between them.

> There are people (I know because I'm one of them) who find
> Schoenberg's String Trio (for example) to be one of the most beautiful
> pieces of music they know. No one told me to like it, I just liked it.
> A lot, and not because of its serial structure. [...]

I love that `Trio' too.

By the way, Schoenberg has written a very interesting text about that matter, called `Heart and Brain' (or like) -- published in `Style and Idea'.

He used composing in the mornings, while he walked. Then, when he arrived to home after mid-day, Schoenberg was writting the music (around 60-70 measures of chromatic polyphony) to the paper. `Pierrot Lunaire' was written this way, at the `rate' of one piece a day.

> Besides, it's ridiculous to claim that this music is mathematical or
> number-based. It is absolutely not the case that Schoenberg, Berg or
> Webern derived their music from numbers or mathematical relationships.
[...]

That is not the case of good post-Webern composers like Pierre Boulez, Luciano Berio, Luigi Dallapicola, Iannis Xenakis, Milton Babitt or who ever that can be seriously taken as *composer* or *musician*.

There are, we know, bad composers -- but that is a *musical* (and not *mathematical* or any other matter). It doesn't matter to much *how* he/she makes music (syntax, material, ...).

J.Smith wrote:
<<<<
The point I'm trying to make here, is that while mathematics and acoustics (which are rational and scientific) form the physical basis of our music, it is human emotion (which is irrational) that constitutes it's life.
>>>>

Questionable. I think creative *intelligence* makes music, by using sever*all* resources at its disposal -- emotions, images, memory, musical and instrumental techniques, correlations, traditional material and syntax, experimenting with sounds and concepts, human knowledge, need of expression... Music is both rational and irrational.

If one says that music is not science, then I will agree for sure. But from this we cannot conclude that a mathematician (simply rational?) cannot be also a composer (mainly irrational?), or vice-versa.

Cheers,
Hudson

_______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Fa�a do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

🔗Jeremy Targett <jeremy.targett@gmail.com>

J.Smith:

> Actually Jeremy, I can very easily conceive of an emotional
> resonance to serialist compositions (we are still talking about
> serialists, aren't we?)-- provided there is something to resonate
> with. I do believe you are confounding serialists -- a subculture of
> Webern's compositional techniques -- with the 12-tone school of
> composing, in general. My objection to serialists, is they extended
> the idea of the pitch row to ALL parameters of a composition to a
> ridiculous extreme, thus effectively removing the composer from the
> musical process.

That's called "total serialism", and was not a usual part of 2nd
Viennese School practices. I can only think of one composition by
Webern (the Variations, opus 30) where he used a rhythmic series (of
only four elements)--and even then, it's not pervasive at all. He
never serialised dynamics, or articulation, or anything else.

> To paraphrase Arnold himself: "To compose with the twelve tones,
> construct your row and then proceed to compose as you did before."
> He was certainly no advocate of serialism.

Are you kidding? I mean, literally, he's using a SERIES of pitches. Go
look up serialism and come back and tell me whether someone using a
tone row is not a serialist. Whether or not he was an "advocate" is
debatable; he kept the method secret for a while, but then he also
believed it would ensure the supremacy of German music for the next
100 years... (I do like this quote though and I'm glad you mention
it.)

> I keep having to point this out to you, but I don't mind: please
> remember that I said, "after Webern". I never included Schoenberg,
> Berg, or Webern.

Webern died during WWII. Schoenberg died sometime in the 50s. Many of
Schoenberg's compositions are thus "after Webern"; they are also
serial, which is why you might excuse me for including Schoenberg in
my defense of serialists.

> I'm really beginning to suspect that you are a frustrated composer
> of pantonality
> I went through pretty much the same frustration during my own 12-
> tone phase.

Wrong, I've never written a serial piece. My frustration is with folks
dismissive of what they're insensitive to. And especially folks quick
to brand something as "mathematical" and therefore soulless. First of
all I see no reason why the mathematical should be soulless. Second, I
honestly think you have no clue how a composer goes about writing a
serial piece--even a piece exhibiting serialism in several
dimensions--if you think it's all mechanical. The idea of a
compositional system where the composer literally has no musical
choices is a real straw man--who writes like that??

I have to say, my earlier reply *was* on the angry side. I had just
finished defending a filmmaker I admire against someone dismissive of
him, for similar reasons to yours. So I was already fired up. And the
demonisation of anything mathematical is a particular thorn in my side
-- frankly it's anti-intellectual. It reminds me of Soviet edicts
against formalism: it's "not what the people want to hear". Who's to
say what will and won't resonate with "the people", when there are so
many different kinds of people?? Of course there is some extremely
formalist music out there, that I probably dislike as much as you do.
But it's not because it's mathematical in some way. It's because it
*also* fails from a poetic, musical standpoint. And those will be the
grounds to attack it, not the grounds of compositional method.

> Nothing would please me or make me smile quite as
> much, as a well-composed pantonal work filled with human passion.

Then I'll recommend again the String Trio, opus 45, by Schoenberg. He
wrote it as a response to the experience of being clinically dead for
a short while (heart attack, revived by a shot of adrenaline to the
heart, Pulp Fiction-style), and it manages to convey sheer terror,
great beauty and repose, trembling anticipation -- all while being
serial (in pitch) from beginning to end.

a propos of nothing in particular, I like this, that the New Grove
says about Webern:

> Ironically Webern, the composer who was seen by many as the originator of the hyperintellectualized serialism of the decades immediately following his death and whose own music most people found thoroughly bewildering upon first hearing, was by nature an ardent romantic who always held feeling and passion – and comprehensibility – to be important above all else in art.

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Ozan, I think we may be getting somewhere!

> >
> > Ozan, you miss the issue of words vs. phenomena.
>
> Certainly not. I use objective wording to describe actual phenomena.
>

While it could be seen as cocky to boldy state that one's words are objective,
I see that you have that intent and please trust that I do as well. Language
can be darn confusing and putting too much emotion behind it is not very
helpful in scientific or complex philisophical discussions.

SNIP
> It seems we've stumbled
> > on a difference of understanding the word "music."
SNIP
> This human-centric definition can be broadened to yield scientific
> perspectives that necessitate a cosmic organization and - consequently -
> underlying universal laws for the organization of sound. That's what I do. I
> scientize `music` to include undiscovered possibilities in the universe.
>

I have no problem with that, but I was using the human-centric definition,
so as long as we both understand that the human-centric as well as the
broader ideas both exist, then we only need to be clear which idea we are
talking about. Not everyon you talk to will easily accept using the broad
definition of "music" but I'll bow to that version, simply because I'd rather
get on with the discussion instead of arguing about definitions. And I don't
have the feeling that you'll be interested in using the human-centric
one, so I don't care to put up that fight. The human-centric idea still exists
as an idea. I'm not changing my mind on anything, but I'll accept for
this discussion a broader defintion of the word so that we're on the same
page.

> >Do we call the billowing sounds of the wind "music?"
>
> If one can mathematically express patterns in pitch and rhythm that appear
> to be `meaningful to sentience`, why not?
>
> And since that last statement could tend to careen toward subjectivity, you
> can delete it altogether. It all boils down to music you like, music you
> don't... music you perceive, music you can't.
>

I see where you're getting with this. I'm not sure how to use language
to talk about it. To me, it is useful to make a distinction between
*intentional* art and natural phenomena. That doesn't mean I don't
appreciate both immensely.

> Your language is greatly biased and lacking. You try to judge with emotions
> and perceptions, ignoring the fact that you are a biological construct
> subject to similar quantitative and/or qualitative physical laws.
>

Something obviously got lost in translation because my whole POINT is that
I'm a "biological construct..." so I feel it is important to recognize and
understand what factors in quantitative physical laws are undeniable and
specified and necessarily impact who I am and what my perceptions are.
I'm not ignoring that, it is a large part of my entire focus.

What I feel we cannot quantify is whether there can be "meaning" of various
natural phenomena outside of human perception. Other than humans
qualifying things, how could all the physical existence in the world possibly
have meaning? (and no, I'm not saying that humanity is what gives the world
meaning, I'm moreso trying to say that "meaning" is an illusion that exists
only in the human mind).

>
> I don't want
> > to have that discussion. I'd be very happy if you can do as I'm doing and
> > admit to me that you understand what I'm talking about even if you don't
> > happen to like my less broad wording that I used to describe it.
> >
> I indeed do glimpse where you are getting at. I simply avoid it with dread.
>

I'm not sure what you mean or why, but that is not a very communication
conducive attitude.

> > In other words, my concept of modulation deals with the question of
> > how it is perceived, because I feel that is an important question to be
> > artistically considered in the making and presenting of music.
>
> Shall we also ask a 3-year old kid if he perceives modulation in a certain
> piece of music? Shall we say that modulation is relative given that %60 of
> the world populace is ignorant of it?
>

The ability to recognize or quantify or name a perception is independant
of having it. To some degree, I believe a 3-year old perceives modulation
even if he does not understand it. Ignorance of what and how you are
perceiving things does not mean you don't perceive them. I'm saying that
the definition of "modulation" as best as I understand, and fitting with your
definition, is based on factors outside of the simple theory that we usually
talk about.

To put it another way, using my rhythm example, I think it is theoretically
possible to quantify all the factors that create a certain rhythm and
differentiate it from another. I think an included factor is how the listener
is physically moving. This *can* be quantified, but cannot be determined
by a score or a recording or anything musicians typically quantify. By my
way of defining "rhythm" it is the way in which events in time are related
as per relations of accent vs. offbeat. See "The Rhythmic Structure Of
Music" by Cooper & Meyer. So since I have experienced a different
rhythm in two different listenings of the same recording, then I can
objectively state that all the necessary elements to define rhythm are
not existing in a recording alone. Therefore we must take into account
more parameters.

I think modulation is the same. There DOES exist objective parameters
as to what causes a perception of modulation. But when I use the term
"subjective" I generally mean not that which is emotional or opinion
based, or even that which is variable from person to person.

I can't find it right now, but there exists a written definition of the word
"subjective" which means: that which is describing the perception in the
mind as opposed to the external physics. In other words, I see something
green, it is objectively reflecting certain electromagnetic waves of a
certain frequency. But my experience of "green" is a SUBJECTIVE one,
but I am NOT arguing that anyone has any different experience, or that
opinion or choice or emotion has anything to do with this.

In other words, I'm trying to clarify between the experience of phenomena
and the actuality of physical phenomena. And I've been using the terms
objective and subjective. OBjective being outside the perceiver, SUBjective
being what happens internally that creates the experience. If you read
my words as meaning emotional or variable or open to opinion, then I think
I may have found a major source of our miscommunication!

If you have a different way of discussing this, now that you hopefully
understand my perspective, I'm open to hearing it. And if you insist
on using other words, well, I don't mind- my goal is to accurately
communicate, and I hope you share that.

>
> Certainly,
> > you won't say that there doesn't exist variations in people's perceptions.
> > So I'm saying that being aware of how much range in perception exists
> > is an important thing to be studied.
>
> This has little bearing on the physical laws of music exemplified and
> explained by music theory. It is an entirely different field of scientific
> study.
>

Ok, same issue. See I meant that these variations occur because of
objective phenomena such as differences in brain chemistry, different
state of being, physically, at the time of listening, etc.
I find it an interesting question to discover what factors we all have
in common, both biological and environmental, and where we differ
and by how much, and then applicably: how does this affect variation
in perceptions of music.

> Modulation is first a theoretical, then a perceptual phenomenon. The latter
> does not define the former.
>

If by "theoretical" you mean it is just an idea, a way of talking, ok. If you mean
that it otherwise exists outside of perception, I still have no idea what that
is you're talking about.

> >
> > Likewise, I love and appreciate studying the objective sciences of this
> > issue as well. I don't deny that objectivity exists.
> >
> You had said that there can be no objective music.

Yes, but this is using my human-centric definition of "music" and also my
definition of "objective" meaning existing independant of a listener existing.
Using a broader definition of "music" I would not say that.

> > In the case of the word "modulation," I truly do not know exactly
> > what you are talking about when you claim that "modulation" exists
> > objectively, outside of perception.
>
> Simply that the laws governing the music-making process must have existed a
> priori to our realization and discovery of their existence. Call it a
> Celestial Order, if you will.
>

I like that! And I agree, but by my normal way of talking, these laws didn't
materialize into "music," but rather people created this thing we call
music and this creation became what it is because of, and is indeed
governed by, these laws.

SNIP
> That, to me, implies that there
> > is some sort of heirarchical structure of tones in relation to each
> > other that exists scientifically, and that makes no sense to me.
>
> Then what more is there to discuss?
>

I understand that ORDER exists scientifically, but science cannot
place value judgments, such as order of IMPORTANCE. The physical
world has order. And it just is what it is. Where does "modulation"
fit in?

SNIP
> Not importance, sequence.
>

Sorry, sequence? Please explain.

SNIP
>
> Our mutual communication is hampered due to the shortcomings of our language
> then, I'll credit you with that much!
>
> Oz.
>

Glad you got my point about the "sound" issue. I've been trying to say all along
that these language shortcomings are an issue. And I think they've frustrated
others on this list to the point of emotional defensiveness (on a number of
topics). It is only by recognizing these challenges that we can then work to
overcome them.

My way of dealing with this is to remain the eternal optimist and assume that
the people I'm talking to have intelligent, thought-out, useful ideas until
I'm certain I understand them and their language well enough to judge
otherwise. And I'm smart enough to know that just because I give people
that benefit-of-the-doubt that I can't expect as much in return. So I try
to avoid getting defensive and try to avoid name-calling or anything that
could come across as particularly judgmental, and try to set my sights
on solving whatever miscommunication there is. And I try to impress this
upon others. I wish I knew why so many people find it so hard to admit
that there may be misunderstanding. That doesn't even imply that they
are wrong, yet so many people get defensive at the suggestion that a
misunderstanding may exist. And to be clear, I'm not addressing this to
anyone specifically. I hope sharing this attitude could be of use to everyone.

Cordially,
Aaron

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

> Ozan, I think we may be getting somewhere!
>

We shall see!

> > Certainly not. I use objective wording to describe actual phenomena.
> >
>
> While it could be seen as cocky to boldy state that one's words are
objective,
> I see that you have that intent and please trust that I do as well.
Language
> can be darn confusing and putting too much emotion behind it is not very
> helpful in scientific or complex philisophical discussions.
>

My words are not objective, I use, or try to use - to the best of my
ability - objective wording pre-existent in a mutually comprehensible
language to describe things I imagine that I grasp.

> > This human-centric definition can be broadened to yield scientific
> > perspectives that necessitate a cosmic organization and - consequently -
> > underlying universal laws for the organization of sound. That's what I
do. I
> > scientize `music` to include undiscovered possibilities in the universe.
> >
>
> I have no problem with that, but I was using the human-centric definition,
> so as long as we both understand that the human-centric as well as the
> broader ideas both exist, then we only need to be clear which idea we are
> talking about. Not everyon you talk to will easily accept using the broad
> definition of "music" but I'll bow to that version, simply because I'd
rather
> get on with the discussion instead of arguing about definitions. And I
don't
> have the feeling that you'll be interested in using the human-centric
> one, so I don't care to put up that fight. The human-centric idea still
exists
> as an idea. I'm not changing my mind on anything, but I'll accept for
> this discussion a broader defintion of the word so that we're on the same
> page.
>

You'd better! LOL

>
> > >Do we call the billowing sounds of the wind "music?"
> >
> > If one can mathematically express patterns in pitch and rhythm that
appear
> > to be `meaningful to sentience`, why not?
> >
> > And since that last statement could tend to careen toward subjectivity,
you
> > can delete it altogether. It all boils down to music you like, music you
> > don't... music you perceive, music you can't.
> >
>
> I see where you're getting with this. I'm not sure how to use language
> to talk about it. To me, it is useful to make a distinction between
> *intentional* art and natural phenomena. That doesn't mean I don't
> appreciate both immensely.
>

Depends on what you mean by intentional. If by it you mean sounds produced
by biological organisms, this definition includes all life-forms, not just
humans. Frogs, birds, and several other weird species are all capable of
*intentionally* producing sound.

But since you include the concept of `art`, your definition automatically
precludes anything non-human, even possible extra-terrestrial cultures:

`In the broadest sense, all the processes and products of human skill,
imagination, and invention; the opposite of nature. In contemporary usage,
definitions of art usually reflect aesthetic criteria, and the term may
encompass literature, music, drama, painting, and sculpture. Popularly, the
term is most commonly used to refer to the visual arts. In Western culture,
aesthetic criteria introduced by the ancient Greeks still influence our
perceptions and judgements of art.`

Then of course, a nightingale's song is no longer music to one's ears
anymore. Anything non-human automatically disqualifies.

Or one may you instead a figurative speech when he feels poetic.

>
> > Your language is greatly biased and lacking. You try to judge with
emotions
> > and perceptions, ignoring the fact that you are a biological construct
> > subject to similar quantitative and/or qualitative physical laws.
> >
>
> Something obviously got lost in translation because my whole POINT is that
> I'm a "biological construct..." so I feel it is important to recognize and
> understand what factors in quantitative physical laws are undeniable and
> specified and necessarily impact who I am and what my perceptions are.
> I'm not ignoring that, it is a large part of my entire focus.
>

Very well.

> What I feel we cannot quantify is whether there can be "meaning" of
various
> natural phenomena outside of human perception. Other than humans
> qualifying things, how could all the physical existence in the world
possibly
> have meaning? (and no, I'm not saying that humanity is what gives the
world
> meaning, I'm moreso trying to say that "meaning" is an illusion that
exists
> only in the human mind).
>

Certainly not. The universe existed prior to human beings. The fact that it
was is meaning enough.

`Meaning is meaningful as long as it serves a purpose.`

> >
> > I don't want
> > > to have that discussion. I'd be very happy if you can do as I'm doing
and
> > > admit to me that you understand what I'm talking about even if you
don't
> > > happen to like my less broad wording that I used to describe it.
> > >
> > I indeed do glimpse where you are getting at. I simply avoid it with
dread.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you mean or why, but that is not a very communication
> conducive attitude.
>

May be, may be not.

> > Shall we also ask a 3-year old kid if he perceives modulation in a
certain
> > piece of music? Shall we say that modulation is relative given that %60
of
> > the world populace is ignorant of it?
> >
>
> The ability to recognize or quantify or name a perception is independant
> of having it. To some degree, I believe a 3-year old perceives modulation
> even if he does not understand it. Ignorance of what and how you are
> perceiving things does not mean you don't perceive them. I'm saying that
> the definition of "modulation" as best as I understand, and fitting with
your
> definition, is based on factors outside of the simple theory that we
usually
> talk about.
>

Does a human fetus perceive it then?

> To put it another way, using my rhythm example, I think it is
theoretically
> possible to quantify all the factors that create a certain rhythm and
> differentiate it from another. I think an included factor is how the
listener
> is physically moving. This *can* be quantified, but cannot be determined
> by a score or a recording or anything musicians typically quantify. By my
> way of defining "rhythm" it is the way in which events in time are related
> as per relations of accent vs. offbeat. See "The Rhythmic Structure Of
> Music" by Cooper & Meyer. So since I have experienced a different
> rhythm in two different listenings of the same recording, then I can
> objectively state that all the necessary elements to define rhythm are
> not existing in a recording alone. Therefore we must take into account
> more parameters.
>
> I think modulation is the same. There DOES exist objective parameters
> as to what causes a perception of modulation. But when I use the term
> "subjective" I generally mean not that which is emotional or opinion
> based, or even that which is variable from person to person.
>

Subjective evaluation only helps confuse the issue IMHO.

> I can't find it right now, but there exists a written definition of the
word
> "subjective" which means: that which is describing the perception in the
> mind as opposed to the external physics. In other words, I see something
> green, it is objectively reflecting certain electromagnetic waves of a
> certain frequency. But my experience of "green" is a SUBJECTIVE one,
> but I am NOT arguing that anyone has any different experience, or that
> opinion or choice or emotion has anything to do with this.
>

Your perception of green is the physical equivalent of the response of the
optic nerves to a certain wavelenght of light. It is no longer subjective if
the mechanism is mass-produced and is functional in the universal sense.

AND, defective products are refunded up to 30 days after purchase.

> In other words, I'm trying to clarify between the experience of phenomena
> and the actuality of physical phenomena. And I've been using the terms
> objective and subjective. OBjective being outside the perceiver,
SUBjective
> being what happens internally that creates the experience. If you read
> my words as meaning emotional or variable or open to opinion, then I think
> I may have found a major source of our miscommunication!
>

I simply deny that subjective phenomena exist. That is the illusion we are
after.

> If you have a different way of discussing this, now that you hopefully
> understand my perspective, I'm open to hearing it. And if you insist
> on using other words, well, I don't mind- my goal is to accurately
> communicate, and I hope you share that.
>

Have I not already?

> >
> > Certainly,
> > > you won't say that there doesn't exist variations in people's
perceptions.
> > > So I'm saying that being aware of how much range in perception exists
> > > is an important thing to be studied.
> >
> > This has little bearing on the physical laws of music exemplified and
> > explained by music theory. It is an entirely different field of
scientific
> > study.
> >
>
> Ok, same issue. See I meant that these variations occur because of
> objective phenomena such as differences in brain chemistry, different
> state of being, physically, at the time of listening, etc.
> I find it an interesting question to discover what factors we all have
> in common, both biological and environmental, and where we differ
> and by how much, and then applicably: how does this affect variation
> in perceptions of music.
>

Modus operandi, modus vivendi.

>
> > Modulation is first a theoretical, then a perceptual phenomenon. The
latter
> > does not define the former.
> >
>
> If by "theoretical" you mean it is just an idea, a way of talking, ok. If
you mean
> that it otherwise exists outside of perception, I still have no idea what
that
> is you're talking about.
>

AFAIK, it exists independent of perception. It is ingrained in the Cosmic
Scheme of things. And you don't even need to assign importance to tones in
order to achieve it.

> > >
> > > Likewise, I love and appreciate studying the objective sciences of
this
> > > issue as well. I don't deny that objectivity exists.
> > >
> > You had said that there can be no objective music.
>
> Yes, but this is using my human-centric definition of "music" and also my
> definition of "objective" meaning existing independant of a listener
existing.
> Using a broader definition of "music" I would not say that.
>

But humans are not only subjects, but also objects, in that they are guided
by physical laws and operate within measurable limits.

> > > In the case of the word "modulation," I truly do not know exactly
> > > what you are talking about when you claim that "modulation" exists
> > > objectively, outside of perception.
> >
> > Simply that the laws governing the music-making process must have
existed a
> > priori to our realization and discovery of their existence. Call it a
> > Celestial Order, if you will.
> >
>
> I like that! And I agree, but by my normal way of talking, these laws
didn't
> materialize into "music," but rather people created this thing we call
> music and this creation became what it is because of, and is indeed
> governed by, these laws.
>

They did not create, but did discover the relations of pitch and rhythm to
give them shape. It's not as if they created music out of thin air. No,
they found a vein of premordial aural treasure that they pursued for
millenia in every direction possible.

> > Then what more is there to discuss?
> >
>
> I understand that ORDER exists scientifically, but science cannot
> place value judgments, such as order of IMPORTANCE. The physical
> world has order. And it just is what it is. Where does "modulation"
> fit in?
>
> SNIP
> > Not importance, sequence.
> >
>
> Sorry, sequence? Please explain.
>

Sequences of tones is all you need to realize modulation.

> SNIP
> >
> > Our mutual communication is hampered due to the shortcomings of our
language
> > then, I'll credit you with that much!
> >
> > Oz.
> >
>
> Glad you got my point about the "sound" issue. I've been trying to say
all along
> that these language shortcomings are an issue. And I think they've
frustrated
> others on this list to the point of emotional defensiveness (on a number
of
> topics). It is only by recognizing these challenges that we can then work
to
> overcome them.
>
> My way of dealing with this is to remain the eternal optimist and assume
that
> the people I'm talking to have intelligent, thought-out, useful ideas
until
> I'm certain I understand them and their language well enough to judge
> otherwise. And I'm smart enough to know that just because I give people
> that benefit-of-the-doubt that I can't expect as much in return. So I try
> to avoid getting defensive and try to avoid name-calling or anything that
> could come across as particularly judgmental, and try to set my sights
> on solving whatever miscommunication there is. And I try to impress this
> upon others. I wish I knew why so many people find it so hard to admit
> that there may be misunderstanding. That doesn't even imply that they
> are wrong, yet so many people get defensive at the suggestion that a
> misunderstanding may exist. And to be clear, I'm not addressing this to
> anyone specifically. I hope sharing this attitude could be of use to
everyone.
>

Aw... what a spoilsport! You are no fun at all.

ROTFWL

> Cordially,
> Aaron
>
>
>

Cordially,
Oz.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

>
> Depends on what you mean by intentional. If by it you mean sounds produced
> by biological organisms, this definition includes all life-forms, not just
> humans. Frogs, birds, and several other weird species are all capable of
> *intentionally* producing sound.
>
> But since you include the concept of `art`, your definition automatically
> precludes anything non-human, even possible extra-terrestrial cultures:

SNIP
>
> Then of course, a nightingale's song is no longer music to one's ears
> anymore. Anything non-human automatically disqualifies.
>
> Or one may you instead a figurative speech when he feels poetic.
>
>

Look, it is useful to understand "artistic" music vs. other music. And I would
argue that it is rash to assume that only humans can have artistic intent.
However, I have no knowledge of non-human artistic intent, I simply don't
like the human-centric and anti-scientific view that we can assume it
is exclusively human. But such artistic intent, I feel, is useful to recognize
and discuss. I don't value artistic, intentional music above the broader
definition of music, but I *do* feel it is wrong for people to exploit
these basic laws of musicality in an arbitrary fashion and call it "art" or
state that it is of deep personal expression, instead of recognizing that
it is simply music that follows these laws. It may still be very enjoyable
without the artistic intent. Just don't deny that it is what it is.

SNIP
>
> Certainly not. The universe existed prior to human beings. The fact that it
> was is meaning enough.
>
> `Meaning is meaningful as long as it serves a purpose.`
>

This is no place for a discussion of theology and this sort of philosophy.
This is leading too far from discussing music. I'll just simply state
that your "the fact that it was is meaning enough" is a totally unending
and non-pragmatic, as well as non- (but not anti) scientific.

SNIP
>
> Does a human fetus perceive it then?
>

How about accepting that no human can answer every possible question.
Nobody could ever know this. But scientifically, I'd assume that until
a fetus has some level of hearing aparatus, it wouldn't perceive anything
relating to music (if we keep our "music" definition specific enough to
mean sound and aural only). These fine lines are things we simply
cannot always know. Only fools would try to answer these unknowable
questions.

SNIP
>
> I simply deny that subjective phenomena exist. That is the illusion we are
> after.
>

"simplistically" might be a better word, but anyway... do we admit to the
existence of "thought" or is it just a bunch of chemical reactions? You know
what? Only a fool would claim to be able to answer with absolute certainty.
Scientifically, I could lead towards the chemical reactions version, but then
I admit that I am no expert, and it is callous to even suggest I know. The
main point is that when I talk about subjectivity and perception, as it applies
to music, it allows me to express interesting things that are useful and
educational when talking to other musically interested people. And arguing
that subjectivity doesn't exist, well, you simply miss the point because
there are musical ideas here and they apply whether or not subjectivity
in the broadest most deep sense exists or not.

>
> Modus operandi, modus vivendi.
>
>

Sorry, what does that mean? I'm ignorant.

> >
> > > Modulation is first a theoretical, then a perceptual phenomenon. The
> latter
> > > does not define the former.
> > >
> >
> > If by "theoretical" you mean it is just an idea, a way of talking, ok. If
> you mean
> > that it otherwise exists outside of perception, I still have no idea what
> that
> > is you're talking about.
> >
>
>
> AFAIK, it exists independent of perception. It is ingrained in the Cosmic
> Scheme of things. And you don't even need to assign importance to tones in
> order to achieve it.
>
>

All I know for sure is that neither you nor I are capable of making that sort
of broad, absolute type of claim. I can't accurately claim otherwise, but I
am certain you are incapableof accurately of stating that sort of thing as some
sort of knowable absolute truth. Well, again, unless you are using "modulation"
to mean something so extremely removed from music that I have no idea
what you are talking about. I still haven't got a definition of modulation
as you use it that is clear and specific enough to make it a functional,
communicative word in our discussion.

-Aaron

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Jeremy,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Targett" <jeremy.targett@...>
wrote:
>
> J.Smith:
>
> > An intricately devised, mathematically perfect, logically
> > modulated-through-1200edo "composition" may very well prove
> > it's creator's genius with fractions.... but may equally
> > fail to evoke any sympathetic, or even enjoyable, response
> > from a listener. The dullest musical composers I can
> > think of (with the rare exception), were the 12-tone
> > "serialists" after Webern. They followed their mathematical
> > proclivities all the way into an obscure cul-de-sac, losing
> > whatever audiences they might have had along the way. Their
> > "rarefied" number-based "music" aroused very little enthusiasm.
>
> Ah, the argument by failure of imagination. So tedious. <snip>
>
> There are people (I know because I'm one of them) who find
> Schoenberg's String Trio (for example) to be one of the most
> beautiful pieces of music they know. No one told me to like it,
> I just liked it. A lot, and not because of its serial
> structure.

Hooray! I'm *so* glad to find one other person who
loves that pieces as much as i do! I consider it to
be absolutely one of the most amazing pieces ever composed.

> Just because you personally don't get it doesn't mean
> there's nothing there. And I know this is a pointless
> argument and this is the wrong place for it, but your smug,
> dismissive self-assurance about the worthlessness of a
> whole repertoire really pisses me off.

I would have responded the same way if you hadn't already
done it first. BTW -- another fantastic post-Webern serial
composition (and serial in many more ways than anything by
the Schoenberg camp) is Boulez's _Le Marteau Sans Maitre_.
I like a lot of Babbitt's music too.

> Besides, it's ridiculous to claim that this music is
> mathematical or number-based. It is absolutely not the
> case that Schoenberg, Berg or Webern derived their music
> from numbers or mathematical relationships.

Well, here you're on shakier ground -- Schoenberg was
indeed fascinated by numbers and numerology. He did
maintain that analyzing the serial structure of his
serial music would shed very little light on any of
its real value, but at the same time, it is well
documented that he was preoccupied with numerological
considerations. I can't say the same for Berg and Webern,
but for Schoenberg the numerology aspect is indeed
worth exploring.

> <snip>
>
> Oh and learn to spell "its".

THANK YOU! It drives me crazy when people who otherwise
have good grammar and spelling keep inserting that damn
incorrect apostrophe.

("Apostrophe", BTW, is the name of a pretty good album
by Frank Zappa.)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗ambassadorbob <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Hey Aaron, I enjoyed all your 7-limit barbershop pieces immensely.

> > Then of course, a nightingale's song is no longer music to one's ears
> > anymore. Anything non-human automatically disqualifies.
> >
> > Or one may you instead a figurative speech when he feels poetic.
> >
> >
>
> Look, it is useful to understand "artistic" music vs. other music. And I
would
> argue that it is rash to assume that only humans can have artistic intent.

The generic dictionaries clearly disagree with you on this one.

> However, I have no knowledge of non-human artistic intent,

Just observe the itsy bitsy spider weave her web. Skill, gusto, flair,
panache, savoir faire, finesse and artistry is all in it.

I simply don't
> like the human-centric and anti-scientific view that we can assume it
> is exclusively human.

Currently applicable jargons are geared that way.

But such artistic intent, I feel, is useful to recognize
> and discuss. I don't value artistic, intentional music above the broader
> definition of music, but I *do* feel it is wrong for people to exploit
> these basic laws of musicality in an arbitrary fashion and call it "art"
or
> state that it is of deep personal expression, instead of recognizing that
> it is simply music that follows these laws. It may still be very
enjoyable
> without the artistic intent. Just don't deny that it is what it is.
>

So, natural beauty is not to be classified as art even though it strikes
people as magnificent?

Behold nature's landscape
Painted by colors of a rainbow,
Eyes dazzled with wonder gaze
At the splendours high and low.

> > `Meaning is meaningful as long as it serves a purpose.`
> >
>
> This is no place for a discussion of theology and this sort of philosophy.
> This is leading too far from discussing music. I'll just simply state
> that your "the fact that it was is meaning enough" is a totally unending
> and non-pragmatic, as well as non- (but not anti) scientific.
>

So howcome everything did exist before you were even born? How we fit in the
grand scheme of things?

> SNIP
> >
> > Does a human fetus perceive it then?
> >
>
> How about accepting that no human can answer every possible question.
> Nobody could ever know this. But scientifically, I'd assume that until
> a fetus has some level of hearing aparatus, it wouldn't perceive anything
> relating to music (if we keep our "music" definition specific enough to
> mean sound and aural only). These fine lines are things we simply
> cannot always know. Only fools would try to answer these unknowable
> questions.

We seem to be making progress in our mutually regressed communication!

>
> SNIP
> >
> > I simply deny that subjective phenomena exist. That is the illusion we
are
> > after.
> >
>
> "simplistically" might be a better word, but anyway... do we admit to the
> existence of "thought" or is it just a bunch of chemical reactions?

What is the difference to being with?

You know
> what? Only a fool would claim to be able to answer with absolute
certainty.
> Scientifically, I could lead towards the chemical reactions version, but
then
> I admit that I am no expert, and it is callous to even suggest I know.

You treat your question as if you meant two different things, whereas you
cannot possibly.

The
> main point is that when I talk about subjectivity and perception, as it
applies
> to music, it allows me to express interesting things that are useful and
> educational when talking to other musically interested people. And
arguing
> that subjectivity doesn't exist, well, you simply miss the point because
> there are musical ideas here and they apply whether or not subjectivity
> in the broadest most deep sense exists or not.
>

My point was, we are governed by determinable laws that are within the scope
of our understanding, which is itself a process subject to the same laws,
rendering the whole process and objective experience.

> >
> > Modus operandi, modus vivendi.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, what does that mean? I'm ignorant.
>
>

Welcome to the club! Modus operandi means the way things work in the
universe. Modus vivendi is the way life is. I stated them to point to an
arrangement by which a stable balance between `subjectivity` and
`objectivity` may be reached.

> > AFAIK, it exists independent of perception. It is ingrained in the
Cosmic
> > Scheme of things. And you don't even need to assign importance to tones
in
> > order to achieve it.
> >
> >
>
> All I know for sure is that neither you nor I are capable of making that
sort
> of broad, absolute type of claim.

Can you claim that modulation requires the presence of a single human being?
Do you deny that the operation we describe as modulation is integrated to
the structure of the universe prior to humans?

I can't accurately claim otherwise, but I
> am certain you are incapableof accurately of stating that sort of thing as
some
> sort of knowable absolute truth.

It is an a priori hypothesis, which can be proven to work in several
circumstances.

Well, again, unless you are using "modulation"
> to mean something so extremely removed from music that I have no idea
> what you are talking about. I still haven't got a definition of
modulation
> as you use it that is clear and specific enough to make it a functional,
> communicative word in our discussion.
>

Then I'll be expecting to hear your definition of it before we proceed
further.

> -Aaron
>
>
>

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> > Look, it is useful to understand "artistic" music vs. other music. And I
> would
> > argue that it is rash to assume that only humans can have artistic intent.
>
>
> The generic dictionaries clearly disagree with you on this one.
>

Dictionaries can't determine whether a chimp can have artistic motivation!
I'm not differing from the dictionary definition of artistic intent, I'm saying
that we can't judge with certainty that some proportion of a HUMAN level
of artistic intent doesn't exist in animals.

It's like an argument I had with someone who claimed that animals don't
have emotions. While I'd guess they do, I can scientifically say without a doubt
that this guy had no basis to know that they don't.

Same thing here. I'm just saying that we don't need to be species-centric
and reject any possibility of artistic intent in other creatures.

>
> > However, I have no knowledge of non-human artistic intent,
>
> Just observe the itsy bitsy spider weave her web. Skill, gusto, flair,
> panache, savoir faire, finesse and artistry is all in it.
>

None of us can judge how much artistic intent the spider has. But I'd
have to say that if pressed I'll go with the spider doing everything for
practical goals and not having an ounce of artistic expressive intent in
it. I can certainly say that if you want to steal away my word "art" and
apply it to beautiful patterns in nature that can astound us humans, but
just exist and are what they are, like saying an interesting galaxy or
nebula or something is art... well then I demand you give me a replacement
word so I can still talk about this thing that involves a creator with
expressive intent making something for reasons that aren't entirely
practical or arbitrary.

>
> I simply don't
> > like the human-centric and anti-scientific view that we can assume it
> > is exclusively human.
>
> Currently applicable jargons are geared that way.
>

Unfortunately that may be so, but I've already agreed to adapt some
of my wording just to be able to talk to YOU, so certainly the two of
us can agree that we needn't be totally bound by typical definitions...

>
> So, natural beauty is not to be classified as art even though it strikes
> people as magnificent?
>
> Behold nature's landscape
> Painted by colors of a rainbow,
> Eyes dazzled with wonder gaze
> At the splendours high and low.
>

No. I need a word that differentiates, so I can communicate. Art is
one that works for that purpose and I'm not alone in my definition.
I LOVE natural beauty. What goal does it serve to steal any word that
excludes it and try to apply it to that? If it wasn't art, you (and others)
would take whatever other word we use and try to apply it that broadly.
It has nothing to do with preference for human vs natural beauty. When
I make music, SOMETIMES I have a clear intent that isn't apparent in the
natural world. The intent is the main difference. I, and many others, use
the word art. If you can give me an alternative word, I'll use that for this
discussion, I don't care to be so dogmatic about words as some people.

> > > `Meaning is meaningful as long as it serves a purpose.`
> > >
> >
> > This is no place for a discussion of theology and this sort of philosophy.
> > This is leading too far from discussing music. I'll just simply state
> > that your "the fact that it was is meaning enough" is a totally unending
> > and non-pragmatic, as well as non- (but not anti) scientific.
> >
>
> So howcome everything did exist before you were even born? How we fit in the
> grand scheme of things?
>

Look, no place for this discussion here. I don't know that anything existed
before my birth, I just assume so because 100% of the evidence I've got
points to that. And I just know that if you think you can answer howcome
things existed, you are a very arrogant fool. It is interesting to postulate
and question, but anybody who claims that have a concrete answer is not
to be trusted in my book since 100% of the evidence I've got points to no
human being capable of knowing that information.

SNIP
>
> My point was, we are governed by determinable laws that are within the scope
> of our understanding, which is itself a process subject to the same laws,
> rendering the whole process and objective experience.
>

No, just because it is objective in a way doesn't mean we experience it
that way. I don't experience myself objectively. And if you say I do,
and don't like my wording, well GIVE ME A NEW WORD THEN that lets
me express how my perceptions are not the same experience as the
objective existence outside my consciousness. I have no problem
agreeing that all my consciousness exists within an outside objective
world, that still doesn't mean I can experience it that way, which is
why humans can never truly know everything about the world, we're
trapped in our limited internal perspective which I call subjective.

>
> Can you claim that modulation requires the presence of a single human being?
> Do you deny that the operation we describe as modulation is integrated to
> the structure of the universe prior to humans?
>

I still just don't know what the heck modulation is, as you are talking.
I use the word to describe a kind of experiential, maybe artificial
organization of perceived phenomena. If something called modulation
exists in the physical universe, um, I just don't know what it is you
mean. Can you define it (again)??

>
> Then I'll be expecting to hear your definition of it before we proceed
> further.
>

From me? I'd define modulation as the shifting of focus within the
perception of an organization of tones. Or in other words, the
*experience* of feeling that the note or notes that dominate or are
of higher order of importance have shifted. To me, memory plays
an important part, because someone with a damaged short term
memory will only be able to perceive dominance on an instantaneous
moment-to-moment basis. Myself, my memory or focus or whatever
is such that if I listen to a long song in a concert, I barely if at all
connect the modulative feeling of the key of that song to a much
earlier song in a concert, but I might relate the modulative feel of
a song to the ones immediately before and after. And if I choose to
imagine various things in my head while listening, I am able to change
how I perceive the dominance of the notes within the same external
performance.

But I was more interested in understanding YOUR definition, Ozan.

-Aaron

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

> >
> > The generic dictionaries clearly disagree with you on this one.
> >
>
> Dictionaries can't determine whether a chimp can have artistic motivation!
> I'm not differing from the dictionary definition of artistic intent, I'm
saying
> that we can't judge with certainty that some proportion of a HUMAN level
> of artistic intent doesn't exist in animals.
>

Inevitably, we are back to word-play:

HUMAN
adjective
belonging to, relating to, or of the nature of, man or mankind; having the
qualities of a person or the limitations of people; humane; not invidiously
superior; genial, kind.

noun
a human being.

Obviously, there is no hint of whether animals possessing quasi-human
attributes can be ascribed artistic intent the way you say according to
existing lauded literature. Supposing for a moment, however, that classical
definitions could be warped to include this new meaning you proposed, why do
we anymore disagree?

> It's like an argument I had with someone who claimed that animals don't
> have emotions. While I'd guess they do, I can scientifically say without
a doubt
> that this guy had no basis to know that they don't.
>

In psychology, a powerful feeling; a complex state of body and mind
involving, in its bodily aspect, changes in the viscera (main internal
organs) and in facial expression and posture, and in its mental aspect,
heightened perception, excitement and, sometimes, disturbance of thought and
judgement. The urge to action is felt and impulsive behaviour may result.

My cats clearly exhibit characteristics that correspond to emotions. I can
detect in them - in a variety of situations - contentment, anxiety,
curiosity, panic, anger, etc... These stimuli are indeed very human-like in
their response to favorable/adverse conditions. I'm sure there is enough
scientific data by now to support the obvious.

> Same thing here. I'm just saying that we don't need to be species-centric
> and reject any possibility of artistic intent in other creatures.
>

Dictionaries reject that possibility, and hence, we ought to either stick to
their norms or revolt openly and risk being completely misunderstood.

> >
> > > However, I have no knowledge of non-human artistic intent,
> >
> > Just observe the itsy bitsy spider weave her web. Skill, gusto, flair,
> > panache, savoir faire, finesse and artistry is all in it.
> >
>
> None of us can judge how much artistic intent the spider has. But I'd
> have to say that if pressed I'll go with the spider doing everything for
> practical goals and not having an ounce of artistic expressive intent in
> it.

What is the difference to begin with? You are saying that paintings,
sculpture and music serve no practical goals in life?

I can certainly say that if you want to steal away my word "art" and
> apply it to beautiful patterns in nature that can astound us humans, but
> just exist and are what they are, like saying an interesting galaxy or
> nebula or something is art... well then I demand you give me a replacement
> word so I can still talk about this thing that involves a creator with
> expressive intent making something for reasons that aren't entirely
> practical or arbitrary.
>

You believe that galaxies or nebulas do not involve a creator with
expressive intent?

> >
> > I simply don't
> > > like the human-centric and anti-scientific view that we can assume it
> > > is exclusively human.
> >
> > Currently applicable jargons are geared that way.
> >
>
> Unfortunately that may be so, but I've already agreed to adapt some
> of my wording just to be able to talk to YOU, so certainly the two of
> us can agree that we needn't be totally bound by typical definitions...
>

I'm a rebel, is it not obvious?

>
> >
> > So, natural beauty is not to be classified as art even though it strikes
> > people as magnificent?
> >
> > Behold nature's landscape
> > Painted by colors of a rainbow,
> > Eyes dazzled with wonder gaze
> > At the splendours high and low.
> >
>
> No. I need a word that differentiates, so I can communicate. Art is
> one that works for that purpose and I'm not alone in my definition.

So, you included animals, but not inanimate objects. That's an improvement
from last time.

> I LOVE natural beauty. What goal does it serve to steal any word that
> excludes it and try to apply it to that? If it wasn't art, you (and
others)
> would take whatever other word we use and try to apply it that broadly.

I see design, I see intent, and everything that has an intricate structure
that appeal to the senses can be defined as art in the broadest sense.

> It has nothing to do with preference for human vs natural beauty. When
> I make music, SOMETIMES I have a clear intent that isn't apparent in the
> natural world. The intent is the main difference. I, and many others,
use
> the word art. If you can give me an alternative word, I'll use that for
this
> discussion, I don't care to be so dogmatic about words as some people.
>

Har har... You don't need to be so cynical. If by intent you mean
freewill... I can live with that. Let us then constrain all art to human
free-will and be done with it.

> > >
> >
> > So howcome everything did exist before you were even born? How we fit in
the
> > grand scheme of things?
> >
>
> Look, no place for this discussion here. I don't know that anything
existed
> before my birth, I just assume so because 100% of the evidence I've got
> points to that. And I just know that if you think you can answer howcome
> things existed, you are a very arrogant fool.

They existed because they were. They either came into existence or were
always there to begin with. Evidence shows that they came into existence at
some point in time. I can answer with circular arguments until the next
eclipse, being the arrogant fool that I am.

It is interesting to postulate
> and question, but anybody who claims that have a concrete answer is not
> to be trusted in my book since 100% of the evidence I've got points to no
> human being capable of knowing that information.
>

Indeed. We are limited creatures, aren't we. And yet... we can accomplish so
much more that way.

> SNIP
> >
> > My point was, we are governed by determinable laws that are within the
scope
> > of our understanding, which is itself a process subject to the same
laws,
> > rendering the whole process and objective experience.
> >
>
> No, just because it is objective in a way doesn't mean we experience it
> that way. I don't experience myself objectively.

What? Experience is a process that occurs in the physical world that does
not evade scientific observation. All correctly functioning humans
experience heat in proximity to fire and cold in proximity to ice. The
wording is not anymore subjective then. If you alone existed as a human in
the entire universe, only THEN would you be deprived of any objective
conclusions as to how you perceived things.

And if you say I do,
> and don't like my wording, well GIVE ME A NEW WORD THEN that lets
> me express how my perceptions are not the same experience as the
> objective existence outside my consciousness. I have no problem
> agreeing that all my consciousness exists within an outside objective
> world, that still doesn't mean I can experience it that way, which is
> why humans can never truly know everything about the world, we're
> trapped in our limited internal perspective which I call subjective.
>

Illusions, illusions...

>
> >
> > Can you claim that modulation requires the presence of a single human
being?
> > Do you deny that the operation we describe as modulation is integrated
to
> > the structure of the universe prior to humans?
> >
>
> I still just don't know what the heck modulation is, as you are talking.
> I use the word to describe a kind of experiential, maybe artificial
> organization of perceived phenomena. If something called modulation
> exists in the physical universe, um, I just don't know what it is you
> mean. Can you define it (again)??
>

Simply put, movement from one `key` to another, where `key` is the operative
word of course.

>
> >
> > Then I'll be expecting to hear your definition of it before we proceed
> > further.
> >
>
> >From me? I'd define modulation as the shifting of focus within the
> perception of an organization of tones. Or in other words, the
> *experience* of feeling that the note or notes that dominate or are
> of higher order of importance have shifted. To me, memory plays
> an important part, because someone with a damaged short term
> memory will only be able to perceive dominance on an instantaneous
> moment-to-moment basis. Myself, my memory or focus or whatever
> is such that if I listen to a long song in a concert, I barely if at all
> connect the modulative feeling of the key of that song to a much
> earlier song in a concert, but I might relate the modulative feel of
> a song to the ones immediately before and after. And if I choose to
> imagine various things in my head while listening, I am able to change
> how I perceive the dominance of the notes within the same external
> performance.

Very good.

>
> But I was more interested in understanding YOUR definition, Ozan.
>

The classical definition would be to pass from one key to another using a
logical progression of chords that link the two keys.

I would attempt to describe it as constant omission and introduction of
pitches that yield patterns of tonal permutation even in monody. Such random
patterns of waves superimposed upon each other in a given medium (be it
sound, light, atomic particles or neutrinos) throughout an indefinite period
of time could also be defined as modulation. We could say that the universe
as a wave-like entity is constantly modulating from one state to another
near state throughout eons.

Then again, I may not know what I am saying, which is a greater possibility.

> -Aaron
>
>
>

Oz.

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

SNIP
> What is the difference to begin with? You are saying that paintings,
> sculpture and music serve no practical goals in life?
>

Well, not so explicitly. I mean to a degree these things are not immediately
tied to reproduction, survival, physical needs or goals, etc. Most people
make a degree of distinction between these "artistic" goals and those
directly related to fundamental survival needs and related goals. I'll
grant that this distinction can be fuzzy, but it's there in my way of seeing
things. And the spider's web can be directly tied to eating and surviving.

> You believe that galaxies or nebulas do not involve a creator with
> expressive intent?
>

Simply put, I have no evidence that they do. And I certainly have evidence
of the human desire to make sense of things beyond our comprehension
and defensively claim to know or believe or have faith in things we really
have no basis for, just that it makes us feel less ignorant and helpless and
whatnot. So I'd have to go with the idea that whatever the reality is, we
humans don't really know or understand it, and have the human-centric
desire to place human level expressive intent on the rest of the world.
Suffice to say, there's no way to really KNOW the objective reality of this.

SNIP
>
> So, you included animals, but not inanimate objects. That's an improvement
> from last time.
>

I'm not always including animals, I'm just not excluding them, I'm leaving
the possibility open. I'm talking here about intent, and I'm not claiming
to know for sure who or what has such intent. But to me, the intent is
a useful distinction, even if I appreciate the unintentional as well. I have a
hard time believing there's intent in inanimate objects, but IF there is, then
they fit into my definition, I just don't generally include them because I
see no evidence of such intent. But I think I do in animals, sometimes.

SNIP
> I see design, I see intent, and everything that has an intricate structure
> that appeal to the senses can be defined as art in the broadest sense.
>

No, you see design. You don't see intent. It may or may not be there,
only the designer knows for sure. I don't see why people can't accept
that we humans can be intrigued and astounded by things that are
random. What possible situation in the universe could be DIFFERENT
and then people say "well, in THAT case it would obviously NOT have
intent behind it." It seems that whatever reality presents, people will
choose to imagine intent behind it, so it's a totally circular logic. If
waves in the ocean bahaved differently from how they do, everyone
would marvel equally at that version. So no intent is *necessary* since
any possible situation will still astound people.

SNIP
>
> Har har... You don't need to be so cynical. If by intent you mean
> freewill... I can live with that. Let us then constrain all art to human
> free-will and be done with it.
>

I don't know for certain if that's what I mean, but it sounds maybe like
what I mean. I think that will apply for this discussion, for communication
purposes even if I'm not totally comfortable with that wording. Let's try
using that definition to distinguish between art (human-free-will based)
and natural beauty. In the future, if we have trouble understanding each
other, we'll address the situation then. This compromise might work for
now!

SNIP
>
> Indeed. We are limited creatures, aren't we. And yet... we can accomplish so
> much more that way.
>

I wouldn't know. I never had the chance to be limitless. heheh.

SNIP

> What? Experience is a process that occurs in the physical world that does
> not evade scientific observation. All correctly functioning humans
> experience heat in proximity to fire and cold in proximity to ice. The
> wording is not anymore subjective then. If you alone existed as a human in
> the entire universe, only THEN would you be deprived of any objective
> conclusions as to how you perceived things.
>

I'm not saying there are no objective conclusions. I'm just saying that
my inner perceptions don't feel the same TO ME as the objective
conclusions. In other words, it is a state-of-mind being myself and
experiencing the world, and I'm relatively stuck in it. I don't know what
the world looks like through any other set of eyes even if I can make
objective judgments about what that would be. I can't actually experience
it.

>
>
> And if you say I do,
> > and don't like my wording, well GIVE ME A NEW WORD THEN that lets
> > me express how my perceptions are not the same experience as the
> > objective existence outside my consciousness. I have no problem
> > agreeing that all my consciousness exists within an outside objective
> > world, that still doesn't mean I can experience it that way, which is
> > why humans can never truly know everything about the world, we're
> > trapped in our limited internal perspective which I call subjective.
> >
>
>
> Illusions, illusions...
>

You're saying to use the word, "illusions" for the perceptions within my
mind vs the objective world... hmm... maybe...

SNIP

> > I still just don't know what the heck modulation is, as you are talking.
> > I use the word to describe a kind of experiential, maybe artificial
> > organization of perceived phenomena. If something called modulation
> > exists in the physical universe, um, I just don't know what it is you
> > mean. Can you define it (again)??
> >
>
>
> Simply put, movement from one `key` to another, where `key` is the operative
> word of course.
>
>

Define key in this case please, just to be sure

> >
> > >From me? I'd define modulation as the shifting of focus within the
> > perception of an organization of tones. Or in other words, the
> > *experience* of feeling that the note or notes that dominate or are
> > of higher order of importance have shifted. To me, memory plays
> > an important part, because someone with a damaged short term
> > memory will only be able to perceive dominance on an instantaneous
> > moment-to-moment basis. Myself, my memory or focus or whatever
> > is such that if I listen to a long song in a concert, I barely if at all
> > connect the modulative feeling of the key of that song to a much
> > earlier song in a concert, but I might relate the modulative feel of
> > a song to the ones immediately before and after. And if I choose to
> > imagine various things in my head while listening, I am able to change
> > how I perceive the dominance of the notes within the same external
> > performance.
>
>
> Very good.
>

So that makes sense to you?

>
> The classical definition would be to pass from one key to another using a
> logical progression of chords that link the two keys.
>
> I would attempt to describe it as constant omission and introduction of
> pitches that yield patterns of tonal permutation even in monody. Such random
> patterns of waves superimposed upon each other in a given medium (be it
> sound, light, atomic particles or neutrinos) throughout an indefinite period
> of time could also be defined as modulation. We could say that the universe
> as a wave-like entity is constantly modulating from one state to another
> near state throughout eons.
>
> Then again, I may not know what I am saying, which is a greater possibility.
>

Hmm, well obviously what you're describing exists, I wouldn't deny that.
So can we find a way to word things to differentiate from the physical
modulations of the universe vs. my concept of whether or not we
perceive music modulations in relation to memory and things within
the "illusions" of our consciousness? I should add that while the lines
are fuzzy, there is a range from NOT perceiving this in our "illusive"
minds, to perceiving but not being consciously aware of it, to totally
being aware of the perceptions of our "illusions."

Sincerely,
Aaron

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

A late reply to Aaron:

> > What is the difference to begin with? You are saying that paintings,
> > sculpture and music serve no practical goals in life?
> >
>
> Well, not so explicitly. I mean to a degree these things are not
immediately
> tied to reproduction, survival, physical needs or goals, etc. Most people
> make a degree of distinction between these "artistic" goals and those
> directly related to fundamental survival needs and related goals. I'll
> grant that this distinction can be fuzzy, but it's there in my way of
seeing
> things. And the spider's web can be directly tied to eating and
surviving.
>

Likewise, music and arts can be directly tied to mental and physical health.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art for a duel between Plato and Aristotle
on Art.

Without recreating with such distractions, we could not hope to survive the
challenges of everyday life.

And I'm not even talking about intellectual refinement yet.

>
> > You believe that galaxies or nebulas do not involve a creator with
> > expressive intent?
> >
>
> Simply put, I have no evidence that they do. And I certainly have
evidence
> of the human desire to make sense of things beyond our comprehension
> and defensively claim to know or believe or have faith in things we really
> have no basis for, just that it makes us feel less ignorant and helpless
and
> whatnot.

It is not only a defensive attitude, it's the search for a rational argument
that supplies the answers for our existential preponderences.

So I'd have to go with the idea that whatever the reality is, we
> humans don't really know or understand it, and have the human-centric
> desire to place human level expressive intent on the rest of the world.
> Suffice to say, there's no way to really KNOW the objective reality of
this.
>

Oh but there is. We are not the only species with `human level expressive
intent`:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal

Think of a bird that can procreate with words!

> SNIP
> >
> > So, you included animals, but not inanimate objects. That's an
improvement
> > from last time.
> >
>
> I'm not always including animals, I'm just not excluding them, I'm leaving
> the possibility open. I'm talking here about intent, and I'm not claiming
> to know for sure who or what has such intent. But to me, the intent is
> a useful distinction, even if I appreciate the unintentional as well. I
have a
> hard time believing there's intent in inanimate objects, but IF there is,
then
> they fit into my definition, I just don't generally include them because I
> see no evidence of such intent. But I think I do in animals, sometimes.
>

Hylozoists would beg to differ on that one.

> SNIP
> > I see design, I see intent, and everything that has an intricate
structure
> > that appeal to the senses can be defined as art in the broadest sense.
> >
>
> No, you see design. You don't see intent.

Don't put words into my mouth. I know what I said. The universe is full of
intent/consciousness the way I see it.

It may or may not be there,
> only the designer knows for sure.

The `designer` told us so.

I don't see why people can't accept
> that we humans can be intrigued and astounded by things that are
> random.

Because I refuse to believe that randomness operates the cosmos. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

What possible situation in the universe could be DIFFERENT
> and then people say "well, in THAT case it would obviously NOT have
> intent behind it." It seems that whatever reality presents, people will
> choose to imagine intent behind it, so it's a totally circular logic. If
> waves in the ocean bahaved differently from how they do, everyone
> would marvel equally at that version. So no intent is *necessary* since
> any possible situation will still astound people.
>

Are you perchance a Discordianist? You sure talk like one!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianist

> SNIP
> >
> > Har har... You don't need to be so cynical. If by intent you mean
> > freewill... I can live with that. Let us then constrain all art to human
> > free-will and be done with it.
> >
>
> I don't know for certain if that's what I mean, but it sounds maybe like
> what I mean. I think that will apply for this discussion, for
communication
> purposes even if I'm not totally comfortable with that wording. Let's try
> using that definition to distinguish between art (human-free-will based)
> and natural beauty. In the future, if we have trouble understanding each
> other, we'll address the situation then. This compromise might work for
> now!

Splendid resolution! Compromise some more, and we'll get there...

>
> SNIP
> >
> > Indeed. We are limited creatures, aren't we. And yet... we can
accomplish so
> > much more that way.
> >
>
> I wouldn't know. I never had the chance to be limitless. heheh.
>

If a chance were given to you... may Allah protect us! LOL

> SNIP
>
> > What? Experience is a process that occurs in the physical world that
does
> > not evade scientific observation. All correctly functioning humans
> > experience heat in proximity to fire and cold in proximity to ice. The
> > wording is not anymore subjective then. If you alone existed as a human
in
> > the entire universe, only THEN would you be deprived of any objective
> > conclusions as to how you perceived things.
> >
>
> I'm not saying there are no objective conclusions. I'm just saying that
> my inner perceptions don't feel the same TO ME as the objective
> conclusions. In other words, it is a state-of-mind being myself and
> experiencing the world, and I'm relatively stuck in it. I don't know what
> the world looks like through any other set of eyes even if I can make
> objective judgments about what that would be. I can't actually experience
> it.

Receive an eye transplant to know the difference. It IS possible.

SNIP

> >
> > Simply put, movement from one `key` to another, where `key` is the
operative
> > word of course.
> >
> >
>
> Define key in this case please, just to be sure
>

Let's first hear how you define it.

>
> > >
> > > >From me? I'd define modulation as the shifting of focus within the
> > > perception of an organization of tones. Or in other words, the
> > > *experience* of feeling that the note or notes that dominate or are
> > > of higher order of importance have shifted. To me, memory plays
> > > an important part, because someone with a damaged short term
> > > memory will only be able to perceive dominance on an instantaneous
> > > moment-to-moment basis. Myself, my memory or focus or whatever
> > > is such that if I listen to a long song in a concert, I barely if at
all
> > > connect the modulative feeling of the key of that song to a much
> > > earlier song in a concert, but I might relate the modulative feel of
> > > a song to the ones immediately before and after. And if I choose to
> > > imagine various things in my head while listening, I am able to change
> > > how I perceive the dominance of the notes within the same external
> > > performance.
> >
> >
> > Very good.
> >
>
> So that makes sense to you?

Sort of. But I wouldn't bet my 20 greenbacks on it. ROFWL

>
> >
> > The classical definition would be to pass from one key to another using
a
> > logical progression of chords that link the two keys.
> >
> > I would attempt to describe it as constant omission and introduction of
> > pitches that yield patterns of tonal permutation even in monody. Such
random
> > patterns of waves superimposed upon each other in a given medium (be it
> > sound, light, atomic particles or neutrinos) throughout an indefinite
period
> > of time could also be defined as modulation. We could say that the
universe
> > as a wave-like entity is constantly modulating from one state to another
> > near state throughout eons.
> >
> > Then again, I may not know what I am saying, which is a greater
possibility.
> >
>
> Hmm, well obviously what you're describing exists, I wouldn't deny that.
> So can we find a way to word things to differentiate from the physical
> modulations of the universe vs. my concept of whether or not we
> perceive music modulations in relation to memory and things within
> the "illusions" of our consciousness? I should add that while the lines
> are fuzzy, there is a range from NOT perceiving this in our "illusive"
> minds, to perceiving but not being consciously aware of it, to totally
> being aware of the perceptions of our "illusions."
>

I'm sooo confused now. If it is a matter of memory, we can argue whether or
not that belongs in the physical realms also. It boils down to world
views... dualism vs. monism...

`The natural and the artificial` here explains a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

> Sincerely,
> Aaron
>
>
>

Cordially,
Oz.

Modulation and other confusing terms

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Jeremy Targett <jeremy.targett@gmail.com>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

🔗Jeremy Targett <jeremy.targett@gmail.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗ambassadorbob <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>