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