On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Chris Cannam <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the point Neils has is just that the outcome of your noodling > is somewhat independent of your explicit intention. Notes that sound > satisfying together are probably going to sound satisfying largely > because of some intrinsic mathematical relationship, or at least > something that is probably open to analysis to some extent but that > you don't yourself understand or plan.
testify(wordUp); /*Chris, thanks for clarifying my point!*/ Consider how the snowflake, the mountain, coastlines, leaves and trees, whose shapes "put the cart before the horse" of the mathematics of fractals: http://www.ams.org/notices/201001/rtx100100010p.pdf (the most mind-blowing AMS paper i've read so far: is DNA and life itself "shaped" fractally in the same way time and erosion sculpts a mountain?). nature "put the cart before the horse" of analog synthesizers/computers when it made the sounds in the link below, without ever conceiving of operational-amplifiers: http://boingboing.net/2010/01/17/cracking-ice-sheets.html Last time I was thinking about this in public, I said: > The other thing that would be interesting is to explore the > intersection between fractal self-similarities and rhythm/melody. Is > music, and that which sounds musical "fractal" in nature, much like > when we see something and instantly identify "tree" or "mountain" or > "coastline" because of their fractal nature? Do we appreciate when > music is more fractal, versus being a kind of latticework, infinite > pattern, or just a random potpourri of sounds strung together for no > purpose? Niels http://nielsmayer.com _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
