| Author |
Message |
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:24 pm Post subject:
A very brief book review: |
  |
|
| “The Cognition Of Basic Musical Structures” by David Temperly. Seems an excellent book if you are into source material for elementary (fundamental) musical algorithms--even has a short section on a vector-based model of tonality. I’m in hog heaven! |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24538
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 299
G2 patch files: 320
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks!
From the "long review:"
| Quote: | In The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures, David Temperley presents a computational theory of music
cognition that is deeply influenced by Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s (1983) A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
(henceforth, GTTM). |
"A Generative Theory of Tonal Music" is a wonderful book if you have any interest in tonality. It is a seminal work.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seraph
Editor
Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh dear!
| Quote: | | Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s (1983) A Generative Theory of Tonal Music |
Outmoded and based on a flawed conception of necessity in structural description.
And by Jackendoff.
_________________
-- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| brinxmat wrote: | Oh dear!
| Quote: | | Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s (1983) A Generative Theory of Tonal Music |
Outmoded and based on a flawed conception of necessity in structural description.
And by Jackendoff. |
I'm very excited to hear that as I'm sure it means you can recommend several books that cover the same territory in a superior manner. So please tell us what they are!
And BTW what is your opinion of their use of preference rules in music analysis?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
You are, of course, quite right when you point out that this is an unfounded claim. Indeed, I cannot recommend a more suitable tome. My purpose was to draw attention to an opinion (maybe not shared by others — and this wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with one of my opinions) that the structuralist representation of form in the way done in L/J is not as good as it might seem.
My opinion, if you're interested, is that music is the type of phenomenon that can best be described as pseudo-patterns; that the patterns we see are only patterns as long as we view them as such — we desire to see a pattern, and thus we find it. The non-discerning hearer (for example, a computer which is designed only to recognise patterns according to an algorithm designed around L/J's rules for well-formedness) will not recognise all patterns that constitute music even though the discerning hearer (a human being) would, because it has a simplistic (i.e. mathematical) recognition algorithm. The idea of pseudo-patternality is extrapolated from an understanding (or maybe misunderstanding) of a theory of mathematical anti-coherence (a logical implication of Gödel's theory of math. completeness) which would state something akin to:
As it is technically impossible to have a coherent description of anything, non-coherence is the preferred mode.
You see how this means that L/J is wrong, and how their structural description of preference rules, among other things is flawed?
As to their treatment of preference rules, these actually diverge from the structuralist mainstay (which is what I was criticising, I should have made this more clear in my initial posting), in that they are normative, and thereby allow for a non-coherent (structurally speaking) analysis (which is what makes them commonsense — at least to me).
I hope this is an assuaging balm to your justified indignation! |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I admit I was pissed that you’d diss this fine book, and so up with some umbrage I took.
| brinxmat wrote: | …
As it is technically impossible to have a coherent description of anything, non-coherence is the preferred mode.
… |
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding exactly what, if anything, you are saying. But I am notoriously literal minded. In any case, for personal reasons, I need to start with the one sentence paragraph from your post quoted above. As is, the first context I conjure up for this aggravating little koan, is that state of ultimate thermal equilibrium. And somehow I don’t think that is what you have in mind, eh? If I substitute the word “formally” for “technically” I think of an alternate interpretation dealing with the completeness theorem. But if that is the context intended and my error prone recollections are correct you have just made another cheeky overstatement.
Or am I just getting senile and irascible?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
brinxmat is an academic monster 
He is a linguist of sorts and he knows a lot of these textbooks. I see his points and the same points have partly been my main objections to certain posts and diversions in the "what is music" thread. I kicked in late in the thread though.
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-4695-100.html
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | Or am I just getting senile and irascible? |
None of the above applies, I am sure.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
May that as it be, I am still literal minded and so find discorse encoded in hyperbole to be a vexation (except when I'm doing it, of course).
But looky here -- I cant tell if this is serious or a tongue-in-cheek gag based on the tautological implications of the last phrase. Makes me want to pull out my poor old hair it does.
| brinxmat wrote: | | My opinion, if you're interested, is that music is the type of phenomenon that can best be described as pseudo-patterns; that the patterns we see are only patterns as long as we view them as such |
And where does that leave those patterns that composers intentionally put into their work?
On the other hand if this is all meant as antidote to those simple enough to take a model of a thing for the thing itself, this is way far overkill.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Welcome to Europe.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| brinxmat wrote: | | …. My purpose was to draw attention to an opinion … that the structuralist representation of form in the way done in L/J is not as good as it might seem. |
OK, but how good does it seem?
Let us assume against all probability and reason that the world and all that’s in it was created by a God. In that case what does Newtonian mechanics tell us about God’s thinking in regard to mechanics? Well, nothing; because we know that mechanics is better described by relativity theory. (see edit below) And relativity theory? It fails in some contexts so some theory more grand and general likely exists that we have yet to grasp. So why is Newtonian mechanics (an approximation of an approximation of an as yet unknown theory) so popular with engineers? Why are we willing to drive over bridges designed with this theory that is known to be incorrect? Because it’s calculations are relatively simple and within its limited domain of application its answers work well enough. The abstractions, the formulas of Newtonian mechanics were essentially arrived at empirically and are only faint shadows of the deeper truths from which they are cast.
And so it is with music theories. They tell us nothing about how or why music works on the human soul*. They are nothing more than imperfect models of somewhat ill defined abstracted component elements of music itself. And given the complexity of the human nervous system there aint likely ever going to be a “one true theory” of any aspect of music even if we limit ourselves to a specific style. But that doesn’t exclude the possibility that we might be able to build usable bridges with some assortment of imperfect theories.
*And L/J are even more modest for they tell us nothing about only the very limited domain of Classical music.
| brinxmat wrote: | | You see how this means that L/J is wrong, and how their structural description of preference rules, among other things is flawed? |
And I hope you now understand why I find such formal criticism essentially irrelevant to my ends—if not my interests. I’m only trying to build bridges not do theoretical mechanics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit * Sorry that may be confusing and ill formed. At the level of planetary dynamics relativity theory begins to show a trace while at level molecular motion quantum mechanics is operative. I was thinking on the line of we don't have to calculate relativistic time dilations or Lorenz contractions when were just calculating target incept times for missiles. Eh?
Last edited by bachus on Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: |
On the other hand if this is all meant as antidote to those simple enough to take a model of a thing for the thing itself, this is way far overkill. |
This was an unintentional insult to the Platonists who are often sober, deep thinking and wrong. My apologies.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| brinxmat wrote: |
I hope this is an assuaging balm to your justified indignation! |
And thank you, yes. I now think my indignation (justified or not) has be adequately balmed.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | brinxmat is an academic monster |
Sir! I call you out! Leeks at dawn!
_________________
-- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry, this is a little disjointed, I need to sleep.
| Quote: | | As is, the first context I conjure up for this aggravating little koan, is that state of ultimate thermal equilibrium. And somehow I don’t think that is what you have in mind, eh? If I substitute the word “formally” for “technically” I think of an alternate interpretation dealing with the completeness theorem. But if that is the context intended and my error prone recollections are correct you have just made another cheeky overstatement. |
OK, I will make this more precise, I assumed — as you do when talking about descriptions — that there is an expectation of descriptive accuracy and adequacy.
My drawing out of Gödel is that the formal description of a phenomenon cannot be coherent if it is complete. Therefore, if L/J's description fulfills requirements of adequacy and accuracy, then it must be assumed to be complete; if it is complete then it is not coherent, due to the incompleteness theorem. L/J seem to me to be aiming at coherence (though the inclusion of preference rules seems to draw doubts onto that because they are not stable mathematical structures in the same way as the rest of the analysis). The point is that any adequate system of description cannot be coherent because such a system will be flawed in respect to incompleteness. Thereby, an accurate, adequate description will be non-coherent, it will be deliberately broken. (This seems to me to agree with a lot of what you say in your later posts: engineers know the system is broken, but they work around if it is a problem (over-dimensioning, among other things).)
But does this somehow negate the relevance of what I said to ultimate thermal equilibrium? May it not also be described by a theory based in non-coherence? I expect that a theory of non-coherence can adequately describe (and generate) most things, in fact, I would even go so far as to maintain that this is exactly what constitutes engineering: breaking the system so that theory can be applied in context, making things non-coherent. (Again we seem to agree, given that you accept that you can base things on non-coherence.)
You say:
| Quote: | | And where does that leave those patterns that composers intentionally put into their work? |
Do you, by this, mean that music (as many would contend for other media) conveys the intentions of the composer? That I, as composer, mean for my music to convey to listeners various meanings which entail emotions? This would mean that I, as a member of a given species or society have access to a collective understanding of music, which I understand all other individuals have access to, and can therefore assume that other members of the species/society will inherently understand? And this down to the level of individual patterns? This sounds Platonic, Cartesian.
Example: Shostakovitch adding a little maritime (read: "Popeye") ditty to an otherwise panoramic overture because he was apparently threatened with a trip to the gulag if he didn't make his music more proletarian.
OK: without reading the blurb on the CD, I thought: oh cool, a weird bit. On reading the CD blurb, I thought, Shostakovitch has a sense of humour.
Unless I am much mistaken, Shostakovitch's intentions were not to provide me with an opportunity of seeing him as a humourist (though they might well have been), but to specifically avoid hard labour in a cold place. Truth be told, I cannot say that I "get" a lot of music, and when I hear the range of emotions that that the music was intended to evoke, I find that there is little congruence between these and my set (though in broad strokes, there is some congruence; though not in the case of more experimental stuff).
Funnily enough, the conception of the rational thinker — and the kind you criticise yourself ("Platonists who are often sober, deep thinking and wrong"), and more specifically the rational thinker with a set of hard-wired capabilities, is central to arguments proposed by protagonists of the kind of structuralism presented in L/J.
| Quote: | | I can't tell if this is serious or a tongue-in-cheek gag based on the tautological implications of the last phrase. |
i.e. "music is the type of phenomenon that can best be described as pseudo-patterns; that the patterns we see are only patterns as long as we view them as such"
In what way was this tautological?
Tautology: p = p v p, p = p ^ p
My assertion can be read as : Patterns we see (p, q, r…) are members of the set of patterns P iff they are members of the set of things we recognise as patterns (Q); thus, if one takes the existence of a set of true patterns — that is patterns that exist independently, irrespective of human recognition of patterns, which we call Z — then P is the union of Q and Z. (Unless you assume we also see patterns that aren't there, which would be odd in your case, as the fundament of the structuralism peddled by L/J is based on exactly the idea that we don't recognise patterns that aren't there.) Is this tautology? You assume that P and Q are like, but this cannot be the case, because — as I think you are trying to point out — the things (patterns) cannot be described through and by themselves.
My assertion can also be read as: patterns (p, q, r…) belong to a set (P) whose membership is defined by its members possessing a complex of features controlled by a function pertaining to set membership L(P).
| Quote: |
On the other hand if this is all meant as antidote to those simple enough to take a model of a thing for the thing itself, this is way far overkill.
|
You rightly point out that L/J is one possible description, I was offering an alternate account, i.e. one based on a non-coherency principle. It amuses me that L/J's description could form a part of a non-coherent description of music (L/J's description would be a set of descriptions which overlap with one or several other (potentially unrelated) descriptions, where application to phenomena would be decided ad hoc by the individual describing the phenomena). (I expect flak.)
The thing of a generative approach to music is that one might assume that it generates something. As far as I know, humans define what is music, not algorithms (because otherwise computers would be able to do a far better job). The L/J model of music stems from the nativist programme of research; because of this, the backbone of generative description is the concept of structures in the mind. These structures in the mind are assumed to be pre-defined and present at birth; this means that creativity is limited in the same way that a computer is limited: computer only has a finite number of instructions available to it, the set created at its genesis. If you accept the tenets of L/J, you accept that there is a limit to possible musics.
You didn't seem interested in my opinions about preference rules after all.
_________________
-- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| brinxmat wrote: | | You didn't seem interested in my opinions about preference rules after all. |
I do in fact find them and their implications very interesting, but your post was, though brief, very dense , and I’m still digesting most of it. I feel that your opinions about preferences rules can likely only be understood in the context of what went before it. And, as I do not yet fully understand that, I wait. This next post of yours has gone a long way in clarifying some things for me. Others are still being cogitated on—still waiting to have a single coherent thought regarding others.
As for this detail—I think I can understand it:
| brinxmat wrote: | | Quote: | | And where does that leave those patterns that composers intentionally put into their work? |
Do you, by this, mean that music (as many would contend for other media) conveys the intentions of the composer? That I, as composer, mean for my music to convey to listeners various meanings which entail emotions? This would mean that I, as a member of a given species or society have access to a collective understanding of music, which I understand all other individuals have access to, and can therefore assume that other members of the species/society will inherently understand? And this down to the level of individual patterns? This sounds Platonic, Cartesian. |
Basically I agree with this analysis, i.e. it smells Platonic and sounds implausible. On the other hand if I as a composer follow motif A in short order with motif B and give that sequence some salience I may have the expectation that if I again present motif A in a context identifiably similar to its original appearance a listener will have some expectation that B will follow. And that expectation on the listeners part may be all the meaning I intend—hear A expect B.
OK, be pedantic and tell me that reduces A to a semantically empty sign that B is coming. 
When I think of composition in terms of myself, I think of emotional meaning—cause I know how it makes me feel or maybe because it is a feeling that is making me compose. When I think in terms of potential listeners at the least I hope the music has coherence in terms of such patterns as described above. But I also maintain a faint hope that for some individuals that sequence of psycho/emotional states the music engenders in me is experienced by them in some analogous form. But it’s just that, a faint hope born of personal need more than reasoned proposition. If I can get clear about what else you are saying I may return to this.
| brinxmat wrote: | | The L/J model of music stems from the nativist programme of research; because of this, the backbone of generative description is the concept of structures in the mind. These structures in the mind are assumed to be pre-defined and present at birth; |
And that is a very interesting hypothesis seemingly open to eventual proof or falsification. But as far as I know it’s truth or falshood remains indeterminate. I have no horse in this race and will wait patienly for others to thrash this out but as a guess I’d bet it’s true for language and false for music . Again for my purposes it’s truth or falsity has little baring on its utility.
| brinxmat wrote: | | I was offering an alternate account, i.e. one based on a non-coherency principle. |
And I sincerely thank you for the offer. I would be possitively giddy to get a (formal or semi-formal) alternative accounting of the mataerial L/J cover and it would be truly shit-in-my-pants exciting to read something that made their work “outmoded.” But you may have to talk down to me just a bit.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="bachus"] | brinxmat wrote: | As for this detail—I think I can understand it:
| brinxmat wrote: | | Quote: | | And where does that leave those patterns that composers intentionally put into their work? |
Do you, by this, mean that music (as many would contend for other media) conveys the intentions of the composer? That I, as composer, mean for my music to convey to listeners various meanings which entail emotions? This would mean that I, as a member of a given species or society have access to a collective understanding of music, which I understand all other individuals have access to, and can therefore assume that other members of the species/society will inherently understand? And this down to the level of individual patterns? This sounds Platonic, Cartesian. |
Basically I agree with this analysis, i.e. it smells Platonic and sounds implausible. On the other hand if I as a composer follow motif A in short order with motif B and give that sequence some salience I may have the expectation that if I again present motif A in a context identifiably similar to its original appearance a listener will have some expectation that B will follow. And that expectation on the listeners part may be all the meaning I intend—hear A expect B. |
I should probably leave you guys alone, but it is quite interesting that we are again seeing issues discussed in other threads. The Cartesian connection is what killed the plausibility of the whole "symphonic poem" rage of the late romatic period. This was a dead project but it did produce a wole lot of ambitious music.
Bachus, regarding your "A and B and then", isn´t this about creating pseudo patterns that are intended to create a framework for the music? A partial aim of some music is to produce a state of percieved understanding of patterns. This gives the listener something to lock on to. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| electro80 wrote: | | The Cartesian connection is what killed the plausibility of the whole "symphonic poem" rage of the late romatic period. This was a dead project but it did produce a wole lot of ambitious music. |
I have never understood the “requirement” that music intrinsically carry extra-musical semantic content for program music to be justified. I get great enjoyment from some pieces of program music and it makes not a whit of difference on that count whether the extra-musical semantic content came from the liner notes or the sounds.
| brinxmat wrote: | | This would mean that I, as a member of a given species or society have access to a collective understanding of music, which I understand all other individuals have access to, and can therefore assume that other members of the species/society will inherently understand? And this down to the level of individual patterns? |
This is very dense and to the point. But investigating it would mean unraveling the many possible definitions and nuances of its words and phrases. First we would have to parse out exactly what we want this to mean:
| Quote: | | …have access to a collective understanding of music, … |
You go first.
Last edited by bachus on Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| electro80 wrote: | | Bachus, regarding your "A and B and then", isn´t this about creating pseudo patterns that are intended to create a framework for the music? |
I don’t know what qualifies that as a pseudo pattern but I get your point and wouldn’t dissagree that this could be the case—might depend on the time scale we are talking about.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: |
| Quote: | | …have access to a collective understanding of music, … |
You go first. |
I hope the way I have spoken about this sentence has not been taken as deprecation. When I described it as dense I meant conceptually rich and complex. And in my mind capable of several different readings—very thought provoking. The laugh was at throwing it back to elektro80—meaning that it’s so tough intellectually…. I’d rather not go first.
I hope brinxmat the author will forgive me my excesses and help us work through interpretations of the very interesting paragraph of which this fragment is a part.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:06 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry guys! I will return to this discussion in a few days, when I am at liberty to pay my full attention.
_________________
-- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
brinxmat, when you get time, the following issue has been troubling me most:
| brinxmat wrote: | | The thing of a generative approach to music is that one might assume that it generates something. As far as I know, humans define what is music, not algorithms (because otherwise computers would be able to do a far better job). |
| Page 6, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music wrote: |
…Under this interpretation a musical grammar should be an algorithm that composes pieces of music. There are tree errors with this view. First the sense of “generate” in the term “generative grammar” is not that of an electrical generator that produces electricity, but the mathematical sense, in which it means to describe a (usually infinite) set by finite formal means. |
Doesn’t this invalidate that argument? |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
brinxmat
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:06 am Post subject:
|
|
|
L/J:
| Quote: | | First the sense of “generate” in the term “generative grammar” is not that of an electrical generator that produces electricity, but the mathematical sense, in which it means to describe a (usually infinite) set by finite formal means. |
Brinxmat:
| Quote: | | …one might assume that it generates something. As far as I know, humans define what is music, not algorithms |
Bachus:
| Quote: | | Doesn’t this invalidate that argument? |
As to the commonsense interpretation of "generate", yes, I would agree with you, however, I say that "one would assume" that the grammar generates something. Admittedly, I employ an unfortunate play on words, given the availability of a rebuffal for exactly this play on words in L/J.
I expect that you already recognise what I am about to say: L/J's finite formal set should be applicable in a practical sense; that an adequate formal description should be able to produce something if engineered to do so. This is akin to the application of (flawed) Newtonian mechanics you mentioned earlier: Newtonian mechanics is only a formal description, but it can be applied to "generate" things.
I suspect that L/J's viewed their description as broadly equivalent to the kind of science produced by Newton, so how come they seem to be saying that it shouldn't be applied?
_________________
-- Say "&Eth;onne hit wæs hrenig weðer" |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Composition
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
