skip to main | skip to sidebar
article music blog
music article | music knowledge | musical instrument | type of music | Hot News Music
RSS

Theme and Thing

0 komentar

What is the subject of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? Is it just those first four notes? Does it include the twin, transposed companion too? What of the other variations, augmentations, and inversions? Do they all stem from a single prototype? In this case, yes.

Or do they? For later in the symphony the theme appears in triplet form to serve as counter subject of the scherzo: three notes and one, three notes and one, three notes and one, still they make four. Melody turns into monotone rhythm; meter is converted to two equal beats. Downbeat now falls on an actual note, instead of a silence. With all of those changes, the themes are quite different and yet the same. Neither the form in the allegro nor the scherzo alone is the prototype; separate and equal, they span musical time.

Is there some more abstract idea that they both embody? This is like the problem raised by Wittgenstein of what words like game mean. In my paper on frames [Minsky 1974] I argue that for vision, 'chair 'can be described by no single prototype; it is better to use several prototypes connected in relational networks of similarities and differences. I doubt that even these would suffice to well represent musical ideas ; there are better tools in conceptual dependency, frame-systems, and semantic networks. (See Roads, 1980.)

What is a good theme? Without that bad word good, I do not think the question is well formed because anything is a theme if everything is music!

So let us split that question into (1) What mental conditions or processes do pleasant tunes evoke? and (2) What do we mean by pleasant? Both questions are hard, but the first is only hard; to answer it will take much thought and experimentation, which is good. The second question is very different. Philosophers and scientists have struggled mightily to understand what pain and pleasure are. I especially like Dennett's [1978] explanation of why that has been so difficult. He argues that pain "works" in different ways at different times, and all those ways have too little in common for the usual definition. I agree, but if pain is not a single thing, why do we talk and think as though it were—and then represent it with such spurious clarity? This is no accident: illusions of this sort have special uses. They play a role connected with a problem facing any society (inside or outside the mind) that learns from its experience. The problem is how to assign the credit and blame, for each accomplishment or failure of the society as a whole, among the myriad agents involved in everything that happens. To the extent that the agents' actions are decided locally, so also must these decisions to credit or blame he made locally.

How, for example, can a mother tell that her child has a need (or that a need has been satisfied) before she has learned specific signs for each such need? That could be arranged if, by evolution, signals were combined from many different internal processes concerned with needs and were provided with a single, common, output–an infant's sentic signal of discomfort (or contentment). Such a genetically pre-established harmony would evoke a corresponding central state in the parent. We would feel this as something like the distress we feel when babies cry.

A signal for satisfaction is also needed. Suppose, among the many things a child does, there is one that mother likes, which she demonstrates by making approving sounds. The child has just been walking there, and holding this just so, and thinking that, and speaking in some certain way. How can the mind of the child find out which behavior is good? The trouble is, each aspect of the child's behavior must result from little plans the child made before. We cannot reward an act. We can only reward the agency that selected that strategy, the agent who wisely activated the first agent, and so on. Alas for those behaviorists who wasted their lives life by missing this simple principle.

To reward all those agents and processes, we must propagate some message that they all can use to credit what they did; the plans they made, their strategies and computations. These various recipients have so little in common that such a message of approval, to work at all, must be extremely simple. Words like good are almost content-free messages that enable tutors, inside or outside a society, to tell the members that one or more of them has satisfied some need, and that tutor need not understand which members did what, or how, or even why.

Words like 'satisfy' and 'need' have many shifting meanings. Why, then, do we seem to understand them? Because they evoke that same illusion of substantiallity that fools us into thinking it tautologous to ask, why do we like pleasure? This serves a need: the levels of social discourse at which we use such clumsy words as 'like', or 'good', or 'that was fun' must coarsely crush together many different meanings or we will never understand others (or ourselves) at all. Hence that precious, essential poverty of word and sign that makes them so hard to define. Thus the word 'good' is no symbol that simply means or designates, as 'table' does. Instead, it only names this protean injunction: Activate all those unknown processes that correlate and sift and sort, in learning, to see what changes (in myself) should now be made. The word like is just like good, except it is a name we use when we send such structure-building signals to ourselves.

Most of the "uses" of music mentioned in this article–learning about time, fitting things together, getting along with others, and suppressing one's troubles–are very "functional, but overlook much larger scales of "use." Curtis Roads remarked that, "Every world above bare survival is self constructed; whole cultures are built around common things people come to appreciate." These appreciations, represented by aesthetic agents, play roles in more and more of our decisions: what we think is beautiful gets linked to what we think is important. Perhaps, Roads suggests, when groups of mind-agents cannot agree, they tend to cede decisions to those others more concerned with what, for better or for worse, we call aesthetic form and fitness. By having small effects at many little points, those cumulative preferences for taste and form can shape a world.

That is another reason why we say we like the music we like. Liking is the way certain mind-parts make the others learn the things they need to understand that music. Hence liking—and its relatives—lies at the very heart of understanding what we hear. 'Affect' and 'aesthetic' do not lie in other academic worlds that music theories safely can ignore. Those other worlds are academic self-deceptions that we use to make each theorist's problem seem like someone else's.

Note: Many readers of a draft of this article complained about its narrow view of music. What about jazz and other "modern" forms. What about songs with real words, monophonic chants and ragas, music made with gongs and blocks, and all those other kinds of sounds? And what about those listeners who claim to be less intellectual, to simply hear and feel and not to build those big constructions in their minds? We can't discuss here all those things, but we can ask how anyone could be so sure much about what their minds do. It is ingenuous to think that you "just react" to anything a culture works a thousand years to develop. In any case, because it's not my purpose here to define boundaries, it's better to focus in on something that we all agree is musical – and that is why I chose this Symphony. For what is music? All things played on all instruments? Fiddlesticks. All structures made of sound? That has a hollow ring. The things I said of words like 'theme' hold true for words like 'music' too: that word is public property, but not all the senses of its meanings to each different listener.





Sentic Significance

0 komentar


Why do we like any tunes in the first place? Do we simply associate some tunes with pleasant experiences? Should we look back to the tones and patterns of mother's voice or heartbeat? Or could it be that some themes are innately likable? All these theories could hold truth, and others too, for nothing need have a single cause inside the mind.

Theories about children need not apply to adults because (I suspect) human minds do so much self-revising that things can get detached from their origins. We might end up liking both The Art of Fugue and The Musical Offering, mainly because each work's subject illuminates the other, which gives each work a richer network of "significance." Dependent circularity need be no paradox here, for in thinking (unlike logic) two things can support each other in midair. To be sure, such autonomy is precarious; once detached from origins, might one not drift strangely awry? Indeed so, and many people seem quite mad to one another.

In his book Sentics [l978], the pianist-physiologist Manfred Clynes describes certain specific temporal sensory patterns and claims that each is associated with a certain common emotional state. For example, in his experiments, two particular patterns that gently rise and fall are said to suggest states of love and reverence; two others (more abrupt) signify anger and hate. He claims that these and other patterns–he calls them 'sentic'–arouse the same effects through different senses–that is, embodied as acoustical intensity, or pitch, or tactile pressure, or even visual motion–and that this is cross-cultural. The time lengths of these sentic shapes, on the order of 1 sec, could correspond to parts of musical phrases.

Clynes studied the "muscular" details of instrumental performances with this in view, and concluded that music can engage emotions through these sentic signals. Of course, more experiments are needed to verify that such signals really have the reported effects. Nevertheless, I would expect to find something of the sort for quite a different reason: namely, to serve in the early social development of children. Sentic signals (if they exist) would be quite useful in helping infants to learn about themselves and others.

All learning theories require brains to somehow impose "values" implicit or explicit in the choice of what to learn to do. Most such theories say that certain special signals, called reinforcers, are involved in this. For certain goals it should suffice to use some simple, "primary" physiological stimuli like eating, drinking, relief of physical discomfort.

Human infants must learn social signals, too. The early learning theorists in this century assumed that certain social sounds (for instance, of approval) could become reinforcers by association with innate reinforcers, but evidence for this was never found. If parents could exploit some innate sentic cues, that mystery might be explained.

This might also touch another, deeper problem: that of how an infant forms an image of its own mind. Self-images are important for at least two reasons. First, external reinforcement can only be a part of human learning; the growing infant must eventually learn to learn from within to free itself from its parents. With Freud, I think that children must replace and augment the outside teacher with a self-constructed, inner, parent image. Second, we need a self-model simply to make realistic plans for solving ordinary problems. For example, we must know enough about our own dispositions to be able to assess which plans are feasible. Pure self-commitment does not work; we simply cannot carry out a plan that we will find too boring to complete or too vulnerable to other, competing interests. We need models of our own behavior. How could a baby be smart enough to build such a model?

Innate sentic detectors could help by teaching children about their own affective states. For if distinct signals arouse specific states, the child can associate those signals with those states. Just knowing that such states exist, that is, having symbols for them, is half the battle. If those signals are uniform enough, then from social discourse one can learn some rules about the behavior caused by those states. Thus a child might learn that conciliatory signals can change anger into affection. Given that sort of information, a simple learning machine should be able to construct a 'finite-state person model." This model would be crude at first, but to get started would be half of the job. Once the baby had a crude model of some other person, it could be copied and adapted in work on the baby's own self-model. This is more normative and constructional than it is descriptive, as Freud hinted, because the self-model dictates (rather than portrays) what it purports to portray. With regard to music, it seems possible that we conceal, in the innocent songs and setting of our children's musical cultures, some lessons about successions of our own affective states. Sentically encrypted, those ballads could encode instructions about conciliation and affection, or aggression and retreat—precisely the knowledge of signals and states that we need to get along with others. In later life, more complex music might illustrate more intricate kinds of compromise and conflict, ways to fit goals together to achieve more than one thing at a time. Finally, for grown-ups, our Burgesses and Kubricks fit Odes to Joy to Clockwork Oranges.

If you find all this farfetched, so do I. But before rejecting it entirely, recall the question, Why do we have music, and let it occupy our lives with no apparent reason? When no idea seems right, the right one must seem wrong.





Rhythm and Redundancy

0 komentar


Popular song has 100 steps, 1000 win. What to think Mars Residents average of these measures and beats, measures and beats! His words show the awesome repeatability. Because the music is boring?

Is the hearing to see that we need one hundred ideas on the construction of each musical image? Some recurring musical textures may serve to remind us of things that exist in time, such as wind and current. But many sounds only once we have heard a pin fall, and now search and search for it, this is one reason why we have no ear-lids. Poetry drops pins, says one thing but once or not at all. So what music.

Why tolerate relentless rhythmic pulse in music or other repetitive architectural features; There is no single answer, because we hear in different ways and at different scales. Some of these ways of bridging time image directly, but others speak of musical 'things' in the world where time folds over itself. And there, I think, is that we win and the use of these measures. Music metric frameworks transient models used for mapping short. The rates are "sync pulses are used to the new to the old phrases, the better to contrast with their differences and change. Because the differences and the change is detected, the rhythmic framework disappear from our consciousness. Their work is done and the messages a higher level players never talk about them, that is why the metric music is not boring!

Good music from the small seeds germinate. How carefully we newness, new sections sandwich between recurrent knows things! The most obvious change is almost kind of identity in the preamble, as in the vision. Slight shift to the better view may show the shape of an object, or even tell us if at all.

When we sonatas, how we apply different contexts metric helps us in the sense of musical ingredients. Just below the joint, we can see how changing one note at one point, a significant third melodic skip to another point on the smooth passage of sounds, or do what is there in the seventh string, dominant ninth with missing root. Matching allows us to see things from different times together. The merger of the matching lines of the tone of the various measures - such as television and separate lines of context allows us to this magical musical images found.

How our musical factors that work for us and should be organized in structures that are easy to find between frames. Here is a simplified four-level system that could work. Many of these ideas in the current research in the field of vision (Winston 1975).

Job Finders heard just time events, or as pulses or peaks.
Measure design communication patterns of time events, such as 3 / 4, 4 / 4, 6 / 8.
Difference-Finders notice that the number X is a Y-shaped, but higher than the fifth.
Structure-building Note that three terms are regular "serial".

The idea of interconnection Job Finders, Difference-Finders, and Structure-building is well explained in his Winston [1975]. Measure will be designing the kinds of "images", as described in [Minsky 1974]. First, the alternative-Finders audio stream for the simpler types of musical meaning: entries and records, the sounds, the other a small, local things. Then search Measure metric drafting standards for small events and in groups, so finding postulates rhythmic beats regularities. Then the difference-Finders may begin to sense the importance of musical events, imitation and inversion, syncopations and suspensions. Once these are found, the structure-building can begin work on a larger scale.

All four levels of the organization is a single layer in a larger system in which several similar structures on a larger scale. At each level, another level of class (with their own things and differences) makes extensive descriptions, and thus consumes a different order of structural form. As a result, the data, the data are converted into words and phrases in a number of sequences, and notes become chords, strings and progressive sessions, and so on and on. Relations at all levels to compete for the next level up and are easier to remember and compared. This "time warp" things together, changes in tone tonality, explanation of the composition.

The more regular pattern, the easier the game is, and the difference is less enthusiastic players on. So, as we used to "invest," said the metric structure of our attention because as a fixed and stable, as the floor of your room by changing the metric measure makes formulate their thoughts. Sic always Alberti bass, um-PAH and PAH ostinati: all except where change is imperceptible. Rhythm has many other functions, to be sure, agents and other functions for them to see things differently. Medication used to dance to follow the pace, while other forms of music pulses less stable demand.

All experience is a phenomenon that we might call "persistence rate" in our minds that keeps pace with the episodes of confusion. I assume that this stems from the fundamental characteristic of how agents are usually installed, at each level, many factors of each type of competition [Minsky 1980b]. so factors for 3 / 4, 4 / 4 and 6 / 8 compete for the best possible way. Once in power, but each factor inhibits several competitors . Only 4 things taken 3, 6 / 8 will be difficult to "a hearing" even as evidence of its hand, something better.

When workers have no hard evidence for a considerable time, agents of change in random order or in the turn. This is nothing interesting in a sense, they are quite boring! We all know that if a word or phrase is repeated often enough, it seems to change as restless and start looking to improve the interpretation of the noise and fine texture. This happens at all levels, because if things on a regular level, the difference in the next one to be replaced by another fresh, then this similarity different ways. (So, meditation, undirected by the field of mental higher rates by the most banal repetition of the input from below.)

Regular units are hidden and expressive nuances are identified and marked and passed. Rubato or crescendo, decorative style or transit, the changes made at each level of items in the following. The mystery was solved: The brain is so good at sensing differences forget things themselves; that is, whenever they are the same. As for liking music, that depends on what remains.





Composing and Conducting

0 komentar


In the eyes, we can move our eyes; lookers can choose where they should look and when. Music should be listened here, which is part to play now. He not only wants to use music-finder to look because it is not so now.

If the composer and conductor, select how much you will hear that it does not ruin our similarities? Music-Analyzer If you ask its questions, how-Music Finder answer these unless, miracle, music plays what is happening with music finder I'd only really instant? If so, then how can music scene fear that if composers what listeners will ask at any time? How to determine if-I-Music Analyzer now that some "thing" is playing now?

This is the secret of writing music, playing and conducting it! Music need not, of course, every auditor confirm every expectation, each piece requires some new things. Any control order is needed or new items will begin in bullshit. If you can think too much themselves, listeners will not find answers to questions about any accidents rating form and metaphor, and voice lines, temperament and tuning difference.

Composers may have different purposes: to relax and entertain, surprise and shock, yarn, stage scenes, learn new things or tear prior art. For some composers such purposes should use familiar forms, frames or other people expect disagreement. Of course, when expectations are confirmed too often the style may seem silly, it is our concern in the next section. However, as language, often one that best explains the new ideas, using older, and avoiding too much jargon or lexical changes. If the reader does not understand words, sentences you to be Greek to them. "

This is not a matter of simple hierarchy, where each average is below the level of, for example, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and chapter. Things just do not work that way, and shows how nonsense came through prudence, even many new words. Every time when some modern music changes key elements still operate large established form, but innovations that too drastically violates cultural expectations does not meet certain goals. Of course this does not apply to products that target include confusion and rebellion, or composers, when trying to make things that hide or expurgate their own intentionality, but these cases it may be difficult to hold the audience.

Each musical artist has preliminary estimates and direct the listener to prepare for restraint and kidnapping by force, the listener (again, as is sorcerer) to ask the questions that the composition is about response. Only by creating a pre-established unity of music can make something that is obviously there.





Space and Tune

0 komentar


When you enter the room, everyone seems to be together, allows us to delude ourselves that it would listen to symphony. "Of course, it could be said for listening to thread is sequential way over time, while the eye includes sites at once. In fact, it takes time to see a new scene, though mostly not known. This is an urgent feeling that we are aware of everything in the room immediately and directly, it is certainly our strangest "visual" illusion.

Music, too, immerses us seemingly stable worlds! How can this be done when there is so little of each present moment and will try to explain this: (1) that hearing music is like a view of the landscape and (2) that when we hear good music mind responds very Equally so we, when we see things. "And that no mistake: I say" good "music! This little theory is not designed to work on each bag of musical tricks meaning, but only for those certain types of music, cultural times and places, and focus on the approval.

(Edward Fredkin, I proposed the theory that listening to music can bring a birth-order map mechanism in the brain. When I mentioned the music puzzle repetitiousness be compared to the way rodents explore new position: first to go way low, then back home. I do have a few times, then even a little further. digressions little effort, but often return to base. both humans and mice to explore new territory, making mental maps, as they fear loss. Music can illustrate this process, and even the exercise of these is part of the mind.)

To see the problem in a slightly different way, consider the cinema. Contrast and clumsy novice patched and placed rolls of film with our transport to other worlds, so artfully composed that our world seems tacky and inappropriate. What "hides the seams, so that great films much smaller than the sum of its parts-see is not so simple sequence of scenes and what makes us feel that we are here and the part where we actually build on our chairs, not to obtain an individual predicted structure of predetermined fate and will have this idea a little more, try to explain why so much good music from more than a sequence of notes.

His eyes are always sudden flashing different film images of our minds, but not all saccadic activity leads to any change or sense of movement in the world, Every thing cool reposes in "the spot"! What are these objects to stay, even though both paintings hop bird, what makes us such a congenital Copernicans; first to propose this as the illusion of vision, then in music.

At the answer can be found deep way of thinking is itself. In his speech an illusion to believe that anyone is fooled. "I know that these lines are equal," I said, "but see my bent." What is the difference in me, and I? We all believe that somewhere in each person, Struts single, central self: one and indivisible. (And secretly hope it will be indestructible.)

I believe instead that in the mind of every work of many different factors. (The idea of agents [Minski 1977? 1980? 1980b], came from my work with Seymour Papert.) All you really need to know about agents is as follows: each player knows what will happen with the other, but some of what happens to the rest . It means a lot to say, "Eloise knows X", if not more to say, mind-factors that were uninvolved with X. thinking is mind-agents cooperate, the heart of thinking is fruitful break issues in different sections and pages to agents, who handle it better. (The most important factors are those that these challenges to be factors that reflect what each person knows what he or she knows. These factors will be powerless, to not know what we know.)

The division of labor is to "see", which will be assumed that a memory-agent called Feature-Finder sends messages (some of the features seen on the retina) to another agent-scene analyst. Scene-Analyzer draws conclusions from the reports it receives and sends its own, in turn, to other parts of-mind. For example, Feature-Finder finds and tell some scraps from the edges and textures; Tu scene analyst notes and says that could go a little shape.

Maybe these numbers are glimpses of the actual table leg. But they know what is for agents at this level; Stage-analyst does not know of any such specific things. The only thing we can do something with this program is to host the shape of other entities that specialize in recognizing the specific case. Special matters, such as tables, words, or dogs should be involved with memory and learning, at least one representative for each type of things that the mind has learned to recognize. Therefore, we hope that this message gets List-Maker, a special agent to confirm evidence that the table is in the field of vision. After several of these phases, the descendants of the report reach Space-structuring agent, who tries to tell the real things in real space.

Now you can see why the concept seems so simple: while the message of the scene-Analyzer-Maker in the table are based on evidence that the Grand-Finder provided a report is not to say that feature-finder did it or how he did. Partially it's because they will have a phase-analyzer too long to explain it all. In any case, the recipient can not use any information, because they are not engineers or psychologists, but only a few specialized neural networks.

Only during the last century painters have learned a few tricks and techniques for the simulation of reality. (This has been informed, is now often choose different targets. The Space-Builder, as a normal person does not know anything about how the vision, or prospect, foveae, or blind spots. We're just finding out what things in school: millennia of themselves never led to the suspicion, but to meditation, transcendental or secular. Mind held secrets, not to good of stinginess or shame, but simply because they do not know.

Messages in this mode to go different ways. Any movement of the eyes or the head or body-Finder is a Grand reopen these movements into the muscle-response factors in the transfer of messages Scene-Analyzer sent when more information is needed to resolve ambiguities. Scene-Analyzer is a response to reports of "high". For example, the Space-Builder can be asked, "is that table?" Table-Maker, who answered to himself, "Maybe, but that there should be other-foot," it asks scene-analyzer, and the analyzer-scenes work to open my eyes and down and look left. The tents are not self-understanding: the Scene-Analyzer response to other requests. It should be one cause of this network.

When we look, we never worry that reason disappeared-question, which is not a "discharge occurred." The reason is that space-structuring to remember all the answers to the questions and never change any of these responses, and without reason; Moving eyes and raise our heads, there is no reason to conjure on the grounds that under the current spatial model of the room. In the framework document for the systems [Minski 1974] says more about these concepts. We have only these few details.

Now back to our illusions. While large-Finder is not immediate, it is very, very quickly and very same pattern matcher. Whether Scene-Analyzer asks Feature-Finder response to strike the eye, only a tenth of a second (or less if you file buffers). Speed is more than Space-Builder can often tell the same through its own high-speed memory model, on what was seen. I argue that all this is another root of our illusion of speed:

If it appears that the answer will come as soon as they asked questions, which seems to have been there all the time.

The illusion is reinforced by other means "expectation", or "default. "These players know a good way to bluff is! Woke up from only a few indications that the table is in view on the table-maker supply space-Builder with fictitious details about some" standard "list, while employees learn more about real! Informed that one, Space-Builder to proceed quickly and plan ahead, taking risks, but ready to make corrections later. This only works, of course, if the originals are good, and rightly so-that is to do with intelligence.

With regard to the "awareness" about how all these things do is simply not room for it. Space-Builder is very distant and different, to understand how feature-finder is the task of assembling the eye. One part of the mind that is almost unknown in any other. (This is why we have psychologists, we think we know what is happening in our mind, because these substances are so easy to "fail" - but in fact we are almost always wrong about these things.) Of course, each participant must knows which of its employees can do, but on how this information is not, or used in such small minds in our minds.

How do both music and vision to build what in our minds? Eye movements show the actual items, musical items Phrases us. We room with bodily movements; Much of our music show music "part." Walking and move us from room to room, so the transition between musical sections. Regarding if the perspective is a recapitulation of the music, so our time, certain points to confirm or change the perception of all.

Hearing the theme is like to see something in the room, or part of the movement is like a room, and the whole sonata is like a whole building. I mean to say that music benefits from things that instead of the builder. (This is very naive comparison of sound and place.) I have to say that composers stimulation in accordance with the recruitment of the same type of inter-agent coordinations that vision is used to manufacture the illusion of a stable world, with different factors of course. I think the same applies when writing or speaking, many of these items or feeling-a sense of meaning, if any.





Syntactic Theories of Music

0 komentar


Contrast two answers the question, because we like certain songs?

Why have certain structural characteristics.
You like to see other songs we like.

The first answer has to do with laws and regulations that make pleasant melodies. In language, we know that some of the criminal law, the forms that we know the penalties must be syntactically acceptable if not things that need to be reasonable or even pleasant to the ear. As for the melody, it seems that only some features that we can help, but do not know the vital functions. I do not expect much to come to a search of a consensus set of rules for musical expression. (Not so much about what we mean by "state" as if the knowledge is in question.)

The second answer has to do with the sense of melody out of itself, only to ask "What's significant penalties?" takes us beyond the shared language and practices requires us to examine each of the private network of thought involved. These private power itself, as in all areas of the choice: you can take the things that remind us of things we like. Now, some of us like music, like songs, carols, rhymes and the song that we like in childhood. All this raises the question: If we want new songs that are similar to what we already know how it is that our sympathy for the music start? I will return to this later.

The term "similar" also raises a question: What are the rules of musical similarities? I am sure it depends on how much the songs are "represented" in each eye. In each of these different "mind share" to do this several ways: the same melody appears (at different times) to change its pattern, fashion, or harmony. Besides the fact that individuals differ even more. Some listeners symmetry with WinCE and shapes, just like other feel absolutely fine and some issues seem trivial to escape have heard that one line. My conjecture that our sensors counterpoints fade harmonize each other memory that can still be played, perhaps Bach's mind could do this in several ways at once. Although this may be enough to help an improvised plan to be trying to play another. (Trying to be enough because improvise as stage magicians, Vamp know or exits to keep the music going when bold experiments fail.

How is that possible or improvise counterpoint to understand a complex piece? Simple statistical explanation can not begin to describe these processes. Much better is the generative and national transformations (eg, the neo-Schenkerian) theories of parsing, but only for the simplest effective. At most, the same purpose of syntax-oriented theory of music is deplorable, because trying to describe the mind produce sentences without attempting to describe as there are penalties. Meaning is more than the structure of the sentence. We can not expect to be able to describe the anatomy of the mind unless you understand their embryology. And then (as in the case more complicated), science must begin with the description of the surface systems. However, this taxonomy surface, but elegant and complete in itself, ultimately, must give way to a deeper, causal explanation. To understand how the memory process and the combination of "listening", we must learn to use more "procedural error" descriptions, such as programs that describe how the process continues.

In science, they are always the first to explain things in terms of what can be observed. (Earth, water, fire, air.] The coming of complex processes are not necessarily shown in the nature of the surface. [The constant pressure of the gas masks sudden countless micro-effects.] Speak of these things can mean or represent, we must talk about what was done.

We can not describe how the mind is without any good ways to describe complex processes. Before computers, the language was not good for him. Freud and Piaget tried attempt algebra of diagrams, other psychologists using Markov chains and die, but nobody came to Behaviorists very, very well, had stopped talking at all. Linguists have gathered formal syntax, and said at one point, but reached a limit: Transformations tion grammar shows the contents of the records (so to speak), but has no way of describing what the controls. This makes it difficult to say that the message refers to the surface underlying the designation and the intent of a baby and bath situation. I prefer the ideas of Al research, because they tend to find the first description of the case, it seems more appropriate to the issues.

I do not see why so many theorists find this approach disturbing. It is true that the new power comes from this approach has a price: it can be said with more description of modeling, but it was minor. However, that lost many people think of mathematics never seen much about these complicated things. They are often complex theorems tell us the truth about simple things, but rarely tell us truths about the complex simple. To believe otherwise is to talk or speak "math envy". Many musical problems that resist formal solutions can be still manageable in the future to grow artificial simulations musical semantic networks, perhaps by "stress" the children in the simulation of traditional musical cultures. It will be exciting when one of these children show a first touch of real "talent."





What Use Is Music?

0 komentar


Why on earth should anyone want to learn such things? Geometry is practical to build a pyramid, for example, but what is the use of music knowledge? Here is an idea. Each child spends endless days in curious ways, calling this game. Child stacks packages, and all types of volumes and containers, and the line to defeat them. What is this? Obviously, the child learns to space! But how on earth did not learn for a moment can be fit within a second time? Two of these can go hand in hand? In music we learned! Often, he said that mathematicians are unusually involved with the music, but musicians are not involved in mathematics. Perhaps both mathematicians and musicians like to make simple things complicated, the mathematics, but may be too limited to cover all who want them, and music can be strict or free. The way the math game is played, most of the variations lie outside the rules, and the music may insist on perfect Canon or a tolerated carefree accompaniment. Thus, you may need to mathematical music, musicians, but can not be mathematics. A simpler theory is that music binds us in an earlier age, some missing mathematical mathematical musicians.

Most adults have some childlike enthusiasm for the creation and provision of structures larger than smaller. A kind of musical understanding involves the construction of large mental structures of small tracks. Perhaps the effort to build the mental structure of music is the same that makes us try to understand the world. (Or maybe it was simply a move by random variation mutant animals; Evolution often unnecessary extra copies of things, a mind so much that we must have more.)

Sometimes, however, will use music as a ruse to misdirect the understanding of the world. When thoughts are ill and have no way to stop them. We can try to turn our minds to other things, but (some say) submerges just bad thoughts. Perhaps the call that some of the music in the background "music that can soothe the thoughts-from bad to neutral, leaving the surface of thought, without influence from Promoting senses. Structure, collect different types of hearing can be a completely solipsistic network that references meaning like nowhere touch "reality." In such a world, built on a government should not be true or false, good or bad, pain or pleasure. Music in this unpleasant terms, will serve as escape from the long fine points.





Sonata as Teaching Machine

0 komentar


Music makes things in our minds, but afterward most of them fade away. What remains? In one old story about Mozart, the wonder child hears a lengthy contrapuntal mass and then writes down the entire score. I do not believe such tales, for history documents so few of them that they seem to be mere legend, though by that argument Mozart also would seem to be legend. Most people do not even remember the themes of an evening's concert. Yet, when the tunes are played again, they are recognized. Something must remain in the mind to cause this, and perhaps what we learn is not the music itself but a way of hearing it.

Compare a sonata to a teacher. The teacher gets the pupils' attention, either dramatically or by the quiet trick of speaking softly. Next, the teacher presents the elements carefully, not introducing too many new ideas or developing them too far, for until the basics are learned the pupils cannot build on them. So, at first, the teacher repeats a lot. Sonatas, too, explain first one idea, then another, and then recapitulate it all.

(Music has many forms and there are many ways to teach. I do not say that composers consciously intend to teach at all, yet they are masters at inventing forms for exposition, including those that swarm with more ideas and work our minds much harder.)

Thus 'expositions' show the basic stuff–the atoms of impending chemistries and how some simple compounds can be made from those atoms. Then, in 'developments', those now-familiar compounds, made from bits and threads of beat and tone, can clash or merge, contrast or join together. We find things that do not fit into familiar frameworks hard to understand–such things seem meaningless. I prefer to turn that around: a thing has meaning only after we have learned some ways to represent and process what it means, or to understand its parts and how they are put together.

What is the difference between merely knowing (or remembering, or memorizing) and understanding? We all agree that to understand something, we must know what it means, and that is about as far as we ever get. I think I know why that happens. A thing or idea seems meaningful only when we have several different ways to represent it–different perspectives and different associations. Then we can turn it around in our minds, so to speak: however it seems at the moment, we can see it another way and we never come to a full stop. In other words, we can 'think' about it. If there were only one way to represent this thing or idea, we would not call this representation thinking.

So something has a "meaning" only when it has a few; if we understood something just one way, we would not understand it at all. That is why the seekers of the "real" meanings never find them. This holds true especially for words like 'understand'. That is why sonatas start simply, as do the best of talks and texts. The basics are repeated several times before anything larger or more complex is presented(l. No one remembers word for word all that is said in a lecture or all notes that are played in a piece. Yet if we have understood the lecture or piece once, we now "own" new networks of knowledge about each theme and how it changes and relates to others. No one could remember all of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony from a single hearing, but neither could one ever again hear those first four notes as just four notes! Once a tiny scrap of sound, these four notes have become a known thing–a locus in the web of all the other things we know and whose meanings and significances depend on one another.

Learning to recognize is not the same as memorizing. A mind might build an agent that can sense a certain stimulus, yet build no agent that can reproduce it. How could such a mind learn that the first half-subject of Beethoven's Fifth–call it A–prefigures the second half–call it B? It is simple: an agent A that recognizes A sends a message to another agent B, built to recognize B. That message serves to "lower B's threshold" so that after A hears A, B will react to smaller hints of B than it would otherwise. As a result, that mind "expects" to hear B after A; that is, it will discern B, given fewer or more subtle cues, and might "complain" if it cannot. Yet that mind cannot reproduce either theme in any generative sense. The point is that inter-agent messages need not be in surface music languages, but can be in codes that influence certain other agents to behave in different ways.

(Andor Kovach pointed out to me that composers do not dare use this simple, four-note motive any more. So memorable was Beethoven's treatment that now an accidental hint of it can wreck another piece by unintentionally distracting the Listener.)

If sonatas are lessons, what are the subjects of those lessons? The answer is in the question! One thing the Fifth Symphony taught us is how to hear those first four notes. The surface form is just: descending major third, first tone repeated thrice. At first, that pattern can be heard two different ways:

Fifth and third in minor mode, or
Third and tonic in major mode.

But once we have heard the symphony, the latter is unthinkable–a strange constraint to plant in all our heads! Let us see how it is taught.

The Fifth declares at once its subject, then its near-identical twin. First comes the theme. Presented in a stark orchestral unison, its minor mode location in tonality is not yet made explicit, nor is its metric frame yet clear: the subject stands alone in time. Next comes its twin. The score itself leaves room to view this transposed counterpart as a complement or as a new beginning. Until now, fermatas have hidden the basic metric frame, a pair of twinned four-measure halves. So far we have only learned to hear those halves as separate wholes.

The next four-measure metric half-frame shows three versions of the subject, one on each ascending pitch of the tonic triad. (Now we arc sure the key is minor.) This shows us how the subject can be made to overlap itself, the three short notes packed perfectly inside the long tone's time-space. The second half-frame does the same, with copies of the complement ascending the dominant seventh chord. This fits the halves together in that single, most familiar, frame of harmony. In rhythm, too, the halves are so precisely congruent that there is no room to wonder how to match them–and attach them–into one eight-measure unit.

The next eight-measure frame explains some more melodic points: how to smooth the figure's firmness with passing tones and how to counterpoise the subject's own inversion inside the long note. (I think that this evokes a sort of sinusoidal motion-frame idea that is later used to represent the second subject.) It also illustrates compression of harmonic time; seen earlier, this would obscure the larger rhythmic unit, but now we know enough to place each metric frame precisely on the afterimage of the one before. Then,

Cadence. Silence. Almost. Total.

Now it is the second subject-twin's turn to stand alone in time. The conductor must select a symmetry: he or she can choose to answer prior cadence, to start anew, or to close the brackets opened at the very start. Can the conductor do all at once and maintain the metric frame? We hear a long, long unison F (Sub dominant?) for, underneath that silent surface sound, we hear our minds rehearsing what was heard.

The next frame reveals the theme again, descending now by thirds. We see that it was the dominant ninth, not sub dominant at all. The music fooled us that time, but never will again. Then, tour de force: the subject climbs, sounding on every scale degree. This new perspective shows us how to see the four-note theme as an appogiatura. Then, as it descends on each tonic chord-note, we are made to see it as a fragment of arpeggio. That last descent completes a set of all four possibilities, harmonic and directional. (Is this deliberate didactic thoroughness, or merely the accidental outcome of the other symmetries?) Finally, the theme's melodic range is squeezed to nothing, yet it survives and even gains strength as single tone. It has always seemed to me a mystery of art, the impact of those moments in quartets when texture turns to single line and fortepiano shames sforzando in perceived intensity. But such acts, which on the surface only cause the structure or intensity to disappear, must make the largest difference underneath. Shortly, I will propose a scheme in which a sudden, searching change awakes a lot of mental Difference-Finders. This very change wakes yet more difference-finders, and this awakening wakes still more. That is how sudden silence makes the whole mind come alive.

We are "told" all this in just one minute of the lesson and I have touched but one dimension of its rhetoric. Besides explaining, teachers beg and threaten, calm and scare; use gesture, timbre, quaver, and sometimes even silence. This is vital in music, too. Indeed, in the Fifth, it is the start of the subject! Such "lessons" must teach us as much about triads and triplets as mathematicians have learned about angles and sides! Think how much we can learn about minor second intervals from Beethoven's Grosse Fuge in E-flat, Opus 133.





Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

     Subscribe in a reader

    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Link Sites

    • Music
      Jual Biola untuk Pemula / Student (STANDARD for Student) - Jin Yin
      10 years ago

    Blog Archive

    • ►  2010 (16)
      • ►  March (3)
      • ►  February (2)
      • ►  January (11)
    • ▼  2009 (62)
      • ►  December (2)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ▼  August (8)
        • Theme and Thing
        • Sentic Significance
        • Rhythm and Redundancy
        • Composing and Conducting
        • Space and Tune
        • Syntactic Theories of Music
        • What Use Is Music?
        • Sonata as Teaching Machine
      • ►  July (5)
      • ►  June (7)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (17)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (5)

    Tips Music Articles

    • Awaken the Passion Sex Tips With Music
    • How to Find a Good Drum Teacher
    • How To Play Musical Instruments Marching
    • How to Read Guitar TAB
    • How to Write Guitar TAB
    • Quick Tips Autodidact Learning Musical Instruments
    • Selecting Tips Guitar Effects / Bass Used
    • Tips Choosing Amplifier
    • Tips Learning Music Strategy
    • Tips Make Good Song
    • Tips Music Studio Rental Business
    • Tips To Making / Forming Band
    • Tips to Play The Violin
    • To Consider In Buying an Electric Guitar
    • Wedding Music Tips

    Popular Music Articles

    • About Drum
    • Benefits of Music for Life
    • Eddie Van Halen
    • James Marshall Hendrix
    • Ludwig Van Beethoven
    • Music Influence on Children
    • Music Therapy
    • Philosophy Music
    • Singing How The Good?
    • SKA Music History
    • SLASH (Saul Hudson)
    • Steve Vai
    • The Beatles
    • Theorems Music
    • What is Music?
    • Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Copyright © All Rights Reserved. article music blog