dpcon, my statement was in reference to lgrohn's formula for art: imo, doubly wrong, that 'rules' are not particularly tied to one's moment in time and culture (saying this while remembering those who come looking for 'the hollywood sound' ... oh well), and that 'creativity' is the result of happy accident tied to who it is who is doing the accidenting.

still not clear, i know -- but it's tied also to something someone said here, not long ago, hermitage59 perhaps: that at least part of art (and creativity) is being able to de-personalize the music one writes, make it applicable for anyone not just yourself (and thus the reference to onanism) and to be able to throw them away if not right for the music's necessity.

the opposite to this is lgrohn's apparent point of view (sorry if I mis-interpret you, lgrohn, not trying to do it): the accident of MY computer and MY graphics exercises and the program I wrote to turn graphics into music are all precious sparks of vitality and should be preserved and respected as art.

am well aware this isn't too clear -- may return and edit it better. The pithy bon mot works better than explanations!

@dpcon said:

Meaning that there is so much creativity already built in to the world we live in (I refer to God) that one almost can't miss. Consider that the overtone series can be found in any piece of string or gut that only need be pulled than plucked (Pythagoras) and you realize that music can be found everywhere.

Pythagoras had a bad ear and he was bad in physics. The first overtone of any string is a litle bit more that double of the primary note in Hertzs...

Igrohn,

And the overtone series of a string, say that found on a violin or piano?

You did not take my meaning to be that of principles? That is, the principle of overtones found in nature and Pythagoran principles? (was not referring to the man's ear canals.)

This is clearer now I hope?

Dave Connor

Gugliel,

Thanks for clarification. I understand. It seems I am being currently misunderstood so we must all persevere.

Dave

I've followed this with much interest, and i note several references to accidents in music.
How do those 'accidents' occur?
By experimentation. How do we experiment?
By stepping outside what we already know.

So i'm not agreed with the principle of accidents, and the resulting (or not) continuation of a new path of 'creativity' based on a standalone coincidence, unconnected to anything else.

It's my opinion that accidents don't actually occur, rather a new creative 'node' or 'notion' comes to life as the result of an opening of the creative synapses to 'allow' a stream of new thought/emotion to come to life. Every note, chord, percussive sound, impact, hum, etc. has the potential to take many new paths in new directions outside of our current known experience. We know when stuff doesn't work, and as Gugliemo referred to, my view of the importance of objectivity holds true. But it's also the case that my view is tempered by my notion of what is acceptable or not. e.g. I prefer Wagner to Schnietke. Why? Because Wagner 'fits' my life/creation/analytical/emotion/experience model better. It doesn't mean i question the validity of Schnetke, merely make a personal preference, according to what i 'accept' under the very general title, Music.
Nor does experience (or not) take away from the musical potential. I think it's important to separate the creative 'notion' encapsulated by BOTH thought and emotion, and the practical means to bring that notion to life.
Consider the young composer who can hear a complete symphony with unfettered clarity in his thought/emotion centre. What prevents him from 'transmitting' that complete notion into reality is not only a lack of practical compositional and orchestration experience as we understand it, but quite possibly the limitations of the instruments themselves. Sound, timbre, reflection of change of tone by dynamic may separately or collectively detract from that 'pure' symphonic picture he sees and feels.
So the discussion of separating the composer and performer is already one stage on from the real question, (in my opinion) instead the real question should be:

'What is the notion in the composer's thought/emotion centre?'

We hear an extrapolation of that performed by ourselves and /or others, but by necessity, it is already a 'tainted' version of the pure reality created in the first place.

Regards to you all, and thanks William for starting such an interesting discussion!

Alex.

I find myself once again agreeing with Dave Connor.
Music can be found everywhere.
The act of breathing or the faint percussive tone of a heartbeat affects our notion of rhythm and sound, so if the most basic and fundamental of human mechanical processes is at the foundation of our perception of 'what is music', then anything is possible, and indeed, likely.

Regards,

Alex.

The perception of what is music can be considered a step further.
I like Wagner's complete approach, although he was by no means the only one, of a complete, emotive, aural, visual creation, each component an interal part of the whole. Now, practically, it's a little more difficult for us, as composers on paper, or digitally, to explore this complete creation each and every time we come to life as composers. But the practical means doesn't detract from the creation taking place, only limits how fully we can express that creation. There are those here who have experience in film and the creation of images, but even then, they are limited by the means to bring the pure notion to life.
And that's ok.
Because the one thing reality sometimes inhibits is imagination, and i'm sure many of you have had the frustrating experience of trying to bring a complete creation to life, only to be forced to accept a lesser version based on limited ability and resources.
And i'm fairly confident Wagner and other composers felt this frustration too.
It's a matter of logistics that give us the possibility of falling short of the goal,
a, Our own lack of knowledge or experience,
b, A lack of facility, e.g. limited computer functionality, etc.

But the notion, remains pure. we know what we think/feel, and we can hear/see/feel the whole experience unhindered by anything but our own imagination, so it's not the already complete notion that's limiting, but the means of getting it out of our imagination, and into a format of some sort or other.
The really special, wonderful, enjoyable thing about imagination is the constant state of change, and the resulting everchanging fluidilty of our personal ongoing creations.

Regards to you all,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

I find myself once again agreeing with Dave Connor.
Music can be found everywhere. The act of breathing or the faint percussive tone of a heartbeat affects our notion of rhythm and sound, so if the most basic and fundamental of human mechanical processes is at the foundation of our perception of 'what is music', then anything is possible, and indeed, like.

I'm not surprised Alex as I don't consider it a profound observation. Honegger's Pacific 231, Stravinsky's constant emulation of real life sounds, Debussy, and of course Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony all declare the sound of life. Indeed many scientific terms that are used in reference to the Sun are musical: harmonics and so on.

The overtone series can be heard in everything from yodeling to a chainsaw. It's in our planet's and our bodies very DNA. So we all try to discover it. Think of that word dis-cover. Beethovens's friends would observe him seemingly in another world responding with physical jerks and fits of laughter as he listened to the music that came to him.

I don't think Pythagoras' hearing could have been worse than Beethoven's (who aquitted himself rather well musically speaking.)

Dave Connor

I suppose metacomposer wants to argue because it's free advertising. [[;)]]

I would ask you sir, what is an accident? At least 95% of the human brain's functioning (according to current neurophysiological research - some of the newest confirmation of Freud which just disgusts all the Freud-bashers out there) is SUBCONSCIOUS. So what is an "accident?" You make it sound so trivial in your post. I want those "accidents." The surrealists also did. About 99% of modern artists do also. So don't trivialize "accidents."

Also, rules, as was pointed out previously, are not mere "cliches." Some - i.e. those of Greek architecture to mention only one - are principles aped the world over for CENTURIES. Pythagoras was a bad physicist? Oh, gee - the poor guy - he didn't know about Einstein or Planck... not mention Newton or Helmholtz.

And he also lived 2000 f***ing years ago, remember? Are you kidding!!? I'd like to see the physics you came up with 2000 years ago. Perhaps you are a deconstructionist? Perhaps you believe all meaning is merely referential and an arbitrary text? O.K. That's the fashion of the moment. Talk about cliches...

Interesting posts here!

Going back to facts, Pythagoras found the intervals but not the overtones. Even the octave didn't belong to his system of stellar magic. And what gives piano its great sound is just the fact that the first overtone of e.g. 440 Hz is not 880 Hz but a little more (880.5 or something).

From these figures he (Pythagoras) derived the octave (12:6+2:1)... fifth... fourth... Harvard Dictionary of Music.

I don't understand the contention. I was referring to the principle of discovery as exemplified by Pythagoras. And this not in a strict scientific sense but really metaphorically in the sense that Columbus was a discoverer. To nitpick about a nonessential ingredient of a philosophical point is a curious hostility that renders honest dialogue helpless.

Lets hear it for pseudo - intellectualism. Such a lovely ingredient in art I've always thought.

Dave Connor

Thanks for confirming that piano strings have overtones. I'm learning a ton here.

I only said this: "Going back to facts, Pythagoras found the intervals but not the overtones. Even the octave didn't belong to his system of stellar magic."

It was Joseph Saveur (1653-1716) who discoved the harmonic overtone series.

About piano overtones: perhaps you could tell me what exactly is the first harmonic overtone of the 440 Hz key. At least it is not 880 HZ EXACTLY.

Piano tuning is a kind of art, with stretched octaves because of the funny way the wires and wire wrapping alter the overtone series very slightly. That's a feature of the instrument, not a law of physics. (The first overtone, of course, is the octave.) It's true Pythagoras didn't know about pianos, nor computers. But he did know about a stretched wire and its overtones, I believe. (gotta brush up on my music history one of these days ...)

@gugliel said:

(The first overtone, of course, is the octave.)

It is NOT, exactly ! Based on practical knowledge and confirmed by physics.

What a silly digression.

There is such a thing as overtones - no?

They are found in nature (on planet earth) - no?

We make music by making use of the things in nature: harmonics, wood, metal, string - no?

Music (the invention of musical instruments as well as musical invention) contains a process of discovery - no?

Are these points true in some essential way? Or fundamentally unsound?

Please don't write something about octaves or Hz or something else completely unrelated. This is the fourth time I've made this exact same point.

Dave Connor

A little lesson on physics and music:

Let's have a piano string giving 440 Hz. The first overtone is sounding because the two halves of the string are also vibrating. But because the string have some thickness, the node on the middle has not zero length and the vibrating halves are a little bit shorter than the 1/2 string. Because of that those halves vibrate on a little higher frequence than expected, lets say about 880.5 Hz or something. Q.E.D.

A very little lesson indeed.

We would need a very long lesson to get you somewhere in the area of the intended topic.

I take it your lessons have not brought you to the place of acknowledging the surface of planet Earth or even the surface of my remarks. So let me know if you ever wish to disscuss something a little more shallow so we can enjoy the success that belongs to the mature.

Dave Connor

Anyway. These little diffrences in ALL overtones makes piano sound as it sounds and makes it almost impossible properly to synthesize piano sound. Sampling is different...

So what's your favorite color piano?

That is probably true that it is nearly impossible to synthesize a piano "properly." Herb pointed out long ago that the hardest instrument in all music to sample (I think that is what Herb said) is the piano. This shocked me at the time. Because I was thinking of it completely from the standpoint of performing. Which, when one compares the keyboard technique of MIDI to piano, is obviously infinitely more practical than application to a violin section, or a legato solo horn, etc. But the actual sound of the piano in its many aural variations is extremely complex in ways which do not fit MIDI, and I believe this is what Herb and metacomposer are speaking of.