Paul,
So what was the score and who won?

You made a good point though, about your conversation with your american associate.
Needs, wants, desires. About as close to analysis as music and art should get.

Regards,

Alex.

When I make statements against the efficacy of analysis and theory I am not talking about studying music per se. Because studying allows a person to have engrained into his brain whatever is in another's music whether it is technical or artistic and this is always a good thing. In other words, you might believe yourself to be studying very intelligently and fastidiously the developmental techniques of a Beethoven symphony, but what you are really getting out of it is simply prolonged exposure to great melodies. Or perhaps absorbing unconsciously the way he breaks up motifs to develop them. So studying may ultimately be more unconscious a process than is generally believed. The fact is (as has been recently determined by actual quantitative neurological studies) the human mind is around 99.9% subconscious with a tiny little bandwidth of consciousness pretending it understands, knows and directs everything.

Bill,
I couldn't agree more.
Study is a conscious effort to imprint information into subconscious.
And when i write (i will speak only for myself), more often than not, when i'm not consciously thinking of something to write, and let the subconscious do it's thing, the result is far better.

Regards,

Alex.

The three states of mind. Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious!

[*-)]

@William said:

In other words, you might believe yourself to be studying very intelligently and fastidiously the developmental techniques of a Beethoven symphony, but what you are really getting out of it is simply prolonged exposure to great melodies. .

Music analysis is based on a score. Every conductor/orchestra gives a different interpretation of the score. So analyses based on score are always wrong. I guess the whole idea of music analysis is wrong.

@William said:

But what a composer who creates a great lasting work does is something else entirely. It reminds me of all the attempts to explain consciousness, including those by the most prominent scientists. They never explain it - they only describe it in more or less detail.

Actually one can't do more than that even in physics. That's what all the models ONLY do. LG

No that is not true. There are many causal relationships in physics that are actually explanatory. In psychology there are NONE.

@William said:

No that is not true. There are many causal relationships in physics that are actually explanatory. In psychology there are NONE.

Causal descriptions are stilL ONLY descrriptions. The only difference between physics and other sciences is that the models in physics are more basic having more description power. But there are never any explanations behind those models (or theories). LG

That is untrue according to classical physics which functions highly accurately on a macroscopic level. You are attempting to use quantum mechanics in the wrong context.

Also, you do not understand what the word "description" means. I am referring to a re-statement in different terms, not a causal explanation. To deny causality on a macroscopic level is nonsense. And to compare physics, with its precise models of celestial mechanics for example, to the neurobiology of consciousness studies is ludicrous. These are separate universes of thought with almost no comparison possible. If you do not see the differences, you are ignoring them deliberately, perhaps because you are attempting a deconstructionist reductionism. Which is fine, if that particular form of nonsense turns you on.

Well. You can't explain the behavior of humans but only describe and you can't explain anything by using models (theories) of physic but only describe. Of course the describtions are different if you have an organic system having billions of billions of structured molecule systems or on the other hand a single particle or particle system.

Physics is based on empiricism and music analysis is not. Without any proof there is no reason to deny that computer can compose. One could only disproof the hypothesis empirically.

"Physics is based on empiricism and music analysis is not." - lgrohn

I agree with that. I do not agree that physical models are mere descriptions however, because of one simple fact: mathematics can predict physical relationships to the tiniest decimal point of accuracy in the macroscopic world, though this breaks down at a sub-atomic level. However, it can do NOTHING for human psychology and that is my point.

I don't deny that a computer can compose music, but the question is, what is the program? Is it random? Then the fact that a computer is doing it is meaningless. Is it tied to a human being's thought or feelings? Then it may be an interesting extension. If the computer has artificial intelligence of its own, then it may be a new form of music. But this has not demonstrably happened yet. Though I will find it quite interesting when it does.

Brilliant exchange between William and LG.

When I refer to the art and science of composition, by science I mean rudimentary devices such as canon, fuge, 4 part writing, formal structures and so on. In that sense it's scientific as one would use tools working with wood (although a better analogy might be found.) Anyway when these devices are not employed or understood it often shows as weaknesses but not always. I would venture to say most need or would benefit from this science in music writing.

@Another User said:

If the computer has artificial intelligence of its own, then it may be a new form of music.

That has anything to do with this matter. Just check my answer above. LG

@Another User said:

Anyway when these devices are not employed or understood it often shows as weaknesses but not always. I would venture to say most need or would benefit from this science in music writing.

It depends. If a young person studying composing using many years of his liffe just for learning old cultural artefact it may happen that he/she just keeps on that the rest of his life, actually useless life a a composer creating nothing new but just emulating.

@Another User said:

creating nothing new but just emulating

...except when the individual has such strong creative feelings that his/hers 'luggage' will give better understanding of the past and stimulate innovation.

Musical composition is NOT a mere combination of inherited cultural cliches and randomness.

What did you leave out of the equation?

THE COMPOSER'S MIND.

Does that exist? Are you a composer? Does your mind exist? Is there anything in there besides randomness and a storage mechanism for cultural cliches?

I am beginning to think that you do not believe that the composer's mind does anything other than the two operations of memory and random noise generator. If so, you ought to explain what creates the difference between a great composer and a lousy one. You probably believe it is an accident, correct?

No, accurate numeric values are not mere numerical description because they can be used to predict elements and outcomes that have not yet transpired. A description is incapable of this, but an explanation with a mathematic basis is. You are still not separating this distinction of meaning, or if you are and deny it you are in error.

One more thing [8o|] ---

Studying past music is not a mere acquisition of "cultural artifacts" as you dismissively term them. Do you study history at all? Do you know the value of this study?

I seriously wonder based upon your statements. You seem to think that completely discarding the past will give people freedom. But ignorance of it dooms people to merely repeat it. That is the greatest loss of freedom - the repetition of past mistakes. There is far greater freedom with an acute, even close study and awareness of the past and the creative use of its accomplishments in new ways.

@William said:

Musical composition is NOT a mere combination of inherited cultural cliches and randomness.?

Agreed. What I said was this:
"All composes work somewhere between cultural clichees and randomness. "

I didn't say anything about what is between! LG

@William said:

No, accurate numeric values are not mere numerical description because they can be used to predict elements and outcomes that have not yet transpired. A description is incapable of this, but an explanation with a mathematic basis is. You are still not separating this distinction of meaning, or if you are and deny it you are in error.

Using the map metaphor, one can predit what is between Wien and Budabest... And what is between W and n in "Wien".

@lgrohn said:

Actually you are "refering" only to cultural artefacts. That kind of taxonomy doesn't have much to do with science. Well it has much to do with "sciences" some hundred years ago

Don't you want the doors to work where you live? Like a good old fashioned door? Most music requires structure, so if you're building it you should understand what strong and weak structure is. This is what Schoenberg taught and he broke with tonality. You may be working with computers under totally different criteria and won't be writing a fuge any time soon. That's fine but I don't think it disqualifies those who use and view that device as a musical and not cultural one.