Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:32:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1300 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeff,
Sorry to make this my rant space almost but I once again have to set
something straight about music theory:
Tempo, notes, key signatures...that is not really music theory...it is
only part of it. Those qualifications are analogous to the color of a
brick, how it is attached, the length of a brick, etc. And you're right.
They are only descriptive. What Damien has done is more like harmonic or
Schenkerian analysis. He has set up a formal/abstract framework with which
to understand creativity (like harmonic/schenkerian analysis...or
pitch-class set since it's somewhat mathematical). Many musicians don't
like theory because, as you said, they get along without it. They might
have an intuitive feel for it, as do Lego builders for their creations.
However, as a musician, I find that I have a much clearer idea of how to
creatively express myself (instrumentally) through understanding of theory.
Same applies when I compose.
Luke
"Jeff Jardine" <jwjardin@diespam.mccain.ca> wrote in message
news:H04BCs.Hw6@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Damien Guichard writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > >
> > > i.e. If an expert builder were to formally train novices, a language • like >>this would be crucial.
> > > Or, it could allow all kinds of ways to quantify our models: perhaps the
> > > ratio of ornamental to constructive constructors would be the greeblie
> > > factor, the number of constructive constructors would be the • complexity...
> >
> > I strongly disagree with the usage as a model metrics: the concept is for
> > creation time only. Do not expect constructors to be deconstructive • tools.
> > Their name just forbid that. They are for design, not analysis. There is • no
> > right or wrong way to build lego. I reject any evaluation tool and • consider
> > the idea as discriminative. The right way to prefect your models is not • to
> > use metrics but to better think your building problems.
>
> Sorry - I didn't mean to offend your sensibilities. Let me try to • explain:
>
> Like others, I see your calculus as something very similar to music • theory.
> Properties of a piece of music, such as it's tempo or key, do not measure
> the value of a piece of music - they merely describe it. That's how I
> interpreted your ideas: as a standardised way to describe (NOT evaluate) • models.
>
> If the intent of the calculus is to only assist in design, it may not be
> widely accepted. I think most Lego builders are akin to most popular or
> casual musicians - they have no interest in learning any formal theory
> because they are happily getting by without it now. Where I think the
> theory becomes most useful is in providing a background or language that • can
> be used for learning. It could allow help less able builders (like me)
> learn techniques from others without having to use CAD or pictures, much
> like the way a piece of music can be described on paper rather than • aurally.
>
> Jeff J
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
