Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:05:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Luke Ma writes:
> 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
Hi Jeff,
I totally agree with Luke.
If you have to be disappointed by my building system, I think the sooner the
better for you.
The thread has more replies than the original document deserve.
Fortunately I have used a discouraging form.
Otherwise more people would have been illusionned.
I have to repeat that the idea is abstract.
It won't become practical just because we all desire more power.
It is actually powerful but abstractly.
Just as a computer can be powerful but not in the practical way of a crane
or a gun.
Sorry lego calculus may be not what you expected,
Damien
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
