Subject:
|
Re: New space building standard and submission to www.classic-space.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:08:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1408 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Luke Ma writes:
> Jeff,
> Wow! You certainly have done your homework. And Schenkerguide is a
> pretty decent place to start :)
> I'm glad you understand Schenker a bit now and the way in which I see it
> relates to Damien's Lego Calc. Schenker is mostly used for analysis and not
> composition. But the ideas of Schenker can be in ones head while composing.
> A common "thrill" of Schenkerian analysis is that while you're doing a
> deconstructive analysis of a piece, you actually get to "feel" the
> constructive process of composition. This really has to be done to be felt.
> (also, quick note, Schenkerian analysis isn't for everyone...even many music
> theorists don't like it/totally agree with it because it reduces music to
> contrapuntal lines...those aligned against schenker balk at this and those
> who are ok with schenker understands his reasoning...)
> If you would like an even closer analogy, take a look at the basic of
> harmonic analysis (more homework ;) ). Harmonic analysis is also
> deconstructive in some ways but once you've gotten good at it (or read a
> textbook), you find certain progressions that are pleasing and that always
> work. Composers don't always stay in these patterns locally and the best
> compositons are the ones which dance around established progression but from
> a broader point (say, a whole piece), it gives a composition direction,
> shape, and unity. This is in my mind much closer to Damien's intent of how
> his theory can be used. 1) Analyze existing lego masterpieces and possibly
> derive some general holistic rules about what makes a good creation but even
> more so 2) to use this knowledge and background to be able to more easily
> create even better and more original models.
> Sonic
> "Jeff Jardine" <jwjardin@diespam.mccain.ca> wrote in message
> news:H0655F.8Bx@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.space, Luke Ma writes:
> >
> > > 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).
> >
> >
> > I've done some homework:
> > http://www.schenkerguide.com
> >
> > It was very helpful - although this example was used strictly as an • analogy,
> > I think I have a much better grasp on what Damien's concepts. His
> > constructors (pair, bridge, balance etc) are somewhat analogous to musical
> > constructs like the arpeggio or linear progression.
> >
> > The constructors provide a framework with which a Schenkerian-like • analysis
> > is possible. From the Schenker Guide website: a Schenkerian analysis
> > "explains how music is made up of a series of common melodic elements," • and
> > "shows how tonal music can be said to be 'in a key.'" So, a similar
> > analysis on a classic space model might explain just what makes it look • like
> > 'classic space.'
> >
> > Although reading about SA has helped me understand it, I don't think it • was
> > Damien's intent that his Calculus be used in this manner. SA is clearly a
> > deconstructive process (it requires at least a partially completed piece • of
> > music to be analysed) and Damien has repeatedly said that his Calculus is
> > intended for design alone. Or, is some analysis of completed classic • space
> > models necessary, so the 'common melodic elements' (perhaps a blue slope
> > symmetrically mounted on a pair of grey wings) can be defined?
> >
> > Is the ability to perform a Schenkerian-like analysis merely a • side-effect?
> > Grammar can be used to construct text, but can also be used to analyse • text.
> >
> > Jeff J
Hi Jeff,
Hi Luke,
Your both interpretations conform to mine.
I fear that replying linguistic analogies to your music analogies is not a
good way to better understand each-other.
So I will only speak about lego hobby.
I read your Schenkerian analysis discussion. The word "analysis" alone let
me think that the analogy, while highlighting the common architectural
inclinations, is not so good. That is not a question of intent. My system is
very fragile. I just give recommandations not to break it. The rational
makes sense in the constructive way only.
I understand some or many readers may be more interested in poetry. They can
use the system in any manner they wish. Jeff is right. The rational does not
work in the deconstructive way. If one is a poet and don't care about the
rational, then the deconstructive way may reveal some poetic potential. But
I will not explore that.
If you want rational analogies with music, you should select tools that help
writting, rather that tools that help reading.
> So, a similar analysis on a classic space model
> might explain just what makes it look like 'classic space.'
And Jeff well understands that my system is nothing like that. My system
does not define, describe or explain classic space in any manner. It helps
building models that we empirically identify as classic space models.
Probably it could also build aquazone models. Just use yellow bricks and
replace engines with propellers.
> Or, is some analysis of completed classic space
> models necessary, so the 'common melodic elements'
> (perhaps a blue slope symmetrically mounted on a pair of grey wings)
> can be defined?
All patterns are at the brick level.
The brick is not the minimum constitutive element of a lego model.
The brick is the maximum modular element of a lego model.
You can assemble modular elements bigger than bricks, like walls in castle
world. But then you play something like playmobil.
The brick is not a minimum, it is a maximum.
The brick is not the minimum of the decomposition.
The brick is the maximum of the composition.
The strength of my building system is having no patterns bigger than bricks.
Any notion like completed model, model shape, or model-size pattern has not
the proper granularity.
The ascending way is the natural way.
I have bricks, then I have a model. That is the difficult part.
I have a model, then I have bricks. That is the trivial part.
Always let the bricks to shape the model, never let the model shape to place
the bricks.
Always solve a building problem, never solve a representation problem.
Go from bricks to model, not from model to bricks.
> Is the ability to perform a Schenkerian-like analysis merely a side-effect?
> Grammar can be used to construct text, but can also be used to analyse text.
Just that. Any deconstructive power one see in my system is just perceptive
illusion (constructive power in a mirror). You can't take any model and
decompose it using my system. Because not every model can be built using my
system. Again, my system is neither unique nor universal. Not being
universal it is not reversible. When decomposing you just remember the
composition.
Thanks for criticism,
Damien
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
