A very brief book review:

bachus · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

Hmmm… after Blue Hell’s post I am beginning to think we may have to look for the brother of a one armed pianist. Smile

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:54 am Post subject:

Will some goats do for now?

bachus · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:15 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:26 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:31 am Post subject:

bachus · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:28 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject:

Yes, that is the Adorno I am talking about. Over here in Europe he has been quite a popular guy for some time. And yes, Wittgenstein is also a hot one.

bachus · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:

brinxmat · Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway

and yet frege merely echos dante, who echoes X before hiim...

but when Witgenstein sings the blues....

brinxmat · Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway

an adornment to my previous post: and Augustine...

---

To return to the subpart of the main argument here.

Bachus: "In isolation, outside of any context, no data set is a pattern"

Blue Hell: "all ordered data sets are a pattern"

This returns to my original problem "Is a pattern that does not occur (or occurs only once) a pattern?" in some respects:

Image the following two kinds of genesis: A) a pattern developed according to a template that is unstructured internally; B) a pattern that occurs incidentally but has internal structure.

Bachus might argue that A) is a pattern if the link to the template is apparent, whereas B) cannot be a pattern (unless a context can be developed for the description of the pattern) -- am I wrong in this analysis?

Blue Hell, on the other hand, might assume that both A and B are patterns by virture of their being ordered data sets (albeit in two different ways). -- am I wrong here?

In some respects both approaches are logical and emotive, but the definition of the pattern is still limited by the perspective from which we view the pattern. A formal pattern recognising algorithm would need a context, whereas an unfiltering human might see anything as a pattern.

I think that the discrepancy here is somewhat sterile because I believe that the formal-natural distrinction is artificial. In a local context, a formal algorithm and natural pattern recognition might conceivably not be functionally different. At the same time, there may be other natural structures that come into play that make the one-to-one discussed above relationship indistinct. Hence my overlapping patterns, and sets.

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:28 am Post subject:

Perhaps we should agree on one über-context. Let us call that one "musical composition".

As for patterns within a piece of music, a lot of the encoding or the processes used for making the music won´t ever be decoded by the listener.

brinxmat · Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway

bachus · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:31 am Post subject:

Perhaps then the “über-context” is the listener?

brinxmat · Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway

So far we _have_ had a solus-ipsian approach, so "Perhaps then the “über-context” is the listener?" would not be unacceptable according to the account so far.

On the other hand, music is to some extent interactional, as -- although I have argued to the contrary before -- I am still of the opinion that individuals do share at least some of the same context (being human, being of similar cultures/societies, etc.), which makes a composer's intentions somewhat apparent to the listener -- and our comprehension can hardly be described as independent of our surroundings and society.

But what I say below can be applied equally to both composer and listener; but that isn't to say that I don't think that there is much more to this. You could equally describe the many influences on the composer that caused them to find certain patterns pertinent when trying to express certain things, and the extent to which these are similar to those influences that make the listener recognise the patterns they see in the music of the composer. If there is correlation between what is intended (if this is a useful concept at all) and what is interpreted, then the mapping of influences might provide insight into the biology/society dependence of music.

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:22 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:03 am Post subject:

We need to identify a state / a term / a context for the process that lies above the composition itself. This is where the composition is being created. The composition itself is not universally a product of itself and it cannot define itself 1:1 in a meaningful manner. Decoding components and structure might be revealing but it won´t tell the full story.

I think this discussion indicates that we have several leves of abstraction going on. Some are of the über kind, some are parallel to each other and some are purely happening in the delivery process. And there will be interactive processes going on here too.

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:05 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:34 am Post subject:

I moved the topic to Composition but left a pointer in the Reviews forum. Contextually this thread plays better in the composition forum. OK?

bachus · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:29 am Post subject:

if you're askign me, surely

brinxmat · Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 262 Location: Norway

I add this to the mix, I haven't read it, so I can't comment on it yet.