The Great Mahler Debate

[71 dB]

Is this what you referred to? Because nothing here defines what a "vibrational field" is.

Still waiting . . . .

vibrational field is another name for gravitational fields

[Don]

These "gravitational fields of sounds" or "vibrational fields" are a simple and complex thing. Our brain creates and processes them automatically. we don't even notice how much calculations is beeing done. It's like face recognition. Our brain needs to do VERY complex calculations in order to recognise a familiar face but we don't notice anything. It's all automatic. Some people can't recognise faces because the part of the brain is damaged.

Okay, I try to explain. Pictures would help but I don't have any. Let's say a C-note is being played on cello. This sound creates a "vibrational field" in our head in many musical dimensions. For example, if we are in C major, the harmonic dimension of this field makes us "expect" perhaps notes E and G being played on other instruments. If some other notes are played, the situation is more complex musically but most probably easily explained somehow. The cello may be playing a certain rhythm. All the notes before this C-note did create their "vibrational field" which are still in effect in time dimension.

Because the "vibrational fields" operate in a multidimensional space the relations between them can be very complex even if the score was simple. It's all about how musically talented the composer is. Conducors and musicians use "vibrational fields" in order to blow life into score. Visually a similar thing happens when we watch stereo images (two 2-dimensional pictures). Our brain is able to calculate a 3-dimensional image out of the compressed information.

That wraps it up.  I annoint you the Dr. Spock of GMG.

[karlhenning]

. . . Simpson writes of "Bruckner's beloved strategem of treating a dominant seventh as a German sixth in a new key, a delight he shares with Schubert." (I have no idea what this means.)

Consider a C Dominant Seventh chord, which is spelled C, E, G, B-flat.  It is a major triad (C, E, G) plus a minor seventh above C (B-flat).  Normally it functions as that chord built on the fifth (dominant) degree of F Major, and resolves to the I (tonic).

There arose a group of chords of the augmented sixth (which is enharmonically equivalent to the interval of a major seventh -- that is, they sound the same, only notationally they are 'spelled' differently).  I won't detail the differences between the Italian, French and German [augmented] Sixth chords, but the German Sixth is enharmonically equivalent to the dominant seventh chord.  Only, in the case of the dominant seventh chord built on C, it is not spelled with a B-flat, nor does it function in the key of F, but it is spelled (say) C, E, G, A#, and C and A# resolve in contrary motion to B's, that is, to the tonic chord of E Minor in second inversion: B, E, G, B.

For fear of being any more confusing, I will stop.

[DavidW]

For those wondering what Elgar is talking about, here's the summary--

The listener's response to music heard, and anticipation for what is coming up next he claims can be formulated as a mathematical model parameterized by all the complex things that characterize a work of music.  But he does not formulate this model, or even have any justification for why it would be enlightening in anyway.

I think that you can walk off with the opinion that Elgar thinks that the listener's reception of the music is the most important thing in analyzing music, and it is different from the music itself because the listener's response to the music is as important as the music itself.  In literary theory, it would be called the reader response I think?  Whatever, the jargon he introduces is completely irrelevant to what he is saying, and what he is saying has nothing to do with gravity or vibrations.

[Florestan]

By all the saints in Heaven, what's got all this to do with enjoying music?

[karlhenning]

vibrational field is another name for gravitational fields

Nothing there defines what a "gravitational field" is, either.

. . . Whatever, the jargon he introduces is completely irrelevant to what he is saying, and what he is saying has nothing to do with gravity or vibrations.

Thank you  

[Don]

By all the saints in Heaven, what's got all this to do with enjoying music?

That's odd - you want to simply enjoy some music?  Then you need to stop dealing with this thread, but be sure that the vibrational field is to your advantage.

[karlhenning]

. . . but be sure that the vibrational field is to your advantage.

Which, I am told, is true of all good music.

[Choo Choo]

Consider a C Dominant Seventh chord, which is spelled C, E, G, B-flat.  It is a major triad (C, E, G) plus a minor seventh above C (B-flat).  Normally it functions as that chord built on the fifth (dominant) degree of F Major, and resolves to the I (tonic).

There arose a group of chords of the augmented sixth (which is enharmonically equivalent to the interval of a major seventh -- that is, they sound the same, only notationally they are 'spelled' differently).  I won't detail the differences between the Italian, French and German [augmented] Sixth chords, but the German Sixth is enharmonically equivalent to the dominant seventh chord.  Only, in the case of the dominant seventh chord built on C, it is not spelled with a B-flat, nor does it function in the key of F, but it is spelled (say) C, E, G, A#, and C and A# resolve in contrary motion to B's, that is, to the tonic chord of E Minor in second inversion: B, E, G, B.

For fear of being any more confusing, I will stop.

Thank you for the explanation, Karl.  I think I see what you mean...

It's typical of Simpson that he throws in the odd curve ball like that - as if obviously a general readership would be familiar with it - but one develops the habit of filing them under "OK. Right."   and moving on.

[71 dB]

so, what does it have to do with gravity? or what does it have to do with gravitational field? since when is music related to gravitational fields?
it's bad enough you give really bad "arguments", now you are bringing pseudo-science to aid your argument? if none of the above idea has ever been published in any scientific journal, how can anyone believe anything that you are saying?

just one more quesiton: you took physics in highschool right?

Nothing to do with gravity except I visualise them as gravitation fields in my mind.

You are free to reject my ideas. Please, tell your own theories. Don't you have any? If you took my thoughts seriously you could maybe see I am not lost with them. The good thing about my theory is the flexibility. Any music can evaluated, not only classical.

Free thinkers have ideas beyond scientific world. Perhaps my ideas are proven at least partly correct in the future? I'd say increadible advance in cognitive science is needed to prove or disprove my thoughts. So, it's up to you whether you agree with me or not.

I took my physics in highschool. It was one of my favorites. I had top grades in it. In university I naturally had many physics courses as part of my M. Sc. degree. 

[karlhenning]

Thank you for the explanation, Karl.  I think I see what you mean...

It's typical of Simpson that he throws in the odd curve ball like that - as if obviously a general readership would be familiar with it - but one develops the habit of filing them under "OK. Right."   and moving on.

Mind you, the augmented sixth chords have a long history.

Which for instance informs Chopin's elliptical, fleeting reference to the German Sixth at the end of the E Minor Prelude, for instance.

[karlhenning]

The good thing about my theory is the flexibility.

It isn't flexible;  it's woolly.

Niffs a bit, too.

[Florestan]

That's odd - you want to simply enjoy some music? 

Guilty as charged.

Maybe I am a reactionary, but music for whose understanding I need the latest physical or philosophical theories is not my cup of tea. Luckily Mahler is not in that league.

[Choo Choo]

Mind you, the augmented sixth chords have a long history.

Which for instance informs Chopin's elliptical, fleeting reference to the German Sixth at the end of the E Minor Prelude, for instance.

OK.  Right.

[karlhenning]

Have I lost you?

[DavidW]

It isn't flexible;  it's woolly.

Niffs a bit, too.

The great thing about string theory is that it's flexible.  The bad thing about string theory is that it's flexible because there are more than 10^500 unique solutions.   Flexibility is overrated.  It translates into vague and unhelpful!

[71 dB]

For those wondering what Elgar is talking about, here's the summary--

The listener's response to music heard, and anticipation for what is coming up next he claims can be formulated as a mathematical model parameterized by all the complex things that characterize a work of music.  But he does not formulate this model, or even have any justification for why it would be enlightening in anyway.

You people assume so much. The mental processes in our head is fuzzy logic, not exact math. My theory is that people have not-so-perfect fuzzy logic for processing vibrational fields and if they develop their understanding of music, the fuzzy logic will improve (=less logical contradictions in multidimensional space). So, every person has their own formulations. People who listen a lot of rhythmic music develop the rhythmic dimension in their fuzzy logic while the melodic dimension perhaps remains undeveloped.

[MishaK]

Well, musical complexity is a complex thing. 

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note. I have my theory of music. I call it the theory of "gravitational fields of sounds."

According to this theory every sound causes a multidimensional  (the dimensions are musical dimensions like timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, development, etc.) mental gravitational fields in our head. One of these dimension is time. Gravitational fields stretches out in to the past (what just happened) and in the future (what's going to happen). This makes us anticipate certain things from the next sounds. However, the gravitational fields are extremely complex in nature and they work in a multidimensional space.

Good music follows the complex behavior of gravitational fields of sound.

The better a composer is the better he/she understands the nature of these gravitational fields and can use them in sophisticated ways. So, complex music does not mean many notes but sophisticated use of gravitational fields. Sometimes many notes are needed, sometimes not. Because gravitational fields of sounds are so complex and operate in a multidimensional music space, music theories try to chop it up to smaller part in space of fewer dimensions. For example, the theories about counterpoint is just a simplified part of the gravitational fields projected into three-dimensional space (harmony, melody and time).

Mahler seems to have had a not-so-strong understanding of these gravitational fields. That's why he's music can't be extremely complex even if he had million notes per page.

I need a better name for "gravitational fields of sounds". vibrational fields?

This is actually not quite as stupid as it sounds, fraught as it is with confusing vocabulary and a number of misperceptions. But from a purely intuitive approach to music, it is not entirely wrong. What you describe as "gravitational fields" bounded by different variables are actually more important for analyzing the quality of a performance than for analyzing the quality of a work as such. You speak of anticipating the next note. Bernstein used to say that you have to play each note such that it sounds unexpected but in retrospect seems like that is the only way it could have been played - an initial surprise that sounds inevitable in retrospect. Barenboim likes to point out that you can't play an exposition repeat or a restatement in a classical sonata form the same way as the first exposition, because of all the stuff that happened in between - the restatement or repeat must contain within it a memory of what preceded and an anticipation of what is yet to come. But all of these are considerations for the performer in answering the question "how do I make this piece of music make sense to the audience'? It is akin to the actor playing Hamlet who has to portray a plausible character development over the course of the performance. Just reciting the text in monotone won't cut it. This is why earlier in the thread I asked you why you refuse to read scores, because that is the way of checking whether the flaws you hear are flaws of performance or composition.

But at any rate, how a given composer realizes his artistic vision will vary and the tools of analysis for one may not be appropriate for another. Harmonic development may be irrelevant in a piece by Debussy, who likes to stay within the same harmonically unaltered and undefined sphere from beginning to end. thematic development is irrelevant in Messiaen with his blocks of sound. You can't therefore speak of one single set of laws that apply across the board. Music theory certainly does not chop things up into distinct elements. Variables like pitch (which includes harmonic relationships), dynamics, rhythm and tempo are quite simply the basic variables of musical notation. How they interrelate in a given piece is certainly what matters, but to say that music theory doesn't recognize this is really showing a lack of understanding of music theory. But again, ultimately it is up to the performer to make sense of these interrelationships.

Finally, complexity as such cannot be a positive in and of itself. Take Prelude No.1 from Book 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier. A paragon of simplicity, yet a world of wonder is contained within the minute harmonic shifts of this simple work. Conversely, superficially complex works can actually have very simple frameworks. E.g. Strauss' Till Eulenspiegel. Sounds very dense but is built entirely out of two simple themes, one ascending, one descending, but very cleverly orchestrated to vividly paint the adventures of the main character in all teh colors of the orchestra. Likewise, complexity may be excess. Did Rachmaninov really need all those notes to make his point? I don't think you really have any idea of what is going on in Mahler yet.

[knight66]

You people assume so much. The mental processes in our head is fuzzy logic, not exact math. My theory is that people have not-so-perfect fuzzy logic for processing vibrational fields and if they develop their understanding of music, the fuzzy logic will improve (=less logical contradictions in multidimensional space). So, every person has their own formulations. People who listen a lot of rhythmic music develop the rhythmic dimension in their fuzzy logic while the melodic dimension perhaps remains undeveloped.

I think there is a ready solution to all of this, trepanning.....twice.

Mike

[Choo Choo]

Have I lost you?

Karl, it was meant as a joke.  Not a very good one.  Sorry.