The Great Mahler Debate

[bwv 1080]

Insofar as I understand you, no, I don't think I agree.

All logorithmic means is that there are ratios between different temporal scales (but not that there is some easy deterministic mathematical formula).  Many composers as you know deliberately constructed music with set temporal proportions, as in Bartok's golden mean.

[71 dB]

And it goes without saying that loudness is logrithmic itself (the decibel scale for example)

Finally someone knows something! 

In fact the loudness curves are not exactly logarithmic but "near enough". Loudness for pure tones is measured in Phons, sound pressure level in dBs. At 1000 Hz Phons and dBs are equal.

[karlhenning]

All logrithmic means is that there are ratios between different temporal scales (but not that there is some easy deterministic mathematical formula).  Many composers as you know deliberately constructed music with set temporal proportions, as in Bartok's golden mean.

Of course.  But, some composers using it in some pieces, is scarcely a general measure, right?

JS Bach made a game of having structural "seams" in some pieces at the end of 14 measures, or 41.

The fact that all this is so fluid, I am afraid rather inclines me to scoff at 71 dB's junk-scientific quackery here.

And in a few posts, he will tell us that junk-scientific quackery is just "freethinking."

[71 dB]

You can say whatever you please about "vibrational fields," because no one (probably including youself) has any idea what they are supposed to mean.

I'm confident some open-minded persons here have a clue what "vibrational field" means. You don't seem to put much effort understanding what I say. Instead you do your best trying to make me look stupid with my theories. Well, it's your choice what you do.

[knight66]

Can we rename this thread? Anything you like as long as it includes, "Alice in Wonderland".

Mike

[karlhenning]

I'm confident some open-minded persons here have a clue what "vibrational field" means. You don't seem to put much effort understanding what I say. Instead you do your best trying to make me look stupid with my theories. Well, it's your choice what you do.

If you look stupid, I am afraid I cannot take any of the credit.

[bwv 1080]

Of course.  But, some composers using it in some pieces, is scarcely a general measure, right?

JS Bach made a game of having structural "seams" in some pieces at the end of 14 measures, or 41.

The fact that all this is so fluid, I am afraid rather inclines me to scoff at 71 dB's junk-scientific quackery here.

And in a few posts, he will tell us that junk-scientific quackery is just "freethinking."

It depends how strictly you interpet or define it.  Saying that log-scale symmetries, because they rule natural phenomena, are a naturally pleasing aesthetic and therefore tend to pop up in music whether intentionally put there or not is a reasonable proposition.  Claiming that there is some sort of magic formula is of course bogus.

[Danny]

............................................OK!.........................................................

I love the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Symphonies, along with Das Lied Von der Erde.

Still need to hear more by Gustav, but I definitley love the aformentioned.

Back to the techinical debate...............................................

[karlhenning]

Through the Vibrational Field, and What Alice Heard There

[karlhenning]

............................................OK!.........................................................

I love the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Symphonies, along with Das Lied Von der Erde.

Still need to hear more by Gustav, but I definitley love the aformentioned.

Back to the techinical debate...............................................

Whoa, Danny! Take it here!

This thread is for 71 dB's "theories"!

[PerfectWagnerite]

............................................OK!.........................................................

I love the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Symphonies, along with Das Lied Von der Erde.

Still need to hear more by Gustav, but I definitley love the aformentioned.

Back to the techinical debate...............................................

What do you not like about 3, 4, 7 and 8 (I admit not a big fan of 8 myself)?

[71 dB]

Of course.  But, some composers using it in some pieces, is scarcely a general measure, right?

JS Bach made a game of having structural "seams" in some pieces at the end of 14 measures, or 41.

The fact that all this is so fluid, I am afraid rather inclines me to scoff at 71 dB's junk-scientific quackery here.

And in a few posts, he will tell us that junk-scientific quackery is just "freethinking."

Okay, I need to explain myself much better.

I said logarithmic time scale is the best option for the time points of spectrum of events. This doesn't means everything in music follows exactly logarithmic laws. It means the resolution should be logarithmic. This is difficult to explain to a person without scientific insight. It means events that are minutes long do not need to be separated in second. so, we don't need frequency point for 2 min 1 sec and 2 min 2 sec events. We can put them in the same place. But, with short event we need more resolution. This leads to logarithmic scale.

[Danny]

What do you not like about 3, 4, 7 and 8 (I admit not a big fan of 8 myself)?

Heard the Third on the radio several times and it put me to sleep.  The Fourth had elements that struck me (in the best of Mahlerian senses), but..............well, I need a good version to give it a final grade!  Haven't heard the Seventh or Eighth, I'm afriad.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Heard the Third on the radio several times and it put me to sleep. 

Really Those muted trumpets and lower bass runs in the first movment don't tingle your nerves?

[MishaK]

I'm confident some open-minded persons here have a clue what "vibrational field" means. You don't seem to put much effort understanding what I say. Instead you do your best trying to make me look stupid with my theories. Well, it's your choice what you do.

If your theories can only be explained to "free-thinkers" (i.e. believers), then they are not of much use, I'm afraid. Theories are only of value if they can be logically explained to the skeptics. You keep running circles within your own tautologies without ever objectively defining your terminology in a way that would allow anyone to evaulate the correctness of your logic.

[71 dB]

If your theories can only be explained to "free-thinkers" (i.e. believers), then they are not of much use, I'm afraid. Theories are only of value if they can be logically explained to the skeptics. You keep running circles within your own tautologies without ever objectively defining your terminology in a way that would allow anyone to evaulate the correctness of your logic.

Free thinking is not anything weird. Free thinkers do not believe authorities automatically. Everything goes under critical evaluation. Theories are theories, not proven facts. If I am wrong I admit that. Without theories there are never proven facts. It is a good thing people have theories, whether they are right or wrong. If my theory is wrong someone debunks it and while doing so brings a new and better theory on the table. I am the only one here with theories. Please, present your own if you want to kill mine. Otherwise we don't have any theory.

My theories of vibrational fields and event spectrums are in very early stage. I have not formulated them well yet. I don't work actively with these theories, they are kind of background processes in my head.

[MishaK]

You seem to be confused about the meaning of the terms "theory" and "fact".

[mahlertitan]

All logorithmic means is that there are ratios between different temporal scales (but not that there is some easy deterministic mathematical formula).  Many composers as you know deliberately constructed music with set temporal proportions, as in Bartok's golden mean.

so you read Mario Livio's "Golden Ratio" then? All these numbers, are nothing more than coincidences. What you and 71DB are trying to do is trying to judge the quality of music in quantitative means, this is absolutely impossible. I am well aware that some composers did use "math" "golden ratio" in their works, but i doubt those works become very famous pieces, and indeed, if composers can "calculate" music, then what difference is there between human and machine, theoretically, i invented smart enough AI, it can compose like Mahler too, and that is IMPOSSIBLE.

[mahlertitan]

Free thinking is not anything weird. Free thinkers do not believe authorities automatically. Everything goes under critical evaluation. Theories are theories, not proven facts. If I am wrong I admit that. Without theories there are never proven facts. It is a good thing people have theories, whether they are right or wrong. If my theory is wrong someone debunks it and while doing so brings a new and better theory on the table. I am the only one here with theories. Please, present your own if you want to kill mine. Otherwise we don't have any theory.

My theories of vibrational fields and event spectrums are in very early stage. I have not formulated them well yet. I don't work actively with these theories, they are kind of background processes in my head.

yes, but even for theories, there must be a hypothesis that is backed by some sort of logical reasoning. If You know physics, then you know that before you formulate a theory, you must work out the math first, then you do the experiment and draw a conclusion. What i am hearing from you is that you form a theory out of thin-air, and there is no experiment, since the results are highly subjective....

you sometimes make a claim as if it is universal truth, then you say it works only most of the times.

i'll repeat what i said before, you need EVIDENCE, not what you think, but something that can be reproduced by anybody, and the result would be the same. With a hard evidence like that, i doubt anyone would disagree with your theories, but until then, you are talking pure Bullsh*t

[71 dB]

so you read Mario Livio's "Golden Ratio" then? All these numbers, are nothing more than coincidences. What you and 71DB are trying to do is trying to judge the quality of music in quantitative means, this is absolutely impossible. I am well aware that some composers did use "math" "golden ratio" in their works, but i doubt those works become very famous pieces, and indeed, if composers can "calculate" music, then what difference is there between human and machine, theoretically, i invented smart enough AI, it can compose like Mahler too, and that is IMPOSSIBLE.

I am not trying to explain music 100 % with math. That's not the case. However, music follows mathematical rules statistically. If an event specrum says 15 % of the events in Mahler 3 have a length of 1 - 4 s that's a statistical claim. We don't know when these events occur.

Many mathematical number (like golden ratio) are not coincidences. They have extremely fundamental meaning and they are found everywhere in the nature. For example, e (= 2.71828...  Napier's constant) is an extremely important number in math.

I am analysing music with these theories, not synthesizing.

yes, but even for theories, there must be a hypothesis that is backed by some sort of logical reasoning. If You know physics, then you know that before you formulate a theory, you must work out the math first, then you do the experiment and draw a conclusion. What i am hearing from you is that you form a theory out of thin-air, and there is no experiment, since the results are highly subjective....

you sometimes make a claim as if it is universal truth, then you say it works only most of the times.

i'll repeat what i said before, you need EVIDENCE, not what you think, but something that can be reproduced by anybody, and the result would be the same. With a hard evidence like that, i doubt anyone would disagree with your theories, but until then, you are talking pure Bullsh*t

I know the principles of science. The problem is this is not my work! Nobody pays me for doing things "by the book". Someone into cognitive science could perhaps get new ideas from these theories of mine and do real science work as a full day job. For me this is about understanding music and is a "hobby".