The Great Mahler Debate

[MishaK]

For me this is about understanding music and is a "hobby".

That still doesn't excuse you from being rigorous enough to make your theory logically coherent.

[Steve]

Is it possible to recover this thread from 71db's nonsense?

Regardless of whether there is an ioata of validity to his theories, they could never bring us any closer to understanding Mahler. That, is why, 71db, you can never come to understand him. Go ahead, and try and analyze the frequencies of particular constants in Shakespeare's sonnets. Will that ever provide a meaningful understanding of his role in literature? How will your logarithmic scale explain the intimacy with which Mahler creates for me images, tales, and truths about myself? Honestly, Mahler my friend, is simply beyond you.

Mahler's 3rd, not complicated enough for you! This coming from a person who is convinced that complexity should be understood quantitatively.

Why do we indugle him so?

[Florestan]

Regardless of whether there is an ioata of validity to his theories, they could never bring us any closer to understanding Mahler. That, is why, 71db, you can never come to understand him. Go ahead, and try and analyze the frequencies of particular constants in Shakespeare's sonnets. Will that ever provide a meaningful understanding of his role in literature? How will your logarithmic scale explain the intimacy with which Mahler creates for me images, tales, and truths about myself? Honestly, Mahler my friend, is simply beyond you.

I second wholeheartedly each and every word above.

[71 dB]

That still doesn't excuse you from being rigorous enough to make your theory logically coherent.

Ever heard of freedom of speech? I can speak about any theories of mine. It is the responsibility of the readers to evaluate critically what is said. I am planning to formulate my theories better but it takes time. Today I discovered that I will be measuring loudspeakers tomorrow. Maybe next week?

Regardless of whether there is an ioata of validity to his theories, they could never bring us any closer to understanding Mahler. That, is why, 71db, you can never come to understand him. Go ahead, and try and analyze the frequencies of particular constants in Shakespeare's sonnets. Will that ever provide a meaningful understanding of his role in literature? How will your logarithmic scale explain the intimacy with which Mahler creates for me images, tales, and truths about myself? Honestly, Mahler my friend, is simply beyond you.

Mahler's 3rd, not complicated enough for you! This coming from a person who is convinced that complexity should be understood quantitatively.

Why do we indugle him so?

I'm afraid you don't yet understand what my theories are about. Music is based on math. All scales, temperaments, chords, etc. are math. Haven't you realised that? Composing can be seen as utilizing the freedom there is inside the frames given by math. Beauty and ugliness are defined by the nature that works under the universal laws of physics. Evolution minimizes and maximizes parameters. As a result nature "finds" fundamental mathematical functions as the optimized solution. Mathematical people find huge beauty in math.

[Florestan]

Ever heard of freedom of speech? I can speak about any theories of mine. It is the responsibility of the readers to evaluate critically what is said.

I second that, too, except "responsibility". The readers may critically evaluate your theories, but they are under no obligation to do that.

Now, my friend, I have absolutely no argument with you. You may develop any theory you want. My only question is: what's all this got to do with Mahler? I like Mahler a lot being in the same time completely ignorant of vibrational fields and spectrum events.

[greg]

this thread is just getting to goofy 

[Cato]

I'm afraid you don't yet understand what my theories are about. Music is based on math. All scales, temperaments, chords, etc. are math. Haven't you realised that? Composing can be seen as utilizing the freedom there is inside the frames given by math. Beauty and ugliness are defined by the nature that works under the universal laws of physics. Evolution minimizes and maximizes parameters. As a result nature "finds" fundamental mathematical functions as the optimized solution. Mathematical people find huge beauty in math.

Music is based on math. You have reinvented the wheel with no obvious improvement!  I will send you to learn Ancient Greek and then to read Pythagoras and his disciples in the original.   

Beauty and ugliness are defined by the nature that works under the universal laws of physics.

Mathematics and Physics depend on absolutes: one counter-example is all you need to determine that a law is false.

So, sorry, but you cannot put a mathematical formula on the human perception of beauty or ugliness.  As soon as your formula or physical law defines ugliness in a work, all I need to do is find one person who objects to the work being defined as ugly, and your law turns to dust. 

As an extreme and unpleasant example, there was a terrible case of child abuse years ago, where the victim came to love the smell of excrement over time, aka coprophilia.  While the vast majority of humanity will reject excrement as beautiful, a coprophiliac will beg to differ.

And there are certain species where coprophagy is the norm and necessary for their survival, e.g. rabbits, but Bugs Bunny will never admit it!       Whether or not rabbits like doing that remains an unknown!

I will send you to meditate on the implications of Mandelbrot sets and Chaos Theory as they apply to the human brain!   

Allow me therefore to return us to Gustav Mahler, whose music has been called ugly and even worse epithets, but whose inspiration - like those of all artists - is not reducible to Mathematical equations!    0:)

Yesterday I cranked up my new CD of the Second Symphony with the Vienna Philharmonic and Pierre Boulez conducting.  The DGG recording is astounding, and the brass playing!!!  Incisive, breath-taking, truly apocalyptic, as is required by the score.

I await the Eighth as conducted by Boulez: any news on when this is due?

[mahlertitan]

Music is based on math.

that's a interesting claim, when i was taking epistemology,i read a few books on the matter. What i discovered was, even though there seemed to be connections between math and aesthetics, the relationship is very weak in classical music. Furthermore, you are not the first person to make this claim, many have made this claim, but have all failed to make a cogent argument, or find enough evidence to persuade anyone.

when it comes to finding evidence of mathematics in music, number juggling is what you are doing.

and no, Music is not based on math, Music is based on arithmetic.

[bwv 1080]

I started a new thread with my thoughts on the music & math topic:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,739.0.html

If it is worth pursuing, perhaps Mahler can be left out of it.

[71 dB]

I second that, too, except "responsibility". The readers may critically evaluate your theories, but they are under no obligation to do that.

Obligated in the way that if you take what I say for grain of salt you can blame only yourself.

Now, my friend, I have absolutely no argument with you. You may develop any theory you want. My only question is: what's all this got to do with Mahler? I like Mahler a lot being in the same time completely ignorant of vibrational fields and spectrum events.

In the beginning I told I don't find Mahler's music that complex. I was asked if musical complexity equals the number of note. I replied partially but the real complexity is in vibrational fields.

Musical complexity = number of notes * degree of sophistication

Degree of sophistication (I came up with this term last night. Earlier I used expression "how much music is there per note") is defined by vibrational fields in a VERY complex way. I am in the beginning of the understanding of how. It seems that we need to calculate how coherent all the vibrational fields are together, some kind of penalty function. The greater value of penalty the smaller degree of sophisticaltion.

Why is Elgar more complex than Mahler? Because Elgar's degree of sophistication is greater. The number of the notes is pretty much the same. All the math and logic in this thread is mandatory in order to explain my free thinker opinions. I am sorry about that.

[karlhenning]

Why is Elgar more complex than Mahler? Because Elgar's degree of sophistication is greater. The number of the notes is pretty much the same. All the math and logic in this thread is mandatory in order to explain my free thinker opinions. I am sorry about that.

No further questions, your honor.

[MishaK]

Ever heard of freedom of speech? I can speak about any theories of mine. It is the responsibility of the readers to evaluate critically what is said. I am planning to formulate my theories better but it takes time. Today I discovered that I will be measuring loudspeakers tomorrow. Maybe next week?

We are indeed exercising our responsibilities by holding your feet to the fire and asking you to support your fuzzy terminology with some coherent arguments.

[knight66]

You may need to put some more sensitive parts to the fire.

Mike

[71 dB]

We are indeed exercising our responsibilities by holding your feet to the fire and asking you to support your fuzzy terminology with some coherent arguments.

That's good. I could be a lunatic talking mambo jambo. I try my best withstanding the heat! 

[karlhenning]

Could be?

[JoshLilly]

"Now nobody in their right mind will think Dittersdorf, who is a good second-rate composer, at best, is more "promising" than Mahler."


I do.
I have no comments on Mahler. I'm only posting at all in response to this statement. Back to reading more.

[Steve]

Obligated in the way that if you take what I say for grain of salt you can blame only yourself.

In the beginning I told I don't find Mahler's music that complex. I was asked if musical complexity equals the number of note. I replied partially but the real complexity is in vibrational fields.

Musical complexity = number of notes * degree of sophistication

Degree of sophistication (I came up with this term last night. Earlier I used expression "how much music is there per note") is defined by vibrational fields in a VERY complex way. I am in the beginning of the understanding of how. It seems that we need to calculate how coherent all the vibrational fields are together, some kind of penalty function. The greater value of penalty the smaller degree of sophisticaltion.

Why is Elgar more complex than Mahler? Because Elgar's degree of sophistication is greater. The number of the notes is pretty much the same. All the math and logic in this thread is mandatory in order to explain my free thinker opinions. I am sorry about that.

How, my friend, could you ever quantify sophistication? Thats like quantifying the greatness of a poem or a piece of art. Certain catagories are nessecarily subjective. You can invent forumulas and term them how you'd like, but you failed to justify how it is that you can objectify these things.

While math might be integrated into the making of music, just as Geometry is essential to Cubist Paiters, it is still an art form. No one in the history of our species has every proposed a single unified objective theory of art that was uninversally accepted. You just can't do that. Next you'll be telling us that Elgar is superior to Mahler, because he has a higher perfection score, which can also be calculated.

You propose these elaborate theories without dealing with their obvious objections. Forget vibrational fields; tell me how we are to accept the notion that subjective facets of art can suddenly be quantified because you tell us they can. This is about as useless as plotting the perfection of a poem on an axis.

I'm a math major, and trust me, I am very interested in discussing the link between music and math, but I understand that while this might be an interesting project, I will never expect to be able to understand anything more about the the experience I have when I listen to Mahler, then I do now. Mahler's works are pieces of art- society has accepted for a long time that experienes of art are unique and any judgement, subjective. We start plotting the complexity of a Mahler Symphony on a graph, and we dehumanize the entire listening experience.

What you refer to "freethinking" my friend, is simply a mechanism that allows you to propose elaborate theories without the sort of critical thinking and evidenciary requirement of rigorous scientific theories.

Go ahead and continue writing more theories, but until you can deal with the question of how to create objective standards in art- a question which has puzzled every philosopher who ever wrote on the subject of asethics, than there is not point to debating you.

You can speak, by friend, but I too have the right to subject your statements to evalulation, right?

[71 dB]

Next you'll be telling us that Elgar is superior to Mahler, because he has a higher perfection score, which can also be calculated.

This "calculation" happens automatically in brain, if the brain is trained enough to do it that is. It's fuzzy logic. Calculations are simplified by allowing some errors (errare humanum est).

[Steve]

This "calculation" happens automatically in brain, if the brain is trained enough to do it that is. It's fuzzy logic. Calculations are simplified by allowing some errors (errare humanum est).

I suppose you have evidence for this?

[springrite]

Love, compassion, hatred, beauty, etc., are all math, I guess. Let's make all MIT math professors counselors, composers, artists, critics, judge, what have you. Winner of Field's Medal should be made King of the Universe, or, at least, Secretary General of the U.N.