chris at mccormick.cx
Wed Nov 21 02:33:07 CET 2007
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:47:06AM -0600, Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
> Uhm, just the fact that the majority of musicians don't even know what
> topology is, yet their music still sounds great, is enough for me to
> believe your conjecture. All this maths talk reminds me about why I've
> started playing a lot more guitar and focusing on
> content/lyrics/melody in music.
So you're saying that if someone makes good art and they are ignorant,
then we should take their lead and try to be more ignorant? For me it
doesn't follow that if most musicians don't understand mathematics and
their music is still good, then we should all aspire to not understand
> You can get lost in the mathematics and never be able to communicate
> with an audience of anyone but geeks (self included).
Yes, I think that's true.
> Music is
> communication, so as musicians we have a responsibility to communicate
> in a language that is understood by our audiences.
Sometimes in understanding something more fully and on multiple levels,
we can deliver an artistic experience that is understood by our audiences,
or makes them dance, or moves them, even more easily and fully than if
we had less understanding.
I'm guilty of sometimes writing esoteric algorithmic maths music, but I
like to think that on those often horrible sounding explorations I gain a
greater understanding into what it takes to really make a booty shake. :)
> Of course, if you want to be bitter and elitist and feel that the
> audience needs to take a complex analysis class to 'get' your
Just because you are not interested in the conversation, or don't
understand it, doesn't mean that other people aren't interested, or
that those speaking are trying to be 'elitist'. I really think you are
imposing your own feelings onto a discussion between two other people. I
think that what Matju and Chuck were discussing was very much on topic,
and was quite interesting.
More information about the Pd-list