Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: music by numbers




>perhaps it does help to know how sound is generated, etc. but i state that
>it doesn't hurt to not know.
>
>ah, beer.  makes the conversation much...more...zzzzzzzzzzz
>
>-jim


cheers. That's what I mean. Some people make beautiful music not bothered 
by musical theory, some people spend a lifetime analyzing and theorizing 
about cents and comma's (e.g. Harry Partch), and I am not interested in 
discussing which way is best, in terms of ethics or esthaetics. To me it's 
a matter of means to an end.

To illustrate my fascination for fysical patterns in sound generation I 
will give an example. I am interested in sounds which vary not only in 
pitch or volume but also in quality, like different vowels in vocals. A 
wah 
pedal does this for guitar. But how can I do this with an acoustical 
instrument, without the help of electronics? For trumpet and trombone this 
can be done with various damping devices, by which you actually 
change  fysical dimensions of the bell. I wanted to see if this can be 
done 
for a reed instrument. Acoustical theory helped me to devise a reed 
instrument with a resonator for each note. The formant of each resonator 
can still be altered by covering and uncovering the holes. Is this science 
or music? Again, I don't mind how you call it; I'm just pleased with the 
sounding result, quite different from any other instrument. And I am 
fascinated by the fact that sounds can be visualised, in waveforms by 
means 
of an oscilloscope, or with spectral analysis. It effectively supports 
understanding of acoustical theory, which in turn shows why certain 
experiments work and others don't. It feeds my fantasies about sound 
dissociated from their traditional propagators, the existing instruments. 
It's just part of my toolbox.

By the way, numbers were implicit in music long before maths were 
invented. 
Anthropologists have found primitive societies where the concept of time 
is 
non-existent. But they did not find societies without music. And where 
music is, there is rhythm, and scales, with fixed intervals. Obviously 
musicians can play with scrutinous precision to the rhythms and scales 
whether or not they are interested in visual representation. The fact is 
that the musical mind loves to hear repetition in well-defined portions of 
time and pitch. Musical theorists (e.g. Pythagoras) have analysed these 
patterns and described them in terms of numbers, and in turn influenced 
musical practice by refining and promoting their theory. This dialectical 
process is of course still going on these days. Please note I am not 
suggesting only theorists contribute to the development of music, I merely 
state they can contribute to it.

Katja.