I`m gonna start that playlist he`s talking about. See you in 1200 years :-\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAcjV60RnRw
I liked that.
Hurts my brain! I'll try again later, I'm a bit simple right now.
The guy is talking pish. really bad maths imho.
Quote from: oldrottenhead on November 24, 2012, 02:33:24 PMThe guy is talking pish
He's not tweeting, it's YouTube
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pish (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pish)
he's talking pish http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pish
and a prime example of someone talking pish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNzWEdomKg
So cursing every second word and talking stupidly is pish? It`s sorta like ebonics.
I`ll have to tell a few people i know around here that they actually DO know how to speak a different language.
"talking pish" is not cursing it's just talking nonsense. like the math guy above.
if you followed his argument through we would all have replicas of ourselves around the world, cos there are only so many genetic combinations that dna can come up with.
Quote from: oldrottenhead on November 24, 2012, 04:23:06 PM"talking pish" is not cursing it's just talking nonsense. like the math guy above.
if you followed his argument through we would all have replicas of ourselves around the world, cos there are only so many genetic combinations that dna can come up with.
Stop talking that ungodly religion to me!! :D This is about music!
aye music. slap the math guy wi a deid fish.
The clip wasn't really about the math in my opinion, Jim. I think humankind is drawn to certain tones and there are only so many of those. And it isn't even limited to cultural influence sometimes.
And I think it's difficult for a lot of the artsies of the world to accept the fact that math is the deity of music. Its supreme ruler without question. ;D
I tried to get a picture of a supreme ruler and I got this:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VcjJ40SZ5CI/Se8_a7f6kaI/AAAAAAAAB5E/eTkt-yCYBXU/s320/Limecat.jpg)
Yeah so get up off your ath and do some math!!
And here I was thinking this thread would have 0 comments.
But 0 is a number. I'm a 0! I'm alive! :D
Quote from: Gnasty on November 24, 2012, 05:55:33 PMBut 0 is a number. I'm a 0! I'm alive! :D
Number 0 - That would be the coolest band name!
music is math but the guy is using "bad" math. music is also much more: feel, ambience, tones, sounds, instruments, space, silence, rhythm, timbre, time, location, quantum physics etc etc etc infinite combinations.
you could use the same "bad" math for digital photography and get the same wrong answer. a digital photograph is made up of 0's and 1's too but you are never gonna run out of new photos.
I understand what you say, but even the underlying principle to music, instruments, sound, delivery and the resultant quality is math. Especially modern music, but even from days of old. In order to reproduce something, it has to be measured.
I suppose if you hand made an instrument without measuring it, and made unconventional sounds with no intent of sharing them that's music, but it's more of a schizophrenic ramble at that point. I'm with you on the artistic part as that is what drives myself as well, but it only goes so far.
And the dude's point could easily be modified to fit the viewpoint of a digital camera. There are only so many pixels that will make a discernible photo - The rest will be unusable, so it narrows down the visual possibilities considerably. Permutations aren't exactly math, but they play a considerable role determining what is available and what isn't. As usable light has a measurable spectrum with no "feel" component, it would seem that photography would be easier to define mathematically than music.
I guess all that I am saying is that I don't think appying mathematics to anything is "pish". It helps us understand things better. Just like your deep study of quantum physics helps you understand things better. ;D
QuoteI guess all that I am saying is that I don't think appying mathematics to anything is "pish".
i aggree with you but the guy is using bad mathematics. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ok cool, I can buy that!!
Is he using "bad math" or making poor assumptions? I'm not saying I agree with his logic, but I think in a round about way he's giving us another way to make the mental block monster go away. In other words, he's giving just one more perspective to look at music. A perspective that may be skewed and/or distorted, but surely it isn't a bad thing to look at it a different way from time to time, is it?
I thought the guy was very interesting.
What I heard him say was even though there might be a large but finite number of songs we can write (depending on the many ways we might count them), humans don't really care and keep on writing the same songs over and over anyway.
Even though there is a massive sonic palette we might obtain our raw materials from, we stay with the familiar because that's what we like.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. Its why there is the term "popular music".
I was pleased a little while back when I played a rough demo of a song I wrote to my son and he said that it sounded like a Ron Sexsmith song. It was exactly what I was going for.
cheers,
Ian