Synestesia

[Walker T]

Most of the art music heard in concert halls nowadays is museum music. Music of composers who have been in graves for years and years.
Why? Because most people want to hear music they have been used listening before. This is a vicious circle, not so easy to be broken.
Why? Because also music institutes are museum music institutes.
Why? Because it has always been so. This is also a vicious circle, not so easy to be broken.
Why?

No, definitely I don't negatively. I visit art museum quite often as also in other museum. But usually I am attending concerts if at least one piece of living composers is played.

1: All music from dead composers is worthless. People enjoying music that's survived for centuries is 'vicious' (addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate). The study of this music is inhibiting musical development. Regardless of how many cultured and intelligent people there are that enjoy music in accordance with how it's defined today, music from dead composers is worthless. The fact that musical studies this century have produced some amazing artists is irrelevant, because the method of teaching is a result of time and development having reached a point where many parts of it are not changing drastically, and therefore the method is wrong; vicious.

The music by the old masters is worthless because they're not alive anymore.

because music doesn't have semanctics or meaning, doesn't represent anything, composers try to give some pseudomeaning to their pieces ...
Why using words having meaning when the pieces can't have any?
Yes, but why? To bluff the audience and critics?
Let the music speak, not words ?
Why composers give names for their pieces?
The purpose to tell something that the music itself can't tell.
Also is it just for marketing the piece.

Absolute music doesn't tell a story. It is more like ornaments in art. The titles give listeners a kind of context for listening the piece. Changing the name moves the listener to a different listening context and the piece may create new impressions. Many listeners erroneously think that the piece "represents" something.

2: Music has no meaning. Regardless of how many people are able to feel a certain atmosphere, emotion, scene or event based on nothing but music is irrelevant, because the name given to the musical piece is completely restricting the listener from making their own perception. Complete mind control 'bluffing the audience' and tricking them into thinking that the composer had a funeral in mind when they wrote 'Funeral March'. i.e. music has no connection to actuality. It's pointless to attempt writing music to a wordly event, because music isn't connected to the world.

Has virtuosity any aesthetic value? Singing higher, lower, playing quicker, more notes etc. Just being "better" in some kind of music sport. Music formula one, music high jumb.
I don't think so. It is just a matter of rote competitive celebrity seek. But so common in all museum music institutes.

"Huang Gongwang is a classic example of this type of VIRTUOSITY where a landscape reveals the identity of the painter through endless patterns and representative brush technique.

3: Being a performer of music is useless. The first level of virtuosity is the actual ability to play, at all. Being able to play an instrument is worthless. It's just a way to become a 'celebrity'. It's simply a sport. In other words, a competitive instinct to claim fame, not an expression of human emotion or stories etc. However, when it comes to painting, virtuosity has aesthetic value, because visual art is inherently superior.

Can computers be "creative"? It is a well known fact that some of the most original moments in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony have been the result of printers' error. Also the Finnish composer Einojuhani Rautavaara has reported that he has got some of his ideas when hitting a wrong piano key during composing. So it seems that live composers may use randomness or serendipity as a creativity tool. It is a kind of a paradox that computer music based on randomness has not been so successful. The Synestesia Software does not use randomness at all, all pieces are deterministic.

Many creative composers have developed sets of algorithms for creating their compositions. Good music must move on midway between the expected and the unexpected. Synestesia music typically does something else than expected without randomness. Professional musicians may experience this negatively as if the music would be trying to fool them. However, the pieces are not based on old clichés that are so typical especially in film music. Even professional creative composers could profit from Synestesia Software as a creativity generator.

4: Composers aren't creative. Originality in a piece by a composer comes from a mistake, human error. We humans need computers to 'generate creativity' for us. Those of us that are creative are only creative because they've used computer programming to write music for us. Composing music isn't creative because creativity is a trait restricted to computers. We humans only re-use clichés that came out of human error.

Synestesia music doesn’t use the model of tension/release/resolution but many pieces are still highly emotional. The structures and rhythms of Synestesia pieces are mainly based on the structures and colors of the pictures used for generations. Anybody can use Synestesia Software for generating music and the music will always be coherent when compositions of amateur composers may be less coherent.

Cultural museum music is perhaps a better metaphor and even more:

"Overall the results strongly support the idea that the emotional content of music is not inherent in the music, but is probably a learnt association within an particular culture. "(Gregory, 1996)
Taken from The Psychology of Music (Diana Deutch, ed.) page 768

5: Someone with no musical experience at all can use the program and instantly become a composer. 'Composer' isn't a person that creates music himself, but also one that points at a picture, hits 'OK' and watches a program do the composing for him. Also, synestesia music has emotional value, where as human composers' music's value lies in cultural upbringing.

Sometimes Synestesia music may be like semi-repetitive tapestry still having inner variability. The method is based on gravity of pitches. Perhaps that is one of the secrets of the system.

6: When the computer's pieces are repetitive, they still have 'inner variability' because they're similar to wall hangings.

Much of the enjoyment of modern art music is based on rehearing the music many times. Synestesia pieces can be perceived during first hearing.

7: It's completely impossible to enjoy modern art music without completely understanding the meaning it doesn't have. There's no enjoyment in mentally studying a piece to really hear the composer's non-existant intended representation. Listening to computer-generated music is easy. One instantly and perfectly understands the full enjoyment of the piece. There's no need to hear it again or study it. It instantly becomes a familiar classic.

The main problem at the moment for using Synestesia music is the price of the software instruments used for playing the midi files. Also the software instruments call for a powerful computer having a lot of ram.

8: EastWest and hardware manufacturers are to blame for stunting synestesia's development.

"Ideas for using Synestesia Music"

Tool for blind people for "looking" pictures or their drawings, listening structures
Listening company logos
Listening the package covers
Generating music using mobiles phones with digital camera and listening everything around
Association game: looking and listening, then describing what was going on.

9: Synestesia music is so perfect at translating pictures to music that anyone can instantly mentally picture the visual scene in their mind. They quickly deduce that the song describes the Microsoft logo in detail or a bus that's about to run them over. Synestesia music is related to the world, it does represent something, where as composers' music does nothing of the sort.

I have no need for semantics in music. I only have said that music does not have semantics if cliches are excluded.

10: The sad character of Albinoni's Adagio that so many experience says nothing about the music. Instead one guy said he thought it sounded sad and the rest of the world's population - incapable of thinking for themselves and unattaching the word 'sad' from the music - followed in line, making it not a widely accepted interpretation of the music but a cliché with inherent mind control properties.

Aha. Only "practical benefit" matters. What "practical benefits" listening music gives? If none, where composers are needed?

11: The practice of listening to music is worthless and composers are useless.

[nickysnd]

Oh man, how much did they pay you to do that?

:D

[MrAlex]

must... resist...

[dcoscina]

it's only upsetting if you buy into Software's B.S.
on general principle, I do feel compelled to give him a swat since rational discussion doesn't have any effect but all that would result in is a post like this
"Why do we feel pain? Is blood really that important inside us? Why am I getting dizzy? Does a cerebral hematoma amount to death?

Sorry, I could not resist. ;)

[persentio]

Seriously I hope this piece of software never gets up and running full-scale.

It's like a looming cloud of disaster to the music world... Sort of parallel to how religious extremist groups surface and terrorize the world / change the way the world views their religion for the worse.. :(

[Composing_automat]

Wau! Its time for me to retire from this forum... until every camera mobile phone user can listen to pictures snapped by him/her.

[Null]

Wau! Its time for me to retire from this forum... until every camera mobile phone user can listen to pictures snapped by him/her.


Yeahh....

Anyway, good luck with all that, I'm sure they'll sell like hotcakes. Goodbye.

[JaapVisser]

http://www.cs.stanford.edu/people/nuwans/docs/AMCTIES.pdf

A little more balanced document about the subject of creating "automatic" music.
In the end my opinion it is one paradox since the automatic process is defined by a human as well who created the technology and the result is that even though it automatic music, the real composing part happens to be finished at the listener. For me the final part of a composition (and doesnt matter how it is created) is how the listener organises the sounds and structures. This is a process that cannot be automatic and therefor such a thing as automatic music will always fail in its estetics.

[nikolas]

Is there a digital "vomit bag" please?

I really enjoyed a few pieces from Synesthesia, especially some kind of piano concerto, and even asked for the midi files to fix it up, only never found the time.

These polemic however are completely out of my mind set! And to think that I'm also building software for music, specifically designed for MY own needs (further info to come...)

[dcoscina]

I also went to Software's website and found the music in-offensive. Almost New-Age like. I don't think any of us invalidated his unique approach. Well, not so unique as this kind of experimentation and alteration of perception of music was done 40 years ago by my former professor of composition James Tenney. Anyhow, Software's posts just ticked me off because of how his approach was to bolster his methodology by dismissing the one I, and most of the others on this forum, adhere to in some way.

[MrAlex]

At first glance I thought the idea was kinda neat, and I am not totally opposed on some kind of rock solid philosophical grounds, I like to see people experiment and try new stuff.

But as for whether his way is better or our way is better - why does his approach have to be so "us vs them", so polarized? Software & composing automat if you're reading this, I firmly believe all people have equally valid views. You both totally irritate me by the way you ignore everything I say and pick an inane, meaningless sentence to make an inane, meaningless, provocative comment on. Despite the fact that you annoy me, I won't say you're wrong.

What annoys me, well, it is not that I "buy into" what you are saying, or that what you say hits a nerve or a soft spot. It's just your absolute refusal to give a bit of ground and say maybe, yeah, composers do have a place in the world by making music. Music helps brings joy into peoples lives, and at the very least it gives people something else to do in between living and dying. If a composer finds value in being able to see someone enjoy their piece, why would you want to deny a composer that kind of satisfaction? So you find your satisfaction in automated music creation - GREAT! I hope you have fun doing that, I'm not about to leap down your throat and tell you its stupid or meaningless. How you spend your time is up to you.

I was only ever trying to get you to say that we have a valid perspective as well. Not that it's important to me what you think.

Actually, on that though, yeah. It's not important to me what you think. Just have a great day, I hope all is well with you.

[JaapVisser]

Nice post MrAlex and I think you have a great point. It is the joy that counts. The joy of the composer to make music and the joy of the listener to pick music he likes.

I have listened very carefully to Software website already some time ago. I think it is a good thing to bring up an debate (whether it is for yourself or for a community) about these sort of questions and setups.
When I studied sonology at the Royal Conservatory of the Hague I have made a similar system with Max/ISP where I could record the heartbeat of a musician and translate that into music by connecting non-linear math formulas with all the musical parameters. The musician played live on his instrument and his heart reacted on the music played and heard by what was generated and therefor his heartbeat changed and therefor also the generated music.
My previous post was not to bash, nor to insult. I just think this debate is not as easy as it looks. If you want to compose truelly automatic music you have to face yourself a tremendous amount of questions. If you want to deny automatic music, you will face the same amount of questions before you simply can say yes or no.

After I develloped this software long time ago I moved away from it due to this reason and to the reason MrAlex is giving. It didnt give me the joy and satisfaction I was looking for.

But I want to wish all the best to Software and Automat in continueing this. Just be carefull in what you want to take away from other people.

[DallasComposer]

I also went to Software's website and found the music in-offensive. Almost New-Age like. I don't think any of us invalidated his unique approach … Software's posts just ticked me off because of how his approach was to bolster his methodology by dismissing the one I, and most of the others on this forum, adhere to in some way.


At first glance I thought the idea was kinda neat, and I am not totally opposed on some kind of rock solid philosophical grounds, I like to see people experiment and try new stuff.

But as for whether his way is better or our way is better - why does his approach have to be so "us vs them", so polarized?

I tried to stay away from this never ending thread of consciousness but some of the comments made I think really sum up what the real problem here is and that is attitude, your presentation.

I think, from what I have noticed in these threads and will venture to say in most aspects of human interaction involving dialog, conversation - morphing into debates then into arguments which in turn stirs up strong emotions and then turns into personal attacks against each other is simply attitude (presenting yourself) and could even throw in respect towards one another.

I think it would be completely different if he came into the forum, posted his music, commented about how he made it and did that in a non combative way, maybe some wouldn’t be so quick to jump all over him. Although there will always be some around that will jump all over him regardless because that’s what they like to do. But when one comes in and posts his music in a very ego driven way and makes attacks against an established history of music which is what all is built upon, offense will be taken.

So really, as I have learned countless time and time again it’s really all about how you present yourself. People will tend to ignore, criticize, distance themselves, fight, not take you seriously, the list goes on and on, when you come off with a big ego. Generally, most will not achieve any real level of success (personal and professional) presenting themselves this way. In my business which is visual creative and music I see it all the time. The ones who come in all full of themselves etc. etc., most all get chewed up and spit out. Nothing wrong in believing in yourself and your product, that is necessary for any kind of success but keep your feet on the ground, listen, learn and stay open to ideas and different views.

So, simply put, I listen to some of his tunes, some sound a bit interesting, some don’t. I have no problem with some tool he created to do it with, no big whoop. But when one comes off as I am the future of music etc etc, there’s going to be some fists flying around and also if he intends to market and sell this software this is not a very good way to generate some buzz marketing.

[SergeD]

Once in a while I lurk the VSL forum and find very acid comments from users against others users. I hope it's not gonna happen here.

SergeD

[HJS]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones by words will never hurt me ..."

Why is there so much hurt here? Shameful.

[dcoscina]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones by words will never hurt me ..."

Why is there so much hurt here? Shameful.

That's quite a charge from someone who posts here very rarely. :confused:

Perhaps it would be best to read the entire arc of this thread to see why many of us got to a point of frustration. I think it's very illustrative of Software's complete disregard for any of our POVs when many different posters with different backgrounds come together with the same reactions to his posts. I'm fine with debating myself but there has to be some equanimity which was completely absent in this and other Software started threads.

[MrAlex]

HJS - Because there is passion. Where there is passion the emotions are always stronger. Stronger highs, stronger lows.

It's OK to be different and think differently, but when someone just continues to hammer at the same old nail time and time again, with complete disregard for anything anyone has said, it gets old.

I tried a couple of gentle verbal slaps in his face to sort of, I dunno snap him out of it, after I had tried every possible avenue of reason, but no... I think just walking away from this one is the way to go.

I'm not gonna save the world on a forum.

[dcoscina]

He seemed to respond to the threat of physical violence mind you- which I find very sad. I would have figured that we have evolved to a point where we can persuade through rational discourse and not base, primal emotions. Sadly, overt mockery and mock aggression was the only thing that drew an actual response from him. Very very sad.

[Pietro]

Why do you guys keep incresing synestesia's popularity (and you all know that you do) by getting involved into all these pointless discussions?

I bet it's working beautifuly, especially seeing that it came to this, that this thread actually has name of the software in the title and is not started by it's creator itself? You get angry and spread words about it getting people interested. And you all know, that's the point of the whole mess.

- Piotr

[Kaatza_Music]

I started to write a reply to this whole debate the other day and then decided not to. I had nothing nice to say and my blood pressure was getting dangerously high. :D Music is a wonderful language, nothing can communicate emotions as quickly and effectively; otherwise what would be the point of having music in a film? Fortunately there are many on this forum who speak the language of music fluently and passionately. I did not like someone just waltzing in and bashing what we all love to do. Humility is the first step to success and happiness. Self-righteous egomaniacs I can do without.

-The Katz (with claws out)

[V o n h ö g e n]

Seriously I hope this piece of software never gets up and running full-scale. (...) It's like a looming cloud of disaster to the music world... :(


Don't worry, only people who like Lava lamps and Lightning balls will buy products such as the Sinusitis software (or whatever the name was). Why are we discussing spam, by the way?

- Jerome

398399

[nickysnd]

Walker and Piotr, I am truly impressed by your editing abilities, also by your silent fair-play! :cool:

Here's what I'd suggest: How about closing this thread (Walker, I think that would be your call, by formally asking it to a moderator) and never responding to that split-personality creature? Also, refraining from ever mentioning anything related to that? I think Piotr has a valid point about us unwillingly contributing to the spread of the sillystesia spam... Or (if you really need to), when imperiously necessary, we can use terms like Jerome's sinusitis, or like decomposing_laundrymat, suckstware, anesthesia, sillystesia, you name it :p ! But never their (his) terms and names. That entity seems to live by counting internet hits, so let's not feed the beast.

Over and out.

[Walker T]

I realised I was wrong. My apologies to both you and Piotr. Thanks for keeping me in place, nicky (hmm, what was that? Did you just edit your post? No... you wouldn't).

I will PM a moderator, so there's no point in posting here anymore.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

Rest assured we can philosophically dismiss outlandish claims. It's quite simple really. Music is about human expression. Not robots. Humans only care about human things. Go watch Solaris the movie (the newer one).

The key here is Human. I'm an Industrial designer and we have a ethos that's referred to as Human Centered Design. I actually like to balance that with Activity Centered Design, but that's off topic.

And to address a further point. If we can not tell the difference between a replication and the original, it still remains that we care about the authenticity of it. We are hardwired to want the real thing. be it music, art, sex, food,etc the drive to experience real things is hard wired.

Music relays and conveys HUMAN emotions "qualitative information" that can not be distilled. This is very reason maned missions to space will never fully end.

I could go on but you likely have got it by now.......

for the hell of it write a piece about how you feel about this thread. That'll show em!

[MrAlex]

I for one was looking to draw the terrible twins out of their binary encrusted shell in the grim hope for some kind of actual discussion about the underlying philosophy.

Seems like I was talking to a brick wall. Or, in these modern days, like talking to a fire wall.

Which makes me sad, I have to go cry now...

:D

I'm going to rack my brains for a better topic of discussion... Maybe we need something more interesting to discuss... Something controversial, so it engages us, but not so controversial as to offend us...

I'll get back to you on that.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

It seems here no one is well versed in philosophical debating. As ppl. are offended quite easily and quite emotional (as I would expect from composers and musicians). I would suggest framing questions and posing them to the group. As an exploration. This will invite more discussion. The very best dialogs I have experienced and participated in have been at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/

This site attracts scientists and intellectuals. Their tone is very different.

I do invite you to challenge any of my replies. though, please post clear topics and question to be discussed and debated.

[MrAlex]

It seems here no one is well versed in philosophical debating.

How do you justify this statement?

As ppl. are offended quite easily and quite emotional

Yes, it is the nature of people to have emotions and be offended by certain behavior one may perceive as "rude".

(as I would expect from composers and musicians)

Why would you expect this?

I would suggest framing questions and posing them to the group. As an exploration.

Thanks for the suggestion. If I can think of anything interesting, I will do so.

This will invite more discussion.

Or not, if it doesn't. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The very best dialogs I have experienced and participated in have been at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/

By what measure are the dialogs you have experienced at the referenced forum "better" than others you have experienced?

This site attracts scientists and intellectuals. Their tone is very different.

Different to whom? And in what ways?

I do invite you to challenge any of my replies. though, please post clear topics and question to be discussed and debated.

Thank you for your invitation. As I mentioned earlier if I feel that I have anything interesting to discuss or if a topic tickles my desire to expand my perspective, I may just take you up on the invitation.

[nikolas]

Vincent, I'm also versed to quetion the mentioning of the richarddawkins forums here... This is a music forum, remember, and one sponsored by EW as a matter of fact.

Despite the hot arguments (which are quite usual over the net), we are quite happy over here. Not that I, personally, I'm not looking for other places all the time (so thanks for the link), but still... :-/

[nickysnd]

It seems here no one is well versed in philosophical debating.
That is oh so true, and includes you, too. If philosophy is love for wisdom, then I hope a moderator will close this thread.

[Composing_automat]

If philosophy is love for wisdom, then I hope a moderator will close this thread.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

[nickysnd]

Theories, theories, theories - Goldman believes, Kivy thinks, Zangwill says, blah, blah, blah... Those guys can't even agree on what they are talking about, for their stiff minds are stuffed with contradictory semantics. Which is to say that their minds are musically empty, probably as empty as the stiff mind of this split-personality entity that sometimes is "decomposing_laundrymat," sometimes "sucksware."

When it comes to music, specifically to composing music, everything is simple: People who can, they do. People who can't, they talk. Usually, they talk nonsense, like most teachers, scholars, and especially musicologists. Let me remind here what Wittgenstein so aptly said: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." Or in music, if I may add. Clearly, music is something no one can talk about. So let's just pass it over in silent listening.

'nuff said. For goodness sake, one merciful moderator please close this thread.

[Composing_automat]

Usually, they talk nonsense, like most teachers, scholars, and especially musicologists.

I see.

[Thomas Regin]

I completely agree with you Nick, but I do find the following quote hilarious coming from someone who has written 1936 posts on this forum:

Clearly, music is something no one can talk about. So let's just pass it over in silent listening.

:D:D

[dcoscina]

I actually double majored in music as well as philosophy in university. I studied mostly philosophy of art as well as philosophy of language. The problem I find with a charge such as "no one here is well versed in philosophical debating" is that this is not www.Descartes.com. or www.ThomasNagel.ca. This is a forum that is populated by musicians and as such do not follow the rules of philosophical discourse. in everyday conversations there are plenty of detours, non-sequiturs, and emotionally spawned responses. I do not think it needs to be noted that we as musicians are more prone to irrational or emotional responses by virtue of the fact that we are creative people. I think part of the problem is the internet because what we type and read is bereft of the coloration of tone of voice. This leads to all sorts of misinterpretations and elevated emotional responses.

I also think that anonymity breeds a sense of aggression that we would not see if these exchanges were made in a room of people. The web has certainly leveled the playing field where dominance is concerned. A 4ft 10 inch poster can be more aggressive or assertive than a 6ft 8 inch fellow forum member. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the web is fertile ground for insecure people who might not have the best social skills because they can give into their IDs and let the comments fly with no recourse- aside from being banned which lets some off pretty lightly.

To get back to Software's posts- clearly he is pushing the envelop of the perception of music or sound as we know it. And maybe it's his lack of strong english skills that led to his posts being interpreted as one-sided arrogance. I think anyone will tell you that various posters, like Alex, Nickysnd, nikolas, myself (to a degree), and many more tried to engage Software in an attempt to spark a discussion. But it seemed pretty evident that Software was not in the business of listening to any other opinions except himself. And the fact that no one here was dumb enough to miss the fact that he was not just positing these ideas as abstract conversation pieces but rather to justify and promote his website/software, well that is what set many of us off.

Anyhow, I hope I have rationally illuminated the larger picture on the genesis of this thread. It's never a good idea though to come onto the scene halfway through and then make declarations that debase most of the forum members. I'm sure the moderators would have something to say about that kind of behavior too. :)

[dcoscina]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

I'm not sure using a quote from Plato who lived 4 centuries before Christ is relevant as music was in its infancy back then. It's use was also very different. There were no orchestras of any sort nor the multi-leveled theory system that we, er, well most of us, adhere to in some way, shape or form. So, you're taking an ideological stance that was predicated on a very different form of music at a very very different time period. I would hazard a guess that even Plato would have had different observations on the same topic if he were to be shuttled through time to present day. Any philosopher would. These types of theories ARE subject to one's current environment you know. Even if the idea posited is esoteric it still springs forth from a mind that is inhabiting a certain period of time.

[Composing_automat]

I would hazard a guess that even Plato would have had different observations on the same topic if he were to be shuttled through time to present day. Any philosopher would. These types of theories ARE subject to one's current environment you know. Even if the idea posited is esoteric it still springs forth from a mind that is inhabiting a certain period of time.

I see:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Philosophy of Music
First published Mon 22 Oct, 2007
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

[nickysnd]

I completely agree with you Nick, but I do find the following quote hilarious coming from someone who has written 1936 posts on this forum:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickysnd
Clearly, music is something no one can talk about. So let's just pass it over in silent listening.

:D:D
You have a point Tom - and your point is, as I see it: Out of context, and relating it to the number of my posts, I admit that it may appear hilarious to you. However, try to see my point in itself (as opposed to seeing it as "mine," as coming from "me"). Also, try to consider it in its context, for it was an obvious wink to Wittgenstein's quote: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." Which I consider as applying very well to music.

[Composing_automat]

http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=5421
I would say: No, *we* did not.
And I'd explain my answer: because besides music there's nothing in a piece of music. So if one forgets about music, what would there be left then? In a piece of music there is always music. How can one forget about music when one's doing music? What could lead him/her astray in such a dgree that he/she might forget about music?
---
For example: my view is that there's no emotion(s) in a piece of music other than the emotion(s) that one particular listener or another might (involuntarily) put inside it. I mean - a composer cannot put sadness, or joy, or anger, in his piece.


I see !

[V o n h ö g e n]

It seems here no one is well versed in philosophical debating. (...)
The very best dialogs I have experienced and participated in have been at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/


The best dialogues I have ever experienced are those written by Plato. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry to hear that we have disappointed you. You are right, we should have showed more interest in evolutionary biology and atheism. Please, accept my apologies!


http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/
This site attracts scientists and intellectuals. Their tone is very different.


Yeah right, as long as you are not a creationist (which I am not, b.t.w.)! :rolleyes:

Vincent, contrary to what you think, this forum attracts scientists and intellectuals as well. The same goes for one of my other favourite forums, http://www.fencing.net/forums/, which is where the online fencing community meets. The forum now has about 300.000 posts, but I can't remember seeing any post or thread which started an intellectual philosophical debate. I never discussed MIDI-related issues over there either. This forum is about East West's products and it's users, not about evolutionary biology, if I may say so.

- Jerome

400
This is me (on the left) training for a tournament. Any other fencing composer out there who'd like to start a thread on sabre fencing and East West sample libraries with me? ;)

[dcoscina]

I see:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Philosophy of Music
First published Mon 22 Oct, 2007
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

I see. So you're that guy in Good Will Hunting after all. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter or will you continue to simply insert links of other people's ideas to counter my ideas (which are my own BTW)? Are you some intellectual lemming that simply follows whatever abstract notion that sounds infallible enough to withstand criticism to bolster your own sense of self worth? I would really like it if you at least responded and articulated yourself to one of my points. Otherwise, I fear that you are nothing but a series of "if than go to" commands on some algorithmic computer program that was designed by someone at VSL to incite and piss us off. ;)

[dcoscina]

400
This is me (on the left) training for a tournament. Any other fencing composer out there who'd like to start a thread on sabre fencing and East West sample libraries with me? ;)



I could start a thread on the discussion of martial arts and East West samples! ;)
Wing Chun meets Platinum Pro XP! Tang So Dan's impact on Symphonic Choirs! How the 5 animal strikes in Shaolin Kung Fu remind me of the different sections of the orchestra (minus 1 of course, heh heh).

Actually, I composed a piece in university that was based on a formal logic equation since I was studying philosophy and music composition at the same time. It was weird but a neat idea.

[Pietro]

I see !

http://adamhumphrey.net/images/portfolio/eyeball_sea.jpg

- Piotr

[Kaatza_Music]

http://kaatzamusic.com/images/leon_sword.jpg

MUSICAL-ROBOT KILLER!!

Kung Fu: one of my hobbies :D

-The Katz

[dcoscina]

http://kaatzamusic.com/images/leon_sword.jpg

MUSICAL-ROBOT KILLER!!

Kung Fu: one of my hobbies :D

-The Katz

Cool! What form do you study? Wushu? Shaolin? Wing Chun? Ving Tsun? Jeet Kune Do?

I'm getting into Wing Chun after having studied Kung Fu and Tae Kwon Do a while back.

[Kaatza_Music]

This is getting a little OT :)

Shou' Shu' Kung Fu
Here is a link about our form http://www.shengchikungfu.com/shou_shu.
It is based on the fighting styles of 7 animals: Bear, Tiger, Mongoose, Crane, Preying Mantis, Cobra and Dragon.

-The Katz

[Walker T]

Seems like this thread has turned into a general discussion topic; anything goes. We have some martial artists, some musicians, some philosophers, a fencer and a dude that sees.

[dcoscina]

How about those New England Patriots? Yeah, I know, just stirring the pot. ;)

To get things back on topic, or at least music related, I think I'll compose an Overture for them when they win the Superbowl.

[Composing_automat]

Actually, I composed a piece in university that was based on a formal logic equation since I was studying philosophy and music composition at the same time. It was weird but a neat idea.

I see:
http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/?cat=37

[Walker T]

I see:
http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/?cat=37

Nobody cares (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nobody_cares)

[Vincent Bergbahn]

I was merely remarking on the tone of this forum. (not the topics) Nothing more. It's just a bit more emotional than the other forums I go to. Walker T seemed to have nailed it "with the anything goes on this thread comment".

Earlier on I spoke about how to deal with the odd comments that started this thread. I thought they would be helpful to some. Please read them i you haven't.

Anyways I here b/c I use and love EW stuff and I'm just itching to get the new PLAY versions of EWQLSO & CHIORS.