Subject: RE: Virtual Concerto
From: Michael Rempel (Michael@VIDIR.COM)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 13:12:29 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Handelman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto
> Michael Rempel wrote:
> >I guess what I am saying is that databases CAN be an
> analytical tool to help
> >researchers explore what stuff musically hangs together as a
> first step.
> db's are useful to TEST analytical tools. Whatever 'hangs together'
> isn't something that the
> db knows anything about, and there aren't any "tools" for
> testing "what
> hangs together" -- that
> must be based either on your theory or your subjective impressions.
Granted. I mean that when subjective impressions are recorded, a database
illuminates over many iterations what generally hangs together. It is crude
statistical math for identifying a group of sophisticated notions. It has
potential to show the counter-intuitive realities that exist everywhere. In
other words it can help us to understand how our subjective impressions
For a concrete example of the kind of modeling database driven solution I am
talking about from a computer science perspective you can turn to a (free)
program called Vensim. http://www.vensim.com/ or if you prefer
http://www.systemdynamics.org for other information in the field. It is a
general purpose modeling tool that may lend itself to some musical analysis,
but I would guess that significant musicological thinking needs it's own
> >To use an analogy your general approach is the intellectual
> equivalent of
> >additive synthesis.
> That would suggest starting from some atomic unit and
> building up, which
> doesn't resonate
> here - I'm very involved with top/down bottom/up schematization, for
> instance. The basic
> complexity in music, even in simple tunes, is that they aren't linear
> phenomena, but rather massively
> parallel -- with many levels of interconnection, reflection,
> with both
> global and local pattern
> hierarchies. It's a very hard problem.
Granted. My analogy has limits. Synthesis on lots of levels is non-linear.
My notion of granularity is similarly non-linear.
I also was not trying to imply a singular level of abstraction or hierarchy.
Indeed I expect a veritable fugue of patterned fractalized interactions. By
granularity I mean that a grain could be some thingie which I don't fully
comprehend, but which is interesting. I don't pre-state if the grain is big
or small, where it fits on the hierarchy, or how I explore it. Just as with
my Synthesis analogy notion I don't explore schematization. Both are
implied. Thank you for pushing me to clarify.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:01 EST