Some thoughts on Foundation of Rhythm Theory
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
The drummer in that video is talking about pulse. The Black Page is about interest vis a vis the pulse. The problem of disregarding 'in the time of' which has brought psychological terms into the discussion is founded in that discussion. So, if it is your position that any number (I chose 11 deliberately) is going to ultimately come out in a wash vis a vis, let's go with 4/4, I have to disagree.
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
By ideally I mean that a polyrhythm actually can be played in such way that it is ambigious, which he partly does in my ears. You may not like ambiguity and may not think it is musical, but to me it is. Song over. Now plz get off my back. If you cannot use what I am proposing leave it be. Others might.jancivil wrote:No, it isn't about 'me' being right. There is material here which you could learn from, but no.IncarnateX wrote:projection
"Ideally" ie., 'objectively' or as I put it 'the machine, flatly' doing that 3:4 or what-have-you is not musical activity. When you show the drummer emphasizing, or 'priming', that shows what I was saying, it's the opposite of 'ideally'. He said 'where I'm coming from', which only refutes 'arbitrarily'. Your argument here is ad hominem and not more.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Ok, let's take a musical example: America, Bernstein/Sondheim.woggle wrote: I wouldn't really consider playing 11:7 or even 4:3 or 3:2 as particularly rhythmical in nature, they're just exercises one might set. You really need to be playing something much more musically subtle than simple ratios to get a rhythm of actual interest.
I want to be in A mer i ca. The two feel of 6/8 directly followed by the three feel of it.
The very fact of the hemiola is the interest here. It's straightforward. Of course we're talking about music when music happens.
My point w. "11" is that there is a point where 'in the time of' has to be the most meaningful thing to say.
Last edited by jancivil on Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Well, if you chose to read what I write you would know that I get that. That type of remark is not responsive to what's happened here. It is not my position that 'ambiguity is not musical'. (My position is that there is a point where 'this in the time of that' - ie., vis a vis the pulse - is the most meaningful thing to say. You asserted there can be no pulse, except "arbitrarily". I took exception.)IncarnateX wrote: by ideally I mean that a polyrhythm actually can be played in such way that it is ambigious, whch he partly does in my eats. You may not like ambiguity and may not think it is musical, but to me it is. Song over. Now plz get off my back. If you canot use what I am proposing leave it be. Others might.
If you're having a bad time of things, I'm sorry. This is not me on your back any more than you on mine.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Here is a prime example of cross-rhythm.
We could indeed begin to follow the other line(s) of thought and enjoy some ambiguity, actually the whole interest is in this floating above the groove aspect, but the thought is what it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSgqfsiNmsk
This thing was originally a live guitar solo over a different basis. I believe it will have scanned as you see in the transcription Vai made (third page of it per these pages) against 3/4 (I know that he described it in terms of 3/4):
But then FZ extrapolated that and had the band do a 4/4 which he overlaid the solo over in order to scan in a completely new way, to make a new composition with this title. So, the idea is that 'this scans thusly'.
In either case: see the original, the 4:3 and 5:2 etc are not ambiguous. This is the one meaningful way to notate it per that 3/4. The idea is what it is, perception of it is a secondary thing. There in the recording is the band keeping 4/4 time while the solo (which is doubled by mallet perc., Vai on guitar, and bass clarinet) goes on out there and that is measured on its level. Here a new transcription is going to have to account for it anew, because of the different underlying pulse. (Also, here is proof of concept of something going over the bar while the bar retains its meaning completely. Because there is an actual solid ground.)
We can have this idea be what it is.
I found it kind of galling to find a lot of sophistry trying to make what I wanted to show seem like a lot of nothing. I don't owe you anything here. If you're going to argue a point expect to be in an argument. We're at cross-purposes, I was interested in a thing and you went to dismiss it, with a lot of empty language. Who would enjoy that?
We could indeed begin to follow the other line(s) of thought and enjoy some ambiguity, actually the whole interest is in this floating above the groove aspect, but the thought is what it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSgqfsiNmsk
This thing was originally a live guitar solo over a different basis. I believe it will have scanned as you see in the transcription Vai made (third page of it per these pages) against 3/4 (I know that he described it in terms of 3/4):
But then FZ extrapolated that and had the band do a 4/4 which he overlaid the solo over in order to scan in a completely new way, to make a new composition with this title. So, the idea is that 'this scans thusly'.
In either case: see the original, the 4:3 and 5:2 etc are not ambiguous. This is the one meaningful way to notate it per that 3/4. The idea is what it is, perception of it is a secondary thing. There in the recording is the band keeping 4/4 time while the solo (which is doubled by mallet perc., Vai on guitar, and bass clarinet) goes on out there and that is measured on its level. Here a new transcription is going to have to account for it anew, because of the different underlying pulse. (Also, here is proof of concept of something going over the bar while the bar retains its meaning completely. Because there is an actual solid ground.)
We can have this idea be what it is.
I found it kind of galling to find a lot of sophistry trying to make what I wanted to show seem like a lot of nothing. I don't owe you anything here. If you're going to argue a point expect to be in an argument. We're at cross-purposes, I was interested in a thing and you went to dismiss it, with a lot of empty language. Who would enjoy that?
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Additionally:
7:9 is what it is. There is no ambiguity in this idea. There is no other way to convey the idea that's worth doing. The point I made before is that once you start to elaborate it, you follow the coherence of the idea, there is [per your efforts to go for '22' before] no 63:anything. If you elaborate the 7 (I prefer 14) or the 9 - here the 7 does a 4:3 inside that larger object - you go with the 7 or the 9. There is no problem to get rid of.
7:9 is what it is. There is no ambiguity in this idea. There is no other way to convey the idea that's worth doing. The point I made before is that once you start to elaborate it, you follow the coherence of the idea, there is [per your efforts to go for '22' before] no 63:anything. If you elaborate the 7 (I prefer 14) or the 9 - here the 7 does a 4:3 inside that larger object - you go with the 7 or the 9. There is no problem to get rid of.
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
First of all, this is for the public and not for Jan (at all). It is my way to compensate for the mess we ended up with earlier. Jan can write anything to it that fits him (or not) and then the rest of you may judge for yourself.
What I want is to present some psychological reasons for the view that every piece of music is ambiguous in one sense or another.
Let us first consider some common sense phenomena:
1. You hear a piece of music several times. First time you especially note a singer’s voice. Next time you especially note a lovely synth-sound in the chords and next time again you notice the bass. It seems like you can hear it again and again and notice different aspects each time. Have you ever experienced this?
2. A dance tune starts with a bass figure. You hear it as being on-beat because there is no pulse preceding it. But then the bass drum kicks in. For a short time you are getting confused: First it sounds like the drum is off-beat but shortly thereafter it “falls into place”, you now hear the bass-drum on-beat and the bass-line off-beat, which changes your perception of the introduced bass figure. Have you ever experienced this?
3. You “hear” a pleasant song. You like both the verse and chorus, but afterwards you can only remember the chorus or maybe even parts of the chorus only. Have you ever experienced this?
Such phenomena are easily explained in terms of limitations of our working memory and attention span. Once cognitive psychologist thought we could have 7 +/- 2 units at the same time in our consciousness (e.g. 5-9 words). Later research has shown that we are talking about much less, 3-4 units at best. When this capacity is exceeded, the brain has to choose and reduce the information. One strategy our brain uses is to “chunk”. That is it takes several units and groups this into a new whole unit. This principle applies when grouping letters into words or grouping the digits in a phone-number or when an expert of chess groups several series of moves into one move, or a memory expert groups several units to remember into a story about them.
Applied to music this means that once we are in a situation where more than 3-4 things (voices, instruments, beats ect.) are presented to our consciousness, our brains are forced to choose which elements to chunk (e.g. all the instrumental parts chunked into “backing music”) and which to extract individually (e.g. the melody). In terms of Gestalt psychology one would speak of figure-ground relationships and the reversal of such. In cognitive psychological terms we would speak of “selective attention”.
Further, since the music you hear at a given time is limited by the time by which your working memory can hold on to information, we NEVER hear a whole piece of music in the experienced “here and now”. The thing we hear at a given time will fade in working-memory as new information enters. Thus in the middle of a tune you do not concretely “hear” the beginning of the tune because this part has faded from the present “now” long time ago. However, early phenomenological theories in the tradition from Edmund Husserl have dealt with this phenomena because we somehow still perceive the tune as a whole. According to phenomenology, the reason for this is that our consciousness still has a trace of what "just happened”(called “retention”) as part of the present now and further that it also anticipates “what is going to happen next” in the present now (called "protention") -like when you anticipate the next chord in a presented cadence. That means that we do not just experience the present stimulation as is but in the context of present and future. From a cognitive psychological perspective, this also means that the actual perception in the now-phase is dependent on what our working-memory noticed in the preceding now and what our brain expects to happen next. These aspects can be highly individual of course and even change the next time we hear the same piece of music. When our perceptual anticipations are effected by previous stimulation or manipulated on purpose, we talk about “priming”.
For these reasons alone, it is sane to claim that all music is ambiguous to the brain in the sense that is has to make a lot of choices relative to the complexity of the music. If you make minimal techno you are probably not forcing so many choices as with a symphony but this is a difference in degree and not kind.
When talking about poly-rhythms, there is a great potential for ambiguity of course. Take a simple 6 against 4. Ideally you can perceive it 1) with 4 as base 2) with 6 as base 3) as a whole -a chunk- containing both or as 4) a mixture in which all these elements replaces each other over time. Whether you experience one or the other will depend on the extent of priming. Among such factors we find: Cultural and personal preferences, training, what you have listened to just before you hear the rhythm and not at least cues to what to perceive that can be given by the player (as per former example). So just to get all this right from a psychological perspective: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNAMBIGIOUS MUSIC! You can never extract what exactly will be perceived from a sheet alone. It will only be a draft for various and infinite interpretations. AND THIS IS NO BAD THING, on the contrary: It is the wonderful premise for endless reinterpretations of old works, may they be individually or collectively interpreted. If this was not the case, we would cease to get aroused by a given work much sooner than we actually do (what is called “habituation” in cognitive psychological terms).
Cheers and Merry Christmas
What I want is to present some psychological reasons for the view that every piece of music is ambiguous in one sense or another.
Let us first consider some common sense phenomena:
1. You hear a piece of music several times. First time you especially note a singer’s voice. Next time you especially note a lovely synth-sound in the chords and next time again you notice the bass. It seems like you can hear it again and again and notice different aspects each time. Have you ever experienced this?
2. A dance tune starts with a bass figure. You hear it as being on-beat because there is no pulse preceding it. But then the bass drum kicks in. For a short time you are getting confused: First it sounds like the drum is off-beat but shortly thereafter it “falls into place”, you now hear the bass-drum on-beat and the bass-line off-beat, which changes your perception of the introduced bass figure. Have you ever experienced this?
3. You “hear” a pleasant song. You like both the verse and chorus, but afterwards you can only remember the chorus or maybe even parts of the chorus only. Have you ever experienced this?
Such phenomena are easily explained in terms of limitations of our working memory and attention span. Once cognitive psychologist thought we could have 7 +/- 2 units at the same time in our consciousness (e.g. 5-9 words). Later research has shown that we are talking about much less, 3-4 units at best. When this capacity is exceeded, the brain has to choose and reduce the information. One strategy our brain uses is to “chunk”. That is it takes several units and groups this into a new whole unit. This principle applies when grouping letters into words or grouping the digits in a phone-number or when an expert of chess groups several series of moves into one move, or a memory expert groups several units to remember into a story about them.
Applied to music this means that once we are in a situation where more than 3-4 things (voices, instruments, beats ect.) are presented to our consciousness, our brains are forced to choose which elements to chunk (e.g. all the instrumental parts chunked into “backing music”) and which to extract individually (e.g. the melody). In terms of Gestalt psychology one would speak of figure-ground relationships and the reversal of such. In cognitive psychological terms we would speak of “selective attention”.
Further, since the music you hear at a given time is limited by the time by which your working memory can hold on to information, we NEVER hear a whole piece of music in the experienced “here and now”. The thing we hear at a given time will fade in working-memory as new information enters. Thus in the middle of a tune you do not concretely “hear” the beginning of the tune because this part has faded from the present “now” long time ago. However, early phenomenological theories in the tradition from Edmund Husserl have dealt with this phenomena because we somehow still perceive the tune as a whole. According to phenomenology, the reason for this is that our consciousness still has a trace of what "just happened”(called “retention”) as part of the present now and further that it also anticipates “what is going to happen next” in the present now (called "protention") -like when you anticipate the next chord in a presented cadence. That means that we do not just experience the present stimulation as is but in the context of present and future. From a cognitive psychological perspective, this also means that the actual perception in the now-phase is dependent on what our working-memory noticed in the preceding now and what our brain expects to happen next. These aspects can be highly individual of course and even change the next time we hear the same piece of music. When our perceptual anticipations are effected by previous stimulation or manipulated on purpose, we talk about “priming”.
For these reasons alone, it is sane to claim that all music is ambiguous to the brain in the sense that is has to make a lot of choices relative to the complexity of the music. If you make minimal techno you are probably not forcing so many choices as with a symphony but this is a difference in degree and not kind.
When talking about poly-rhythms, there is a great potential for ambiguity of course. Take a simple 6 against 4. Ideally you can perceive it 1) with 4 as base 2) with 6 as base 3) as a whole -a chunk- containing both or as 4) a mixture in which all these elements replaces each other over time. Whether you experience one or the other will depend on the extent of priming. Among such factors we find: Cultural and personal preferences, training, what you have listened to just before you hear the rhythm and not at least cues to what to perceive that can be given by the player (as per former example). So just to get all this right from a psychological perspective: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNAMBIGIOUS MUSIC! You can never extract what exactly will be perceived from a sheet alone. It will only be a draft for various and infinite interpretations. AND THIS IS NO BAD THING, on the contrary: It is the wonderful premise for endless reinterpretations of old works, may they be individually or collectively interpreted. If this was not the case, we would cease to get aroused by a given work much sooner than we actually do (what is called “habituation” in cognitive psychological terms).
Cheers and Merry Christmas
Last edited by IncarnateX on Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2357 posts since 24 Nov, 2012
I would add hat the system is also biased or constrained to privilege certain solutions as more probable. Diana Deutsch http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=101 is a nice starting point to investigate musical illusions which shed light on the biases in the system. It is quite some time since I looked at this area and have now found a whole bunch of articles on bistability in auditory streaming. Auditory scene analysis is another phrase worth putting into google scholar.
Here looks a good intro all round http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237025/
Here looks a good intro all round http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237025/
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
Very relevant links @woogle. Thanks for the back up! Deutsch is an angel and probably one of very few who has made the relation between music and psychology a study for life. She is a good starting point for everything in this area.
Cheers
Cheers
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
*her*.IncarnateX wrote:First of all, this is for the public and not for Jan (at all).
Jan can write anything to it that fits him...
So while my suggestion that arguing about something you weren't really interested wasn't advisable was too "agressive", you make this gesture as if I'm to be stopped from addressing the things in the post?
IncarnateX wrote:aggressive...
IncarnateX wrote: you're a [...] piece of shit
___________________________________IncarnateX wrote: projection
alrighty then.
So in fact you agree with me that "ideally" - abstractly, flatly, it's all the same to your sequencer - is not the same thing as music in practice, in life. It suited you to present my statement as something to ridicule, one of these truisms I pull out of my ass. Nice.IncarnateX wrote: When talking about poly-rhythms, there is a great potential for ambiguity of course. Take a simple 6 against 4. Ideally you can perceive it 1) with 4 as base 2) with 6 as base 3) as a whole -a chunk- containing both or as 4) a mixture in which all these elements replaces each other over time. Whether you experience one or the other will depend on the extent of priming.
/sicIncarnateX wrote: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNAMBIGIOUS MUSIC!
Whatever. My actual position is that in such an idea as I subsequently illustrated I think beyond any doubt, there is a basic pulse over which another thing crosses, and one of them has to be the basic pulse. In certain cases; as I chose with some deliberation the example "11 in the time of [a duple base]" towards. Another:
As one of the more extreme cases. The ground is 6/4; 23 never lines up. The ground is established in 6/4. The 23 is what it is. The idea is what it is.
In all of these cases, the interest is in how this scans against that, against a pulse.
The example of nesting triplets: I do agree that this drummer had primed it, he was making a point of it; so that now the hihat seems to be the extra interest. I agree that is ambiguous and I wouldn't want to state a certainty that if it was 'flat' what I would think, but I lean towards my own bias as you suggest here.
So of course it's not all this one thing. I would suggest that practically everybody hearing Sinister Footwear III follows the 4/4 as what it is, music with a backbeat in fact, and practically everyone will find the melody line 'floating over top'. It's a little like saying there can be no background and foreground visually. I find this emphasis on pychology, esp as these generalized & even overarching statements, smacks of sophistry per the context here.
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
Well you have had your saying Jan. Hope it makes you feel better. For my part I have not really tried to follow you from the point where you went patronizing, which is the context in which I called you an aggressive piece of shit. I stick to that remark. I do not like getting "taught by force".You may be right about 11/2 being an exception to my approach but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I have practised this approach for two decades and I am not going to stop now. There is no longer any doubt to me that in your own eyes you are a kind of God in these music theory forums punishing those that disagrees with you or just do not follow you with patronizing remarks (like claiming I am bulshitting or fabricating problems) . As a God no one can teach you of course and if they try, you willl desparately try to twist everything they say into pure nonesense instead of trying to make sense of it. But as you see, in this case it will be a hard job, because a collegue actually agrees with me.
And for the record: When I say ideally, I usually mean hypothetically and these hypotheses can indeed be tested empirically and have a lot to do with actual musical practise. Those options I lined up in 6 against 4 are actually what we as students reported to hear, when I learned this shit 20 years ago. It is not a distant abstraction. And you know exactly what I meant with the sequencer example, namely that they do not take hints from sheets with regard to the feeling of rhythms but humans very likely do. I have not contradicted this point as far as I know. And BTW: Programming sequencers is also a musical practise and not an abstraction. If you are trying to tell me you cannot play a polyrhyhtm in a neutral way, I disagree. Take my example and start it after his intro hi-hat. From this point you can reverse it in your own mind by will (if you are not too biased yourself).
And for the record: When I say ideally, I usually mean hypothetically and these hypotheses can indeed be tested empirically and have a lot to do with actual musical practise. Those options I lined up in 6 against 4 are actually what we as students reported to hear, when I learned this shit 20 years ago. It is not a distant abstraction. And you know exactly what I meant with the sequencer example, namely that they do not take hints from sheets with regard to the feeling of rhythms but humans very likely do. I have not contradicted this point as far as I know. And BTW: Programming sequencers is also a musical practise and not an abstraction. If you are trying to tell me you cannot play a polyrhyhtm in a neutral way, I disagree. Take my example and start it after his intro hi-hat. From this point you can reverse it in your own mind by will (if you are not too biased yourself).
Last edited by IncarnateX on Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 169 posts since 23 Nov, 2009 from South Korea
I'm gonna add few of my thinkings here.
It all sounds like jazz rhythm theory which nobody understood fully but now I do by reading all the comments.
So from there I was able to think of few things.
My first idea was to implement NO TEMPORITY WITHIN TEMPO.
Poly rhythm got there so think about e(Nature Number) : 4 tempo.
And, Nature Number E could be implemented as log(e). So, infinitely wierd tempo could be implemented finitely.
It kind of looks like, Tempo Inside the Tempo.
So, 8 Beat usually does not mean there is only 8 beats, but cut off 16 beats and 32 beats are there too.
So, 8 Beat is 8 Beat just that inside one beat of 8 beat, there is 2 beats inside one beat, tempo'ed differently inside that one beat.
So, polyrhythm kind of implements it rightly on the score, but not musically because in brain science degree 17 and degree 18 has different neurons but not only that there are degree calculator neuron inside brain too.
So, polyrhythm and Tempo Inside the Tempo is all used in music. So, music has many faces and there are more theories about rhythm too so I'm going to rest here.
That's all everyone. Goodnight.
PS. Now, think of pi : 4. How do we implement it? I kind of can play it maybe...
It all sounds like jazz rhythm theory which nobody understood fully but now I do by reading all the comments.
So from there I was able to think of few things.
My first idea was to implement NO TEMPORITY WITHIN TEMPO.
Poly rhythm got there so think about e(Nature Number) : 4 tempo.
And, Nature Number E could be implemented as log(e). So, infinitely wierd tempo could be implemented finitely.
It kind of looks like, Tempo Inside the Tempo.
So, 8 Beat usually does not mean there is only 8 beats, but cut off 16 beats and 32 beats are there too.
So, 8 Beat is 8 Beat just that inside one beat of 8 beat, there is 2 beats inside one beat, tempo'ed differently inside that one beat.
So, polyrhythm kind of implements it rightly on the score, but not musically because in brain science degree 17 and degree 18 has different neurons but not only that there are degree calculator neuron inside brain too.
So, polyrhythm and Tempo Inside the Tempo is all used in music. So, music has many faces and there are more theories about rhythm too so I'm going to rest here.
That's all everyone. Goodnight.
PS. Now, think of pi : 4. How do we implement it? I kind of can play it maybe...
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
So you were just trolling. Fantastic. You win. Now get a life and a purpose with it.
Time for a lock, Mods.
Time for a lock, Mods.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Your characterization of 'went patronizing' is in itself obnoxious and quite a lot less generous than I had been.IncarnateX wrote:Well you have had your saying Jan. Hope it makes you feel better. For my part I have not really tried to follow you from the point where you went patronizing, which is the context in which I called you an aggressive piece of shit. I stick to that remark.
HERE is what you must mean:
For the rest, you have lost me to an extent where I do not find it useful to continue. In the end we are talking about subjective preferences to subjective matters
I found 'you have lost me' and then acting as though you're opting out of an argument that you'd established, which had no good point kind of obnoxious, as it followed a dismissal, non-responsive dismissal of my point. You have this pet premise and once I went to show, not just you but anyone that might have interest, what a certain type of cross rhythm IS, you went to try and get rid of it. I was annoyed a bit by that gesture, and I don't think my mind is changed upon reflection. I think 'Hope it makes you feel better' very childish, additionally.No, why would it be about 'me'? Musicians should not have that problem. You're fabricating a problem as a consequent of your solution. Which serves to avoid understanding. A hemiola type of emphasis of congruent counts is not the problem of cross-rhythm. You don't want to know about this type of cross-rhythm just say that.
If you can't follow it, you'd do better not to fatuously argue about it.
I'm wearing gloves fitted with marshmallows in my last post, going to take them off now. I think your premise is facile, and it's silly to cherish it to the extent it's some overarching truism. I think you have your head up your ass in a huge way in this thread. I think you've been meaner here than I ever could be. It's not the first time, either. Check yourself.
"Time for a lock". Oh sure, 'you piece of shit' was no issue. JESUS.
There is hardly any moderation here now, evidently.
Last edited by jancivil on Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
THIS
You have done this throughout, distorted my statements in order to be disagreeable and to slant the thing towards you can never be wrong, because your first principle is so perfect to you. (Surely you know that strawmanning is a type of fallacy?)
Justas you took a statement you show you actually agree with and present it for ridicule. <"Ideally" isn't a musical idea> was how I'd put it.
<abstractly/flatly/mechanically> isn't working with it in life, 4 vs 6 or what-have-you "Ideally" doesn't further any discussion. What you did is present a pet premise dogmatically. And then you grant that your proof of it was primed, psychologically speaking. I said that, maybe as flatly presented I would find *that* ambiguous still, but I might bias towards the hihat. Don't know, but I feel sure I was primed to find that very ambiguity. I think it's an interesting point anyway and I said so. One cannot be more generous than that.
Now, you have to give me this facile reading of psychology as if it absolutely slams it down my throat, in all caps 'there is no music that's not ambiguous'.
That reads as a silly thing to me. No, when the rhythm section is very obviously doing a rock beat under the explorations of this other thing, floating and for significant stretches not agreeing with the beats, the sold 4/4 is not ambiguous.
So at the end of the day, your argumentation is pretty crap. Sorry if you're too childish to ever grant any other view on it, that's what I think.
What is wrong with you? I already said I agree that that presentation left me with 'that was ambiguous'. I said one can take the floating over the top quality in the Zappa soloing as an ambiguity and enjoy that. I would further say that the 23 [the famous feature of the composition "T'Mershi Duween"] has two, perhaps even equal times going and I believe that to do the 23 - which is a very sturdy lick, very solidly the primary idea - means essentially you'd DO 23 as though a kind of time signature. And the bass and drums have to be focused and independent of it. In perception, there will probably be a certain ambiguity. But the IDEA is what it is. You didn't want to know about 11 in the time of, even as I showed its basis in notation. The thing is in 4/4, there is no 22. That was actually completely incompetent to even bring that in, and it showed you were faking it rather than thinking about it.IncarnateX wrote: Take my example and start it after his intro hi-hat. From this point you can reverse it in your own mind by will (if you are not too biased yourself).
You have done this throughout, distorted my statements in order to be disagreeable and to slant the thing towards you can never be wrong, because your first principle is so perfect to you. (Surely you know that strawmanning is a type of fallacy?)
Justas you took a statement you show you actually agree with and present it for ridicule. <"Ideally" isn't a musical idea> was how I'd put it.
<abstractly/flatly/mechanically> isn't working with it in life, 4 vs 6 or what-have-you "Ideally" doesn't further any discussion. What you did is present a pet premise dogmatically. And then you grant that your proof of it was primed, psychologically speaking. I said that, maybe as flatly presented I would find *that* ambiguous still, but I might bias towards the hihat. Don't know, but I feel sure I was primed to find that very ambiguity. I think it's an interesting point anyway and I said so. One cannot be more generous than that.
Now, you have to give me this facile reading of psychology as if it absolutely slams it down my throat, in all caps 'there is no music that's not ambiguous'.
That reads as a silly thing to me. No, when the rhythm section is very obviously doing a rock beat under the explorations of this other thing, floating and for significant stretches not agreeing with the beats, the sold 4/4 is not ambiguous.
So at the end of the day, your argumentation is pretty crap. Sorry if you're too childish to ever grant any other view on it, that's what I think.
Last edited by jancivil on Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
