Tuning-Math Digests messages 8626 - 8650

This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).

Contents Hide Contents S 9

Previous Next

8000 8050 8100 8150 8200 8250 8300 8350 8400 8450 8500 8550 8600 8650 8700 8750 8800 8850 8900 8950

8600 - 8625 -



top of page bottom of page down


Message: 8626

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:28:32

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> 
wrote:
> 
> > All I meant was in set theory [0,3,7] is just another trichord 
with 
> no
> > priveleged status. 
> 
> And 12 is just another equal division of the octave with no 
> priivledge status, and equal divisions are without a priveledged 
> status either.

Take that, Forteans!


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8631

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:06:46

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> > Thanks. I found a url by googling for this, which gives the 
complete
> > 351 (or 352, for the null chord is listed as number zero.)
> >
> > Table of Pitch Class Sets (Set Classes) *
20This%
> > 20Table
> 
> Interesting. I didn't know Forte's methodology could be challenged. 
After
> reading the explanation on this page, I'm still not convinced it 
can be.

I'm in complete agreement with the author of the page.

> I
> don't think introducing that kind of redundancy into the prime form 
list is
> going to do anything but create confusion. Noone said that different
> inversional and transpositional forms of prime sets sound the same, 
thats
> not the point. The point is reducibility. "Tonal" theory is a 
limiting case
> of set theory, just like Newtonian physics is a limiting case of 
relativity.
> 
> Dante

Hi Dante. I must be totally ignorant of how this 'limiting' happens, 
but what you are saying seems impossible. If Forte's methodology 
eliminates the distinction between mirror inverses, how can any 
limiting case of it possible restore that distinction?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8634

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:23:54

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Carl Lumma

>PC set theory is a science.

What does PC stand for?

-C.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8635

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:36:23

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

Since the distinction does exist in tonal theory, the analogy to 
Newtonian and relativistic gravitation, or calling tonal theory 
a 'limiting case' or 'special case' of Fortean set theory, seems 
totally wrong. In what sense is it right?

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> Hi Paul-
> 
> The distinction is not "restored", it simply doesn't exist from the
> set-theoretic perspective. Now, you may then say that this 
perspective is
> therefore useless to "explain" tonal music, which may very well be. 
But any
> music (tonal or not) can very well be >described< from a set-
theoretic
> perspective. Functional harmony, as a cultural construct, will not
> necessarily "show up" in this type of description. I find this kind 
of set
> stuff more useful for precompositional material than analysis (see 
Carter's
> "Harmony" book).
> 
> Dante
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Erlich [mailto:perlich@a...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:07 AM
> > To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: [tuning-math] Re: Enumerating pitch class sets 
algebraically
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> 
wrote:
> > > > Thanks. I found a url by googling for this, which gives the
> > complete
> > > > 351 (or 352, for the null chord is listed as number zero.)
> > > >
> > > > Table of Pitch Class Sets (Set Classes) *
> > 20This%
> > > > 20Table
> > >
> > > Interesting. I didn't know Forte's methodology could be 
challenged.
> > After
> > > reading the explanation on this page, I'm still not convinced it
> > can be.
> >
> > I'm in complete agreement with the author of the page.
> >
> > > I
> > > don't think introducing that kind of redundancy into the prime 
form
> > list is
> > > going to do anything but create confusion. Noone said that 
different
> > > inversional and transpositional forms of prime sets sound the 
same,
> > thats
> > > not the point. The point is reducibility. "Tonal" theory is a
> > limiting case
> > > of set theory, just like Newtonian physics is a limiting case of
> > relativity.
> > >
> > > Dante
> >
> > Hi Dante. I must be totally ignorant of how this 'limiting' 
happens,
> > but what you are saying seems impossible. If Forte's methodology
> > eliminates the distinction between mirror inverses, how can any
> > limiting case of it possible restore that distinction?
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
Yahoo! Terms of Service *
> >
> >


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8636

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:27:08

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >PC set theory is a science.

hrmm . . .

> What does PC stand for?
> 
> -C.

pitch-class.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8637

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:35:25

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Carl Lumma

>> >PC set theory is a science.
>
>hrmm . . .

For the record, I didn't write that bit.

>> What does PC stand for?
>> 
>> -C.
>
>pitch-class.

Thanks!

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8646

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:35:03

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Carl Lumma

[Dante]
>> > I repeat- if someone writes a piece using this equivilence,
>> > and someone else likes how it sounds, then it is relevant to
>> > the music in question.
>>
>> [Carl]
>> Actually, listener enjoyment by itself isn't justification for
>> anything.
>
> [Dante]
>I'm going to go shoot myself now.

People enjoy all sorts of things.  For an algorithmic comp. method
to be justified it should at least produce results that are distinct
from other methods.  That means listeners should be able to identify
it.  Now PC Set Theory may meet this condition, although it probably
demands some training.  I certainly have nothing against PC Set Theory
or training (fugues certainly take some training to fully appreciate).
In fact, I'd like to learn more about PC Set Theory...

() Does it generalize the serial technique, or is it different?

() Was it started/coined by Babbitt?

() Does it claim to be / is it a prescriptive (ie algo comp) process,
a descriptive process, or both?

() What's the best piece for a beginner to start with, and what
should he listen for?

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8647

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:13:05

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> I dont get it- who said 12 is anything but the system that is most 
>used? Of
> course you can generalize these methods to any edo you want.

But you're still restricted to equal divisions!


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 8648

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:14:31

Subject: Re: Enumerating pitch class sets algebraically

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Eh? I think you've got it backwards. Tonal music relates to how 
your
> > ears hear, whereas using 12 notes to the octave without reference 
to
> > he fact that 12 provides good approximations seems like an 
arbitrary
> > cultural construct.
> 
> All music is cultural construct. Its just a matter of what you're 
familiar
> with and what floats your boat.

I recommend reading this paper:

http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/CarianiNP99.pdf - Ok *

*harmony*, to a certain degree, is innate.

> If composer A writes a piece this way and listener B digs it,
> then thats all the "justification" necessary (if you're into
> justifications).

Agreed. Music speaks louder than words, theory, etc . . .


top of page bottom of page up

Previous Next

8000 8050 8100 8150 8200 8250 8300 8350 8400 8450 8500 8550 8600 8650 8700 8750 8800 8850 8900 8950

8600 - 8625 -

top of page