tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300053268224811025.post1075090343073817411..comments2023-10-29T09:12:20.913-04:00Comments on The Future of Classical Music: Information theory for connecting with audiencesIJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11302686657198035607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300053268224811025.post-2615425806184380902007-10-15T13:10:00.000-04:002007-10-15T13:10:00.000-04:00Yes, I agree that aesthetic value cannot be measur...Yes, I agree that aesthetic value cannot be measured on a coordinate system. When I had learned about this before, I had thought the same, about how its measure of music is very unspecific. But I think in so far as measuring people's personal liking for music, which may not correlate with an absolute score of aesthetic value, I think it is valuable.<BR/><BR/>The graph would not be the same for every person for every piece. And the this is just a theory, because there is no way to measure how much information each person actually perceives in a piece of music. But it makes sense that one can get information from listening to a piece, and that to like something you have to be interested in it (meaning that there is enough information there for you to perceive). Take Mozart for example. I might register a lot more information when listening to Mozart than somebody who was not musically trained. I might notice that he ends his phrases with the same figure, or be surprised when he foils my expectation, or modulate to somewhere I don't expect, or how he plays around with sonata form. (The specifics of expectations in music as codified by Western music is explained by the study of music theory.) This information makes the piece complex for me and thus interesting enough for me to like it. Someone untrained might not perceive all that, so the piece will not be as interesting for them. If the piece holds less information for them, they might not like it as much. <BR/><BR/>As for Taussig or Gruenfeld, could they be an acquired taste? Could just not understand what they have to say, and will once we are used to their language? I think when we judge composers, we are judging them very much based on the Western tradition. Now this is a valid measure if the composers themselves choose to work solely within the Western tradition. When you say that they aren't very interesting, what would make them interesting? Is it that they don't provide enough surprising writing? By surprising I mean non-mediocre when judge against the rest of Western music. If they are repeating the same things, doesn't that mean they aren't saying much non-commonplace things according to the Western tradition, and thus you find them less interesting?<BR/><BR/>There was one finding though that leveled the difference between musicians and non-musicians though. That is the perception of tension in music. Beyond the musical notes, there is a human expression ,a "bluster," if you will, that is readily perceived by everyone because it is related to urge to communicate. Like you might communicate you are hungry without words by shouting, "Ungauh!" in a distressed way. (I highly recommend S.I. Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action" for more about this) Maybe the presence of this expressive intent in music can be one aspect of a universal criteria of aesthetic value?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408462320525105000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300053268224811025.post-60513280159953993822007-10-12T23:01:00.000-04:002007-10-12T23:01:00.000-04:00hey Richard, this is quite challenging.I don't agr...hey Richard, this is quite challenging.I don't agree at all, although you make some good points. I'm just wondering how you can express something like aesthetic value through a coordinate system. And what about Mozart, how does his graph look? And what about a piano piece by... Taussig or Gruenfeld? These are composers of pieces with lots of notes and chromatic (very difficult), but not very interesting in general.LThFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15095264139650472018noreply@blogger.com