Thanks to Phil Ewell and his paper:https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.htmlSupport this channel: https://www.patreon.com/adamneelySOURCES...
it’s tuned and/or un-tuned events happening over a dedicated period of time
I think this is too specific for a general definition of music, but finding a better one might get quite philosophical. What constitutes an event? Does this apply to the limits of “a period of time”? lf events can both be tuned and untuned, why should that matter for the definition?
And I think that a set of metrics can be applied
Yes but they are not the only ones and quite arbitrary, and classical music theory isn’t the only or even a particularily good way to describe them. The metrics you mentioned are often further concentrated into timbre, harmony and rhythm. At such granular levels, it becomes clear, that the lines between those parameters where always blurry and classical theory can only describe them in a limited way.
Different composers, musicians and listeners value different things in musical experiences. Sophistication in music is a subjective measure. You can come to a meaningful result if you define it with measurable parameters. But that meaning is tied to the domain of those parameters and can’t be applied to the piece as a whole.
a four-part fugue is empirically more sophisticated than an unaccompanied song.
You could have a cheese roll for supper, or you could go out for a 5 course banquet… both are sustaining, but one is empirically more sophisticated than the other.
Again, this is a matter of subjectivity. On closer inspection, there could be many intricacies in how to craft a good cheese roll. Raising the right cows in the right way, to give the right milk that with the right conditions will make the right cheese etc. At the same time it is possible to carelessly make a 5 course banquet while adhering to form. You can compare them on specific characteristics, but you can’t make the blanket statement, that one is more sophisticated than the other.
The metrics I listed constitute the elements of music - of course there are lots of detail within each. But they are what we use to appreciate music through analysis.
The video is about classical music theory. It was originally created (over a long period of time, with all kinds of exchange with different cultures btw) by western composers through observation to formalize their musical language. It’s parameters and methods come from practical considerations. There is no inherent value of a piece to be derived from them, only insight.
What other metrics do you think there are?
You can arbitrarily create new ones out of those you mentioned by combining and/or judging them in different ways.
E.g. we could measure timbral complexity by analyzing spectral composition, spectral dynamics or just number of instruments with distinct timbre used. Each of those might gain insight into the piece, but we can’t derive an assertion like “white noise is empirically more sophisticated than someone playing a Stradivari”.
Music also has cause, process, effect and sometimes an intention to be considered.
E.g. is the music of someone who is incredibly skilled at playing the piano more or less sophisticated than the music of someone incredibly skilled at building pianos exclusively for his pieces? Is a repetitive four-on-the-floor club-track that gets people to dance more or less sophisticated than an opera that fails to do so. Is a piece inherited and improved by many generations more or less sophisticated than one written in a weekend.
I’d be happy to hear your philosophical definition of music
The definition wouldn’t be so philosophical, I meant the process of finding one that is agreeable would be.
E.g. “Act or means to cause a deliberate and often time-variant auditory sensation”
a 5 course banquet can be at least five times the sophistication.
I could serve 5 cheese sandwiches :D
Timbral complexity is Timbre
I just wanted to show that these parameters are kind of arbitrarily chosen and (sometimes) ill-defined. (E.g. whats the difference between an overtone spectrum and a harmony? Mostly just context.)
I think this is too specific for a general definition of music, but finding a better one might get quite philosophical. What constitutes an event? Does this apply to the limits of “a period of time”? lf events can both be tuned and untuned, why should that matter for the definition?
Yes but they are not the only ones and quite arbitrary, and classical music theory isn’t the only or even a particularily good way to describe them. The metrics you mentioned are often further concentrated into timbre, harmony and rhythm. At such granular levels, it becomes clear, that the lines between those parameters where always blurry and classical theory can only describe them in a limited way.
Different composers, musicians and listeners value different things in musical experiences. Sophistication in music is a subjective measure. You can come to a meaningful result if you define it with measurable parameters. But that meaning is tied to the domain of those parameters and can’t be applied to the piece as a whole.
Why?
deleted by creator
Again, this is a matter of subjectivity. On closer inspection, there could be many intricacies in how to craft a good cheese roll. Raising the right cows in the right way, to give the right milk that with the right conditions will make the right cheese etc. At the same time it is possible to carelessly make a 5 course banquet while adhering to form. You can compare them on specific characteristics, but you can’t make the blanket statement, that one is more sophisticated than the other.
The video is about classical music theory. It was originally created (over a long period of time, with all kinds of exchange with different cultures btw) by western composers through observation to formalize their musical language. It’s parameters and methods come from practical considerations. There is no inherent value of a piece to be derived from them, only insight.
E.g. we could measure timbral complexity by analyzing spectral composition, spectral dynamics or just number of instruments with distinct timbre used. Each of those might gain insight into the piece, but we can’t derive an assertion like “white noise is empirically more sophisticated than someone playing a Stradivari”.
E.g. is the music of someone who is incredibly skilled at playing the piano more or less sophisticated than the music of someone incredibly skilled at building pianos exclusively for his pieces? Is a repetitive four-on-the-floor club-track that gets people to dance more or less sophisticated than an opera that fails to do so. Is a piece inherited and improved by many generations more or less sophisticated than one written in a weekend.
The definition wouldn’t be so philosophical, I meant the process of finding one that is agreeable would be.
E.g. “Act or means to cause a deliberate and often time-variant auditory sensation”
deleted by creator
I could serve 5 cheese sandwiches :D
I just wanted to show that these parameters are kind of arbitrarily chosen and (sometimes) ill-defined. (E.g. whats the difference between an overtone spectrum and a harmony? Mostly just context.)