Theory Of Harmony: Pi

Why is it that internet debates always turn into a two-team effort?

Interestingly, I didn't realize how true that is. Ok, so I'll take a THIRD position: Fnarf. Who's with me?!

Then I think that's fine and I tried to make that clear. I'm not disagreeing with the incorporation of mathematics into music, I'm disagreeing with the concept of creating music from something that a computer could easily do.

Kicker is, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference either way, so why bother disagreeing when in the end you're completely unable to perceive it one way or the other? It's an idealistic thing?

Oh well.

First of all a hello sign to Eldkatt! (where have you been mate?)

Now...

Anyone thinking that someone using this technique will stop after the technique is done is silly. Having algorithms making pitch formations, series, permutations and whatever does not mean that the end result will just be that. The craft lies, exactly, at using these series of numbers and making music.

One could very well make music by using their address, just for fun! :D

EDIT: Oh and I've done plenty of music with the aid of computers! In fact a few pieces lie in here! ;) I'd invite Nico to try and find them and tell me which ones are these... :P

Would it be conceivable to transpose the row? As in, if I shift the pedal tone up to E, would (0 = Db)? I mean, sure it won't be as HEROIC as Eb but this is just out of curosity. And if so, can the row be transposed mid-piece?

If so, I might actually try this pi harmony of yours (even if it was meant as a satire). :hmmm:

Interestingly, I didn't realize how true that is. Ok, so I'll take a THIRD position: Fnarf. Who's with me?!

YES! I am totally pro-Fnarf. I find that it works especially well when you mix it with isocords, although I know your prefer pure, untainted, Fnarf. I can be the Berg of Fnarf. So, how are you enjoying my Fnarf grand opera, Yozzeck?

You know, I still have to execute my (somewhat serious) idea of making music out of my scantrons from tests...

I guess the Nico/Enigmus crowd doesn't believe that Malevich or Mondrian produce art, then?

Would it be conceivable to transpose the row? As in, if I shift the pedal tone up to E, would (0 = Db)? I mean, sure it won't be as HEROIC as Eb but this is just out of curosity. And if so, can the row be transposed mid-piece?

If so, I might actually try this pi harmony of yours (even if it was meant as a satire). :hmmm:

No, the pitch E-flat has a lot of cosmological significance!! No no no, this is a FIXED INTEGER SYSTEM!!

I don't have a dog in the fight on this, but I'll have to side with SSC on this one. There is a significant difference between compositional method and musical output. I guess the one caution one should have for anyone using this system is to not let the number series dictate the linear/harmonic/pitch content. IF a pitch needs to be changed (for whatever reason, artistic preference, etc), then be the composer and change the pitch.

"But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of using the number system to compose?" Well, not really. If the musical idea begins to develop within your own aural perception (in your mind or something like that), then your use of the number system has served its purpose for you as a composer. In the end, the only reason to use a system of this sort (really, ANY system that pre-determines pitch content for you) is there to help in the process of inspiring music within the composer, in directing the composer to work in a certain way until the composer can take the ideas (with confidence) generated from the system to go the distance with the piece.

One could call it a crutch, but I really don't think any source of inspiration is a crutch for anyone in art. I think the only problem with using a system of this sort is the propensity for the less confident composer to let the system determine what the music will be instead of BEING the composer of the work and making the tough decisions of where to deviate from the system and when it is appropriate.

For me, music is second only to math, so I suppose I'm a bit biased. However, using the digits of pi is not really math. It is more like mysticism. There is nothing special about that constant. I mean, you can look at the digits with a different base and it is then completely different, and since there is nothing special about base 10, there is really nothing special about those digits. I think writing this way, which isn't scientific in the least, shouldn't really be considered to have anything to do with math.

It is amazing how much creativity and art is involved in real math. Writing music in a mathematical way is great, and for me is by far the best way to express my self (although I am fairly new to composing, so this may change, but I doubt it). But simply using an algorithm to write and doing nothing else doesn't involve much, if any, mathematical thinking.

For me, music is second only to math, so I suppose I'm a bit biased. However, using the digits of pi is not really math. It is more like mysticism. There is nothing special about that constant. I mean, you can look at the digits with a different base and it is then completely different, and since there is nothing special about base 10, there is really nothing special about those digits. I think writing this way, which isn't scientific in the least, shouldn't really be considered to have anything to do with math.

It is amazing how much creativity and art is involved in real math. Writing music in a mathematical way is great, and for me is by far the best way to express my self (although I am fairly new to composing, so this may change, but I doubt it). But simply using an algorithm to write and doing nothing else doesn't involve much, if any, mathematical thinking.

Well said. The pi number is only a tool used in the calculation of certain mathematical equations. In and of itself, pi performs no mathematical calculation, so how can anyone say this is "math music" when no actual calculation is being performed?

Interesting point indeed.

Ummm...whether this method is inherently mathematical or not hardly matters, really.

Music based off of numbers/math completely defeats the purpose of art. Stop it.

...this kind of defeats the purpose of music as art, in my opinion. But on the other hand, I find more scientifical (yes, I just said that) musical theories rather fascinating and altogether a separate practice, even if I'm not too fond of the results (Babbitt, Schoenberg, and on)

...It is when the music is composed entirely mathematically or the composer has to work his way around a constant (such as the notes given by this pi sequence) that it loses my interest as an art...

...

3. It's not how a musical idea is developed, it's how an idea is developed. This is an abstract concept, whereas actual thematic material is a fairly left-brained concept. Like I said before, what makes music music is music, not technical development or numbers or anything like that.

...

Qmwne235, what I was getting at is replying to these types of ideas that have been flying around. I thought I would point out that the original idea of the pi thing being mathematical isn't very accurate. I was trying explain that math can be extremely creative. Why do you think it still takes humans to fill the role of mathematicians in the academic world? Because a computer doesn't have the creativity and artistic ability necessary to do anything other than crunch numbers. If you think that's all there is to math, then you are mistaken. Honestly, of all of the music professors at my school that I've had conversations with, we've talked just as much about the beauty of math as we have music. I guess the point I'm trying to get at (not really getting my thoughts out very well, sorry), is that science is inherently artistic. I personally can't see how to ever separate art and science.

I guess the point I'm trying to get at (not really getting my thoughts out very well, sorry), is that science is inherently artistic. I personally can't see how to ever separate art and science.

I'll add this:

If science is the systematic study of reality and art represents an aspect of reality, it's obvious that they'll be related in some way. The interesting part is the feedback loop that happens when science affects art (which in turn affects science, and so on.)

Qmwne235, what I was getting at is replying to these types of ideas that have been flying around. I thought I would point out that the original idea of the pi thing being mathematical isn't very accurate.

Ah, ok. I was confused by what you were trying to get at. Thank you for clarifying.