The Formula Of Music

Does anybody realize even though i do not possess the formula of music that it would be easier to expose it's opposite, meaning a much smaller formula to address what is musical error. Every style of music has it's own general formula & the styles are in immense amount. Nonetheless it is my theory that regardless of all musical forms it is possible to discern all the common denominators from them & the master code of music would be exposed. Surely Bach could have enlightned all of us with a mass analysis of his own style if he wished to expose his prescious musical secrets that is. What is your view on this interesting concept dear YC members? :headwall: :jedi:

Man I assure you I have read that thing at least 4 times and I don't get it.

I have no code myself, I don't know if I have what I could call "a secret" I just do it you know, just like that.

I don't think there is such thing as error in art. Styles do have a set of rules, but not art in general. For example, I could say that I write a piece of music and use perfect fifths in parallel movement and I could also say that I write a piece of music in the Baroque style and use parallel fifths and be wrong.

From your post, I get the impression that what you are really asking is what music really is. My answer is: I don't know.

Man I assure you I have read that thing at least 4 times and I don't get it.

I have no code myself, I don't know if I have what I could call "a secret" I just do it you know, just like that.

I think of music as a secret master code even though i just do it too, but i sometimes use theoretic mathematical formula & the results are more or less cohesive.

In new music, there are as many unique approaches as there are new pieces. Things like "open form" and "process form" serve to bundle together everything that doesn't conform to forms which suggest more specific structural things within themselves. As well as this: many composers have devised unique ways to manipulate pitch relationships.

Hardly formulaic.

Open form & process form i assume present more possibilities & the musical formula more complex. It's true, i sometimes think wether the musical spectrum divided into 12 units is the most ideal configuration, the pythagorean perfection?. Surely explorations in pitch not just the western conventionalism explodes new possibilities in expression. I think nonetheless, if one knew the formula which i suggest, one could improvise without any musical errors mutating from style to style maybe even new styles every now & then, literally indefinite amount of duration on the mere keyboard. A sort of infinite opus, a nexus phase in hyper-fluid improvisation.

I don't think there is such thing as error in art. Styles do have a set of rules, but not art in general. For example, I could say that I write a piece of music and use perfect fifths in parallel movement and I could also say that I write a piece of music in the Baroque style and use parallel fifths and be wrong.

From your post, I get the impression that what you are really asking is what music really is. My answer is: I don't know.

If there is no error in art, then why methodology? Is music a sort of unphantomable yet indivisible super phenomanae yet while anybody can compose & improvise easily, only the brain not the conscious mind has the precise musical mathematical formulas?

So where are you from?

There has to be so much lost in translation...

Well Vobiscum, i reside in the U.S. & merely one of my quests in life is the diametric dissection of that science known as music, a sort of enlightenment which in my opinion is as big as any other since i believe all subjects have infinite range. Presently, i am studying human anatomy & musical intervals as if that was not odd enough.

The only formula i can offer up is the aspect of architecture of any style of music:

Tonic or non-tonical beginning-post-beginning treatments-thematics-imitations-episodics-emotional peaks-prefinal treatments-tonic

or non-tonical conclusion.(T or NTB+PB+TH+I+E+EP+PT+T or NTC)

This formula is Iterated & teleporting meaning it can invert on itself &/or at different points of the formula back & forth.

What is this 'formula' you speak of? Is it "study and practice"? Cause that would make much more sense.

Well the formula would allow mind-bending improvisation with zero errors or crashes as well as a definitive method of composition of any musical artform in an impromptu fashion, but it is more than the ability of creating a medley. This impromtu fashion would be unpredictably guided by chaos unavoidably as the most hidden & deepest determinant, but you can literally have definitive & masterful control over all elements above it.

If there is no error in art, then why methodology? Is music a sort of unphantomable yet indivisible super phenomanae yet while anybody can compose & improvise easily, only the brain not the conscious mind has the precise musical mathematical formulas?

You can be and do anything you want in art. Be methodical or totally spontaneous, follow a system or create freely. There are really no set of rules, only a differing appreciation of beauty. In this sense, there is no error. You are not breaking any natural laws, you are not putting anyone in danger by creating in a certain way. You are not erring in any way; you are just creating.

Furthermore, the context you are using to talk about the brain and the mind is as if you are certain they are distinct and what their distinction is. Perhaps, subconscious/unconscious or superconscious mind would be more correct in this case. I don't think that we tap on knowledge hidden on some deeper level of consciousness to produce music, though being spiritual I do believe in music "divinely inspired". If you sit at the piano and you play a scale, you will have created music. You are seeing music with a certain mysticism. I will agree that its effects can be profound on the human mind and psyche, but other than that I fail to see any formulas or hidden codes hidden in our deeper consciousness, DNA or whatever. Even if it is true, I can't possibly know...

if you know what you're aiming for, you'll be fine with any formula that allows you to reach your goal. Webern used math formulas, Cage used randomness, Tchaikovsky used spontaneity, Bach used strict frameworks, Mahler used everything he could - and all of them made the artistic statements they wanted to do.

On the other hand, when you don't know where are you going, whatever road will take you.

M=((1/2)(K^n)/H)+2m-R^.5)/F

M=Music

K=key

n=notes to an octave

H=harmony

m=melody

R=rhythm

F=form

So far, all you have done is describe what this supposed 'formula' is capable of accomplishing.

The "architecture" provided above is a formal outline which doesn't encompass anywhere near the majority of styles.

So again, what exactly is the formula? Or is it a secret? Would any mortal man's head explode if they stumbled upon such knowledge?

Well, i don't know of such formula though i strive to aquire it, but i once created two sets of fugues which really are preludes called the hyperplex fugues & the deoplex fugues & they were constructed by pure mathematics with minimal non-mathematical intervention. All this talk has made me realize that perhaps the best answer is non other than "proportion" or consistency. That any musical non-sense with musical errors can be considered music as long as it has "proportion of the parts". Take this quote of mine & really think about it: "If it is music, only proportion is inescapable."

People still uses keys?

If there's a door before them, I'd guess yes.

You can be and do anything you want in art. Be methodical or totally spontaneous, follow a system or create freely. There are really no set of rules, only a differing appreciation of beauty. In this sense, there is no error. You are not breaking any natural laws, you are not putting anyone in danger by creating in a certain way. You are not erring in any way; you are just creating.

Furthermore, the context you are using to talk about the brain and the mind is as if you are certain they are distinct and what their distinction is. Perhaps, subconscious/unconscious or superconscious mind would be more correct in this case. I don't think that we tap on knowledge hidden on some deeper level of consciousness to produce music, though being spiritual I do believe in music "divinely inspired". If you sit at the piano and you play a scale, you will have created music. You are seeing music with a certain mysticism. I will agree that its effects can be profound on the human mind and psyche, but other than that I fail to see any formulas or hidden codes hidden in our deeper consciousness, DNA or whatever. Even if it is true, I can't possibly know...

It is my firm belief that the brain & mind though connected are seperate as well, for example, one does not have control of one's dreams, so, one does not have control over composing in the deepest level because the determinants are involuntary. Well, in even lifting your arm, you brain has already used calculus to make that possible.

if you know what you're aiming for, you'll be fine with any formula that allows you to reach your goal. Webern used math formulas, Cage used randomness, Tchaikovsky used spontaneity, Bach used strict frameworks, Mahler used everything he could - and all of them made the artistic statements they wanted to do.

On the other hand, when you don't know where are you going, whatever road will take you.

I sometimes go mad on the piano,but out of many crashes, i reach some good themetic material which i later use as a work but ordered.

People still uses keys?

What do you use?

People still uses keys?

set K=0, and that first half of the equation will go away, making H disappear too...hm...maybe this equation is better than I thought. Anyway my real answer is that there does not need to be a formula. My belief is that music has no rules, just guidelines, and you make the music yours by choosing which guidelines to follow, and ignore. So, in essence, just let the music flow the way you want it too. Don't think too much into all this, the best it's ever done to me is confuse me

It is my firm belief that the brain & mind though connected are seperate as well' date=' for example, one does not have control of one's dreams, so, one does not have control over composing in the deepest level because the determinants are involuntary. Well, in even lifting your arm, you brain has already used calculus to make that possible.[/quote']

One can have control of one's dream, but that is irrelevant. Perhaps, one cannot choose when he is going to dream, but controlling the dream is possible. Composing, on the other hand, is not spontaneous. I choose to compose because I can and because I like music. My mother won't sit and start composing because she doesn't know how. If we are to follow your logic, why can't my mother compose, too?

Composing... is not spontaneous....

why can't my mother compose, too?

She can... also, composing can absolutely be spontaneous.

Yes, the same way I can draw or dance, but what I was trying to say is that she doesn't follow any codes, formulas or whatever. She doesn't know what minor or major is, cadences, orchestration etc. She only has her ear as her guide and that is where things start to differentiate for different people. If she counts on her hearing and what she thinks sounds nice for her, how can we say that this process is done on a deeper level of consciousness?

... I was trying to say is that she doesn't follow any codes, formulas or whatever. She doesn't know what minor or major is, cadences, orchestration etc. She only has her ear as her guide and that is where things start to differentiate for different people.

I thought you said

My mother won't sit and start composing because she doesn't know how.

I say: she doesn't need to know how. She also doesn't need to know about major or minor or cadences or ANYTHING to allow her soul (deeper consciousness?) to extract meaningful and powerful music from the proper musicians.

Yes, we differentiate from different people - each and every different person has inherent in them the soul to be creative in ANY medium. Granted, some will have an aptitude towards one, or another, or none.... but it'd be silly to expect "knowledge" as a prerequisite for "ability".

Of course she doesn't need any knowledge, but then again everything she will compose will most probably only be of personal value. There is art which can only affect the creator and there is art that its effects can be "universal".

And I think that what we talk about here is creativity and not hidden codes and formulas that Marzique suggests are found in our deeper consciousness. In relation to the second did I say that my mother cannot compose. If there was such information in us, then I assume that anyone could inherently compose music which would be of an adequate level the same way anyone can breathe and move his muscles because such information is found in our genetic material.

Anyway, it is kind of confusing and I don't think there is any way to find out if what Marzique says is valid and how much it affects our ability to compose.

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/

http://www.pianofund.../book/en/1.IV.4

Also: nah.

Good points have been made fellow YC members. Furthermore, i once made an intervallic analysis of Bach's Partita in a minor & found that the integers did not repeat in measure to measure sequences. For instance: 1st measure 0,3,1, 2nd 6,5,5 3rd 0,8,1 & so on & so forth. The patterns seemed to be ever changing making it more difficult to decipher it's formula or hidden mathematical logic. The rest of the two-part alignments however showed that some sequences did repeat such as 5,3,5 but it's still very difficult to decode. I myself made a contribution in the wishlist of noteworthysoftware.com which would be an intervallic pattern application where one would come up with the R.H. & simply enter the intergers one wishes to articulate the L.H. or vice versa, in boxes above the intervallic conjunctions within every measure. :sith: :horrified:

There is no 'hidden formula' or 'mathematical logic' (or at least, one in the same vein as you assume, in regards to the latter). These are just arbitrary results from looking at a piece in the common practice tradition a little too closely. Bach was a working composer: he didn't have time to put in stupid little things into his music just for the sake of it.

Still yet: such a 'formula' to improvise in any style of music on the fly is a nice bit of fantasy you've come up with. I've gathered you haven't encountered any music beyond the era of common practice period?

common practice period? Do you mean the baroque or classical era?

Lockpicks

Please explain Lockpicks?

Rules are like that one piano key that doesn't want to work.

Here is the key part again:

Does anybody realize even though i do not possess the formula of music that it would be easier to expose it's opposite, meaning a much smaller formula to address what is musical error.

What this essentially means, is he wants a negative definition for music. I.e. "Everything on this list is not-music, so everything left off of the list is music". Instead of a literal list of "not-music", a formula could be used to check if something would be on the list. It doesn't even have to return yes or no, it could return "percentage not-music", and anything over 10% might make cats scratch their eyes and ears out. Maybe 50% would be Cage music (jokes! :D)

It just so happens that this is exactly how we define prime numbers. There is no definitive list of prime numbers; only a list of "numbers with more than one non-one factors" (from which we can find the prime numbers out). That's why you will read about prime number searching - we actually have to seek them out. Prime number searching is the analogue of an algorithm to make all the music....!....except it's not. There are no prime number formulas that can generate all the prime numbers (I think it was proven, that with our current methods to be impossible to make such a formula). There are things like Mersenne primes, which have been generated by a formula, but even then, not every Mersenne number is a prime (there's actually very few generated this way, 47 so far to be exact out of tens of thousands of candidates).

The point of this excursion into prime numbers is to demonstrate that there are "spaces" (i.e. sets of all prime numbers, sets of all music) that are unable to be mapped positively (this would mean we have a formula that generates all the music, or all the prime numbers), and only can be mapped negatively (which means we have to sift through the list of "everything" to find something that is part of the "space" - we don't get an automatic list).

So, to answer your question, you can't generate a definitive positive formula for music, and we already have negative formulas - of which the rules of counterpoint in the Gradus, Serialism, are examples of. Just like how there are primes that are not Mersenne numbers, your negative formulas can usually only catch a certain amount of everything fitting your definition - you will need the combination of many negative formulas to flesh out the positive space (i.e. you will need many composition techniques and rules to make all the music).

your negative formulas can usually only catch a certain amount of everything fitting your definition

Subjectivity was a part of my premise to begin with. And I thought it went without saying, but it's entirely computationally impossible (probably forever) to do what I am talking about. It's just a thought exercise.

The formula is, if you call it music it is. That's pretty much the end of it. As much as we like to make fun of him, that's the point John Cage was making.

With the exact same authority, I am able to call it not-music. Neither one of our jurisdictional domains extends into objectivity however, i.e. nothing Cage or I name has its fundamental nature changed. Having said that, I have no problems calling Cage's work music, and in fact do, but as of yet have not emotionally connected with the music (hence I cannot like it).

Cool, I'm glad we agree on this at least. :)

Very well, thank you all for the many intricate twists & turns in this would-be good argument. I shall continue my analysis & quest of music & when i come up with something substancial if ever, i shall share it in this quadrant of the forum at a certian future date. :hmmm: :horrified: