Many of my posts from apr 2013 – partially circle around the problem of categorizing. I have settled on a biological basis for certain things which allows me to accept _some_. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are valid. Beyond that is “more”. AT some point soon after, a new “set” of 1 2 3 and 4 starts with bigger chunks. BUT 1 is worth more than 2, 2 is worth more than 3, 4 is almost worthless but still worth something and beyond 4, it doesn’t matter. Basically, logarithmic. Not equally spaced 1 2 3 4.

Many of my posts from apr 2013 – partially circle around the problem of categorizing.
I have settled on a biological basis for certain things which allows me to accept _some_. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are valid. Beyond that is “more”. AT some point soon after, a new “set” of 1 2 3 and 4 starts with bigger chunks.
BUT 1 is worth more than 2, 2 is worth more than 3, 4 is almost worthless but still worth something and beyond 4, it doesn’t matter.
Basically, logarithmic. Not equally spaced 1 2 3 4.
 —
But no idea how that could be implemented in anything. It’s natural – but we based a lot of stuff on coinciding nodes and antinodes – synchronization, which leads to evenly spaced things. That’s also natural but outside of music, we don’t count that way.
—-
If two clarinets and two trombones play the same notes at the same times, are they the same instruments? No. You both hear four notes and don’t because they all enter your ear canal as ONE pressure wave which your inner ear mechanically separates like chicken and does some logarithmic adding up and averaging to figure out what ‘frequencies did you mean to play’ and your memories pull it from whatever templates are from your past to say which instruments they are, etc.
But that whole process is somewhat illusionary because you’re only hearing a complete set of pressure waves at the same time, not four instruments, or two sets of two types of instruments playing the same notes.
====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− four = 3

Leave a Reply