So, if I’m thinking correctly, a musical piece is a complete lattice. Western music certainly is. It’s so much complete lattice that you can do lattice reduction operations, allowing you to reduce a musical piece into some extremely basic forms while still being recognizable. In short: chords. For all of a Western music piece’s complexity you can reduce it to a series of chords and it can remain understandable, Chords are sets and whatever the intervals of the NOTES used and how during a chord, they still map to the chord in some way, much as Abraham Lincoln’s eyes become a square black pixel and yet is recognizable in the context of the image as being his eyes. Is Non-Western music complete lattice? So long as they follow rules that fit them into a style that it can map to? Yes. BUT… how it reduces without loss of information will be quite different depending on style.

So, if I’m thinking correctly, a musical piece is a complete lattice. Western music certainly is. It’s so much complete lattice that you can do lattice reduction operations, allowing you to reduce a musical piece into some extremely basic forms while still being recognizable.

In short: chords. For all of a Western music piece’s complexity you can reduce it to a series of chords and it can remain understandable, Chords are sets and whatever the intervals of the NOTES used and how during a chord, they still map to the chord in some way, much as Abraham Lincoln’s eyes become a square black pixel and yet is recognizable in the context of the image as being his eyes.

Is Non-Western music complete lattice? So long as they follow rules that fit them into a style that it can map to? Yes. BUT… how it reduces without loss of information will be quite different depending on style.

they do, yet even with that, it can map.

I think there’s ranges of Vagueness — areas unspecified — practically infinite room for improvisation and yet also bounded.

It is the bounding that allows it to be a lattice, to be mappable.

Chords are coarse grain, microtonal, Bends, these are very fine grained.

well, I’m thinking theoretically its mappable.

For example, there’s a limit to the range of human hearing.

Let’s go from 10 Hz to 25,000 Hz for a maximum human range.

So a piece of music will map to this.

The sheet music form is extremely coarse-grained in comparison.

But I think the more coarse the grain, The more flexible the pieces upon performance, so the same piece can sound completely differently depending who performs it and when

===

I love the part you brought up Joe Caldwell – as it reminded me of the type of scoring that I learned when I was 14 years old and only tracked down last year:

“Graphic score”

I even found my old piano teacher on Facebook to confirm that this is what he was teaching me and it was.

I fell in love with it and on my own I wrote lots of pieces in this style.

I’ve got pages and pages of scribble like this and how you interpret it it’s up to you and yet as long as what you perform is based upon this, it maps in a coarse grained way; even more coarsely than chords in a standard piece.

Or, what the world is like when I take my glasses off.

—-

A conversation between modalities!!

information representation – compression, decompression, vaguesness, and flexibility

It is precisely vertical sonorities that helps show an example of what I’m talking about.

That is a far better way of expressing it than “chord”. Thank you.

The reason I can’t say it succinctly and clearly as possible is that, JUST LIKE the examples of music you gave, not all ideas COMPRESS easily into a few words succinctly and clearly.

But as we talk, I’m getting better at it. “Vertical sonorities” is a phrase I had to look up (and recognized as soon as I saw the definition) —

— and a more extreme, numerical version of the notion I’m trying to express already exists.

===

The reason that compression of musical expression is important to me is because I have great trouble compressing my ideas into clear and succinct phrases, which causes confusion when I try to communicate.

===

That you don’t understand my point is not surprising or upsetting to me. I’m not expressing it well.

I need to compress it into a few words or find a proper analogy.

It’s not easy. Lifetime struggle as I see the uniqueness in all things which makes compression difficult.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220888519_Applying_Learning_Algorithms_to_Music_Generation Cool. Thank you for the phrase “vertical sonorities”

===

Disjoint union of graphs - Wikiwand

If they’re GOING to be conscious, they already are – and so is the middle of stars. And so are galaxies. Otherwise, nah.

===

I tend to think that far more things are conscious than we realize and that we’d be horrified if we only knew. But I try not to think about it too much.

Oh I do on occasion. There’s so much life teeming everywhere it’s hard to imagine it doesn’t show up in simpler ways elsewhere. We’re just spoiled with every crack and crevice on earth being filled with SOMETHING living.

—-

I know it. Whenever I take Zinc I know who I’m fortifying and what they’re doing. Activating the Krebs cycle with Vit C seems positively peaceful even with all the bombs going off by comparison to what those white blood cells are going to be up to.

But I don’t see any reason we couldn’t create a computer as conscious as us. It would need a lot more room to be sloppy though. But we’d always think it a liar and shut it down. Maybe we already do.

===

 

Attachments

Leave a comment

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


nine + 6 =

Leave a Reply