AndreiKrylov wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:11 pm
Computers are just examples of "perfect tonal music" ...
But that's just it - they're far from perfect. What orchestra, playing a tonal piece, would aim for the computer sound?
I took a brief look at Scruton ideas about this subject and it seems to me that he dwells mostly in European Music with certain tonal structure and her historical and cultural periods. Yet a lot of music in our world do not follow european path.
Both in tonal and in structural ways.
Yes, that's true. I think it's a shame that Scruton ends up with such a narrow theory and that he sneers at so much music. It doesn't follow though that none of his thinking applies to music generally. When he makes the distinction between sound and tone and claims that musical experience is based on metaphor, that is at the beginning of the chain of reasoning, long before the theories gets narrowed to Western art music of the last 300 years or so.
And rhythm is not necessary part of Music either.
Music could be "a-rhythmical" and beautiful and exciting and extremely "rhythmical" and organized but yet completely empty and boring...
I agree. Music is a world of possibilities - you don't have to use all of its dimensions all of the time. When rhythm is present, though, it is clearly an element of the music - so it is interesting if it has a mathematical structure. This would have to extend to all of rhythm, including rubato and those details of timing that are not exactly rubato but serve to group some notes together and set them apart from others.
The trouble is that when one person says that music is mathematical other people hear "music is black and white" or "rhythm is what metronomes produce", when that is not what is being claimed at all. Take this:
AndreiKrylov wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:35 pm
Yes, everything could be correctly measured, but does it mean that if one will play certain music one way and another in different way - does it mean that one of players is wrong? yet they both could sound great or... very bad..
or one bad and another good for one listener and absolutely opposite for another ...
No, it doesn't mean that all. There may be a thousand ways of doing it right and a million ways of doing it wrong - what an explanation of the structure of music should so is to explain why a particular way falls into one category and not the other, and why this particular difference in playing has this particular effect on the music.
kertsopoulos wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:00 pm
One could even make one of the seemingly correct questions:"...could there be more mystery lying in math than in music itself"?
Yes quite, and yet the standard reaction to any suggestion that something has a mathematical basis is that it could not possibly be a source of mystery or curiosity or wonder or awe but be something dull and clunky and practical.