[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MUSIC-IR] Re: musical complexity
On 03/09/2011 9:32 PM, Kevin Austin wrote:
On first hearing, these works (and others . . .) may appear complex
(and complicated), but through study and continued listening, it is
possible to hear through this initial response. Therefore, if
'complexity' is susceptible to reduction through continued exposure
and education, I continue to suggest that the "complexity" is not in
the acoustical signal, but is a perceptual category. As such, it has
The point of the metric is to measure what's being perceived and as you
even for a single individual there are different metrics that develop
over time. But that doesn't matter,
because the metric could ask, "given time and exposure, what kind of
hearing could evolve," leaving the
question only who this is supposed to be about.
IMO, this is currently a free-form theoretical issue, in which what
matters is telling some sort of story
that goes from signal to perception.
I presented on a related issue at SMPC 11, in which I tried to show how
you can infer the
sorts of musical objects that Bach thought about, through an analysis of
difference in a couple
of collections. Slides are here:
The point is, beginning with notes, what sort of structures can be built
up that _arguably_ correspond
to what Bach was thinking about or hearing? Let's call this
"bach-structure," and let's say that a piece has
"bach-complexity" when there are specific parallels to the kind of
structure you'd get in Bach.
I actually did apply this idea to Temperley's computer-generated
melodies, and it's demonstrable,
at one level of description anyway, that you do NOT get the
bach-complexity in these computer generated diddlies.
Note this is not to say that anyone DOES hear in this way, including
Bach: it's just a model, testable on the
kind of predictions it should make.