Re: [MUSIC-IR] Re: musical complexity (Kevin Austin )


Subject: Re: [MUSIC-IR] Re: musical complexity
From:    Kevin Austin  <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Sat, 3 Sep 2011 21:32:37 -0400
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

--Boundary_(ID_YPZ9Fg9qUwkDq6ergeXdvw) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline You wrote: >> Therefore, complexity can refer to variance and amount of information within a parameter, and the degree of perceived complexity depends on the analytical skills of a person. I take this to support the proposition that "[the degree of] complexity" is perceptual. With regards Eliot's: > There's also a well-known distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness." When things are "complex" > > many things are perceptually connected and big pictures emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many things that > > don't cohere into any picture at all. My experience tends towards coherence being perceptual as well. My mind turns to listen to the Ives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYvWwI6YRsE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIm9rCnY3IQ&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3DA198A22B71EA59 And quarter-tones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJPnUZhETg&feature=related 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 no metric. Kevin On 2011, Sep 3, at 12:39 PM, Aki Pasoulas wrote: > Hi Kevin and all, > > You may find some interesting stuff in a short paper I had recently at the ICMC: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7064728/StimulusComplexityandTimeJudgements.pdf > > Best, > > Aki > > --------------------------------------------- > http://aki-pasoulas.co.uk > or if the server is still down: > http://aki-pasoulas.110mb.com > > From: Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx> > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2011, 2:10 > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [MUSIC-IR] Re: musical complexity > > I would propose that the complexity / complicatedness is in the mind, not the object, or 'acoustical signal' [sic]. [* I don't think we want to go there.] In this case, I suggest, there is only a psychometric of complexity, not a metric. > > Mozart's "complexity" is based on many hundreds of years of western music history, but locally, on about 180 years. Boulez's has the same history, plus another 175 years. Boulez was aware of the Mozart concertos; Mozart wasn't aware of Pierrot Lunaire. > > Kevin > > > > > All sound heard at the greatest possible distance produces one and the same effect, a vibration of the universal lyre, > > http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden04.html > paragraph 15 > > > > > On 2011, Sep 2, at 10:34 AM, Eliot Handelman wrote: > > > On 11/08/2011 2:20 PM, Justin London wrote: > >> I'd also add that accounting for the number, variety, and distribution of elements in a sequence may not capture all of its complexities, for some aspects of musical complexity are not in the acoustic signal. > > > > There's also a well-known distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness." When things are "complex" > > many things are perceptually connected and big pictures emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many things that > > don't cohere into any picture at all. > > > > Lerdahl e.g. claimed that a Mozart piano concerto is more "complex" than "Marteau sans Maitre". More > > generally, one should be able to distinguish between things that are probably going to wind up > > sounding like music & things that probably won't. > > > > To get a sense of how hard that problem is, consider "Happy Birthday" forwards & backwards. Should not the metric report that the forward version is more complex than the backwards? > > > > -- eliot > > --Boundary_(ID_YPZ9Fg9qUwkDq6ergeXdvw) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:= space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>You wr= ote:</div><div><br></div><div> <p><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span style=3D"fon= t-family: Times; font-size: 18px;">Therefore, complexity can refer to variance and amount of information within a parameter, and the degree of perceived complexity depends on the analytical skills of a person.&nbsp;</span></blockquote></blockquote></p></div><div>I take this = to support the proposition that "[the degree of] complexity" is perceptual.= &nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>With regards Eliot's:</div><div><blockquote= type=3D"cite"><div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rg= b(255, 255, 255); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10p= t; "><div><blockquote style=3D"border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: s= olid; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: = 5px; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font= -family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "><div style=3D"font-size: 12pt; fon= t-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; ">&nbsp;There's also= a well-known distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness."&nbsp;= When things are "complex"<br>&gt; many things are perceptually connected a= nd big pictures emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many th= ings that<br>&gt; don't cohere into any picture at all.</div></div></blockq= uote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>My experience tends towards = coherence being perceptual as well. My mind turns to listen to the Ives</di= v><div><a href=3D"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiYvWwI6YRsE&amp;feature= =3Drelated">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiYvWwI6YRsE&amp;feature=3Drela= ted</a></div><div><a href=3D"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DjIm9rCnY3IQ&a= mp;feature=3Dresults_video&amp;playnext=3D1&amp;list=3DPL3DA198A22B71EA59">= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DjIm9rCnY3IQ&amp;feature=3Dresults_video&am= p;playnext=3D1&amp;list=3DPL3DA198A22B71EA59</a></div><div><br></div><div>A= nd quarter-tones:</div><div><a href=3D"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEXJ= PnUZhETg&amp;feature=3Drelated">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEXJPnUZhET= g&amp;feature=3Drelated</a></div><div><br></div><div>On first hearing, thes= e works (and others . . .) may appear complex (and complicated), but throug= h study and continued listening, it is possible to hear through this initia= l response. Therefore, if 'complexity' is susceptible to reduction through = continued exposure and education, I continue to suggest that the "complexit= y" is not in the acoustical signal, but is a perceptual category. As such, = it has no metric.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div><div><= br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 2011= , Sep 3, at 12:39 PM, Aki Pasoulas wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchan= ge-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div style=3D"color:#000; backgr= ound-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><= div><div><span>Hi Kevin and all,</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><d= iv><span>You may find some interesting stuff in a short paper I had recentl= y at the ICMC:</span></div><div><a href=3D"http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7064728/= StimulusComplexityandTimeJudgements.pdf">http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7064728/St= imulusComplexityandTimeJudgements.pdf</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best= ,</div><div><br></div><div>Aki</div><div><br></div><div>-------------------= --------------------------<br><a href=3D"http://aki-pasoulas.co.uk">http://= aki-pasoulas.co.uk</a></div><div>or if the server is still down:</div><div>= <!-- <a href=3D"http://aki-pasoulas.110mb.com"> -->http://aki-pasoulas.110m= b.com<!-- </a> --></div><div><br></div></div><div><blockquote style=3D"bord= er-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16= , 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; position: static; z-index: aut= o; "><div style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-ser= if; "><div style=3D"font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new y= ork', times, serif; "><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><hr size=3D"1"><b><sp= an style=3D"font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Kevin Austin &lt;<a href=3D= "mailto:kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx">kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br><b>= <span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITOR= Y@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br><b><span style=3D"font-w= eight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, 3 September 2011, 2:10<br><b><span= style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [AUDITORY] [MUSIC-IR]= Re: musical complexity<br></font><br>I would propose that the complexity /= complicatedness is in the mind, not the object, or 'acoustical signal' [si= c]. [* I don't think we want to go there.] In this case, I suggest, there i= s only a psychometric of complexity, not a metric.<br><br>Mozart's "complex= ity" is based on many hundreds of years of western music history, but local= ly, on about 180 years. Boulez's has the same history, plus another 175 yea= rs. Boulez was aware of the Mozart concertos; Mozart wasn't aware of Pierro= t Lunaire.<br><br>Kevin<br><br><br><br><br>All sound heard at the greatest = possible distance produces one and the same effect, a vibration of the universal lyre, <br><= br><a href=3D"http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden04.html" target=3D"_blank">h= ttp://thoreau.eserver.org/walden04.html</a><br>paragraph 15<br><br><br><br>= <br>On 2011, Sep 2, at 10:34 AM, Eliot Handelman wrote:<br><br>&gt; On 11/0= 8/2011 2:20 PM, Justin London wrote:<br>&gt;&gt; I'd also add that accounti= ng for the number, variety, and distribution of elements in a sequence may = not capture all of its complexities, for some aspects of musical complexity= are not in the acoustic signal.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; There's also a well-known= distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness."&nbsp; When things = are "complex"<br>&gt; many things are perceptually connected and big pictur= es emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many things that<br>= &gt; don't cohere into any picture at all.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Lerdahl e.g. cl= aimed that a Mozart piano concerto is more "complex"&nbsp; than "Marteau sans Maitre". More<br>&gt; generally, one should be able to distinguish be= tween things that are probably going to wind up<br>&gt; sounding like music= &amp; things that probably won't.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; To get a sense of how h= ard that problem is, consider "Happy Birthday" forwards &amp; backwards. Sh= ould not the metric report that the forward version is more complex than th= e backwards?<br>&gt; <br>&gt; -- eliot<br><br><br></div></div></blockquote>= </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>= --Boundary_(ID_YPZ9Fg9qUwkDq6ergeXdvw)--


This message came from the mail archive
/var/www/postings/2011/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University