the topic of topics: MIDI vs AUDIO ("what is music"?)

[stringtapper]

it is not absurd

You are saying that it is NOT absurd to believe that a person could already know the specific "code" (specific arrangement of pitches, durations, and dynamics) of a specific composition without ever having heard it before?

Specific arrangement is not music notation. Infact it is called "arrangement"

No, your English is off. By "arrangement" I don't mean "a bassoon choir arrangement of a Burt Bacharach tune." I mean that each individual composition is a unique arrangement of pitches, durations, and dynamics. You agree right? Because if you don't then you are saying that every composition contains the exact same arrangement of pitches, durations, and dynamics.

Oh and I'm still waiting for the answer to this:

So you still haven't answered the question:

How did the specific code of one specific composition get from the original composer to the transcriber without the transcriber ever having heard or seen the music before he started transcribing it from an audio file?

[9V]

no. In italy "arrangement" (arrangiamento) is when you harmonize a theme, putting chords, you choose instruments, change tempo, beat etc. because of the "style" you want to create.

You make confusione between style and code.

It's much simpler than you think, actually. You just believe sound ("atmosphere") is something universally codified. It isn't, of course The kore of every music is intervals+rhythm. The rest is "style" or specific indications of the composer on the score ("con brio", "pianissimo" etc.).

[stringtapper]

no. In italy "arrangement" (arrangiamento) is when you harmonize a theme, putting chords, you choose instruments, etc. because of the "style" you want to create.

You make confusione between style and code.

No, it is you who are confused. I just told you that I am not using the word "arrangement" in the sense of a re-orchestration/re-instrumentation of an existing piece of music. I clearly laid out in my previous post that I was using the word "arrangement" in the more direct sense of "A collection of things that have been arranged."

Compositions can contain "arrangements" of pitches, durations, and dynamics, and that is how I am using the word. Now that we have that cleared up you can now go back to trying to answer this question:

How did the specific code of one specific composition get from the original composer to the transcriber without the transcriber ever having heard or seen the music before he started transcribing it from an audio file?

[9V]

i answered you yet, just read again: you make confusion between "code" (music) and "style" (what you call "arrangement", in italian "indicazioni", for instance dynamic suggestions, "pedal", "legato", "staccato" etc. Your mistake is that, but you are free to believe sound is music...

[stringtapper]

i answered you yet, just read again: you make confusion between "code" (music) and "style" (what you call "arrangement", in italian "indicazioni", for instance dynamic suggestions, "pedal", "legato", "staccato" etc. Your mistake is that, but you are free to believe sound is music...

You're not reading. I'm talking about the fact that individual compositions have different arrangements of elements, otherwise they would be the same composition. This has nothing to do with style in particular and everything to do with composition. It is simple logic.

Perhaps this is another language issue?

ar·range·ment (-rnjmnt)
n.
1. The act or process of arranging: the arrangement of a time and place for the meeting.
2. The condition, manner, or result of being arranged; disposal: provided flowers and saw to their arrangement.
3. A collection of things that have been arranged: the circular arrangement of megaliths called Stonehenge.
4. A provision or plan made in preparation for an undertaking. Often used in the plural: made arrangements for surgery.
5. An agreement or settlement; a disposition: Our dog will be looked after by arrangement with a neighbor.
6. Music
a. An adaptation of a composition for other instruments or voices or for another style of performance.
b. A composition so arranged.

I am NOT using the 6th definition of "arrangement," I am using the 3rd.

If you are saying that there is no such thing as a specific arrangement, organization, or ordering of musical elements then you are therefore saying that all compositions have the same arrangement, organization, or ordering of musical elements, which would mean that all compositions would be exactly the same composition, and that is absurd.

In order to answer my question you must be able to explain how a specific arrangement, organization, or ordering of musical parameters within one specific composition could be transmitted from the original composer to a transcriber without the transcriber ever having heard or seen that specific composition before he started transcribing it from an audio file.

Can you do that?

[9V]

LOL you are saying: "guess what i am thinking of, otherwise your theory about grammar is wrong"
It's obvious that BOTH words and music must be known to be transmitted, otherwise are thought! What the heck of an argumentation is yours haha

Music exists because of the code, it is a form of communication. Audio "exists" only because last century electric recorders were invented, it is not a language, it is just a kind of "mirror" for sound.

[docprosper]

the code is buried in the audio, otherwise one couldn't listen to audio and write down the notation without ever seeing the notation before. simple.

[stringtapper]

I'll keep waiting.

How did the specific code of one specific composition get from the original composer to the transcriber without the transcriber ever having heard or seen the music before he started transcribing it from an audio file?

[9V]

the code is buried in the audio, otherwise one couldn't listen to audio and write down the notation without ever seeing the notation before. simple.

no, the code can be transmitted via audio (but it is not necessary, infact one could create a melody in his mind... like beethoven etc.). Audio can contain "music" (the code), but is not music. Infact every sound you hear is not music (birds, voices, noise, rain etc.).

[9V]

I'll keep waiting.

How did the specific code of one specific composition get from the original composer to the transcriber without the transcriber ever having heard or seen the music before he started transcribing it from an audio file?

imagine you find a score sheet written by mozart that no-one knew before, because it was hidden in a drawer in vienna. Following your weird logic, that piece of paper is not music, because there is no audio transmitted. As you can see, this is your mistake. At the same time, imagine you want to transcribe the sound of a waterfall: how can you do that? You can't. Why? Because audio is not music. Music is a language, like spoken tongue or mathematics, it has rules. Audio is like weather: a phenomenon.

[stringtapper]

imagine you find a score sheet written by mozart that no-one knew before, because it was hidden in a drawer in vienna. Following your weird logic, that is not music, because there is no audio transmitted. As you can see, this is your mistake. At the same time, imagine you want to transcribe the sound of a waterfall: how can you do that? You can't. Why? Because audio is not music. Music is a language, like spoken tongue or mathematics, it has rules. Audio is like wether: a phenomenon.

Wrong. You have made a fallacious argument. Just because I am arguing that some audio can be music does not mean that I am therefore saying that all music MUST BE transmitted audio. I have never said that, and to infer it from what I have said is poor logic.

Try again.

I'm also waiting for an answer to my older assertion that timbre manipulated through pure audio is in fact a musical parameter as proven by the practice of serious computer musicians over the last four decades. As I recall, the only answer you had was that since that music was not popular or listened to by 99% of human beings that it didn't count. I sure would like to hear a better argument than that, because it really is not a technical argument but rather a critique of quality.

Also, you have yet answer to the example that trevox and I gave about how Max/MSP and now Max for Live make it possible to create music that does not use MIDI at all but uses audio to sequence and manipulate musical elements. As I recall your answer was "as far as I know Max is only MIDI," which everyone who uses Max knows is categorically false. Still waiting for an answer to that one as well.

[9V]

it's simple: "timbre" is not necessary. It can be an important element, but it is not necessary for music as a universal code. Notes are necessary for music, not timbre "modifications". Without notes (intervals in time) there is no music. Without timbre there is still music (infact you can think music, or read it, write it, edit it as a silent language). So your weird "audiotimbresoundmusic" compositions are funny, but unnecessary. The rest (99,99%) is music.

[9V]

regarding max i never said "it is only midi". I said OSC is like a modern, more functional, deeper kind of MIDI for automation, so modification of "audio" parameters with osc is similar to midi "mixer" and effects automation.

[stringtapper]

it's simple: "timbre" is not necessary. It can be an important element, but it is not necessary for music as a universal code. Notes are necessary for music, not timbre "modifications". Without notes (intervals in time) there is no music. Without timbre there is still music (infact you can think music, or read it, write it, edit it as a silent language). So your weird "audiotimbresoundmusic" compositions are funny, but unnecessary. The rest (99,99%) is music.

And because saying timbre used as a musical parameter is unnecessary is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist I can only conclude that you are now conceding that there are cases where audio can be music.

Well it took a while but we finally got there!

[stringtapper]

regarding max i never said "it is only midi". I said OSC is like a modern, more functional kind of MIDI for automation, so modification of "audio" parameters with osc is simioar to midi "mixer" and effects automation.

That's not true. You did in fact say just that. And what trevox and I were referring to in that particular instance had nothing to do with OSC. It was about audio signals controlling other audio signals to create music without MIDI or OSC involved.