Thanks.

-cvj

-cvj

How might you have interpreted his words?

citrine:- beware of that oft-repeated belief. It is, I expect, mostly not true. It is often applied to modern masters as well, such as jazz musicians, and other composers in the mode of the “compose it right now” genre. People mumble things about it all being intuitive, etc. Those people are then really surprised (and often tell you straight to your face that you’re wrong) when you tell them that these musicians are well-versed in the theory of music. They know all about major thirds, minor thirds, fifths, sevenths, dominant sevenths, augmentations, suspensions,etc… they often know as much music thoery as any other composer…and they put it into action, and they can (and do) discuss it as excitedly and technically as we physicists discuss the language and structure of our work. What happens is that a lot of it gets internalised through practice…..practice, and more practice. At some point a lot of the mechanics of it becomes internalised…..Just like if you learned a new language…eventually you stop thinking about every last detail of the the grammar..it just becomes internalized. But it is mythology to think that (the vast majority of) great masters (in any artistic genre) are just “doing it naturally”… they put in the hard work, and that is a huge part of their foundation. Just like you can’t suddenly start speaking Swahili without studying it hard first… no matter how much of an “aptitute” you might have for language…… Two examples: Picasso could probably not have defined such a remarkably singular approach and style without having a firm foundations in the standard draughtsmanship he learned in his earlier years. Have a look at his early works, and his preliminary and other sketches …. he was a master of the the classical techniques, and learned them the same way everyone else did. Thelonius Monk looks like he is just a gifted untrained pianist messing around who hit on a remakrable style…. (see my post on You Tube). Nope. He was trained in various standard piano styles, and knew his harmony theory… in both cases, they because great masters by knowing all that technical stuff and by being hard workers at learning it inside out before then breaking away. In fact, the breaking away process…the poineering activity…. can only be properly and most successfully done by knowing properly what it is you are breaking away from…..

Cheers,

-cvj

It’s not really that uncommon for engineers to be musicians of some form as well. My husband played trumpet all through high school, and many, many engineers I know were involved in theatre or music.

It’s important to work BOTH sides of the brain, logical and creative. I often play music when I study to keep my right brain interested so it doesn’t go wandering off.

I have studied Music Theory and yes, there are certain numerical patterns in harmonious chords as opposed to dissonant ones. However, one doesn’t need to know the details about scales and fifths and thirds to enjoy classical music. Also, when I read about the great composers, I get the idea that their musical creativity was more or less an intuitive process, not one of mechanical calculations.

Comments?

Cheers,

-cvj

I don’t think there is much in the way of crooked dealings for tickets for random Disney Hall concerts…. As a lucrative market, it cannot compete with what’s going on just down the road by about 8 blocks…. the Staples Centre….. that’s where all the cool kids are, buying and selling tickets for hundreds of dollars, dressed in all their finery, etc, etc.

Cheers,

-cvj

Maybe you could think of Clifford’s article, in another way?

While being “the builders of science(engineers),” they had a greater understanding of the music involved, and so did Clifford?