muflax
/
muflax65ngodyewp.onion
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

edit

master
muflax 2013-01-16 23:42:31 +01:00
parent ad536d8ca4
commit cb0661bba2
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
content_daily/log/109.mkd
View File

@ -77,12 +77,12 @@ My reading list was getting way too long and unwieldy, so I cleaned it up[^clean
This is why I can't stand musicians.
[^issues]:
Specifically:
Specifically:
1. His use of informational complexity is very crude and ad hoc. I would've replaced it with standard computational complexity.
2. Some of his speculations aren't quite convincing and would benefit from a deeper statistical analysis. I doubt I would've provided one, but it's something you ought(tm) to do.
3. He focuses somewhat too strongly on harmonics as a design mechanism. Standard Westergaardian line-based development is completely missing and more convincing than his "melody as arpeggiated harmony". Arguably, the specific design mechanisms depend on the genre and are somewhat orthogonal to each other, so this doesn't refute his thesis, it just provides one important way to extend it. It's analogous to having a theory of poetic meter, which is crucial but not sufficient for having a theory of poetry as a whole.
4. I'm even more aggressive about dropping the honest-to-gods mind-bogglingly insane nomenclature and notation of conventional music theory. If there's *any* case where it's appropriate to, as the Futurist Manifesto calls it, "free the land from its gangrene of professors" and "set fire to the libraries", *music theory* is it.
1. His use of informational complexity is very crude and ad hoc. I would've replaced it with standard computational complexity.
2. Some of his speculations aren't quite convincing and would benefit from a deeper statistical analysis. I doubt I would've provided one, but it's something you ought(tm) to do.
3. He focuses somewhat too strongly on harmonics as a design mechanism. Standard Westergaardian line-based development is completely missing and more convincing than his "melody as arpeggiated harmony". Arguably, the specific design mechanisms depend on the genre and are somewhat orthogonal to each other, so this doesn't refute his thesis, it just provides one important way to extend it. It's analogous to having a theory of poetic meter, which is crucial but not sufficient for having a theory of poetry as a whole.
4. I'm even more aggressive about dropping the honest-to-gods mind-bogglingly insane nomenclature and notation of conventional music theory. If there's *any* case where it's appropriate to, as the Futurist Manifesto calls it, "free the land from its gangrene of professors" and "set fire to the libraries", *music theory* is it.
- [Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior][]. It starts with this story: