The perfect storm ?

« **Reply #50 on:** March 12, 2005, 07:40:25 PM »

For the always engaging Ms. Campbell . . .

Roland has gone through great expense to exactly digitally record sounds produced by many of the World's greatest intruments played by many World renown musicians. So now, someone like me who cannot play an instrument can flip a switch and produce sounds very nearly identical to the best playing the best. Mundane?

Here's hoping all is well with you and yours.

--DM

« **Reply #51 on:** March 12, 2005, 07:55:31 PM »

Quote from: Darva D. Campbell on March 12, 2005, 07:22:14 PM

Does the improvement in timbre and functionality of the trumpet and bassoon over the centuries render playing them less of a challenge?

If you eliminated keys or notes it would.[/color]

Does the technical improvement of the piano and the perfecting of the hammer mechanism make playing the piano more mundane today than it was on the less technically imperfect instruments of Beethoven's era?

If you reduced the number of ivories from 88 to 28 it sure would[/color]

Are you still using LP records, crackle and all, in order to sidestep the mundane sound of orchestral music unadulterated by 21rst century technological developments?

Is playing golf any less an art than is making music?
Is the golfer less an artist than the musician?
Making music isn't an interactive sport/game played upon a field of competition that is being altered/sanitized.[/color]

If it is becoming mundane to you, may I suggest going back to your persimmons?

If it would help my putting ....... I would.[/color]

« **Reply #52 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:08:23 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on March 12, 2005, 07:40:25 PM

Roland has gone through great expense . . . So now, someone like me who cannot play an instrument can flip a switch and produce sounds very nearly identical to the best playing the best.

My Dearest Moriarty, you are now attempting to compare virtual emulation with the real thing . . . If you want to compare emulations, I suggest you discuss this with my 12 year old son. You two can compare his synthesizer and his greeeattt! XBox golf game. Only in virtual reality can a non-musician play "the best of the best," or a 70 pound 12 year old play like Tony the Tiger.

Unless we are talking here about virtual golf, synthesizers have no place in the discussion.

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 12, 2005, 07:55:31 PM

Making music isn't an interactive sport/game played upon a field of competition that is being altered/sanitized.

Is it not? I suggest you ask a 30 year old who has recently entered the world of piano competition, competing against 16 year old wunderkinds who have been playing (although not necessarily making music) since they were three . . . and who will be burnt out by the time they are 20. Mom and Dad riding Jr. to the halls of fame isn't limited to the world of "sports." This has been going on since before Mozart played his first Royal engagement at the age of four . . . But the equipment is considerably better today.

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 12, 2005, 07:55:31 PM

If it would help my putting ....... I would.

Oh, there's no help for that! Although the "flattened greens" mentioned earlier in this thread might help . . .

But at least I succeeded in getting you two on the same page . . .

« **Reply #53 on:** March 13, 2005, 08:39:28 AM »

Darva,

There is no room for deviation in music, unless one considers the awful renditions of our National Anthem performed by egotistic entertainers.

Music is in the absolute, a note is a note, it's fixed and can't be changed.

If 16 Wunderkinds are playing Mozart, they can't devise interpretive changes to the music, or its inherent structure, the notes, the notes that Mozart crafted to form his piece.

The analogy fails at every level.

Improvement in musical equipment doesn't change the individual note, or the order of the notes. They remain permanent, unalterable until the end of time.

Analagously, putting surfaces are changed at will, in many cases by memberships or superintendents (Yale) who are not architects. Unlike music, the starting point on any given green varies every 8 minutes.

Removing the distinctive contours and slopes from greens dulls their play, removes their character and quality, and as such renders them a more simple, ordinary, featureless planes, while the tune always retains it's unique, recognizable melody, unless of course, another idiot has chosen to sing the National Anthem, their way.

« **Reply #54 on:** March 13, 2005, 08:45:26 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 13, 2005, 08:39:28 AM

Improvement in musical equipment doesn't change the individual note, or the order of the notes. They remain permanent, unalterable until the end of time.

Pat,

You're wrong there, notes have so much more to them than simple tone.

Are you saying that A440 sounds the same when played on a violin and on a piano?

Take a Steinway Grand and a Fender Rhodes (generally considered to be the world's most precise piano) and the same note sounds completely different.

Tone is one aspect of a note, but not every aspect. You forget Timbre (note precision) and resonance and what not. Technology has made music more precise, if anything.

« **Reply #55 on:** March 13, 2005, 09:07:47 AM »

Kyle Harris,

The note, and the order of the notes remain constant, unalterable.

Would you say that the same permanency applies to architectural features on a golf course ?

« **Reply #56 on:** March 13, 2005, 09:13:43 AM »

Pat Mucci,

The same permanancy applies to neither. In fact, I think Mozart would be turning in his grave if he knew someone out there was suggesting that his music was an absolute and unalterable.

Mozart himself was a master at both improvisation and tinkering with his own work. He could go out on one night, play a piece, then the next night, play the exact same piece and make it sound completely different.

At what level does his music become absolute? Not in simple melody, that's for sure.

« **Reply #57 on:** March 13, 2005, 09:44:55 AM »

Kyle Harris,

Quote from: Kyle Harris on March 13, 2005, 09:13:43 AM

The same permanancy applies to neither. In fact, I think Mozart would be turning in his grave if he knew someone out there was suggesting that his music was an absolute and unalterable.

No, he would be turning in his grave if he knew that someone else was trying to alter it.[/color]

Mozart himself was a master at both improvisation and tinkering with his own work. He could go out on one night, play a piece, then the next night, play the exact same piece and make it sound completely different.

How do you know that ?
Did you ever hear him do it ?

The notes and order of the notes remain constant, as they were written by the author, and not subject to change by musicians through the ages.

Notes and the order of the notes have no life to them, they are inanimate objects.

Architectural features have life to them and don't remain constant, by themselves or by man's hand. [/color]

At what level does his music become absolute? Not in simple melody, that's for sure.

The individual notes and order of those notes are fixed, absolute.[/color]

« **Reply #58 on:** March 13, 2005, 09:53:09 AM »

I suppose in my 16 years of music study (the preponderance of which is classical) I must have missed something about Mozart's own feelings about his music. Mozart was the father of altering music and squeezing different moods and feelings out of past works.

Mozart's performances and styles of performance are pretty well documented and agreed upon in musical circles. So yeah, I may not have been there, but there is little to no debate as to how it happened when it did.

Your statement that the individual notes are fixed and absolute is like comparing golf courses to one another without bothering to consider topography.

Every Redan is the same, right?

« **Reply #59 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:24:16 AM »

Kyle Harris,

Your analogies continue to become more absurd.

All music is written on or within the exact same structure, with a finite number of notes.

_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________

Would you compare the above to disparate sites upon which golf courses exist ?

Stick to music, golf and golf course architecture aren't your forte.

« **Reply #60 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:28:52 AM »

It's a pity to see that that is all you see music as being.

Course routings are done on a flat sheet of paper, is that all the golf course is?

Ever tune a guitar or piano? There are not a finite number of notes. Notes represent a certain frequency... is there a finite number of frequencies? (Within audible range, yes, but there are so many other variables within the frequency that it is scientifically infinite).

Written music is a skeleton for the actual song, it is not the song itself.

« **Reply #61 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:32:00 AM »

Pat,

Where did I ever bring a golf architecture argument in here? I was pointing our your inaccuracies and your fallacious arguments, I made no point about architecture, just trying to clarify points about music that you were inaccurate on.

« **Reply #62 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:34:14 AM »

Quote from: Kyle Harris on March 13, 2005, 10:28:52 AM

It's a pity to see that that is all you see music as being.
That's all it is.

Course routings are done on a flat sheet of paper, is that all the golf course is?

That shows how little you know and understand about routing.

Written music is a skeleton for the actual song, it is not the song itself.

The notes, and order of the notes in the song remain fixed, in the absolute, and never change, unlike a golf course which changes daily.

You chose a poor analogy and rather then admit it, you'd prefer to go down with the ship. So be it.[/color]

« **Reply #63 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:36:07 AM »

Course routings are done on a flat sheet of paper, is that all the golf course is?

That shows how little you know and understand about routing.

Pat,

How so? Most routings I've seen have been on a piece of paper. Paper is flat.... what don't I understand?

« **Reply #64 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:37:22 AM »

Pat

Golf courses are finite too:

18 holes
Pars 3-5
Tee and Green on every hole
One hole per green
All holes of equal size
Defined type of hazard (bunker, water, OB, etc. are OK--windmills, barbed wire, machine gun fire are not OK)

Music is a good analogy for GCA, as Kyle has articulated. One just needs to think a bit out of the box to understand....

« **Reply #65 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:39:41 AM »

Kyle Harris,

Quote from: Kyle Harris on March 13, 2005, 09:53:09 AM

Every Redan is the same, right?

I guess your own words refute your claim that you never discussed architecture.

But, these aren't the only words, go back and review your posts, including quotes and references, in the context of your post's after my exchange with Darva.

[/color]

« **Reply #66 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:41:29 AM »

Pat,

We're making the same mistake I think... injecting context and tone that isn't there into the text that is written.

"Every Redan is the same, right?" was me being very very facetious.

You saying that every note is the same and is an absolute is like saying that every redan is the same: preposterous.

« **Reply #67 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:48:28 AM »

Rich Goodale,

Quote from: Rich Goodale on March 13, 2005, 10:37:22 AM

Golf courses are finite too:

Not true[/color]

18 holes 9 holes, 19 holes, 20 holes etc., etc..
[/color]

Pars 3-5 par 6 holes, par 7 holes[/color]

Tee and Green on every hole

One hole per green Desert Mountain 2 holes per green[/color]

All holes of equal sizeonly for USGA & R&A[/color]

Defined type of hazard (bunker, water, OB, etc. are OK--windmills, barbed wire, machine gun fire are not OK) Only by USGA & R&A, local rules and individual interpretations vary..[/color]

Music is a good analogy for GCA, as Kyle has articulated. One just needs to think a bit out of the box to understand....
It's an absurd analogy, in or out of the box.

Is music a living organism ?[/color]

Kyle Harris, I never said that every note was the same, that's just another absurd statement by you.[/color]

« **Reply #68 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:50:58 AM »

Pat,

You're just extending the limitations set by Rich, you aren't prooving inifinity, just extending the finite.

My apologies for oversimplifying your statement:

"Music is in the absolute, a note is a note, it's fixed and can't be changed."

« **Reply #69 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:52:55 AM »

Kyle Harris,

Then just look at the exact same five bars and finite number of notes, and then look at the infinite number of topos.

Your absurdity knows no bounds,

« **Reply #70 on:** March 13, 2005, 10:57:03 AM »

Well considering that the combinations and interations of those five bars when layered (or added to the two other clefs commonly used), making for fifteen bars, not to mention that written music extends below and above the clefs (pianos have 88 keys). Let's not forget accidentals, ornamentation, quarter steps and so on...

You are comparing iterations of topography (different forms of topo) to limitations of music (the range of notes). That's fallacious.

The correct analog would be to define the bounds of topo (Dead Sea to Mt. Everest) to your argument on the bounds of music within the clefs.

Within those limits, the iterations and possibilities of both are scientifically infinite.

« **Reply #71 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:11:40 AM »

Kyle Harris,

It doesn't matter what the iterations are, the creation of the music is limited to five bars and a finite number of notes, a universal, uniform structure. No matter who writes the music, they must confine themselves to creating within that exact same structure.

The creation of a golf course is upon a unique site/structure that seperates itself from evey other site/structure..

Everyone writing music starts with the same sheet with five bars and a fixed number of notes.

Everyone designing a golf course starts with a unique piece of property.

Golf courses are not created on fixed, limited planes, but on unlimited topos, and, unlike music, the topos and courses change from the moment they are created.

« **Reply #72 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:16:21 AM »

Pat

Music is very much a living organism. Ask Kyle or Mark Rowlinson, who probably know much better than you or I.

Until then, try to think laterally, old bean. I know you can do it!

« **Reply #73 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:21:24 AM »

Pat,

Music does change over the course of time, too.

What changes a golf course and music may be different, and yes, I agree that golf courses do have more variables affecting them and also a whole slew of natural variables, whereas music is changed as human interpretation of the music evolves.

Most music writers I know sit down at an instrument to compose or just play with sounds some other way. It's very hard to actually sit down to a piece of manuscript paper and hash out a song, at least it is for me. This is akin to sitting in a field and hitting shots, and then planning the course based on that experience.

Coincidentally enough, this ties in with the thread about Ross being able to put together a great routing from a good topo map.

As for the the limits of golf courses, you do have practical considerations to consider. Both of our arguments are assuming the ideal set of variables.

Anyone could conceivably sit down and just pound on the keys of a piano and call it a song (think two year old playing around) but you and I wouldn't call it a song.

Similarly, anyone can stick 18 holes in the ground and call it a golf course, but many of us would be hard-pressed to call it a golf course.

My point is there are practical conventions in what can and can't be done in both GCA and music. The plane on which a golf course can be built is fixed and limited, just not to the extent of music.

« **Reply #74 on:** March 13, 2005, 11:27:10 AM »

Kyle Harris,

How have the notes and order of the notes in Beethoven's 5th changed in the last 100 years ?

Have the notes been rearranged ?

Have notes been deleted ?

Have notes been added ?

With your 16 years of classical training these should be easy questions to answer.

News:

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

guesst

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

ForkaB

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

Kyle Harris

Patrick_Mucci