<html>Reply to Isaac Malitz:<br><table id="201179" dir="auto" border="0" height="400" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Dear Isaac:</div><div>A propos your remark:<span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> "People hear music in very complex ways, a mixture of experiences, some of which are quite primitive. A somewhat-organized delirium of experience (ref: Boulez). </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Legitimatizing this complexity can involve admitting all manner of variables into what is usually thought of as a note. My work, Tonal Refraction, enables a person to give visual form to various aspects of her perception of a tone, tone relatedness, spatial aspects of tone, among other variables; it encourages attention to the specific treatment of tones in particular compositions.</span></div><div>Visual expression invites dialogue of a different sort than that of any isolated discipline as it is personal in origin. In that sense the work is truly inter-disciplinary.</div><div>Nancy Garniez</div><div><a href="http://www.tonalrefraction.com" mce_href="http://www.tonalrefraction.com" target="_blank">www.tonalrefraction.com</a></div><div>New York City</div><div><br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Jul 20, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Isaac Malitz <<a href="mailto:imalitz@omsmodel.com" mce_href="mailto:imalitz@omsmodel.com" target="_blank">imalitz@omsmodel.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I realize that composers and performers
often have to think about music in terms of "notes", this can't be
avoided.<br>
<br>
However, let's take the point-of-view of the listener, the
analyst, the scientist (the scientist of music) [these are not
identical points of view, but they have a certain amount in
common]<br>
From that point of view: Why the focus on "notes"? <br>
I.e., let's rewrite Carson Farley as follows:<br>
<br>
"Just as physics moved in modernity into the new realms, so must
music. A NOTE is in many ways a relic of the past no longer
relevant to contemporary science/practice unless of course the
desired result is traditional sound/music."<br>
<br>
Here's an example to consider: Renee Fleming singing O Mio Babbino
Caro<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU3bJ5JJhlw" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" mce_href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU3bJ5JJhlw" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU3bJ5JJhlw</a><br>
<br>
An analysis of the notes in the score will not reveal very much
about this performance.<br>
One could of course try to say that "it is what she does with the
notes" that explains the performance.<br>
But a more direct explanation would use terms such as: Voice,
breath, words, color, phrase, emotion, ambiance, space, time,
communication, warmth, ...<br>
(Those terms could be broken down into more analytical detail,
but might as well start with the obvious)<br>
The harmony, orchestration, melody (factors that can be discerned
in the score) have some role in the overall effect. 20% ? 30% ?<br>
<br>
<br>
The idea of a "note" is an abstraction, a simplification about
music. <br>
This simplification has value, but it misses a lot.<br>
<br>
I think there is an unspoken assumption that "People hear music as
notes. And then mentally, inside their big-brain-computer, they
construct 'music' from the note-sequences that they hear"<br>
<br>
Here's an alternative view "People hear music in very complex
ways, a mixture of experiences, some of which are quite primitive.
A somewhat-organized delirium of experience (ref: Boulez). At
times, *some* people will hear *individual notes* within this
delirium, or they will abstract some notes from the immediate
experience. These notes are often somewhat different from what was
actually performed."<br>
<br>
In summary, I like Carson Farley's comment as far as it goes, but
it is not radical enough. <br>
<br>
-- Isaac Malitz<br>
<a href="mailto:imalitz@omsmodel.com" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" mce_href="mailto:imalitz@omsmodel.com" target="_blank">imalitz@omsmodel.com</a><br>
818-231-3965<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/18/2014 3:16 PM, CARSON FARLEY wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:811832282.22878943.1405721806921.JavaMail.root@embarqmail.com" type="cite">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">... Just as physics moved in
modernity into the realm of microcosm, so must music. A triad
is in many ways a relic of the past no longer relevant to
contemporary science/practice unless of course the desired
result is traditional sound/music. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Smt-talk mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" mce_href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" target="_blank">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" mce_href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target="_blank">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></html>