FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
FOTD -- December 29, 2001 (Rating 4) Fractal visionaries and enthusiasts: Today's FOTD image takes us once again into the bizarre world of exponents of Z between 1 and 2. This sub-two world is an unpredictable place of infinite branch cuts and midgets that become ever more difficult to find. Today's scene is located in a valley of the Z^1.8+C Mandeloid, at a level a little below ground level. (Ground level is rendered when the real(p2) parameter of the MandelbrotBC1 formula is set to 3.14159...). The exponent value of 1.8 draws fractals in which it is not too difficult to locate midgets, and the midgets can be of any shape. The midget in today's image is too small for its shape to be clearly seen, but an in-zoom will reveal an irregular lake, not quite fully resolved, with three broad bays roughly evenly spaced around its perimeter. I have named the image "The Secrets of Time". I've forgotten why. And I have rated it a slightly below average 4. These sub-two Mandeloid midgets do seem to become boringly similar after a while, though I constantly search the fractals in this range, hoping to find something unexpected. On my tired old machine, the parameter file runs in just under 10 minutes. The completed GIF image downloads from the internet in even less time. To find the download go to: <http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/FotD/FotD.html> or to: <http://sdboyd.dyndns.org/~sdboyd/fotd/index.html> But before visiting their web sites, give Paul and Scott a chance to render and post the image. The fractal weather Friday at fractal HQ was not what the cats wanted. There was too little sun, too much wind, and too chilly a temperature. Without wind and in full sun, the temperature of 44F 6.5C would have been acceptable, but the wind and lack of sun made things just too uncomfortable for the intrepid pair. Thomas passed the afternoon under the decorated tree; Tippy chose the floor by warmest radiator. One of my favorite things about the holiday season is the great music. But as I listen to the music, I cannot help but notice that so much of it is from times long past. We all enjoy the older traditional music at this time of year, but why, I wonder, has no great music been written in recent times? Where is the 'Messiah' of the 20th century? Where is the 'Beethoven's 9th' symphony or the 'Nutcracker' ballet of the 20th century? What great grand opera has been composed since 'Turandot'? (Musical shows are not operas.) Some will argue that great music *is* still being composed, and that it is only one's particular taste that makes them prefer older music, but if this is so, why do programs of older music consistently draw the largest audiences to classical concerts? Why does older music sound harmonious and beautiful? Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can? And why does so much modern music sound discordant and even downright ugly, even to the point of annoyance? Is it because we ultra-moderns need a course in music appreciation, or is it because there is nothing in the music to appreciate? Is it because the world has cast aside the things of spirit that for so many centuries were the source of artistic inspiration? Spiritual thoughts inspire beautiful art that brings peace and contentment. Secular thoughts -- thoughts of a world without meaning -- inspire ugly despairing art -- art that expresses anger and hopelessness -- art of the kind preferred by so many of our present-day youth. Can the blind, meaningless, unknowing and uncaring physical universe of science, vast and complex as it is, ever compare with thoughts of God and angels, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, in the ability to inspire great works of art? If the secular world cannot inspire us as the spiritual world once did, has the era of great art ended? I fear this may be the case. But there is yet a spark of hope. Both Atheists and believers enjoy fractals, which are not the highest form of art, yet somehow bridge the gap between the sacred and the profane. Where fractals may take us, I shall not speculate. Perhaps more along these lines in a day or two; perhaps not. Glancing up at the clock, I see that midnight is drawing near. It's well past the time to shut down the fractal shoppe, and time to call it a night. Until next time, take care, and keep striving. Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com START 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE================================ The_Secret_Of_Time { ; time=0:09:52.49--SF5 on a P200 reset=2002 type=formula formulafile=allinone.frm formulaname=MandelbrotBC1 function=floor passes=1 center-mag=-0.3290480331308/-0.6702011404115/5.112\ 165e+007/1/-57.5/-2.1509544216591348e-007 params=1\ .8/0/0/0 float=y maxiter=3000 inside=0 logmap=252 colors=000YEX`FYcGZfK_iO`lSaoWbr_cucdxgezkfzogzsgz\ wfzzfzzbww_rqXkiVfbS`WOVQLOIJJBGC4D74BI4CS6Da8D`48\ `43Y41V40S40Q40N40L40I40F40C40A4074044044044044044\ 0eWBbUA`S8ZR7WO6VN4SM3RL1OI0MH0LF0IE0HB0EA0C80A707\ 406404404404404404404QB4M74J44F14C04A0460440zRfzOc\ yM`uLZrJWoITo4Vi4Wf4Wc4ZY6_VB`RHXQIWYRfWWgW`hVekUj\ lSonSuoRzrQzsOzsOzsMzsLzpJvnIqlHjjEegCZfBUcAN`8I_C\ HXHFVLETOERSCOWBN`AKcAJfFKgJLiNNjSOkWQm`RneSoiTqmV\ rrWsvXuzZvz_wz`yz`szcnvfinhcfkZZnURpOJsJBsE4s84sA4\ sB4sBApCEnCJkENhFSfFWcHa`HeZIjWInTLkWMjZNi_OgbQfcR\ efScgUbjW`lYZnZYp`WraVsbUscSseRs`OrWMjSJbOHVLEOHBG\ C888604404404404404404cR4bO4`L4ZK4WH4VF4SC4RBASAFU\ ALVAQVAVWAaY8fZ8kZ8q`8va8za8veJqgSmk`gnkbrsZuserrj\ qgqnWvmLunKsoJrqJqqHorHnsGmsFkuFjvDivDmyJozOrzTuzZ\ wzczz_zzXzzVzwSzsOzqLznJzkGzjDzjBzj8zj6zj3zi0zi0zi\ 0zi0zi0zi0zj0zk0zm0iVpkRp } frm:MandelbrotBC1 { ; by several Fractint users e=p1, a=imag(p2)+100 p=real(p2)+PI q=2*PI*fn1(p/(2*PI)) r=real(p2)-q Z=C=Pixel: Z=log(Z) IF(imag(Z)>r) Z=Z+flip(2*PI) ENDIF Z=exp(e*(Z+flip(q)))+C |Z|<a } END 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE==================================
I am a fan of classical music, and mostly I agree with you in your appreciation about music of the 20th century. One of my favorite composers is Anton Bruckner, at the end of the 19th century. Notwithstanding this, I also appreciate some composers and works from the 20th century. To name a few, Schoenberg's "Pelleas and Melisande", most works by Carl Orff, Benjamin Britten, William Walton, Malcolm Arnold, Karl-Birger Blomdahl, Bohuslav Martinu, Leos Janacek and the nearly unknown Miloslav Kabelac. I feel that the tendency to dissonance, anger and ugliness will eventually subside, and that the works by the composers I named and some others will succeed. A sign of this is that composers like John Adams and Arvo Part are gaining popularity these days. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Muth" <jamth@mindspring.com> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: <philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 2:03 AM Subject: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
FOTD -- December 29, 2001 (Rating 4)
Fractal visionaries and enthusiasts:
Today's FOTD image takes us once again into the bizarre world of exponents of Z between 1 and 2. This sub-two world is an unpredictable place of infinite branch cuts and midgets that become ever more difficult to find.
Today's scene is located in a valley of the Z^1.8+C Mandeloid, at a level a little below ground level. (Ground level is rendered when the real(p2) parameter of the MandelbrotBC1 formula is set to 3.14159...).
The exponent value of 1.8 draws fractals in which it is not too difficult to locate midgets, and the midgets can be of any shape. The midget in today's image is too small for its shape to be clearly seen, but an in-zoom will reveal an irregular lake, not quite fully resolved, with three broad bays roughly evenly spaced around its perimeter.
I have named the image "The Secrets of Time". I've forgotten why. And I have rated it a slightly below average 4. These sub-two Mandeloid midgets do seem to become boringly similar after a while, though I constantly search the fractals in this range, hoping to find something unexpected.
On my tired old machine, the parameter file runs in just under 10 minutes. The completed GIF image downloads from the internet in even less time. To find the download go to:
<http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/FotD/FotD.html>
or to:
<http://sdboyd.dyndns.org/~sdboyd/fotd/index.html>
But before visiting their web sites, give Paul and Scott a chance to render and post the image.
The fractal weather Friday at fractal HQ was not what the cats wanted. There was too little sun, too much wind, and too chilly a temperature. Without wind and in full sun, the temperature of 44F 6.5C would have been acceptable, but the wind and lack of sun made things just too uncomfortable for the intrepid pair. Thomas passed the afternoon under the decorated tree; Tippy chose the floor by warmest radiator.
One of my favorite things about the holiday season is the great music. But as I listen to the music, I cannot help but notice that so much of it is from times long past. We all enjoy the older traditional music at this time of year, but why, I wonder, has no great music been written in recent times? Where is the 'Messiah' of the 20th century? Where is the 'Beethoven's 9th' symphony or the 'Nutcracker' ballet of the 20th century? What great grand opera has been composed since 'Turandot'? (Musical shows are not operas.)
Some will argue that great music *is* still being composed, and that it is only one's particular taste that makes them prefer older music, but if this is so, why do programs of older music consistently draw the largest audiences to classical concerts?
Why does older music sound harmonious and beautiful? Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can? And why does so much modern music sound discordant and even downright ugly, even to the point of annoyance? Is it because we ultra-moderns need a course in music appreciation, or is it because there is nothing in the music to appreciate? Is it because the world has cast aside the things of spirit that for so many centuries were the source of artistic inspiration?
Spiritual thoughts inspire beautiful art that brings peace and contentment. Secular thoughts -- thoughts of a world without meaning -- inspire ugly despairing art -- art that expresses anger and hopelessness -- art of the kind preferred by so many of our present-day youth.
Can the blind, meaningless, unknowing and uncaring physical universe of science, vast and complex as it is, ever compare with thoughts of God and angels, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, in the ability to inspire great works of art? If the secular world cannot inspire us as the spiritual world once did, has the era of great art ended? I fear this may be the case.
But there is yet a spark of hope. Both Atheists and believers enjoy fractals, which are not the highest form of art, yet somehow bridge the gap between the sacred and the profane. Where fractals may take us, I shall not speculate.
Perhaps more along these lines in a day or two; perhaps not.
Glancing up at the clock, I see that midnight is drawing near. It's well past the time to shut down the fractal shoppe, and time to call it a night. Until next time, take care, and keep striving.
Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com
START 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE================================
The_Secret_Of_Time { ; time=0:09:52.49--SF5 on a P200 reset=2002 type=formula formulafile=allinone.frm formulaname=MandelbrotBC1 function=floor passes=1 center-mag=-0.3290480331308/-0.6702011404115/5.112\ 165e+007/1/-57.5/-2.1509544216591348e-007 params=1\ .8/0/0/0 float=y maxiter=3000 inside=0 logmap=252 colors=000YEX`FYcGZfK_iO`lSaoWbr_cucdxgezkfzogzsgz\ wfzzfzzbww_rqXkiVfbS`WOVQLOIJJBGC4D74BI4CS6Da8D`48\ `43Y41V40S40Q40N40L40I40F40C40A4074044044044044044\ 0eWBbUA`S8ZR7WO6VN4SM3RL1OI0MH0LF0IE0HB0EA0C80A707\ 406404404404404404404QB4M74J44F14C04A0460440zRfzOc\ yM`uLZrJWoITo4Vi4Wf4Wc4ZY6_VB`RHXQIWYRfWWgW`hVekUj\ lSonSuoRzrQzsOzsOzsMzsLzpJvnIqlHjjEegCZfBUcAN`8I_C\ HXHFVLETOERSCOWBN`AKcAJfFKgJLiNNjSOkWQm`RneSoiTqmV\ rrWsvXuzZvz_wz`yz`szcnvfinhcfkZZnURpOJsJBsE4s84sA4\ sB4sBApCEnCJkENhFSfFWcHa`HeZIjWInTLkWMjZNi_OgbQfcR\ efScgUbjW`lYZnZYp`WraVsbUscSseRs`OrWMjSJbOHVLEOHBG\ C888604404404404404404cR4bO4`L4ZK4WH4VF4SC4RBASAFU\ ALVAQVAVWAaY8fZ8kZ8q`8va8za8veJqgSmk`gnkbrsZuserrj\ qgqnWvmLunKsoJrqJqqHorHnsGmsFkuFjvDivDmyJozOrzTuzZ\ wzczz_zzXzzVzwSzsOzqLznJzkGzjDzjBzj8zj6zj3zi0zi0zi\ 0zi0zi0zi0zj0zk0zm0iVpkRp }
frm:MandelbrotBC1 { ; by several Fractint users e=p1, a=imag(p2)+100 p=real(p2)+PI q=2*PI*fn1(p/(2*PI)) r=real(p2)-q Z=C=Pixel: Z=log(Z) IF(imag(Z)>r) Z=Z+flip(2*PI) ENDIF Z=exp(e*(Z+flip(q)))+C |Z|<a }
END 20.0 PAR-FORMULA FILE==================================
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
At 00:03 29/12/2001 -0500, Jim Muth wrote:
Some will argue that great music *is* still being composed, and that it is only one's particular taste that makes them prefer older music, but if this is so, why do programs of older music consistently draw the largest audiences to classical concerts?
Why does older music sound harmonious and beautiful? Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can? And why does so much modern music sound discordant and even downright ugly, even to the point of annoyance? Is it because we ultra-moderns need a course in music appreciation, or is it because there is nothing in the music to appreciate? Is it because the world has cast aside the things of spirit that for so many centuries were the source of artistic inspiration?
Well, I'm not one to make such sweeping generalisations as "Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can", but I can think of two influences that could produce effects described: 1) Familiarity - the older music has had longer to be appreciated. 2) Natural Selection - crap older music hasn't survived as well as the good stuff. Morgan L. Owens "The climax of _Mishima_ still affected him like a grappling hook through the heart"
You are right on both counts, but anyhow you should recognize that modern music is usually harsh and dissonant, while old music isn't. I can't imagine Mozart writing Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire or Daniel Bortz's 6th symphony. There are exceptions, however. Have you ever listened to the Capriccio Stravagante by Carlo Farina, circa 1600? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan L. Owens" <packrat@nznet.gen.nz> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com>; <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: <philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
At 00:03 29/12/2001 -0500, Jim Muth wrote:
Some will argue that great music *is* still being composed, and that it is only one's particular taste that makes them prefer older music, but if this is so, why do programs of older music consistently draw the largest audiences to classical concerts?
Why does older music sound harmonious and beautiful? Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can? And why does so much modern music sound discordant and even downright ugly, even to the point of annoyance? Is it because we ultra-moderns need a course in music appreciation, or is it because there is nothing in the music to appreciate? Is it because the world has cast aside the things of spirit that for so many centuries were the source of artistic inspiration?
Well, I'm not one to make such sweeping generalisations as "Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can", but I can think of two influences that could produce effects described:
1) Familiarity - the older music has had longer to be appreciated.
2) Natural Selection - crap older music hasn't survived as well as the good stuff.
Morgan L. Owens "The climax of _Mishima_ still affected him like a grappling hook through the heart"
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Call me stupid, but I seem unable to get my present configuration of Fractint to save gif image files in disk video mode larger than the configured standard video card settings. I know I've forgotten something and am missing the obvious.... For instanse assume I'm using a Matrox Millenium AGP G-200 video card in Fractint 1024 x 768 x 256 Vesa Mode, and say I want to generate an image 5x or 10x that standard size in "disk video mode". Would someone please walk me through with even the most obvious baby steps of <v> mode settings and any other settings so that I can access the "disk video mode" and save my images to larger, denser, files in fractint? Would any other configs or settings interfer with why the disk video mode isn't working? Pleas advise Thanks
At 17:30 30/12/2001 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
You are right on both counts, but anyhow you should recognize that modern music is usually harsh and dissonant, while old music isn't.
Well, all this is just a restatement of what Jim Muth said in his editorial, sweeping generalisation and all, so my reply obviously wouldn't be any different either. Remember "decimal music"? Morgan L. Owens "Sorry I'm not up to writing musical notation here."
Well, this is the first time I have heard about "decimal music". Anyhow, the subject of dissonance is clarified: 1) By the composers themselves. Stravinsky, Schoenberg and others actually said they *tried* to write dissonant music... and they succeeded. 2) By the rules of harmony, which are simple and verifiable by anyone. A fifth, a major third, a fourth, a minor third, etc. are all consonant because the the frequencies ratios are fractions composed of small numbers and so they generate less interference sounds (it is more complex than that, but the complete theory does not fit in the margin :-)). Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan L. Owens" <packrat@nznet.gen.nz> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com>; <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
At 17:30 30/12/2001 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
You are right on both counts, but anyhow you should recognize that modern music is usually harsh and dissonant, while old music isn't.
Well, all this is just a restatement of what Jim Muth said in his editorial, sweeping generalisation and all, so my reply obviously wouldn't be any different either.
Remember "decimal music"?
Morgan L. Owens "Sorry I'm not up to writing musical notation here."
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
At 21:20 31/12/2001 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
Anyhow, the subject of dissonance is clarified:
I summarise what I've been saying. The charge "old music good, new music bad" is bogus. "Harsh and dissonant" music has been written in the past (and much that was written didn't survive the transition into equal temperament); and soul-seizing music is being written today. Certainly, I wouldn't call Vangelis' "Chariots of Fire" - to pick one well-enough known example - harsh nor dissonant, and serves on its own as a counterexample to Jim Muth's claim. The insistence that I compare harsh music of today with harmoniou music of the past is entirely spurious, and serves only as a vehicle for another of Jim Muth's installments of "What I think is wrong With Our Society". As such further debate is pointless. Morgan L. Owens "What do you mean 'we', paleface?"
I have never said "old music good, new music bad". In fact, I love Stravinsky and some others. I like some and dislike some, both new and old music. I only pointed to the fact that new classical (note: classical, not nearly popular such as Vangelis') music is usually (note: usually) harsher and more dissonant than older music. Regarding "harsh and dissonant music" that has been written in the past, I'd like to know some examples, not being the Capriccio Stravagante by Carlo Farina I mentioned before. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan L. Owens" <packrat@nznet.gen.nz> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com>; <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
At 21:20 31/12/2001 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
Anyhow, the subject of dissonance is clarified:
I summarise what I've been saying. The charge "old music good, new music bad" is bogus.
"Harsh and dissonant" music has been written in the past (and much that was written didn't survive the transition into equal temperament); and soul-seizing music is being written today.
Certainly, I wouldn't call Vangelis' "Chariots of Fire" - to pick one well-enough known example - harsh nor dissonant, and serves on its own as a counterexample to Jim Muth's claim.
The insistence that I compare harsh music of today with harmoniou music of the past is entirely spurious, and serves only as a vehicle for another of Jim Muth's installments of "What I think is wrong With Our Society". As such further debate is pointless.
Morgan L. Owens "What do you mean 'we', paleface?"
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo M. Forno" <rforno@tutopia.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
I have never said "old music good, new music bad". In fact, I love Stravinsky and some others. I like some and dislike some, both new and old music. I only pointed to the fact that new classical (note: classical, not nearly popular such as Vangelis') music is usually (note: usually) harsher and more dissonant than older music. Regarding "harsh and dissonant music" that has been written in the past, I'd like to know some examples, not being the Capriccio Stravagante by Carlo Farina I mentioned before.
This arbitrary division between "classical" and "popular" obscures the fact that lots of great music is being written right now, and it's popular, as was Mozart in his day. I think, however that the *form* of music may be altering, because so much of it is tied to visuals. John Williams still produces great movie music...just listen to the "Harry Potter" score, as does Ennio Moricone and the synthesizer guys like Vangelis and the elder and younger Jarres. We tend to sneer a little at "movie music", but surely this is the wave of the future? This is the only genre in which a composer can now make a living...the populace just does not flock to concert halls to hear the latest from a modern composer. Nowadays new music must be tailored in duration to suit a movie, a CD-ROM or an MP3 file, plus the attention span of modern audiences seems to be declining...maybe as a result of the introduction of the old vinyl record. It's very difficult to see the wood for the trees, but it seems to me that very little new music is *memorable*. I understand that after a Mozart recital, the audience would disperse, whistling or humming sections of the music they had heard. This mostly occurs these days only when Andrew Lloyd Webber puts together a new show. I can't imagine trying to recall a piece of Glass after a recital! John W.
OK. I agree with most what you said. Note, however, that I was not very strict in my division: I qualified Vangelis' music as *nearly* popular. Note also that actually you are supporting Jim's point of view, the same as I do... to some extent. As a bonus to fractalers, I am attaching a piece of music in .MID format, that was "composed" by a non-fractal program I wrote. I must recognize it is one of the best from this program. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John W." <juanw@shaw.ca> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo M. Forno" <rforno@tutopia.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
I have never said "old music good, new music bad". In fact, I love Stravinsky and some others. I like some and dislike some, both new and
old
music. I only pointed to the fact that new classical (note: classical, not nearly popular such as Vangelis') music is usually (note: usually) harsher and more dissonant than older music. Regarding "harsh and dissonant music" that has been written in the past, I'd like to know some examples, not being the Capriccio Stravagante by Carlo Farina I mentioned before.
This arbitrary division between "classical" and "popular" obscures the fact that lots of great music is being written right now, and it's popular, as was Mozart in his day. I think, however that the *form* of music may be altering, because so much of it is tied to visuals. John Williams still produces great movie music...just listen to the "Harry Potter" score, as does Ennio Moricone and the synthesizer guys like Vangelis and the elder and younger Jarres. We tend to sneer a little at "movie music", but surely this is the wave of the future? This is the only genre in which a composer can now make a living...the populace just does not flock to concert halls to hear the latest from a modern composer. Nowadays new music must be tailored in duration to suit a movie, a CD-ROM or an MP3 file, plus the attention span of modern audiences seems to be declining...maybe as a result of the introduction of the old vinyl record. It's very difficult to see the wood for the trees, but it seems to me that very little new music is *memorable*. I understand that after a Mozart recital, the audience would disperse, whistling or humming sections of the music they had heard. This mostly occurs these days only when Andrew Lloyd Webber puts together a new show. I can't imagine trying to recall a piece of Glass after a recital!
John W. ¶¶)T¨SxS˧S{j)j|SË¢wsm§ÿæj)fj|fSË"¢w(>÷ ?¸§þf¢-f§þX¦)ߣ÷ëiËb
At 22:36 02/01/2002 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
OK. I agree with most what you said. Note, however, that I was not very strict in my division: I qualified Vangelis' music as *nearly* popular. Note also that actually you are supporting Jim's point of view, the same as I do... to some extent.
It has to be "to some extent" only because Jim's already managed to contradict himself - and from a contradiction anything can be proven. But note that in Jim's original statement (the one to which I originally replied) he made no distinction about _what sort_ of music he was talking about. And much of what has been said since merely backs up what I originally replied with: 1) Familiarity 2) Natural selection Morgan L. Owens "Anyone know a good memetic decontamination service? I've got a British indie melody stuck in my head."
--- "Morgan L. Owens" <packrat@nznet.gen.nz> wrote:
"Anyone know a good memetic decontamination service? I've got a British indie melody stuck in my head."
<delurk mode> I hear Smith and Wesson have some do-it-yourself tools.... ;^P <resume lurk> (don't read anything into this... this has been a very amusing thread with which I am well pleased... you go guys!) H^) harry bissell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 18:32:07 -0800, John W. wrote:
Poco encountered a problem while downloading/decoding this message, portions of this message may be missing. Message has not been deleted from the server.
I am repeatedly getting this message, although I have (or at least thought I had) deleted it manually from my ISP's server. Anyone else having this problem? Any ideas, please? John -- John Lewis, jlewis@clara.net on 01/06/2002
At 20:46 01/01/2002 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
I have never said "old music good, new music bad".
Well, that's what Jim Muth said. You seemed to agree.
In fact, I love Stravinsky and some others. I like some and dislike some, both new and old music. I only pointed to the fact that new classical (note: classical, not nearly popular such as Vangelis') music is usually (note: usually) harsher and more dissonant than older music.
Classical music was popular music when it was written. Verdi was the Vangelis of his day. What's the difference? The choice of instruments? Does that make "Enter Sandman" as performed by the San Fransisco Philharmonic classical music? I don't actually care about the answer, since it's irrelevant anyway. Maybe you and Jim Muth just have to put the effort into appreciating modern music, as he claims people don't. If you don't like it, well that's your loss, but come back in three hundred years and you'll probably see people saying the older stuff like Jarre or Gerswhin or Mercury or McCartney is much better than the harsh and dissonant stuff of today. Morgan L. Owens "Verdi and Wagner delighted the crowds with their highly original sound. The pianos they played are still working, but they're both six feet underground."
I'm getting hooked on these, it's a bright day when we see a Morgan L. Owens posting! Thanks Morgan. Chris, "Can't compete", Curnow
Morgan L. Owens "Verdi and Wagner delighted the crowds with their highly original sound. The pianos they played are still working, but they're both six feet underground."
Morgan L. Owens "She's dead, Jim"
Is the Official Spanky Fractint Homepage Dead Forever? TG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo M. Forno" <rforno@tutopia.com> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
Well, this is the first time I have heard about "decimal music". Anyhow, the subject of dissonance is clarified: 1) By the composers themselves. Stravinsky, Schoenberg and others actually said they *tried* to write dissonant music... and they succeeded. 2) By the rules of harmony, which are simple and verifiable by anyone. A fifth, a major third, a fourth, a minor third, etc. are all consonant because the the frequencies ratios are fractions composed of small numbers and so they generate less interference sounds (it is more complex than that, but the complete theory does not fit in the margin :-)). Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan L. Owens" <packrat@nznet.gen.nz> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com>; <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
At 17:30 30/12/2001 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
You are right on both counts, but anyhow you should recognize that modern music is usually harsh and dissonant, while old music isn't.
Well, all this is just a restatement of what Jim Muth said in his editorial, sweeping generalisation and all, so my reply obviously wouldn't be any different either.
Remember "decimal music"?
Morgan L. Owens "Sorry I'm not up to writing musical notation here."
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Tony, - Is the Official Spanky Fractint Homepage Dead Forever? Last time I checked, www.fractint.org and spanky.fractint.org were both up, so while spanky.triumf.ca is offline, the Spanky site is still available. Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ Fractalus Galleries & Info: \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or in a newsgroup. Thank you.
Damien: Thanks! BTW Is Noel still in the loop or are you in charge of the Spanky Fractal Database? I was trying to access the Spanky Fractal Database via FTP as per the webpage instructions, and it requested a username and password. Do I need a password ? Any suggestions as to how I can acquire access to your Fractal database FTP Site? If yes, what username and password shall I use? Thanks, TG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien M. Jones" <dmj@fractalus.com> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [Fractint] Is the Official Spanky Fractint Homepage Dead Forever?
Tony,
- Is the Official Spanky Fractint Homepage Dead Forever?
Last time I checked, www.fractint.org and spanky.fractint.org were both up, so while spanky.triumf.ca is offline, the Spanky site is still available.
Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ Fractalus Galleries & Info: \\ http://www.fractalus.com/
Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or in a newsgroup. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Tony, - BTW Is Noel still in the loop or are you in charge of the Spanky Fractal - Database? It's still Noel's site; all I was doing was mirroring it. - I was trying to access the Spanky Fractal Database via FTP as per the - webpage instructions, and it requested a username and password. Do I - need a password ? That might be something screwed up from the Great Crash a couple of months ago; lemme check. ...ok I found a couple of things I missed which might have made some of the indexes inaccessible, but I couldn't find any FTP links, which are the only things that might end up prompting you for a password. If you send me the page that has the link that's prompting you for the password, I can track it down more easily. All this data is supposed to be publicly available, so password-protected areas would be counter-productive. :) Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ Fractalus Galleries & Info: \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or in a newsgroup. Thank you.
"Ricardo M. Forno" wrote: snip
... the rules of harmony, which are simple and verifiable by anyone. A fifth, a major third, a fourth, a minor third, etc. are all consonant because the the frequencies ratios are fractions composed of small numbers and so they generate less interference sounds (it is more complex than that
\snip In fact the rules of harmony are quite mutable, and are largely a matter of taste, and what we are used to (try listening to Middle Eastern or Asian music sometime). The ancient Greeks, for instance, regarded the octave as the only acceptable harmony. In mediaeval times, the perfect fifth, then later the fourth, were allowed, and it's only quite recently that the major and minor thirds, major and minor sevenths, augmented and diminished fifths, etc, have been judged to be harmonic. Each time a musician tries harmonising with a new interval, it is at first regarded as dissonant, then finally accepted as a harmony and included in the relevant textbooks as a harmonic interval (thus becoming no longer quite so interesting). Regards, David
Yes, I know that. It simply says that an octave is more harmonious than a fifth, which is more harmonious than ... etc. So music has been going from harmonious to inharmonious, which is just the point Jim tried to emphasize. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Irving" <dirving@box.net.au> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 29-12-01 (The Secret of Time [4])
"Ricardo M. Forno" wrote:
snip
... the rules of harmony, which are simple and verifiable by anyone. A fifth, a major third, a fourth, a minor third, etc. are all consonant because the the frequencies ratios are fractions composed of small numbers and so they generate less interference sounds (it is more complex than that
\snip
In fact the rules of harmony are quite mutable, and are largely a matter of taste, and what we are used to (try listening to Middle Eastern or Asian music sometime). The ancient Greeks, for instance, regarded the octave as the only acceptable harmony. In mediaeval times, the perfect fifth, then later the fourth, were allowed, and it's only quite recently that the major and minor thirds, major and minor sevenths, augmented and diminished fifths, etc, have been judged to be harmonic. Each time a musician tries harmonising with a new interval, it is at first regarded as dissonant, then finally accepted as a harmony and included in the relevant textbooks as a harmonic interval (thus becoming no longer quite so interesting).
Regards, David
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
At 21:03 01/01/2002 -0300, Ricardo M. Forno wrote:
Yes, I know that. It simply says that an octave is more harmonious than a fifth, which is more harmonious than ... etc. So music has been going from harmonious to inharmonious, which is just the point Jim tried to emphasize.
No. Jim Muth was trying to emphasis that people generally aren't as spiritual or inclined to the mystical as he wants them to be in the way he wants them to be. The music bit was just a foil. Morgan L. Owens "She's dead, Jim"
David Irving wrote:
In fact the rules of harmony are quite mutable, and are largely a matter of taste, and what we are used to...
Well, certain aspects of "harmony" are purely mathematical (ratios of frequencies and such), and as such are NOT a matter of taste. But *perception* of harmony surely is cultural. As you say, Asian and Middle Eastern music often uses a completely different scale. Some things remain acknowledged as dissonant, but are regarded as musically *valid* nonetheless. A good example is how a V-7 chord seems to require a resolution. There's an old story about Bach's (or one of them guys) manservant who would wake his master by playing a V-7 chord on the "piano". The manservant would then proceed to preparing breakfast, and would shortly thereafter hear his master come down the stairs, play the damned I chord and then come to breakfast. Many years later the Beatles wrote a song (forget the name) that ENDS on a V-7 chord. And while we may consider it musically valid, it still seems to hang in the air demanding that damned I chord. And that's the point, I think. As the more plebian pathways of music were thoroughly explored, artists needed to seek "forbidden" ground to find something fresh. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
"Ricardo M. Forno" wrote:
2) By the rules of harmony, which are simple and verifiable by anyone.
Indeed are quite mathematical!
A fifth, a major third, a fourth, a minor third, etc. are all consonant because the the frequencies ratios are fractions composed of small numbers and so they generate less interference sounds (it is more complex than that, but the complete theory does not fit in the margin
I once created an impressive (to me, anyway) demonstration of that. I plugged my synthesizer into the Y channel of an Oscope and plugged a frequency generator into the X channel. This allowed me to create Lassiju (sp?) patterns. The more "harmonic" intervals made simple patterns (identical notes create a straight line!), while the more "jazzy" patterns made more complex patterns. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
[REPOST: realized the discussion was going on in Fractint-L] Jim Muth wrote:
FOTD -- December 29, 2001
Okay, so I'm running behind... ;-)
One of my favorite things about the holiday season is the great music. But as I listen to the music, I cannot help but notice that so much of it is from times long past.
<Zero Mostel> TRADITION!! </Zero Mostel>
We all enjoy the older traditional music at this time of year,..
Actually, a lot of it bores me stupid. I like the jazz and rock variations many artists of have done with the "old standards". I've got a version of Jingle Bells (MIDI file!) that really rocks!
...but why, I wonder, has no great music been written in recent times?
Define great music. And great by what standard? In a commercial sense, Britney BellyButton has probably sold quite a few more copies of her stuff than have *ever* been bought of the Messiah. Does that mean her stuff is "great"?
Where is the 'Messiah' of the 20th century?
The rock opera, TOMMY? The rock opera, JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR? The rock opera, GODSPELL? All winners in my book (of course, so is the Messiah).
Some will argue that great music *is* still being composed, and that it is only one's particular taste that makes them prefer older music, but if this is so, why do programs of older music consistently draw the largest audiences to classical concerts?
Chances are people who fancy "classic" prefer the more traditional stuff. I think most concepts have a depth, and it's possible that "classical" (i.e. orchestral, western scale) has plumbed that depth. (I suspect rock is close to that if not past it.) That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means you won't hear much that astounds you by being different. If one happens to LIKE rock or classical, one enjoys hearing the same old (loved) tunes.
Why does older music sound harmonious and beautiful?
Those sounds are based on the simple intervals and progressions, and those paths are well-explored. Modern composers need to seek less trodden paths, so they've needed to branch out into other forms.
Why does older music move us in a way nothing else can?
Speak for yourself; that is not the case with me. While I enjoy classical music as background, it lacks much power to move me. Shaun Murphy belting out a Little Feat tune...THAT moves me!
Is it because the world has cast aside the things of spirit that for so many centuries were the source of artistic inspiration?
I disagree on a couple counts here. I disagree that things of the spirit necessarily lead to the simple melodic music you're speaking of (JCS and GODSPELL are--I believe--inspired by things of the spirit). Also, people who perceive things they desire to express will express them in the medium they know and love best...not unlike how you express yourself in fractals). Classical music is no longer one of the common mediums of expression, so is no longer a common occurance.
Spiritual thoughts inspire beautiful art that brings peace and contentment. Secular thoughts -- thoughts of a world without meaning -- inspire ugly despairing art -- art that expresses anger and hopelessness -- art of the kind preferred by so many of our present-day youth.
I think you're way off base here. Spiritual thoughts also brought some of the darkest, most twisted art the world has seen: some of the paintings of hell (Brugel?) spring to mind. And some of the "sins of the flesh" writings were downright oppressive. On the flip side, there is much secular art which is stunning in it's beauty and appreciation of the world. Consider any of many factal art sites out there...how many of them are "spiritual"?
Can the blind, meaningless, unknowing and uncaring physical universe of science, vast and complex as it is, ever compare with thoughts of God and angels, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, in the ability to inspire great works of art? If the secular world cannot inspire us as the spiritual world once did, has the era of great art ended? I fear this may be the case.
Sounds to me like you have the blues! ;-) The problem is not, I think, in the thing perceived, but in the perceiver. If one is feeling dark, no matter what one views, it can seem dark. If one is feeling awed by the natural beauty of a tree, one can perceive wonderful things. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: philofractal-unsubscribe@lists.fractalus.com For additional commands, e-mail: philofractal-help@lists.fractalus.com
participants (11)
-
Chris Curnow -
Damien M. Jones -
David Irving -
harry bissell -
Jim Muth -
John Lewis -
John W. -
Morgan L. Owens -
Programmer Dude -
Ricardo M. Forno -
Tony Parker