Re: music by numbers

[jim palmer <jimp@pobox.com>]

> "Everything in music goes by numbers"
> 
> playing the devil's advocate, but who is to say which came first?  for
> example: perhaps everything in numbers goes by music.  why are numbers
> considered the basis?
> 

numbers are just another way of describing the same thing.
if you say "this song is in E" you are being just as abstract...


>...
> i can't think of the last time that music was "visual" ...

it was just a few weeks ago on this very list, remember?

>...and thus i
> (personally) not only need but see NO purpose in visual representations 
>of
> anything musical.
> 

it can definitely improve the speed at which one can learn a concept,
generate material, expand a development section, etc...
it can also make these things possible for people like me with no 
attention span...


>....  music is neither science nor sport....

it is both and more...

>...do you really think
> that the beach boys were thinking numbers when they recorded pet sounds?

yes. (probably not consciously)

> ...
> perhaps it does help to know how sound is generated, etc. but i state 
>that
> it doesn't hurt to not know.

much better.  it seemed you were insisting that it did hurt to know.
i agree that it is not for everyone.  most of the early jazz greats didn't 
know 
what to call the chords, but they could hear them.

>...