Pitch or Time?

Andrew J · 12 Nov 2011

Pitch is nothing without time 😉

lesobrod · 12 Nov 2011

Wow very good question, I'm interesting about it, learn psychoacoustics and experiment with modern atonal and ambient music, but my English bad enough 🙁 So very briefly here my modest opinion.

Time, rhythm patterns is more (but not much) ancient part of music culture. So it's root, raw source of music. But look at the african, arabian and indian drummers (i play darbuka any time as possible). Even simple drum has at least two tones - Doum and Tak. And tonality, pitch instruments appeared a bit later after drums.

But simple Tonic - Fourth - Fifth - Octave pattern (by legend, Orpheus' harp tune) arise later enough. So Tonality is flowering, opening of Music; but it may becomes abstract, spirit-less thing without root - rhythm of time. And otherwise, naked rhythm can make only headache 😕 I like both some ambient, non-rhythmic music, heavy metal and ethnic drumming, but as some talent be present, as present some Pitch - Time interferention, maybe latent.

And anyway J.S. Bach 😇 stay forever my reference source for time, pitch, mode etc. music questions.

trogluddite · 12 Nov 2011

In a 'reductionist' sense, AJ s right, it has to be time that is the most essential - a pitched sound is only pitched because its waveform repeats with an equal spacing in time.

lesobrod wrote: Time, rhythm patterns is more (but not much) ancient part of music culture. So it's root, raw source of music.

Interesting one - I am inclined to agree (maybe I am biased because of my love of playing drums and dancing). But can we be so sure that the 'banging rocks together' model for the origin of music is correct? In an archaeological sense, we cannot determine what humans have done with their vocal cords - singing leaves no material artifacts. Putting words to a tune is a good way to help remember things in a society without writing, and nature has provided us with birdsong etc. as wonderful prototype for music - many of Orpheus's cadences exists already in the sounds of nature. It's not impossible that the first human language consisted only of pitch sequences, without 'consonant' or 'vowel' sounds as we would understand them today. Music is often talked of as a 'language' - largely in a metaphorical sense - but maybe at one time, it was literally true that language and music were one and the same.

But still, there must always have been time - without time (or space) there is nowhere for the music to 'be'.

lesobrod · 12 Nov 2011

My wife'll hack and crash down this forum sooner or later... 😈 I've being so excited such crazy mix of math, sound, compute and communication so my time left over only for earn a little money, ice-hole and wine ))))

Trog's post is very deep and argued by science and real experience, thats for respect. OK let's try to agree that's not correct to hardly oppose time and pitch; if Time is only physical time (anyone sure what does it mean? Most clever brains not...) so time is the first. But what about Rhythm and Tone.. Many years people believe that physical time is absolutely another thing than space. But they are just four positions in a set {ict,x,y,z}. (Let's don't dispute with STR, please!). So how about Time and Tonality as two dimensions of Music?

trogluddite · 12 Nov 2011

lesobrod wrote: (Let's don't dispute with STR, please!).

He he, well I was teasing a little bit there - think my DNA must have the gene for 'devil's advocate'! 😈

lesobrod wrote: So how about Time and Tonality as two dimensions of Music?

Yes, I like that way of looking at it - Rhythm, pitch, timbre as 'dimensions' within a 'space' called music - not as things which are in opposition or have a 'hierarchy' - but kind of 'orthogonal' components of the sound which we use in whatever degree suits the artistic inspiration. Even a 'purely' tonal piece has an element of time - its duration (which with loops, could even be infinite), and that is still an artistic choice of the musician. (or the listeners choice how much he/she can stand to listen to!). And with a 'purely' percussive piece there are still pitches, simply that they are not harmonically related - and that too is something that can be a deliberate choice of the musician.

I guess you might say that even if we decide to eliminate time or pitch as much as possible from a piece, they are kind of present through the composer's act of choosing not to include them, or the listener's expectation of hearing them being subverted in order to create a particular mood (e.g. the scary abstract 'background' to a monster movie).

Acrobat · 12 Nov 2011

It seems this PhD wants a confirmation of what he already had in his precious mind, that there must be a dominant variable in music but that's essentially wrong, as music is linked to perception so I think of course there is no "dominance", no golden rule for that, just opinions and the most variable. If you just talk about "signal", well it might be right but it will include NOISE too, and so all that MTV hitting your tv set right now. 😉

lesobrod · 13 Nov 2011

Acrobat wrote: .. music is linked to perception so I think of course there is no "dominance", no golden rule for that, just opinions and the most variable.

OK thats right. But IMHO wrong, that our perceptions and opinions are unknowable and smth mystic, out of any law. Well, for many people is very difficult to accept that even such intimate thing as "free will" is going accordingly to natural laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

What about dimensions of music please look at Trogluddite' signature. 😉 For today science it's not just aphorism, but biological law calling "third instinct". Not all of scientists agree, but it's not esotericism too. Tendency to mutation, changing state of consciousness, is an instinct, not caprice. It helps to learn the world around, being alive not only as body.

And Music,Sound is maybe the best way to implement it. (They say that alcohol, poetry, tipsy fungi, computer games, painting etc. are about it too). The more dimensions has something - the more it good for changing and progress state of mind. But to avoid madness, common minds work only with several dimensions. For music e.g. Pitch, Rhythm and Volume (velocity). To ask, which of them are more important not correct; it's just minimum. More deeper and wider becoming mind - more dimensions appear. Tempo, Harmony, Timbre; than DSP of sound etc. In fact SM gives tons of possibilities to explore it "at home", without any PhD. 😉

infuzion · 13 Nov 2011

Time Or else you will end up with 50 pitches all at the same time. But you can run the same pitch over & over again for hours. Like some Techno.

Acrobat · 13 Nov 2011

lesobrod wrote: Acrobat wrote: .. music is linked to perception so I think of course there is no "dominance", no golden rule for that, just opinions and the most variable.

OK thats right. But IMHO wrong, that our perceptions and opinions are unknowable and smth mystic, out of any law. Well, for many people is very difficult to accept that even such intimate thing as "free will" is going accordingly to natural laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

I guess "laws" emerge in periods of inactivity of science, when you make science you're actually breaking the laws, to find a new one. I can u deal with it? 😉 The fact that neuroscience is wanting to extend its reasearches to free-will is somewhat strange, the should already know that the brain is in prison, and that this prison is exaclty the cranium. 😉

tor · 13 Nov 2011

infuzion wrote: Time Or else you will end up with 50 pitches all at the same time. But you can run the same pitch over & over again for hours. Like some Techno.

To take it even further. Without time... no pitch, no notting.

attic · 17 Nov 2011

(t) Wins and seems to be the general consensus. If the professor meant musically I suppose it would have been a question of what makes something a piece of music as opposed to just noise. I felt like blurting the answer "time" out on the spot but didn't take the bait as I didn't want to answer wrong and come off as a half wit. These days I don't mind coming off as a half wit as I learn much from asking. Now I regret not taking the bait but lucky for me I have a forum of great people here to ask about stuff like this.

Time, rhythm patterns is more (but not much)

@lesobrod You and I think along similar lines it seems. Your English is fine I understand what you are saying. Id like to hear that darbuka playing sometime 😉

My wife'll hack and crash down this forum sooner or later

Lol Mine would help.

So how about Time and Tonality as two dimensions of Music?

I had friend that would sometimes say "One mans trash Another's music. "Rhythm, pitch, timbre as 'dimensions' within a 'space' called musicwork" I like that but don't think that individual taste wont color every perception off it. Take into consideration the variable of individual taste, everyone has different taste's. Why don't we call it the dimensions of music with a very large variable the pysche.

Trog's post is very deep.

I would expect nothing less from him. 😉

maybe I am biased because of my love of playing drums and dancing

@Trog Drums & Dancing! Add a pint and pretty girls and I'll be there.

It seems this PhD wants a confirmation of what he already had in his precious mind, that there must be a dominant variable in music but that's essentially wrong, as music is linked to perception so I think of course there is no "dominance", no golden rule for that, just opinions and the most variable. If you just talk about "signal", well it might be right but it will include NOISE too, and so all that MTV hitting your tv set right now.

@Acrobat Perfectly put. I would love to think there was a dominant variable to be found but as soon as you add perception there is no way to reduce it to some kind of golden ratio. Corporate record companies have tried. It might be possible to find dominant formula's by population as the greater norm or induced by Omnipresence of popular culture.

@everyone Its not so much the question that I was interested in more the journey. I had secretly hoped someone would champion pitch more just to hear their thoughts. Of course time is right but I also wonder if the Phd was leading with that question and where he was headed.

Thanks for an interesting conversation and your thoughts.

trogluddite · 17 Nov 2011

attic wrote: Thanks for an interesting conversation and your thoughts.

Thanks for giving us a prod - I really enjoyed the debate.

attic wrote: @Trog Drums & Dancing! Add a pint and pretty girls and I'll be there.

He he, an SM'ers forum party would be great - but you'll probably have to bring your own pretty girls, or I might get in trouble! 😉

tester · 28 Jan 2012

attic wrote: "Which do you believe to be more important in music Pitch or Time"?

Space and colour? 😉