Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:It's already been done (Score 1) 234 234

Listened to your links. Frankly, I've heard church music with more dissonance. There was nary a minor 9th, major 7th, or minor 2nd to be found. Some major 2nds in the first link were about as dissonant as it got. I don't know what it is about metal that makes people think the harmonies are more complex than they are, but it's something I hear pretty often. Maybe the harsh timbres of the guitar effects and vocals make people think "this doesn't sound pretty; it must be dissonant."

Comment Re:Pretentious (Score 1) 234 234

I agree it's not really accurate to call it "The World's Ugliest Piece of Music." That would imply that the beauty of music is solely a function of how repetitive it is, which is obviously false because a single note repeated at regular intervals (or maybe a square wave held indefinitely on a single pitch) would certainly not qualify as "The World's Most Beautiful Piece of Music."

However, I don't mind this as a bit of marketing. There's really no denying that this piece is intended to be listened to after a brief explanation of the mathematics behind it, and "Mathematically Ugliest Music" is a more intriguing hook than the more descriptive "equally-tempered 88-tone row without repeated pitch or interval classes, played so that no two notes are rhythmically separated by the same rhythmic distance, on the premise that repetition is necessary for beauty in music."

While this piece does minimize a positive aspect of music, it does nothing to maximize negative aspects. Dissonance counterpoint comes to mind as a better example of actually trying to write unpleasing music. Basically, it takes the rules of counterpoint theorists have used to describe the music of Palestrina or Bach, then slavishly follows the opposite of those rules.

Comment Re:Random Number Generator (Score 1) 234 234

Well, different branches of mathematics have different notions of randomness. Your post makes sense assuming a statistician's concept of randomness. Your parent post almost makes sense assuming an information theorist's concept of random. (I say almost because actually proving a sequence to be Kolmogorov random is an incomputable problem.)

Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity. -- Robert Firth "One, two, five." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Working...