Ian Crisp wrote:

>Perhaps I could, rather belatedly, welcome Bill to MCML.  I've read all his
>messages with considerable interest, and the reason why I haven't responded
>to them (here and elsewhere) is far more to do with lack of time to think
>through adequate answers than with lack of interest.  He's raised some
>challenging questions and he has an intriguingly different way of looking
>at things.

Thank you for that kind sentiment.  Perhaps I do have I different way of
looking at things (I know you meant that as a compliment).  My interest in
art in general and music in particular derives from my work in artificial
intelligence.  We AI folks have to try to learn how the mind works in order
to simulate it on the computer.  Nature evolved to mind to predict the
future, ie where food could be found, where danger exists, etc.  The
enjoyment of art is a peculiar behavior of the mind in that is it not
directly involved with survival.  I think it is involved with mental health
in that we seek beauty to offset the horrible dog eat dog reality we all
face.  Cavemen even produced art.

I also think that there is a relation between the arts and I have been
seeking that.  For example, I think there would be a statistical and
unexplainable significance to an experiment where random people (off the
street) were asked to match several pieces of music with several patches of
cloth of different textures or patterns, or several paintings, or colors.
I think more people would match Beethoven's 5th (1st movement) with for
example the color red, than with the color aquamarine.

In science wherever there is statistical significance, there is an
underlying rule at work, else there would be a random distribution.
Therefore, if Beethoven's 5th were judged to be associated with the color
red, I would want to find the underlying rule that related music to color
i.e.  is it the melody, the harmony, the tempo, the motif rhythm, etc.
(This examination of reality is just my bag.  I can enjoy simply listening
to CM and play it on the piano to relax.)

Now, our mind analyzes things to make rules to use to predict.
That process involves finding things that are generally true (with
exceptions) and classifying things into classes based on the properties
of the things.  Then we assign names to the classes (popular, classical,
jazz, rock ...) Then we look for relations between classes to find
subclasses, superclasses, equivalent classes.  Soon we develop an
"understanding" about the problem domain.  That's how the mind works.
With this understanding we can predict AND teach it to future generations.
But this process doesn't work if the focus is only on the exceptions, since
there are always exceptions.

I am hoping to find knowledgeable people who have the same interest and
approach to music and the arts in general.  Am I on the wrong list? I don't
think so.  If there are enough interested posters maybe we could start a
thread "In search of the secrets of music" with the understanding that a
search for generalities is the focus.

Finally, I was in the Library of Congress, music section downstairs, and I
saw a wonderful painting.  There in heaven was Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et
al sitting around together talking.  I was very moved by the thought and
have always wondered what they were talking about.  I want to understand
music and art in the way that they did.  I will close with this wonderful
quote by Chopin (It went something like this) "When composing music, one
must always keep the entire composition in mind, otherwise, instead of a
beautiful pearl necklace, one will be left with only a stupid handful of
pearls.".  Is that a great thought or what?

Bill Pirkle