music , mind , thought and emotion

Matt8268, I went to Catholic school in my childhood. There is a picture that always impressed me. You probably saw it. Jesus Chris with the opened heart. :-)

Detlof,

What is the unity measure of quality or how would you define for example QP(quality point)?

I believe that this value can only be measurad statistically.

Now realize how many people will say that I love my small boom-box with the huge CD collection that I listen every day... Basing on that research you can come to a conclusion that Bose system is the best.

As I've mentioned before that music is more likely communication and the quality of the system is mainly statistics.

Music can also have a statistical factor of human's appreciation vs. system which needs to be determined from the different "angles".

For example:

Who has larger appreciation factor to the music the one who has 20 records and/or CDs and $40,000 system or the one who has 2000 records and/or CDs and $1,000 system?

One would say: "Certainly in the second case the appreciation factor is bigger!" and I would say: "Wait-a-minute, how would you know? Maybe the second one is just a crazy record collector that almost never listens to them but the first one has his favourite music played many times per day!" And vice versa I would say: "Wait-a-minute, maybe in the first case one only listens to the recordings but doesn't care too much about the music or how it's being performed?"

And finally, What is true:
Music for the System or System for the Music??

Wow, I always thought the ears (sense) is closest to the soul, so is the music, so is audiophile people. Ya just have to dig 'em out. :-)

For most people music is a language. Especially since the almost global acceptance of the chromatic scale. 4/4 time is as common as typical speech patterns. Just as a sour taste makes our mouths pucker, certain sounds make us tap our feet or even dance. Just as artists have learned that mixing yellow and green produces blue, composers have learned that minor chords evoke pathos. Words with out commonality are appreciated by few. The same joke heard repeatedly usually looses it's effect. The same words used to create a new joke enjoys new appreciation. The combination of the familiar with the unique will usually enjoy the biggest audience. Hendrix may have created a new sound, but it was based on 12 bar blues. Stevie Wonder played the same music on different instuments (the moog). The harmonic complexities of the saxophone were origianlly played to traditional music. When the sound of the saxophone became common it gave birth to Parker and Hornathology. With out a common element it is most challanging to communicate (though not impossible)and at the same time a common element with out an original inflection becomes tiresome if heard too often no matter how profound or well(I know, rather qualifying)it was done. Music may seem more abstract than other art forms and yet it shares more than less with other art forms. This was elequently pointed out in the previous post re: colors. We can see comedy and tragedy, we can feel pain and pleasure, we can taste bitter and sweet, it should be easy to understand why we can discern noise and music. It's interesting to note that there isn't necessarily right or wrong in these contrasts and in fact they can in proper sequence compliment each other. While on some level we have produced tools that consistently evoke a consistent reaction, these tools have a shelf life. As the minds, thoughts and emotions of humans is not static, neither can music be static if it is to fullfill it's roll.
Now how mathematicians can percieve art in equations is beyond me. One day I'd like to gain appreciation of that!

Einstein: "In music I do not look for logic. I am quite intutitive on the whole and know no theories." So you're not alone Unsound.