You are just invoking the word
" restricted " and not making it clear what you mean.

If you read the sentence above , now read this sentence below

Nhkoikn cvgjts bjhknjukb vxzwtvyklb. Cbhhrn. Hjgv

Is that an example of unrestricted ?

And that when you write meaningful coherent sentences which can be understood this is
" Restricted " ?

Is that what you mean by restricted or something else ?

I never brought up the word " restricted " anywhere in what I describe and demonstrate.

So , I'm just trying to get what you mean

This below must be unrestricted writing correct ?

Nbbkkoon vhfhgub xxvdtgyb vnbyhb vcvfyg bgnbfgv vxfybbb vgjuijv vfthihbv gfhujnbv

Thats unrestricted ? Or no ?

Thanks my friend

 

Explain this please, oh font of notational wisdom!

 

I don't understand

" are we allowed "?

Are you presupposition that I dictate what your imagination comes up with ?
Are you suggesting that people need permission to create music ?

Then next question.

If you are allowed to place any letter of the alphabet
Next to each other ,

Mhkoikjuhh xgruhujhbj fdgiubug. Dwrcykuhbg

Than what would be the point in learning the certain patterns to communicate specific ideas like this very sentence ?
( which other people are able to understand information that was communicated ?

If you are allowed to place any pixel next to each other on a screen to make a motion picture, than what would be the point in learning the elements of film making , storytelling, visual fx , color grading , cutting scenes ?

If you are allowed to make ANY invention, than want could POSSIBLY be the point of learning
Physics , the table of elements , electrical engineering, blueprinting , manufacturing techniques the equations and math of design ?

Does that help ?

You are allowed to put ANY pixel next to any other on YouTube. ( you have my permission

Both people were allowed to place ANY pixel in any configuration !!

( just like you are allowed to place ANY letter of the alphabet in ANY combination when you leave a comment here sir

The only restrictions in the information i am presenting are as follows

12 tone equal temperament

 

@MMJ2017

Music is not image. Music is not like language. We have different types of music, each of which has its own requirements. Creating meaning in music is not like creating meaning in an image or language. The process of understanding music is different from both of them.

The freedom to use musical elements shows that music is too broad. It is not right to compare the rules of image and language with music. In music, it is easy to communicate between seemingly irrelevant elements. As today's music is doing.

If you listen to today's music, you can see a lot of these relationships. Relationships that do not follow any rules, but are music anyway, and from hearing it, you feel that you are faced with a thoughtful entity.

 

Music works exactly like a language, and for good and consolidated reasons (Music semiology - Wikipedia if you're interested). Perhaps you're misunderstanding verbal language with musical language, yes, music doesn't work the same way, in fact it works in it's own way amongst all arts according to Peirce, who named this particular phenomena as "Index":

1. An index* is a sign that denotes its object by virtue of an actual connection involving them, one that he also calls a real relation in virtue of its being irrespective of interpretation. It is in any case a relation which is in fact, in contrast to the icon, which has only a ground for denotation of its object, and in contrast to the symbol, which denotes by an interpretive habit or law. An index which compels attention without conveying any information about its object is a pure index, though that may be an ideal limit never actually reached. If an indexical relation is a resistance or reaction physically or causally connecting an index to its object, then the index is a reagent (for example smoke coming from a building is a reagent index of fire). Such an index is really affected or modified by the object, and is the only kind of index which can be used in order to ascertain facts about its object. Peirce also usually held that an index does not have to be an actual individual fact or thing, but can be a general; a disease symptom is general, its occurrence singular; and he usually considered a designation to be an index, e.g., a pronoun, a proper name, a label on a diagram, etc. (In 1903 Peirce said that only an individual is an index,[34] gave "seme" as an alternate expression for "index", and called designations "subindices or hyposemes,[35] which were a kind of symbol; he allowed of a "degenerate index" indicating a non-individual object, as exemplified by an individual thing indicating its own characteristics. But by 1904 he allowed indices to be generals and returned to classing designations as indices. In 1906 he changed the meaning of "seme" to that of the earlier "sumisign" and "rheme".)
   
   (source: Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce - Wikipedia)

Yes, I'm quoting a Wikipedia article, yes, I'm not ashamed. Anyways, basically music communicates a set of values and relationships conventionally and widely known, if that wasn't the case what would be left to theorize about? Every type of language has a broad space for freedom and development, just because a certain type of music doesn't follow a certain set of "rules" you thought (for some reason) had instrinsic value and determination, it doesn't mean music is beyond conventions and understanding, it just means you're need to catch up a bit more

 

Instead of saying that music is a language, it's better to say that music follows the principles of Schema. We have lots of Schemas as many people and cultures as we do. The structure of music is not like the structure of the language. What helps us with understating the music is the use of Schemas. When we understand music, we upload certain Schemas into our minds, and then start communicating between these Schemas.


In psychology and cognitive science, a schema describes a pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new information. Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment. People can organize new perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required. People use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future understanding.








PS:
But are the number of schemas limited? No, we can have infinite schemas.
Of course, among them, we have good and popular schemas and also lesser-known schemas.

 

Last edited: Nov 23, 2021

Again, I think you're really limiting your idea of what language is. It doesn't only refer to speech you know. Language is not necessarily Linguistic and that is why I quoted Peirce. Schemas dont necessarily communicate anything while languages necessarily (by definition) communicate something.

 

We may have language in old music, but we don't have any language in newer music. In new music, we don't even have schemas.


So what do we have?

 

Thinking of music just by looking at it's patterns and structures overlooking how those can convey meaning and participate in a social convention (aka language) is like trying to explain why people like ice cream describing how ice cream is made. Well, that doesn't really help, does it?

 

Well, you just bought yourself a good dose of burden of proof.

 

All this linguistic jargon - so baffling
Is this guitar semiotic or femerotic? I always get those 2 words mixed up.
It's definitely signalling something to me.
The effect it's having on my index is a good sign - I think.



p.s. I do wish it was in my guitar collection.

 

When the creation of universe began, we had no clear order, and there weren't many physical phenomena or laws. With the time, phenomena occurred and physical laws arose.

New music is like the beginning of creation. There are no rules for that. Those rules left by old music are not effective in explaining the new music.

We have to wait for the time to move away from the moment of creation so that perhaps in the future, the principles and your alleged language of new music will be made.

 

Sounds like

But it's still in D Minor

 

"When the creation of universe began, we had no clear order, and there weren't many physical phenomena or laws. With the time, phenomena occurred and physical laws arose."

Ironically, that's how that sitcom "The Big Bang Theory" was created

"New music is like the beginning of creation. There are no rules for that. Those rules left by old music are not effective in explaining the new music."

That's what I was pointing to you earlier, just because contemporary music doesn't follow old music "rules" that doesn't mean they don't communicate nothing or have a set of conventions their own.

"We have to wait for the time to move away from the moment of creation so that perhaps in the future, the principles and your alleged language of new music will be made."

Again, I think you need to have a broader perspective of what conventions and "rules" can be in music, because they exist, they sure do, if that wasn't the case people would just make random noise and no one would listen to anyone since that random noise wouldn't mean anything to them because...well, because that wouldn't communicate anything to anyone. Music is a social activity, every social activity happens through conventions. If you want to provide an example of contemporary music that means nothing and communicates nothing at all, we can further discuss that.

 

bru... I dont even know hahah

 

If I may make a suggestion. It would be easier to follow @MMJ2017 and his theories if he communicated in the conventional style of music making. I can read, but can he write? Here is a blank sheet, please use it. It is why it was invented.

 

I offer a gift to Olymoon.

When a thread gets invaded by Foster-McGraw,
the nonsensical gibberish causes the thread to degenerate and it inevitably gets closed.

Prior to closing threads like this one, I think it would be great to see a standardised reason in the form of the following image which signals, in a universal language, everything that needs to be said about how far the thread has degenerated.

 

Last edited: Nov 23, 2021

I wish you owned that guitar and you were in my studio so I could tell you on the talk back, "you need more left titty and less right titty and I don't think your quarter inch is fully inserted"

 

When it comes to the moment of demonstrating specific melodic and rhythmic contour that uses a chord symbol
I'll just make audio and video examples

( to hear the sound and see the information unfold overtime, yes when its called for sheet music is fine .
Nothing wrong with it .

 

Last edited: Nov 23, 2021