Fingerprinting

[musicatthestart]

If you cannot recognise the 'fingerprint' by ear then what is the point? Of course the fingerprint may be literally that - a physical movement of the hands or fingers. Chopin is full of such fingerprints.

New blog
http://musicatstartatclose.blogspot.com/

[Sorrano]

If you cannot recognise the 'fingerprint' by ear then what is the point? Of course the fingerprint may be literally that - a physical movement of the hands or fingers. Chopin is full of such fingerprints.

New blog
http://musicatstartatclose.blogspot.com/

I believe the point is why we recognize this fingerprint and that will be found in the score.

[Euan Mackinnon]

To musicatthestart (May 21st)

I am going to assume that your question If you cannot recognise the 'fingerprint' by ear then what is the point? is meant to be taken seriously, i.e. that it is not just another posting advertising your(?) Blog.

(Incidentally, I have read the single page ‘An Introduction’ that is, to date, your Blog. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed there albeit, speaking personally, I would have expressed them in somewhat simpler and plainer English. Nevertheless, thank you for introducing me to a new word: proprioception.)

Sorrano (May 22nd) answers your question succinctly: I believe the point is why we recognize this fingerprint and that will be found in the score.

Exactly. But, here, I am going to respond to the final part of your question - what is the point? - in a little more detail.

The point is twofold. First, it relates to questions of attribution which, for some (including some scholars), is of considerable importance. While I respect their view, this question – of attribution – is of no interest to me personally; I just like listening to music.

For me, the interest in fingerprinting is what it might tell us about the human condition.

I sense that major composers – Beethoven, for example – had a deep instinct about a crucial area of the human condition: what, for want of a single term, I will call the emotional life. His/their response to that instinct was expressed through music, a language that can be listened to by virtually everyone but spoken by virtually no-one.

Preston and others have often spoken eloquently on this point (although without reference to fingerprinting).

If, then, this language could be transformed (mapped, if you prefer) into another more tractable form (I was suggesting mathematics in the thread) then we may have a very powerful and valuable tool to help in understanding and hence improving aspects of the human condition. Listening (wonderful though it is) will not achieve this.

In short, Beethoven is telling us some truths but we do not yet have a way of understanding what these truths are or how we may use them for the benefit of all.

That, in a nutshell, is why I believe fingerprinting could prove valuable.

Euan

[Preston]

If, then, this language could be transformed (mapped, if you prefer) into another more tractable form (I was suggesting mathematics in the thread) then we may have a very powerful and valuable tool to help in understanding and hence improving aspects of the human condition. Listening (wonderful though it is) will not achieve this.

In short, Beethoven is telling us some truths but we do not yet have a way of understanding what these truths are or how we may use them for the benefit of all.

That, in a nutshell, is why I believe fingerprinting could prove valuable.

Euan

Personally, what I have learned, is that somethings are not meant to be wholly understood, especially by all. Therefore, we should leave them alone and except that we do not understand them. That can be an extremely hard thing to accept, however, a necessary one.

Also, imo - as for the benefit of all, keep in mind that as a whole the human race is a destructive race and would, more than likely and unfortunately, destroy any benefit of this type as we have destroyed our own planet.

[Sorrano]

Personally, what I have learned, is that somethings are not meant to be wholly understood, especially by all. Therefore, we should leave them alone and except that we do not understand them. That can be an extremely hard thing to accept, however, a necessary one.

Also, imo - as for the benefit of all, keep in mind that as a whole the human race is a destructive race and would, more than likely and unfortunately, destroy any benefit of this type as we have destroyed our own planet.

My approach to this, Preston, is that by understanding better what makes the music of Beethoven (for example) unique to Beethoven, I can more fully appreciate not only the music but also the methodology by which the music was created. For some, this might spoil whatever mystique that is perceived by the listener and render the composer more mundane in that perspective--is this what you meant?

I do not have any problem delving into the nuts and bolts; often with a great composer this gives me a greater appreciation for how musical tools were used to achieve the results. For me it cannot lessen the value of the music but only increase it.

[Preston]

My approach to this, Preston, is that by understanding better what makes the music of Beethoven (for example) unique to Beethoven, I can more fully appreciate not only the music but also the methodology by which the music was created. For some, this might spoil whatever mystique that is perceived by the listener and render the composer more mundane in that perspective--is this what you meant?

I do not have any problem delving into the nuts and bolts; often with a great composer this gives me a greater appreciation for how musical tools were used to achieve the results. For me it cannot lessen the value of the music but only increase it.

Sorrano, no that is not what I meant. I was primarily referring to Euan's comments about truths and benefits for all by looking at Beethoven's music through math and science and not our ears improving aspects of the human condition. And that I did not think somekind of super musical math, science, program, etc. that explained Beethoven's music mathematically, etc. would be best for the human condition or "all".

Perhaps I looked into what Euan wrote too much.

[Peter]

I tend to sympathise with musicatthestart on this one - I think there is a real danger of missing the wood for the trees by over analysing and intellectualising on the process. Yes it is interesting for those of us that have a real interest but I don't think it is essential or even necessary for an appreciation or a love of music or any other art form - do we need to know the materials and techniques used by Michelangelo to appreciate the David or the Sistine Chapel?

Of course the fingerprints are there in the score, but musicatthestart is quite right - if you can't hear it, what is the point? Music is an aural experience!

[Sorrano]

In my own experience, my appreciation for a work deepens with better understanding of that work. It does not destroy the aural experience, but as I understand more of the process behind the experience I find that I enjoy the work more. It is not necessary, on one hand, to tune in to an opera, for example, to understand or even know what the plot is to enjoy the music. However, if one understands the plot, etc., the music takes on a deeper meaning. It is the same for me with understanding the nuts and bolts of a work; I listen, then with keener ears and greater appreciation for what I am hearing.

[Peter]

In my own experience, my appreciation for a work deepens with better understanding of that work. It does not destroy the aural experience, but as I understand more of the process behind the experience I find that I enjoy the work more. It is not necessary, on one hand, to tune in to an opera, for example, to understand or even know what the plot is to enjoy the music. However, if one understands the plot, etc., the music takes on a deeper meaning. It is the same for me with understanding the nuts and bolts of a work; I listen, then with keener ears and greater appreciation for what I am hearing.

Yes I agree and as a music teacher analysing is obviously an essential part of my work, however the initial topic of this thread was about a composer's fingerprint and that is quite evident in the aural experience alone.

[Sorrano]

Yes I agree and as a music teacher analysing is obviously an essential part of my work, however the initial topic of this thread was about a composer's fingerprint and that is quite evident in the aural experience alone.

Indeed, but Euan is looking for something deeper than just the aural experience. The question remains why does Beethoven sound like Beethoven and not like Mozart. You may not feel that it is necessary to dissect a composition to enjoy it and there is nothing wrong in that at all. The purpose of the thread is not so much of what makes the music enjoyable, but rather what constitutes the elements that make various compositions similar to each other that are by whatever given composer. There are those of us who are curious enough to ask questions. Do you have a problem with that?

[Megan]

Indeed, but Euan is looking for something deeper than just the aural experience. The question remains why does Beethoven sound like Beethoven and not like Mozart. You may not feel that it is necessary to dissect a composition to enjoy it and there is nothing wrong in that at all. The purpose of the thread is not so much of what makes the music enjoyable, but rather what constitutes the elements that make various compositions similar to each other that are by whatever given composer. There are those of us who are curious enough to ask questions. Do you have a problem with that?

What makes compositions similar?

The notes, presumably.

[Peter]

Indeed, but Euan is looking for something deeper than just the aural experience. The question remains why does Beethoven sound like Beethoven and not like Mozart. You may not feel that it is necessary to dissect a composition to enjoy it and there is nothing wrong in that at all. The purpose of the thread is not so much of what makes the music enjoyable, but rather what constitutes the elements that make various compositions similar to each other that are by whatever given composer. There are those of us who are curious enough to ask questions. Do you have a problem with that?

Of course I don't have a problem with that Sorrano and I'm sorry that you took it that way. I meant that the score isn't necessary either for enjoyment or composer identification. I agree with you that analysis does bring further understanding which is why it is essential for performance and teaching, but there are plenty of people who can't read a note of music and who are we to say their appreciation or enjoyment is less because of it?

[Sorrano]

This type of thread will certainly not be for everyone, and I do not mean to imply that any enjoyment will be any less for anyone without the analysis. Hopefully, I didn't come across as harsh as that was not my intent. For those of us who do like to get into scores and try and figure out why things are the way that they are it's a wonderful thread topic and has lots of possibilities. Have you ever wondered why Mozart or Beethoven sound so distinct? Some of us simply cannot leave things along, and in delving into the music we come away with renewed respect and admiration for the composer.

[Euan Mackinnon]

There appears to be some misunderstanding in some quarters about what I intended in my last post.

Three ways of approaching music have been referred to in this thread (of course there are others – dance, for example, to which musicatthestart refers on his/her Blog; or as an entirely mystical experience to which passing reference has been made; and so on).

The three ways here are:

Listening (Music is an aural experience! – Peter, May 23rd)

Musical analysis (...greater appreciation for how musical tools were used to achieve the results and comments from several other postings - Sorrano, May 23rd)

Mapping (transforming a score into an analytically tractable form to uncover the fingerprint).

I do not see that these three are in any way mutually exclusive.

For the vast majority of people (me included) the first is far and away the most common.

For some – including, I would guess, a fair number here – the second is both interesting and offers even greater enjoyment through deeper insights. Sorrano has been particularly strong and very clear on this.

Speaking personally, I am more interested in the third than the second for reasons which I explained in my last post.

I repeat, I do not see any dichotomy here. To illustrate, and develop a little, let me use two analogies:

For centuries, to the present day, people have gazed at the stars and marvelled. They may express this verbally, or through poetry, or painting, or photography, or indeed silently. The vast majority (including me) have little or no deep knowledge of what they are seeing but that does not stop us gazing upwards.

But centuries ago, a handful tried to explain what we see. A few made measurements. A tiny number noticed that the measurements did not match the explanations. In time, and despite the best efforts of the church, a simple but immensely powerful model emerged and, from that, benefits to mankind accrued.

Or take nature in all its diversity. Again it took centuries before, ultimately, Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace), painstakingly combined the observations of others with their own meticulous records to produce an immensely powerful model that explained the diversity. Their explanation has been and remains of immeasurable benefit to mankind although, of course, that is not in the forefront of most people’s minds when they hike in the Scottish mountains or elsewhere.

What the eye saw led a few to make measurements: data. Data were refined and structured. Structured data suggested models. Models were refined. Then came a deep insight that led to totally unforeseen and largely beneficial consequences.

I started this thread with what we (all) hear and thence to exploring whether it was possible to identify the fingerprint of composers like Beethoven by transforming data from the score into a form that could be processed. Although limitations of HTML available in this forum meant I could not complete the exercise, I felt we were near to proposing how this might be done.

In my view, the outcome would have transformed data from the score into clusters of numbers that changed across the score, over time in other words. The clusters, and the way they changed, would define the fingerprint.

Beethoven’s music is very powerful. His fingerprint must in some way capture or point to or suggest the nature of that power. Thus I suggested that possibly – just possibly – this approach might, as with the analogies, reveal something deeper.

To me, none of this prevents you, me, or anyone else enjoying music as a purely aural experience which is exactly how I enjoy it the vast majority of the time.

Euan

[Sorrano]

What makes compositions similar?

The notes, presumably.

When you listen to several Beethoven symphonies you hear things that generally you might not hear in Mozart or Haydn. They may be small nuances that flavor the entire work or they might be passages that obviously separate his works from another. Often, when I hear a Beethoven work I recognize it as that of Beethoven and the same is true of other composers. Your question, then, is at the very kernel of this thread.