Everything we can't describe in music

Oh wow thats nuts. Did you end up attending grad school for something else? Ive been thinking about applying but I haven't even able to find any departments that do research in this area. There is a huge craze around ML as its producing tangible results and it seems the school of thought is that anything else is wasted time.

The closest thing Ive found to my own is Wolframs writings.

Seriously I know I seem like a delusional nut but this train of thought has really grabbed me. Ive written hundreds of pages of (mostly intelligible) notes/figures and spend countless nights trying to implement what I can so clearly see in my head.

Unfortunately I dont have anything concrete yet that would warrant building a team, and its hard to even find people I can discuss my ideas with.

I think there ought to be interest in this area in mathematics, philosophy or even linguists though.

At least this article will reinforce the concept, and the correct spelling, if not any appreciation for the quality!

Thanks, that analogy bugged me a lot and I couldn't get why a farmable region was similar to a variable sound envelope.

A terroir is totally describable, as by definition you have uniform geological and climatic properties (on the other hand if it can't be delimited it's not a terroir)

This is tangential to much of what this article discusses, but I've had this idea kicking around in my head for a while, that, to some degree, the artificial imitation of acoustic instruments using synthesizers is to music what skeuomorphism is to design, and I (generally) dislike it for all the same reasons. This isn't to diss synthesizers on the whole - I unequivocally love them, and they really opened up my musical world by a wide margin. Nor am I saying that there is no place for synth patches that attempt to "sound like" "real" instruments (for lack of a better word; I consider every "model" of synthesizer to be its own very real and distinct instrument).

Skeuomorphic design, to me, largely feels lazy and unattractive; rather than designing for the new, maybe unfamiliar, medium you're working in, you attempt some facsimile which inevitably cannot live up to the original, either out of lack of ambition, or lack of faith in your audience to understand or appreciate without the anchor of a common metaphor. It lacks idiomaticity - there are particular details, quirks, associated with different mediums that lend themselves to different sorts of designs, and a skeuomorphic design language ignores these. (The same is true of musical instruments. A piece written for the lute, say, played on piano, would feel very different than a piece written for piano, played on piano; what is easy, or possible, on one instrument, is not necessarily as sonorous on another.)

To me, the use of synthesizers to emulate acoustic instruments, where the express intent of the composer/producer/whatever is to evoke the sound of that acoustic original (read: where the creator would prefer the sound of the real instrument), is, at its most generous, telling of a lack of creativity and at worst laziness. (If what you want is expressly the sound of a synthetic imitation for the purposes of your art, none of this applies.) It is a lack of creativity in the case where the creator simply does not have access to "real" instruments they'd rather use, and it's laziness where you have access and ability but opt for something you yourself deem inferior.

Of course, this all presupposes that there is something lost when say, a synthesizer plays a violin patch in an earnest effort by the creator to emulate a violin - where a real violin is actually what's desired. I think this isn't controversial to say, but of course it's a spectrum; I have much less of a problem in cases where the delta is smaller; e.g., simple legato harmonies from a string section can be emulated more convincingly (by orders of magnitude) than some virtuosic cadenza by a solo instrumentalist.

I don't have a good analytical response to this. Your comment doesn't pass the smell test for the following reason: I am a fairly serious jazz guitarist, and it seems to me like most great guitarists can be quickly identified by ear after playing three notes: Charlie Christian, Joe Pass, Blind Willie Johnson, Mary Halvorson, Django Reinhardt, etc. In some cases just one note is enough: B.B. King, Wes Montgomery, T-Bone Walker, Jimi Hendrix. (60 years later and still nobody plays octaves as well as Wes did).

Obviously some of their sound is tied to specific guitar models, but their tone is still easily identified on other guitars. And although these players were creative improvisers, that's not what I mean. Simply put: if it's a great guitarist, you can hear their hands like you can hear a singer's mouth. (Though hands are clumsy compared to mouths, and guitars are clumsy compared to horns.)

I am not anti-synth or anti-electronic music. But I do not believe any existing synth controller provides the expressive possibilities of an electric guitar, even Allan Holdsworth's goofy breath controller. Maybe I'm wrong and there's a great example out there on YouTube. But it seems to me that for an individual to express their individuality with a synth, they need to play a longer musical fragment and color their expression with timing, volume, vibrato, etc. Three notes "with pizazz" will not really be enough.