Replying to LO28259 --
Hello At,
> Ray Harrell <mcore@nyc.rr.com> writes
>
> >For complexity it is a quality of being complex.
> >The key is that it is a state of being complex. That
> >state of being has various levels. When a person
> >has zero virtuosity, they have a ten on the complexity
> >scale. When the complexity scale is zero you have
> >the reverse for virtuosity.
>
> Greetings dear Ray,
>
> We seem to have our differences on what complexity means.
>
> Nevertheless, I see in your description above what I call the
> LRC (Law of Requisite Complexity). One has to master the
> one level of complexity to have the virtuosity assoiciated with
> that level. Only then can one with success master the next
> level.
I would agree with that description
> >But for me the difference is that you can say
> >something IS complex but you cannot say that
> >something IS complexity. It is a noun but it is
> >not an object but a process that one does.
>
> For me complexity and evolution are closely related. Complexity
> is the whole of all kinds of evolution, including my understanding
> of them.
Are you familiar with John N. Warfield's "A Science of Generic Design,
Managing Complexity Through System's Design." 2nd edition 1994 (Iowa State
University Press)? Warfield made things clear for me since music is
abstract system's design that involves both an individual ordered/graded
reduction of incompetance in its study and the situation of linkage or
team growth that is necessary in musical ensemble. So Mastery involves
both individual reductions of incompetance and group reductions as well.
As I think about it I wonder if the whole concept of complexity doesn't
begin to fall apart i.e. you don't really need it. "Incompetance levels"
is the kind of raw thinking required to develop discipline and there are
other words like density to describe what is happening theoretically in
the sound tapestry. Complexity is usually related to "numbers" in other
fields but numbers are not helpful in the development of musical
interpretation. In fact they create a feeling of machinelike robotic
inhuman expression. It is like comparing digital langauge to analogue in
recordings. What you get in clarity you lose in the density of the whole.
Some of us would contend that you lose the "music" in digital recordings.
Will pick up on this later. Must go.
Ray
--"Ray Evans Harrell" <mcore@nyc.rr.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.