zeoevil wrote:How in the world did they think of that let alone implement it? Cheers, OP.
Thank you, sir or madam! And yes, it is truly incredible to imagine how someone could build something like that.
Moderators: Aesthetics, Drones, Hexagon Sun
apriorion wrote:I'm sorry to be the only naysayer in here, but I can't see where you're coming from. I mean, I like Jaquard Causeway, and I'll be prepared to admit that there's interesting mathematical shit going on in there, but some things about your picture don't make any sense to me. For example, why is your picture going around in a circle? I get that BOC is all about looking at song structures in different ways (I remember an interview where one of them say something about branches spiraling off of a stem, or something like that), but given that we are finite temporal beings who are locked in a progression from past-to-present-to-future, songs are typically represented according to the flow of time, right? So I don't follow that aspect of your picture. I mean, I get why you picked hexagons as the monads in this diagram, since that's BOC's thing and all, but how it makes up a larger hexagon seems like a bit of a projection on your part more than anything inherent to the track. Also, you drew some colored lines in various patterns across the hexagons and proclaimed that the sums for each are 69 and 70, respectively. I can't see where you're coming from with that at all. If you could explain the steps in between to show how this analysis relates to the track I'm hearing, that would help me a bit. Because when I hear this track, I hear some very emotional melodies running through a delay/echo thingy, and a percussion that runs in a slightly weird time signature. I cant see how a cyclical hexagon pattern can be made from that. I would like to, though.
JESUSANDHOES wrote:
1. "Why is your picture going around in a circle?"
I think the most basic answer to your question is that loops are an integral part of music. But to be more specific, I'm using collections of monads, as you said, or patterns, to represent those musical loops. "Jacquard Causeway" has a constant 3/4 tempo and time-signature during the body of the song.
On the smallest level, a tiny hexagon of say "orange" or "blue" color, as you see it in the image, represents a single bar of the 3/4 time signature in "Jacquard Causeway". The rhythm of this song is 3/4. If you don't know what that means, I can't help you. But any music that occurs in 3/4 can be subdivided to contain 6 notes during a single bar. Because each count can have an "and". This is why I represent each bar as having 6 "nodes" as a regular hexagon: because that faithfully represents the [KICK; HAT; SNARE] rhythm when viewed on a doubly more intricate level of scale. (There's also a 6/4 delay I hear on the synth, but that's another story.)
2. "given that we are finite temporal beings who are locked in a progression from past-to-present-to-future, songs are typically represented according to the flow of time, right? So I don't follow that aspect of your picture.
Since when did forward time have to mean "new stuff" all the time? A hexagonal latticework makes sense to consider as a structural framework for this song because of the name of the song ("Jacquard Causeway"), in conjunction with the 3/4 time signature.
BoC make electronic music, often with patterns repeated in loops. And any shape that completes itself (such as a hexagon, square, n-gon) could be considered analogous to a certain sound loop. For example, you could say for a square, each side of the square represents 0.5 seconds, so it'd take 2.0 seconds to start the loop again.
So while a song might move horizontally with respect to absolute time; parts of the song can also move backward to an earlier part of memory or tape and play again. Not only was this possible with tape (probably what BoC use a lot of the time), but it's too easy with modern DAW programs.
3. I get why you picked hexagons as the monads in this diagram, since that's BOC's thing and all, but how it makes up a larger hexagon seems like a bit of a projection on your part more than anything inherent to the track."
I think your proposed problem is vague.
Is the problem that the atomic elements of my diagram (i.e., all the tiny orange hexagons ) have been cast as hexagons? These shapes could be replaced with any shape and/or color you like (pink floyd...). But regarding the hexagonal latticework that embeds those simple-colored atoms, I did not arbitrarily pick that hexagonal latticework in order to fit the BoC motif. It's natural to subdivide the space into 6 parts with a 3/4 rhythm, for reasons already stated.
I will say, the song structure could be represented in different ways. But according to my observations, I hear 39 eighth notes in the intro and 39 groups of 6 bars of 3/4. The reason I posted this was because I found an interesting isomorphism between those two.
4. Also, you drew some colored lines in various patterns across the hexagons and proclaimed that the sums for each are 69 and 70, respectively. I can't see where you're coming from with that at all.
No, I said the sum of image 1 was 66; and that you can add 4 more to 66 to get 70 total.
The left image of my post that you're referring to demonstrates the four lowest-level patterns that the broadest-level pattern contains. Look at the left image. Notice how the most-inner hexagon is blue. Imagine that the blue-hexagon-line-loop is a barbeque skewer, holding skewered slices of juicy peppers. As you follow the blue hexagon loop around, you see the blue hexagon-line has 6 pepper slices on it, and you could infinitely tessellate its shape within the hexagonal latticework.
Now consider the orange-hexagon-line-loop. It has 12 pepper slices on it, and you could infinitely tessellate it. If you follow the Green and Red loops, you'll see that each of those paths are also infinitely tessellatable, and they contain 18 and 30 pepper slices, respectively.
6 + 12 + 18 + 30 = 36 + 30 = 66
The two shapes on the right image of my post refer to the final 3 & 1 that can be added to 66 to make a total of 70. There are 3 broader shapes which connect to make an infinitely-tesselatable hexagon: the three purple shapes. They could have been (probably should have been) looped-around by a purple line in my diagram. And the red line is the entire shape, a factor of itself. In other words, it is the broadest shape that could be infintely tesselatable, if given the correct boundary.
-=-=-=
I agree that the song has some very emotional qualities. I'm just pointing out a structural property. I have other observations about this song but it's not right to mention them at a post already this long. It's truly a great song and I hope my explanations made it clearer why I'm going on about it.
Radiobuzz wrote:I'm sorry but I think you are stretching it by a huge margin. And it's a little misleading to make others think the track somehow represents hexagons when it's only the visual representation you get personally. Good analysis on the signature though, and nice graphic regardless.
JESUSANDHOES wrote:So anyway, I appreciate your comment.. But I do think this design corresponds well to the song's structure and possible meanings in a handful ways simultaneously, which is at very least rare and interesting, and possibly even meaningful.
Mexicola wrote:It's a fun theory, nothing more. The guy didn't say it was gospel.
apriorion wrote: I mean, I get why you picked hexagons as the monads in this diagram, since that's BOC's thing and all, but how it makes up a larger hexagon seems like a bit of a projection on your part more than anything inherent to the track.
FernieCanto wrote:That is your own, personal, subjective, biased view. Passing it off as some mathematical inherent fact of the song is, if anything, misleading. And considering that, due to the band's mysterious and cryptic nature, many fans are likely to latch onto any hypothesis that makes any slight semblance of sense, yeah, your post is exactly that: misleading.
But aside from that, I wonder how this song is related, mathematically and geometrically, to Queen's song '39. The possibilities!
FernieCanto wrote:Mexicola wrote:It's a fun theory, nothing more. The guy didn't say it was gospel.
Well, it was written more in a Leviticus sort of way.
apriorion wrote:No need for ad hominem attacks. I respect the effort the jesusandhoes made, but I like to try to understand something, hence my questions. I don't think I had my head up my arse, and I don't mean any ill will against jesusandhoes. I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts, but I will always ask questions if (a) the subject is interesting to me, (b) I don't feel like I understand it, and (c) the person seems capable of answering me.
ryanhewitt wrote:apriorion wrote: I mean, I get why you picked hexagons as the monads in this diagram, since that's BOC's thing and all, but how it makes up a larger hexagon seems like a bit of a projection on your part more than anything inherent to the track.
sorry man, but I agree with this guy^
seems like a real stretch to me.
it's strange so many people have jumped on board with this one as everyone is usually so quick to put down the really "out-there" theories.