Maraki wrote:Out of these three definitions left, I think number 6 is the hardest to define, followed by number 2. I, personally would go about trying to define the first definition, specifically on the last half of it - all you have to do is define what the best rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour are. Most of these can be answered by deriving them from the golden ratio, if that's an agreeable 'best number', and the colour part really means (according to my interpretation) the actually sound of all other elements - and, mathematically speaking, the clearest sound is a sine wave.
So there you go, you can now define the best possible music (mathematically speaking), and then compare other music to see how 'bad' it is in relation to this 'perfect' music.
You say "all you have to do is define what the best rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour are", as if that was doable, easy, or made any sense at all. It doesn't. You are assuming that:
-A best, ideal music is possible in theory.
-The four properties you mention are independent, that is, if a rythm is good, it will be good with any melody. I don't think you seriously believe this.
-Those four properties are also ordered, and a best, ideal of each exists(what's better, a 3/4 beat or a 4/4 beat?)
-The beauty we are looking for is mathematical beauty.
-The golden ratio is more beautiful than other numbers(I thought the importance of the golden ratio in beauty of art had been disproved long ago)
Do you really