Hi All:<div><br></div><div>Slightly deviating off the conversation, I am sharing with you all some interesting stuff that I encountered.</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS"">I
discovered this while I was walking besides the school of philosophy after
completing my class in in engineering. As I was hearing to the
sounds of leaves and birds, I was approaching my music lab at the Frost school of music. As I
was about to get into my department, I heard a beautiful melody from a
saxophone. I kept chanting the melody for sometime as I started to work on my computer. With
time, I started to feel the image of the melody subjectively. But I felt that to be too
faint to hear. I wanted it to be a bit louder and tried to turn up the volume
button in me. I noticed that I could not do that. Any attempt that I made to
turning up the level of the music only helped me transposing the melody up my
one or two keys (semitones). Similarly, any attempt to lower the tone helped
only in transposing the melody down by few keys.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS"">I
started experimenting this at home by listening to music on tape. Then I turned
the tape off and "immediately" started to listen to that piece subjectively.
I turned up the volume button. It worked now. The volume went up in my head
without transposing the music to higher keys. Seeing the contradictions, I tried
the same experimented the next morning. This time, I was not able to have
control over the parameters of the music. The volume did not go up but
transposition happened again. Is the amplitude control mechanism not possible after data storage in memory? Does the feel of amplitude control experienced only if external matter is tweaked? That clearly re-defined the problem formulation in me about the "theory of forms" mentioned in Plato's Cave Allegory/Republic.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS""> </span></p>
<span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">These events lead me
to think that memory plays a vast, unpredictable role in connecting
independent events of the world and give a meaning to it. If memory does not
work, each phrase in a music is an individual phrase; each note in a phrase is
individual note, each part of sound in a note is an individual sound; each
granular atom in a sound in individual grain. The necessary connections to
these events are "believed" to be happening in human brain. But the
existence of a human brain is also part of memory. The residence or location of
memory is said to be in human mind. Wherein, the human mind dwells cannot be
told because it comes from living experience.</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Trebuchet MS'" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; "><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Trebuchet MS'" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;">Regards,</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Trebuchet MS'" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;">Arvind Venkatasubramanian</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Trebuchet MS'" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;">Audio DSP Engineer and studio musician<br>
</span></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:55 AM, David Santamauro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.santamauro@gmail.com">david.santamauro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:56:13 +0530<br>
Rustom Mody <<a href="mailto:rustompmody@gmail.com">rustompmody@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> There are two voices I hear here vis-a-vis Bach:<br>
> 1. Art for art's sake -- the romantic idea<br>
> 2. Art for money's sake -- the distinction of commercial vs<br>
> commisioned being a fine semantic distinction.<br>
><br>
> Bach himself expressed a view however which does not fit in with<br>
> either: *<br>
> Anything done other than for the service of God is vanity*<br>
<br>
"The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the<br>
glory of God and the refreshment of the soul."<br>
<br>
God, unfortunately, doesn't pay for food directly. The refreshment of<br>
the soul alone would have left him starving as well.<br>
<br>
Although he was extremely devote and clearly most of his inspiration<br>
was generated by that religious stance, he was not above squabbling for<br>
better pay. The fact that his employer was the church might also had<br>
something to do with that stance as well.<br>
<br>
"He regarded himself as a conscientious craftsman doing a job to the<br>
best of his ability for the satisfaction of his superiors, for the<br>
pleasure and edification of his fellowmen, and to the glory of<br>
God." [ Grout & Palisca: A History of Western Music ]<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Linux-audio-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org">Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user" target="_blank">http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>