[LAU] Re: That must suck. For me it's about beauty -- musicisjustone path

Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 18:47:26 EDT 2007


On 4/4/07, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico at vt.edu> wrote:
> > vibration in a piece of machinery is one thing, but rarely does a
> > factory have one machine.  And the machines are generally not tuned to
> > each other nor adjusted to make more pleasing sounds.  I suspect the
> > average factory worker would be fired if he changed the settings on
> > machines in order to compose music with them.
>
> This is taking an example out of context and as such does not have much
> bearing on the original argument.

Well obviously whatever you say has bearing has bearing and what you
say doesn't doesn't.

> > There is a fundamental difference between listening to something and
> > learning to find value in it, and listening to something and changing
> > it to make sounds in which you find value.
>
> Well, if you need a blatant example, how about recording the noise of
> machinery and then manipulating it in one of the 1500+ audio applications
> Linux scene has to offer?

You said:
> It seems likely that you don't like these sounds because of their
> psychoacoustic association. To put it bluntly if every morning you were
> being prematurely woken up by a beautiful bird song of a bird who lives on a
> tree next to your window, I am pretty sure that you would eventually learn
> to dislike that sound as much as you currently dislike the sound of your
> alarm clock.  All sounds we are aware of are simply a combination of sine
> tones perceptible by our ears. Therefore, the only difference between a
> sound of an ocean and a steam engine is ultimately their "recipe." If you
> consider all sounds on this, much more equal plane, then it becomes rather
> apparent that all sounds have beauty that simply needs to be uncovered
> regardless of their source.

This is the part I don't buy: that people decide what sounds are
worthy based on association.  The sound of a "beautiful bird song"
will never have the disruptive effect that an alarm clock or a
jackhammer outside the window have.
Of course if a knowledgeable person were given freedom to manipulate
these sounds with all the software in the world, they could create
something beautiful.

> > There is a pretty well-developed science behind how people recognize
> > pattern in what they hear and experience emotions in response to it.
>
> Yes, and it is called psychoacoustics. I teach this to my students every
> year...

Then you know "subjective" is a relative term.  It does mean the
effect comes from the observer, but it does not mean no two people
have the same reaction.

> > What is traditionally referred to as "music" didn't exist by accident;
> > sentient animals create it according to their experience, which means
> > there is a reason we respond to it.  It was not just one of the many
> > ways to arrange sound, it was the one that drew people's attention.
>
> Why "traditionally referred to"? Music has been always referred to this way

My point is that this music was invented, and early humans chose these
particular patterns over the infinitely many others they could have
chosen, and not because of some external association.


> and will always continue to be referred as such. This is why our modern
> times music is different from that written 150 years ago. Industrial

Whose modern times music?  Most of what I hear is not that different.
If anything it's maybe more like music written 500 years ago.  I
suspect the music you're thinking of is the music of the minority.

-Chuckk

-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list