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

[Ivica Ico Bukvic]

> Well, there are easy-to-find videos of people hearing the first sounds
> they've ever heard, and the reaction is usually extreme elation.  I
> don't know of any experiments with this, but I'd wager a hefty sum
> that, universally, newborn babies will react differently to the sound
> of a machine gun than to the sound of a chorus singing Ave Maria.  It
> does not take prior conditioning to hear harmony in a harmonic series,
> and factory machines tend not to adhere to or even approximate a
> harmonic series.

Which part of agree to disagree you are not getting? I shouldn't bite but
man, there are so many wrong statements here it simply hurts to ignore...

Can't you realize that now you are equating a sound (machine gun) with a
*composition* which is built as a *collection of sounds*.

If I really wanted to bite into this argument, I would tell you that you
could stretch the sound of a machine gun until attacks become gentle rolling
hills and compare that to the swell of a single voice. This in and of itself
will not change harmonic composition of a sound (and therefore its identity)
yet it will certainly provide you with what you refer to as more "soothing"
sound... You could also do something a lot more benign which is lowering its
amplitude. A machine gun half a mile away can sound no different than a
small rhythmic riff in a slow soothing dance piece.

The other aspect that clouds your argument is the enveloping or rhythmic
implication of two sounds that are presented in this example. And before you
go off on a tangent to pursue this as your next argument, consider the
percussion of a slow soothing dance piece which has attacks (i.e. snare
drum) similar to a machine gun, yet within that context such noise seems
perfectly soothing.

Consider the following: you are flying in an airplane. The noise level from
the air passing by the outer shell of the fuselage when you actually
consciously observe it inside the airplane is actually quite deafening.
Despite this fact, you don't see anyone distressing about it--we simply
accept it as a background noise and do not fret about it. Heck, some people
even find it calming (just like they find sound of seashore waves soothing
even though they are rather close in composition to that of a white noise).
Yet, if I were to play the same sound levels in my house, I wouldn't be
surprised if I had my neighbors call police to pay me a visit. How can this
be? It is quite simple, the psychoacoustics is playing tricks on us. This
noise does belong in an airplane but it doesn't in a house, hence the
distress.

> 
> > > 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.
> >
> > This all goes back to the original argument: all sounds are simply
> > combinations of sine tones with their respective envelopes and
> amplitudes.
> > If we take this into an account any sound is just that, a sound.
> Anything
> > else we associate with such a collage of individual frequencies is our
> own
> > personal choice, whether that be conscious or subconscious.
> 
> You're obviously not an idiot, but I still disagree.  People may find

Oh dear...

> certain sounds more interesting than others, but no one will describe
> Beethoven's Ode to Joy as depressing and dirge-like, and no one will

Actually there are plenty of scholars (colleagues no less) who argue that
ode to joy is one of crappiest Bethoven's melodies and if isolated from the
rest of the piece it might as well sound like a dirge. But I digress, since
this is yet another bad example which focuses on *music* as a *collection of
sounds* not on a *sound* itself which was our original discussion.

> describe The Rite of Spring as relaxing and peaceful.  No one will

Both of these are *compositions* or collections of sounds not a *sound*.
Can't you figure out the difference yet?

> describe a baby's scream as calming: we are biologically predisposed
> to find that sound unsettling.

Funny you mention that since I did not mind a baby cry before I had my own
kids. Now it tears me inside out to hear a baby cry, even if it is distant
and not my kid either. Coincidence? I think not...

> Well if this is all conditioning, then how do you know the Dadaists
> weren't trying to express joy and patriotism?  There are fundamental

Because as a scholar you read about it, analyze and assess. As a scholar you
take nothing for granted.

> elements in their work that express disjointness and angst.  Some like
> it, some don't, but few will disagree on what feelings inspired it.

What about Rite of Spring? You said it above--it is disturbing to a tonally
trained ear, yet it is a portrayal of celebration. So how can something so
celebratory be so not celebratory to our Western ears? Could it be that it
does not describe a custom/style from a Western culture and hence the
dichotomy? Yet again, I fall into the trap of discussing *music* rather than
musical potential of a *sound*...

> You should read up on Gestalt perception, the Law of Pragnänz,
> Wertheimer and Koffka.  We interpret incoming stimuli in the simplest
> possible way, but what is simple may in fact change based on
> familiarity.

So now you do agree that familiarity, conditioning, and therefore
psychoacoustics is the key?

> It's funny you should argue that these harmonies are hardwired into
> our cochleas after insisting that it's all learned.  You're all over
> the place.

I am not arguing, I am stating. And no, I am not "all over the place" or
whatever that means. This is simply a statement that suggests there is
something innate to our gravitation towards triadic structures as well as
octave relationships. Yet, this in and of itself does not suggest that
because we gravitate to these sounds/sonorities that we automagically
interpret them as more soothing.

> Actually, the first major triad that crops up in the harmonic series
> is between the 4th, 5th, and 6th harmonics.  We also did not "reach"

Wrong. It is between 3rd, 4th, and 5th (or actually 2nd 3rd and 4th if you
regard the first frequency as it is commonly referred to as the fundamental
frequency while its harmonic overtones are then counted from 1 and upwards).
But I guess you know that...

> 12-tone equal temperament, it was *invented*.  There is nothing
> fundamentally right about it.  So what are you saying about those 17
> centuries?  Ptolemy had major thirds based on the 5th harmonic.  This
> is about as complicated as most music that actually represents modern
> culture gets.  Humans 10,000 years ago would have enjoyed "Happy
> Birthday to You" just as much as modern humans.

That is if you assume that the ear cochlea did not evolve. Once I had a
discussion with my colleague who happens to work for NASA. He hypothesized
that different species may have differently wired cochlea which would
explain some of the musical oddities of humpback whale songs. This
hypothesis could also rationalize dichotomy between various cultures as well
as time periods (pentatonic vs. diatonic vs. old modes, tunings, etc.).
Please note that I am not claiming this is a fact, but rather a hypothesis
which I haven't looked into in quite some time, so it may have been debunked
since...

> But the majority represents modern society's tastes better than some
> esoteric "artiste" who appeals to 1 out of 1,000 people.  Your whole
> point seems to be that modern people's tastes have changed as a result
> of conditioning, and yet you're saying music that appeals to hundreds
> of millions of modern people isn't relevant to "modern people's
> tastes" since it isn't revolutionary and groundbreaking.

A part of that conditioning is a dull daily bombardment of triadic trash on
radio waves, elevator muzak, TVs, movies, etc. So, yes, it is conditioning.
Yet, the few groundbreaking contributions of the 20th century have made much
greater dent than all the pop crap of the last 20 years combined. So,
*despite* the fact that they are not played nearly as much, their legacy
lives in the way how they have shaped our overall perception of music. Now,
in due time if we continue the current unfortunate trend, our collective
memory may bury all the progress that has been made (for better or for
worse), and then these gems will be forgotten in time. This, however will
not be due to their lack of merit but because of the cultural dilution
through commerce driven society.

Answer this, what would you find to be so groundbreaking in the last
century? Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, etc. or someone like Schoenberg,
John Cage, and Karlheinz Stockhausen? Now tell me how much are these
composer/performer groups being performed?

> Thanks for the personal judgment.  I happen to agree, but we were
> talking about what kinds of sounds people find musical.  If we were

Sounds or compositions? Above, you've been arguing between a sound and
composition, then between a composition and composition, and now you are
talking about sounds again? Please make up your mind...

> talking about what kinds of substances attract flies, you couldn't
> hold up something that attracted 1 out of 1,000 flies and say it was
> the most relevant, simply because you like it.  You can't pretend the
> dog shit's not there when they're all over it.

You obviously have no understanding of how the commercial industry works.
Until very recently the word Blockbuster and similar laughable concepts of
commerce have been the norm. Now that we live in the "long tail" era (look
it up on the Wired magazine, there's even a book about it--an instructional
read), you will learn why 1000 flies do pick a turd and that one doesn't.
Let me give you a hint: access to information. Now, please feel free to go
back to your regularly scheduled program as I will not waste any more time
on this...

Ico