4 Apr
2007
4 Apr
'07
4:28 p.m.
pattern with
cognition. But even if we consider cognition as a point of
contention, the machinery has a purpose and a role and as such its
manifestation is not meaningless at all.
It is different because a human being is listening to the drumming and
choosing what sounds pleasing and what does not. A single rhythmic 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.
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?
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...
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
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
revolution changed our perception of music and sound, while political,
social, and cultural turmoils of the ensuing globalization have destroyed
whatever little idealism was left during the Romantic era.
Ico