5 Apr
2007
5 Apr
'07
11:13 p.m.
On 4/4/07, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
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.
You're obviously not an idiot, but I still disagree. People may find
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
describe The Rite of Spring as relaxing and peaceful. No one will
describe a baby's scream as calming: we are biologically predisposed
to find that sound unsettling.
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.
Two people may have the same reaction and they may not. This again stems for
the most part on their conditioning. This is why Debussy's music changed so
dramatically after he was exposed to gamelan music. This is why war and
destruction brought about Dada, Futurists, etc. And the list goes on...
Well if this is all conditioning, then how do you know the Dadaists
weren't trying to express joy and patriotism? There are fundamental
elements in their work that express disjointness and angst. Some like
it, some don't, but few will disagree on what feelings inspired it.
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.
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.
"Particular patterns" were not chosen. They are a part of the fundamental
physical properties of our environment. If you look at the harmonic overtone
series the first 4 notes of harmonic overtones spell out a perfect major
triad. Our cochleas are constructed so that concentric circles couple nerves
which are corresponding to octave displacements. It took us however over 17
centuries before we reached what we refer to as equal temperament and as a
matter of fact it is a compromise between nature and our interest in 12
arbitrarily assigned and tradition-imposed octave divisions.
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.
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"
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.
A majority of our society consists of conformists. Minority is what pushes
the limits. I certainly don't expect Britney Spears et al to be the ones who
are going to invent the next best thing in the area of aural arts. It is
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.
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"
Association is where psychoacoustics comes into play. Imagine a person who
never heard of a bird in their entire lives. What do you think would be
their first reaction? Most likely they would be alarmed, confused, and maybe
even scared. Then again, all this depends upon their prior conditioning... 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. 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 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. those who are not seeking riches, are not in position
to do so, and/or have
little to lose from risking their creative careers, that commonly push the
limits arbitrarily established by the tradition.
Thanks for the personal judgment. I happen to agree, but we were
talking about what kinds of sounds people find musical. If we were
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.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com