On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 18:47 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > 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. maybe not a jackhammer, but i could imagine that upon initial hearing, the sound of a song bird could be quite alarming to a person who had grown up in a desert environment that lacked such sounds. > 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. which particular patterns are you thinking of? > > 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. i don't think you're correct there. for a start, the modes we use in western classical, religious and popular were not often used 500 years ago. the influences that jazz has introduced into much western music would have been mostly unknown 500 years ago, because jazz itself didn't exist then. the notions of fugues and counterpoint were (mostly) developed 400 years ago in western europe - before that time having two melodic lines in opposite motion but also harmonizing would have probably sounded very odd. and this is all ignoring the music of the rest of the world. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
