> 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" 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... > > 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... > > > > 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. "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. > > 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. 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 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. Now, whether their artistic output is adopted by the society within their lifetime (or ever) is another story altogether. Ico _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
