On 4/4/07, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico@xxxxxx> 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" 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...
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.
> 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 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.
> > > 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...
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.
> > > 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.
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.
> > 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
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.
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
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
