http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

  There's one cool insight (well known, but still cool) there: Even modern
music is based in the exact same principles as music over 300 years old.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   There's one cool insight (well known, but still cool) there: Even modern
> music is based in the exact same principles as music over 300 years old.


Depending, of course, on which modern music one is referring to :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ

But I understand your point, and it is sort of cool.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   There's one cool insight (well known, but still cool) there: Even 
>> modern
>> music is based in the exact same principles as music over 300 years old.
>
> Depending, of course, on which modern music one is referring to :-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ
>
> But I understand your point, and it is sort of cool.

Agreed and all, but that video there is pretty cool too! I don't listen to 
noise music as such (don't even know if this one here is actually in that 
genre) but elements like these often appear in music I hear, combined with 
more classical melodic and rhythmical arrangements. (Röyksopp comes to 
mind.)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
> 
>   There's one cool insight (well known, but still cool) there: Even modern
> music is based in the exact same principles as music over 300 years old.

My brother was telling me about a book he read that I have on order 
right now. "This is your brain on music" by Levitin. He studies the 
neurology of what happens when you listen to music. And then he 
illustrates it with examples from popular music (like the Beatles, not 
Pachelbel. :-) He's not a nerd, so it's probably pretty readable. If 
you're interested in this stuff, the wiring of why the principles work 
is likely to be fascinating. I just need to get my copy. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> "Kevin Wampler" wrote:
> Agreed and all, but that video there is pretty cool too! 

I like it as well, part of the reason I linked it (written in 1958 by 
the way!).  The composer,Ligeti, is actually one of the more classical 
composers of the latter half of the 20th century.  In fact, you've 
probably heard other music of his without knowing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBT__4ldjAs

I'll admit that it took me a bit of effort to learn to enjoy listening 
to this sort of music, but I've ultimately found it to be very worth it.

> I don't listen to 
> noise music as such (don't even know if this one here is actually in that 
> genre) but elements like these often appear in music I hear, combined with 
> more classical melodic and rhythmical arrangements. (Röyksopp comes to 
> mind.)


I'll take a look at them, it sounds like interesting music, and though 
I've been meaning to I haven't really listened to much noise music.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> "This is your brain on music" by Levitin. He studies the
> neurology of what happens when you listen to music. And then he
> illustrates it with examples from popular music (like the Beatles, not
> Pachelbel. :-)

you know, that title seems to say absolutely nothing.  Nobody listen/reacts to
music in the same way.  In particular, someone who digs rap is not likely to
take a kick out of Mozart.  People in general have a real hard time trying to
follow or understand the complicated developments, multiple voices and harmony
of western classical music tradition.  Anything with more than an easy melody,
no percusion and no videoclip is best avoided...

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:

> I like it as well, part of the reason I linked it (written in 1958 by 
> the way!).  The composer,Ligeti, is actually one of the more classical 
> composers of the latter half of the 20th century. 

It seems I left out the word "influential" between "classical" and 
"composer", which sort of rendered that sentence nonsensical.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> I'll admit that it took me a bit of effort to learn to enjoy listening 
> to this sort of music, but I've ultimately found it to be very worth it.

  It's the kind of music which works well in certain types of movies,
but it's quite hard to listen all by itself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> > I'll admit that it took me a bit of effort to learn to enjoy listening
> > to this sort of music, but I've ultimately found it to be very worth it.
>
>   It's the kind of music which works well in certain types of movies,
> but it's quite hard to listen all by itself.

yes, it worked well for Lygeti in 2001.  Out of it, it just sound like lots of
violins or voices moaning senselessly... atonal music is a dead-end...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> yes, it worked well for Lygeti in 2001.  Out of it, it just sound like lots of
> violins or voices moaning senselessly... atonal music is a dead-end...

I don't this is the case at all.  While I do agree that there is a lot 
done in modern music that seems to be "strange for the sake of being 
strange" (Cage springs to mind), I don't think that by any means all 
atonal music is like this.  In particular, Ligeti's handling of 
orchestral and choral texture seems quite adept to me, and it doesn't 
sound like a bunch of voices senselessly moaning, but rather a piece 
with definite carefully wrought structure.

I think that the biggest complaints that might be made about atonal 
music is that it's easy to get carried away with all the freedom, and 
that it is difficult to listen to until you get used to it.  I found my 
experience with atonal music to be somewhat similar to my experience 
with the taste of beer in this respect.  For a long time I thought "eww, 
that's not good at all", but after I'd tried each enough times I began 
to think "ahh, now I begin to get what other people see in this"

Post a reply to this message

This is not, of course, to say that you should like it too, but rather 
that I think there are sufficient artistic possibilities within the genre.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> In particular, Ligeti's handling of
> orchestral and choral texture seems quite adept to me, and it doesn't
> sound like a bunch of voices senselessly moaning, but rather a piece
> with definite carefully wrought structure.

structure, texture, rhythm and color alone don't make good music.  There should
be harmonic progression.  Coherent harmonic progression.  atonal music fails
here...

> after I'd tried each enough times I began
> to think "ahh, now I begin to get what other people see in this"

to get drunk? ;)

yes, everything in life can become familiar once we deal with it everyday.  If
you're a beggar, eating junk is not weird at all.  Seemingly, you could just
say:  "you know, that Cage guy was right.  Those guys at the construction site
near office make some wonderful music!"

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> to get drunk? ;)

heh.

> yes, everything in life can become familiar once we deal with it everyday.  If
> you're a beggar, eating junk is not weird at all.  Seemingly, you could just
> say:  "you know, that Cage guy was right.  Those guys at the construction site
> near office make some wonderful music!"

I agree with you here, I'm much more defending composers like Ligeti 
than Cage.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> structure, texture, rhythm and color alone don't make good music.  There should
> be harmonic progression.  Coherent harmonic progression.  atonal music fails
> here...

I'll admit that I'm rather surprised that you a consider coherent 
harmonic progression to be a necessary criteria for music to be good. 
That seems to be far too restrictive to me, and I don't understand why a 
harmonic progression would be so important at a fundamental level.  That 
seems rather to me like saying that good poetry should have a coherent 
rhyme pattern.

Where do you place something like the prelude to Das Rheingold, which 
while tonal has essentially no harmonic progression and is essentially a 
work dealing with orchestral texture?  On the other end, what about 
something like Rite of Spring which has a tonal structure, but one which 
takes many more liberties than in traditional classical music?

Post a reply to this message

I followed the link and listened. I found it moderately amusing-- even 
considered forwarding the link to some other people. But I decided the time 
would be better spent going out and finding some food to eat. The funny 
thing is-- and I am not making this up, is that when I stepped out of the 
door I could hear my neighbor practicing on her slightly out of tune piano. 
What was it she was practicing, you ask? I'll tell you: Pachebel's Canon in 
D major. Synchronicity, indeed.

H²

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> I'll admit that I'm rather surprised that you a consider coherent
> harmonic progression to be a necessary criteria for music to be good.

it's been the main drive behind the works of composers since Bach... it's what
permitted music to hold high status and for Beethoven's sonatas and symphonies
to be compared to Shakespeare's plays.  Because the sequence of
tension-resolution chords of tonal music is drama condensed...

> That
> seems rather to me like saying that good poetry should have a coherent
> rhyme pattern.

actually, that's structure.

> Where do you place something like the prelude to Das Rheingold, which
> while tonal has essentially no harmonic progression and is essentially a
> work dealing with orchestral texture?

I don't know.  Never heard the prelude.  I only know best-known tunes from
operas.

> On the other end, what about
> something like Rite of Spring which has a tonal structure, but one which
> takes many more liberties than in traditional classical music?

It's a very exciting and refreshing work.  I can imagine the frissón it
generated at the time.  You know, tonal is good so double tonal can only be
great! ;)

I think the work wouldn't be as successful if it went the Schoenberg route...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you know, that title seems to say absolutely nothing.  Nobody listen/reacts to
> music in the same way.  In particular, someone who digs rap is not likely to
> take a kick out of Mozart.  People in general have a real hard time trying to
> follow or understand the complicated developments, multiple voices and harmony
> of western classical music tradition.  Anything with more than an easy melody,
> no percusion and no videoclip is best avoided...

This is why I regards non-fans of Yes as lesser forms of life.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> This is why I regards non-fans of Yes as lesser forms of life.

It was a nice little revelation when I discovered prog rock -- just nice 
to finally hear some rock music with a bit of complexity to it.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ

Good God - it's Ross's "Sound"!

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you know, that title seems to say absolutely nothing.  Nobody listen/reacts to
> music in the same way.

While I haven't read the book, I talked to my brother who had. According 
to what he said, you're incorrect. Many people react the same way to 
music, inside the brain at least.

It's like saying "everybody loves someone different." While true, this 
doesn't mean the mechanisms of love aren't something that can be 
scientifically investigates, and it doesn't mean that everyone's love 
mechanisms are different.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Many people react the same way to
> music, inside the brain at least.

Most react by moving some or all parts of their body accordingly.  Some react by
histerically shaking their heads up and down in huge crowds.  Some other react
by impassively analyzing the patterns and colors making up the texture of the
music.  nobody reacts the same way...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Most react by moving some or all parts of their body accordingly.  Some react by
> histerically shaking their heads up and down in huge crowds.  Some other react
> by impassively analyzing the patterns and colors making up the texture of the
> music.  nobody reacts the same way...

  That may be a *conscious*, learned way of reacting, but I think the subject
was about how the brain reacts instinctively, subconsciously.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That may be a *conscious*, learned way of reacting, but I think the subject
> was about how the brain reacts instinctively, subconsciously.

Yah. I mean, everyone reacts to getting punched in the nose by feeling 
pain. It's the *response* to that, running away, punching back, crying, 
that differs. That's what I'm trying to say there.

I'll bring it up again after I actually read the book. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

 > While I haven't read the book, I talked to my brother who had.
 > According to what he said, you're incorrect. Many people react the
 > same way to music, inside the brain at least.
 >

I'm no expert, but this doesn't "ring true." I feel like I have 
completely different reactions "inside the brain" to different types of 
music and that non-music things sometimes produce identical reactions to 
some types of music. So, everyone's reacting to "music" in such a 
universal way seems impossible. I suppose much depends on the "music" 
used in the study. I could buy that most people react the same way to 
Wagner ... but to Ween??

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> I'm no expert, but this doesn't "ring true." I feel like I have 
> completely different reactions "inside the brain" to different types of 
> music and that non-music things sometimes produce identical reactions to 
> some types of music. So, everyone's reacting to "music" in such a 
> universal way seems impossible. I suppose much depends on the "music" 
> used in the study. I could buy that most people react the same way to 
> Wagner ... but to Ween??

  I suppose culture and experience affects how the brain reacts to music,
even at the subconscious/instinctive level.

  The brain of an adult person who has never heard any music whatsoever
in his life would probably react in all possible ways differently than
the brain of a person who has composed and played music from age 4 to
adulthood.

  Of course these are extreme cases, but it shows that some differences
must exist depending on the culture and experiences of the person.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>  > While I haven't read the book, I talked to my brother who had.
>  > According to what he said, you're incorrect. Many people react the
>  > same way to music, inside the brain at least.
>  >
> 
> I'm no expert, but this doesn't "ring true." I feel like I have 
> completely different reactions "inside the brain" to different types of 
> music and that non-music things sometimes produce identical reactions to 
> some types of music. So, everyone's reacting to "music" in such a 
> universal way seems impossible. I suppose much depends on the "music" 
> used in the study. I could buy that most people react the same way to 
> Wagner ... but to Ween??
> 
> -Shay

You can have completely different reactions to different types of music 
but how do you know what components or the reaction are brain dependent. 
  I mean two people may react differently to music, even to the point 
where one doesn't even recognize the stimulus *as* being music, yet 
there may still be commonalities in how their brain function is 
affected.  It has always been my naive belief, for instance, that 
classical music with its pace and intricacies appealed more to the mind, 
while rock with its pounding rhythms was more addressed to the body, 
(even to the point of perceiving rock music directly through the tactile 
sensors of the body.) Now I can even imagine that those different styles 
actually induce activities in the brain in different ways in connection 
with the different characteristics and qualities of the music.  But I 
can also imagine that those same brain patterns are the same in widely 
different people, and can still lead to very different interpretations 
of the stimulus, including if it is music at all, if it is music I like, 
if it is music that suits my present mood etc.  Maybe some people or 
some cultures don't like having their pelvises awakened.  Or maybe, as 
Warp points out, they never learned that this stimulus was supposed to 
have that effect.  Yet their brain could be reacting just like the other 
guys brain.

Hoping Darren keeps us updated on this book.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>  > While I haven't read the book, I talked to my brother who had.
>  > According to what he said, you're incorrect. Many people react the
>  > same way to music, inside the brain at least.
>  >
> 
> I'm no expert, but this doesn't "ring true." 

I also remember he said it discussed things like why some music sounds 
omnious/spooky, while other music sounds triumphant, why some makes you 
tap your foot and others make you nod your head.

I think you'd probably agree that you don't have to like the theme from 
Jaws to get apprehensive when you hear it, and you don't have to like 
classical music to agree that Ode to Joy is not a sad song.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Perhaps I may be wrong, but I agree with the fact, that every human has same
biological reactions to a stimulus:
Hearing it -> the stimulus, translated to electric pulses, triggers the
distribution of electrical signals from neuron to neuron to that part of brain,
which interpretes it.
I thought, I read somewhere, that any sound (independent from what it is (noise,
music...)) might be at first stress for the body.
But it really depends on the volume. Listening to loud music is similar to
physical pain, also if the person likes to listen to that music.
On the other hand there are therapies using special frequencies to ease pain of
patients.
Regarding to these observations humans have to have similar brain reactions in a
biological way.

Regards

          bluetree

Post a reply to this message

BTW I don't know, what effect might music have to animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfh4Vih1_G8

:-) Nice bird.


                    bluetree

Post a reply to this message

"bluetree" wrote:
> BTW I don't know, what effect might music have to animals.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfh4Vih1_G8
>
> :-) Nice bird.

ROFL!

OMG it has far more sense of rythm than my girlfriend... :P

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> "bluetree" wrote:
> > BTW I don't know, what effect might music have to animals.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfh4Vih1_G8
> >
> > :-) Nice bird.
>
> ROFL!
>
> OMG it has far more sense of rythm than my girlfriend... :P

Rough.
Be glad, that she doesn't read your post, does she.   ;-)

But to tell the truth, it is quite more lithesome than myself. :-D

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

"bluetree" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>> "bluetree" wrote:
>> > BTW I don't know, what effect might music have to animals.
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfh4Vih1_G8
>> >
>> > :-) Nice bird.
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> OMG it has far more sense of rythm than my girlfriend... :P
>
> Rough.
> Be glad, that she doesn't read your post, does she.   ;-)

No, but I don't think she'd mind though. She's the first to admit that she 
doesn't have much rythm, and besides, she have a sense of humor. ;) Also, 
she's improving.

> But to tell the truth, it is quite more lithesome than myself. :-D

Quite more than me too... :P

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
 >
 > I think you'd probably agree that you don't have to like the theme
 > from Jaws to get apprehensive when you hear it, and you don't have
 > to like classical music to agree that Ode to Joy is not a sad
 > song.

That's almost cheating. Songs could easily be chosen for which the 
response is not as obvious.

How about "Foggy Mountain Breakdown"?
Singing monks make some apprehensive, some pensive, some rapturous.
Bach: ominous on organ - regal on harpsichord.

It's easy to make the case in the book when we select from genre-ized 
music which has already been squeezed into categories based on how it 
makes most people feel.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
 >
 > You can have completely different reactions to different types of
 > music but how do you know what components or the reaction are brain
 > dependent.

Mood. Triggered memory. Pulse rate. All seem obviously "instinctive (or 
strongly conditioned) and subconscious."

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:47952017$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>>   That may be a *conscious*, learned way of reacting, but I think the 
>> subject
>> was about how the brain reacts instinctively, subconsciously.
>
> Yah. I mean, everyone reacts to getting punched in the nose by feeling 
> pain. It's the *response* to that, running away, punching back, crying, 
> that differs. That's what I'm trying to say there.
>
> I'll bring it up again after I actually read the book. :-)

      Or get punched on the nose... ;)  Heh.

       ~Steve~




>
> -- 
>   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>     It's not feature creep if you put it
>     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message