| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I suppose from one perspective, yes, this is important but only to the extent we have these constant battles against the shouters to discuss the topic. If you accept the thinking that cables and cable lifters, clocks, foils and such devices can make improvements in subjective sound quality without always having objective measurements to prove the fact, then you can get beyond the naysayers and enjoy the music. If you've reached that level of enjoyment, then who "CAN" go along with the idea is reduced to a function of extended forum threads. Even when your perception goes against past experience and learning - and you "hate when that happens" - you can get beyond the naysayers. No? Am I missing your point, May? Isn't what you've said here that the myopic food technician cannot see the window maker's experience? OK, why should I allow their intransigence to affect my perception?
In which case, Freako, ...
... misses the point. You have put the cart before the horse, we have to monitor the environment to know whether to put on or take off clothing. Right? So, yes, we are monitoring and should the environment become unfriendly we are placed in a stressed condition until we can rectify the situation. You don't know you're cool until you know you're no longer hot.
Again I think you're missing the point here. Daredevils do not feel safe because they have an inherent sense nothing can go wrong but IMO because they have an inherent sense of the danger present in their risk taking. They only feel safe once they have "signed off" on the perception they have made the environment safe as possible by planning and accounting for all the possible dangers which might present themself. Doing otherwise is why the Darwin Awards were created. As Norm Abrams says, "Measure twice, cut once."
Only up to the exact moment they hit the ground, burst into flames, realize they cannot get the cuffs undone, etc. Then they show up as a headline in the The Sun tabloids along with BatBoy and the aliens advising Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc.; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper)
Well, you may - and may not - be right, I don't know. My responses were perhaps "putting the cart before the horse", but they were my thoughts after reading May's post...
You're wrong, Eric! It's a bit telling that you don't see "large, loud and brash" as a part of "angry"? HOW CAN YOU NOT! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?!
See? I get loud and brash and I'm willing to bet you read that as "angry". It's your experience with this couple you are relating but I wouldn't necessarily suggest this is a reflection on the major mode but on the loudness and brashness they are willing to tolerate under the circumstances. If you're after a perfectly peaceful wedding, maybe loud and brash is not what you want and that's also why you didn't invite Uncle Charlie to the rehearsal dinner.
Now, if you were telling me your two Laotian friends were planning this wedding and the Western music you played for them sounded angry, I would have a far easier time accepting your assumption. Use the example I gave and do your current friends not respond to music sounding comical, menacing, mysterious and even Spanish or Oriental? Does "Fantasia" just leave them slackjawed? If they respond to those mode based inputs, then I don't think they've lost their subconcious response to music, they are just misinterpreting the societal clues they find in day to day life.
Ah!! Stop Yelling!!!
Jan, my point is that I, a trained musician, listen to music in a different way than my untrained friends. I naturally hear the major modality of the pieces I played for them and was immeadiately ecstatic. I listen through the sound, as it were, and sort of analize the music as I go. My friends are much more influenced in the timbre of the sounds they hear to get thier emotional cues than I might be. It was totally lost on them that these pieces were in a major mode.
I think this is why some people hate opera so much. They just hear, what is to thier ears, angry shouting.
For me, both timbre and modality are should go together in well performed music - each should compliment each other. This is one of the strengths of Western Music IMHO. Functional harmony gives us a complex but understandable system of tension and release based on physics. It is up to the composer/arranger/performer to finesse the actual sounds made when performing written music so that the math and physics of the music work WITH the timbre of the sounds for an heightened emotional experience.
Maybe they were thinking about all those dominant/subdominant and suspended/augmented chords and they're personally just not into that sort of stuff.
You don't think a trained musician hears music differently than an untrained observer?
I certainly do think that. However, I think that even lay people "understand" functional harmony in a subconcious, perhaps kinesthetic way. In pop music the Picardy third in the final chord of the chorus for Gnarles Barkley's "Crazy" gives the listener a lift each time it happens. Even Lady Ga Ga alternates between using flat 7 and the Dominant so the harmony has more pull when she repeats something.
I just wonder that as more music becomes less harmonically complex, if the average person might lose thier feeling for functional harmony. We lost our feeling for the Greek modes, maybe we'll lose functional harmony as well...
You say you don't believe your friends recognized the Major mode. Did you play a strictly Aeolian (minor) mode piece for comparison? Maybe a little Bruckner Sym. 8? I can't imagine anyone not hearing that juxtaposition. Just placing a composition in a major key is not going to ensure a "major" feeling if the dissonance of minor notes or chords are played beneath the major. That's the essence of 90% of blues, one flatted fifth played against a major chord and you're off to get one Bourbon, one Scotch and one beer. A relative minor scale under a major progression and you have blues in a major key. I've never thought I couldn't find brashness in a major key.
I'm not sure why you say we've lost our feel for the Greek modes. In my example above, if you get "Fantasia", you get the modes. Your examples indicate we still get the subconcious effect of key manipulation. All hail Dorian! And, at least from a guitarist's point of view, the new composers are making more use of modes to explore a traditional style and to not sound like the past. Slash plays more with modes than Clapton with his pentatonics ever has.
I feel there is definitely something in what you say, and is something that I have pondered for years myself and can be seen by the general interest in the more quality (emphasis quality here and there are many to consider such as those at the larger related festivals) dance tracks/DJs in the use of the beat-rythms and chord-harmonies.
For the more general listener this music will have far more pull than classical/opera/ballets.
On a side note just to add, those who spent years studying this very subject have identified some interesting human traits associated with music; such as greater activity in the cortex of the brain linked to linguistics, and how different cultures with their specific rythms are all universally comparable when it comes to human interraction and interest.
Cheers
Orb
Wait ... hmmmm? ... what you're saying is you believe a good lot of the people like popular music?
Well, knock me down with a feather!
Yes IMO along the same reasoning that Erick gives that includes a trained listener hears music differently to an untrained observer
Cheers
Orb
No doubt about that. When my (untrained) sis or other family hears my system, they say: "Sounds good", but they cannot put more words to it. And poor little me gets disappointed
Well, I'm still looking for the guy or gal who named it "popular" music just because a lot of people like it.
Now here's a thought-
I think there is a difference between popular music (music that lots of people like) and Pop Music (as a movement)
Discuss!
Yes, but popular does not mean good or great, it just means that "many" like it. It probably means more in a money driven, commercial sense. There is too much good to great music that is not commercially successful.
There is just some music on a level that it takes some effort and repeated listenings for me to really get. I often realize that I am the problem, not the music's lack of greatness. Once I got to my 40's, I started giving all kinds of music more time to sink in.
I think that many people are not willing to invest time, as they make up their minds in 20-30 seconds of an initial audition and move on to something else. It took me about 4-5 playings of Jeff Beck's Blow By Blow (an investment in a very good condition lp) to begin to get it, but I am glad I did as JA's recommendation of E & C is excellent. It is a little compressed in places, but well worth the investment.
And if they are like anyone I know, then they camp in the middle chair for two hours and listen to a variety of stuff.
Discuss?! "Pop" is short for "popular", kinda like "R&B" is short for "Rhythm and Blues". You know, because these record label guys don't have a lot of time to spell out "popular" for you. "Popular" as in "popular this afternoon". Pop music is mean to tbe popular if even for just a day. Go ask the people at the CD shop, Eric. 45 RPM, Top 40, one hit wonders, etc. = "popular" music. I've never heard of "Pop Music" (as a movement). Isn't that what the Tea Party is all about - here today and gone tomorrow? I don't think pop music is the same thing.
And discussing this in this thread is really going to take the original topic into the ditch. If this is what you want to discuss, could you please take it into another thread?
...craving coffee!
That's like saying classical music is the same as Classical music. Led Zeppelin may have been popular music but it certainly wasn't Pop music.
Sorry to distort this already lost thread
...could be an interesting debate - in another thread!?
Lost thread? Gee, Eric, if you don't care for the thread, don't read it. There is a conversation going here. May is away on vacation and she doesn't have easy access to the internet so it may not be progressing to your pleasure but "lost thread" it is not. I introduced the idea of modes and subconcious reactions in response to a post within this thread, not to begin a discussion of the recording industry.
No, that's like saying "Pop" is short for "popular". I didn't think that was an obscure reference. Maybe I'm showing my age and your's. Your example is an audio salesperson's joke.
"What sort of music do you listen to?"
"Rock and some classical."
"What sort of classical?"
"Zeppelin, Stones, early Beatles, you know."
To say Zeppelin was not Pop music is saying you've never read Gramophone magazine. Stereophile still lists "Rock/Pop" together as a single category.
I did ask you a question that relates to this thread's topic which you never answered.
If you believe the thread is lost, then don't bother to answer. If you'd care to stimulate some discussion about our subconcious reaction to music, then please contribute. I don't believe your conclusion, " ... people are losing thier emotional responses to musical modes", is based on sufficient evidence if you came to that decision based on a single example of Major mode orchestration.
Well, this appears to be a controversial discussion!?
...or Lichte is busy...
jj, stop stalking me! Apologize immediately.
You forgot the smiley. Jan. And there better have been a smiley.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
There better have? Why's that, John? You make it sound like a threat if I am smiley face deficient.
You talkin' to me?
I haven't worn my hair like that in years.
LOL, but the question should be: Have you EVER worn your hair like that, Jan?
Could be fun if every member posted a photo of themselves!
This is how I look in the morning:
Please don't mention my bad habits!
Travis and I have a lot in common.
Huh? You a taxi driver too?
Keld, re your reply to Jan, :-
I am trying to get greater depth to peoples' 'thinking' Keld, but you still seem to be thinking on a superficial level - as evidenced by your reply below. !!
Your reply to me :-
Jan is correct. You WOULD NOT know whether to take off a layer of clothes or put on a layer of clothes UNTIL your body has told you a change in temperature has just occurred (and in which direction that change has taken place) !!!!!!!!
In other words, the reading/sensoring/monitoring of the temperature of your environment has to have come first !! Your reply was very much under the 'superificial' heading - and - is only looking at the us (the human being) NOW, not as the result of millions of years of evolution !.
Going back to my 'temperature' story.
>>> "For the body to detect a change happening in the temperature of the environment, a reference point - a reference memory of stabilitgy has to be there, in the first place - for any change to be registered as a change" <<<.
And your reply :-
The memory (each memory) is in the brain but the brain has to have been notified in the first place by the 'sensing' mechanism.
One of the best logical reasoning tools (as an example) is to do with detecting movement - which ability has been in place (and extremely successful) for millions and millions of years !!
We (and from all the early creatures onward) would not know in what direction the movement of a predator was going (left to right or right to left or staying stationary) if a 'reading' (and it's subsequent memory) was not taken each millisecond !! For example. The predator is on the left of a rock at 11.45. Without a 'reading' (and it's subsequent MEMORY) of the predator being on the left (of a rock) at 11.45 there would be nothing to compare any movement against. A memory of each positioin is absolutely necessary !! So, at 12.00 how would the early creature know when the predator was on the right of the rock at 12.00 (i.e in which direction the predator was moving if the creature had no earlier memory (earlier reading) to compare with ? That the early creature could take a 'reading' every millisecond and commit that 'reading' to memory was why it (and we) are so successful at detecting movement. Couple that with the REMARKABLE achievement of each memory knowing it's place in chronological order !!!
Can you see now why I suggest your response was in the 'superficial' sector ?
My comment :-
>>> "For example. For the body to detect at 12.00 that the temperature in the environment has changed, there has to have been a memory of the temperature being static/stable at 11.59, at 11.58, at 11.57 !! Otherwise no change can be detected at 12.00. Then, at 12.00, sensing a change, the body does what it is programmed to do " <<<
And your reply :-
Again, Keld. The body would not know to withdraw blood from the outer blood vessels without first being told that it HAD TO do so because of the change in temperature !! Nor would it know to create 'sweat' without being told that it HAD TO do so because of the change in temperature.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I stand corrected. Nice to have you back by the way; was your vacation good?
Oh, man.
May, please, get thee to a science book.
Your claptrap has gone from ridiculous (cuckoo eggs) to absurd.
Google 'thermoregulation' then come back and apologize for wasting people's time with your BS.
May, we regulate heat/cooling via our body's (or parts of our bodies) temperature, not by tracking the ambient temperature of the environment. There are some local body phenomena that contribute, like your example of changes in skin temperature, but you render this process a cartoonish version of the elegant process that is taking place.
Help with vocabulary: Thermoregulation is a "homeostatic process" and takes place even if the environmental temperature is static. (Horrors of audio horrors, it is also a negative feedback device!....;)
Back to fun.
More interesting is the story of Wim Hof, who can control his core body temperature in extreme cold condition way beyond what is deemed possible.
Well worth watching the channel 4 documentary I am linking (has annoying I am 16 pop up confirm box 1 minute of adverts you cannot skip at beginning), I love the end after his marathon run in sandal and shorts in arctic weather when he just wants a smoke and beer
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/daredevils/episode-guide/series-1/episode-3
Cheers
Orb
Another amusing anecdote:
A former classmate Steve Lacy, while at Wright Patt AFB, volunteered for a USAF Office of Medical Research experiment to see how long a person can stay in temperature controlled chamber at 425 degrees Fahrenheit. Steve remained in the room for 40 minutes, in street clothes, no problem.
It must have been a dry heat.
Excellent example.
To confound May further....how do we know he is able to maintain his body temperature?
By measuring it, of course!
So, if he were in a cold environment, he may not need remediation with extra sweaters, jackets, etc....while others might.
Thanks for the excellent example of person to person variation!
I would expect to need a tweak to be able to do what he did without requiring a remedial aid!
Seems the fallacy of 'universalism' is apparent to you, as well.
Do you think they took Steve's body temperature during or after?
425 degrees, 45 minutes....quite objective!
When it hits 115 or above here, I start to wilt. But YMMV!
Hey you are meant to enjoy watching the documentary not use it in the discussion
Just to be Devils Advocate; May could use it to support the concept that human body/mind can regulate and control itself as shown by this most extreme example, in other words there is an innate intelligence within the mind/body concept
Cheers
Orb
I agree that it points out impressive 'skills,' but would still point out that the person in your example can do without external tweaking what others require tweaks to equal.
No arguments from me about the impressive person to person variation we see at almost all levels - I revel in the myriad ways humans vary! Hence, my reticence with people like May's insistence on the universality of the tweaks they market.
My mom-in-law can go off her thyroid pills and be cheerful and comfortable in a 90 degree living room as I sit and dream about turning on the air conditioning. Same room, different worlds!
Classic example
In my mind there's no doubt that different people experience (and sense) variations in the environment individually. Not two persons are the same, and as for the expresion "universal", I believe there is such a thing, but only in the big picture. When it comes down to minor details, like temperature or feeling safe or unsafe, we're all different.
The language of love is universal, and it better be!
Yes, thank you. Peter and I had a really good vacation. And, thanks Keld for your appreciation of my efforts. Yours was somewhat different to Buddha's interpretation of my efforts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why would I disagree that that is what can happen ???? However, surely Buddha, in the example he gives, is actually confirming what I have said previously - i.e. That his body is TELLING HIM "for goodness do something about the room temperature" (dream about turning on the air conditioning) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
{quote} May, we regulate heat/cooling via our body's (or parts of our bodies) temperature, not by tracking the ambient temperature of the environment.{/quote]
So, Buddha, according to you the external temperature of the environment has NO relevance to our everyday lives ????
Perhaps you should have been around millions and millions of years ago to know whether the temperature of the environment was relevant or not !!
Are you saying that some turtle eggs decide, for themselves, which sex to hatch out to - and it has nothing to do with a particular environmental temperature at a particular time ?
Are you suggesting that plants decide for themselves in what season to sprout and that it has nothing to do with a particular environmental temperature ?
Are you suggesting that flowers decide for themselves in what season to blossom and that it has nothing to do with a particular environmental temperature ?
OR, are you suggesting that we (human beings) are so far removed from evolutionary effects that they must mean nothing, now, in 2010 ?
To quote Richard Dawkins :-
Again to quote Dawkins :-
To quote again from the Cambridge physiologist Horace Barlow :-
You try to use every opportunity, don't you Buddha, to try to descredit me and misrepresent what I say ? I have NEVER claimed that there will be no differences between different people at different times. And, you really DO get worked up about Sheldrake's concepts, don't you ?
If you don't like Sheldrake's concept or explanations, then surely you should have the attitude of "I can't get my head around them" or "There are other explanations I prefer better" but to liken Sheldrake's work with pseudoscience and belief in Tinker Bell (as you have done in the past) shows considerable arrogance.
If you want to attack Sheldrake at every turn, then surely you are also attacking so many other eminent scientists and the way THEY are now having to look at the world, just like Sheldrake has had to ??
I found this interesting:
withstanding temperatures
PropHead Plaza
Posted by geoffkait (M) on May 26, 2007 at 05:57:24
There have been a number of attempts to approve/disprove the theory, including a cash prize that was awarded for a test that proved the theory. The following paragraphs describe a simpler test involving crossword puzzles (quotes are Sheldrake's).
"The hypothesis (of Morphic Resonance) also applies to human beings. It should be getting easier for children to solve or play video games of a particular kind just because so many have learned them . . . or for people to learn new sports, new skills like windsurfing. In the human realm I am suggesting that what we learn is facilitated by morphic resonance from all those who have learned it before.
This is the area where the theory has been tested most extensively. Some of the first experiments were done in response to an international competition organized by the Tarrytown group in New York, sponsored by Bob Schwartz. The Tarrytown group offered prizes
Excellent, geoffie!
So, we should be able to track crossword completetion times and show a steady improvement over the last 100 years....right?
Math tests and SAT scores showing an inevitable rise?
Modern literature surpassing the classics.
Telepathy on demand....I mean, we've been at for thousands of years.
Dogs speaking.
Hey, I gotta go for a few weeks, if you don't get any replies from your trolling, I'll see you in August.
I sure as heck better get some replies while you're gone.
Are you going back to rehab? Do they think it might be Tourette's?
It is astounding, B/Beck, that you continue to promote your lies even when you have no proof for anything you say. You won't even attempt to discuss your lies with someone who sees through your weekend binges because you know you cannot defend your libelous claims against May. But dragging the discussion into the ditch is really what you're after, isn't it?
Rather than continuing to stop the discussion or drag it back to square one, B/Beck, show your proof for once or stop making the false accusations you repeat and repeat just to block any discussion from moving forward.
Pages