From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V2 #210 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Wednesday, October 8 1997 Volume 02 : Number 210 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation [electrix ] Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere [electrix ] Re: Alloy: Lissu's B-day offering [electrix ] Re: Alloy: TMDR Lecture info [Steven McDonald ] Re: Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere [Lem Bingley ] Re: Alloy: Musical/art debate thing [Eclipse ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy [Eclipse ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy [Lem Bingley ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy [Melissa Jordan ] Alloy: www.on-air.com (again!) [Melissa Jordan ] Alloy: TMDR lecture [Monya De ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy ["Lazlo Nibble" ] Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation [Tim Dunn <113203.2623@compuserve.com] Re: Alloy: www.on-air.com [Melissa Jordan ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy [Melissa Jordan ] Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation [Frank ] Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy [Sean Cier ] Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation [Sean Cier ] Re: Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere [electrix ] Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation [RThurF@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:53:32 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation Dennis S. Alexander wrote: > > I must agree with Sam on this. > > In my opinion, music and lyric is simply the creation of an artist by > means of the 'gifts' with which he/she is endowed. The result is an > expression of the artists own soul, emotions, spirit, experience. And > the result will always be reinterpreted differently by everyone who hears > (or sees; experiences) it. > > I must also agree with the_copse, although his essay was a bit wordy; no > offense. > ----- > Hey, I'm back, by the way. Don't know how much I can participate in the > discussions as my life has been turned up side down in the last few > months. Thanks to electrix, I now am here instead of feeling abandoned > at the old pub, since it was wiped clean off the map! > > JAMac Well...judging from your "agreements," I should have left you out in the cold... huh, mate? electrix May the Cube be With You! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 23:36:39 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere Since I have managed to juggle a few peoples reality of music. I thought I might end my view with an upsetting reality that most of my friends seem to walk away and as soon have me dismissed. I am immediately certified insane. Nothing is too sacred for me in the exploration and discovery of music. Atoms are in constant vibration. Vibrations emit waves of sound Some frequencies seem to mate with each other, others tend to cancel some, yet others tend to upset. The human cells are made up of molecules Molecules are made up of atoms Each organ in our body, thus, vibrate at its own frequency. Thus we are emitting sound. Thus our ears ARE emitting sounds. Thus we seek the most comfortable and reinforcing frequencies to satisfy our pleasure senses and Chakras. Thus we resonate to certain sounds. Thus we have Music of the Spheres. Celestial bodies vibrate, and emit sounds (documented by NASA's Voyager sonic samples) We live in a sea of silent sounds intermingling with each other. Inaudible sounds. The music we listen to sets the pace of its activity. electrix Humbly tendered to Apollo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 23:50:13 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Re: Alloy: Lissu's B-day offering Stephen M. Tilson wrote: > > Though it's late --- a quick note. > > I got a copy of Lissu's rendition of Pulp Culture today (as > backup in case she missed Ian's deadline). Very very cool! If > this is what Lissu sounds like with bronchitis . . . > > Great job, Louise! > > G'night, > /\/\iles > > P.S. Do you have access to an ADAT machine, Lissu? Um..Er..ahh..cough!cough!...mmm.. should I ..oh..eat crow now or later. electrix Well Aaaaaaaaaaaaalrighty then!!! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:51:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Steven McDonald Subject: Re: Alloy: TMDR Lecture info On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 p.louie1@genie.com wrote: > > If you need directions, just holler! > I will be attending with 3 friends. Since one of them lives at 1st and harrison I think I'll be ok ;-) Sorry about the slow responce... I didn't read much e-mail over the summer and I'mm still trying to catch up. (mostly by puting it off...) - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:14:34 +0100 From: Lem Bingley Subject: Re: Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere At 23:36 7/10/97 -0700, Mr Electro wrote: >Atoms are in constant vibration. >Vibrations emit waves of sound Electrix, I love the sentiment, but atomic vibrations don't qualify as sound since they don't propagate. A good job really, otherwise we'd all be deafened the whole time from the beat frequencies of all those screaming elements. Dr L. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:09:00 +0100 From: Hargreaves Bill (Tel 0161 952 4494) Subject: Re:Alloy: Resonation: Music of the Spheres Recently my friend electrix said (hmmm, this makes me think about when Gary Numan(?) asked 'Are friends electric?' Mine is. But I digress):- >Since I have managed to juggle a few peoples reality of music. I thought >I might end my view with an upsetting reality that most of my friends >seem to walk away and as soon have me dismissed. >The human cells are made up of molecules >Molecules are made up of atoms >Each organ in our body, thus, vibrate at its own frequency. >Thus we are emitting sound. >Thus we have Music of the Spheres. Does this mean I've got musical bollocks then? Slarviballsee ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:20:03 +0100 From: Lem Bingley Subject: Alloy: Musical philosophy Following on from the recent debate instigated by Electrix.... I can't decide if I made this up or heard it somewhere else, but anyway, here's my two penn'orth on the subject of the meaning of music. It's intriguing that things that remind us of childhood on an instinctive level are popular in adulthood - it's generally accepted that this is why many people find comfort in sweet, fatty foods (because they are remeniscent of the high-calorific make-up of mother's milk); why many men are sexually focused on breasts; and I'm sure there are other examples - cat's are supposed to like being stroked because it reminds them of their mother's tongue on their fur. Anyway, my point being, as children we are required to learn language - our brains are incredibly focused on interpreting the sounds our parents make. To begin with, it must seem like random noise but the child is capable of extracting meaning through the process of repeated listening and inference. I wonder whether our appreciation of music is rooted in a comforting return to this childlike state. The complex sequence of sounds with layered repetition that generally constitutes satisfying music must mirror many aspects of language. Perhaps this is why we often feel driven to listen to a new record that appeals to us -- often to the point of becoming sick of it. Maybe we are enjoying the unconscious process of attempting to learn the hidden meaning in the rhythm. Since there is no hidden meaning, we often then get dissatisfied with the music subsequently. It is interesting that music which is compelling to begin with, becomes almost unpleasant if over-played. Strangely, TMDR's music is the most nearly immune to the over-play problem as any that I've encountered. Certainly, everything else that I know of with the same durability is orchestral, rather than pop/rock, in nature. Perhaps it is something to do with the inherent complexity of the sound? Anyway, feedback, flames, etc on this theory would be welcome. Lem ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:14:25 -0700 From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical/art debate thing I must say, I agree with most of what Copse, Paul, JAMac and Sam have said... Regarding one of electrix's comments: > Sam, an artist RECEIVES the music. He is a receptacle to harmony, > sounds, music. This is more apparent if a person is a > composer/musicians. Having written music and improvised on my instrument, > I can honestly say that the sound comes from the beyond. I can also force > music into existence by shuffling notes and rhythm...but they are less > meaningful to me. I am also of the opinion that a perfectionist spends > less time listening to the inner-self and blocking > the reception. ... > In a world where posession is a necessary part of ego gratification, I > agree with your comment. But when inspiration strikes and music flows out > of a composer, at that moment, at that single moment where he/she is > groping to keep the music flowing... is it the artist's creation? > > I would like to know if there is an artist in the crowd who can identify > where this single musical source is coming from. The Brain? The Mind? > Where? I'm an artist (though not a musician).. While it's true that that "divine inspiration" can't be forced, only invited, acknowledged and guided, I don't think this means that it comes from "outside". On the contrary, I think that art necessarily comes from within. It can be "triggered" by outside events in the same way that emotions can, but it doesn't come from them. Also, I don't think there is a -single- "source"... in healthy people, in day to day life, the mind and emotions and so on are integrated, and I think in this case they are even more so. To use a now much-overused word, there's a kind of synergy between them. From my experience, creation is -usually- guided by the emotions, and shaped by the intellect, but I wouldn't say there are necessarily any hard and fast rules. Dreams aren't (in most people, that is) under conscious control either, but most people tend to agree that they come from somewhere inside, not some place way "out there"... The Navajos believed that works of art were partly "alive" because they contained part of the soul of the artist that created them. I've always particularly liked that idea, though I don't actually believe it (or much anything else) Regarding interpretations... Who was it that said art isn't "complete" until it's been seen or listened to or read (etc) by someone? This could of course include the artist, too. -- E(lipse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:40:13 -0700 From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy Now this one's pretty interesting to me, especially from a linguistic point of view. Lem Bingley wrote: > It's intriguing that things that remind us of childhood on an instinctive > level are popular in adulthood - it's generally accepted that this is why > many people find comfort in sweet, fatty foods (because they are > remeniscent of the high-calorific make-up of mother's milk); why many men > are sexually focused on breasts; and I'm sure there are other examples - > cat's are supposed to like being stroked because it reminds them of their > mother's tongue on their fur. This, as far as humans are concerned, could easily be coupled with the "continuum concept", and the idea that in modern western culture, human babies aren't getting the experiences they require. Instead of being held in-arms througout their infancy, they're left in cribs and baskets, instead of sleeping with mother and father, they're left all alone in a crib or cradle in a room, a cruel state completely unnatural to the species. They often aren't breastfed, or fed "on demand" (a rather inappropriate phrase for it, too).. Because this stage of the child's growth has been so neglected, and the child hasn't had the experiences and stimulation it would have received were it carried around in mom and dad's arms while they were working and playing and socializing etc, rain or shine, that stage of their growth is never completed. Therefore, people will seek the experiences they require to complete it, so they can continue their growth on a firm foundation. They will continue to seek these experiences until their requirements for them have been fulfilled, no matter what their age. This theory is laid out in the classic book "The Continuum Concept", by Jean Leidloff. It's a good book, and well written, though I disagree with a few points, and strongly disagree with Jean's rather anti-science stance. The theory has always made sense to me though, and the results I've seen from it (myself included) seem to follow. (Any social scientists out there willing to test it?) > Anyway, my point being, as children we are required to learn language - our > brains are incredibly focused on interpreting the sounds our parents make. > To begin with, it must seem like random noise but the child is capable of > extracting meaning through the process of repeated listening and inference. Good, good, but one fairly important point - it doesn't seem like random noise, it seems like language. All the evidence points to language learning as being instinctual. Children do recognize the sound of human speech, and are hardwired to try to learn it as a "language". We also seem to be hardwired so as to be able to learn it, simply. Listening, thinking and infering are all well and good, but if that were all one had language wouldn't ever be learnt, it's simply too complicated. (Take simple naming nouns.. the classic example is someone standing amidst a tribe of people speaking a completely unfamiliar language. A rabbit runs past and someone shouts "Gavagai!".. does that mean "rabbit"? "running thing?" "four legged furry creature"? Maybe it's a name for that particular rabbit..? how can you tell...) There seems to be a particular order for how language and words are learnt by human children, across all different languages. > I wonder whether our appreciation of music is rooted in a comforting return > to this childlike state. The complex sequence of sounds with layered > repetition that generally constitutes satisfying music must mirror many > aspects of language. Perhaps this is why we often feel driven to listen to > a new record that appeals to us -- often to the point of becoming sick of > it. Maybe we are enjoying the unconscious process of attempting to learn > the hidden meaning in the rhythm. Since there is no hidden meaning, we > often then get dissatisfied with the music subsequently. It is interesting > that music which is compelling to begin with, becomes almost unpleasant if > over-played. > > > Strangely, TMDR's music is the most nearly immune to the over-play problem > as any that I've encountered. Certainly, everything else that I know of > with the same durability is orchestral, rather than pop/rock, in nature. > Perhaps it is something to do with the inherent complexity of the sound? Orchestral music is generally non-vocal. It seems quite a stretch to think that people would pick up in a linguistic way to non-human-language sounds, since we're very specifically wired to recognize the sound of human language.. A return to a childlike state as far as language learning goes makes little sense within Continuum either since whatever else has been neglecting, all completely functioning (not being politically correct, but I couldn't think of a PC phrase) individuals have learned language as children. Besides which, a fascination with learning foreign languages, which would be much closer to learning a native language in infancy, seems to be pretty scattered. Granted, foreign languages are particularly poorly taught in the US where I am... any of you europeans care to comment? Most of you just have to hop a train or some such to be in another country with another language, a much more natural and efficient way to learn (and something I envy, being stuck with my tapes and textbooks, though I love language-learning nevertheless)... Dolby's music does indeed seem to be pretty immune to the over-play problem for me to though! :) Music -as- language is of special interest to me though (of course)... there are a few languages with whistled variants, but all of them supposedly imitate the sounds and pitch of the spoken language itself (and I think someone said they're mostly found for tonal languages). I don't know when they're learned though.. Anyone ever listen to tapes of dolphin whistles and try to discern linguistic meaning? - -- E(lipse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:48:31 +0100 From: Lem Bingley Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy At 10:40 8/10/97 -0700, E(lipse wrote: >one fairly important point - it doesn't seem like random >noise, it seems like language. All the evidence points to language >learning as being instinctual. Point taken, but I think my argument survives this correction. Let's just say that to begin with a baby experiences language as an audio experience to which it will strive to assign meaning. >Orchestral music is generally non-vocal. It seems quite a stretch to >think that people would pick up in a linguistic way I'm on shaky ground here but I think I'm right in saying that the violin is specifically intended to duplicate the range of human vocals. Robyn will correct me here, no doubt. >Besides which, a fascination with learning foreign languages, which >would be much closer to learning a native language in infancy, seems to >be pretty scattered. My suggestion is not that the brain literally reacts to music as undeciphered language. Instead, I'm suggesting that music stimulates the same part of the brain that is exercised in the infant mind when learning language. I'm assuming that this is not the same part that is used by adults trying to learn a language. As you said yourself, the infant process is largely an instinctive, non-voluntary thing. By contrast, deciding to learn a language is a conscious process requiring a lot of effort. As you'll know, no-one has been able to replicate the infant's learning process in teaching language - if anyone could they would probably make a lot of money. What I think is going on is that music tickles that instinctive part of the mind that is otherwise dormant. Suggesting that a fascination with language would be a more appropriate response is taking things too literally - that would be like saying that a return to the comfort of the breast would lead to milk binges, when in reality it seems to lead to hamburger and chocolate binges. The brain's a complex beastie and -- as demonstrated by the symbology of dreams -- responses are rarely literal. >Anyone ever listen to tapes of dolphin whistles and try to discern >linguistic meaning? A fascinating but morally indefensible experiment would be to raise a child with plenty of exposure to dolphin sounds but not human ones :-) Would the child learn to communicate? I think it probably would. Lem ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:53:23 -0400 From: Melissa Jordan Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy At 05:48 PM 10/8/97 +0100, Lem wrote: >Point taken, but I think my argument survives this correction. Let's just >say that to begin with a baby experiences language as an audio experience >to which it will strive to assign meaning. There is a international research project going on right now, examining how mothers communicate with infants, with the understanding that the infants don't understand the WORDS being said to them, but rather, understand the TONE of the words. It was noted that mothers observed and recorded in Russia, Sweden, the United States, and a handful of nations I can't dredge up right now, emphasized the same positive words (yes, pretty, good, baby, the baby's name, etc., etc.) with the same upward tonal inflection, regardless of the language spoken. The same downward inflection was recorded with "bad" words, and a quavering tone indicated question. The comparison tapes were fascinating. So, for an infant, tone/sound = meaning. We learn a musical language before a word-filled one. Hey, I knew a toddler in Russia that just babbled in random sounds and got horribly frustrated by her inability to communicate, but could rock out and dance (and occasionally fall flat on her butt) to the Lambada with great confidence. - And she sure as hell didn't understand Portuguese. Every language class I've ever taken has used folk music as a elementary level teaching tool. I can still call up all the words to "Ein Jaeger aus Kurpfalz" from high school German 15 years ago, because the melody and rhythm are still in my head, but don't ask me to hold a conversation without faltering terribly. Music is a primal language and an amazing tool. I have a friend who is convinced that she has to buy a Volkswagen because she felt "specifically targeted" by the use of Trio's "Da Da Da" in their recent commercial campaign. Okay, back to grant writing... - - Melissa Melissa R. Jordan Special Projects Manager International Programs Office Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (301) 881-6858, ext. 4567 (301) 881-9435 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:24:54 -0400 From: Melissa Jordan Subject: Alloy: www.on-air.com (again!) Wow. These people are very Dolby-friendly. "Science," "Hyperactive," and "Windpower" all in one day so far. Neat-o keen. - - Melissa Melissa R. Jordan Special Projects Manager International Programs Office Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (301) 881-6858, ext. 4567 (301) 881-9435 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Monya De Subject: Alloy: TMDR lecture Bay area people, do you know if the lecture might be walking distance from a caltrain stop--and if so, which one?? Monya **************************** Monya De 557 Mayfield Rm 211 Stanford University Mailing: P.O. Box 13503 Stanford, CA 94309 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:18:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "Lazlo Nibble" Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy > Music is a primal language and an amazing tool. I have a friend who is > convinced that she has to buy a Volkswagen because she felt "specifically > targeted" by the use of Trio's "Da Da Da" in their recent commercial > campaign. This is kind of scary, but I was having the exact same discussion with some friends of mine a few weeks ago. The damn ad REALLY MAKES ME WANT TO BUY A VOLKSWAGEN, even though I can't justify that desire rationally (and won't be following through on the urge, even though I'm in the market right now). No other ad in recent memory has had that kind of effect on me. - -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:04:22 -0400 From: Tim Dunn <113203.2623@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation I would like to disagree most strongly with the theory that this 'reeks o= f university coffee-house' conversation. Students are in my opinion the wor= st offenders - they have all the opportunities to better themselves, yet because they are for the most part smug middle-class intellectual dead-beats who are only at uni because it is customary upon completion at= school, or because they know it's the only way to get that lucrative sale= s post, their crime in wasting the chances given them (and vast amounts of taxpayers' money) is so much worse than those who are not brouhgt up in such a privileged environment. Only a tiny fraction of students would be capable of having a conversation about philosophy, art or aesthetics, and= worse still, even fewer would be interested in the mental gymnastics necessary. Universities are as culturally dead as any tacky nightclub, an= d unfortunately they are the breeding ground for our future leaders. Poor world. So yes that does rather diminish the value of your point. Perhaps if you are not interested in the wider issues surrounding music you could skip these posts? You would not be alone. the_copse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:14:43 -0400 From: Melissa Jordan Subject: Re: Alloy: www.on-air.com At 03:15 PM 10/7/97 -0400, Suzanne wrote: >Oh, was it the ska version with the girl singing it? I love that.... Yeah, it's a hoot. I'm still trying to decide what I think of the remake of "Mexican Radio" they've been playing, too. And the lounge singer version of "Creep," which makes me laugh every time I hear it. >And I like the Waitresses, so be nice! Well... okay. I'll try, but, for the life of me, I could never stand that song. Don't ask me why... (and this from a woman who knows all the words to the Speed Racer theme...) - - Melissa Melissa R. Jordan Special Projects Manager International Programs Office Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (301) 881-6858, ext. 4567 (301) 881-9435 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:12:53 -0400 From: Melissa Jordan Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy At 01:18 PM 10/8/97 -0600, Lazlo wrote: >This is kind of scary, but I was having the exact same discussion with some >friends of mine a few weeks ago. The damn ad REALLY MAKES ME WANT TO BUY A >VOLKSWAGEN, even though I can't justify that desire rationally (and won't be >following through on the urge, even though I'm in the market right now). No >other ad in recent memory has had that kind of effect on me. Well, I have to admit, I felt the draw, too - when they first showed that commercial (during THE episode of "Ellen") my old college roommate called me - I drove her nuts playing TRIO in our room - and said "HA! They've cornered you!" and she was right. Have you seen ABC's very, very accurate send-up of this ad for "Spin City?" It looks so much like the real thing (down to the TRIO music) I almost didn't realize it was Michael J. Fox behind the wheel! Ah, marketing! - - Melissa Melissa R. Jordan Special Projects Manager International Programs Office Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (301) 881-6858, ext. 4567 (301) 881-9435 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:26:37 -0700 From: Frank Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation At 03:04 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote: >I would like to disagree most strongly with the theory that this 'reeks of >university coffee-house' conversation. Students are in my opinion the worst >offenders - they have all the opportunities to better themselves, yet >because they are for the most part smug middle-class intellectual >dead-beats who are only at uni because it is customary upon completion at >school, or because they know it's the only way to get that lucrative sales >post, their crime in wasting the chances given them (and vast amounts of >taxpayers' money) is so much worse than those who are not brouhgt up in >such a privileged environment. Only a tiny fraction of students would be >capable of having a conversation about philosophy, art or aesthetics, and >worse still, even fewer would be interested in the mental gymnastics >necessary. Universities are as culturally dead as any tacky nightclub, and >unfortunately they are the breeding ground for our future leaders. Poor >world. > >So yes that does rather diminish the value of your point. Perhaps if you >are not interested in the wider issues surrounding music you could skip >these posts? You would not be alone. > >the_copse > Just a friendly hello. But why are you so angry? El Franco My Web Sites http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/6745/tryagain.html http://members.tripod.com/~WheelerF/index.html Home (Page) Improvement!! Remember, I'm just a kid in the candy store. Little by little I'm getting there. Join me on the ride. El Franco ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:47:59 -0400 From: Sean Cier Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy Lem Bingley wrote: [...] > My suggestion is not that the brain literally reacts to music as > undeciphered language. Instead, I'm suggesting that music stimulates > the same part of the brain that is exercised in the infant mind when > learning language. I find this a fascinating tangent to the thread, primarily because it seems to me (_not_ a phsychology expert by any stretch, mind you) a neurological extension of Freudian phsychology, which I'd thought long-since discredited. The brain is a wonderful and complex thing, a bizarre mix of pure, flexible generality and tightly targeted instincts. To suggest that there are `internal rewards' for returning to an infant mentality seems unsupported to me, though. Why, then, do we find music so compelling? Humans _love_ to look for patterns, in EVERYTHING. Music provides a wonderful medium in which to find patterns, both those intentionally placed there by the artist and subtler ones, either produced subconciously by the composer/performer or simply mirages. And don't discount the fact that (instrumental) music may just resemble language -- it most certainly does communicate, at least on an emotional level, just like (well, probably much better than) the tonal portion of English speech. My $0.02, at least. > >Anyone ever listen to tapes of dolphin whistles and try to discern > >linguistic meaning? > > A fascinating but morally indefensible experiment would be to raise a > child with plenty of exposure to dolphin sounds but not human ones > :-) Would the child learn to communicate? I think it probably would. Unfortunately, as much as it seems to us that dolphins are intelligent, research (such as projects intended to communicate with them) continues to demonstrate the opposite; dolphin communication is probably more on a par with our body language than with spoken/written language. - -spc - -- /- Sean Cier -\ ( CM CL CMCL CL,M,CL! ) \- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~scier -/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:03:12 -0400 From: Sean Cier Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation Tim Dunn wrote: > Students are in my opinion the worst > offenders - they have all the opportunities to better themselves, > yet because they are for the most part smug middle-class intellectual > dead-beats who are only at uni because it is customary upon > completion at school, or because they know it's the only way to get > that lucrative sales post, their crime in wasting the chances given > them (and vast amounts of taxpayers' money) is so much worse than > those who are not brouhgt up in such a privileged environment. Only > a tiny fraction of students would be capable of having a conversation > about philosophy, art or aesthetics, and worse still, even fewer > would be interested in the mental gymnastics necessary. Let me venture a wild guess here and suggest that you've never actually attended a university. Am I correct here? Maybe you should leave such barbed generalities for situations where you actually know what the hell you're talking about. Remember there are _private_ universities, too, if it's the government sponsorship that so offends you. - -spc - -- /- Sean Cier -\ ( Bona na Croin -- Neither Collar Nor Crown ) \- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~scier -/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:30:44 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Re: Alloy: Resonation:Music of the Sphere Lem Bingley wrote: > > At 23:36 7/10/97 -0700, Mr Electro wrote: > >Atoms are in constant vibration. > >Vibrations emit waves of sound > > Electrix, I love the sentiment, but atomic vibrations don't qualify as > sound since they don't propagate. A good job really, otherwise we'd all be > deafened the whole time from the beat frequencies of all those screaming > elements. > > Dr L. Croydon: Of course they don't man!...we would be inundated with sounds wouldn't we.? Fact: ANY vibrating body is emmitting a sound, pitch, tone, what have you. Some are audible and some are inaudible as in dog's whistle. What prevents us from hearing the inaudibles is the limitation of our hearing range. Fact: Inaudible sounds deriving from a vibration can be amplified, at minimum synthesized, to hearing range. Fact: Any vibration coming from a body positioned next to it, will influence that body, regardless of whether it is heard or not...we have here the basic principles of ELF and LEF. Thus, the word "propagation" hinges on our ability to hear the condition. But it does not account for the inaudible. electrix ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:38:52 -0700 From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Alloy: Musical philosophy Lem Bingley wrote: > > At 10:40 8/10/97 -0700, E(lipse wrote: > >one fairly important point - it doesn't seem like random > >noise, it seems like language. All the evidence points to language > >learning as being instinctual. > > Point taken, but I think my argument survives this correction. Let's just > say that to begin with a baby experiences language as an audio experience > to which it will strive to assign meaning. Continuing the argument in good faith... ;) But it's not "an audio experience", it's -language-, an entity in and of itself recognizable instinctually to creatures with a linguistic intelligence. Sign-language, for example, is every bit as natural to produce and receive in children (deaf or otherwise) raised with it, and it's not at all an audio experience. Language is audio for most of us, and the sounds of language get to be etched in pretty deeply, but that's learnt, probably not the initial trigger, and there's no reason to assume it would generalize to all sounds. > >Orchestral music is generally non-vocal. It seems quite a stretch to > >think that people would pick up in a linguistic way > > I'm on shaky ground here but I think I'm right in saying that the violin is > specifically intended to duplicate the range of human vocals. Robyn will > correct me here, no doubt. But the structure still isn't linguistic... > My suggestion is not that the brain literally reacts to music as > undeciphered language. Instead, I'm suggesting that music stimulates the > same part of the brain that is exercised in the infant mind when learning > language. That's vaguely possible, but still pretty shakey. Those instinctual responses have specific triggers, and unless the music was specifically structured to imitate human speech, it probably wouldn't fit the bill. And music seems to have its own distinct and dedicated set of instincts and parts of the brain, for both reception and production, and the stimulation to those provided by music would seem to be pretty substantial. It could be conjectured that an interest in music is just part of a larger interest in stimulation missed during the in-arms phase, but that's also pretty shakey. > I'm assuming that this is not the same part that is used by > adults trying to learn a language. As you said yourself, the infant process > is largely an instinctive, non-voluntary thing. By contrast, deciding to > learn a language is a conscious process requiring a lot of effort. As > you'll know, no-one has been able to replicate the infant's learning > process in teaching language - if anyone could they would probably make a > lot of money. Actually, if it's done right, it doesn't require so very much effort. And learning a first language is far from easy itself--just because it's natural doesn't mean it doesn't require a few years of work. Learning a second language is decidedly different than original language learning though. Even children raised bilingually store the linguistic information for each language in different places (one on one side of the brain, one on the other), although the learning process itself is very similar to that of learning just one language. > What I think is going on is that music tickles that instinctive part of the > mind that is otherwise dormant. Suggesting that a fascination with language > would be a more appropriate response is taking things too literally - that > would be like saying that a return to the comfort of the breast would lead > to milk binges, when in reality it seems to lead to hamburger and chocolate > binges. The brain's a complex beastie and -- as demonstrated by the > symbology of dreams -- responses are rarely literal. I don't think it would be taking it too literally... Many people, teenagers and adults, do like to suck on things for comfort, in pretty straightforward return to the comfort of the breast "symbolism", if it can be called that. This generally changes -after- it's discouraged (sometimes -very- quickly and subconsciously) by the culture, to something more symbolic (like nail-biting).. Besides, food, especially sweet food, has a lot of emotional stigmatism in our culture, and I think a return to infancy interpretation of it is faaary and away to simplistic. Most children are sent strong emotional messages throughout childhood about food, whether being lectured to eat their vegetables or rewarded for something with a trip to the ice cream store. Not to mention the cultural obsession here with thinness and dieting. At any rate, most people (what few there are) with healthy childhoods and infancies demonstrate hang-ups over things like food, and symbolic returns to infancy much less, if at all... > >Anyone ever listen to tapes of dolphin whistles and try to discern > >linguistic meaning? > > A fascinating but morally indefensible experiment would be to raise a child > with plenty of exposure to dolphin sounds but not human ones :-) Would the > child learn to communicate? I think it probably would. A variant on the "Forbidden experiment".. I disagree, it's highly unlikely that the child would learn to communicate (especially linguistically), for physiological (and probably some psychological) reasons. Much like the first chimpanzees in language experiments, who were raised like human babies, but only picked up a few words.. simply not physically capable of human speech. Sign language, as most of us know, produced vastly different results. In bottlenose dolphins especially, where the sound range soars very high above what we're capable of hearing, a child could certainly not pick up much of any language that might exist. Key componants of vocabulary and grammar would simply be inaudible to him. Aside from that, the scientific community would have anyone so audaciously assuming dolphin communication skills tarred and feathered. ;) Depending on how my research goes, my children could well be raised bilingual in english and an artificial dolphin-human intermediary language.. But at the moment, it's in the realm of pure conjecture. Yours, enjoying the discussion -- E(lipse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:17:51 -0400 (EDT) From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation electrix wrote: *I would like to know if there is an artist in the crowd who can identify *where this single musical source is coming from. The Brain? The Mind? *Where? Everything comprising the body and mind of the artist are combined to become a finely tuned instrument in and of itself, which are inseperable while the artist is creating his/her work. Silly electrix! *The listener interprets it the way he chooses to perceive *it. Thus, it is possible to get message the artist didn't originally *intend. However, the artist sometimes is even more surprise *that his message can have an alternative meaning, solely because the *musician has come to BELIEVE he CONTROLS the music. You see, "his" music *just took its own course into the heart and mind of an individual. Personally, I don't think most artists set out to send some controlled message to an audience. Often what is meant to be communicated is simply the essence of a mood, or a story, or a moment in time. When people interpret my or Dave's work in interesting ways we never thought of, we think it's wonderful; it shows that the piece has genuinely touched another person in some way. I don't know of any artist who thinks they control their work from beginning to end, especially in other people's minds! *I agree...I agree that I am constantly around a university environment. *But does that diminishes the value of my point? Yes. (Just teasing!!! :) Robin ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V2 #210 ***************************