| Author |
Topic: A Scientist Studies Music |
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
|
|
 |
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 2 May 2006 3:59 pm |
|
Syntonic comma, hmmm, there's a new one, worth further looking at...Good read b0b.
During my current period of "exile" I've been studying a quite a stack of psychology books. Music therapy is mentioned in several. Funny, been doin' that for years... |
|
|
|
Michael Barone
From:
Downingtown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted 2 May 2006 4:57 pm
|
|
An interesting view & analysis. Unless I missed something, I think the author gracefully avoided the ET vs JI comparison when discussing consonance/dissonance. The assumption that their is a consistent definition for consonance is somewhat subjective, but then you have to consider the general context & method of analysis used by the author. It certainly is a different perspective than most I can remember.
Mike |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 2 May 2006 6:51 pm
|
|
| Recent studies seem to indicate that music predates speech as a means of communication. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 2 May 2006 9:03 pm
|
|
I've always thought music and speech are related. Sad speech goes down, with a minor sound, like a groan or a sigh or a dog wimpering. Happy speech goes up with a major sound, and a lilt, like laughter. Sad music follows the same downward and minor pattern, and happy music follows the same upward and major lilt. Music simplifies the natural complexity of speech into scales and harmonies, so that we can do it together on pitch. Likewise, musical rhythm simplifies the natural complexity of speech across time, so that we can all get together in the same rhythm. So music is a way to entrain pitch and rhythm in standardized ways that we can learn to do together. It all works whether you make the music or listen to it.  |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 2 May 2006 11:02 pm
|
|
This looks interesting. I think it will take a while to really read this carefully. This is a tough area - it isn't Newton's or Einstein's laws - measuring cause and effect is not so straightforward, IMO. But I like his attitude: "If this theory is right, then it would be a major scientific discovery; if it's wrong, then it's wrong."
I'm familiar with Philip Dorrell's writings as an open-intellectual-property advocate, and also have used his Java applets to demo ideas in elementary number theory in class. It's refreshing to see people like this put their ideas forth. One thing seems plain: he's nobody's shill. |
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 3 May 2006 2:04 am
|
|
| Given the mounting evidence that experience changes the physical structure of the brain as it grows and ages, it seems to me that if you were trying to find a underlying, "innate" sense of melody or harmony corresponding to natural brain structures, you would have to control for the variability of exposure by raising some children for a given number of years without any exposure to music at all. This, of course, would be unspeakably beastly and cruel, and you should be dipped in tar, rolled in feathers and set on fire for even thinking of such a horrible idea. |
|
|
|
