About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Thursday, December 1, 2005 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points, Rich. There's also the question of what constitutes a melody as opposed to a theme or a tune. I have a suspicion that appeals to the "old grey whistle test" are appeals to a hummable theme. I do agree that the test is fine for defining a good SONG, but not quite up to the task of defing music.

Part of the problem with the hummability criteria is you have to ask, "hummable by whom?" Some passages are so slow, with notes sustained by instruments that are capable of being played longer than the voice can hold, and some passages can be so fast that even the most versatile singer can't keep up. There's also the problem of ability: If a yound child is still struggling to keep up with "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," he's not going to be able to pull of humming Rachmaninoff (unless he's a prodigy.) Some adults aren't up to that standard. Does that mean Rachmaninoff is not music? No, it means that the 2nd concerto is not a memorable pop song, it is something else. And what of Bach's complex counterpoint? WHICh melody is to be hummed?

The fallacy with the whistle test criteria, if I may theorize on it, (this will be worded poorly, since it's the first time I'm grappling with this thought out loud) is that it is mistaking hummability with memory. Before something is hummable, it has to make sense to the individual listener. Memory has to develop, tonal relationships have to be grasped.

Post 41

Thursday, December 1, 2005 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sometimes I think that in composition we can define it as a melody if it was written with the intention of being one, if you follow. It may not be "catchy", but still, it is one. It was written as a self-contained theme, or statement. It is a self-contained musical idea.

Post 42

Thursday, December 1, 2005 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Good points all, Joe (Post 40).  This is one of the conversations I have been wanting to have.  The other is how should music be judged.


Post 43

Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a acapella group called Rockapella that has a member dedicated to making a variety of percusive effects using only his thoat, lips, breath and embouchure. While this may not be what people think of by 'humming a tune' I certainly find his 'drum solos' during the group's performance to be music.

Post 44

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff, I came across a passage in Jourdain's book that may relate to your theory:

"Some social psychologists have gone so far as to suggest that we 'imprint' to a preferred musical style during early adolescence, much the way young animals imprint upon their mothers, forming an attraction that will never leave them. If this is so, then our brains may literally develop toward a particular musical style during the final years of normal musical development (from about age ten to twelve.) This is not saying much more than that neurons form connections as we learn, and those connections tend to dominate all further perceptions. Once one way of listening is established, it is applied to all kinds of music, which are accepted and rejected by how well they fit. Neurons are quite capable of branching toward further connections that could accommodate a wider range of musical understanding."

This is a Gestalt theory of music, and I've got some more info on that once I get caught up. But I think it also fits with the theory of knowledge being hierarchal, and music preference being hierarchal also seems to make sense. Hope this helps...

Post 45

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Thank you for that. I'm always suspicious of theories that talk about 'imprinting' and reduce learning to neuronal connections, but I'd be interested to hear more in this case. (I'm no neurologist, but I'm inclined to think that once the brain reaches the level of complexity capable of producing self-awareness, that capacity becomes a regulator and not merely the passive effect of underlying neuro-chemical/neuro-physical causes, as such theories tend to imply. But that's for another thread.) 

Glad you're all rested up. :)

And thanks for the jovial holiday best wishes.
Jeff


Post 46

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Totally understand your suspicion, Jeff. I'm currently working on a detailed presentation of the Gestalt theory of music; in the meantime, here's a snippet that addresses your concern from THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MUSIC by John Davies:

“…it is important to realize that, as originally postulated, the laws of Gestalt perception were envisaged as natural laws…it is clear, however, that the Gestalt assumption of innate and spontaneous organizational tendencies need to be modified to take into account the learning and experience of the observer in forming his perceptual groupings.”


(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 12/29, 4:51pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Speaking of hierarchy and the perception of music, please check out my 1970 (yes, 35 years ago) paper on Arthur Koestler and Music Theory, which is linked from this webpage:

http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmmm.html

Best wishes for 2006!
REB


Post 48

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Roger. When I get a chance to update the links, I'll add those.

Post 49

Friday, August 29, 2014 - 4:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This came up as a random past article.  I went back to Joe Maurone's author page here and searched his other entries to read more on the same topic here (The Myth of Orpheus and the Future of Music) and here (The Rise and Fall of Melody in 5.1 Surround Sound). Everyone likes music. Maurone, Bissell, and Engle are working musicians.  (Others may be as well, but I am not aware of it.  Also, MSK was a working musician but said nothing much in his one entry, unfortunately).  

 

That kind of a discussion of what music "is" takes place in a plane different from how music developed. No one says that you must be able to dance to music, though in ancient Greece the two were closely bound, though identified with different muses. Is it not music qua music when an audience sits and listens? In that discussion, it was claimed that a melody must be hummable to be music, "the old grey whistle test." (Derived from this: ".... When they got the first pressing of a record they would play it to people they called the old greys—doormen in grey suits. The songs they could remember and whistle, having heard it just once or twice, had passed the old grey whistle test." -- See Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Grey_Whistle_Test about a BBC program commissioned by Sir David Attenborough to feature non-chart music.  It premiered Bob Marley, Billy Joel, and Lynyrd Skynyrd, among others.) Maurone offered Rachmaninoff as unhummable and asked which of the melodies in a Bach counterpoint one is expected to hum.

From "The Rise and Fall of Melody" was this:

"The birth of stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation." LaVey claims that while hi-fi stereos added realism to recorded music, stereo only added aural "tricks," but less realism. He argues that music is heard binaurally, but the sound source is usually monophonic. Stereophonics refers to the source of the sound, which is really just a doubling of the sound source. Sounds can be panned around the spectrum; envelope filters increase the width and pitch of a tone; tones can now slide from one pitch to another without a break; but melodies cannot be built this way.

 

On a different tack entirely, but completely revealing was this:

Joe Maurone post 11: "I respect the wishes of Lindsay Perigo, who doesn't want certain forms of music promoted on his forum."



Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Friday, August 29, 2014 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

So it was kinda like this:


And then went kinda like this:



:)



Post 51

Friday, August 29, 2014 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Incidentally, Mike, I just recently got around to reading Jane Jacobs book on the guardian/trader syndromes that you've talked about. The title of this piece did come to mind when I was reading it, as much of it was similar in theme. (And I have to thank you for bringing that book to attention; I wish I had read it sooner, because, although much was familiar, it wasn't just a rehash; Jacobs'  book does add another dimension to that theme...maybe even subsumes it...)

 

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 8/29, 8:54pm)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, August 29, 2014 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks, Joe.  I confess to being a big fan of Jane Jacobs.  However, it was Robert Malcom who introduced her works to RoR.  

First

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Malcom/Two_Worldviews_-_The_Trader_and_Taking_Syndromes.shtml

then this as he developed his own theory on the origins of the two syndromes

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Malcom/On_the_Origins_of_the_Trading_Syndrome.shtml

and then this as he looked at the other side

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Malcom/On_the_Origins_of_the_Taking_Syndrome.shtml

 

Also, Steve Wolfer is another who knew her works and has commented on them here.  I am just a follower in this case.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.