--- In ptrad@...
, Debashis Sinha <deb@d...> wrote:
>i suppose you are correct that at some level desiring
> status is an "evolutionary adaptation" because of status' perks:
> attractiveness, money, etc.
yes as an ultimate cause. in this discussion we can make the
distinction between whether we are discussing an ultimate
or a proximate cause. in many ways, once the ultimate casue
is acknowledged, a more interesting discussion is about the
proximate ends to be gained.
>...i find many things about consonance and chaos "neurologically
> pleasing" and i submit that many others do too, and that this is
> status seeking response.
which is why i named consanance as neurologically based. chaos
does not have nearly as sound a scientific basis, although
is a possible choice of deep structure. one of my points is
that more and more of the ideas i am presenting are not
but findings based on sound scientific method.
since you were not hooked up to an mri machine your assertion
about chaos being neurologically sound as a deep structure,
has less strength.
large populations of listeners do not support your contention.
>of course these traditions are
> viscerally linked to large parts of the population, and i
personally do not
> think that pt music involves a desire to look down on them or think
fine point - viscerally == neurologically
> that being said, just because there is a tradition, does not mean
> must be bound by it. as has been pointed out in this forum before,
> tradition is the result of innovation. someone had to think of
> rock and grunting, if no one was doing it before. if we were stuck
> what is "neurologically sound" then we would all still be hitting
> grunting. which, i confess, i do from time to time....
no my point is broader that that. neurologically sound is
the ALL the deep structures i discussed previously. it
all the deep structure components i wrote about previously.
one might say that all the additions to music after hitting a
and grunting (also a favorite pastime of mine) are
of the deep structure that most likely existed before the
deep structures are currently thought to be partly genetic
part that is not strictly genetic is triggered by
the trigger has very stict limitations as to how much the net
built by genes alone can be modified. one cannot teach babies
to like 12 tone music. that is impossible.
how much is genetic (as in neuron links formed by genes) and
environmental (neuron links formed as a combination of genes
and environment) is a current research topic.
> the "deep structures" of favouring consonant intervals, resolving
> tonic, etc were actually thought up by someone,
no that statement is broader than that. the thought was a
discovery of what pleased the neural net that was already
this is the true innovation that current neuroscience is
us as philosopher/musicians. these things were only thought up
in the sense that the thought bcame an action that became a
that triggered a neurological response already built into most
i find this most wonderful. there is solid research into what
does. not an opinion, but a measurement that will bacome more
as interest grows and measuring techniques improve.
>and they became deeply
no not embedded. the deep structure existed before the
that please it were made. for vision the research is much
than for hearing, but my expectation is that as researchers
become more interested in the area, the deep structure will be
made more clear.
vision was an early interest because visual stimuli were
handle, before every pc could play and analyze WAV files. now
audio is as easy to manipulate as black and white diagrams
be, i expect more deep structure audio components to be
> > traditions give a bound.'
> i disagree. traditions can also give a starting point.
here is another analogy. the different traditions that
different aspects of music are sweet spots (in chaos theory
what are called attractors) on the mulitdimensional
matrix of what pleases the deep structural neural nets.
western art music - strongest attractor is around harmony;
slightly less so for melody ; massively less so for rhythm ;
consonant intervals over emphasized
african drumming and chanting - no harmony; melody short and
repetitive ; a feast of rhythm polyrhythm; consonant
gliding tones and dissonance more prominent than western art
y'all are well versed in the other major traditions and can
fill in the
aspects emphasized and neglected by them
i assert that no tradition has an equal mix of all the deep
because one must neglect one aspect of music in order that
may be perceived.
as discussed before one can pick an arbitrary
point on the multidimensioanal matrix defined by
harmony/rhythm/melody/consonance etc. i contend that is what
tone serial, noise music (pick your own example) have done.
my point is that moving far from the sweet spots already
identified is not likely to be neurologically sound. and if it
is not, what is the motivation?
i do agree that innovations in music making discovered the
spots. i contend very strongly that listener and population
response validated the sweet spot reality.
are there more sweet spots to be discovered? i contend not,
but am willing to be convinced otherwise. an assertion by
a lone individual that by his/her effort and in their
they have discovered a new one is of low credibility to me.
if you think you have discovered another one, show me the
that validates it.
>...(incidentally, if i may rant, western harmony is NOT a dominant...
good rant. i suggest that informed, non-adhominem polemic is
an important part of intellectual discourse.
when you assert that the music industry has sold something that is of
value you are in effect affirming the tabula rasa/blank slate
in this case if i follow you correctly, you are saying
it is a basic scientifically proved principle that
there is a human potential in populations such that
an outside force (the music industry) can override their better
pinker's book (which summarizes current scientific findings)
very effectively destroys this argument.
western harmony is popular not because the music industry is selling
something that people don't want to buy, but the complete opposite:
they are selling exactly what satisfies the buyers.