Music, the Brain, and Ecstacy...
tum...@telus.net
SOUND WORK
Review by Robert Zatorre
Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy:
How Music Captures Our Imagination
BY Robert Jourdain
William Morrow,
New York, 1997 ($25)
Imagine a distant alien civilization observing our human world from
light-years away. After some time simply watching us, they would probably be
able to discern without much difficulty how and why we eat, breathe, walk,
sleep and mate. They might even figure out that we used sound signals
emitted by our mouths to communicate with one another. But imagine how
perplexed they would be by music: people all over the planet pound on
objects of all sizes, blow through tubes, scrape or pluck strings and
vibrate their vocal cords, sometimes for hours on end, to make all manner of
strange noises, all with no evident explicit purpose. In fact, we ourselves
do not have much insight into this inexplicable realm of sound: most people
listen to music because they like it, and no more explanation than that is
needed.
In his book Robert Jourdain probes this question: Why do we like music so
much? He illuminates for the interested reader everything from
psychoacoustics to neuroscience, with many an entertaining musical anecdote
in between. The book is well suited to the musician who knows little of
science but is eager to know more as it relates to music and to the
scientist who may enjoy music but does not know much about its structure.
Most of all, it is fun, exploring all aspects of what could be a difficult
topic with wit and vim. Jourdain manages a good balance between scientific
accuracy and journalistic license: most of the facts are correct, but he
knows when to simplify details that are relevant only for the specialist.
Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy starts at the most basic level with an
explanation of how sound is produced and proceeds through progressive
elaborations to tone, melody, harmony and the more complex aspects of music.
Jourdain takes a look at how music interacts with the brain during
listening, performance and understanding, culminating with the emotional
aspect of music--the "ecstasy" of the title. In some ways, this chapter may
prove a bit disappointing to a reader who expects "the answer" to emerge.
Jourdain cannot even hint at a solid scientific explanation for the
emotional power of music. He provides thoughtful considerations, but he does
not (and could not reasonably be expected to) give clear-cut explanations.
Even without a final answer to the conundrum that music has posed for
millennia, science does have a great deal to say to music lovers. In recent
years, many research labs have begun to explore the neural underpinnings of
music. This development is a timely one for Jourdain, who has assimilated a
large amount of relevant information from various sources; he even has a
knack for anticipating what new research may elucidate. At the same time, he
performs an extremely useful service by showing due skepticism in the
presentation of neuroscience findings that too often fall into the gee-whiz
school of science reporting. When he discusses the specialization of the two
cerebral hemispheres, for example, Jourdain is quite careful to point out
how much nonsense has been written about the "coldly logical" left
hemisphere and its twin, the "emotional, mystically intuitive" right
hemisphere. No such simple division is possible.
Jourdain does a good job of debunking these notions without throwing the
baby out with the bathwater. There are important functional differences
between the two sides of the brain, and those differences are relevant to
music in many ways. Furthermore, techniques such as brain scanning can yield
all manner of information about how the brain processes patterns of sound.
But that does not mean one can speak of something like musical appreciation
as being located in one hemisphere or one region just because it lights up
during a brain scan. Jourdain conveys the subtler, less flashy mainstream
thinking of contemporary neuroscience in describing how different brain
modules--which may indeed be localized within a particular brain
region--interact in myriad ways via complicated circuitry to produce the
multifaceted phenomenon we call music.
Jourdain also explains many basic psychological functions that happen to be
relevant to music, in particular the concepts of working memory and pattern
recognition. Working memory is such a fundamental component of music and
indeed of all auditory perception that it is often passed over without
comment. Sounds unfold over time: melodies extend over many seconds or even
minutes. For our brain to make sense of them, it must be able to hold on to
a sequence of recent acoustic events to compare them with what is happening
now. The resulting capacity to perceive relations among musical elements is
central to our musical enjoyment. It is these relations and their
hierarchical organization, Jourdain argues, that form the core of music.
Musical pattern recognition, especially being able to hear a tune in the
"mind's ear," is similarly crucial to our enjoyment of music. It allows a
kind of internal rehearsal of musical sounds even when the real sound is
absent. Although Jourdain speaks of such musical imagination primarily in
the context of the supposed extraordinary abilities of composers, it is an
ability that almost all people possess to some degree. This fact brings up
an interesting issue, which Jourdain sidesteps to some extent: Should music
be thought of as a special cultural artifact, an ability reserved for
expert, trained performers and listeners? Or is it perhaps better
conceptualized as an innate, species-specific behavior, ubiquitous in all
humans, resulting from the very makeup of our brain?
Most of the information in his book clearly favors the latter view, yet
Jourdain seems to favor the former. He downplays the musicality of infants
and children, for example, pointing out how poorly controlled a toddler's
singing is. And yet, as in the old joke about the talking dog that gets the
punch line wrong, the fact that small children can sing and recognize tunes
at all is remarkable. When babies first walk they are pretty clumsy, too,
but unless there is something quite wrong, they all become expert walkers.
And so it is with music: no special training is needed to perform
sophisticated tasks, such as recognizing the Sesame Street theme when played
in a new key on a different instrument and then singing it back, albeit off
key.
Artificial-intelligence algorithms are not up to this task, and yet most
kids do it without prompting (indeed, sometimes despite parents' pleas to
the contrary!). In this sense, essentially all normal people are expert
musicians.
Jourdain takes a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to the issue of expert
musicianship as well, occasionally allowing his biases to come through the
otherwise careful prose. When he asserts that the "phonograph has been as
disastrous to the development of the musical imagination as television has
been to the literary imagination," Jourdain appears grumpy rather than
reflective. Putting aside the fact that there are arguably as many fine
authors and poets now as ever, television notwithstanding, there is not a
shred of evidence that musical recordings have had any deleterious effect on
music in any way. As Jourdain later admits, people today are exposed to
vastly more and a wider variety of music than at any time in history, all
thanks to recordings.
The amazing diversity of styles and genres that one can currently sample is
without parallel, and this, coupled with the relative economic accessibility
afforded by recordings, in fact fosters much more musicality in the
population (even if you do not happen to like what they are listening to).
When he claims that "the growing use of synthesizers may only worsen this
trend," he sounds like a medieval bishop railing against the use of
newfangled pipe organs. Synthesizers and computer music in general offer yet
another novel way for us to play with sound--that is the essence of music,
after all.
Music will probably always inspire some controversy, but that is perhaps as
it should be. If music can lead people to experience ecstasy, it can also
engender loathing, and this is part of its power over us. After reading
Jourdain's book, nothing will feel better than sitting down to listen to a
Bach fugue--or a Piazzolla tango or a Balinese gamelan ensemble or whatever
you prefer. We may not yet know why we like these sonic objects; still, we
should all be thankful for the specialized circuitry in our brains that
allows us to enjoy them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ROBERT ZATORRE is a cognitive neuroscientist at the Montreal Neurological
Institute of McGill University. .
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> Anybody read this book? Eddie? I found this review in Scientific American.
Yes, I read the book. It is a fascinating book, although I guess that
musicians would like it to have been more "technical" musically. Being a
non-musician myself, I was very satisfied with reading this book.
Unfortunately an unavoidable limitation of books of this type is
that they have to be very speculative, because there's no record of
what early humans' musical experience had been like. So all we are
left with are imaginative reconstructions and extrapolations. This
is NOT a criticism of the book -- it does very well in presenting
its case, given this unavoidable limitation. It is also extremely
readable.
tum...@telus.net
Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote in message ...
MS
It sounds interesting.
<tum...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:9EGk5.22757$47.3...@news.bc.tac.net...
Billwolfer
>disastrous to the development of the musical imagination as television has
>been to the literary imagination," Jourdain appears grumpy rather than
>reflective.
It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their ubiquitous
use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to this.
Songo Man
use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to this.>>
This struck a chord (so to speak). I have a question for the musicians and
ardent music lovers among us, and particularly for those who are the ONLY
musicians in their family, as I am:
All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my siblings and/or
parents to LISTEN to something. For instance, I can't count the number of times
in my life, from when I was eight or nine and on up to today, when I'd hear a
particular piece of music that really moved me, and I'd try to get someone to
just sit down for ten minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute would go
by, invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking about
something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen. Me, I can sit quietly
and listen to a piece from beginning to end without saying a word, even if I
don't like it. But it seems, and maybe it's peculiar to the non musicians only
I have known, that people who aren't musicians, or even particularly
enthusiastic music lovers have an incredibly short attention span with regard
to music. It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as Bill says,
that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in the
background, not to be unduly focused upon. I think this translates into the
lack of attention to the arts in general that exists in the US today.
Anybody have similar experiences?
songoman
ariana hernandez-reguant
Billwolfer <billw...@aol.com> wrote:
>>When he asserts that the "phonograph has been as
>>disastrous to the development of the musical imagination as television has
>>been to the literary imagination," Jourdain appears grumpy rather than
>>reflective.
>
ariana hernandez-reguant
Songo Man <song...@aol.com> wrote:
>It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their ubiquitous
>use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
>actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
>freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to this.>>
>
>ardent music lovers among us, and particularly for those who are the ONLY
>musicians in their family, as I am:
>
>All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my siblings and/or
>parents to LISTEN to something. For instance, I can't count the number of times
>in my life, from when I was eight or nine and on up to today, when I'd hear a
>particular piece of music that really moved me, and I'd try to get someone to
>just sit down for ten minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute would go
>by, invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking about
>something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen. Me, I can sit quietly
>and listen to a piece from beginning to end without saying a word, even if I
>don't like it. But it seems, and maybe it's peculiar to the non musicians only
>I have known, that people who aren't musicians, or even particularly
>enthusiastic music lovers have an incredibly short attention span with regard
>to music. It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as Bill says,
>that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in the
>background, not to be unduly focused upon. I think this translates into the
>lack of attention to the arts in general that exists in the US today.
>
>Anybody have similar experiences?
it depends on the kind of music. some peopple cant sit
quiet to a waltz and they have to dance it rather than
listening carefully to it... or some people can concen-
trate only on certain styles of music... and some
people cant listen to anything other than their
own voice!!
in the other hand, every one has different artistic
strikes. can you sit and look at a particular painting
for a whole hour? some people can do that! some people
walk through galleries barely glancing at every paiting
for a few seconds, and most often they need to look
at the little tag with the paintor's name and painting
title before they decide whether to look a bit longer
at it... many people are visually indifferent (think of
abstract art -- how many people would say they dont
understand it...).
other people are indiferent to space and spacial
arrangements... they live in cluttered quarters with
no sensibility toward design and object configuration...
(some musicians i know, for instance...)
different strokes for different folk!
early education has a lot to do with artistic
sensibility...
ariana
>
>songoman
>
>
>
>
ariana hernandez-reguant
>Billwolfer <billw...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their ubiquitous
>>use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
>>actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
>>freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to this.
i would think that early classical music, i.e. 17th cent music
for small ensembles, was composed to be played at social
gatherings (i.e. court settings) where people did not
necessarily listened to it. the music was there to accompany
other social activities, precisely as a background sound.
i would say that it was later, perhaps toward the 19th
century, with the development of concert halls and theaters
for the entertainment of the working masses, that music
became a cultural event in and by itself, the object of the
listener's undivided attention. so maybe the paradox is that
it was the massification of the audiences that created the
concept of 'the listening public', the idea that sound
requires as much concentration and appreciation as images....
ariana
Nina
memories are of my friend Michael. When we were in college some
12 years ago.(as opposed to my current stint)we used to play
music for each other over the phone. (GOD! Those long distance
bills were insane.)
When one of us heard something that just moved us we would call
the other up and just let the music play, no talking, no doing
homework, just hearing the music. During the long sucky winters
we would put in about 10 hours a week just listening to stuff.
We would mail eachother the lyrics and then listen to the song
together.
its an experience I have never shared with anyone else. Of
course he did major in music education and he also played
trombone, so it wasnt as if he were a civilian. :)
(My sole excuse is that I didnt want to do my chemistry
homework.)
When I was younger I would play a song hundreds of times,
adjusting and readjusting all of the settings on the equalizer.
I would put on my headphones and listen to music for hours on
end. It was great.
I dont have that much time these days , but occasionaly when I
hear a song that makes me move, I play it a zillion times,
trying to discover what makes it so compelling.
My neighbors hate me.
Nina
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Gerry
> > Muzak has trained people to not actively listen to music, but to use
> > it as atmosphere, like an aural air freshener. The art of listening
> > has been lost to a great extent due to this.>>
>
> This struck a chord (so to speak).
It should, it's a damn fine metaphor
> All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my
> siblings and/or parents to LISTEN to something. For instance, I can't
> count the number of times in my life, from when I was eight or nine
> and on up to today, when I'd hear a particular piece of music that
> really moved me, and I'd try to get someone to just sit down for ten
> minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute would go by,
> invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking about
> something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen.
Well my sibs have dealt with music in some kind of way though none but
my brother became active players. Their response to my playing is not
greatly different. So I don't do it anymore. Frankly I think it makes
them downright uncomfortable.
In any case I can't count the bejillions of times this happened before
I stopped playing for people altogether. If someone asks me to play a
song at a party or a group of some kind I'll humbly demur. If they
push it, "I'll accomany you on any song you want to sing." If that's
not good enough I play a song and stop (frequently fading out) as soon
as they begin chatting among themselves, usually with a humorous exit
line, and off to the kitchen or some such.
When they attempt to wrestle me to the mat to finish a song, or play
(start!) another or something I try to give them the best description
I've got for what's like: For me it's as if someone took a piece of
butcher paper and spread it out over a painting, covering the central
2/3 of the image. Or just knocked out all but a 5-inch square in some
irrelevant place. A piece of music is a whole thing, not an intro with
some words you can't hear and a the last 3/4's of which you were
rinsing dishes, or it's limited to the 12 seconds you heard as you
passed through the room. Come on!
> Me, I can
> sit quietly and listen to a piece from beginning to end without
> saying a word, even if I don't like it. But it seems, and maybe it's
> peculiar to the non musicians only I have known, that people who
> aren't musicians, or even particularly enthusiastic music lovers have
> an incredibly short attention span with regard to music.
I figure this has been modified over time, but I agree. Their
attention span may be limited, but they can still handle a narrative
construction. They can watch a commercial from beginning to end
without a shift of attention, or even a 15 minute segment (or more) of
a movie. But music doesn't have that same focus of activity. Maybe it
it was a narrative lyric like Alice's Restaurant or something. So the
words can tow them.
> It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as Bill says,
> that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in
> the background, not to be unduly focused upon. I think this
> translates into the lack of attention to the arts in general that
> exists in the US today.
Yes, and no--I don't think they understand what listening to music is.
Honestly. They get nervous and titter and chatter sometimes because
they're faced with their own discomfort about not being able to judge
it in any but "good/bad" terms.
Late at night over coffee or bourbon or whatever I've had long
intellectual discussions of art and communications with others. I
can't tell you how many times I heard them throw me a bone with the
phrase, "When it comes to the arts--and music too--". Sheesh that
burns me up. Oh goodie, we get to include music among the arts!
The real reason was that they were conceiving most of the arts they
dealt with in understandable classifiable groupings. Music was just
this big abstract thing that they can't get hold of.
If you're going to talk about music the way we talk about the visual
arts; painting, cinema etc, you've got to have a langauge. What does
polyrhythm mean? Or syncopation, quartal harmony, cadence, motif,
extended harmony and on and on. They don't know. And that makes them
feel inadequate. But they know jump-cut, fade-out, crane-shot, deus ex
machina, character development, close-up, scene, etc.
My views all.
--
\\\---
Art
that has bothered me for years is that most people can't stop
talking when music is playing. And they don't hear a lot of
details even when they do stop talking. Also, when I hear a song
that I really like, I will play it over and over.
Art
Santa Salsera
> In article <20000811135558...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
> Songo Man <song...@aol.com> wrote:
> >It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their ubiquitous
> >use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
> >actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
> >freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to this.>>
Maybe not muzak per se (everybody hates it, and everybody loves "their" music) but
TV, movies, video games, and in general the heavy emphasis our culture places on the
technological-visual.
> >This struck a chord (so to speak). I have a question for the musicians and
> >ardent music lovers among us, and particularly for those who are the ONLY
> >musicians in their family, as I am:
> >
> >All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my siblings and/or
> >parents to LISTEN to something. For instance, I can't count the number of times
> >in my life, from when I was eight or nine and on up to today, when I'd hear a
> >particular piece of music that really moved me, and I'd try to get someone to
> >just sit down for ten minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute would go
> >by, invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking about
> >something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen. Me, I can sit quietly
> >and listen to a piece from beginning to end without saying a word, even if I
> >don't like it.
You are a freak, aren't you? (Just kidding. My family is the same way.)
> But it seems, and maybe it's peculiar to the non musicians only
> >I have known, that people who aren't musicians, or even particularly
> >enthusiastic music lovers have an incredibly short attention span with regard
> >to music. It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as Bill says,
> >that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in the
> >background, not to be unduly focused upon.
Or even worse, to be "appreciated."
> I think this translates into the
> >lack of attention to the arts in general that exists in the US today.
Amen to that. Remember the flutophone? Sort of a cross between a clarinet and a
spork.
I know that's true. In my case I learned to discriminate and sort out sounds by
sitting in an orchestra for several hours a day, in arts high school, and all the
other ensemble and individual arts training that went in to those three years. It
was pretty serious immersion, going to (and being in) frequent concerts and
recitals, and being an emsemble player especially trains you to use your ears.
I think other than that, it's just interest and aptitude. Yes, with enough practice,
you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as far as musical talent goes, but
there's a certain threshold there; by the same token, I guess natural talent can
always be squandered through lack of application, but a drudge and a prodigy will
usually remain pretty distinguishable, on some ground zero level of musicality. The
former might make a better and more sensitive educator, however, having had to truly
put music ahead of ego.
I no longer expect anyone in my immediate family to get into "my" music, but I do
plot stealth operations to slip it into their environment from time to time. I also
figure, by flooding the airwaves, I might cause some ripple effects. A listener
recently thanked me for turning her on to Eddie Palmieri, saying it was a long
overdue discovery. That made my day. I guess this is why we move away from our
families, eventually, and form communities of taste, and why blood is sometimes NOT
thicker than your favorite beverage.
-Fab
pablo
"Songo Man" <song...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811135558...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> ... particularly for those who are the ONLY
> musicians in their family, as I am:
>
> All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my siblings
and/or
Well, I am no musician, but some songs have sacred significance for me. I
listen to them and they spark stuff in me I can't expect others to entirely
share or comprehend. Just like I don't necessarily expect others to share
some opinions or experiences that unique to me.
I love to totally sit down and listen to music, and both enjoy it and use it
as a tool to block anything else out. It's both an esthetic experience and a
therapeutic thing. I also know that I could not share my life with a person
that has an utter inability to share that with me. I have been with women
that either had totally different tastes, or that were unable to stop
trotting around the house being damn busy-bodies when I just wanted to
unwind, and it was always a sign of a disconnect that would emerge at some
point or the other.
What I actually enjoy is a person that is able to totally enjoy some of the
music I love, and then again on the other hand also enjoys music that I
think utter crap, thus giving me a vent to be my scathing little self. :-) A
total mirror of myself would be utterly boring, as oscar Wilde already once
remarked...
My mother and sisters totally share that ability to immerse themselves in
music, but with them it's mostly also a matter of dancing to it. My mother
is a ton of fun to watch when she gets into her ecstatic groove mode. Put on
"caballo viejo" and let the show begin! :-)
As to myself, I can totally immerse myself into both slow and fast beats,
the latter always going along with dancing, too.
...pablo
Billwolfer
All the time. What's worse is I see people Shouting over hot live music in
clubs, and once I had to shush two women who were chatting while Miles Davis
was playing at the Greek Theatre in LA. I wondered why they even bothered to
come to the concert.
Nina
>This is pretty strange. You guys remind me of myself. Something
>that has bothered me for years is that most people can't stop
>talking when music is playing. And they don't hear a lot of
>details even when they do stop talking. Also, when I hear a song
>that I really like, I will play it over and over.
I think of it as burning it into my memory. When I get new music
i listen to it until i can hear it in my sleep. If i went deaf I
would be pissed off, but I think I would be able to hear the
music in my head for a while.
Nina
Nina
into my brain for eternity.
Nina
At last, a man confesses to the abovementioned crime.
A
>total mirror of myself would be utterly boring, as oscar Wilde
already once
>remarked...
I used to have a sig line- When to people share the all the same
opinions, one of them is unneccessary. whats to learn from
someone who shares your every thought?
>My mother and sisters totally share that ability to immerse
themselves in
>music, but with them it's mostly also a matter of dancing to
it. My mother
>is a ton of fun to watch when she gets into her ecstatic groove
mode. Put on
>"caballo viejo" and let the show begin! :-)
>
>As to myself, I can totally immerse myself into both slow and
fast beats,
>the latter always going along with dancing, too.
Man, thats the best part. I call it the Voodoo Priestess mode,
its when the music just FORCES you to move whether you want to
or not. Thats one of my fave things about New Orleans, people
just get buck wild and totally immersed in the music.
Nina
>
>....pablo
der...@my-deja.com
song...@aol.com (Songo Man) wrote:
> It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their
ubiquitous
> use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to
not
> actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural
air
> freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to
this.>>
>
and
ONLY
> musicians in their family, as I am:
>
> All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my
siblings and/or
of times
> in my life, from when I was eight or nine and on up to today, when I'd
hear a
> particular piece of music that really moved me, and I'd try to get
someone to
> just sit down for ten minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute
would go
> by, invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking
about
> something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen. Me, I can sit
quietly
> and listen to a piece from beginning to end without saying a word,
even if I
musicians only
> I have known, that people who aren't musicians, or even particularly
> enthusiastic music lovers have an incredibly short attention span with
regard
> to music. It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as
Bill says,
> that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in the
into the
> lack of attention to the arts in general that exists in the US today.
>
>
> songoman
>
>
this thread I have been playing a CD in the background, one that I have
listened to (or at any rate heard) a fair number of times previously. I
know very well that I am only partially attending to it. I frequently
play music in the background (yes, while doing the dishes and so on).
When I buy a new CD, it's not unusual for me to play it without setting
aside time to give it my full attention. In fact, I sort of like
getting acquainted with it this way. On the other hand, I think I am
able to just listen to something, though not necessarily just anything.
I remember once stopping and listening for a long time to a fairly
average saxophonist who was playing on the street. He said, "You must
be a musician," because I was hanging around listening for so long. But
I'm not a musician. (Hopefully, I will do something about that in a few
years, but for now I'm focused on learning how to dance.)
I think I sometimes consider "merely" listening to music to be a luxury,
almost as though I feel guilty that I am not doing other things. (There
are so many books I want to read, and my sink needs to be cleaned as
well.) One of the nice things (perhaps one of the few nice things)
about the 2 years or so during which I smoked herb just about every day
(something I do less than once a year these days) was that it made it
easier for me to just sit (or lie down) and listen to music, reaching
the sort of relaxed active receptivity that it seems to require. I find
that after I have been dancing for a while I reach a somewhat similar
state.
But anyway, I think I am enjoying the CD that continues to play in the
background as it. . . grows quieter and comes to an end before I am able
to finish this sentence.
Incidentally, I have often had the other experience of, say, having a
conversation with someone and being more interested in the music that
happens to be playing in the background.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Yambu
<fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
>... Remember the flutophone? Sort of a cross between a clarinet and a
>spork......
>
Speaking of clarinet, weren't you gonna start playing it again? Well?
And what's a spork?
-Mike Doran
Gerry
> I frequently play music in the background (yes, while doing the
> dishes and so on). When I buy a new CD, it's not unusual for me to
> play it without setting aside time to give it my full attention. In
> fact, I sort of like getting acquainted with it this way.
Perhaps some of confused things here. I thought the initial question
was about a person playing a piece themselves for others to hear. That
is a musician in casual performance.
Like you and others, I do play cd's frequently in the background
focusing in and losing interest repeatedly.
Nina referred to "burning in" a recording or a work into your
consciousness, leaving a permanent impression of some kind. I've done
that with a hundred or more specific songs in life.
As for playing CD's for a person or at a party, I know that's hit or
miss. But if I'm playing it for a friend I'll usually act as a docent
of sorts, ("Check the way this section ends---and here comes that bass
line again!"). But here I'm specifically proselytizing for an artist
or style.
At parties I'll put on my stack and I'm pleased if someone comes up and
says, wow what is that. I know I've gotten good responses from BVSC, a
few collections of 30'-40's Musette, Brazilian Choro, almost any Bossa
album, and so on.
Once a woman came up late at a party as she was leaving and asked what
an album was, I asked if she liked it. She said no, quite the
contrary. She had found herself getting irritated and anxious and
combative and then realized it was the music that had set her on edge
though she hadn't realized the cause. I told her what it was, Astor
Piazzola's critically important Zero Hour.
--
\\\---
Gerry
<yam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
One of those things you get at Taco Bell with the refritos. It's a
fork--it's a spoon--it's a fork--it's a spoon!
I was discussing the great utility of clarinet in music just the other
day. Mostly, where an accordion can go (which is a lot of places) a
clarinet can go too. Besides which the accordionist takes all the
abuse...
--
\\\---
Songo Man
was about a person playing a piece themselves for others to hear. That
is a musician in casual performance.>>
No, I was talking about playing a piece of RECORDED music and trying to get
others to pay attention to it. Like, if I go to my buddy Rene, who is a
percussionist, and say "Yo, check out this CD; it's the baddest thing outta
Cuba.." he will LISTEN to it. But if I do the same thing with non-musicians,
they almost always won't get into it, which is fine, but it's the REASON they
don't that bugs me: because BEFORE THE THING IS 1/3 OF THE WAY PLAYED they've
started running their yaps about something. It just makes me want to squint
into their eyes and very softly say: "Shut the fuck up, you asshole. There's
MUSIC playing. Can you HEAR it?".
But of course you can't do that because you just don't TALK to Grampa like
that.
songoman
ariana hernandez-reguant
that reminds me of a spanish-language movie i went to see
once, with english subtitles, and a couple two rows over
who talked endlessly louder than the actors' voices.
when i complained, they responded 'what? can't you read
the subtitles?'
it didnt even occur to them that someone would possibly
want to hear the dialogues.
ariana
ariana hernandez-reguant
>contrary. She had found herself getting irritated and anxious and
>combative and then realized it was the music that had set her on edge
>though she hadn't realized the cause. I told her what it was, Astor
>Piazzola's critically important Zero Hour.
>
hora cero = time to go!
that's a good one...
ariana
MS
"Billwolfer" <billw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811121057...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> >When he asserts that the "phonograph has been as
> >disastrous to the development of the musical imagination as television
has
> >been to the literary imagination," Jourdain appears grumpy rather than
> >reflective.
>
ubiquitous
> use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
> actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
> freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to
this.
>
possible. On the plus side, recordings have given us access to much more
music and different types of music than we ever would have heard otherwise.
But it also has brought this phenomenon of music as background carpet. Not
only in elevators and supermarkets. People constantly have music on in their
houses, cars, etc. It becomes a habit to always hear some kind of sound
coming from speakers, and many people seem to feel uncomfortable if the TV
or stereo is not on, afraid of silence. So, people are hearing music more
but listening to it less.
There used to be more music-making in homes--families singing together,
gathering around the piano, playing instruments together, etc. When one went
to a concert one would have to listen to it carefully, because one might
never hear that music again. That active music-making and listening has been
supplanted by the constant passive hearing of recorded music in the
background.
Santa Salsera
-Fab
Nina wrote:
> Cross between a clarinet and a spork? That image will be burned
> into my brain for eternity.
> Nina
>
Santa Salsera
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:44:07 -0400, Santa Salsera
> <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
> >... Remember the flutophone? Sort of a cross between a clarinet and a
> >spork......
> >
> Speaking of clarinet, weren't you gonna start playing it again? Well?
Start playing, as in the first time. Kaysee is the veteran. I was a humble
violinist in a previous life. (Whoa, that's almost a contradiction in
terms! ;-))
-Fab
kaysee
Maybe I've gotten too used to the "armchair thriller" version of Clarinet Playing.
kaysee
Santa Salsera wrote in message <399598DB...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com>...
kaysee
repeat that one song, even when I am doing something else, until I reach like a
"filled up" point for that session. It's like that particular piece is filling in
places I didn't even realize were hollow. I admit I also find it difficult to dance
to a song if I'm still trying to hear it in this way. I still need to devote at
least some brain waves to directing the feet and following a partner, but it is as if
the nuances of the song suck up all the available resources. Do you find yourself
zeroing in on different instruments or the relationship between two instruments every
time you listen?
kaysee
Nina wrote in message <00479280...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>...
>Art <turtlebutt...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>This is pretty strange. You guys remind me of myself. Something
>>that has bothered me for years is that most people can't stop
>>talking when music is playing. And they don't hear a lot of
>>details even when they do stop talking. Also, when I hear a song
>>that I really like, I will play it over and over.
>
>I think of it as burning it into my memory. When I get new music
>i listen to it until i can hear it in my sleep. If i went deaf I
>would be pissed off, but I think I would be able to hear the
>music in my head for a while.
>
kaysee
attended week-before-last was this same talking while the music was being played.
And they weren't even talking about the music!
People also did this during the instructional sessions, so that if the instructor was
speaking Spanish I, who already had difficulty because of having to translate into
English, couldn't hear 1/2 of what was said! It seems this type of talking indicates
not just a lack of musical understanding, but rather lack of understanding in
general; what they don't comprehend, or don't want to comprehend, people seem to talk
over.
kaysee
Billwolfer wrote in message <20000811195254...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
kaysee
to listen to music in this way. But then again we are all fans of Latin and jazz, so
we have a common ground.
I wonder how much church experiences influenced our attention to music? We usually
sang a capella in the church I attended as a child and teenager, and to blend and
harmonize one had to listen to the voices collectively as well as sing one's part.
Also, there was a very strict "no talking" rule during the musical sections of the
service,even, and perhaps especially during the "special" music, when a soloist or
group would perform. Respect for God was being shown through the music and its
production, so you either sang, or you shut up. Talking and moving around was out.
kaysee
Songo Man wrote in message <20000812081422...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
kaysee
community. If there is no sound there, no one is home. My mother often has the tv
on simply because it is providing background noise.
Say, how much do you think this lack of active music making (and listening) is
influencing the quality of performers we are seening today? Someone made a comment
elsewhere that music stars are made as much because of their appearance as because of
their ability to sing.
kaysee
MS wrote in message <399566c4$1...@news2.cwnet.com>...
Nina
>I do that too, playing a song over and over. Sometimes I'll
program the player to
>repeat that one song, even when I am doing something else,
until I reach like a
>"filled up" point for that session. It's like that particular
piece is filling in
>places I didn't even realize were hollow.
I like that analogy of the music filling in the hollow parts.
I admit I also find it difficult to dance
>to a song if I'm still trying to hear it in this way. I still
need to devote at
>least some brain waves to directing the feet and following a
partner, but it is as if
>the nuances of the song suck up all the available resources.
I rarely dance to a song I am not familiar with. I CAN dance to
a strange song, but it isnt the same. I spend more time trying
to anticipate whats next than I do dancing. Its like driving a
known route v/s using a map and trying to figure out the next
turn. When I know where Im going I can enjoy the ride a little
mo'betta.
Do you find yourself
>zeroing in on different instruments or the relationship between
two instruments every
>time you listen?
I listen to so many different things. I listen to every
instrument, to the phrasing , I listen to the way a song is
mixed.
Sometimes I alter the balamce and listen to how a particular
theme may change from one speaker to the next. Some stuff seems
to bounce from the left to the right and I like the feeling of
movement it gives _some_ songs. I listen to which instruments
are up front and which are in back and examine how that makes me
feel. Right now Im listening to Willie Colon's Idilio, the way
the vocals so smoothly enter the mix just gets me.
Primarily I like to dance, so I am totally fascinated by what
gives the music that dynamic quality that absolutely compels me
to move. There are parts of some songs that make me almost
giddy, and I always go back and listen to those little pieces
over and over ,examining the combination of rhythms that causes
the music to peak. The tiny changes in tempo that you dont
really notice, but give the music a driving, pushing quality.
The way the music will just drop out of a song leaving nothing
but the percussion. (that makes me insane)
Other times its the piano or the horns. With salsa and merengue
I frequently pick the rhythm(s) apart, trying to follow one
thread. Sometimes while I'm vacuuming I will hear a song and not
recognize it because the vacuum masks certain frequencies and
the rhythm sounds completely different. I almost always replay
the song trying to follow that one beat. And i like trying to
dance to the different pieces of the music, just to see how it
feels.
THEN i like to group together the songs I like most and try to
find what they have in common that calls out to me. I've started
buying music based on the producers and arrangers rather than
the artist.
Which leads to yet another point. i HATE when a crappy singer
(ie Janet Jackson, Madonna ) gets enough clout to hire all the
best producers writers and arrangers. The songs are good and
addictive but the SINGING ruins it. Its like lacing Coca Cola
w/cocaine to build a taste for an otherwise nasty concotion.
Well, off with me. :)
tang...@yahoo.com
Nina wrote:
> mo'betta.
I think I knew her. Loretta's cousin.
tangent90
MS
"kaysee" <KAYS...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TRil5.7308$dl3.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> This sounds like a very familiar scenario in my house, as well as in
others in my
> community. If there is no sound there, no one is home. My mother often
has the tv
> on simply because it is providing background noise.
Yes, I've often seen people have the TV on while they are having a
conversation. So, they are not even really listening to or watcing the TV,
it's just a background noise they have become used to, that they feel
uncomfortable without. It's strange how that tube, invented only about 50
years ago, seems to have taken over the world. No matter how poor the
programming is, no matter whether they are really paying attention to it,
people have it on all the time. It seems to be a worldwide phenomenon, I've
seen it in may countries.
> Say, how much do you think this lack of active music making (and
listening) is
> influencing the quality of performers we are seening today? Someone made
a comment
> elsewhere that music stars are made as much because of their appearance as
because of
> their ability to sing.
>
> kaysee
That sure applies to someone like Ricky Martin, no?
Gerry
<sm...@nedernet.nl> wrote:
> >I wonder how much church experiences influenced our attention to music?
>
> In my case: 100 %.
You're saying that the only reason you became attuned to music was
because of your experiences in church?
--
\\\---
Santa Salsera
> I wonder how much church experiences influenced our attention to music? We usually
> sang a capella in the church I attended as a child and teenager, and to blend and
> harmonize one had to listen to the voices collectively as well as sing one's part.
> Also, there was a very strict "no talking" rule during the musical sections of the
> service,even, and perhaps especially during the "special" music, when a soloist or
> group would perform. Respect for God was being shown through the music and its
> production, so you either sang, or you shut up. Talking and moving around was out.
>
> kaysee
It was the same in my church. Yet interestingly, not so when I attended a Hispanic
congregation Catholic mass (and a wedding mass, at that); also not the case when I
attended a 3-hour-long, late-night Greek Orthodox Easter service. People gabbing, turning
around to talk to their neighbor, etc. throughout the entire time, music or no music. And
in the Greek service, the music was pretty constant.
I personally lean toward the theory that it isn't anything that "makes" one attentive to
music, you either just are, or you aren't, and things like music training and
socialization can encourage you in that direction or not. Is Songo attentive to music
because he is a musician, or is Songo a musician *because* he is attentive to music? Who
knows. I think to be that attentive to music, one has to ignore certain social pressures
(to chat in an informal setting, to make others feel comfortable), and so that probably
takes more inner drive. Other than that, all sorts of musical manners have to be learned,
so it's just a convention that people talk in bars (the alcohol doesn't hurt), and that
they don't talk (as a rule) in concert halls and churches. Sensibility is ultimately
something ineffable.
-Fab
Gerry
Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
> Is Songo attentive to music because he is a musician, or is Songo a
> musician *because* he is attentive to music? Who knows. I think to be
> that attentive to music, one has to ignore certain social pressures
> (to chat in an informal setting, to make others feel comfortable),
> and so that probably takes more inner drive.
We're all just guessing, and I think your guess is good enough. But
when Songo states that he's trying to offer up a song for some one to
listen to and hear--and that even then people can't focus in on the
song for but a short while. I don't know that this is so much about
socialization.
As one of a number of ongoing factors (in church, in a concert, in a
club) then I think it's far more relative. But when you hold something
up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
expected to do. That's where I find it difficult to explain or
rationalize.
--
\\\---
Sayan Bhattacharyya
> music, you either just are, or you aren't, and things like music training and
> socialization can encourage you in that direction or not.
I think one overlooked factor is the absence/presence of distractions. Several years
ago I had eye surgery and could not read for about two months, and because of the
inflammation in the eye, keeping them open was a pain. So pretty much the only thing
I could do was to listen to music -- without any distractions. I date that period
as the one when I started listening to music seriously.
Santa Salsera
> In article <399744CA...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com>, Santa
> Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Is Songo attentive to music because he is a musician, or is Songo a
> > musician *because* he is attentive to music?
(I happen to think it's the latter, but surely they reinforce one another.)
> Who knows. I think to be
> > that attentive to music, one has to ignore certain social pressures
> > (to chat in an informal setting, to make others feel comfortable),
> > and so that probably takes more inner drive.
>
> We're all just guessing, and I think your guess is good enough. But
> when Songo states that he's trying to offer up a song for some one to
> listen to and hear--and that even then people can't focus in on the
> song for but a short while. I don't know that this is so much about
> socialization.
Go see the film...(hoping I get this right...) "32 Short Films about Glen
Gould." Now there's a listener. Most of us are not Glen Gould. Maybe Songo
is a second-cousin.
> As one of a number of ongoing factors (in church, in a concert, in a
> club) then I think it's far more relative. But when you hold something
> up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
> under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
> expected to do.
Exactly. I believe some people hear things that others don't. Does that
make their listening better, or even of a higher quality to them, as
aesthetic experience? No, it doesn't. Maybe my mom gets a bigger thrill out
a Rachmaninoff concerto than a conductor who knows exactly how many
glissandos and grace notes the musicians fucked up that night.
I think artistic impatience with non-artists is understandable, but I can't
expect traffic to stop for literature. Personally, I can't understand how
someone can listen to Latin music and a) not try to delve into the meaning
of the words, and b) not dance. But I know folks who feel differently, and
probably have as profound an experience in their own way as I do, and (in
many cases) greater technical understanding.
> That's where I find it difficult to explain or
> rationalize.
>
> --
> \\\---
...which is why I said, "Sensibility is ultimately something ineffable."
-Fab
MS
"Gerry" <spe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:130820001913105794%spe...@home.com...
> In article <399744CA...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com>, Santa
> Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Is Songo attentive to music because he is a musician, or is Songo a
> > that attentive to music, one has to ignore certain social pressures
> > (to chat in an informal setting, to make others feel comfortable),
> > and so that probably takes more inner drive.
>
> We're all just guessing, and I think your guess is good enough. But
> when Songo states that he's trying to offer up a song for some one to
> listen to and hear--and that even then people can't focus in on the
> song for but a short while. I don't know that this is so much about
> socialization.
>
> club) then I think it's far more relative. But when you hold something
> up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
> under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
> rationalize.
>
> --
> \\\---
It seems to have a lot to do with socialization. People see how other people
listen (in this case not listen, just use as background noise) to music, and
they do the same, and become accustomed to doing so. Unfortunately, human
beings do have that lemminglike of imitating others, and we are also
creatures of habit.
MS
"Sayan Bhattacharyya" <bhat...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:7XKl5.158$65....@srvr1.engin.umich.edu...
It's true, there are too many distractions today, such as TV, computers,
etc., that make it harder to focus. Teachers who have been teaching for many
years say how much harder it is to teach kids today than 30 years ago, less
attention span, etc. (And some teachers have background music on all the
time in classes, which I don't think helps kids to learn. Those teachers
perhaps read about the cognitive benefits of music, so they mistakenly
think that playing music in the background will help kids to learn. But
background music while the students are trying to do math problems or learn
to read won't help them in those subjects, but only distracts them. The
musical training that would help kids with learning is "foreground music",
active music making and listening (can't think of a better training in focus
and attention, for example), not background music (possibly a CD entitled
"Mozart for the Mind"---what a misrepresentation of that research!) while
working in other subjects.
Songo Man
up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
expected to do. That's where I find it difficult to explain or
rationalize.>>
Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I mean, it's not as though you're asking
for two straight hours of solid attention. It's four or five minutes. Someone
said something about "could you focus on a piece of art if someone asked you".
Yeah, for ten minutes or so, sure, I could get interested, particularly if
someone knowledgable was pointing out the things that made the piece great to
me. If nothing else, I could do it out of COURTESY. But what I could REFRAIN
from doing, is plugging in my headphones and listening to the ball game while
this person was trying to turn me on to something that turned HER on. See? It's
as though when I'm trying to get someone to listen to something it's the music
ITSELF that causes the listener to look around furtively for something,
ANYTHING else to pay attention to. As though once you elevate music from some
pleasant background environmental condition to something to be FOCUSED upon,
people get uncomfortable.
songoman
Gerry
Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
> Exactly. I believe some people hear things that others don't. Does that
> make their listening better, or even of a higher quality to them, as
> aesthetic experience? No, it doesn't. Maybe my mom gets a bigger thrill out
> a Rachmaninoff concerto than a conductor who knows exactly how many
> glissandos and grace notes the musicians fucked up that night.
I'm sure she does in an aesthetic sense, but all I'm talking about is
someone just keeping their yap shut for 2 minutes to hear a shard of a
piece of popular music--the like of which is not so different from
stuff they listen to everyday (as opposed to "legit" musics).
> I think artistic impatience with non-artists is understandable, but I can't
> expect traffic to stop for literature.
Maybe not but if you started reading them a two pages of your favorite
book so they could hear this marvelous language, under most
circumstances they could avoid chatting with their friends--or they
could just shoot you the finger as a quicker method of insult.
> Personally, I can't understand how someone can listen to Latin music
> and a) not try to delve into the meaning of the words, and b) not
> dance.
I think it's because many of them a) can't speak the language and b)
can't dance. But on the other hand most people can keep their
blow-hole stoppered long enough to hear 2 minutes of music. One would
hope. But clearly one's hopes would be dashed.
--
\\\---
Gerry
<song...@aol.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I mean, it's not as though you're asking
> for two straight hours of solid attention. It's four or five minutes. Someone
> said something about "could you focus on a piece of art if someone asked you".
> Yeah, for ten minutes or so, sure, I could get interested, particularly if
> someone knowledgable was pointing out the things that made the piece great to
> me. If nothing else, I could do it out of COURTESY.
Yeah, we're in total accord here. This too is what I find confounding.
That they are compelled, frequently out of character, to just blow you
off. It's been a number of years but people sometimes use to pick at
their clothes for a minute and then say, "Hey! What's on the tube?"
and turn the frigging TV on. Oh, that one irks.
--
\\\---
Santa Salsera
> But when you hold something
> up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
> under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
> expected to do. That's where I find it difficult to explain or
> rationalize.>>
>
> Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I mean, it's not as though you're asking
> for two straight hours of solid attention. It's four or five minutes. Someone
> said something about "could you focus on a piece of art if someone asked you".
> Yeah, for ten minutes or so, sure, I could get interested, particularly if
> someone knowledgable was pointing out the things that made the piece great to
> me. If nothing else, I could do it out of COURTESY.
Ah, there's the rub. Someone else could do it out of courtesy, but it might not be
sincere. Can I ask you to eat a bowl of chocolate maypo out of courtesy?
> But what I could REFRAIN
> from doing, is plugging in my headphones and listening to the ball game while
> this person was trying to turn me on to something that turned HER on.
You aren't talking about dating, are you?
> See? It's
> as though when I'm trying to get someone to listen to something it's the music
> ITSELF that causes the listener to look around furtively for something,
> ANYTHING else to pay attention to.
Maybe it's your intensity, man.
> As though once you elevate music from some
> pleasant background environmental condition to something to be FOCUSED upon,
> people get uncomfortable.
>
> songoman
Yeah. That's true. And maybe it's just not his or her moment to focus on that
particular thing. You really can't force someone to be receptive, it just doesn't
work that way. I mean, I could say the same thing about someone asking me to focus
on a few minutes of football footage, when maybe my mind is focussed on something
else right then.
Seduction may be a good metaphor here. Maybe what they need is more foreplay. You
should try withholding all this good stuff, until you have the girls (?) absolutely
begging you for it. Some people just don't need good music the way you do; you've
got to make them need it.
-Fab
Gerry
Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
> Some people just don't need good music the way you do; you've
> got to make them need it.
True enough. If you want to hip somebody to a really good new side, you
just have to prep your marketing approach, put some time and energy and
maybe even some freebie giveaways into it and...what a minute! What
the hell am I doing?!
That was my logic anyway. So I really try to hip people to music I
find exciting, if they can't get with it, that's cool. If they can't
even keep still long enough to check it out, I can move on. They'll be
off of my "Gotta Tell" list.
And that's really what my own personal approach has evolved to. I know
there are some that are eager out there to find out what else is going
on. Sometimes they like my stuff, sometimes they don't. Then there is
a group of people for whom the newest pentium chip is the social
bulwark of a dinner party and can you turn that racket down I can't
froth about my new scanner.
To each his/her own.
--
\\\---
Santa Salsera
> In article <3997AF49...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com>, Santa
> Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Exactly. I believe some people hear things that others don't. Does that
> > make their listening better, or even of a higher quality to them, as
> > aesthetic experience? No, it doesn't. Maybe my mom gets a bigger thrill out
> of
> > a Rachmaninoff concerto than a conductor who knows exactly how many
> > glissandos and grace notes the musicians fucked up that night.
>
> I'm sure she does in an aesthetic sense,
And that's what counts! As a student, we played concerts on tour, in high school
gymasiums in wildly remote places, often for people who had never heard a
symphony orchestra before, and the applause was wild; wilder than in St. Paul,
louder than in Detroit Symphony Hall. They clapped between movements, and their
appreciation wasn't very deep-seated or enduring, so naturally we laughed at them
and considered them provincial stupes. But we had one conductor who made me
believe that this attitude was wrong.
The same conductor and the same orchestra had come to my provincial town once, it
was the first time I had ever heard a classical music concert. He didn't laugh at
us when we clapped between movements; he turned around to face the audience, and
explained concert etiquette to us. I must have been in grade school, and I
remember that concert very well. He might easily have looked down on us for our
lack of discrimination. Because he treated us as salvagable, I think the reaction
we had was one of instant respect. We probably paid more attention.
Later, when I was part of the touring ensemble myself, he taught us not to look
down on these provincial folk we were playing for (and honestly, how could I, I
had been one of "them"). Learning how to listen to something as complex as a
large ensemble doesn't happen overnight. You are still delivering some kind of
aesthetic experience, and you never know what the positive effects of that might
be. You might reach the one kid out there listening and give them some
inspiration.
> but all I'm talking about is
> someone just keeping their yap shut for 2 minutes to hear a shard of a
> piece of popular music--the like of which is not so different from
> stuff they listen to everyday (as opposed to "legit" musics).
Maybe you should just ask nicely. :-)
> > I think artistic impatience with non-artists is understandable, but I can't
> > expect traffic to stop for literature.
>
> Maybe not but if you started reading them a two pages of your favorite
> book so they could hear this marvelous language, under most
> circumstances they could avoid chatting with their friends--or they
> could just shoot you the finger as a quicker method of insult.
First of all, I love literature, but I happen to value social graces as well.
Reading passages aloud is reserved for public readings (when everyone there knows
what they are getting into, and is there by choice) and for intimate seduction,
and only then when you have tuned in to something that will seduce both of you.
If you don't succeed in capturing someone's attention with it, you have misread
their desires, and you are as much to blame as the book in your hand.
It would bring a party crashing down around its ears to stop the proceedings and
insist everybody listen to Proust. I'm suggesting that context is everything, and
sensitivity to others is key to whether or not insisting that others pay
attention to a work of art goes heeded. I happen to think that being turned on to
art should be something voluntary, and if I go to someone's house, it is to
socialize with them, and not (necessarily) to become engrossed in contemplation
of a Motherwell painting, or a Mahler symphony. I can do both of these things,
but I just may not be in the mood to dig it. I might, and I might not. I
understand the artistic sensibility, but art isn't something that CAN be forced
on someone else, they have to be ready and receptive. I can't just force people
to dance salsa, much as I might find it counterintuitive not to. People have to
find their own path to things. I understand that this is very frustrating for
artists who are very focussed on what they do, but having high expectations alone
just doesn't work. I can put kids in a classroom with some books, and say to
myself, "why aren't they discussing this? It's obvious!" but that often just
isn't enough. You've got stimulate class discussion.
> > Personally, I can't understand how someone can listen to Latin music
> > and a) not try to delve into the meaning of the words, and b) not
> > dance.
>
> I think it's because many of them a) can't speak the language
They can learn, if they feel it is important enough.
> and b)
> can't dance.
They can learn that too. I did both. But nobody expected me to, I just did it out
of an internal desire to become more intimate with the art form. To me, this was
(and is) endlessly exciting and has brought untold satisfaction; to other people
it's a chore.
> But on the other hand most people can keep their
> blow-hole stoppered long enough to hear 2 minutes of music.
We are talking about two different things here. True appreciation, and keeping
one's blowhole stoppered. Aesthetic experience, vs. mere courtesy. I think
courtesy is a two-way street, and I don't expect everyone who comes into my house
to appreciate the same art forms in the same way that I do. It just saves a lot
of grief. If I want to enjoy my music in peace, I do it alone; if I want
aesthetic communion with others, I seek out likeminded souls.
> One would
> hope. But clearly one's hopes would be dashed.
>
> --
> \\\---
Right. Clearly. Not everyone is tuned in to the same things you are.
-Fab
Songo Man
>
>Ah, there's the rub. Someone else could do it out of courtesy, but it might
>not be
>sincere. Can I ask you to eat a bowl of chocolate maypo out of courtesy?
Whaddya mean, "not sincere"? I mean, if they SAID "Yeah, that was great" but
didn't mean it, THAT would be insincere. But I don't have any problem with
someone listening to something I like and then pronouncing it garbage. I have a
PROBLEM with them not listening at all. Just the minimal amount of effort
required to keep their trap shut for three or four minutes seems beyond most
people the minute you hit "play".
>But what I could REFRAIN
>> from doing, is plugging in my headphones and listening to the ball game
>while
>> this person was trying to turn me on to something that turned HER on.
>
>You aren't talking about dating, are you?
I KNEW I shoulda said "him". I was trying to be fuckin' INCLUSIVE, and it gets
me abuse. FUCK diversity.
>See? It's
>> as though when I'm trying to get someone to listen to something it's the
>music
>> ITSELF that causes the listener to look around furtively for something,
>> ANYTHING else to pay attention to.
>
>Maybe it's your intensity, man.
......or my deodorant.
>You really can't force someone to be receptive, it just doesn't
>work that way.
I'd accept this if the phenomenon I describe occurred only HALF the time. But
if statistics mean anything, then that means that everyone I know is 100%
unreceptive. Like a room full of my ex-wife. (shudder).
>I mean, I could say the same thing about someone asking me to focus
>on a few minutes of football footage, when maybe my mind is focussed on
>something
>else right then.
Look, Sports Fan, if you don't LIKE football, you're ALWAYS going to have
something you'd prefer to focus on. And that's my point. I think MOST people
like music, but just as long as they don't have to put forth any EFFORT
listening to it. And I think that's a shame, and not just because I like music
more than the average Joe. I think we don't put near enough emphasis on music
with our little kids. Music is really special. It's indecipherable in a lot of
ways. Joe Jackson has a biography out now, called "A Cure For Gravity". It's a
hell of a read. He talks about how with any other art form, you can quantify
just about any aspect of it. With color, it's mathematically possible to map
out the refractin of the light and the color spectrum and understand exactly
HOW blue and yellow make green. With music, if you play a C and the Eb on top
of it, you have a minor third. Add a fifth, and you have C minor. Now raise the
Eb to E. Presto, a C major triad. All well and good, and quite definable. But
the minor chord sounds MELANCHOLY, and the major chord sounds HAPPY. And no one
will EVER be able to tell you why.
>Seduction may be a good metaphor here. Maybe what they need is more foreplay.
>You
>should try withholding all this good stuff, until you have the girls (?)
GREAT question mark
>absolutely
>begging you for it.
Put 'em in a, er, RECEPTIVE mood? Hmmm. Interesting. It could BE the setup
that's the problem. What's good for one set of sensory apparatus for THREE OR
FOUR HOURS might be good for another for three to five minutes. I'll try it.
Then we'll listen to music.
Bam.
Some people just don't need good music the way you do;
>you've
>got to make them need it.
>
songoman
Songo Man
>the minor chord sounds MELANCHOLY, and the major chord sounds HAPPY. And no
>one
>will EVER be able to tell you why.
>
Let me elaborate on this a little:
Some will respond to this by saying that Rembrandt's "Storm on the Sea of
Gallilee" ellicits emotional responses from those who see it. Some are
uplifted. Others blame the weather. But it is what you make of it. It COULD
depend on your mood.
But a major chord ALWAYS sounds happy and bright and cheerful to EVERYONE who
listens to it. A minor chord ALWAYS sound sort of more somber and melancholy to
EVERYONE who listens to it. So, it's not subjective. It's IN the music. It has
a universal effect. That's pretty damn cool. Most music is built on the
juxtaposition of these two responses. Diminished chords can be downright
disturbing. Universally so. And if it is completely within the music, well, you
could argue that music existed before man. We certainly didn't invent it. Like
the tree in the proverbial forest, we're dealing with something that has no
TIME.
Whoa. I need a nap.
songoman
der...@my-deja.com
Gerry <spe...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <399744CA...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com>, Santa
> Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Is Songo attentive to music because he is a musician, or is Songo a
> > musician *because* he is attentive to music? Who knows. I think to
be
> > that attentive to music, one has to ignore certain social pressures
> > (to chat in an informal setting, to make others feel comfortable),
> > and so that probably takes more inner drive.
>
> We're all just guessing, and I think your guess is good enough. But
> when Songo states that he's trying to offer up a song for some one to
> listen to and hear--and that even then people can't focus in on the
> song for but a short while. I don't know that this is so much about
> socialization.
>
> As one of a number of ongoing factors (in church, in a concert, in a
something
> up and say, "Check this out" and folks can't seem to do even do it
> under those circumstances--it's like they don't know what they are
> expected to do. That's where I find it difficult to explain or
> rationalize.
>
> \\\---
>
One possibility which I don't think anyone has suggested is that people
may be self-conscious about being WATCHED while listening. I mean, if
someone plays me something they really like and then they are looking
for my reaction, I become very aware of what my facial muscles are
doing. I may be too atypically neurotic to generalize from, but I
wonder if, in certain cases, there is a fear of disappointing.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerry
Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
Just for clarification purposes:
> > but all I'm talking about is someone just keeping their yap shut
> > for 2 minutes to hear a shard of a piece of popular music--the like
> > of which is not so different from stuff they listen to everyday (as
> > opposed to "legit" musics).
>
> Maybe you should just ask nicely. :-)
You've assumed I haven't. I do--always. I don't drag someone away
from something and say, "here, start sweeping".
> First of all, I love literature, but I happen to value social graces
> as well. Reading passages aloud is reserved for public readings (when
> everyone there knows what they are getting into, and is there by
> choice) and for intimate seduction, and only then when you have tuned
> in to something that will seduce both of you.
I thought we were talking about hipping somebody to something you like.
I wouldn't read Proust at a dinner party. I've read passages,
illuminating or informative or whatever, at the right time to the right
people. This is do-able. "Did you see the lead on this article, check
this out..." Hell Nancy probably reads me 4-5 paragraphs a week out of
something.
> If you don't succeed in capturing someone's attention with it, you
> have misread their desires, and you are as much to blame as the book
> in your hand.
"Blame"? I read it then I say what do you think? They say that's
cool. Or they say it sucks, and we move on. The whole point about
reading aloud is that whenever I've done it no one flips on the tube or
leaves the room. Yes, I picked the right person at the right time.
But I'm always surprised when the same happens with music and they
can't hold focus. I'm not blaming them, I'm not blaming me, it's a
happenstance. I'm noting it as a matter of personal experience. That's
all.
> > > Personally, I can't understand how someone can listen to Latin
> > > music and a) not try to delve into the meaning of the words, and
> > > b) not dance.
> >
> > I think it's because many of them a) can't speak the language
>
> They can learn, if they feel it is important enough.
Not by the time the piece is over. If it's difficult to get someone to
listen to two minutes of music, it would be much more difficult to
teach them a language or how to dance. Or to be fair--to trying to sell
them on learning the language or dance Noble pursuits both. But I'm
just trying to pass on a good tune! I got a day job already.
> We are talking about two different things here. True appreciation, and keeping
> one's blowhole stoppered.
I'm really only talking about the later. Courtesy and a strange lack
of focus when it comes to exchanging chits of music. That they
"appreciate" it, regardless of their experience or background, is
irrelevant. I mean--clearly I want them to like it as much as me. But
f they don't, I'm not hurt or saddened. Not all shoes fit, but I love
these--check 'em out.
--
\\\---
Gerry
<sm...@nedernet.nl> wrote:
> About 100% of my experiences in church influenced my attention to music.
> There were other influences too, like my dad doing his scales on the double
> bass, or seeing him play in the symphony orchestra. But when I was three,
> the music in church was a big one. They tell me that when we got home after
> mass, I would hum to myself, pretending to play the huge antique cabinet
> that looked somewhat like the pipe organ in church.
I read this wrong. I thought you were saying that that all your
musical expriences were "of the church". My bad.
--
\\\---
Gerry
<song...@aol.com> wrote:
> But a major chord ALWAYS sounds happy and bright and cheerful to
> EVERYONE who listens to it. A minor chord ALWAYS sound sort of more
> somber and melancholy to EVERYONE who listens to it. So, it's not
> subjective.
Bro! I disagree, and needen't slice and dice on the topic. If you
believe this, enjoy. I think the oddity of Brazilian music is them
hammering on a Major 6th all day long (which it's structure is major,
but in it's references it points to minor 7). But in any case context
is all.
--
\\\---
tum...@telus.net
>One possibility which I don't think anyone has suggested is that people
>may be self-conscious about being WATCHED while listening. I mean, if
>someone plays me something they really like and then they are looking
>for my reaction, I become very aware of what my facial muscles are
>doing. I may be too atypically neurotic to generalize from, but I
>wonder if, in certain cases, there is a fear of disappointing.
...like when a biker plays you his daughter's (or wife's, or
girlfriend's...) demo tape.
Songo Man
>believe this, enjoy. I think the oddity of Brazilian music is them
>hammering on a Major 6th all day long (which it's structure is major,
>but in it's references it points to minor 7). But in any case context
>is all.
>
Whoa, Simba, hold the phone. I specifically said TRIADS. These are the building
blocks. You can start adding 6ths and 7ths and suspensions and tensions and
transform the hell out of the implications of the triad, but the triad by
itself has the effects on the ear and the mind as I described. I'm talking
music at its most basic level, here. Surely you're not saying you don't agree
with the fact that- OUT of context- minor triads sound more somber than major
triads? It's probably the most basic emotional building block for the creation
of tension and release in music!
songoman
Gerry
few moments of quiet and concentration--do you run into this problem
with other players? I don't.
Regardless of style preference or instrumetn, they will engage, if only
to ridicule. I played Tom Waits Romeo is Bleeding once for a ex-voice
teacher. She about hit the roof. As a total aside she said,
"provocative lyrics" but then railed on about how to ruin one's voice.
Hell I thought it was a marvelous experience, she REALLY listened.
--
\\\---
Gerry
<song...@aol.com> wrote:
> Surely you're not saying you don't agree with the fact that- OUT of
> context- minor triads sound more somber than major triads?
In a quite room a lone G minor triad.
One hour later a lone G major triad.
Neither occasion is inherently somber or happy. Yes, that's my view
which I can't imagine all should concur with.
> It's probably the most basic emotional building block for the
> creation of tension and release in music!
I'd never argue against this, but I'm unsure about the world "somber",
sad, happy. Melancholy--isn't that a bitter-sweet sad, or a sad happy?
What is Brazilian "saudade", if not a happy sadness.
Triads sound different but I'm not going down this street with you to
describe their emotional content. I'm type X, and you're type Y.
That's cool.
--
\\\---
Santa Salsera
There's a great family story about me singing "Jesus loves me" on the ski
slopes on Sunday afternoons.
-Fab
Chris Smalt wrote:
> They tell me that when we got home after
> mass, I would hum to myself, pretending to play the huge antique cabinet
> that looked somewhat like the pipe organ in church.
>
> Chris
Santa Salsera
> >But
> >the minor chord sounds MELANCHOLY, and the major chord sounds HAPPY. And no
> >one
> >will EVER be able to tell you why.
> >
>
> Let me elaborate on this a little:
>
> Some will respond to this by saying that Rembrandt's "Storm on the Sea of
> Gallilee" ellicits emotional responses from those who see it. Some are
> uplifted. Others blame the weather. But it is what you make of it. It COULD
> depend on your mood.
>
> But a major chord ALWAYS sounds happy and bright and cheerful to EVERYONE who
> listens to it. A minor chord ALWAYS sound sort of more somber and melancholy to
> EVERYONE who listens to it. So, it's not subjective. It's IN the music. It has
> a universal effect. That's pretty damn cool. Most music is built on the
> juxtaposition of these two responses. Diminished chords can be downright
> disturbing. Universally so. And if it is completely within the music, well, you
> could argue that music existed before man. We certainly didn't invent it. Like
> the tree in the proverbial forest, we're dealing with something that has no
> TIME.
You're starting to sound like Zeno.
> Whoa. I need a nap.
>
> songoman
Yeah. I remember a kid with perfect pitch in high school who was always hearing
these musical nuances in everyday sounds...in general, he didn't say much. One day
he heard a baby wailing in a restaurant, and he got this melancholy look on his
face, shook his head, and said, "oh, B flat minor...such a sad key."
Of course that cracked the rest of us up. See, life is just harder for some people,
and it's all because of this listening thing.
-Fab
Nina
its really great" and they say "uh, ok" then they are obligated
to make some attempt to actually listen. I agree that it is
important to pick your audience, I wouldnt try to share salsa
w/a diehard headbanger unless he had expressed some interest.
But when sharing a piece of music w/a fellow fan of that sort of
music, it seems just rude to not listen.
I would rather hear an honest, "I'd rather not hear it" than a
halfhearted attempt. I think it is no different from anything
you may attempt to share, a joke, a poem etc. 3 minutes of
attention is not too much to ask for.
Santa Salsera <fabu...@heartless-bitches.nospam.com> wrote:
Gerry wrote:
>> Maybe not but if you started reading them a two pages of your
favorite
>> book so they could hear this marvelous language, under most
>> circumstances they could avoid chatting with their friends--
or they
>> could just shoot you the finger as a quicker method of insult.
>
>First of all, I love literature, but I happen to value social
graces as well.
>Reading passages aloud is reserved for public readings (when
everyone there knows
>what they are getting into, and is there by choice) and for
intimate seduction,
>and only then when you have tuned in to something that will
seduce both of you.
>If you don't succeed in capturing someone's attention with it,
you have misread
>their desires, and you are as much to blame as the book in your
hand.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Songo Man
>Songo, this trouble you have with folks unable just to pacify you for a
>few moments of quiet and concentration--do you run into this problem
>with other players? I don't.
Never. It's like night and day. I'm talking about non musicians. Regular Joes.
songoman
Songo Man
sad, happy. Melancholy--isn't that a bitter-sweet sad, or a sad happy?
What is Brazilian "saudade", if not a happy sadness.
Triads sound different but I'm not going down this street with you to
describe their emotional content. I'm type X, and you're type Y.
That's cool.>>
Yeah, it is. Certainly there are other words I could have chosen, and when you
introduce the nuances of vocabulary into the equation, it automatically becomes
somewhat subjective. But rather than "happy" or "sad" or "melancholy", let's
say major chords sound BRIGHTER than minor chords. Leaving emotion out of it,
maybe that's a better way to put it.
songoman
Gerry
<song...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...say major chords sound BRIGHTER than minor chords. Leaving emotion out of it,
> maybe that's a better way to put it.
I can go with this. It's my kinda vague.
But I have to tell you, as Nancy and I celebrated our 7th wedding
anniversary the other day that the WORST use of minor tonality is in
that DIRGE called "The Anniversary Waltz". "Oh, how we danced on the
night we were wed..." That thing gives me chills and marriage a bad
name. I've heard funeral marches that had more joy in them than this
horror.
Just my opinion about misplaced tonal color...
--
\\\---
Songo Man
anniversary the other day that the WORST use of minor tonality is in
that DIRGE called "The Anniversary Waltz". "Oh, how we danced on the
night we were wed..." That thing gives me chills and marriage a bad
name. I've heard funeral marches that had more joy in them than this
horror.
Just my opinion about misplaced tonal color...>>
This is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. I never would have thought
of this as an example, but you're absolutely right. i-iv-V all over the place,
but with happy lyrics. What the fuck's up with that? And it's all triadic.
Without those words, you'd think you WERE at a funeral? And why? Because of
minor-major juxtposition.
Now, tell me WHY that tune, minus the lyrics, sounds so depressing?
songoman
Gerry
<song...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now, tell me WHY that tune, minus the lyrics, sounds so depressing?
Because minor triads are universally inherently depressing!
--
\\\---
Songo Man
which is why they ended their minor key works in a major triad.
Chris>>
This is known as a "Picardy Third". The origin of the name is unknown. The
practice started in about 1500 and continued through the Baroque period.
songoman
Yambu
>>About half a millennium ago, they thought of a minor triad as dissonant,
>>which is why they ended their minor key works in a major triad.
>>
>
>
It probably originated in Picardy, France,
but that's just a wild guess. (....pffffffft....)
-Mike Doran
Songo Man
>
It probably originated in Picardy, France,
but that's just a wild guess. (....pffffffft....)
-Mike Doran>>>
Yes, Dickcheese, but who assigned it that name remains a mystery.
songoman
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
--
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
My Home Page http://dmreed.com features my musical autobiography with audio
recordings, photos of groups I have worked with from the late 50s to the
present, rare 1960s recordings by pianist Carlos Federico, 1970s photos of
Celia Cruz and Pete Escovedo,and selected LP and CD recordings from my
Latin music collection of CDs, LPs, tapes, books, and instructional
materials. Information about the US-International Keyboard (WINDOWS 95/98)
and a large printable keyboard image is also included.
04/18/00 NEW PAGE: RumbaRama (http://dmreed.com/rumbarama.htm) which
contains audio links to rumba recordings on my site and to other links and
information.
"Songo Man" <song...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811135558...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> It's not the recordings that have been disastrous but rather their
ubiquitous
> use as background music that has done it. Muzak has trained people to not
> actively listen to music, but to use it as atmosphere, like an aural air
> freshener. The art of listening has been lost to a great extent due to
this.>>
>
> This struck a chord (so to speak). I have a question for the musicians and
> ardent music lovers among us, and particularly for those who are the ONLY
> musicians in their family, as I am:
>
> All my life, it's been a frustration to me that I cannot get my siblings
and/or
> parents to LISTEN to something. For instance, I can't count the number of
times
> in my life, from when I was eight or nine and on up to today, when I'd
hear a
> particular piece of music that really moved me, and I'd try to get someone
to
> just sit down for ten minutes and actually LISTEN. Before one minute would
go
> by, invariably the person would decide it was time to start talking about
> something, anything, rather than sit quietly and listen. Me, I can sit
quietly
> and listen to a piece from beginning to end without saying a word, even if
I
> don't like it. But it seems, and maybe it's peculiar to the non musicians
only
> I have known, that people who aren't musicians, or even particularly
> enthusiastic music lovers have an incredibly short attention span with
regard
> to music. It's as though we've adopted an attitude as a society, as Bill
says,
> that music is intended to be an inobtrusive soft color pallette in the
> background, not to be unduly focused upon. I think this translates into
the
> lack of attention to the arts in general that exists in the US today.
>
> Anybody have similar experiences?
>
> songoman
>
>
>
>
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
an old couple's anniversary and it cooked and they loved it! I sure wish it
had been recorded that night :>(
--
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
My Home Page http://dmreed.com features my musical autobiography with audio
recordings, photos of groups I have worked with from the late 50s to the
present, rare 1960s recordings by pianist Carlos Federico, 1970s photos of
Celia Cruz and Pete Escovedo,and selected LP and CD recordings from my
Latin music collection of CDs, LPs, tapes, books, and instructional
materials. Information about the US-International Keyboard (WINDOWS 95/98)
and a large printable keyboard image is also included.
04/18/00 NEW PAGE: RumbaRama (http://dmreed.com/rumbarama.htm) which
contains audio links to rumba recordings on my site and to other links and
information.
"Gerry" <spe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:140820002112425480%spe...@home.com...
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
> But I have to tell you, as Nancy and I celebrated our 7th wedding
> anniversary the other day that the WORST use of minor tonality is in
> that DIRGE called "The Anniversary Waltz". "Oh, how we danced on the
> night we were wed..." That thing gives me chills and marriage a bad
> name. I've heard funeral marches that had more joy in them than this
> horror.
>
> Just my opinion about misplaced tonal color...>>
>
thought
> of this as an example, but you're absolutely right. i-iv-V all over the
place,
> but with happy lyrics. What the fuck's up with that? And it's all triadic.
> Without those words, you'd think you WERE at a funeral? And why? Because
of
> minor-major juxtposition.
>
It needs a good tumbao!
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
<snip>
>I was discussing the great utility of clarinet in music just the other
>day. Mostly, where an accordion can go (which is a lot of places) a
>clarinet can go too. Besides which the accordionist takes all the
>abuse...
<snip>
Not too long ago, while walking through the sweltering NYC streets, I happened
upon a trio of dominican musicians. Well, maybe musicians is too strong a word,
since none of the gentlemen were pros in the sense that they made a living off
their axe. Anyway, there was a giutar, an accordian, and one guy playing a drum
he sat on his lap, utilizing a stick on the wooden body and his other hand on
the lone head. The music they made was... beatiful. I stayed there for a long
time just listening, eating a piragua. They were just there, in front of a
bodega which one of them ran and there was a just a bunch of crusty old men
slamming down dominoes and rum with an occassional yell of "capi - cu!"
punctuating the music.
The music was spare, but intense and very folkloric with the invetible dash of
just enough NYC impatience to give it some edge. The accordain guy was really
great.
Edward-Yemíl Rosario (Eddie)
http://www.acorn.org/
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org
"To be truly radical, one must make hope
possible, rather than despair convincing."
- Raymond Williams
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Anybody read this book? Eddie? I found this review in Scientific American.
<snip>
No, I haven't read this piece. But I think I need to second Sayan's and Mr.
Jourdain's caveat emptor: too often scientific findings as reported by
newspapers are misrepresented (yes, the Times does this too).
>
>SOUND WORK
>Review by Robert Zatorre
>
>Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy:
>How Music Captures Our Imagination
>BY Robert Jourdain
>William Morrow,
>New York, 1997 ($25)
>
>Imagine a distant alien civilization observing our human world from
>light-years away. After some time simply watching us, they would probably be
>able to discern without much difficulty how and why we eat, breathe, walk,
>sleep and mate. They might even figure out that we used sound signals
>emitted by our mouths to communicate with one another. But imagine how
>perplexed they would be by music: people all over the planet pound on
>objects of all sizes, blow through tubes, scrape or pluck strings and
>vibrate their vocal cords, sometimes for hours on end, to make all manner of
>strange noises, all with no evident explicit purpose. In fact, we ourselves
>do not have much insight into this inexplicable realm of sound: most people
>listen to music because they like it, and no more explanation than that is
>needed.
>
>In his book Robert Jourdain probes this question: Why do we like music so
>much? He illuminates for the interested reader everything from
>psychoacoustics to neuroscience, with many an entertaining musical anecdote
>in between. The book is well suited to the musician who knows little of
>science but is eager to know more as it relates to music and to the
>scientist who may enjoy music but does not know much about its structure.
>Most of all, it is fun, exploring all aspects of what could be a difficult
>topic with wit and vim. Jourdain manages a good balance between scientific
>accuracy and journalistic license: most of the facts are correct, but he
>knows when to simplify details that are relevant only for the specialist.
>
>Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy starts at the most basic level with an
>explanation of how sound is produced and proceeds through progressive
>elaborations to tone, melody, harmony and the more complex aspects of music.
>Jourdain takes a look at how music interacts with the brain during
>listening, performance and understanding, culminating with the emotional
>aspect of music--the "ecstasy" of the title. In some ways, this chapter may
>prove a bit disappointing to a reader who expects "the answer" to emerge.
>Jourdain cannot even hint at a solid scientific explanation for the
>emotional power of music. He provides thoughtful considerations, but he does
>not (and could not reasonably be expected to) give clear-cut explanations.
>
>Even without a final answer to the conundrum that music has posed for
>millennia, science does have a great deal to say to music lovers. In recent
>years, many research labs have begun to explore the neural underpinnings of
>music. This development is a timely one for Jourdain, who has assimilated a
>large amount of relevant information from various sources; he even has a
>knack for anticipating what new research may elucidate. At the same time, he
>performs an extremely useful service by showing due skepticism in the
>presentation of neuroscience findings that too often fall into the gee-whiz
>school of science reporting. When he discusses the specialization of the two
>cerebral hemispheres, for example, Jourdain is quite careful to point out
>how much nonsense has been written about the "coldly logical" left
>hemisphere and its twin, the "emotional, mystically intuitive" right
>hemisphere. No such simple division is possible.
>
>Jourdain does a good job of debunking these notions without throwing the
>baby out with the bathwater. There are important functional differences
>between the two sides of the brain, and those differences are relevant to
>music in many ways. Furthermore, techniques such as brain scanning can yield
>all manner of information about how the brain processes patterns of sound.
>But that does not mean one can speak of something like musical appreciation
>as being located in one hemisphere or one region just because it lights up
>during a brain scan. Jourdain conveys the subtler, less flashy mainstream
>thinking of contemporary neuroscience in describing how different brain
>modules--which may indeed be localized within a particular brain
>region--interact in myriad ways via complicated circuitry to produce the
>multifaceted phenomenon we call music.
>
>Jourdain also explains many basic psychological functions that happen to be
>relevant to music, in particular the concepts of working memory and pattern
>recognition. Working memory is such a fundamental component of music and
>indeed of all auditory perception that it is often passed over without
>comment. Sounds unfold over time: melodies extend over many seconds or even
>minutes. For our brain to make sense of them, it must be able to hold on to
>a sequence of recent acoustic events to compare them with what is happening
>now. The resulting capacity to perceive relations among musical elements is
>central to our musical enjoyment. It is these relations and their
>hierarchical organization, Jourdain argues, that form the core of music.
>
>Musical pattern recognition, especially being able to hear a tune in the
>"mind's ear," is similarly crucial to our enjoyment of music. It allows a
>kind of internal rehearsal of musical sounds even when the real sound is
>absent. Although Jourdain speaks of such musical imagination primarily in
>the context of the supposed extraordinary abilities of composers, it is an
>ability that almost all people possess to some degree. This fact brings up
>an interesting issue, which Jourdain sidesteps to some extent: Should music
>be thought of as a special cultural artifact, an ability reserved for
>expert, trained performers and listeners? Or is it perhaps better
>conceptualized as an innate, species-specific behavior, ubiquitous in all
>humans, resulting from the very makeup of our brain?
>
>Most of the information in his book clearly favors the latter view, yet
>Jourdain seems to favor the former. He downplays the musicality of infants
>and children, for example, pointing out how poorly controlled a toddler's
>singing is. And yet, as in the old joke about the talking dog that gets the
>punch line wrong, the fact that small children can sing and recognize tunes
>at all is remarkable. When babies first walk they are pretty clumsy, too,
>but unless there is something quite wrong, they all become expert walkers.
>And so it is with music: no special training is needed to perform
>sophisticated tasks, such as recognizing the Sesame Street theme when played
>in a new key on a different instrument and then singing it back, albeit off
>key.
>
>Artificial-intelligence algorithms are not up to this task, and yet most
>kids do it without prompting (indeed, sometimes despite parents' pleas to
>the contrary!). In this sense, essentially all normal people are expert
>musicians.
>
>Jourdain takes a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to the issue of expert
>musicianship as well, occasionally allowing his biases to come through the
>otherwise careful prose. When he asserts that the "phonograph has been as
>disastrous to the development of the musical imagination as television has
>been to the literary imagination," Jourdain appears grumpy rather than
>reflective. Putting aside the fact that there are arguably as many fine
>authors and poets now as ever, television notwithstanding, there is not a
>shred of evidence that musical recordings have had any deleterious effect on
>music in any way. As Jourdain later admits, people today are exposed to
>vastly more and a wider variety of music than at any time in history, all
>thanks to recordings.
>
>The amazing diversity of styles and genres that one can currently sample is
>without parallel, and this, coupled with the relative economic accessibility
>afforded by recordings, in fact fosters much more musicality in the
>population (even if you do not happen to like what they are listening to).
>When he claims that "the growing use of synthesizers may only worsen this
>trend," he sounds like a medieval bishop railing against the use of
>newfangled pipe organs. Synthesizers and computer music in general offer yet
>another novel way for us to play with sound--that is the essence of music,
>after all.
>
>Music will probably always inspire some controversy, but that is perhaps as
>it should be. If music can lead people to experience ecstasy, it can also
>engender loathing, and this is part of its power over us. After reading
>Jourdain's book, nothing will feel better than sitting down to listen to a
>Bach fugue--or a Piazzolla tango or a Balinese gamelan ensemble or whatever
>you prefer. We may not yet know why we like these sonic objects; still, we
>should all be thankful for the specialized circuitry in our brains that
>allows us to enjoy them.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>ROBERT ZATORRE is a cognitive neuroscientist at the Montreal Neurological
>Institute of McGill University. .
MS
Monsignor Picardy, of course!
MS
> I think we don't put near enough emphasis on music
> with our little kids. Music is really special.
Bravo!! You should write that to every school administrator in the country!
The thing is, they'll verbally agree with you that music is great, but when
it comes to real support, financial, etc., the support fades away.
I just re-located hundreds of miles away to teach in a small school district
where it looks like they really support elementary music education. But
that's a very rare thing, especially in this state. I hope it doesn't turn
out to be a mirage.
MS
>A minor chord ALWAYS sound sort of more somber and melancholy to
> EVERYONE who listens to it. So, it's not subjective. It's IN the music. It
has
> a universal effect.
How about fast dance music in a minor key? I don't think most people would
say that "Havana Gila" is a sad song.
MS
> It's probably the most basic emotional building block for the creation
> of tension and release in music!
Wouldn't the "most basic building block for the creation of tension and
release" be the resolution of an unstable feeling chord to a more stable
feeling one, such as the resolution of dominant to tonic? (speaking of
tonal music, of course.)
Yambu
wrote:
>
>How about fast dance music in a minor key? I don't think most people would
>say that "Havana Gila" is a sad song.
>
-Mike Doran
Yambu
wrote:
>> Yes, Dickcheese, but who assigned it that name remains a mystery.
>
>Monsignor Picardy, of course!
>
Not to be confused with Señor Bacardi.
Songo Man
say that "Havana Gila" is a sad song.>>
Hava Nagila isn't IN a minor key. It uses a major third and a flat second.
songoman
ze...@sonic.net
and investigations through altered states, I stopped needing to translate these
forms into terms other than themselves. Music and art communicate directly to
me both sensually and conceptually. They seem to be better forms for the
transmission of 'gestaltic closures' than verbal language itself. In fact,
that is why gestalt notions (like mystical experiences) are somewhat
cumbersome when dealt with through verbal language. Contemplating these
'closures' through direct sensory experience is inherently appealing.
Enjoying the mysterious wonder of why a particular chord or rhythm or song
makes you want to listen repeatedly is, for me, like the kind of pleasure one
might experience through the contemplation of a koan, you know like 'what is
the sound of one hand clapping' etc.
{"closure" is like a perceptual phenomenon of the sum being 'greater' than
parts, eg. the cognitive system 'closes' or makes a new experience out of the
parts, like the way 24 individual photographs shown in a second appears as
motion ( the brain is said to make that closure). A chord is in this sense
greater than the sum of its parts - the individual notes. Preceiving the grand
unity of a work of art is another form of closure. For further study see books
such as "Art and Visual Perception" by Arnheim or "Gestalt Psychology" by
Kohler.}
Zeno
kaysee
you can promise me at least ONE occasion like this, you may get me to come to NY
after all . . . .
kaysee
Edward-Yemíl Rosario wrote in message <399a822...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 04:55:05 GMT, Gerry <spe...@home.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>I was discussing the great utility of clarinet in music just the other
>>day. Mostly, where an accordion can go (which is a lot of places) a
>>clarinet can go too. Besides which the accordionist takes all the
>>abuse...
><snip>
>
>Not too long ago, while walking through the sweltering NYC streets, I happened
>upon a trio of dominican musicians. Well, maybe musicians is too strong a word,
>since none of the gentlemen were pros in the sense that they made a living off
>their axe. Anyway, there was a giutar, an accordian, and one guy playing a drum
>he sat on his lap, utilizing a stick on the wooden body and his other hand on
>the lone head. The music they made was... beatiful. I stayed there for a long
>time just listening, eating a piragua. They were just there, in front of a
>bodega which one of them ran and there was a just a bunch of crusty old men
>slamming down dominoes and rum with an occassional yell of "capi - cu!"
>punctuating the music.
>
>The music was spare, but intense and very folkloric with the invetible dash of
>just enough NYC impatience to give it some edge. The accordain guy was really
>great.
>
ze...@sonic.net
Songo Man wrote:
> >Bro! I disagree, and needen't slice and dice on the topic. If you
> >believe this, enjoy. I think the oddity of Brazilian music is them
> >hammering on a Major 6th all day long (which it's structure is major,
> >but in it's references it points to minor 7). But in any case context
> >is all.
> >
>
> Whoa, Simba, hold the phone. I specifically said TRIADS. These are the building
> blocks. You can start adding 6ths and 7ths and suspensions and tensions and
> transform the hell out of the implications of the triad, but the triad by
> itself has the effects on the ear and the mind as I described. I'm talking
> music at its most basic level, here. Surely you're not saying you don't agree
> with the fact that- OUT of context- minor triads sound more somber than major
> triads? It's probably the most basic emotional building block for the creation
> of tension and release in music!
>
See the "Maluma" vs. "Taketa" example in Kohler. An analogous experiment actually
done, except with a visual example rather than an aural one. It would be like if
you went to cultures all around the world and asked them to describe a minor and
major triad in terms of their own words for sad and happy and found that your
point was in fact true.
Zeno
ze...@sonic.net
Songo Man wrote:
And there are countless good latin versions. Touzet's particularly
interesting. Cano also.
Zeno
ze...@sonic.net
Songo Man wrote:
It was actually the Czech composer Dick Cheese whose real name was
Smetana or something like that.
Zeno (playing the 'dangerously close in the dictionary' game).
kaysee
Yambu wrote in message <399a8188...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>
>>
>Not to be confused with Señor Bacardi.
A very rich man with more fifths than thirds.
Songo Man
Try playing it all the way through the end...
Chris>>
Yeah, that last phrase....sort of a Picardy third in reverse.
songoman
Santa Salsera
> How about fast dance music in a minor key? I don't think most people would
> say that "Havana Gila" is a sad song.>>
>
> Hava Nagila isn't IN a minor key. It uses a major third and a flat second.
>
> songoman
Knock 'em dead, songoman!
-fabwoman
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>This was a beautiful description, Eddie. This is what I miss living where I do. If
>you can promise me at least ONE occasion like this, you may get me to come to NY
>after all . . . .
<snip>
AFAIC, NYC is THE center of afro-latin music, period. I would challenge ANYONE
who can come up with the diversity, quality, and just sheer energy that exists
here in NYC. In onme week alone, you can see and hear music representing the
whole freakin spectrum of Latina/o music: from Mexican sones to latino rock,
Bomba Rap, Salsa, Cuban son, Latin-Jazz, Bomba and Plena Jazz, Merengue (and
not just "la mega" bullshit), cumbia in "Little Colombia" where familias still
get together and share sunday meals in Colombian restaurants, experimental stuff
like the stuff I heard last year at the MoMA utilizing bass clarinet along with
the drumming of Patato, Brazilian fusion complete with traditional stilt walkers
dancing, Reggae, stuff straight out of Africa, sacred drumming and rituals, the
whole fookin she-bang, dearie.
Since last Sunday, I got to hear a band playing classical Indian music that also
had a congero in it. On that same day in Chinatown, there was a salsa and
Latin-Jazz band, along with a chinese rap group! I got to see Manny Oquendo and
Libre, as well as Papo Vazquez, and Ralph Irizarry &Timbalaye. I'm sick of
seeing Los Jovenes, who will play again this friday at the salsa jam held at the
World Trade Center every friday (are you still on, cesar?) Eddie Palmieri has
played free twice this summer and will play, along with Hugh Masekela, again
out-of-doors at the Damrosch bandshell @ Lincoln Center. Willie colon has played
@ Prospect Park and will play yet again at the Seaport, for free.
There's so much stuff to see and hear and eat, that it just overwhelms the
senses. I got to see Veinto de Agua at central Park in the only conservatory in
the Park. among the kush flora there's some slammin bomba goin down, right by a
lake with birds and stuff. It's amazing, you enter the park and it's like you're
in another part of the country, very beautiful.
What's more, is all the stuff you hear and see just walking around. The stuff
you don't hear on the radio (which nobody really plays out here) or read in the
newspapers. Poetry slams using drums, performance art pieces in community
gardens using tales of the Orishas, impromptu jams in tompkins square park (the
reputed space of my conception), Prospect Park, and El Barrio. El Barrio itself,
with el Museo, the Boys Harbor, and now the Salsa Museum, alone is worth the
trip.
Or a meal at Adela's in the Lower East Side, where the women fight amongst
themselves while serving hot, delicious plates of mofongo and arroz con
gandures. to eat at Adela's is like walking in to your eccentic aunt's ktichen:
you almost expect to either get hit with the ladle or be told to throw out the
garbage. But the food! The food is cooked with love and the service is deeply
influenced by the communal nature of the business. these are old time
Puertoriquenas with radical ploitics in the blood and the good fight still in
their heats (you'll find posters on Vieques and other stuff).
So, you see, you're missing the universe by not comin g to THE City.
What's more, you get to taste the flavor and pace of NYC, which gives the music
a whole different cast. You'll never liste3n to the music the same way again.
Gnu Yawk is THE mecca, period. PR and Miami don't even begin to compare when it
comes to the quality and sheer diversity of THE City's offerrings. Oh yeah, you
can catch all o the above within a week's span and for free, to boot.
Most of all, you'll hear fusions of all of the above creating a veritable
MS
> Hava Nagila isn't IN a minor key.
>
How about merengues in a minor key??
They don't sound very "sad". :-(
MS
> As though once you elevate music from some
> pleasant background environmental condition to something to be FOCUSED
upon,
> people get uncomfortable.
And they get uncomfortable without background music. To me (probably to most
musicians), music is never background. For instance, I can have music in the
background while doing some chore that is completely menial, in which I
don't have to think at all, as my mind can go completely with the music. But
I can't have music on when I read or write, or do anything that involves
some thinking, as my brain goes with the music, and I cannot concentrate on
those other tasks simultaneously. (For instance, I know people who always
play a music CD on their computer while they are writing on it. It's much
harder for me to write while there's music playing.)
I don't like to have background music on when I eat. Of course I can't avoid
it in a restaurant, but I never put music on at home when I eat. My mind and
body get completely involved with the music, and it's harder to digest the
food. One girlfriend I had got mad at me for that, that I didn't have
background music on when she ate at my house. She said "you are a musician,
you have the largest CD and LP collection I know of, I would think you would
want to listen to music as much as possible". I tried to explain to her that
having background music when you eat is not the same as "listening" to
music, but I don't think she understood.
MS
> How about fast dance music in a minor key? I don't think most people would
> say that "Havana Gila" is a sad song.>>
>
> Hava Nagila isn't IN a minor key. It uses a major third and a flat second.
>
>
> songoman
OK, but there are many other fast lively dance songs in minor keys.
MS
<ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:399AC51A...@sonic.net...
> And there are countless good latin versions. Touzet's particularly
> interesting. Cano also.
> Zeno
On what recordings are these available? I haven't heard them.
Gerry
> (For instance, I know people who always play a music CD on their
> computer while they are writing on it. It's much harder for me to
> write while there's music playing.)
I like to have latin music on here at my home worksite, but this
invariably draws me away from my work. Good. Every hour or so I get
up, stretch, play some timbales for 10 or 15 minutes and begin again.
Though sometimes I get too involved in the music and turn it off.
Practically speaking, I have a hard time leaving music on while I do
other work. It's just too distracting.
> I don't like to have background music on when I eat. Of course I can't avoid
> it in a restaurant, but I never put music on at home when I eat. My mind and
> body get completely involved with the music, and it's harder to digest the
> food.
I want to have music on when involved with focused dinging. It's part
of the ambiance. Nancy isn't bugged when I say, "Sheesh, is this Cole
Porter night or what?" when we heard three in a raw by different
artists.
We use to have a pattern when we were eating more regularly at home in
the evening (it comes and goes depending on our work and Nancy's focus
on cooking--at which she is a magician incidentally). We'd listen to
the "songs and singers" channel on direct-TV. It's all older vocalists
from the 50's and 60s'. Many of which we don't know well. And we
guess the artists: Rosemary Clooney, Vic Damone, Sinatra, Nat Cole,
etc. It's kind of corny, but the tunes are good and they have a
certain quazi-romantic quality that we like.
But regardless of setting I appreciate "background" music in
restaurants. But unlike the original complaint about "background"
stuff, it is actually "foreground", one of a number, for me.
--
\\\---
ze...@sonic.net
MS wrote:
Touzet's great material on Fiesta
Cano on GNP ( "Mucho Piano" reissued as "A Taste Of Cano")
I have LPs, not sure about CD reissues.
There are many other versions in my collection. Have you tried searching
the title on Descarga.com to see what comes up in CD reissue?
Zeno
ze...@sonic.net
MS wrote:
Like mixing uppers with downers. Like coffee after wine? Even within the very
chord structure of some guajira's you have this contrast as has been pointed
out, I always feel more 'hope' at the third major after two minors. I have
often argued that this was part of the inherent deep philosophical beauty of
that music.
Zeno
Santa Salsera
Santa Salsera
just use some minor tonalities? I'm just wondering. It might help the
discussion to get more specific with the examples. I'm thinking in
coros, when a singer often improvises in a minor tonality, or switch
between major and minor sounding intervals, even though the song is in a
major key. An example (I think) would be Ibrahim Ferrer's pregones in
"Compositor Confundido," Putomayo Presents CUBA.
Also, I'm trying to think of merengues that meet your criterion, but I
run onto the same phenomenon, I think. Bachatas are different, but then,
bachatas are very often melancholy.
-Fab
MS wrote:
> "Songo Man" <song...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000816191557...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> > Hava Nagila isn't IN a minor key.
> >