DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Thoughts For The Day: music . neurology. metaphysics. coincidence

Forums > The General Forum: Thoughts For The Day

music . neurology. metaphysics. coincidence

simulacrat	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 8:02 AM Life astounds me, today it occurred through a dmusic composition. what makes us associate certain tones and rhythms with certain situations, themes or moods? it is incredible to me that certain progrssions will make one sad, happy, angry or even if a progression does not resolve itself by the end of the song one may feel slightly off kilter. these thoughts came to mind today when i listened to sinful productions tune 'the end' on RedLevel's page. i found it very interesting that the progression this artist used seemed to mold my thoughts into toughts about The End, if you know what i mean. Then i reflected back and remembered a song the Grits made a few years ago about that very topic and how they had used very similar tonal colors for that composition. when i encounter 'coincidences' like this, whether they be musical, deja vus or corporate consciousness, the big metaphysical questions begin to be begged. is it simply neurological physiology that makes us respond as such? if so, how did we ever devlop that? is it just another cosmic coincidence? or are we wired in certain ways so that we can respond in corresponding ways?
Svensta	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 8:41 AM Good questions. My theory revolves around your question 'how did we ever develop that?' Honestly, I can think of absolutely zero reason the environment/culture would have bred that into us, speaking evolutionarily (yes I just made that word up) The best I can surmise at this point, is the same argument I have to defend evolution. We evolved differently. All creatures seem to develop physically. Giraffes necks grew, platypuses develop a host of oddball traits, just to maximize their efficiency in their home environs. We didn't. Instead we developed minds. These 'always on' cognitive units that can react, adapt, and learn. We no longer need to physically adapt. We don't need fur or claws. We can build better. At some point, intellect required emotion to function. Or maybe it is just the last vestige of our fight or flight and mating rituals. Competitiveness and fear, hatred and adoration. Whatever the reason our intellects are embedded into, and forever slaves of, the emotional side of us. Even simpler animals have been shown to display emotions. It's a natural thing. So finding that you react similarly to similar stimulus, there's really little question as to why. You would be odd if you COULD feel differently about it. The question is now, what made you emotionally put the two works together as similar?
zedsalt	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 11:04 AM Interesting story: there's a tribe of American Indians (sorry, can't recall which) who have a ritual wherein they fast for three days, then walk into a canyon filled with poisonous gases (sp?). They aren't to speak of what they see, yet EVERYONE of that tribe has the same vision. How likely one is to have that EXACT vision seems to be a matter of how purely, genetically they are a member of that tribe! And I saw a documentary on PBS once about folks who damaged the same, pencil-eraser-sized area of their brain, and lost the abilty to recognize people. They COULD identify personal traits, though. So, they might say, "Cleft nose, black hair, bulbuous nose, kinda jowly..." but even if they'd seen a picture of Nixon just moments before, they couldn't identify the photo as ol' Tricky Dicky! The human mind is a strange and wonderful thing, but it's a terrible thing to waste...or to find in one's shoe...or to eat with a fork...or to give as a Valentine's Day gift...or...
simulacrat	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 1:55 PM svensta, further to your argument: in the sociology field, thinkers are starting to blend psychotherpeutic systems with what is being developed in the neural biology, linking psychological disorders with neurological paths that may or may not exist depending on the situation. what they are finding is that as they map the brain they are finding that some people's neural pathways are simply non existent therefore shutting off certain functions, at times even autonomous ones. given this premise, i would theorize that the musical pathways did not actually exist to start with but as developing humans began to start with banging rocks, then sticks, then moved on to rudimentary flutes then strings, humans neural pathways have been opening up all leading to this point. i would argue that these new paths are not passed on evolutionarily (i liked that one) but through individual experience. take the idea of progressive new music that one may have initially hated but through a few listens, that new music tends to 'grow' on that person (much more literally than we may have expected). i personally feel that those musical experiences are actually the most fulfilling probably due to in part to the good feeling that comes from learing or mastering something new, in this case subconsciously. given that premise it is absolutely no surprise that when i heard the grits song first, which i associated with 'the end' i became 'used to' associating elements of that composition, leading to my experience with ReLevel's tune. I suppose quite possibly and even likely someone else may even have a comletely different experience. that being said, maybe there is a classical piece that sociatally we've all been exposed to leading the grits, redlevel and myself to all have the same neural pathways open to. further to this idea that as we are exposed to ideas, concepts in the world out mind adapts to make sense of them is the notion of subjectivity and genetic disposition. musically there are also factors such as octave theory and mathematical timing, harmony, complexity and even timbre selection for which we can credit discerning aural sensitivities towards our gravitating towards not only certain styles of music but also towards good and bad music. thank goodness for that or my mind may never have moved past the captain kangaroo theme song.
wailingmiserere	Date: May 4, 2005 @ 1:14 PM Interesting thread It has always absolutely staggered me when I think about the human ear and how it can distinguish between noise and musical sound, by identifying the presence of the harmonic series. That is just astounding. There seems to be no reason why that would be beneficial to us. Raises the question of whether or not animals hear music the way that we do? On the subject of how music actually developed, I remember a university lecturer of mine talking this, and mentioning a theory that the development of music was linked directly to that of spoken language, and that there is a lot to suggest humans may have communicated via music before they had any form of intelligible speech.

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: