From eric hill Sent Tue, Oct 27th 1998, 00:52
From eric hill Sent Tue, Oct 27th 1998, 00:52
[Peter Hollo] > xxxx@xxxx.xx.xxx wrote: > > > well, this makes sense in light of j. lesesne having a near-criminal > > > aversion to tuning her samples. > > Here's the research I go through when listening to music: > > Do I like it? > > Where can I find it? > > Who gives a fuck whether samples are in tune? You music majors sicken > > me. > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA > Well I wasn't going to jump up when xxxxx@xxxx.xxx mentioned the tuning, > but doesn't anyone else find the vicious response of yet another > tone-deaf person *a little bit* amusing (or should I say depressing)? aich. some people have a way of ruining a perfectly good joke BY NOT GETTING IT :) that is, i was making fun of both of you. > > Two things, hime: Firstly, recognizing whether something's in tune or > not has nothing to do with studying music; a lot of people with no > knowledge of musical notation or anything take it into account. that's because sounds can be of variable degrees of out-of-tune-ness, depending on the listener, as you have proven with your observation that a segment of the population can find a piece with out-of-tune (can "dissonance" be substituted in here?) that others find agreeable. [i am reminded of the lameness grant rephlex used to spurt from time to time: "you aren't listening to it right."] basically, you've proven that out-of-tune-ness is a value judgment that some hold more bearing on than others, but i digress. recognizing whether something's "in tune" or "not," has nothing to do with whether someone is well-versed in the science of music, since such training only teaches how to measure such 'out of tune-ness,' once it's recognized. the music you grew up on is the most likely culprit for providing the affliction of sensitivity to sonic-asymmetry and dissonance. since there is no necessary training involved in acquiring this sensitivity, we can assume that people who experience it do so to varying degrees, and can be said to express their sensitivity to out-of-tune-ness as a preference for 'in-tune' music. viewed as having a preference for 'in-tune' music, the musically-untrained listener has no reference to any musical science other than their own history of music listening, and in addition to noticing the harmonic qualities within the piece they're listening, they are also comparing it to all of the harmonic preferences they've built up over the years. "does this piece of music violate any of my harmonic sensibilities?" the listener asks himself imperceptibly, "yes, that bass sample is a minor 3rd (or whatever, if they have training) flat. time to add this to the weekly fs/ft posting." or, "eeew, that sounds out of place, i don't like it." you pays your money, you takes your chance. in light of the structures of western pop music, especially in the recent past that all of us have grown up in, it's surprising that more than a third don't share your intolerance. it's been 80-some years since people started publishing music without regard for the modes of the well-tempered scale, y'all buy your music as if [the guy who did the fists-on-piano thing, but feel free to choose your own.] never existed. to bring this down to practical levels, if you're sensitive to dissonance and your buying decisions follow that sensitivity, in my opinion you are missing out on some positively dazzling music. i think that the ability to break out of conventional harmonic structures/tunings/etc. is one of the primary strengths of electronic instruments. eric onnow: jet chamber 1 (fax)