re: listening to Mamma Nature

To my nature, it appears that we've been dealing in that old dichotomy,
human- vs. Mother- Nature. Thus, any system we concoct is implicitly
"un-natural." (Remember that hogwash from the '60's drug scene that advised
that taking peyote was better than taking acid cuz the former was "natural?"
To which I always responded, "Yeah, so leg's try hemlock. It's natural.")
Anyhoo, my view is: if we can conceive of something, bring it into fruition,
and communicate it successfully to others, then we've achieved something
that is _naturally successful. Nature, including our nature, has tried a
buncha things and probably, always will, that flop, and a few will succeed.
Concerning sounds, specifically, listen to the common cricket, blackbird,
dogbark, lionroar. Where in blazes are the simple acoustical ratios? When I
bought that Mickey Hart-produced cd of sounds from the Rain Forest, I was
pretty sure he'd stuck some lectric noises in there, but no, it was some
bird sustaining that very ill-tempered chord.
No, there's some weird psychocomplex at work when people can accept a
ravine's "song" as an acceptable part of their world, but not even a
pianissimo minor second in 'Bartok. Or, for that matter, I'm under the
impression that the populus will more readily acclimate to wild visual
displays before they will to the aural equivalent.
I have some recordings of Rumanian women singing (supposedly whilst toiling
in a field) wherein the the interval in the duet that is given the longest
duration is a second of sorts; somewhere between Major and Minor. The
resolution, either to a 5/4 Third or to a Unison is literally, as short as a
. A. L. Lloyd states that when asked about that diad, their response is that
they really like it, "It rings like a bell!" Well, not !my bell, but hey!
we're talkin' Mother Nature, aren't we? Or are we? Just what _are we really
talking about? A fly in the ointment?

Jay Williams wrote:

> From: Jay Williams <jaywill@utah-inter.net>
>
> To my nature, it appears that we've been dealing in that old dichotomy,
> human- vs. Mother- Nature.

I do not think they are opposites!

> Thus, any system we concoct is implicitly
> "un-natural." (Remember that hogwash from the '60's drug scene that advised
> that taking peyote was better than taking acid cuz the former was "natural?"

My native American brothers and I would like to point out to you that Peyote is
a valuable medicine. It is used with great success in treating Alcoholism for
instance. Other people around the globe also have there own uses for there
plant with equal success. They do not abuse it there by they acknowledge the
"nature" of the substance. With Hemlock they would likewise recognize its
"nature" and realize it is best left alone. The knowledge of herbs is not one
dimensional. Golden seal for flu. etc. But the full extent of the plant of it
pro and cons are always considered.
I have to concede that LSD (which is from ergot) was one of the most
successful methods of rehabilitation of Criminals. Once it was realized that
its effects on Prison Guards was the complete opposite, the notion of it being
wide spread cure all should have been abandoned.

>
> To which I always responded, "Yeah, so leg's try hemlock. It's natural.")
> Anyhoo, my view is: if we can conceive of something, bring it into fruition,
> and communicate it successfully to others, then we've achieved something
> that is _naturally successful. Nature, including our nature, has tried a
> buncha things and probably, always will, that flop, and a few will succeed.

If only we could accept those musical roads which were a Flop!!!

>
> Concerning sounds, specifically, listen to the common cricket, blackbird,
> dogbark, lionroar. Where in blazes are the simple acoustical ratios?

I whole hardily agree that nature is not limited to Simple ratios. It does not
though violate or ignore acoustical reality. On the other hand, I have never
seen any example of ET in nature. Or a puritan!

> When I
> bought that Mickey Hart-produced cd of sounds from the Rain Forest, I was
> pretty sure he'd stuck some lectric noises in there, but no, it was some
> bird sustaining that very ill-tempered chord.
> No, there's some weird psychocomplex at work when people can accept a
> ravine's "song" as an acceptable part of their world, but not even a
> pianissimo minor second in 'Bartok.

Well even Barry Manilow uses these!!

> Or, for that matter, I'm under the
> impression that the populus will more readily acclimate to wild visual
> displays before they will to the aural equivalent.

The fact is it is far more potent. On the other hand the distortion and use of
noise in Grunge
is not to be underestimated, or in techno. Maybe it sounds better than
Schoenberg. I think there are reasons it works in some contexts and not in
others! Why I don't know!

>
> I have some recordings of Rumanian women singing (supposedly whilst toiling
> in a field) wherein the the interval in the duet that is given the longest
> duration is a second of sorts; somewhere between Major and Minor.

NICE MUSIC. In truth of fact once you get out of western Europe, all the other
musics of the globe seem to have a lot more in common with each other!

> The
> resolution, either to a 5/4 Third or to a Unison is literally, as short as a
> . A. L. Lloyd states that when asked about that diad, their response is that
> they really like it, "It rings like a bell!" Well, not !my bell, but hey!
> we're talkin' Mother Nature, aren't we? Or are we? Just what _are we really
> talking about? A fly in the ointment?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com