Moderation and debate

Since the first few minutes i was on this list many years ago, there i think is an unspoken assumption that tuning questions can be decided by debate.
Those that involve facts can, yet historical ones too can become fuzzy the further back one goes.
Outside of this , since we are talking about something that is highly subjective, it is a fruitless process.
Questioning assumptions and stating observations are something else.
Perhaps if every treated everyone else's path here more in lines with
' If I were to approach it that way, what would or could or want to do?
and yes if approached in the right spirit, we might be able to point out the limitations also.

None of us are perfect, but we can try and i do believe Carl has done that as so many other in the history of this list have changed their ways including myself. We thank him for his passion and wisdom in the subject as Jon has pointed out.

Ideally a moderator might be someone who least identifies with a particular corner. Who ever it is , the members should do what they can and take responsibility for making the group work more than winning a point.

Kraig>"Perhaps if every treated everyone else's path here more in lines with '
If I were to approach it that way, what would or could or want to do? and yes if
approached in the right spirit, we might be able to point out the limitations
also."
(if I understand it correctly...) Agreed! Meaning even if you think an idea
is weird (IE you side with Harmonic Entropy and dislike Critical Band
Dissonance), a good moderator would still be able to get outside his bias and
think "if I DID support critical band dissonance, and I realize many people
do...how would I make an optimized solution?".

>"Since the first few minutes i was on this list many years ago, there i think is
>an unspoken assumption that tuning questions can be decided by debate. "
But, alas, music is an art and there can be more than one correct answer to
many debates! Perhaps another, more productive way to phrase the challenge than
debating would be the question "Are the theories in question being developed to
their best possible form (often backed up by facts and/or musical examples and
ratings of such examplescoming from many people) and, in that form, what
potential do they ultimately have?".

I was going to write that music was an art but deleted because i thought it might be inflamatory to those who insist that it can all be quanified:). There are those who think it is only a matter of time before science explains it all. i guess we need to accept this too:)

i really think the trouble stems forom the idea that debate can progress music and musical ideas.
In such cases , if it is chosen, the victors will be the debate champions.

I have a friend who bases all his compositions on the most ludicrous ideas he can and more than often they sound great! They are all unique and i always gain something by them.

Any idea that can take us into the unknown of musical realms should be pursued and watered as much by others.

Many ideas will fail but a whole life of failures is useful in that it chart a territory and its outcome, this in itself enriches Music as an art.

On this list i think there are many branches here that are quite healthy and with much fruit.
There is more than enough for us not to have to resort to pruning half the tree.
Nature and time will do that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Kraig>"Perhaps if every treated everyone else's path here more in lines with '
> If I were to approach it that way, what would or could or want to do? and yes if
> approached in the right spirit, we might be able to point out the limitations
> also."
> (if I understand it correctly...) Agreed! Meaning even if you think an idea
> is weird (IE you side with Harmonic Entropy and dislike Critical Band
> Dissonance), a good moderator would still be able to get outside his bias and
> think "if I DID support critical band dissonance, and I realize many people
> do...how would I make an optimized solution?".
>
>
> >"Since the first few minutes i was on this list many years ago, there i think is
> >an unspoken assumption that tuning questions can be decided by debate. "
> But, alas, music is an art and there can be more than one correct answer to
> many debates! Perhaps another, more productive way to phrase the challenge than
> debating would be the question "Are the theories in question being developed to
> their best possible form (often backed up by facts and/or musical examples and
> ratings of such examplescoming from many people) and, in that form, what
> potential do they ultimately have?".
>

Hi Kraig,

> I was going to write that music was an art but deleted because
> i thought it might be inflamatory to those who insist that it
> can all be quanified:). There are those who think it is only a
> matter of time before science explains it all. i guess we need
> to accept this too:)

I certainly don't think science can explain it all. Just
that what it can't explain, there's not much point talking
about. Actually it's impossible to talk about it.

> I have a friend who bases all his compositions on the most
> ludicrous ideas he can and more than often they sound great!
> They are all unique and i always gain something by them.

*Most* of my favorite music was based on ludicrous ideas.
Bach - Jesus
Yes - New Age
etc.

> There is more than enough for us not to have to resort to
> pruning half the tree. Nature and time will do that.

You're right. Because all of this has happened before.
Folks have ganged up on productive members of this list,
attacked, poked fun, and even threatened. In fact, there's
a direct relationship between amount of productivity and
amount of ridicule received. It's happened many times and
will happen many times again unless more active moderation
is used.

But in the end, time has not kind to these petty attackers.
They are gone, or exhausted from hate. Just like the old
bullies from high school I see on Facebook. And their
arguments? Forgotten, even by them. Meanwhile, the
contributions of those who were attacked are now the basis
of publications (and not in flimsy "musicology" journals),
wikipedia articles, and enshrined in the synthesizers of
practicing musicians. And that is only after a few years.

-Carl

That's very Kantian Carl:)
I do think it good to venture forth with out any guidance into unknown phenomenon and if something is found, it might actually be the best way to discover something scientific, after the fact. Or into those areas that are taboo including scientific ones. This is how the first investigators into Phi proseded.
where i will agree it is hard to deal with things that are not 'measurable' except in a most personal way. It is hard from others to benefit from that.
So i would agree on 'measurable'. As for the use of numbers, i am not sure if this is always science or not or automatically science.
We can use them to do unscientific things i think.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kraig,

>
> I certainly don't think science can explain it all. Just
> that what it can't explain, there's not much point talking
> about. Actually it's impossible to talk about it.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I was going to write that music was an art but deleted because i thought it might be inflamatory to those who insist that it can all be quanified:). There are those who think it is only a matter of time before science explains it all. i guess we need to accept this too:)

I think that if the scientific method is worth anything to begin with,
then it will eventually explain how personal, psychological, cultural,
cognitive, etc factors can influence musical perception in a
satisfactory way. We just have to go through the sucky "Freudian"
phase first where some theory emerges that's a bit too restrictive,
but ultra-enlightening at the same time.

The entire field of music therapy is basically hinging on someone
making this development. As someone considering going to medical
school and perhaps trying to do some work on taking music therapy in
this direction, I find the attitude that some kind of scientific,
psychological, individualized analysis of music could never exist to
be kind of a downer. And I find that attitude to be far more
restrictive than any simple theory that perhaps equates
psychoacoustics to musical perception a bit too much. Especially when
sometimes it seems to come from these personalized fetishes of ones
own artistic enlightenment.

In general, the idea that "no work can ever be done on understanding
music and the psyche" seems a bit ignorant to me. But as part of
understanding how music interacts with the psyche, it's going to be
necessary to have a rigorous understanding of how music interacts with
psychoacoustics. Hence the state of the union in 2010.

> i really think the trouble stems forom the idea that debate can progress music and musical ideas.
> In such cases , if it is chosen, the victors will be the debate champions.

I think that the trouble stems from the fact that this list is full of
people who couldn't care less about civility.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was going to write that music was an art but deleted because i thought it might be inflamatory to those who insist that it can all be quanified:). There are those who think it is only a matter of time before science explains it all. i guess we need to accept this too:)
>
> I think that if the scientific method is worth anything to begin with,
> then it will eventually explain how personal, psychological, cultural,
> cognitive, etc factors can influence musical perception in a
> satisfactory way. We just have to go through the sucky "Freudian"
> phase first where some theory emerges that's a bit too restrictive,
> but ultra-enlightening at the same time.
>
> The entire field of music therapy is basically hinging on someone
> making this development. As someone considering going to medical
> school and perhaps trying to do some work on taking music therapy in
> this direction, I find the attitude that some kind of scientific,
> psychological, individualized analysis of music could never exist to
> be kind of a downer. And I find that attitude to be far more
> restrictive than any simple theory that perhaps equates
> psychoacoustics to musical perception a bit too much. Especially when
> sometimes it seems to come from these personalized fetishes of ones
> own artistic enlightenment.
>
> In general, the idea that "no work can ever be done on understanding
> music and the psyche" seems a bit ignorant to me. But as part of
> understanding how music interacts with the psyche, it's going to be
> necessary to have a rigorous understanding of how music interacts with
> psychoacoustics. Hence the state of the union in 2010.
>
> > i really think the trouble stems forom the idea that debate can progress music and musical ideas.
> > In such cases , if it is chosen, the victors will be the debate champions.
>
> I think that the trouble stems from the fact that this list is full of
> people who couldn't care less about civility.
>
> -Mike
>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
>
>

I agree!

-Mike

I take it you are an anti' Freudian and side with the behaviorist trends in Psychology.
Two days ago i was talking with a researcher in Psychology of perception who has had papers published in Nature. He assured me that the final nails into the coffin of statistics into regard to perception are being driven right into the coffin at this moment.

The diversity of mankind music is too varied for myself to have any vision of any 'unified' theory that could ever explain them all or even most.
The more i look the farther it reseeds.
I always enjoyed Rudolf Arnheim's book on the visual arts and it is a shame we don't have more of these types of minds looking at music. He comes from the Gestalt school i think might be safe to say.
His short book on Entropy and Art still is a fountainhead of knowledge.
Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception- a difficult read i am still going through very slowly

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was going to write that music was an art but deleted because i thought it might be inflamatory to those who insist that it can all be quanified:). There are those who think it is only a matter of time before science explains it all. i guess we need to accept this too:)
>
> I think that if the scientific method is worth anything to begin with,
> then it will eventually explain how personal, psychological, cultural,
> cognitive, etc factors can influence musical perception in a
> satisfactory way. We just have to go through the sucky "Freudian"
> phase first where some theory emerges that's a bit too restrictive,
> but ultra-enlightening at the same time.
>
> The entire field of music therapy is basically hinging on someone
> making this development. As someone considering going to medical
> school and perhaps trying to do some work on taking music therapy in
> this direction, I find the attitude that some kind of scientific,
> psychological, individualized analysis of music could never exist to
> be kind of a downer. And I find that attitude to be far more
> restrictive than any simple theory that perhaps equates
> psychoacoustics to musical perception a bit too much. Especially when
> sometimes it seems to come from these personalized fetishes of ones
> own artistic enlightenment.
>
> In general, the idea that "no work can ever be done on understanding
> music and the psyche" seems a bit ignorant to me. But as part of
> understanding how music interacts with the psyche, it's going to be
> necessary to have a rigorous understanding of how music interacts with
> psychoacoustics. Hence the state of the union in 2010.
>
> > i really think the trouble stems forom the idea that debate can progress music and musical ideas.
> > In such cases , if it is chosen, the victors will be the debate champions.
>
> I think that the trouble stems from the fact that this list is full of
> people who couldn't care less about civility.
>
> -Mike
>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I take it you are an anti' Freudian and side with the behaviorist trends in Psychology.
> Two days ago i was talking with a researcher in Psychology of perception who has had papers published in Nature. He assured me that the final nails into the coffin of statistics into regard to perception are being driven right into the coffin at this moment.

If science can prove that there are limitations to how much statistics
can predict perception, then all the better for science.

> The diversity of mankind music is too varied for myself to have any vision of any 'unified' theory that could ever explain them all or even most.
> The more i look the farther it reseeds.
> I always enjoyed Rudolf Arnheim's book on the visual arts and it is a shame we don't have more of these types of minds looking at music. He comes from the Gestalt school i think might be safe to say.
> His short book on Entropy and Art still is a fountainhead of knowledge.
> Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception- a difficult read i am still going through very slowly

I'll have to check into it. I am well aware that the theories on this
list aren't grand unified theories of art. I think that we have to
start somewhere, just like Freud did. Freud was a genius in that he
figured out that there is such a think as the unconscious mind. He
then often overapplied it in cases where it didn't need to be,
extrapolating sexual undertones in his patients where none existed.
Perhaps some of us have been doing the same thing with
psychoacoustics. Perhaps I am particularly guilty. I am not at all
unaware of this fact. As an improvisational musician, learning to
"throw the theory away" and catch onto inspirational quantum
fluctuations and amplify them in the moment is of paramount importance
to me. I'm just trying to start somewhere and fix problems as I go
along. And I am continually frustrated by the fact that the discussion
of initial, half-formed, expositional ideas ends up drawing such an
adverse response from some people that I start drawing Hitler
comparisons. I think it's unnecessary.

-Mike

While quite unpopular these, i have enjoyed Jung's work and found it insightful.
at least he is relevant to art because as The Red Book shows he was quite accomplish one. There is a murky area between Philosophy and Psychology, at least in my mind and he himself places at least some connection to the Phenomenology. Which i haven't had a chance to go back to the founding of that school to see just what lies there.

Melody and scales are probably archetypal in character, maybe even contours, forms and progressions. That these archetypes might have their roots in pyschoacoustical phenomena i make the assumption of probably. Maybe all the way down to molecular construction which we might have some unconscious knowledge of since we are inseparable from it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > I take it you are an anti' Freudian and side with the behaviorist trends in Psychology.
> > Two days ago i was talking with a researcher in Psychology of perception who has had papers published in Nature. He assured me that the final nails into the coffin of statistics into regard to perception are being driven right into the coffin at this moment.
>
> If science can prove that there are limitations to how much statistics
> can predict perception, then all the better for science.
>
> > The diversity of mankind music is too varied for myself to have any vision of any 'unified' theory that could ever explain them all or even most.
> > The more i look the farther it reseeds.
> > I always enjoyed Rudolf Arnheim's book on the visual arts and it is a shame we don't have more of these types of minds looking at music. He comes from the Gestalt school i think might be safe to say.
> > His short book on Entropy and Art still is a fountainhead of knowledge.
> > Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception- a difficult read i am still going through very slowly
>
> I'll have to check into it. I am well aware that the theories on this
> list aren't grand unified theories of art. I think that we have to
> start somewhere, just like Freud did. Freud was a genius in that he
> figured out that there is such a think as the unconscious mind. He
> then often overapplied it in cases where it didn't need to be,
> extrapolating sexual undertones in his patients where none existed.
> Perhaps some of us have been doing the same thing with
> psychoacoustics. Perhaps I am particularly guilty. I am not at all
> unaware of this fact. As an improvisational musician, learning to
> "throw the theory away" and catch onto inspirational quantum
> fluctuations and amplify them in the moment is of paramount importance
> to me. I'm just trying to start somewhere and fix problems as I go
> along. And I am continually frustrated by the fact that the discussion
> of initial, half-formed, expositional ideas ends up drawing such an
> adverse response from some people that I start drawing Hitler
> comparisons. I think it's unnecessary.
>
> -Mike
>

Mike,

The following is personal opinion:

I'm thinking that music is more like a language than physics. From this
chair "understanding
music and the psyche" is like asking - "why does the French language sound
the way it does?".

This is not to say I don't think "hard science" has anything to say about
the music - actually it does in my view for a number of vital questions.
However - when music is perceived by an audience as something that has
emotional meaning I think the experience is closer to language than physics.

Does that make any sense?

Chris

> In general, the idea that "no work can ever be done on understanding
> music and the psyche" seems a bit ignorant to me. But as part of
> understanding how music interacts with the psyche, it's going to be
> necessary to have a rigorous understanding of how music interacts with
> psychoacoustics. Hence the state of the union in 2010.
>
>
>
> -Mike
>
>

Even better, it's Bayesian. -Carl

Kraig wrote:

> That's very Kantian Carl:)
>
> "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > I certainly don't think science can explain it all. Just
> > that what it can't explain, there's not much point talking
> > about. Actually it's impossible to talk about it.
>