MattRMunson

Awesome. I'l definetely be reading some of these. Currently working on my bachelor (towards a PhD) of psych and music is my area of interest. Presently I'm in the middle of an excellent 45 page review paper on the relationship between vocal processing and music by Juslin & Laukka. Im not surprised to see that it was cited in Koelsch's "Universal Recognition of Three Basic Emotions in Music" (citation 14.) Oh and I just skimmed over that "universal recognition" article and found a passage that I can't resist quoting: "Both Westerners and Mafas classified the majority of major pieces as happy, the majority of pieces with indefinite mode as sad, and most of the pieces in minor as scared/fearful." First time I ever saw a cross cultural study demonstrating that. YEAHH! (DISCLAIRMER I haven't read the whole thing yet) Thanks SSC

In this discussion, the question of what makes a musical fragment (or whole) fitter than another has of course been raised. And of course the one answer that comes immediately to our minds is listener/composer preferences. While I do think that such an approach has merit I think that it has serious limitations as well. Specifically: 1) The process of evolution is already implicit in most composition processes. Evolution takes place any time a composer engages in trial and error to any degree, or decides to eliminate any component of a piece that he/she sees as inappropriate, insufficient, unappealing, or unconducive to a given end. 2) Music has been evolving for as long as it has existed. Almost any music that is appreciated today has evolved from previous music. Music that was not as 'fit' did not make it very far past conception, or very far past the 'environment' (cultural preferences) that it evolved to inhabit. In other words, music is evolving as we speak with the power of a planet's worth of composers and listeners. To compete with that power, or even approach it, with the resources presently available to any individual is incredibly unfeasible. 3) Musical preferences tend be strongly effected by environmental influences (such as culture) that A) tend to act over long periods (months to years) B) result in long term changes that frequently remain in effect (though often to diminishing degrees) for the rest of the individuals life and C) have a decreased ability to affect change in older individuals. The overall effect of that is that the rate of evolution of music is effectively bottlenecked by the rate of change in individual's preferences. Of course, music may still evolve within the environment of present musical preferences, but because of punctuated equilibrium, the rate of improvement of that music will decrease the further we go in time from the initial change in selective pressure. Also, individuals seem to prize (perceived) originality over imitation, which paradoxically favors designs that tend (or at least seem) to be less evolved (occurring earlier in time) than those that come after. In other words, even if you can outpower global evolution you will still face a degree of limitation from the dynamics of individual preferences. 4) Finally, an individuals ability to accurately rate the superiority (in this case defined by preference) of numerous similar items decreases with the number of total items they are rating. Also, an individuals preferences will fluctuate across time. The ultimate effect of those two points is that you would need a substantial group of people to act as judges (to control for variance and order effects), judging a limited number of items at one time, and the judging process would have to take place over days, months, or years (depending on the number of generations you choose to go for) in order to prevent individuals from overly suffering sensitization effects (increasing standards of judgement, inaccurate memories, context effects of previously heard music.) In light of those considerations, I believe the only feasible way to pull something like this off would be to use an artificial neural network design that involves 'training.' The reason I believe that is that sufficiently advanced computers could potentially rival the 'evolutionary proccessing power' of earths population as well as overcome human limitations on the evolution of music. Unfortunately, at this time computer power and neural network theory are not sufficiently advanced to handle this task, though some limited success has been achieved in the field of AI composition.

So can the meaning be inherent if some people lack the necessary life experiences or neurology to experience or perceive that meaning? I think the answer to that question, one of mere definition, determines wether music can possibly have inherent meaning. My perspective on music is that it is code and, like all codes, is meaningless without a corresponding cypher or program to interpret it. So if you consider the music on it's own, it is meaningless. However, if you consider the music in the context of a specific cypher or program, particularly the one it was intended for, then the music absolutely has an 'inherent' meaning.

Your chords: refreshing, clean, sharp, free. I kinda like it. I think you should make another piece with the same kind of chords but this time just go nuts. I mean really take the chords over the top; Don't spare us any degree of zanny bizzareness.

I can't imagine not being at least a little upset about that.

I have to agree here that your theory of "neutrality gradient force" (if I can call it that) as a/the factor that determines people's music preference is simply too equivocal. I think you are moving closer to a meaningful (though no better proven) theory when you mention relaxation and stimulation as the opposite poles on your scale, however you undermine that progress and harm your credibility when you say that stress/anxiety and depression are polar opposites; they're not, in fact they are positively correlated. Nevertheless, your position does seem, to a degree, to parallel recent research into people's preferences for different types of music. For example Study on Personality and Music preferences You will need access to a database of peer-reviewed journals to access this article but here's the abstract:

.......You are the master. *bows down before you.* I hope you realize that the coolness factor for this song is about 10 billion....literaly. I think the mixing/recording could use some work though, and maybe a bit of improvement (more power) on the vocals. And like someone else mentioned, it sounds at times like the lyrics are awkwardly crammed into the measures. Seriously though, this piece really is super cool. If you ever get the chance to play it live, DO IT!! and make sure the documentary crew is there to film it.

Impressive. Your ability to work with the metal genre and to bend it to your own purposes is noteworthy. I hope you keep experimenting like this because the metal world needs some radical inspiration as much as it can benefit from the legitimacy that can come from genuine fusions with more well respected styles.

At least consider it as a possibility. I also am annoyed by the mass of pseudo-psychological self-help trash and by the obscene prevalence of narcissism among today's younger generation(s). But I also believe that psychology today is a legitimate science--that it's practitioners for the most part adhere strictly to the scientific method--and that it is of inestimable utility to all people. Im not asking anyone to embrace every pet theory ever put forth by a psychologist. However, since the day that Pavlov conducted his famous experiment with the dogs and the bell, the concept that reward reinforces behavior has long been one that even the more stubborn skeptics can agree to and that is today supported by literally hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies. Receiving positive criticism is a rewarding experience, one that has a reinforcing effect on those that receive it.

There is a general principle in psychology: To teach a behavior, catch a person doing something right and reinforce it. Rather than focusing on a persons weaknesses and lecturing them on how to do it better, focus on their strengths and help them build upon them. Of course there comes a time to critique a person's weaknesses, but the rule of thumb is to start with their strengths and to always offer about 10 positive criticisms--4 or 5 at a minimum--for each negative one.

No, I'm not saying glass invented minimalism. But I am basically assuming, based on the conversation and video in this thread, that Glass invented the particular kind of music that is demonstrated in the appended video. I'm not going to speculate as to why people like the music, but it seems they do. Wether there was skill involved (I'm personally convinced there is) or it was just a fluke, or some other reason, Phillip Glass developed/popularized the style--I'm assuming--and thus gets recognition for it.

That dude has awesome facial expressions. I just wanted to say, I know nothing of Philip Glass, but I instantly recognized the ubiquitous style--along with its various techniques--that this guy is referring to. Also, I would say that the reason that Philip Glass gets recognition for this easily imitated music is obviously that he invented it. Plenty of simple music exists and its always the ones who invent or popularize it that get the credit. The other people that tend to get credit are the ones who master it to the highest degree--In this case probably also philip glass.

I have experienced the same thing. You have to accept the fact that your piece is not going to live up to your expectations; You are not going to find a better theme to this text or that text because you are not a better composer than the themes you have presently. Accept the fact that you don't presently have the ability to treat the text as well as you would like and either make do with a sub-par treatment, or set the theme aside until you have improved your abilities. Focus on self-improvement rather than constantly expecting yourself to perform at an unrealistic level (the top level) of performance. If you follow that advice, and the advice of Flint and Ticktock, I suspect that, among other benefits, you will find that you view your themes in a much more gratifying, realistic, and encouraging light. Besides, I doubt there will ever be any shortage of brilliant texts. Btw, I'm not judging your abilities, of which I am ignorant. These dynamics apply regardless of ability.

I played video games constantly for most of my life and now people frequently tell me that my compositions remind them of video game music even thought I don't intend it to. And I think every other music that I devote a reasonable amount of time to listening to is an influence; especially ones I listened to in my youth or the ones I consciously endeavor to absorb into my arsenal. Frank Zappa took many popular music forms to a whole other level. I often look to him as the role model for how all music styles have aspects worth emulating or employing in other contexts.

On the contrary, with psychology, neurology, and pattern recognition technology rapidly approaching their golden ages, the quest for a science of music is a far more plausible endeavor than ever. Currently though, an anthropological perspective best directs us towards the universal principles of music.