Experiment - inherent meaning in music

I think I've participated enough as it is, actually. Who says I'm not having fun?

I think I did. Maybe you're not having 'enough' fun. There is potential 'fun' lacking in your 'fun-ness.'

I didn't vote at all, though #1 sounded more like Robin to me. #2 is too clear and simplistically spontaneous, hardly something one would spend much time on.

I didn't vote at all, though #1 sounded more like Robin to me. #2 is too clear and simplistically spontaneous, hardly something one would spend much time on.

Well it's real easy to come out and say it after the fact, but if the answer as switched we would've still gotten the exact same vote results. Really, there's no plausible reason why Rob couldn't have chosen #2 to be the right answer in this case and Gardener already explained some reasons why you could get the impression #2 "had more meaning," which was the point of the experiment.

That's just my view and evaluation of the situation since the beginning that finally turned out to be true. I agree with what Gardener said and, accordingly, that #2 could seem "more meaningful". I said in the beginning that #2 has bigger chances for commercial success among the masses. ;)

I said in the beginning that #2 has bigger chances for commercial success among the masses. ;)

Of course it does! It's the theme music to THE INCREDIBLES, you know, that Disney-Pixar movie?! :headwall:

:hmmm:

In the end, the inherent meaningfulness to me wasn't what tipped anyone off as to which one was which...it was the over-all construction and apparent "effort" put into it...

Neat.

Also....the Incredibles?! ....:blink: THAT was 100% unintentional.

:hmmm:

In the end, the inherent meaningfulness to me wasn't what tipped anyone off as to which one was which...it was the over-all construction and apparent "effort" put into it...

Neat.

Well people are acting on the material you gave them. If you had written both melodies with just as much detail to the score or if they were more similar, it'd have been even easier to tell how random it is.

Of course they can't decide based on "inherent meaningfulness", that's garbage and we know it. They must act on things that actually exist, like their opinion of what looks to have more effort invested into it, or what seems "more original" to them, etc. None of it has to do with the original question at all obviously.

I said in the beginning that #2 has bigger chances for commercial success among the masses. ;)

Actually, I thought it'd be exactly the other way round. Most commercially successful songs I hear are very carefully elaborated, conform to classical proportions, etc. and don't have many "weird edges" that make them "seem unfinished". Vague, open-ended structures aren't typical of this kind of "successful music".

Actually, I thought it'd be exactly the other way round. Most commercially successful songs I hear are very carefully elaborated, conform to classical proportions, etc. and don't have many "weird edges" that make them "seem unfinished". Vague, open-ended structures aren't typical of this kind of "successful music".

No Gardener.

Just look at Lady Gaga.

She has unclassical proprotions and tons of weird edges. She bleeds when singing and she is entirely unfinished! Not to mention she is 100% successful.

Geeze.

No Gardener.

Just look at Lady Gaga.

She has unclassical proprotions and tons of weird edges. She bleeds when singing and she is entirely unfinished! Not to mention she is 100% successful.

Geeze.

Methinks you should take a class is Sarcasm 101.

Methinks you should take a class is Sarcasm 101.

I think you should stop using archaic English and learn some grammar.

Lady Gaga is absolutely amazing. The end.

Lady Gaga is absolutely amazing. The end.

No. :mellow:

All depends on your definitions of those pesky words...

If nothing else, something should be said of the art of mixing... Mad unsung heroes.

Methinks you should take a class is Sarcasm 101.

What makes you think Gardener was being sarcastic?

No. :mellow:

Yeah, she speaks for human rights and is creative. Two things you hate. I guess that isn't cool.

Everyone else knows Lady Gaga is inherently cool. Why can't you?

Lady Gaga is cool, but not inherently. Her coolness lies in the mind of the beholder; it isn't an inherent property of her physical manifestation.

Lady Gaga is cool, but not inherently. Her coolness lies in the mind of the beholder; it isn't an inherent property of her physical manifestation.

Well said. :)

Also....the Incredibles?! ....:blink: THAT was 100% unintentional.

TBH I don't really hear it.

Incredibles

Lady Gaga is cool, but not inherently. Her coolness lies in the mind of the beholder; it isn't an inherent property of her physical manifestation.

Of course not. Her coolness has to do with her music. Entirely abstract and inherent. This only applies to Lady Gaga.

TBH I don't really hear it.

Me neither :dunno:

TBH I don't really hear it.

Yeah, well, after listening to it it's not as close to any 'main theme'. When I listen to the intervals just in the first six notes of Jessome's example, I'm reminded of the music from when the main character is sitting in his study feeling nostalgic about the past. Maybe that's just a fleeting moment in the film or something that stuck with me...

I know what I'm hearing sounds familiar to some theme I've heard in a film as well... and if it's not The Incredibles, then it's something else. Or I'm crazy. Probably both, actually.

I don't know THE INCREDIBLES (should I?). And though I agree with Gardener from analytical point of view, it's #2 that sounds more pop-ish to me and easier to remember (which is also theoretically explainable, of course!). I am trying to look at this as a regular listener and not someone who knows music theory and writes music.

Interesting theory.

I suspect, however, that it's probably not accurate.

Should I expand my experiment!!!???

Perhaps a Phase 2: Using the same melodies, I could ask what emotions they each extract from the listener. If your hypothesis is correct, one should evoke a particular sentiment, while the other will evoke...nothing? Apathy?

:dunno: Should I bother?

I'm not sure you even understand your own question (or perhaps it's me) but if one person hears a "sad" melody and is "moved" by it while another experiences "apathy" as you say...then you just proved music has no inheirent quality. Otherwise we would all experience the same thing.

Fire is inheirently "hot". We ALL agree on that. "Even Now" by Barry Manilow makes some people cry. But everybody?

Believe me, I weep like a school girl to certain music but that is because I bring my thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, experiences etc to the table. It's the old "If a tree falls I'm the woods" question.

I side with Stavinsky and Frank Zappa on this one. Music has no inherent value in and of ITSELF. It requires "perceivers".

I voted for 2 for the same reason as Gardner. It was the more accessible, the phrases were build with a similar rhythm. Someone making up a random melody wouldn't this simple.

Melody 1 contained in my perspective those elements I would use to fool me. The cliche beginning and end (sorry). And a piece in between with a more interesting rhythm; the gipsy feel (Gb A Gb F). So I thought this one was designed to fool me, so I voted for the other :D

I'm not sure you even understand your own question (or perhaps it's me)

It's you ;)

... Music has no inherent value in and of ITSELF. It requires "perceivers".

I know.

I was just facetiously pounding that point home with (what should appear to be) absurd experiments.

:whistling: