Is our perception of what sounds good here to stay?

I've been wondering: Will our current perception of what tones sound good together ever change. Will we ever thing that a major triad or something simple like that does not sound "good?" Will our current tonal theory "rules" ever change (because all the guidelines are there because we think they sound good, right?). And I'm not talking about a change in the next 100 years or something. This would take much longer. What are your ideas on this?

A bit of both. Appreciation is a mixture of bioligical (i.e. fixed) and social (i.e. changing) factors.

As an example, each hair cell in your ear responds to a certain frequency range. A major third is far enough apart for each tone to be registered by a different hair cell. But a minor 2nd, is not, so one hair cell tries to register both pitches, causing the "clash" and roughness that we hear.

So (unless genetic scientists change the design of the ear) a major third will always sound 'clearer' than a major 2nd, but whether or not we prefer the clear or the rough sound may well change, depending on society's tastes.... as they have since the birth of music.

Our rules will never change when attempting to write in a particular idiom. (For example, in most historical idioms, you never write a major third in the low register, since at low frequencies, one hair cell covers both pitches, resulting in 'roughness').... but there will undoubtedly be new idioms with new values and new "rules".

Will our current tonal theory "rules" ever change?

What -rules- are you talking about? I swear, theory classes need to STOP treating tonal theory like a set of rules or guidelines for music. This is such a stupid interpretation of tonal music...

Will our perception of what tones sound good together ever change?

Of course it will. Our attitudes are always changing as society changes, so what happens to "sound good" to us now may sound lame after it's been repeatedly used. This is really sort of a given.

I've been wondering: Will our current perception of what tones sound good together ever change. Will we ever thing that a major triad or something simple like that does not sound "good?" Will our current tonal theory "rules" ever change (because all the guidelines are there because we think they sound good, right?). And I'm not talking about a change in the next 100 years or something. This would take much longer. What are your ideas on this?

I expect it will all change, and definitely in the next 100 years. That's the way it's been progressing ever since Leonin & Perotin chanted their way to the top of the charts.

It's not so much that we will abandon our traditional tonal concept - yes, a major triad will always sound "good" ... what will happen is the evolution and inclusion of a broader acceptance of different structures. We've come a long way through Bach to Xenakis... from Duke Ellington to Maria Schneider... Louis Armstrong to Ornette Coleman... Chuck Berry to Herman Lee.

Where will we go next? I dunno...but we've still got a lot of ground to cover.

What -rules- are you talking about? I swear, theory classes need to STOP treating tonal theory like a set of rules or guidelines for music. This is such a stupid interpretation of tonal music...

I think I've always learned theory under the premise that it is a only a theory, a convenient method/collection of tools for analyzing, rather than a collection of rules for composing, music. Do you think tonal theory as a set of guidelines for the interpretation of music in relation to a given time period and pervading cultural thought is silly? Or are you just annoyed at academia for instilling and perpetuating specific rules into the minds of composers when music, in reality, is bound by no rules (the laws of physics aside)? Just curious.

In relation to the thread, I also imagine our perception of what tones sound good together will change. While some things probably won't change any time soon, like the overtone series which shapes so much of our music, cultural attitudes will shift to embrace more sounds. Ugh, too tired to elaborate with historical details right now. Think about the evolution of jazz or the electronic music of the 60s for places where more sounds became pleasing to (accepted by) the general public, and then think about the reaction to those sounds and the return to more "accessible" music in the public sphere. I also think there is a distinct difference between "acceptable" sounds in Western and East Asian cultures (I say East Asian because that is what I can speak to). Read some texts by Takemitsu for more on that or check out the book Locating East Asia in Western Art Music.

I think I've always learned theory under the premise that it is a only a theory, a convenient method/collection of tools for analyzing, rather than a collection of rules for composing, music. Do you think tonal theory as a set of guidelines for the interpretation of music in relation to a given time period and pervading cultural thought is silly? Or are you just annoyed at academia for instilling and perpetuating specific rules into the minds of composers when music, in reality, is bound by no rules (the laws of physics aside)? Just curious.

I learned theory as a historic development of dissonance, which is -sort of- how tonal theory developed in the Western Canon up to about 1840 or so... then approaches to dissonance shifted to expression/emotion before dissonance itself became a -characteristic- of music instead of a focal point. Of course, there are tons of differing interpretations of music history. This is one interpretation, the one I learned. Tonal music from the various periods we refer to in music history is simply a series of syntax-based approaches to music. A syntax is not a system of rules and procedures; it is an approach to music as a defined idiom of sound.

When tonal music is reduced to rules and procedures, it's reduced to a 'structure', not an art form. There's nothing to learn from tonal music when you refer to it as a structure.

I learned theory as a historic development of dissonance, which is -sort of- how tonal theory developed in the Western Canon up to about 1840 or so...

I guess that's not so different from my current theory course, which is concerned with the use of chromaticism throughout the centuries.

then approaches to dissonance shifted to expression/emotion before dissonance itself became a -characteristic- of music instead of a focal point.

I was taught that the development of chromaticism really took off when music began to reflect dramatic secular texts, particularly in madrigals around the time of Monteverdi. The new chromaticism soon moved from vocal music into all genres. The chromaticism (perhaps more accurately unfolding chromatic lines) and the working out of its generated dyad conflicts (such as a tension between B and Bb, or maybe F and F#) were the focal points of Western art music from roughly the mid-16th century to ~1840. I think it's fascinating that while the syntax changed the developmental process never really did in the music of that period. Then, as you said, dissonance became a characteristic instead of a focal point.

Of course, there are tons of differing interpretations of music history. This is one interpretation, the one I learned.

Same goes for what I just said. Thanks for the response.

I guess that's not so different from my current theory course, which is concerned with the use of chromaticism throughout the centuries.

You'll see you're only looking at music in the canon that appears to show rather concisely how chromaticism came about... just remember that the course itself is not offering a depiction of the full gamut of musical developments in the past 400 years or so... more on this in a moment.

I was taught that the development of chromaticism really took off when music began to reflect dramatic secular texts, particularly in madrigals around the time of Monteverdi. The new chromaticism soon moved from vocal music into all genres.

This is more or less accurate. Though, there were a handful of composers who rejected chromaticism as a -sung- form and would simply incorporate chromaticism into accompaniment rather than have the vocalist perform it, eventually many more came around to embrace chromaticism once more composers understood how it worked.

The chromaticism (perhaps more accurately unfolding chromatic lines) and the working out of its generated dyad conflicts (such as a tension between B and Bb, or maybe F and F#) were the focal points of Western art music from roughly the mid-16th century to ~1840.

This is not wholly accurate. I'm sure there are cases to be made for some composers, but there are many other things going on in that span of time that you're likely glossing over. The development of the Sonata form had little to do with 'chromaticism' and more to do with forming harmonic relationships and hierarchies. A Sonata's principle and secondary themes aren't usually built around tensions between chromatic pitches like B/Bb, F/F#, etc.. more often the Key Relationships are how a Sonata builds conflict. Composers like Beethoven likely worked out a series of key schemes for his various Symphonies, because audiences were often listening with somewhat more educated ears as upper class families in a feudal society. People actually -listened- for this stuff, and when you see composers doing -something else- instead of what audiences more likely 'expected' then you really wound up with something that was either very special (at least for us today) or a trainwreck (which might actually sound GREAT to many of us today, mind you).

Chromaticism is surely -part- of the story, but it's not the only aspect of music's development or even something we can look at and say, "Oh, that's what they were thinking!" In all honesty, there is no grandiose ideal that composers from one generation to the next were trying to go for in developing the world of music. There were certainly -individuals- who may have studied with the same teacher or worked in the same town as another composer at certain points in history, but I see too many examples where this is made into more than it really is...

After the church convened its committee to discuss the "rules" for sacred music, there haven't really been -rules- that "govern" music. There were those who believed sound was only 'music' when it sounded familiar, and this music was only 'art' to those people when it sounded closer to Western art music of the time period. This had nothing to do with rules as much as it had to do with a composer's understanding of the idiom. Unlike some here, I don't believe it was pure dumb luck that we study some pieces in the canon of Western Classicism while we tend to glaze over others. When there's more to talk about in one piece than there is in another should we really dedicate equivalent spans of time to both out of fairness? (bleh, I'm getting off track here...)

I think it's fascinating that while the syntax changed the developmental process never really did in the music of that period. Then, as you said, dissonance became a characteristic instead of a focal point.

Yeah, well, there is no real defined -developmental process- in music from any period, as far as I'm aware. What exactly are you referring to? Counterpoint?

I would say yes and no, some things like Rap will come and go, just like early rock (elvis) kind of came and went (that is, not many people still produce that type of music) however, some music will always be here to stay, like our famous classical composers. I don't think things like that will change, but "fads" if you will, like rap, most rock, maybe even country, will come and go.

Will what sounds good change? Well, I think history really has a few things to say on this topic - in most genres, really [as I don't know much on Jazz, I'll leave that up to others.] If one takes a look at any current ensembles repertoire of work one will get a glimpse over what audiences appreciate - an eclectic mix, really. I came from a very conservative city. The symphony orchestra there performed works from all the epochs of music. On a given weekend, you could hear Beethoven with Bartok or Mozart with Shostakovich or Berio with Bach. The audiences were very picky on an individual basis. Some would walk out on a piece of Bach, others on a piece of Mozart, and many would walk out on Berio. Bartok was very well liked as was Shostakovich. Key thing here is, there is no telling what sounds in the pieces the audience enjoyed or found repulsive. I do take issue with something that was said above, largely because I view it to be false: Of course it will. Our attitudes are always changing as society changes, so what happens to "sound good" to us now may sound lame after it's been repeatedly used. This is really sort of a given. If this statement were true then many genres of music would be FAR different soundscapes: rock, jazz, minimalism, pop, etc. All of these rely on repetition of different types and ALL are extremely popular. Take the popularity of minimalism for instance as an example. Minimalism is exactly that - repetition, with gradual change. Pop relies on repeated patterns at its smallest levels and ritornello on its largest level [choruses]. So definitely, if a sound is repeatedly used doesn't mean that it will sound lame or grow tiring - quite the adverse effect is shown on a much daily basis in every country on the globe. Classically, even looking at the concert programs of many modern symphony orchestras show the same 'classic' works over and over again - some works of which have seen regular performance since their premieres century ago.

My opinion on this:

There is no objective way to determine what sounds sound good. Nor is there a definite way to quantify what sounds good and what does not. All of that is first up to the composer, then the performer, and then the audience. The composer writes what he/she wants to write - and obviously, if you don't like a composition you are working on you are not going to finish it. The performer's and music directors choose works that fit their taste - if a piece doesn't match the criteria they are looking for then they will not play it. The audience member will not sit and listen to a piece they do not like - throughout history audience members have walked out on pieces and that will not change. I personally believe that music is one vast representation of humanity. As each generation adds to that monument things are added and others are taken away. And truly, if you look at music history and the compositions from each era within - you do see this. One generation adds upon the work of the previous...etc. So, in that statement I echo what Robin said: It's not so much that we will abandon our traditional tonal concept - yes, a major triad will always sound "good" ... what will happen is the evolution and inclusion of a broader acceptance of different structures. We've come a long way through Bach to Xenakis... from Duke Ellington to Maria Schneider... Louis Armstrong to Ornette Coleman... Chuck Berry to Herman Lee.

There is no objective way to determine what sounds sound good. Nor is there a definite way to quantify what sounds good and what does not.

Allow me to disagree and contradict what I've sustained for a whole while. I actually think there is sufficient reason to believe that certain systems and choices that composers made are rooted in the ways our brain processes music and emotion.

For example, we know that emotions we recognize in speech carry over to music (which is why a tribe in Africa never exposed to western music before can recognize western "happy sounding music" as happy with a percentage above chance alone along with other two basic emotions.) Another thing is that the "aesthetic path" music takes in the western canon isn't entirely random either, but it's made (instinctively) to stimulate certain areas of the brain in certain ways. The concept of "tension" and "release," as people put it, is recently being uncovered in having chemical-release implications in our neurology that makes such music "pleasurable" to us.

Indeed, even the concept of consonance being more "pleasurable" is actually being studied and it can be said that the results found thus far are conclusive that consonance is processed differently than dissonance and wield different chemical reactions as well.

It's arguably the first time in history where we're getting close to actually understanding why music history was "stuck" apparently for quite a while in music which abides by seemingly arbitrary patterns and so on.

What does any of this mean for modern music however? I have no idea. Since I've been SORELY mistaken before I rather hold off my conclusions until I see much more data and research.

I think that we're a lot more limited by our biology than I previously thought, but it does not mean that people who like Boulez are lying or anything like that. There's way too many things we still don't understand exactly and that may be one of them, plus modern music also contains various "aesthetic paths" which intersect with the western canon ones, except using different languages.

So yeah.

Allow me to disagree and contradict what I've sustained for a whole while.

Wow, I just don't know what to think about this. When I first met you on this forum, you made me change my views on all of this. I clearly seen what you meant when you said that this kind of debate is moot because its all subjective with very little objective background. Which, after all this time, I've checked and seen for myself. I do believe emotions play a part as well as the brains reaction to all of this - but, for each culture [as you yourself have said], there is little to say that what a person in Manhattan and a person in Ghana find pleasing will match. There are definite differences in the way the various constituents of music are treated in both cultures and this, no doubt, leads to the differences in overall sound between the two. Very interesting, though, to see you change ideas - and quite shocking! :mellow:

Wow, I just don't know what to think about this. When I first met you on this forum, you made me change my views on all of this. I clearly seen what you meant when you said that this kind of debate is moot because its all subjective with very little objective background. Which, after all this time, I've checked and seen for myself. I do believe emotions play a part as well as the brains reaction to all of this - but, for each culture [as you yourself have said], there is little to say that what a person in Manhattan and a person in Ghana find pleasing will match. There are definite differences in the way the various constituents of music are treated in both cultures and this, no doubt, leads to the differences in overall sound between the two. Very interesting, though, to see you change ideas - and quite shocking! :mellow:

Actually no, the person in Manhattan and the person in Ghana have practically the same brain build, they will perceive things in a very, very similar way. But, of course, culture is a huge factor. For example, many cultures don't have music that mean specific emotions, such as "happy" or "sad," but instead the music has a ritualistic character. There's a lot of stuff which varies and gives rise to diversity. But beneath it all there are certain cognitive systems that the brain uses, such as listening for syntactic breaks and so on, which is present in everyone regardless of their culture.

But think of it as culture instead of modifying the actual brain mechanisms, it build symbols out of discernible features in music. Some of these symbols are based on hardwired factors (it's no accident that music recognized in tests as "fearful" or "sad" have a striking resemblance to the way speech works when the same emotions are recognized. This overlap isn't to be underestimated) but others CAN be entirely arbitrary and subjective.

And the way we handle symbols can make all the difference and indeed put the ball on the "subjective" court. However, there is actual evidence for which types of things cause what types of reactions and it suggests that certain aesthetic features are not there by accident, but instead are there because they are the most effective at "drawing out" those reactions. I posted a thread on neurology and music with a lot of the literature I've read that has forced me to reconsider my views with more detail.

And, eh, all it takes for me to change my mind is evidence.

Actually no, the person in Manhattan and the person in Ghana have practically the same brain build, they will perceive things in a very, very similar way. But, of course, culture is a huge factor. For example, many cultures don't have music that mean specific emotions, such as "happy" or "sad," but instead the music has a ritualistic character. There's a lot of stuff which varies and gives rise to diversity. But beneath it all there are certain cognitive systems that the brain uses, such as listening for syntactic breaks and so on, which is present in everyone regardless of their culture.

But think of it as culture instead of modifying the actual brain mechanisms, it build symbols out of discernible features in music. Some of these symbols are based on hardwired factors (it's no accident that music recognized in tests as "fearful" or "sad" have a striking resemblance to the way speech works when the same emotions are recognized. This overlap isn't to be underestimated) but others CAN be entirely arbitrary and subjective.

And the way we handle symbols can make all the difference and indeed put the ball on the "subjective" court. However, there is actual evidence for which types of things cause what types of reactions and it suggests that certain aesthetic features are not there by accident, but instead are there because they are the most effective at "drawing out" those reactions. I posted a thread on neurology and music with a lot of the literature I've read that has forced me to reconsider my views with more detail.

And, eh, all it takes for me to change my mind is evidence.

You do realize that we just said the same things EXCEPT I didn't mention the break up of the brain.

I was just addressing the bit you said that there's no objective way to determine what sounds sound good, since there is evidence that suggests that indeed there is.

Otherwise I don't really contradict my previous opinion THAT much either.

I was just addressing the bit you said that there's no objective way to determine what sounds sound good, since there is evidence that suggests that indeed there is.

Otherwise I don't really contradict my previous opinion THAT much either.

I was fascinated this past spring when I read that there is physical evidence that documents the brains reaction to major triads. Definitely an interesting phenom I think. What made you change your position slightly, if you don't mind sharing?

Oh, I basically started to have some thoughts when I was reading on about the brain processes that are affected and which chemicals are released under which situations and stimuli. I'm mostly still organizing my own ideas on the topic so I really can't say what my "stance" is on the topic considering that I honestly don't know enough to even have one.

In any case, I rather know what's actually going on than believe whatever I want regardless of the evidence. For example that thing with the language overlap totally fucked up a couple of theories I had, so I've had to rethink some of the things I previously took for granted and I learned the valuable lesson to be more vigilant of not "knowing the answers" without having tangible evidence that it's the case.

But I'm actually having fun studying this stuff for real now, so that's all that counts.

I was fascinated this past spring when I read that there is physical evidence that documents the brains reaction to major triads.

But this could be a learned reaction. You'd have to stick babies in MRI machines to see if it's purely natural.

Indeed, even the concept of consonance being more "pleasurable" is actually being studied and it can be said that the results found thus far are conclusive that consonance is processed differently than dissonance and wield different chemical reactions as well.

Again, your brain is bound to realease 'pleasure' chemicals when you listen to something you like - that's what pleasure is. But this may well be a socially learned reaction.

But this could be a learned reaction. You'd have to stick babies in MRI machines to see if it's purely natural.

They did. Well not babies since babies don't have all the upper functions developed yet which are crucial (and that we're actually studying.) There was a study later done (also with MRI) where brain activity was traced and measured depending on various stimuli. It was found that when someone knows the "idiom" of a musical piece, like say we know the western canon, certain mechanisms kick in. For example, our ears always listen into the future, that is to say, our brain is always trying to guess what we'll hear next and when we're within a certain system and we find something unexpected this tension releases chemicals and when we know that we'll at some point come back to the "safe spot" in a piece, when we get there other chemicals are released and the whole thing works towards a cognitive reward system of sorts.

This has been described as an "aesthetic path" which music takes. It builds up your expectations of that "reward" by using musical elements outside (but not QUITE outside) of what you expect, so that later when it returns the "reward" is significant.

Again, your brain is bound to realease 'pleasure' chemicals when you listen to something you like - that's what pleasure is. But this may well be a socially learned reaction.

Like I said above, this is much more intrinsic to the way our cognitive mechanisms function and the effect they have, before we even realize we've heard anything consciously. That culture can reinforce things or negate others is true, but there are things which are rather inflexible, like the way our language centers work and how our ears process signals of different kinds.

You'll see you're only looking at music in the canon that appears to show rather concisely how chromaticism came about... just remember that the course itself is not offering a depiction of the full gamut of musical developments in the past 400 years or so... more on this in a moment.

I'm sure there are cases to be made for some composers, but there are many other things going on in that span of time that you're likely glossing over. The development of the Sonata form had little to do with 'chromaticism' and more to do with forming harmonic relationships and hierarchies. A Sonata's principle and secondary themes aren't usually built around tensions between chromatic pitches like B/Bb, F/F#, etc.. more often the Key Relationships are how a Sonata builds conflict. Composers like Beethoven likely worked out a series of key schemes for his various Symphonies, because audiences were often listening with somewhat more educated ears as upper class families in a feudal society. People actually -listened- for this stuff, and when you see composers doing -something else- instead of what audiences more likely 'expected' then you really wound up with something that was either very special (at least for us today) or a trainwreck (which might actually sound GREAT to many of us today, mind you).

Chromaticism is surely -part- of the story, but it's not the only aspect of music's development or even something we can look at and say, "Oh, that's what they were thinking!" In all honesty, there is no grandiose ideal that composers from one generation to the next were trying to go for in developing the world of music. There were certainly -individuals- who may have studied with the same teacher or worked in the same town as another composer at certain points in history, but I see too many examples where this is made into more than it really is...

Of course chromaticism (or dissonance for that matter) is not the whole picture. Understanding form is a crucial aspect of theory, and we learn, for example, that the key relationships in pieces framed by the sonata principle are integral to the form. However, that's only top level analysis. In the background, in relation to a specific tonic, one can trace a chromatic ascent (plus a diatonic descent) and find so-called dyad conflicts that are, by the great composers, meticulously played out throughout. There is a development process that unites composers from the time period in question. I don't claim to know what composers other than myself were/are thinking, but a "systems analysis" (that is, an analysis based on observing shifts in 11-pitch-class collections) can reveal underlying, informing conflicts (particularly of the dyad sort) that encompass whole pieces or movements. I know you're not convinced, especially because I've said very little, and since it would take me a very long time to explain on the forum, I highly recommend reading Composition, Chromaticism, and the Development Process by Henry Burnett and Roy Nitzberg. It's a new theory, and it's no cake walk, but it may change the way you think about analysis and your own process of composition.

As far as a grandiose ideal that composers tried to express in their works, I always felt there was one: unity; the creation of a unified soundscape that "checks throughout, that follows its own laws consistently." At least that seems to be the idea in the music we're talking about.

Unlike some here, I don't believe it was pure dumb luck that we study some pieces in the canon of Western Classicism while we tend to glaze over others. When there's more to talk about in one piece than there is in another should we really dedicate equivalent spans of time to both out of fairness? (bleh, I'm getting off track here...)

I'm with you. All music is not created equal. And it's also likely that we've lost the material of some composers worth studying because history was unfavorable to them.

Have we done a complete 180?

My head is spinning, SSC. You have to stop because I'm getting dizzy and I'm liable to puke (I get motion sickness quite easily, mind you).

I believe -learning theory- and study into cognition will take us a great distance, but let's be sure we get down to the meat and bones of it all... our brains are program-oriented. As cognitive beings, we absorb/observe sources of information, subjectivize this information into knowledge, then either store that knowledge for later application or immediately use it. Our mind is very much like a processing plant.

That being said, how these chemicals release when certain criteria are met seems mystical or magical to some, unknown to others, and at least to me, somewhat obvious. When I hear a piece by Mozart, the perceived moments of expectation others experience is more lost on me. It's not that I don't hear these moments. They just never (even before I studied music) had much effect or impact on me. In fact, it wasn't until I began to -think- about writing music that I really found any of it "satisfying" me. There were sounds that appealed to me and others that didn't. In short, we shouldn't be overstating the significance of cognition. It is an important area to understand, but let's just be clear there are other domains of learning than only cognition.

For example, how you -feel- about music very often affects what you learn about it at the cognitive level. Some advocate Ethnomusicology courses for this very reason, because whether we want to admit it or not, we hold ourselves back when we fail to address and overcome biases. Thus, when two listeners are listening to a contemporary piece and a classic, familiar piece, if all we're studying is brain patterns, we're not really taking into account an entire domain of learning that directly impacts HOW the information is absorbed. Thus, given how we all react similarly to something that might be less "known" to us, a likely source of obscurity in all of this discussion of cognitive processing in our brains rests in how affectionate we are towards what we hear.

So, when a skilled, trained composer/musician hears a classical work by the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, etc, and you pair this up with the works of composers like Crumb, Carter, Boulez, Stockhausen, or maybe a dozen other styles, even, your results will only vary by the degree to which they are affectionate toward the style/idiom/sound they are hearing. So, in much the way that we may be 'wired' in a sense by nature (which is actually behavioral -imprinting- for those who care to know), we can see just as much variance by the degree to which we are affectionate toward the event in question, whether we enjoy listening to Stockhausen or Beethoven.

Like I said, it's -important- to know the degree to which cognition plays its role in how we learn, behave, and experience life overall. But it's one domain of several in learning theory. We have to be mindful of how other aspects of learning impact cognition. To that end, SSC, I would simply offer that you not be too quick to change your tune. I'm certainly happy that you have formed such genuine curiosity of cognition in music. I've just always valued the big picture as it helps to -balance- our subjectivization of knowledge. When we absorb/observe what we call -evidence- we have to remember that it's merely information we are processing and has yet to hold meaning to us until we give it meaning in the transference to knowledge that occurs in the process. In all our processing, if all we do is take evidence in this binary fashion without associating it with everything else we know, then our knowledge becomes piecemeal that winds up becoming completely dissassociated with what it means to us.

I hope I don't sound too preachy. I just wanted to try to explain this as it relates to how we learn as a species. The cognitive element is only part of the larger picture.

the most interesting part is that any thing produces chemical reactions in the brain. and different reactions with different chemicals. and, no, because some of them produce water and we live in a planet made of water does not, by logical induction, make one think why and that water feels good/bad.

there's huge logical gap and a leap here drawing conclusions.

so no, until there's enough convincing theory of mind, there's no hard science about musical and other more abstract thoughts relating to the sphere of subjectivity.

brain does not emit thoughts like kidneys emit piss.

brain does not emit thoughts like kidneys emit piss.

This. Is. Classic.

I -heart- you, Pliorius. :D

I'm not going to argue about this, but I'll say that the way the brain works means that we have areas where we have a lot of control over, and areas where we simply don't.

We can't control the way our language centers work, we can only work with the end product. For example, it's almost impossible to "unlearn" the way we process emotions in our speech and due to the overlap, it's therefore almost impossible to really program yourself to hear something that is "happy" as really "sad," we don't have much control over that directly and we really can't help it much since we use it ALL the time in our every day lives. We are CONSTANTLY (consciously and unconsciously) listening for the "tune" of other people's voices and assessing their feelings and intentions through it. This carries over to music.

Where we have control is that, after that first assessment which has nothing to do with our opinions, we can then label it/classify it/justify it/oppose it/etc. Like if a seemingly "happy" song triggers a bad memory or emotions. These are all things that come after the fact.

But anyway, that's all.

Well I think what sounds goof is more of a matter of opinion. However, theory will change..... at some point but not soon!