Why does swing sound so "good" ?

[azyte]

heh, spirituality can never be experienced as some kind of objective thing to understand, it's exclusively subjective and as such is beyond the simple confines of ego-driven mental observation. Fun though it might be to intellectualise about such things the only way to truly experience a spiritual aspect of being is to be out of the mind and as such not via drugs which introduce all kinds of self delusional states (which, of course, can be fun and interesting in and of themselves) and can easily fuel a myriad of impressive looking waffle.

[Km7]

Although some of the offtopic aspects are in my interests (such as those written by aciddose) I doubt they are for this thread and forum. We can continue discussing and speculating about everything such as quantum physics, OBE, soul, mind, what and where it is, God, Universe(s), existence, but you probably imagine what this would mean and what would happen to the thread. I would just mention shortly that life and consciousness are not limited in the body itself, although with most individuals they are concentrated 'there'; they are associated with it. Of course consciousness wouldn't be understood at all if scientists insist on researching the wrong component - the brain. Which is entirely different thing and not the consciousness itself. It is like researching a circuit - you would be able to see how the drivers would drive, their course, cornering and speed, but would know nothing about the drivers themselves.
And asking "why" and "why" to every answer to "why" following the fibre leads to the root - the creation and the creator. It would be interesting to write and speculate about those things and also about collective consciousness, but it is not for this thread.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Although some of the offtopic aspects are in my interests (such as those written by aciddose) I doubt they are for this thread and forum. We can continue discussing and speculating about everything such as quantum physics, OBE, soul, mind, what and where it is, God, Universe(s), existence, but you probably imagine what this would mean and what would happen to the thread.

Too late, I think this thread was unsalvageable from around page 2 or 3! It then descended into trivial arguments and finally turned to completely irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. - Just a typical thread in the Music Theory forum then

[aciddose]

it hasnt gone anywhere entirely off-topic. i said "my theory of why swing sounds good is X." someone else said "i think swing sounds good because of Y, and that is entirely subjective."

i said "i think there isnt really any such thing as Y, and swing is in fact completely objective and driven directly by X." i went on to explain how Y is actually a component of X in my opinion, and so fundamentally everything you can explain with Y can be explained with X.

we're still talking about swing here

just ignore the noise of "many possible semantics of the word 'swing'" and move on with the original discussion.

[Ubiety]

And I said that Y came first, X second. That X is a generalization of Y. Just because X comes before Y in the alphabet doesn't parallel to the Y and X variables represented in this discussion of swing. Furthermore, I suggested that X and Y are both objective and subjective, driven by each other. That X being a component of Y is limited in its explanation of Y because Y communicates as intended, whereas X is but a component of that communication.

Just a matter of preferred perception. Which is why there exists controversy. It's okay, it ain't bad. Swing is good.

And I enjoyed the brain workout that I had with aciddose.

[aciddose]

"I said that Y came first, X second", only if you're talking about what we've come to understand over time. spirituality has always been a generalization, a kind of blanket term which can encompass pretty much anything we "dont know", yet it is offered as an explanation or an answer in some vain attempt to deny the idea that we "do not know" something.

in the past it has been used as an answer. now, we're finding that it is no longer a blanket term to cover "the subjective unknown" (as you're using it) but it is instead a very specific set, part of the topics covered by objectivism. personally i have no doubt that all aspects of what was once considered "spirituality" are end products of specific systems. the desire to have an understanding of the world around us and the desire to have some guiding "all mighty" are both driven by instincts essential to our survival. without curiosity we could not grow in efficiency, without a desire to follow a great leader we would not have the same social order that we call "civilization".

you said you think that the function of "swing" is directly connected with "spirituality" and is therefore subjective and out of reach of "objectivity". my claim is that "spirituality" itself IS in reach of objectivity and so therefore any component of spirituality is as well.

[Km7]

Yes. The link seems to broke down here: "...connected with spirituality and THEREFORE subjective". I also agree on the explanation about simpler rhythms - I think the same way about them.
Actually, we could pretend that getting out of topic doesn't exist, because everything is connected to everything, so there is certain relation between things and we can pretend that what we talk about is in connection with the topic... So, relativity (again) - we choose where to draw a line, how many hops to count and with what resolution, in order to determine "offtopic".

[Ubiety]

you said you think that the function of "swing" is directly connected with "spirituality" and is therefore subjective and out of reach of "objectivity".

When did I say this? I never said this.

Also, when I refer to the unknown, It's just that--unknown. Not a subjective unknown. How can there possibly be such a thing? If you're talking about something like, "I just experienced something, but I don't know what it is that I've just experienced." I'm not talking about that. To me that's represents a known variable, it represents an experience, even though there may not be a name for it or an explanation for it. Don't get me all mixed up!

[aciddose]

"When did I say this? I never said this."

must've been somebody else then, who cares though i was just explaining how we got into this discussion, and how it is actually tied into "why does swing sound so good".

anyway if anybody can come up with more explanations for "swing" or more importantly the whole "rhythmic modulation" that would get us more on topic. so far we've got:

1) swing better activates pattern recognition systems
2) familiarity with heartbeat/walking or other rhythms in nature
3) something related to spirituality

did i miss one?

when i said "subjective unknown", this is like how many people try to describe "god". it's some kind of implication that the subject is both unknown/completely subjective and impossible to know, and that all related topics are likewise. it is kind of like a "nothing to see here, move along", "please do not bother to think, we'll do that for you" kind of thing to assert about any topic.

that is the impression a lot of posts have given "you cant know swing unless you've swung, you cant learn it from a textbook, you learn it from other musicians" and so on. i called these posters "popes of swing".

[basic channel]

My God, people can talk around here

Some interesting points though - glad to see my humble topic running to 14 pages !

[Km7]

I don't have enough time to spare in the forum for such discussions (reading, writing, explaining), so my apologizes - I have for sure missed some things in the posts in this thread. I mostly support the 1st and 2nd explanations, as I already said. But if one cannot give logical explaination and proof (mostly to the third one), then I think this flood with speculations should come to an end or move to philosophers' forum.
As for the simple rhythms preference - it's simple. Those rhythms are more natural to us because they are the rhythms of nature, life, working (both work in the 'outside' world and our bodies' functions), they are connected to and represent many systems in nature we are used to. Such rhythms require less processing and energy consumption (especially in the brain), therefore they seem more efficient and are easier. Example - hammering with simple and complex rhythm - try it and you'll see what I mean.

[Sascha Franck]

Example - hammering with simple and complex rhythm - try it and you'll see what I mean.

Nice analogy.

[napalmbob]

...that's why I love Rebirth. Per pattern swing. OK, so I'm living in the past.

[DrBoomBoom]

Hi,

I'm a newbie here, and worse than that, I didn't read every response, so I'm probably repeating someone. However, I'm also shameless, so here goes.

I think swing is called swing because the guy would swing the gal.

It feels good to me because it proscribes lateral motion. Things in straight twos encourage folks to move in straight lines, up and down, or in a march. Two points describe a straight line. Swing meters out in threes, encourage movement in a lateral way, folks move in curves and can put in a glide. Think ice skating to a Strauss waltz, step glide stride. Now think ice skating to bluegrass, step step step step. Three points describe a plane.

When swing, as a form of jazz early in the last century, was developing, the musicians started playing with time, hitting the backbeat early tightens the swing and makes folks "jump." Hitting the backbeat late loosens the swing and makes folks glide. Not to mention the feeling of space. Tighter swings feel closer and looser swings feel further away, the band pulses toward you or away from you, the room seems smaller or larger.

Anyway, that's why swing feels good to me.

Great forum here

[frequency_algorithm]

music was never made to be analyzed. don't you get it? Who cares why swing sounds good, just pick up some drum sticks and beat your meat. Rock out with your cock out. Life is fucken funny, so laugh. I don't want to read about spiritual shit in here, I can read that on my own. Get back to talking about sex drugs and rock and roll.