Is Music Really Universal?

[emcee]

I've had a guy take a call mid stream at a urinal at the local hardware store and continue the call after the flush..

just be clear, this was a real bathroom and not just a toilet on display right?

Interesting visual. But no. He just reached into his pocket and I thought ok, mute or reject call but it was "heeeeeeey my spunkybuns..."

Glad he didn't say "was just thinking of you" that'd possibly pissed her off..

[incubus]

Human beings are awesome.

[incubus]

Oh, sorry Harry, where we're we?

[emcee]

I think consensus about the original topic was music is like language and food, it exists in every culture and even if it's worlds apart (T Swift vs Amazonian tribe) it's still music. Except Europe (the band, not the continent).

We also agree stupidity knows no boundaries, and face timing whilst on the sh*tter happens. As does people who do things whilst driving they shouldn't (I claim being tiny bit guilty but predominantly reserving phone usage for streaming music and taking notes via Siri for anything from reminders to musical thoughts).

And the grass is greener on the rainy side.

[aciddose]

Something about music ("very poorly" defined, like "intelligence" or "life") is indeed "universal" in that it can create an emotional response in a subject. That aspect of it is definite, although the specific effect it has is entirely subjective and it may not have any effect at all in one subject while producing an extreme effect in another. A week later the result from these two subjects may be either no longer present or reversed!

There is no doubt any auditory stimuli can bring back memories... for example a reasonably well known case: PTSD symptoms triggered by the fireworks/explosives people are about to (couple weeks - Halloween) let loose in neighborhoods almost everywhere.

So the question we're faced with is can we in some way demonstrate conclusively the difference between that sort of effect ("not music") and "music". To do so we'd need to come up with a far better definition for "music" first, which is itself entirely subjective.

TL;DR: No.

The important thing is to not get too stressed out over it and just try to have fun. Fun other than face-timing me while you're on the John.

[emcee]

That's the beauty of music - it can and can't be categorised. It can be a didgeridoo and two sticks, or a full 90 piece philharmonic orchestra.

[harryupbabble]

Oh, sorry Harry, where we're we?

We were in the universe trying to get home and then we reached the seventh planet and come to think of it we can stay here if we want to. I just remembered that I happen to be an advocate of free speech and do go on tangents myself. So, I guess, here, we can be anywhere... within the site limits, at least.

[emcee]

You've been watching too much Red Dwarf (in one go) haven't you?

[incubus]

Oh, sorry Harry, where we're we?

We were in the universe trying to get home and then we reached the seventh planet and come to think of it we can stay here if we want to. I just remembered that I happen to be an advocate of free speech and do go on tangents myself. So, I guess, here, we can be anywhere... within the site limits, at least.

Well, to be back on topic kinda, one aspect of music that is undeniable is "rhythm"

If it's a "beat" or something in the backgroud of some show or movie, or whatever, the majority of people can relate to that.

[harryupbabble]

Red Dwarf. Doctor Who. I think I once signed those out from the library. Cosmos seem vaguely familiar. They are probably all at YouTube anyways. Universal sci-fi taste? Just remembered Farscape.

[incubus]

Never got to see Red Dwarf. Might be on amazon (but probably paid)

Never watched "Farscape" either. Love most of SG-1/etc (but not "universe" .... coincidence? Discuss)

[emcee]

Red Dwarf worth a watch. Farscape, bits n pieces. More due to lack of hours in the day than anything else. SG-1 made time for but that was back in the day when I had less juggling to do (not in a circus way, lifestyle)..

[aciddose]

Well, to be back on topic kinda, one aspect of music that is undeniable is "rhythm"

If it's a "beat" or something in the backgroud of some show or movie, or whatever, the majority of people can relate to that.

What about the pecking of a woodpecker? Often irregular, wavering in both time (space between groups of pulses, size of groups) and frequency (rate of pulses). Hammering shingles on a roof?

There is no way to clearly distinguish these rhythms from musical rhythm because they're just variations of the same thing.

What about defining the word relate? Does a particular rhythm increase or decrease "excitement" (as defined by epinephrine concentration) and is this effect varied by subject?

It isn't varied too much, it's clearly an auditory stimulus that has a direct effect on blood hormone levels. Of note is the sound of one's own heart beat in the ears.

Is this really dependent upon "musical rhythm" or merely a coincidental (or intentional) application of this rhythm for the purpose of stimulating or biasing a natural feedback mechanism?

In such a case does it make sense to label it "musical rhythm" any more than "gobbledygook" or "flimflam" instead?

Perhaps what we label "music" is simply an overlap (in part, most music is not a very close match to natural stimuli) with the sort of environmental stimuli which provoke a particular response? Perhaps then we select collections of varied sorts of these stimuli when we define "genres" and such?

It's sort of like the difference between an atheist "god does not exist" and an agnostic "the very question of whether or not a god exists is not valid to begin with."

[aciddose]

Red Dwarf worth a watch.

[emcee]

semi tangent - was it Phillip Glass who had a track on an album that was 3 mins of silence that he called a musical piece?