Thank you. Exactly. This is horrible. People are not electrons. You can't take grown ups to a lab and remove them out of context. These studies have problems: they are biased and induce further bias.
1) You're removing subjects out of their natural context and their natural behaviours. You need to understand what happens in their daily life, not in a lab context. When you do long-term ethnography you'll learn people act very differently and also are able to observe things people do that don't match what they say when asked directly.
2) You are losing causal-effect relationships. These are all grown ups, that were born and raised in a certain mass-industrialized-culture, therefore they already share a bunch of values that are not innate but are present because they have been exposed to that culture. Can you bring to this test a lot of other people from other cultures and contexts? Very hard to do trans-cultural studies. However they exist. And they all suffer from the same biases.
http://ismir2012.ismir.net/event/papers ... R_2012.pdf
Still it is possible to observe lots of differences. But they all study "sounds" and "brains" instead of music. They focus too much on "reception" and not on production. All these issues are known since a done a long time ago by musicologists. IF you want a large scale study on reception go read "Ten little tunes" by Phillip Tagg, go read the Cantometrics by Lomax, go read "why suya sing" by Seeger, go read "A conservatory system" by Kingsbury, go read How musical is man by John Blacking... But then again, the knowledge is out there and I've already exposed part of it. Go read 33 issues by Nettl for a very good summary. This is painful, we already have 100 years of scientific knowledge on music who already gave us most answers to most of these non-questions. Most of what these "cultural studies", these "popular music studies" and "Philosophers" do is bullshit, they know nothing about music. And now a lot of "psychologists", "neurocientists" of sound are going the same route: they study the reception of sound and think they are studying music. This is just painful.If you want to know stars you go to astronomers not astrologists. If you want to learn about music go read musicologists.
Blue notes
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
Play fair and square!
-
Winstontaneous Winstontaneous https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=98336
- KVRAF
- 2351 posts since 15 Feb, 2006 from Berkeley, CA
Wow, white-knuckled mudslinging in the Music Theory forum, just like the good old days!
Culture! </thread>Musicologo wrote: What is difficult is to explain the diversity. WHY there are thousands of different musical practices if we share 99% of the DNA?
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
I didn't miss it. It is exactly in the quote you quoted from me. Where I state that's not the point of a social science at all. If all you want to do is to get algorithms and "rules" to standardize a practice, make a bunch of artifacts and make more profit, then you stated your case. That's what capitalism mode of production is all about, that's what the mass culture is all about. We already know all that for 60 years now, have you even read Adorno or Morin? But even if you don't like sociologists even a Musicologist studied all that with data: Tschmuck "Creativity and inovation in the music industry".
http://www.springer.com/la/book/9783642284298
Much more interesting. So I care much more about processes of innovation and change, and understanding why they happen; not about quantifying and replicating what we already know. A real music theory is about explaining those innovative why's not about telling how to replicate them like an algorithm.
http://www.springer.com/la/book/9783642284298
Much more interesting. So I care much more about processes of innovation and change, and understanding why they happen; not about quantifying and replicating what we already know. A real music theory is about explaining those innovative why's not about telling how to replicate them like an algorithm.
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
Of course you do know that if you're unable to reproduce a result reliably it means you have no valid basis or proof.
Measurement is all about quantifying and replicating what we know because it is the only means we have to verify that we do indeed know anything at all.
If one day blue makes you feel sad, another it makes you feel giggly, what then? What is blue? Is the blue you see the same I do? Maybe my blue is better than yours and you'll never know mine because you're not me; you've never seen true blue. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Your "is" is not mine.
Measurement is all about quantifying and replicating what we know because it is the only means we have to verify that we do indeed know anything at all.
If one day blue makes you feel sad, another it makes you feel giggly, what then? What is blue? Is the blue you see the same I do? Maybe my blue is better than yours and you'll never know mine because you're not me; you've never seen true blue. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Your "is" is not mine.
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
You still fail to understand the difference between hard sciences and social sciences. People are not electrons. Some phenomena can't be measured and quantified. Good luck with measuring morals, values, cultural fruition or the impact a theater play or a song has in your life. Music is NOT merely acoustics or sound. Here's a remark from 1964 from Merriam, this is so obvious it should be granted by now, but apparently it's not.
Therefore, to explain why and how a record came to existence or why and how a song was produced you don't generally measure, quantify or test. Of course the scientific method a musicologist leads depend very much on que particular question asked, but usually is more akin to find the next of causalities, the concepts, behaviours, the processes involved in the practice IN context, in culture, that gave rise to the sounds. Not looking at "sounds" in isolation and measuring them...
Do you even know what "Thick description" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_description
Have you ever read a musicological paper to understand the scientific knowledge produced? Here's a short and contemporary one to explain the musical practice of a bedroom producer, something many people in this forum can relate to.
https://etnomusikologia.journal.fi/arti ... 0227/21132
Music is a uniquely human phenomenon which exists only in terms of social interaction; that it is made by people for other people, and it is learned behavior. It does not and cannot exist by, of, and for itself; there must always be human beings doing something to produce it. In short, music cannot be defined as a phenomenon of sound alone, for it involves the behavior of individuals and groups of individuals, and its particular organization demands the social concurrence of people who decide what it can and cannot be. (Merriam, 1964: 27).
Therefore, to explain why and how a record came to existence or why and how a song was produced you don't generally measure, quantify or test. Of course the scientific method a musicologist leads depend very much on que particular question asked, but usually is more akin to find the next of causalities, the concepts, behaviours, the processes involved in the practice IN context, in culture, that gave rise to the sounds. Not looking at "sounds" in isolation and measuring them...
Do you even know what "Thick description" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_description
Have you ever read a musicological paper to understand the scientific knowledge produced? Here's a short and contemporary one to explain the musical practice of a bedroom producer, something many people in this forum can relate to.
https://etnomusikologia.journal.fi/arti ... 0227/21132
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
If you want to claim music is a human phenomenon you need to define it first.
I feel like I'm speaking to a student from kindergarten.
If you define music as a combination of one or more sequences of rhythm or melody then it is not a human phenomenon as you'll need to explain what makes birdsong "not music".
I believe you got involved in such topics because of your experiences during your youth. Most likely you were always on the losing end of arguments and had little knowledge of the facts involved. By attempting to argue that a subject is devoid of objective meaning it makes any argument a stalemate which you likely interpret as a personal victory.
This is why you find it so terrifying for someone to argue that your arguments are nonsense.
The work of those in the social "sciences" is to make an attempt to objectively catalog and record measurements. These fields do not involve hypothesis as they do not deal in cause and effect. It is therefore incorrect to draw conclusions from data as there is no falsifiable hypothesis leading to a prediction but merely a game of "connect the dots" with completely arbitrary and subjective results prone to bias. Via statistical means obviously it is possible to compare datasets but it remains impossible to draw conclusions from these results or form any sort of falsifiable hypothesis which is not also statistical in nature. In other words these fields are included with others such as the categorization of species or history. They can be used as data sources by the hard sciences as statistical phenomena are often linked to hard cause and effect, such as for example diagnoses of schizophrenia in psychiatry being reliable indicators of malformed brains. In that respect these fields are all very useful as sources of data which can be used to identify targets for further research by the hard sciences which will likely be of considerable benefit. On their own however they serve no purpose whatsoever and are of no benefit to humankind.
I feel like I'm speaking to a student from kindergarten.
If you define music as a combination of one or more sequences of rhythm or melody then it is not a human phenomenon as you'll need to explain what makes birdsong "not music".
I believe you got involved in such topics because of your experiences during your youth. Most likely you were always on the losing end of arguments and had little knowledge of the facts involved. By attempting to argue that a subject is devoid of objective meaning it makes any argument a stalemate which you likely interpret as a personal victory.
This is why you find it so terrifying for someone to argue that your arguments are nonsense.
The work of those in the social "sciences" is to make an attempt to objectively catalog and record measurements. These fields do not involve hypothesis as they do not deal in cause and effect. It is therefore incorrect to draw conclusions from data as there is no falsifiable hypothesis leading to a prediction but merely a game of "connect the dots" with completely arbitrary and subjective results prone to bias. Via statistical means obviously it is possible to compare datasets but it remains impossible to draw conclusions from these results or form any sort of falsifiable hypothesis which is not also statistical in nature. In other words these fields are included with others such as the categorization of species or history. They can be used as data sources by the hard sciences as statistical phenomena are often linked to hard cause and effect, such as for example diagnoses of schizophrenia in psychiatry being reliable indicators of malformed brains. In that respect these fields are all very useful as sources of data which can be used to identify targets for further research by the hard sciences which will likely be of considerable benefit. On their own however they serve no purpose whatsoever and are of no benefit to humankind.
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
That's why the first step is to understand the CONCEPTS of the community you're studying, so you can understand what are they calling music. Duh. You don't understand a thing. There is no universal concept of music and you are absolutely clueless about all these subjects. Re-read the entire thread and references, I'm outta here. 100 years of Scientific knowledge produced is out there on those references, read it if you find it useful, if not, continue to live in your positivist ilusion.If you want to claim music is a human phenomenon you need to define it first.
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
So you're saying you can't define music? Or can you?
For you to simply state that the definition of music is arbitrary is the same as having no definition at all.
Can you then form an abstract definition of music? Is it not equal to that which I gave?
For you to simply state that the definition of music is arbitrary is the same as having no definition at all.
Can you then form an abstract definition of music? Is it not equal to that which I gave?
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
Haven't you just read Merriam, Nettl, 100 years of Musical knowledge? NO, you can't have an abstract and universal definition of music: whose music? That does not exist. You're not dealing with a physical object, music is not electrons or rocks. You're dealing with an object that changes with culture, with time, with space. Therefore if you want to scientifically study this object your starting points needs to address the definition of the object and relevant parameters/variables first, so THEN you can build hypothesis and tests, and theories on top of it. All that you claim that "real sciences" do can be done and be borrowed into musicology BUT only after you deal with the cultural layer first in order to correctly define your object and state your questions.
And That is musicology 101. I am the one talking to a kindergarten student of music. You may understand a lot about physics but not about social sciences. That is exactly why any positivist approach to this subject FAILS. They're talking about SOUND or vibrations, physics, acoustics. Music is NOT THAT. Re-read ten times, pay attention to the bold lines, until it grows on you and you fully understand.
The things you are used to call "music" may be meaningless in other people or cultures. Things that other people call music (or similar) may be meaningless to you. That has been experienced by many people on the field when they contacted with other cultures. That is why to study their music they first need to understand what they are calling music and what parameters are relevant to define it. Please go read Nettl's book as soon as possible. You can find it in 10 seconds if you know where to look and read chapter 1 and 2. You'd be surprised.
You're so entangled in your own preconceived "ethic" concepts and abstractions of a positivist thinking you cannot even grasp the bigger picture, made by emic concepts.
Since the topic is BLUE and you went for DOVE blue commercial I'll tease you with this, maybe it may shed light on you. If this doesn't shine any light I don't know what else can. Clearly you still believe skies are blue and they have always been and everyone sees them...
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what ... lor-2015-2
And That is musicology 101. I am the one talking to a kindergarten student of music. You may understand a lot about physics but not about social sciences. That is exactly why any positivist approach to this subject FAILS. They're talking about SOUND or vibrations, physics, acoustics. Music is NOT THAT. Re-read ten times, pay attention to the bold lines, until it grows on you and you fully understand.
Express again the scientific model on how you can study such things:Music is a uniquely human phenomenon which exists only in terms of social interaction; that it is made by people for other people, and it is learned behavior. It does not and cannot exist by, of, and for itself; there must always be human beings doing something to produce it. In short, music cannot be defined as a phenomenon of sound alone, for it involves the behavior of individuals and groups of individuals, and its particular organization demands the social concurrence of people who decide what it can and cannot be. (Merriam, 1964: 27).
Therefore, you have to do fieldwork in a given community to understand theirconcepts are historically created, socially mantained, individually expressed. (Rice, 2010)
.CONCEPTS shaping their BEHAVIOURS to understand the resulting SOUNDS produced (Merriam)
The things you are used to call "music" may be meaningless in other people or cultures. Things that other people call music (or similar) may be meaningless to you. That has been experienced by many people on the field when they contacted with other cultures. That is why to study their music they first need to understand what they are calling music and what parameters are relevant to define it. Please go read Nettl's book as soon as possible. You can find it in 10 seconds if you know where to look and read chapter 1 and 2. You'd be surprised.
You're so entangled in your own preconceived "ethic" concepts and abstractions of a positivist thinking you cannot even grasp the bigger picture, made by emic concepts.
Since the topic is BLUE and you went for DOVE blue commercial I'll tease you with this, maybe it may shed light on you. If this doesn't shine any light I don't know what else can. Clearly you still believe skies are blue and they have always been and everyone sees them...
Then make your own test looking at the greens in that pic and draw your own conclusions. And extrapolate that to music or other human conceptualized objects.Until relatively recently in human history, “blue” didn’t exist.
As the delightful Radiolab episode “Colours” describes, ancient languages didn’t have a word for blue — not Greek, not Chinese, not Japanese, not Hebrew. And without a word for the colour, there’s evidence that they may not have seen it at all.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what ... lor-2015-2
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
Blue has always existed, it's a frequency range. Whether humans have a name for it doesn't mean anything.
You're caught up in a "ME ME ME" precious little snowflake fantasy world where the only thing that matters is your personal opinion.
I'm telling you that your feelings don't mean jack shit in reality. You'll realize that before the end, which will come for you whether you want it to or not. You can cover your eyes/ears and shout "la la la la" but the end won't care.
In fact if anything I would argue that it seems you're quite upset that reality is in conflict with your personal opinion or feelings. So you reject reality. You're nothing but a pathetic, self-absorbed nihilist in the end.
You're caught up in a "ME ME ME" precious little snowflake fantasy world where the only thing that matters is your personal opinion.
I'm telling you that your feelings don't mean jack shit in reality. You'll realize that before the end, which will come for you whether you want it to or not. You can cover your eyes/ears and shout "la la la la" but the end won't care.
In fact if anything I would argue that it seems you're quite upset that reality is in conflict with your personal opinion or feelings. So you reject reality. You're nothing but a pathetic, self-absorbed nihilist in the end.
-
- KVRian
- 1297 posts since 23 Jun, 2007 from Findlay OH USA
Winstontaneous wrote:Wow, white-knuckled mudslinging in the Music Theory forum, just like the good old days!
Pass the popcorn, please.I've long felt that this forum should have this rubric from Dante :
(Loosely translated, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter.")Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate
Best,
dp
Last edited by StudioDave on Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
I don't think that's true.aciddose wrote:Blue has always existed, it's a frequency range. Whether humans have a name for it doesn't mean anything.
I could also ask, How many colours in a rainbow?
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to that. Different cultures would give you different answers.
Physics can explain how a rainbow is formed and so on, but it can't tell you anything about the aesthetics - the subjective meaning which is filtered though culture.
Music and sound are not the same thing. Music is primarily an art, not a science.
Physics can explain the sound, but it can no more explain music than it can etymology.
Music is not created in a vacuum. Context is everything.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Afaik, music is not exclusively human. I think I read some time ago that whales also make music, they have songs and melodies that are passed on from generation to generation. And some whales introduce new variations.
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
One might say physics explains sound, and maths explains musicJumpingJackFlash wrote:I don't think that's true.aciddose wrote:Blue has always existed, it's a frequency range. Whether humans have a name for it doesn't mean anything.
I could also ask, How many colours in a rainbow?
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to that. Different cultures would give you different answers.
Physics can explain how a rainbow is formed and so on, but it can't tell you anything about the aesthetics - the subjective meaning which is filtered though culture.
Music and sound are not the same thing. Music is primarily an art, not a science.
Physics can explain the sound, but it can no more explain music than it can etymology.
Music is not created in a vacuum. Context is everything.
