Thread is now about Holist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Can't see that.  Nigel, can you ex-post?

OK...you have sound..wich travels at the speed of..sound. Then you have musical sound..not an imitation, but the real thing. The sound that fills up stadiums, keeps you listening to that subway musician in awe..ect. 'something' is obv. happening. I think the biggest misunderstanding about musical experience is that we think that we are being moved by the emotions the artist is feeling while he is playing, while in fact we are being moved by direct transferrence of these emotions through waves of lightspeed that only a person with an innate ability to do this can produce. How, no idea...that's the mystery! I guess a description could be that it attracts larger groups of people other then friends and family who are willing to put their hands together for your effort whilst being conciously or unconsiously embarrased for you. One is an imitation, the other is the real thing. We all can (try to) sing or strum a guitar, or push down a piano key. Few, however produce musical sound. They are the 'gifted ones'. It is well know this gift runs in the family and cannot really be learned, although the brightest of minds in the musical field cannot grasp and discard this concept, because they can only see the house ( see below). I do not think they are that bright btw, most of them are probably sweet though.

I believe, the magic of real musical sound is that it travels at the speed of light, It reaches us instantly and it cannot be interferred by thought. Think of musical sound as the bricks of wich the house is made up....a tone, wave, note, not the entire house in all it's forms and colours. Be it a classical house, a rock and roll house, or a death metal house...or a reaggea house...wich would obv be red green and yellow. The 'bricks' of ALL music are the same in 'fabric'. Of course one can add timbre, vibration, ect. But one must have the ability/gift to produce a brick. Most of us can only produce 'turds' in the shape of bricks. We simply cannot make bricks...just like a pig cannot fly (on it's own). Real musicians can make bricks...they simply have to produce a soundwave and it's automatically a brick...It is truly a gift/ability that cannot be learned.

So, I mean true musical sound is a soundwave that travels at the speed of light. The speed of light transfers the soundwave in music...so in a form it is indeed the sound of the speed of light. Wow, make any sense?

The medium of a soundwave...well, i guess I just mean a wave that presents itself and partially behaves as a soundwave. I think it's a EM wave and soundwave interlocked of some sorts. It goes trough air obv..but there's more going on underneath. much more!

Hope I clarified a bit....remember this is intuition. We can measure the speed of light right ? And also the speed of sound. I wonder if we can find 'elements' of the speed of light in real musical sound and if they are currently ways of researching this.

says you good fellow...now put on your favourite record and wonder why it makes you feel good, and sometimes insanely good. you're travelling at the speed of light, while sitting in a chair. It is not the singer, it's the song. The song is the mystery....the sound of it, the difference to other sound. The singer is simply the medium. Although some of them think they invented it by themselves. Wich leads to the most dangerous drug for these people..Fame, and how to deal with it. If you see yourself as a medium you'll probably be allright, if not, trouble..( godsyndrome, heroin, spitting in peoples faces wich seems to be justin beebers new hobby, ect.)

Hello Professor Clarke,

My name is Steven Crow from the Netherlands. I am looking for someone to share my findings with. Someone who has the means and resources to investigate the following.

I have made, what I think is , a remarkable 'discovery' as to where musical sound differs from 'other' sound. I am talking about musical sound, for example 1 note or tone.
Not how these musical sounds (notes/tones...even timbre) are constructed together to make what we perceive as music. So, I am not talking about the house in all it's different shapes and colours..but rather the brick. This alone has proven to be a very difficult concept to get across to some of the brightest people in music and science research. Hence, I stopped looking to get my finding across or understood if you will.

Still, I feel a strong urge to share because it fascinates me to no end.

Why is that you may ask. Because I believe musical sound and it's origin (not historically but factually) is still one of man's great mystery's. I feel it doesn't have to be quite so much, if one is willing to ask the right questions and do the testing that follow these. To be clear, I am not steering to a 'spiritual' viewpoint but quite easy questions and equally testings that are well in the realm of today's science. The outcome of this bit of research will, in my opinion, undoubtedly give way to a whole new set of questions as to what 'fabric' musical sound actually consists of and comes from, rather than the consensus that it is some sort of soundwave that evokes great emotions to people in general, and may or not be teachable or learnable as opposed to an innate abilty that one is, well, born with. This in fact, I believe, is of relevance for all artforms but my interest is music. It is in my opinion the most direct, emotive and mysterious one of the 'bunch'. Therefore, dare I say..the most interesting.

Well,..It is so hard to put in words what it is I mean (as you may have noticed)..But, I assure you, it is relatively easy to investigate. I have done this on my own, with some simple software and the help of several professional musicians (let's call them group A) as well as 'amateur' musicians and non musicians as the control group (group B). I constructed some tests where both groups were asked to produce a sound via an instrument without actually physically touching it. The sound was the same note/tone in both groups. I have done this on guitar, piano and clavicimbel. There are lots of ways to do this with a bit of creative thinking. One test involved a heatfan to wich I applied a little metal string ( the ones one uses to tie a garbage bag together ) onto one of its fans. If the fan was put in motion, simply by turning it on, the string would start to rotate and touch the lower E string of the acoustic guitar wich I placed beside it. This then would produce the sound of the E string without the person actually touching the instrument. All that was in fact done was turning on the heatfan via the on and off switch. Both groups did just that..turn on the fan. By no means a musical deed as far as I know. The results proved different..

After recording the sounds..I started to slow them down. I found that both groups produced a totally different sound to each other, that is especially noticeable for the untrained ear if the recording is slowed down. However, the sound quality's or properties are the same for both groups alike. I proceeded to filter out lower E notes from all kinds of musical recordings as well as different musical genres and artists and discovered that they too, had the same quality and properties as I found in my recordings of group A. They are very distinguishable and alike. The same was true for group B. The two, however, when compared are totally different. In the slowing down process, I discovered the sound of group A would go up a whole octave after x ratio of slowing down. The sound of group B did not.

There are very many other remarkable differences which are easily hearable and testable. Especially the initial onset of the sound, when slowed down, is particularly different. In the case of group A one could describe it as the swelling and crashing of a wave, an interlocking of some sort that, in it's own, sounds...heavenly (I have no other word for it even though I am an atheist). If you wil allow me an anecdote, Eric Clapton was asked once in an interview what he thought music was actually made of..he answered that it was made of the purest form of crystals.

The sound of group B is quite the opposite. There is no wave, no interlocking, just a violent sound of matter bouncing off each other. I could only describe it as unpleasant noise. This is of course all subjective, but I seriously doubt that one person in the world would disagree with me.


I think this finding raises some obvious and very interesting questions regarding music and musicality as a whole and it's connection with some people, and disconnection, if you will, with others in regards to the actual ability of producing it. The ratio of these groups is a tough and probably impossible one to put a figure on. I think the group of five that attract a stadium full of listeners would not be far of.


I know my tests were not done in a scientific way and environment..but am very confident they will give the same results if done so. Again. I do not have the means and resources to proceed but it is one of my great wishes that someone would in fact do so. Then again..maybe there are some things men doesn't want to investigate, why analyze the mysterious, especially if it's something that bring so much joy to mankind. One answer might be that there may be even greater ones behind this one and it is in our very nature to do so.

I would be very happy to communicate with you over the matter may you find this interesting and I hope I got across what it was I wanted to. I believe there are 'scientific facts' to be found out about musical sound and its origins that will turn out to be by no means subjective. I believe it was Einstein who said; "The secret of the universe lies in music".

Another character , Ron Wood, of the Rolling Stones was quoted ; "There's a basic rule which runs through all kinds of music, kind of an unwritten rule. I don't know what it is. But I've got it."

[Lord Cataplanga]

Sorry, Roger. Didn't mean to say that it was your fault.
I just wanted to read what holist wanted to say, if possible in a different thread, so it wouldn't get in the way of what you have to say, which I find very interesting.
Sorry for contributing to derailing your thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh yeah, and:

the only possibility? are you serious. That is a ludicrous remark. Can you at least entertain the thought that the sound might have been the same for the two groups since there was no direct contact with the instrument? You are now way more unlogical in your thinking then you claim I am. 5 musicians produced a dinstictive different sound under exactly the same circumstances as 5 non-musicians by pushing the on switch of a heating fan. They were NOT in contact with the instrument.

Something transferred that is remarkable...if you or any of you cannot see that, i don't know what will...hence close minded. I mean..do i have to draw it out for you. Nothing moved, not the mike, not the setup. nothing! just the people.

Not everyone can be an artist, produce music. What is it they have that's different. Is it measurable, is it transferrable...could it be it's not so mysterious after all..what in the off chance this is researched , not by me , as you keep rehashing..but via a similar setup in a lab. It changes the way people think about innate abillaty vs learnabilty, it changes the way people look at musical sound vs other sound. These are questions being asked in the field TODAY! There are no answers of yet just theories. What if the results are the same wich they most probably will be. If you shoot a man in a lab he will die..if you shoot a man in your backyard he will..die.

I'm trying to get my results valid, that's the whole point. I do not live in a labarotorium with hightech equipment, my bad.

If not one of you thinks this is interesting then I stand by my point that to hard a concept to grasp. Science is here to help prove something..not debunk it because it hasn't been done yet. 1. You have a valid clue...usually not thought of or tested in a labaratorium. 2. It raises curiousity. 3. you test it the best you can scientifically, as in , with the best resources available. Science should move things forward and investigate, not rehash.

Especcially if you have results for motivation. What reasons do I have my results are valid? I recorded the shit..then analysed it. My god, a child could spot the difference. What if we all could make musical sound in the future. Read your post again...think logically...realize where you are wrong in your response.

you are the only one who is open for at least some thought about the subject. The rest is stuck in what they know...they do not or will not even try to understand what i'm talking about. That my friend, is sheepish. But 1 in a 100 is still a lot in the grand scheme, don't get me wrong.

It's about proving shit..not discarding an idea with words. Do the work, do the test! (i did) ... science works bitches!

I know it's hard work and I am in no way taking that lightly. But it's also an adventure..go where no man has gone before, all that. If you hear the soundclips you might think otherwise. Ok, since being rude is the 'science' way of communicating....Suck a fat one you guys, i'm going to bed.

Oh, a scandinavian music researcher said this could lead to big things when I contacted him 6 years ago. He analysed the sound samples in his lab and found interesting new stuff . Helas, it endend because the analyzing methods of the day had it's limits...unlike the human ear and brain. He urged me to go on. But, no money in it...man got to pay the rent. But man, did he get it.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the thread is batshittery all the way up and then again down the backside.

[LMNO]

Oh my god.  Shoot me in the face.  Please.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

redacted.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry, Roger. Didn't mean to say that it was your fault.
I just wanted to read what holist wanted to say, if possible in a different thread, so it wouldn't get in the way of what you have to say, which I find very interesting.
Sorry for contributing to derailing your thread.

Life goes on.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the thread is batshittery all the way up and then again down the backside.

WOW.   

[Don Coyote]

Part 6

Art critics are basically the carbuncles of the art world.  This isn't because they are bad people (though every one I've ever met has been a shitbag of enormous proportions), but rather because - like art - art criticism is market-driven.  No critic ever made a name by stating the obvious (though in some cases, they don't have much choice...For example, the last 3 Star Wars flicks made).

No, they have to basically be contrarian to sell their columns, or else they have to take something everyone already KNOWS is shit, and grind the artist's face in their own poop long after doing so has stopped being useful (yes, we knew the Nickleback album was gonna suck.  We knew this.  Thank you for wasting our time.).

The first thing to remember about critics is that critics are failed artists.  Either they tried and failed, or they didn't have the guts or the work ethic to do art...Though usually they still play at it, or talk about their latest "ongoing work" (that never actually gets completed) at parties, to people desperately trying to escape.  As a result, they hate artists, and will spend hours or days trying to find a reason why any given successful artist is crapulous.  As we've seen, this will include made up definitions for standard terms, accusations of inauthenticity, and casual dismissal of anyone making money as "corporate whores", etc.

Everyone has seen the above (except for the critics themselves, of course) in action.  The real question is, if I am forced to talk to an art critic - at a party, for example - what do I do?  My advice at this point would be to roll up a newspaper and beat the critic to death with it.  Yes, killing a man with a rolled-up newspaper takes real effort, but you and I both know the motivation to do so will overcome any considerations of time and effort.  You have to be firm about this sort of thing.  You have to say "NO" and then follow through, so the other critics understand, otherwise they'll be on your doorstep at 2 AM, with a stupid smile on their face and their pants around their ankles.

So, you know, if you want to know if a piece of art is GOOD, my suggestion is that you LOOK at it or LISTEN to it YOURSELF, and FORM YOUR OWN OPINION.  If there is significant risk involved, you can send me a copy of the art and $300, and I'll let you know.  This allows you to protect your family from pictures of poker-playing dogs, Puddle of Mud videos, etc.  Safety first.

I'm printing this one out.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm going to take that weirdo's posts, give them the treatment, and then send them to that whackjob who has been emailing me.

[LMNO]

I used to be a reviewer and music editor at a local 'zine here.


Everything you say is true, and there's the additional aspect of "free stuff" and "ad money".

If the record companies can't bribe you by sending you to shows and giving you free swag, then they extort you by trading ad space for good reviews.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I used to be a reviewer and music editor at a local 'zine here.


Everything you say is true, and there's the additional aspect of "free stuff" and "ad money".

If the record companies can't bribe you by sending you to shows and giving you free swag, then they extort you by trading ad space for good reviews.

I hadn't included the for-hire geeks in this rant, as they're not actually critics.  They're basically advertizing consultants.

[Dildo Argentino]

Holist and RWHN are some how related? I see distant married cousins in the family tree?

It's more of a parallel evolution thing, ya know, like dolphins and sharks, or the thylacine and the wolf...

[Dildo Argentino]

(...) I shall make it as clear as I possibly can to you that when you throw in "It's a pity" with your statements, you are implying that you feel sorry that the person(s) you are addressing are just not quite smart enough to see your point of view in the proper light, that if only they were as enlightened, studied or intelligent enough that your carefully worded arguments in support of the truth that there is some music that is "authentic" and others that is not, and that you are especially qualified to point out which is which, they would immediately come to your side of the argument.
That in there lies the particular instance of your condescension with regards to this discussion. 

Hey, hey, let's just stop there for a second (the bold in the above is mine). I am best qualified to assess what I am implying (I was there, subjectively experiencing the intentions and the emotions that surrounded the writing of that message) and I tell you quite categorically that I implied no such thing. I agree that I could be read as implying that (malicious intent is extremely easy to read into even the plainest, most concrete communication, that is why paranoid people have such an easy time of it), but actually, I did not imply it, nothing was further from my mind. As I have already explained (and sorry, once more, I happen to be the number one authority as to my opinions - my gut reactions still carry a slight, largely xenophobic bias, but I am aware of that and looking out for it), all I meant was, I was powerless to stop the breakdown of communication with Nigel, I'm not even quite sure I understand why it is happening (I have seen plenty of evidence that Nigel is easily capable of being highly nuanced), and I was sorry to see it happen. Apart from the german accent thing, I have no idea why you attribute condescension to me, but it's you doing the attributing.

Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic, when had you just literately walked away for a breather instead of sharing that you were going to

Well fuck this for a game of billiards. I'm out.

thus making it quite apparent that you have some kind of butthurt because we were disagreeing with you. I had infact intended to more carefully re-read your points but was prevented because, well fuck me, I had to devote my attentions to actually learning about how art and literature are and have been critiqued throughout history with regards to the western literary and artistic traditions. I still do not see any merit in going over your original points because it seems to me that you are just nursing the butthurt because people are disagreeing with you and have put forth reasons that you may be choosing to create a definition of what is "real music" that arbitrarily favors the kind of music you prefer to listen to.

I understand and disagree with your position. Simple counterexample: even in my first formulation, I took pains to say I wanted a conceptual toolkit that allowed me to distinguish music that is "the result of earnest, genuine creative effort", yet music I don't like and don't listen to. If I simply wished to define "real music" to ensure that it accorded with my taste in music, I would not have bothered, don't you think?

[Dildo Argentino]

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

[Salty]

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

I think holist should print out this post he's made on a little piece of paper and meditate on it for a few weeks.