Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
This was my idea behind the thread. What makes us think this?
|
I think in the case of the one I posted, it actually sounds not only like the music is crying, but as it scales up and becomes (what's the term? Up an octave? No, that's not it: you know the one anyway, as it climbs and gets, for the want of a proper phrase, squeakier or higher in register) it begins to sound more frantic and sad, not a howl or a scream but the sound of a heart breaking. I mean, take that last part, just before it descends almost to silence again (just on the six minute mark): doesn't it sound like something is reaching its apex, the most it can take before it breaks? I was going to say climax but didn't want to provide too easy a target for Batty.
Quote:
|
Additionally, I was actually thinking about how wind instruments seem to be more expressive than stringed the other day. It might have something to do with it being fueled by breath, so it in a way becomes an extension of the musician's body. Obviously you can be as emotive on a guitar, but it doesn't come as naturally as it does with wind instruments based on my thinking.
|
The only wind instrument that can affect me emotionally I think is a sax, if it's played in the right way and evokes the right mood. Other than that, strings do it every time. Well, not every time obviously, but compared to wind instruments.
Quote:
|
Going more back to the original topic, I wonder if you were thinking that the cello and violin were more expressive because of their association with classical music, which is conventionally seen as one of the "moodier" genres.
|
I don't think so. I usually describe a cello as "moaning" or "mournful" and a violin as "crying" or "lamenting", which is generally how I perceive them when I hear them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds
To take your conjecture a step further, TH might consider strings expressive because they sound like singing/breathing.
|
I'm not going to say no, as who knows what really motivates us, but that doesn't sound right to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPOCH6
of lyrical content or the musician's emotional intent when it was written, abrasive punk music makes some people scowl and plug their ears like they've had a blender placed next to their dome. But I don't think it's a wild claim to suggest that the default human perception of that kind of music would be negative, it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Loud, sudden, abrasive noises are automatically perceived as dangerous, or even predatory, at its core it's survival instinct, like prey hearing the roar of an approaching predator. Not until you've been exposed to it for some time and have learned that it's safe to hear will you be ready to enjoy it and perceive it differently.
|
This is very true and well worked out. It's also likely that we are conditioned genetically to turn away from loud or harsh noises, as a means of protection. After all, if you're standing beside a jet engine and don't cover your ears or move away you could go deaf, so it could be seen as a sort of inbuilt defence mechanism. Your ears hear something harsh and they are "warned" by your brain to do something about the sound. In the same way, softer sounds (birdsong, humming, rain etc) present no danger and so might for that reason appear pleasurable to us: the brain marks them as "safe" to listen to.