Re: Emotional Association with Structure/Patterns/Sounds

Subject: Re: Emotional Association with Structure/Patterns/Sounds
From: Kevin Austin (
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 10:41:37 EDT

In looking for 'answers', the questions probably need correct
formulation, and then a 'correct' interpretation of the results. If
it is believed that there is a / are connection(s) between certain
types of sounds and emotional states, they would exist across time
and cultures.

In modern popular music there may or may not be connections and a way
to find out is to examine primary sources. "Scientific reports" are
secondary (or even tertiary) sources as the data has been massaged
and compacted.

There was recently a small report, I believe in Scientific American,
on anger in males and a short index finger (Jupiter), compared to the
middle finger (Saturn) and the ring finger (Apollo). The report noted
that men with a short(er) Jupiter were 'more angry' than men with
longer first fingers. At the end, the comment was made that for some
unknown reason, this did not apply to women.

Upon hearing this, almost any palmist could have explained that the
explanation (answer) is wrong. A short Jupiter tends to reflect an
inferiority complex rather than anger. (One looks to the Mount of
Mars for this, along with the shape of the thumb and thumb nail.)

The "answer" may lie in how (some) "men" respond to having
inferiority complexes, which could be manifest in anger, while in
women, IME, it may manifest itself in withdrawal.

It's not in the "data", it is in the 'correct' interpretation of the data.

For a little prior reading on this thread, Google:
Re: Reductive Re: EA Analysis
from the 2002 cecdiscuss archive.

and more general reading (papers!) can be found under the Google of:
"perception is a cultural"



"Perception you see is a cultural phenomena ... " ... Feist c. 1977

For an overview of the "meta"linguistic field:

At 10:15 -0400 2005/09/29, Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>Obviously there are not direct answers, but we are working towards
>answers, are we not? Unless of course we are enlightened. Living in
>the question is always good, but living for the answer is more fun,
>Is there a general consensus?
>On 9/29/05, Owen Green <> wrote:
>> Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>> > It's so aggravating when you ask these types of questions on the
>> > Internet because I end up with a long list of books...
>> >
>> > I'm looking for scientific reports and recommendations, not lists.
>> Why? These things are discussions, not facts. No amount of scientific
>> experiment is going to provide 'answers' to your questions because
>> aesthetics are also bound up in relationships between people, not in
>> only in a series of inevitable physical reactions to stimuli.
>> Making and perceiving music is always, in some respect, a social event;
>> we make it with the inetion that other people should listen to it, we
>> make it with other people etc.
>> For sure, the results of scientific enquiry are useful - acoustics,
>> psychoacoustics, and signal processing in particular - but a practice
>> based solely upon these factors would be impoverished. The real meat of
>> people's reactions are bound up in factors that are inherently fluid,
>> un-fixed, thus the joyous mountain of ideas, theories and outright
>> speculations, almost none of which you'll find yourself in total
>> agreement with. Huzzah!
>> > If you could recommend one book, what would it be. (on this subject)
>> I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing :) People have mentioned Meyer
>> already; I find him easy to read, and he mostly talks sense. There would
>> be books I would take great pleasure in not reccomending, if I thought
>> there was anything constructive to be gained from /not/ reading a book,
>> even one which is almost entirely disagreeable and poisonous (maybe
> > they're of particular value).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST