Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Morgan Sutherland (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 12:05:46 EST
> > So it's hard to see how the theory is wrong - although it's also hard
> > to argue that it's complete.
> It's also hard to see what the theory is trying to explain. In my
> thinking, the shapes of music are
> analogues of other perceptions that relate to things in the real world.
I think it makes sense when those "perceptions" are not "in the real
world", but are of other music.
When music is recalling bits and ideas from other pieces, if you
recognize them, that's where the "reward" occurs. When you do not,
that's when the "surprise" occurs. This also follows with references
to "shapes...analogues of other peceptions that relate to things in
the 'real world'"
So, with your overdeveloped bias towards "surprise", you have a lust
for choices in music that are not derivative of other musical
choices/cliches often referenced. You also prefer music with
references to "shapes..." not often referenced.
Does that make sense?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST