Music and emotions

[Composing_automat]

It amazing how litle we know about the connection on music and emotions. Hopefully the new basic research will give us more information:

http://www.braintuning.fi/research.html

Maybe the new research will also show that computers will be quite valid composers in the future!

[johncarter]

I can't wait to see "composed by AMD athlon 2200 + xp " or "composed by DUAL core INtel Xeon" on future film credits :D

[Composing_automat]

I can't wait to see "composed by AMD athlon 2200 + xp " or "composed by DUAL core INtel Xeon" on future film credits :D

Well. I have not seen any credits on "composed by biological brain". ;-)

But I will wait to see "composed by XXX Software". And it may happen if research will tell more about the marriage of music and emotions...

[fongi]

I can't wait to see "composed by AMD athlon 2200 + xp " or "composed by DUAL core INtel Xeon" on future film credits :D

Will this ever really happen? I´m not so sure, although it´s an interesting prospect, and if it does it will anyway have to be tweaked and edited by a musician to make it into real musical sense, for a Dual core to spit out a finished score hmmm..... ???

[nickysnd]

it will anyway have to be tweaked and edited by a musician to make it into real musical sense
Neat. That's the first important point - musical sense. What do scientists know about that? That is not even a scientifically treatable subject.

The second important point is that, sadly for them, the scientists don't know anything about what's happening in the human brain, they have just theories that contradict each other. They don't even know what emotions are. Scientists are unable to reach a consensus on the very existence of emotions: Alan Turing, the inventor of the famous Turing test, says that ... we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)
This subject has been extensively treated in another thread - I hate to quote myself, but I hate more to repeat myself, so I will just point to posts #25 and #30 in this (http://soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=6470&page=3) thread. ;)

I have read everything in braintuning.fi - here's my conclusion: they are frauds using a "scientifical" mumbo-jumbo in order to gain funds. They lay out as taken for granted things that are far from being understood. Shame on them - real scientists are humble, skeptical and honest people who chose their words wisely. Einstein, when shown an astronomical observation that appeared to prove his relativity theory, he said like: "Well, that still remains just a theory."

And what those braintuning guys say? -
Neuroscience provides new ways to investigate how music and music-induced emotions are processed in the brain. Many questions that could not be answered before, can now be addressed using new approaches and the new methods available. The BrainTuning project is investigating the musical brain by combining the efforts and expertise of six research groups

We will use an array of functional and structural neuroimaging, neurophysiological and computational modelling techniques to explore these issues in groups of music experts

In addition to traditional methods of effect measuring in psychiatric context, we will utilize the brain imaging methods as well as the special methods created for assessing the features of improvisational musical expression in regard to recovery...
... and other self-sufficient mumbo-jumbo. Again - shame on them!

I can go on for pages, but so much on that, for now.

Just one more thing: the first gross mistake of those braintuning "scientists" is to start from the presumption that humans are conditioned animals. Maybe those "braintuned" guys should just speak only for themselves, present their opinions as applying only for themselves, and leave the rest of people alone. They can't speak for me, and definitely they can tell nothing about the rest of humanity.

[nickysnd]

It amazing how litle we know about the connection on music and emotions.
Yes indeed, and considery how many intelligent things science tells us on art subjects - that's unlikely to change.

Hopefully the new basic research will give us more information:
http://www.braintuning.fi/research.html
If the hope of scince relies on those types of research - then poor chances.

Maybe the new research will also show that computers will be quite valid composers in the future!
Or, more likely, maybe the new research will show what old researches has always been showing on art matters - i.e. mumbo-jumbo.

"Valid"? "Composers"? Hmmm... I hope we will not go again into semantics...

Well. I have not seen any credits on "composed by biological brain". ;-)
Maybe because people got names? Or maybe because the brain is biological by its nature? Non-biological brain is a nonsense.

But I will wait to see "composed by XXX Software".
Then wait and see how many people would care about those "compositions".

And it may happen if research will tell more about the marriage of music and emotions...
Yeah, it may happen IF. If is a great word - If Snowwhite was black then the seven dwarfs would've been giants. :p

If research will tell us same important things on art as it always used to, then maybe research should have some public funds cut and re-allocated to artists.

And you, Composing_automat, make the terrible mistake to believe that scientifical knowledge has anything to do with music, with emotions, and with the marriage between them. A short look in the history would be enough to show you how high music is flying, for centuries now - while science is still crowling, draging along its doubts through the material dirt.

[Composing_automat]

Yes indeed, and considery how many intelligent things science tells us on art subjects - that's unlikely to change.

If the hope of scince relies on those types of research - then poor chances.

Or, more likely, maybe the new research will show what old researches has always been showing on art matters - i.e. mumbo-jumbo.

Mr. Galilei had some problems because the priests didn't want to look though the telescope...

People didn't have all this 10 years ago:

http://www.braintuning.fi/methods.html

And did you know this:

http://info.adm.jyu.fi/main/portti/tiedotteet/2006/04/4185/show_announcement (see abstract at the bottom)

[nickysnd]

Mr. Galilei had some problems because the priests didn't want to look though the telescope...
If you suggest that I am that narrow minded as those priests, then read again. From my part, Mr Galilei can look through his telescope forever, he will see nothing about music. :p

[Composing_automat]

What about reading the links above? Looking thought the telescope ... Learning ...

[nickysnd]

What about reading the links above? Looking thought the telescope ... Learning ...
Yes I have read them - mumbo-jumbo to rise some more funds:
However, it should be acknowledged that more research is needed to understand the functions of different components of musical emotions.
Shameless frauds asking for more money. What "components"? - They speak as if they are capable to de-compose music and to scientifically understand music and emotions. Loathsome leeches.

You seem to miss this, so I will re-post it:

If research will tell us same important things on art as it always used to, then maybe research should have some public funds cut off and re-allocated to artists.

And you, Composing_automat, make the terrible mistake to believe that scientifical knowledge has anything to do with music, with emotions, and with the marriage between them. A short look in the history would be enough to show you how high music is flying, for centuries now - while science is still crowling, draging along its doubts through the material dirt.

Dixit.

[Composing_automat]

OK. You have presented your opinions. As I have presented my hypothesis (without mentioning any time scales). May I kindly ask you if you yourself have any experience on research. Done any thesis on anything? Religions have their "eternal truths", sciences don't.

[nickysnd]

May I kindly ask you if you yourself have any experience on research. Done any thesis on anything?
Oh, presuming that I didn't - you're inferring that I have no authority to judge them, 'cuz they have experience in research, done thesis and stuff, while I didn't. That's what I'd call a low blow.

First, I don't need to prove myself so I won't answer your sneaky question - now go ahead and assume that I know nothing neither on research requirements, nor on the principles of a valid academic thesis. OTOH, it is them who should prove themselves, for it's them who use public money only to come up with unsustained statements on music and emotions.

Second, I don't like to get personal and talk about myself - just want to let you know that this is my 9th academic year and my credits include physics and psychology. Not that this would make me an authority, but I know enough on what is a scientific approach and what isn't. My only authority is of a person that refuses to take for granted statements sustained by nothing than electrical/magnetical maps of the brain. Whatever graphs they might have - coming from their EEG, MEG, fMRI, TMS, etc. - those graphs would say nothing on emotions and/or on music. Period. Yet, they dare to use those graphs to make naive people believe that they, the "braintuners", can decode those maps and come up with "valid" statements on music and emotions. That is what I call loathsome. Shame on them, again, and again!

A honest research should state clearly on top: Our acception of music is this: "mumbo,mumbo,mumbo." Our acception of emotion is this: "jumbo,jumbo,jumbo". Using these two highly limited acceptions, we are making the hypothesis that our "mumbo" and our "jumbo" might be somehow inter-related - and it's our goal to prove that. In order to do so, first we will try to prove that the graphs coming from our jMRIs and TMSs are saying anything at all about our "jumbo". Based on the observations provided in the first 847 pages of our research, here is what we belive that the graphs tells about "jumbo": "blah,blah,blah." Our beliefs are based on the possibility that such and such... etc. ... - That would have been a honest scientific approach, and they failed to provide anything similar. So first they should prove that they have the apparatus, plus a valid/credible acception of terms, to talk about emotions. Till then they should keep quiet on that, and pursue a silent and deep research on what those magnetic maps are saying, and if they are saying anything about emotions.

The discussion about music, or their "mumbo" acception about music, should follow a similar path. First, did they come up with a definition of what is music for them? No, they didn't. Why's that? Maybe because whatever complex definition on music they might come up with, it will leave out a huge portion of music? Or perhaps they count on a common acception on music? What's that? It's not clear what they call music. They failed to provide this basic premise, so they should keep quiet and do a silent deep research also on that.

Religions have their "eternal truths", sciences don't.
Why should you always bring up religion? First - that example with Galileo and the priests, and now again. You seem to make the assumption that religion is wrong in its beliefs, while science is right in its beliefs. I can argue, with fairly strong arguments, that both religion and science are based on personal beliefs. I think Nietzsche was the first to demostrate that in The Gay Science. Or maybe Kierkegaard, before him... Or maybe St. Augustine, or Socrates... Anyways - religion, science and art, they all present equally valid visions on Reality. And that is one "eternal truth", 'cuz it can't be proved that it's a lie. :p

And no need to be ironical about "eternal truths". Far from me to believe that I am in the posession of eternal truths. I just firmly stand against those type of frauds that pose as scientists - who, to add inslut to injury, dare to speak about music, trying to bring it down to their low level. So please don't expect me to call those leeches - scientists. True scientists have a different type of discourse - see Einstein's response that I posted. Einstein was also a good violininst and reportedly knew a great deal about music, yet he never uttered "scientological" remarks on music.

So your "brainturning" (sic!) guys should just shut their hole up until they can come up with something coherent on music-emotion relation, something similar to AE's coherent mass-energy relation. Then they will have a nice theory (which worth less than a IV-V-I cadence :p ). Till then they have nothing but their pretentious mumbo-jumbo.

[Ecliptic]

Oh, presuming that.............................................. .................................................. .....................................
graphomania!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[nickysnd]

graphomania!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
First - that's all you have to say on the matter?

Second - is it the length of my post that you disagree with? Is that what scared you so much? If so, are there some norms that regulate posts lengths? Or would you like to propose some?

Third - have you ever heard of boldomania :p ? I personally find lengthy posts less problematic than shouting with bold (or capital) letters and repeating eek signs. How about cooling down a bit?

[Ecliptic]

First - that's all you have to say on the matter?

Second - is it the length of my post that you disagree with? Is that what scared you so much? If so, are there some norms that regulate posts lengths? Or would you like to propose some?

Third - have you ever heard of boldomania :p ? I personally find lengthy posts less problematic than shouting with bold (or capital) letters and repeating eek signs. How about cooling down a bit?
Hi Nicky,

I'm cool and actually not scared, I was just kidding (boldmania).
You can write all what you want and I will not censor your opinion (redmania).
I've been only impressed on the lenght of your post, so don't mind my end-of-the-year-joke and keep on giving your contribution (italicmania).
I have nothing to say on the matter because, besides the thread's title I didn't read "the matter" (bluemania).
;) ;) ;) (winkmania)

Happy new year,

Enrico

[nickysnd]

Likewise. (ellipticmania)

[Andrew Sigler]

You're all horribly, horribly wrong...:D



......



NAH!@!@!@!@!@@!@!!@!@!@


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



-Andy

[Composing_automat]

You can find more intelligent discussions here:

http://draves.org/blog/archives/000459.html

[nickysnd]

You can find more intelligent discussions here:

http://draves.org/blog/archives/000459.html
Dear Composing_automat,

You may call intelligent whatever you want. You may even call red-green and blue-orange. "You can wear a collar and a tie..." ;) . You may call me a "daltonist", but what I saw there was a group of deluded people. I can call them "believers", at the most. No offense, but you started it, with your "more intelligent" blank statement.

As I see it, artistic creativity can't possibly emerge from automated randomness. Art can only come out from some decision. Decision is mandatory, it is essential to art. Robots and computers are objects, therefore uncapable of decision. Animals, plants, rocks and stars are also not capable of decisions. A 'perfect' spider web, a 'beatiful' flower, a 'splendid' sapphire, a 'sublime' sunset - they are not pieces of art, just because of that reason: whatever 'exquisite' they might appear to us, they don't come out of a decision. Only people are capable of decisions - therefore only people can create art.

Robots may output cars or airplanes with random shapes, but that's not creativity. You may call "art" and "creativity" whatever you want, I won't buy productions coming out of automated randomness, that's just silly playtime for kids - sorta kaleidoscope. I will only buy things coming from decisions.

I can speak only for myself, but I have noticed that most people seem to think likewise. Of course, there's always place for a harmless cult, like your believers in "automated random art", your Electric Sheep worshipers. :) Maybe you should stick more with them, that blog looks like a good place for you - those people seem to have similar takes on "art" and "creativity" as you seem to have. Now hear the 'prophet''s words -
Even though I wrote the algorithms and understand how they work, I cannot take credit for everything they do. Part of that is because of the human designers and voters. But another part comes from randomness, from chance, from the machine. It is not uncommon for the genetic algorithm to produce images unlike anything I've ever seen before. This is the signal that the sheep network is intended to receive, amplify, and communicate. And what does this signal mean? What is the computer saying? My interpretation is that the Electric Sheep are a message of peace and love from the machine world to humanity.
[Samuel L. Jackson's voice heard above the crowd:]

Praised be Thy name, oh Holy Electric Sheep! :p

Send us Thy messages of love and peace, as we thirst for Thy splendiferous pieces of art! :D

[Composing_automat]

Robots and computers are objects, therefore uncapable of decision.

Computers are mostly used as decision making machines. 99,9 % of all microprocessor chips are used for embedded systems and what those machines do is just decision making based on different constraints.

[nickysnd]

Computers are mostly used as decision making machines. 99,9 % of all microprocessor chips are used for embedded systems and what those machines do is just decision making based on different constraints.
It's all about your "special" semantics. Check any dictionary - decisions are based on judgments. Objects are not capable of judgments, that's why objects can't take decisions.

I can't believe I'm having such a hard time to make someone see the obvious. :) HEY, Composing_automat, grow up and stop anthropomorphizing objects - your singing doll is not your little sister! :D

As about your precious microchips, they decide just as a much as a teddy-bear-drummer toy decides to beat its drum. But, of course, if you want, you can call your toy drumming - a musical composition. :p

[gstitt]

After reading many posts on the subject, I feel I have to clarify something. In both threads, people are trashing researchers for doing pointless work to get money. NO REAL RESEARCHER gets any of the money from their grants, other than possibly some to pay their normal salary, which is determined by the department they work for (not by them). I actually have no idea where this belief even came from. I'm sure there are crap researchers who do profit from grants, but I can guarantee that this is the minority. I'm not sure if people here are claiming that all researchers have unethical practices, but if that is the claim it is truly an unimaginably ignorant one. There are in fact many retarded researchers doing retarded things, but to claim that no valid research is being done on this subject is ridiculous. What is the point of research anyway? Generally, it is to solve problems or answer questions, which is exactly the point of this thread. By collecting evidence to support your claims, you are in essence performing research! So, based on people's previous claims about researchers, does this make you mindless and stupid? Of course not.

The main thing to keep in mind is that nobody can prove any of these claims, so nobody can say that someone else's claim is wrong. Many people have provided arguments, but these are by no means proof. Therefore, the only valid answer to the questions that have been raised is "we don't know, but we are trying to find out". The "trying to find out" part is research, regardless of whether you believe the question is true or false.

[gstitt]

coming from their EEG, MEG, fMRI, TMS, etc. - those graphs would say nothing on emotions and/or on music. Period. Yet, they dare to use those graphs to make naive people believe that they, the "braintuners", can decode those maps and come up with "valid" statements on music and emotions. That is what I call loathsome. Shame on them, again, and again!


I agree that this would fall under the category of crap research, given that the graphs would prove nothing.

In this case, the graphs are simply tools may provide evidence that can potentially lead to new theories, which may be proven. I agree that making a claim based on very loose assumptions is not an ethical research practice.

[nickysnd]

Of course I have the greatest respect for honest researchers, I have friends among them. But those "braintuning" guys are clearly crooks, to me. They have observed that there is some kind of magic about music which emotionally influence people - and they've said to themselves: that's a good cow to milk! They have chose a clearly in-demonstrable hypothesis: that between music and emotion there is a direct, scientifically demonstrable relation - when it's so obvious that the same piece of music will generate as many emotional responses as listeners. Plus, one piece will even have different emotional effects on the same person, at different moments in time. They just want to speculate that, mischievously counting on the fact that emotional response is a very slippery concept, so they can play endlessly pretending that they might have find traces of this that may be related to that.

I have taken psychology classes, and I've learned that about emotions: scientists can only observe physical reactions, behaviours, which can be associated with certain emotions - but the same reactions and behaviours have been observed in people who reported different emotions. How about that? Also, I've learned that there are no scientific means to observe (nevermind to measure) the emotions themselves - they are ghost-like.

So - not knowing neither what music is, nor what emotions are, and being uncapable to measure emotions - how dare they to do pretend they're in the position to open their mouth about the mysterious relation between these two ineffable worlds?

They'd better research the effect of water on plants' growing - and leave alone domains they are clearly uncalified for.

[Composing_automat]

I have taken psychology classes, and I've learned that about emotions: scientists can only observe physical reactions, behaviours, which can be associated with certain emotions - but the same reactions and behaviours have been observed in people who reported different emotions. How about that? Also, I've learned that there are no scientific means to observe (nevermind to measure) the emotions themselves - they are ghost-like.

Aha. Love doesn't exist either... because there are no scientific means to observe (nevermind to measure) the love itself...

[nickysnd]

Aha. Love doesn't exist either... because there are no scientific means to observe (nevermind to measure) the love itself...
Your logic is corrupted, and it has mislead you to an incorrect conclusion. Your error originates from this false presumption: what can't be measured, doesn't exist (or: only that which can be measured exists). That's silly. :p

Many things can't be measured, yet they certainly exist - art, for instance, or humor, beauty, health, etc. Especially mind related issues escape scientific observation: thoughts, emotions (including love), imagination, creativity, etc. "Existence" is to big a concept to mess with, be careful.

So - it's not rational to doubt the existence of emotions just because they can't be observed and measured. And they really can't be observed or measured, that's a fact. Only reactions and behaviours can be observed and measured, but those observations and measurements cannot be directly related to emotions, for they are not coherent - they don't have always the same meaning - so they are not reliable. That's what I said. You may want to revise both your logic and your conclusion accordingly.

[Composing_automat]

So - it's not rational to doubt the existence of emotions just because they can't be observed and measured. And they really can't be observed or measured, that's a fact. Only reactions and behaviours can be observed and measured, but those observations and measurements cannot be directly related to emotions, for they are not coherent - they don't have always the same meaning - so they are not reliable. That's what I said. You may want to revise both your logic and your conclusion accordingly.

Aha. So we CAN measure emotions created by any compositions, also by "compositions" generated by computers. If those generations create emotions what is the difference between generations and "real compositions"? You may test your emotions here:

http://www.synestesia.fi/music06.html

[nickysnd]

Aha. So we CAN measure emotions
What's the matter with you, man, can't you read? We can't (C-A-N-N-O-T) observe and measure emotions! Capisci?

Plus, you didn't revise your previous incorrect conclusion, so don't jump as if nothing happened.

Or, even better - how do you see the relation between existence and measurements?

Apparently, once you don't feel safe, you quicly hide behind that silly synestesia site...

Edit -
BTW, synesthesia (with an h ;) ) is a mental disorder, a disease - not sure if it's safe for you to visit that site too often... :p

[Composing_automat]

Still not willing look though Galileo's telescope?

[nickysnd]

Here's were that famous Schnurgle line is due:
Dude, what did you smoke?
:D

[Software]

You can find more detailed discussion about computers as composers here:

http://vsl.co.at/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10473&start=75&iframe=true

[Software]

The Future of Music:

http://www.zsearch.org/texts.html

Presentations of different people ...

... not so easy to predict?

[nickysnd]

I love the scientological/academic approach on music -
I think that if we could understand the present, the future would be obvious.
Very smart, yet profound... In the same light - if we could present what we understand, the obvious won't be future.

[isle3]

Then wait and see how many people would care about those "compositions".

IMHO...My "worst" composition would be better than their "best"