11–20 of 31 posts
Weeeee Ooh Weeeeee Ooh Weeeee,
Weeeee Ooh Weeeeee Ooh Weeeee,
Weeeee Ooh Weeeeee Ooh Weeeee,"African-based music normally has as the fundamental meter: both 2 and 3 at the same time. This opens the door to syncopation, polyrhythms and musical creativity, which occurs on a more primal level in the brain than harmony. It is acknowledged that Europeans developed harmony further than any other culture; but rhythmically their culture is among the planet's most primitive."
"Put simply, marching (colonizing) cultures see the downbeat as something to follow, and the "marched-upon" (colonized) cultures see the downbeat as something to react to, using the backbeat."
http://www.bobbrozman.com/tip_rhythm.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oPXRWRxda8
Additionally, the majority of western music is now performed in equal temperament which adds to the blandness. As hackers you may find the math of music interesting..
Considering every musical genre is at or below my final SAT score (1380/1600), it could only mean: 1. SAT's are not an indication of intelligence. 2. There is no correlation between type of music and SAT scores. 3. All music, including Beethoven, makes people dumber. Author claims this is funny? What's funny? People that listen to Soca, Jazz, Hip-Hop, and Gospel make the dumbest students? Here's a correlation, which…
you guys are missing the real conclusion of this - the SAT is racially biased.
I get into this argument all the time, but - isn't it just a teensy bit possible that classical music is better than rap? I've given rap a lot of tries, I've slowly gotten into it, but I'd still say that some of the best rappers I listen to pale before even some of the lesser composers. To pick a name that even classical enthusiasts: I'd pick Pachebel before I'd go with, say, the Wu Tang.
Are we allowed to hate rap despite the fact that it's predominantly black? I've been called racist for expressing my dislike of rap, which I think is grossly offensive.
This is broken in so many ways. Of course the music listened to by the largest number of people is going to correlate to a more average SAT score. The children that regularly listen to classical are those with parents who either intentionally expose them to it at home (which means that they are likely well-educated) or have them take music lessons (which indicates both a concern for their child's mental development a…
For instance, more people know Philip Glass than Steve Reich, but they're part of the same contemporary classical scene, and that scene contains a ton of people I've never heard of (plus it branches out to the rock minimalists, such as Brian Eno).
Obviously this isn't saying much, since absolutely this chart isn't proving anything, but I doubt it would be easy to find significant statistics for students liking other musicians. For instance, I've got a ton of various musicians and composers listed, but the ones that most likely correlate with other people's lists are the biggies: Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Bach. Even huge names like Holst and Ravel are less likely to be found in a good listing of profiles.
(Also, in the interest of finding out new stuff: what sorts of things did Marsalis and Einaudi do? What pieces of theirs would you recommend a novice begin with? Personal favorites?)
Not directly related but Bob Brozman has some interesting thoughts on music - "African-based music normally has as the fundamental meter: both 2 and 3 at the same time. This opens the door to syncopation, polyrhythms and musical creativity, which occurs on a more primal level in the brain than harmony. It is acknowledged that Europeans developed harmony further than any other culture; but rhythmically their culture i…
That's nonsense. I know at least 50 people with 1400+ SATs (on a 1600 scale) and only one of them is really into classical. That statistic is wrong on so many levels. In particular, SAT scores correlate to the level of education, which correlates to the wealth of the family, the area they live and, therefore, the music they would be exposed to.
Which only confirms the correlation. The author clearly points out he does not intend any causation.
I'd say then that 'musicthatmakesyoudumb' was a poor choice of domain name.
That's nonsense. I know at least 50 people with 1400+ SATs (on a 1600 scale) and only one of them is really into classical. That statistic is wrong on so many levels. In particular, SAT scores correlate to the level of education, which correlates to the wealth of the family, the area they live and, therefore, the music they would be exposed to.
I actually, factually enjoy classical music, to the point that I voluntarily listen to it of my own free will. I've participated in a lot of musical conversations with high-SAT people. People either don't like classical and make no bones about it, or give a nod to Beethoven but cite other people they like better. (In my case, Schubert and Rachmaninoff would be the ones I cite.)
Excepting perhaps the Ninth Symphony, which if listened to properly really is a tour de force. ("Properly" is listening to the whole thing straight through with no distractions and at a decent volume level; the Ninth is designed to be a bit loud. This is not something you can do very often.)
But then, I'm conversing with adults, not adolescents trying to impress me.