Sound's influence on brain chemistry

  On 3/30/2018 at 6:36 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

just tested it, they don't... why, is the question... lol

but trough headphones they should sum up in the brain and cancel each other no?

No - They'll just sound out of phase

  On 3/30/2018 at 6:44 PM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 3/30/2018 at 6:36 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

just tested it, they don't... why, is the question... lol

but trough headphones they should sum up in the brain and cancel each other no?

No - They'll just sound out of phase

 

i must use the correct terminology, when i said inverted phase (180º) i meant polarity...

anyway, it is the same if we're using periodic signals...

can you explain to me why or point me out some article about it, cause i've been googling and can't seem to find anything...

Edited March 30, 2018 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

and btw, what's your take on binaural beats seeing that the new frequency occurs because of the sum in the brain itself instead of outside?

Edited March 30, 2018 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

why the fuck does the brain sum up 2 waves producing the beat fx but it doesn't sum up 2 waves with inverted polarity therefore cancelling each other?

Edited March 30, 2018 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

Psychoacoustics is definitely not my forte but I imagine it's just because your brain has much more sophisticated audio processing than a linear-summing DSP engine

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Wq--WsrQCo-5kwWl6pn4Bg&q=+Music+and+Altered+States%3A+Consciousness%2C+Transcendence%2C+Therapy+and+Addictions+david+Aldridge+&oq=+Music+and+Altered+States%3A+Consciousness%2C+Transcendence%2C+Therapy+and+Addictions+david+Aldridge+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1656.8486.0.9416.4.3.0.0.0.0.100.100.0j1.2.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..2.0.0.0...108.Bqwm5BLLPSo

I read this recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary; would recommend for various reasons, including the fact that the first half is essentially a really cogent and readable summary of neuroscience as it currently stands.

 

It mentioned something I found really interesting, namely that there's a growing body of evidence that, in evolutionary terms, we developed the capacity to make and 'feel' music before we developed the capacity for spoken language, a finding that seems very deep and significant, imo.

 

Polytrix, this might be up your street, I'm sure a, ahem, free version is floating around on the web somewhere: https://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0452288525

 

I haven't read it in a few years and as I recall it was interesting rather than mind-blowing but did seem to provide a fairly good grounding in the neurological basis of why we feel music as deeply as we do.

 

Of course, trying to understand music purely in terms of the underlying neurological processes might contain an element of pinning the butterfly to the board, given that the best music brushes the transcendental/divine/call-it-what-you-will, but that's another line of inquiry...

 

Liking the look of both GIM and thon book, Cwmbran

Edited April 3, 2018 by Leon Sumbitches

Very happy to see people keep contributing to this. I'm actually a Speech and Language Therapist in training so I have a particular thing for neurology. Maybe I should have trained as a music therapist!? I do think it's highly likely that music was a more universally understood method of communication when compared to the capacities of Neanderthal communication. Caveman Autechre?!

GIM is intriguing because the whole premise is on levels of consciousness when exposed to specific compositions, which to summarize shows that music can def heal

 

its used in palliative care, head-injury units, autism, trauma & ptsd, grief counselling, if you're doing speech therapy there are pathways where you could train in GIM, its utterly surreal

 

archeo-acoustics is a cornucopia of inter-disciplinary studies, Aaron Watson did a mass of research on Neolithic monuments & their acoustic properties, showing that drones within a certain frequency spectrum did strange things to sound in some of these places of special virtue

 

http://www.monumental.uk.com/

https://ambpnetwork.wordpress.com/

http://www.aaronwatson.co.uk/stones-of-stenness-1

http://www.aaronwatson.co.uk/about/

 

all the work on Neanderthals suggests a singing capacity, as with other extinct hominids, so if you think how old the sub-conscious is & that language is at the most 100,000yrs, sorry, vape kicked in

 

Andrew Liles is worth a rummage due to his fondness for binaural versions of individual tracks, they re-define atmospheric and have a broader range of wtf than a lot of producers manage

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=ferDWsDTEImasAe_u73IBQ&q=andrew+liles+binaural&oq=andrew+liles+binaural&gs_l=psy-ab.3...752.8460.0.8870.22.20.0.1.1.0.226.1502.19j0j1.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.17.1262.0..0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1j33i160k1.0.HM4osGE5C1w

Love Andrew Liles! Surreal as fuck!

You just added me on SC right? Your stuff is mad. I approve!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

if folks like David Toop, this is a cracking read, chronology is deeper in time but phenomenology, psychology & social history all compete fairly

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=mITaWqXKHoafgAaH2rKYDg&q=david+hendy+noise+a+human+history&oq=noise+a+human+history+da&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i22i30k1l2.5672.6346.0.8862.3.3.0.0.0.0.76.202.3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.198...0.0.nn5-W2XW5_0

  On 3/30/2018 at 5:54 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

 

 

I posted this somewhere and suggested that the ultimate goal of binaural beat people is to 'cure' gays

I dunno, nobody thinks an element to music is nothing to do with actual SOUNDICALLY but the fact that it IS a composition, that it suggests by its mere existing that a thought process led to the music you're hearing, so it's kind of the same thing that happens in a conversation where you're trying to guess the person's thought process and work with this limited knowledge to try and form a complete enough idea of a person (not even in a 'mean' way just saying) I think someone in the thread sort of had this perspective on it. It gets really weird with algorithmic music if the phenomenon is that, because you're trying to guess a thought process even though it's a computer and there is no underlying thought process?

 

and then um, I looked up this guy my brother idolizes sometimes as tekno god and it's like, I can understand this is supposed to be like serotonin music but I can't be forced to care lol. Or maybe the idea of it as feelgood music is kind of old fashioned

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87RQ-he2IT0

 

but yeah when you guys or even my brother get into GOD FREQUENCY thoughts I think it's a worrisome philosophy. And I've gone pretty far with ridiculous precision EQs and there's a point coming from that perspective where you're like "this is pointless, this isn't making it MORE MUSIC lol"

Edited April 21, 2018 by Ragnar

an hour of Frankie Bones is hard work ;)

 

Not sure its the God frequency folks are alluding to, more that specific compositions (which can still be intuitive & spontaneously arrived at) combine frequencies, harmonics &/or rhythms which can have a direct influence on brain chemistry. These processes have had a long & integral chronology reaching way way back into the depths of prehistory.

 

So many cultures have shamanic roots which explore these relationships & practices, eg archaeo-acoustics have proven that most of the Paleolithic cave art from France and Spain is located in chambers with specific acoustic properties. If the art was just about image making in environments that could enhance or alter sensory awareness, their locations within these caves would have had v different locational nodes & networks. So sound (and by default music) must also have had a central role.

 

From a contemporary academic angle, states of ecstasy or "jouissance" to quote Lacan, or Jung's work on the spectrum of altered states of consciousness, are indispensable, eg: where could music take you on the diagram below? As a reference point, if you check the 100+page of the Ae/NTS thread, the reactions of some fan-bois seem to be on the outer periphery of this "map" (couldnt upload the file extension soz)

 

https://voices.no/index.php/voices/article/viewFile/438/422/1710

 

Despite the cheesy title, this text is surprisingly lucid & the case studies are broad enough & interpreted with enough intellectual rigour & heft (eg from the Grateful Dead to Throbbing Gristle to House) to justify a dive in.....

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=b1PbWtmwN6vOgAas0q34AQ&q=traces+of+the+spirit&oq=traces+of+the+spirit&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1.29916.37470.0.38038.22.15.1.6.6.0.148.1120.14j1.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.22.1170...46j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i46k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.7dV6n1KA6Ts

Edited April 21, 2018 by cwmbrancity

  On 3/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, RSP said:

Has anyone talked about the way instruments are tuned in pairs in Balinese (but not Javanese) Gamelans so they produce beating patterns that induce a trance state? I've got to get to work so I don't have time to catch up on the thread or Google any good info about it but it definitely works. I played in a Balinese Gamelan group for about three years. DEFINITELY works.

yeah! i used to play in a gamelan anklung, the physical effect of that sound was amazing. i got no specific details but it felt very very good and weird just to be in the room with it, and much moreso to take part.

 

https://youtu.be/MUBbS5ygt2Y

 

the way you learn songs bit by bit is cool - nothing written down, you start by playing one bar over and over.. add a couple more.. add a few more.. repeat that whole section for a couple sessions.. start on the next section. etc. after a few sessions you intimately know every little detail of a 30 min piece of music.

 

also i love this stuff.. http://www.viewzone.com/archeosound.html

"Ancient Temple Architects May Have Been Chasing a Buzz From Sound Waves"

Edited April 26, 2018 by wobbegongs

it's an alright topic but it could kind of go wacky any moment kind of subject. DEFINITELY can do stuff with dementia, I wish Caretaker would make a happy album with MOST MEMORABLE music to people with dementia theme. Is memorability quotient the same as 'catchy'.

 

But I still think sometimes you guys are implying musical tastes are 1:1, music specifically intended to get u high seems to be like the most subgenre-fied thing in all music. Even if drum and bass and jungle are the same exact shit does the cultural distinction give different vibez

 

and uh I dunno if I'm gonna read dat book but the main conceit is believable to me. People LIKE to think pop culture is secular maybe. It would be a burden or a liability on religious institutions if EVEN SONIC HEDGHOG CAN BE RELIGIOUS IF YOU'RE HIGH ENOUGH

I wasn't implying illuminatishits, I'm saying a religion self-advertises itself like pretending it's got a... whatever the word is, commodity? of holy feels and only holy feels are possible with churchstuffs. And even within religion I also think it encourages sitting around in church putzing around behavior. If you're gonna be religious be that HENRYK GORECKI guy and make holocaust rock opera (and put yourself out there creatively and risk saying something ugly about yourself). If you're saying hail marys all the time there's no chance for a freudian slip where you're like 'oops crap I said penis'. Oh god maybe I just said penis with MUSIC. Who am I really

 

but yeah anything can be holy with the right context/actually interesting person/personality. dependence on chuch vibes kills the capacity to find random shit holy. I think being atheist can have holy feels. Not having to believe in anything can feel holy. I'd rather be agnostic if it's about "I don't care" rather than "I don't know" dawkins is atheist and talks about God constantly lol. If a true kvlt atheist exists they should like want to get total amnesia about having to remember God was an idea

try this...

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=CmXjWoj_DYTPwALV3o3ICw&q=the+lyre+of+orpheus+popular+music+the+sacred+and+the+profane&oq=The+Lyre+of+Orpheus%3A+Popular+Music%2C+The+Sacred%2C+And+The+Profane&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i30k1.2366.2366.0.4020.3.2.0.0.0.0.60.60.1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.60.0...46.qbw8zgb8VKI

 

....then lots of Jung

 

retunes i.e. pitchshifts to 432 hz and posts on youtube

 

 

or makes no changes and posts to youtube and titles it that

Edited April 28, 2018 by Ragnar

Has anyone ever seen the Fletcher Munson equal loudness graph thing, but with error bars or standard deviation marked?

What I am saying is that yea we got an approximation of the average human ear's sensitivity to frequencies, but an average can sometimes be a bad measure (avg wealth between me and Jeff Benzos is like billions). So has anyone ever measure how much the curves differ person to person? Having a standard deviation would answer that question pretty well...

  On 5/8/2018 at 6:42 AM, thawkins said:

Has anyone ever seen the Fletcher Munson equal loudness graph thing, but with error bars or standard deviation marked?

What I am saying is that yea we got an approximation of the average human ear's sensitivity to frequencies, but an average can sometimes be a bad measure (avg wealth between me and Jeff Benzos is like billions). So has anyone ever measure how much the curves differ person to person? Having a standard deviation would answer that question pretty well...

well i believe that to get an average measure one must have the difference measures, no?

  On 5/8/2018 at 12:26 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

 

  On 5/8/2018 at 6:42 AM, thawkins said:

Has anyone ever seen the Fletcher Munson equal loudness graph thing, but with error bars or standard deviation marked?

What I am saying is that yea we got an approximation of the average human ear's sensitivity to frequencies, but an average can sometimes be a bad measure (avg wealth between me and Jeff Benzos is like billions). So has anyone ever measure how much the curves differ person to person? Having a standard deviation would answer that question pretty well...

well i believe that to get an average measure one must have the difference measures, no?

 

 

Yeah. My point is that after you calculate the average you have no way of going back to the original - i.e. if the average is 50, it may have been between 25 and 75 or 49 and 51. And in the case of the equal loudness contours: maybe the data shows that for bass frequencies, most people have similar perception; for mids some people hear them way better than others, etc.

 

I think though that if there were any significant differences, someone would have published a lot of articles about this.