Preference for Dissonance

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by guitarrista » Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:32 am

marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:15 am

I would not read too much into this "research." [...]
I don't think you said anything even remotely interesting or useful with this comment/rant, but feel free to dismiss the paper out of hand. Why not?
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:23 am

guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:32 am
marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:15 am

I would not read too much into this "research." [...]
I don't think you said anything even remotely interesting or useful with this comment/rant, but feel free to dismiss the paper out of hand. Why not?
"Half of the people can be part right all of the time
And some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time"
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours”
I said that


-- Bob Dylan

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by guitarrista » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:53 pm

"In today's world, everything seems like some sort of long audition."

--Bob Fosse.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:26 pm

guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:53 pm
"In today's world, everything seems like some sort of long audition."

--Bob Fosse.
Ah, let us agree to disagree. In the grand scheme of things it is of little importance. :D

My comments were based upon my own experience and knowledge. Having studied probability and statistics (I hold a mathematics degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), knowing the scientific method, and knowing how woefully some folks are in pursuing truth, I am always dubious. Just my nature, I guess. One must first form a reasonable hypothesis. There is a principle in computing that goes by the acronym GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. For instance, I could study the correlation between drinking water and becoming a serial killer. Ignoring the fact that correlation in no way implies causation, the premise is nonsense. So, substitute, say, a breakfast cereal for water. Does Cheerios lead to serial killing? I'll bet if you interviewed a sufficient number of them, they would all say they ate them or liked them. Hell, I like them and I am not a serial killer. Have I proven anything? Nope. And then one comes to the problem of interpreting impartial data obtained from researching a reasonable hypothesis. The vast majority of researchers have no expertise in statistics. They rely upon some non-thinking computer program to tell them artificial metrics such as mean and standard deviation. Letting a nonthinking machine do your thinking for you suggests to me that you cannot think. Just my take on it.

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by guitarrista » Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm

marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:26 pm
guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:53 pm
"In today's world, everything seems like some sort of long audition."

--Bob Fosse.
Ah, let us agree to disagree. In the grand scheme of things it is of little importance. :D

My comments were based upon my own experience and knowledge. Having studied probability and statistics (I hold a mathematics degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Great. I hold a PhD in physics. :bravo:
Last edited by guitarrista on Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

User avatar
jaan
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 8:06 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by jaan » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:20 pm

Interesting topic. A theory teacher told my class once that the neurological reactions to dissonance and to spiciness in food are very similar and that one builds a tolerance to them in the same way. Thus, the levels of dissonance or spice must increase to generate the same effect.

Haven't found anything that backs that up scientifically, so perhaps it just works metaphorically. (I do crave each more than I used to though, and enjoy stronger doses)

Perhaps it's just being accustomed to it. We like what we know, and because the music most people hear in life is consonant, most people prefer that to dissonant music. But those who have been exposed often enough to dissonance grow to enjoy it. Thus, the older one gets. . .

Anyway, my idle musings.
Amateurs practice until we get it right; professionals practice until they no longer get it wrong.

1999 Dake Traphagen (spruce)
2008 Dake Traphagen (spruce, double top)
2010 David Pace (cedar, double top)
2019 Antonius Müller (cedar, double top)

Kjetil Heggelund
Posts: 954
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Hønefoss, NORWAY

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by Kjetil Heggelund » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:58 pm

Give me some microtones!
Kevin Aram "Torres", 2009
Stephan Schlemper "Transparence", 2015
Whatever you can do to have a good time, let's get on with it so long as it doesn't cause a murder...FZ

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:38 pm

jaan wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:20 pm
Interesting topic. A theory teacher told my class once that the neurological reactions to dissonance and to spiciness in food are very similar and that one builds a tolerance to them in the same way. Thus, the levels of dissonance or spice must increase to generate the same effect.

Haven't found anything that backs that up scientifically, so perhaps it just works metaphorically. (I do crave each more than I used to though, and enjoy stronger doses)

Perhaps it's just being accustomed to it. We like what we know, and because the music most people hear in life is consonant, most people prefer that to dissonant music. But those who have been exposed often enough to dissonance grow to enjoy it. Thus, the older one gets. . .

Anyway, my idle musings.
I think you have hit upon a truth. :D Although I have always had an appetite for musical dissonance, my appetite for capsaicin has increased over the years, though never going to the level of, say, scotch bonnet or ghost peppers. :shock: :lol:

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:50 pm

guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm
marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:26 pm
guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:53 pm
"In today's world, everything seems like some sort of long audition."

--Bob Fosse.
Ah, let us agree to disagree. In the grand scheme of things it is of little importance. :D

My comments were based upon my own experience and knowledge. Having studied probability and statistics (I hold a mathematics degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Great. I hold a PhD in physics. :bravo:
Well, just in case you think I'm BSing you, here's my old ID, dating from 1967...

Image

:D :D :D

I also hold bachelors and masters degrees in music. Did a year in a Musicology PhD program, but never finished it. The program sucked. :wink:

User avatar
guitarrista
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by guitarrista » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:06 pm

marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:50 pm
guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm
Great. I hold a PhD in physics. :bravo:
Well, just in case you think I'm BSing you,
Not sure why I would think that. Lest you think my comment was sarcastic, I do have a physics PhD.
Konstantin
--
1982 Anselmo Solar Gonzalez

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:37 am

guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:06 pm
marvluse wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:50 pm
guitarrista wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm
Great. I hold a PhD in physics. :bravo:
Well, just in case you think I'm BSing you,
Not sure why I would think that. Lest you think my comment was sarcastic, I do have a physics PhD.
No disrespect intended. The sad fact is, this is the internet, a kind of fairy land, where anything is possible. One tends to be dubious at times. I have a younger brother with a PhD in physics, from Georgia Tech. After 4 years of undergraduate study in physics, he stayed on for an additional 5 years to obtain the PhD. It was nearly a decade of his life. What did he do at the end? He became a computer programmer for Home Depot. Go figure. Why? I haven't a clue. :)

There was once a common joke amongst academics about those with PhDs in nuclear physics. It ran something like this: What is the most common thing a nuclear physicist asks? Answer, "do you want fries with that?" :lol:

chiral3
Posts: 2097
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Philadelphia Area, PA / New York.

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by chiral3 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:25 am

marvluse wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:37 am


There was once a common joke amongst academics about those with PhDs in nuclear physics. It ran something like this: What is the most common thing a nuclear physicist asks? Answer, "do you want fries with that?" :lol:
Depends on how old your brother was at the time. There was a time, back down the Malthusian curves, and assuming you were an experimentalist, that a PhD in nuclear physics was a good thing (and especially so if you could get some of that good ‘ole DOE fusion money that always needed to last 20 years, constant maturity). That definitely changed by the 80’s. Old timer experimentalists were very smart. If on the theory side, most disciplines were equal opportunity until maybe the early 90’s, if I am being generous. There (are) were only a handful of schools in the US worth the paper in theory and, by that time, it was strings or nothing. My university was in that group and even the secretary knew to talk down to you if you weren’t in theory. Of course, to be in theory, you needed an advisor; and, to get an advisor, you needed to be smart, not just clever and advantaged. So it all kinda worked out even if the truth hurt. For people that weren’t smart enough to get that, they left with a masters degree after passing qualifiers, the mark of shame given from top schools that don’t technically offer master’s degrees. But whether one left with a PhD in experimental physics, a consolation MSc in high energy / fundamental / cosmology physics (you’re free to call it whatever you want at that point, you’ve been marked), or a PhD, the good news is all these people can manage serving fries to people. Now-a-days it’s PhDs in quantum computing driving Ubers, but same difference.
“Every man should be capable of all ideas, and I believe that in the future he will be.” ― Jorge Luis Borges

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:10 am

Yes, I agree about quantum computing. I think perhaps a great deal of the theoretical work has been accomplished, and that it is now fundamentally an engineering problem. How does one build a laptop computer with both conventional and quantum processors, the latter requiring temperatures near absolute zero, and other such difficulties? Give 'em time, I'll bet they'll eventually solve it, and in many ways the engineering aspects are far more complex than the theoretical ones. Or so it seems to me. :)

marvluse

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by marvluse » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:27 am

It's a funny thing, how a thread on the "Preference for Dissonance" can devolve into conversations on physics. It is something that I have noted over the years, something I have dubbed "butterfly journeys." If one watches a butterfly in flight, its path is a reasonable facsimile of Brownian motion: here, there, back again, over there, everywhere. Kinda cool in a way, a manifestation of what is know as "stream of consciousness" thought. Kinda like riding a roller coaster at a theme park. Yikes! Where am I going next!? :lol:

chiral3
Posts: 2097
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Philadelphia Area, PA / New York.

Re: Preference for Dissonance

Post by chiral3 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:45 am

marvluse wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:10 am
Yes, I agree about quantum computing. I think perhaps a great deal of the theoretical work has been accomplished, and that it is now fundamentally an engineering problem. How does one build a laptop computer with both conventional and quantum processors...
Don’t get me started... it’s more than that. The QC was theorized in great detail 40 years ago and Shor’s algorithm was maybe 25 years ago. Most classical problems are fine being solved classically (assuming we agree that 99% of all the AI/ML bs we hear about is glorified least squares regression... write the classical version of solving Ax=b and the quantum version and have a good laugh). The thing everyone cares about is cryptography, as if RSA and all the elliptic curve stuff isn’t safe for some time to come. To do the calc before the heat death of the universe we’d need reversible gates - which go at n^3 - and we’d need a bunch of them. So, to the engineering problem: how do we get n^3 gates, n large, to all be completely perfect without decoherence? We don’t, at least not yet, or a long time. I’ll celebrate when they can do prime factorization of a small 4-bit number without a priori set up. This is typical internet age vaporwear a la siliCON valley. As they say: build the box first, sell it, then we’ll think about what to put inside it. Dissonance served cold, 0K cold.
“Every man should be capable of all ideas, and I believe that in the future he will be.” ― Jorge Luis Borges

Return to “The Café”