this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

Humanities & Cultures

2532 readers
4 users here now

Human society and cultural news, studies, and other things of that nature. From linguistics to philosophy to religion to anthropology, if it's an academic discipline you can most likely put it here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/XuAaf | Excerpts:

According to the Ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras, 'consonance'—a pleasant-sounding combination of notes—is produced by special relationships between simple numbers such as 3 and 4. More recently, scholars have tried to find psychological explanations, but these 'integer ratios' are still credited with making a chord sound beautiful, and deviation from them is thought to make music 'dissonant,' unpleasant sounding.

But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Princeton and the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, have now discovered two key ways in which Pythagoras was wrong.

First: "We prefer slight amounts of deviation. We like a little imperfection because this gives life to the sounds, and that is attractive to us."

Second:

"Western research has focused so much on familiar orchestral instruments, but other musical cultures use instruments that, because of their shape and physics, are what we would call 'inharmonic.'"

"Our findings suggest that if you use different instruments, you can unlock a whole new harmonic language that people intuitively appreciate, they don't need to study it to appreciate it. A lot of experimental music in the last 100 years of Western classical music has been quite hard for listeners because it involves highly abstract structures that are hard to enjoy. In contrast, psychological findings like ours can help stimulate new music that listeners intuitively enjoy."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

While they may have said it in a confrontational way, flora is right. Humans are prone to pattern recognition, but we are often bad at getting it right. Evolutionary we don't need it to be precise. There is little functional difference between 10 predators in the bushes and 15 predators in the bushes. The problem is that we very often see patterns where there are none. Pareidolia, Type I & II errors, and the Gambler's Fallacy are all great, very common, examples of that.