# Surfing on the music



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This new mode of listening (for me) struck me as I was listening to Schumann played by Wilhelm Kempff. 
The _Sonata Nr. 2 in g-moll op.22, Nachtstücke (Night Visions) op. 23, Drei Romanzen op. 28, and Waldszenen (Forest Scenes) op. 82,_ all seem to share a characteristic of being 'waves' of sound. 
These waves are the subtext of the notes and harmonic changes on top. Listening to these waves, I seem to be less concerned with the details of what's happening 'on top' from moment to moment, and enter a longer, more sustained sense of time in which I am listening to these larger waves of sound, contours which repeat over and over, and gradually lull one into a larger, more profound sense of time and of the music. 
I'm beginning to apply this kind of listening to other music as well, such as Shostakovich string quartets, and seeing the music in this same kind of light. This may be the key to why I prefer certain works over others, such as Beethoven's Sixth and his late works.
Have others experienced this?

Furtwangler's Grosse Fugue (orchestral version of course) is the shortest one on record. It works beautifully, and I wonder if this perception of his (which dictated the faster tempo) is the key to his genius: his brain waves were different. He was able to "tune in" to this work in a way that eluded other conductors, with more 'normal' brain wave function. Even though his tempo is faster, it seems to tune in to the longer wave-like characteristics of the work.

This may also explain the fascination with Glenn Gould, whose 'brain waves' were decidedly different. This may also explain the irritation some feel with Gould; these slower waves (this slower wave perception) would be an anathema to those people whose brain waves are designed for conscious, mundane operations of the waking mind.
If the notion of "brain waves" seem too esoteric, remember that our brain waves change every night as we fall into sleep. Larger, slower waves begin to appear as we go deeper into sleep.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

> Our most important and necessary study of how to understand music, really begins with a definite knowledge of these four fundamental principles. We shall spend our first year of study in learning to recognize these elements as they may be expressed by the human voice or various instruments. We shall carefully consider the national feeling as expressed in the simple folk dance and song of the various countries, and learn to discriminate between the racial peculiarities, which are reﬂected in the art and music of the people of all lands. For our second year's study, we consider the historical development of music from ancient times to our own day. In the third year's work, we take up the closer relationship of instrumental music to the fundamental ideas manifested in Courses I and II. We study carefully the individual tones of the instruments of the orchestra, and trace the development of the larger forms of instrumental music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)




----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'll note that I dabble in this exercise. After spending some time with Bruckner, I revisited many composers by taking in their overarching harmonic development. Putting on Beethoven's 5th however is an exclusive exercise in rhythm. If you perceive Mov. 1 as a giant rhythm, and squish it together, every moment comes down to the perfect sequential placement. I also composed a set of pieces where I could not use more than a few notes per measure. And to perceive overarching form, I would listen to Bach at 2x speed and I believe he sounds just as good. In this case, more apparent rhythm as well. 

More ways to listen in the future hopefully.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> This new mode of listening (for me) struck me as I was listening to Schumann played by Wilhelm Kempff.
> The _Sonata Nr. 2 in g-moll op.22, Nachtstücke (Night Visions) op. 23, Drei Romanzen op. 28, and Waldszenen (Forest Scenes) op. 82,_ all seem to share a characteristic of being 'waves' of sound.
> These waves are the subtext of the notes and harmonic changes on top. Listening to these waves, I seem to be less concerned with the details of what's happening 'on top' from moment to moment, and enter a longer, more sustained sense of time in which I am listening to these larger waves of sound, contours which repeat over and over, and gradually lull one into a larger, more profound sense of time and of the music.
> I'm beginning to apply this kind of listening to other music as well, such as Shostakovich string quartets, and seeing the music in this same kind of light. This may be the key to why I prefer certain works over others, such as Beethoven's Sixth and his late works.
> ...


I'm sorry, but this is clearly a misunderstanding of what brain waves are; they are completely unrelated to sound waves. I'm not sure how you know the brain waves of either Glenn Gould or Furtwangler as neither of them had any such thing tested. If they had, I'm sure the test would have been entirely unremarkable since brain waves are not in any way indicative of remarkable minds.

Perhaps if you could attempt to explain your method of listening in a different way? Or maybe you could clarify what you mean as brain waves, because it certainly seems to bear no resemblance to the scientific concept which is what I, potentially naively, took it to be.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


>


You're amazing!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> You're amazing!


I love you, Mandryka. You seem to understand me like no other.

Actually, that wacky book is one of the scariest things I ever read. It talks about some ideas of Jung's that he never published, for obvious reasons. It is about Jung's idea which purports that _archetypes can become real, physical manifestations._ In light of the Charles Manson murders, and other such phenomena, it's a disturbing idea.

In response to BachIsBest:


> I'm sorry, but this is clearly a misunderstanding of what brain waves are; *they are completely unrelated to sound waves.* I'm not sure how you know the brain waves of either Glenn Gould or Furtwangler as neither of them had any such thing tested. If they had, I'm sure the test would have been entirely unremarkable since brain waves are not in any way indicative of remarkable minds.
> 
> Perhaps if you could attempt to explain your method of listening in a different way? Or maybe you could clarify what you mean as brain waves, because it certainly seems to bear no resemblance to the scientific concept which is what I, potentially naively, took it to be.




There are lots of biofeedback devices available, which change your brain waves, and these are even used in legitimate Western medicine in controlling chronic pain and anxiety. They use sound. Brain waves are 8-13 Hz, so the sounds are multiples of that. 8-13 Hz is so low that these are really more like pulses than frequencies, but as any synthesizer aficionado knows, inaudible low frequencies like this can "modulate" with higher frequencies. If the frequencies are multiples, they can "phase" with each other.

Brain waves are no mystery; we fall asleep every night to them.

Of course, I can't PROVE that Furtwangler or Gould had slower brainwaves, but this seems to be generally true: we are all wired differently. And, back atcha', the brain is very complex, and there's a lot we still don't know.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

I admit that saying brain waves are completely unrelated to sound waves was not entirely correct. Sound certainly affects your mental state, and your mental state certainly will change what brain waves you have. What I was trying to say is that brain waves do not interact with sound waves; as their medium is entirely different the two wave's phases and/or frequencies will not produce any interferences. 

I know of nothing that would support the hypothesis that brain waves somehow align so that the sound waves are multiples of them. I'm not sure how we fall asleep to brain waves, there are brain waves going on as we fall asleep, but saying we fall asleep to them seems to suggest we are somehow listening in on our neurological activity.

I mean, I never required you to prove that Gould had long brain waves. I was just saying that, before you make such an assertion, you should probably have some piece of evidence that he did beyond a personal feeling. Saying that we don't understand the brain is certainly true, but is hardly an argument for just saying whatever you want about it. We don't entirely understand quantum entanglement, but if I was to claim I became quantumly entagled with Bach's complex counterpoint, I wouldn't really be going off of anything; because we don't entirely understand it, it would hard to definitively say I'm wrong, but there's no evidence for it, so averring this is ridiculous nonetheless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, I never required you to prove that Gould had long brain waves. I was just saying that, before you make such an assertion, you should probably have some piece of evidence that he did beyond a personal feeling. Saying that we don't understand the brain is certainly true, but is hardly an argument for just saying whatever you want about it. We don't entirely understand quantum entanglement, but if I was to claim I became quantumly entagled with Bach's complex counterpoint, I wouldn't really be going off of anything; because we don't entirely understand it, it would hard to definitively say I'm wrong, but there's no evidence for it, so averring this is ridiculous nonetheless.


We seem to have a different philosophy when it comes to "proposing ideas." I don't claim that my assertions are "provable facts." I'm more like a poet; I'm probing around for meaning which can't be proven, because it is not "fact," it is _poetic speculation.
_
This seems to be the nature of the internet: people want things to be rational and provable. That's fine for things like news items or politically charged information; we don't want to spread disinformation. But we are talking here about art, artists, and things which are metaphysical in nature, not facts. Stop applying scientific, objective, rational standards to such poetic speculation.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ethereality said:


> I'll note that I dabble in this exercise. After spending some time with Bruckner, I revisited many composers by taking in their overarching harmonic development. Putting on Beethoven's 5th however is an exclusive exercise in rhythm. If you perceive Mov. 1 as a giant rhythm, and squish it together, every moment comes down to the perfect sequential placement. I also composed a set of pieces where I could not use more than a few notes per measure. And to perceive overarching form, I would listen to Bach at 2x speed and I believe he sounds just as good. In this case, more apparent rhythm as well.
> 
> More ways to listen in the future hopefully.


I notice that Schumann has a lot of large-scale 'wave activity' in his music, which acts as a subtext for the details. 
Beethoven, in some cases, seems to have the effect of smaller details which wash up on the shore more frequently. His waves are smaller, and are more frequently interrupted.

I really prefer the longer waves of Schumann.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> We seem to have a different philosophy when it comes to "proposing ideas." I don't claim that my assertions are "provable facts." I'm more like a poet; I'm probing around for meaning which can't be proven, because it is not "fact," it is _poetic speculation.
> _
> This seems to be the nature of the internet: people want things to be rational and provable. That's fine for things like news items or politically charged information; we don't want to spread disinformation. But we are talking here about art, artists, and things which are metaphysical in nature, not facts. Stop applying scientific, objective, rational standards to such poetic speculation.


Ultimately, I have no problem with proposing things that aren't really 'demonstratable' but I just struggle to understand why someone would propose something that isn't just non-demonstrable but has absolutely no evidence to support it. It just seems like, at that point, one can propose anything requiring no justification and discussion becomes pointless.

I think I'll bow out of the thread at this point as it seems like the discussion here isn't for me. I'm not new-agey enough lol.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> Ultimately, I have no problem with proposing things that aren't really 'demonstratable' but I just struggle to understand why someone would propose something that isn't just non-demonstrable but has absolutely no evidence to support it. It just seems like, at that point, one can propose anything requiring no justification and discussion becomes pointless.


Maybe because it is interesting, amusing, or even entertaining?

If you are only interested in "provable facts," then why be on a music forum? Art & creation are not "provable" things, and are quite unscientific and illogical at times. This is more like metaphysics or religion.



> I think I'll bow out of the thread at this point as it seems like the discussion here isn't for me. *I'm not new-agey enough* lol.


Actually, this type of non-rational thinking is more inspired in me by artistic considerations, including thinkers such as Marshall McLuhan, not "new age" philosophy. We can also trace it to non-rational French thinkers.

The internet, and this forum, seems to emphasize how "rational" and un-poetic most listeners are. Rationalism is apparently a very widespread phenomena, which probably contributes to the French and European view of Americans as "coarse and unimaginative" and lacking in artistic perception.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> If you are only interested in "provable facts," then why be on a music forum? Art & creation are not "provable" things, and are quite unscientific and illogical at times. This is more like metaphysics or religion.


I said I'd bow out here, but I feel this is a blatant mischaracterization of my views. I clearly said I did not require things to be provable; I just wanted some reason to believe they might be true. Provable implies a high standard of evidence. All, I was saying is that there should be some standard of evidence, presumably much, much lower, than what is required for something to be 'provable' just to limit the realm of conversation from being imbued by ridiculous statements like "what if there was an army of invisible turtles always just outside my line of sight".



millionrainbows said:


> Actually, this type of non-rational thinking is more inspired in me by artistic considerations, including thinkers such as Marshall McLuhan, not "new age" philosophy. We can also trace it to non-rational French thinkers.


Yes, but it is very similar to new-agey thinking which was my point.

Anyways, I'll actually bow out at this point.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> Yes, but it is very similar to new-agey thinking which was my point.
> 
> Anyways, I'll actually bow out at this point.


Oh, I see. You came to the thread to announce your displeasure, and leave. That's pretty negative.

I think it would be better if you just did not participate in threads you fell negatively about. That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I see. You came to the thread to announce your displeasure, and leave. That's pretty negative.
> 
> I think it would be better if you just did not participate in threads you fell negatively about. That's just my opinion, though.


I know I've said twice now that I'd bow out but I feel this is an attack on my motives. In my original post, I corrected what I felt was a potential misunderstanding of brain waves (as somehow being related to more sonic waves), insofar as I understand waves (quite well) and brain waves (admittedly less understanding here). I then asked for clarification on the topic realising I may have misinterpreted your views. Finally, upon realising I had not misinterpreted your views I said I would bow out; I don't believe I have done anything wrong or had unpure motives. I was bowing out precisely because I wished to avoid negativity and participating in a thread in which I do not agree with the premise.

Anyways, this is getting rather ridiculous on my part. I'll actually leave and leave you to discuss a matter that you evidently find to be of interest.


----------

