tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post3611116276405219980..comments2024-03-27T23:06:03.736-05:00Comments on The Music Salon: Rhythm and Mind ControlBryan Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-43292829997908005412012-10-24T22:24:37.814-05:002012-10-24T22:24:37.814-05:00Joel, I very much appreciate you weighing in on my...Joel, I very much appreciate you weighing in on my critique of science posts! Yes, I am coming from a different world and I take your point about my not being scientifically sophisticated. I've read a lot of science, but certainly have not practiced it!<br /><br />Yes, it would be better to read the original and not the journalistic account--though I do expect Scientific American to be a bit higher standard. They were reporting, I believe, on a paper read at a conference so there may be no other source at present.<br /><br />It is not so much that I am attacking the scientific approach as I am the message that is being disseminated in the media. I would like the ordinary reader to get a more complete picture.<br /><br />I think that if someone is doing research into music, they should have some musical knowledge because that would help them to not make rudimentary mistakes. I think there was only one really technical musical term used in the article--syncopation--and it was used incorrectly!<br /><br />But, ok, there may be something there about the brain waves. And I very much take your point about the tree. Science is going to look at music from a different point of view. Bryan Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482696991279345516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827040061563065922.post-24541834668866295692012-10-24T14:42:05.683-05:002012-10-24T14:42:05.683-05:00Hello Bryan!
Well… This post made me think a lot....Hello Bryan!<br /><br />Well… This post made me think a lot. But not about the subject, actually… I’ll explain later.<br /><br />First, I would have loved to read the scientific article (if there was any), and no just that article in a popular science magazine, so I could make a better critic.<br /><br />Remember that in this kind of articles you never know how much stupidity come from the scientist or the writer of the article (ha ha ha).<br /><br />Before I clicked to the Scientific American link, I read all your post. And I told myself “No way! There’s no possible way that the research was like that”. And then I saw… Oh my God...The experiment with the images well… I don’t understand how they came up with that. The “bar” thing, I think it must be the writer’s invention. (I’m like you actually, I hate going to that places). But I think that there was something interesting, I mean, that stuff about the “brain waves” don’ you think?<br /><br />Anyway, the conclusions… as you said: Nothing new<br /><br />BUT!<br /><br />(If we have to criticize her) Nothing new because her conclusions are something researchers have been telling for a while. Not because musicians knew it since millennia. That’s my opinion.<br /><br />I think that there’s a clash between the two worlds: music & science. And I think we must be careful with our biases. I don’t know if I told you already (or maybe you already could infer it) that I have scientific training (however, I don’t work in research) and of course, my passion is classical music. So… every time you talk about science, probably I’ll be here in the comments hehehe. <br /><br />This clash… It happens both ways: <br /><br />When she said that “syncopation” that doesn’t exist, you could say “she is musically unsophisticated”.<br /><br />But trust me, if a researcher reads your “Well, it is pretty simple really, the three beats were distracting”. He’s going to say “He is scientifically unsophisticated”. <br /><br />But I guess we can deal with that. Hehehe <br /><br />But finally, one thing that really worries me:<br /><br /> The science information… maybe… we’re not reading the same things. I’m going to use a hypothetic past situation:<br /><br />One day a scientist had to say: “That plant takes H2O and salts from the ground, takes CO2 from the air and with the energy of the sun, it creates its own biomass, so it can grow into a tree.”<br /><br /> An then the people said: “Duh… we have seen the trees growing from the ground since ever! What’s new?”<br /><br />See my point? <br /><br />I apologize for my long comment; I guess I was inspired.<br /><br />Greetings Bryan! And I agree with Nathan: This music blog is the best!<br />Joel Lohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09899053147050874817noreply@blogger.com