[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/mu/ - Music


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: FB_IMG_1762608202212.jpg (115 KB, 1291x1270)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
You might find the section of this old radiolab on Stravinsky interesting. https://radiolab.org/podcast/91512-musical-language/ they posit that listening to new, dissonant sounds (ie sounds you don't like) can, in some cases at least, biochemically rewire your brain as it learns to process the new patterns and then boom: it's not dissonant anymore and you like it. Like, your experience is part of the biological mechanisms by which human brains parse music.

I kind of wonder if that's what musical generas ARE, at least in part. If we're imposing labels to the point where the patterns in a song get different enough that the brain has to learn them anew. Dunno, food for thought.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.