This was a pretty sweet radio thing. I was particularly interested in the defining line between speaking and singing and the emotions that come with certain pitches/sounds. I've always wondered that. But I think the segment where they discussed how big of an impact speech was when a parent talked to his or her baby was highly significant. Because everyone sees the dorky parents talking all goo goo like to their baby or child out in public. I think it's interesting how kids of different cultures can be more musical-prone than others, just because of the way they were raised. And the lady talking throughout the radio thing reminded me of Susan Boyle.
I thought this radio section was creepy to listen to. With the people talking and the sound overlay it made the whole thing sound kind of eerie. I liked learing about how sound changes after it is played so many times into what sounds like music. Until listening to this I had never thought how the brain reacts to sounds that have never been heard. This has made me think differently about all the sounds that surrounds me daily.
I really thought the podcast challenged what we consider to be "music" in today's society, and even challenged us to say that our definition has changed over the years, citing the crowd's reaction to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. In my music classes in high school, we really delved into this piece, so it was neat to see it tie into another lesson. When the hosts were talking about how asian children are more likely to develop pitch, I found it really interesting because all of my music teachers have always told me that it is impossible to teach perfect pitch, and it is just something that you're born with. Maybe if more younger kids in the US were exposed to music classes, we could see this same phenomenon happen here. All in all, I thought the podcast was really interesting, and I completely agree with Leah, that the lady really does sound like Susan Boyle.
This episode of Radiolab was fascinating! It made me think about sound in some different ways. I've often thought parents were ridiculous to speak to babies in cooing goo-goo language. However, now I will look at them differently. The section on brain neurons and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was crazy! I had no idea sound could elicit such intense reactions. The ability of the brain to adapt to new, dissonant sounds made me think about how that happens in many artistic disciplines and other innovative arenas. Any time you have a really ground breaking individual doing something new, usually the first audience response is 'NO!!!' But later on, the very thing that was rejected is declared genius. Somehow it's refreshing to hear there is a biological reason for this, not just people being closed-minded. -Megan G.
I also really enjoyed the way the studio used sound during the interview and session. Like giving voices to the neurons and fading background voices in and out. It really filled out the hour in ways that I don't usually hear radio utilize.
I've always been rather intrigued at how different cultures perceive sound and sight, and the segment on tonal languages compared to English and other non-tonal languages. While we both use tone to give a different meaning to the same word (in English, notably with sarcasm), tonal languages derive multiple words from very similar sounds. The complexity is mind-boggling, since most western children are exposed and taught in only one way. It's similar in a sense to the Himba in Africa who perceive color in different ways as well. Light and dark green are entirely different colors, where light green and red can be the exact same color to the Himba. (There's a great BBC segment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I )
And in regards to Stravinsky's concert, I related the phenomenon to how, after reading the same word over and over, it stops looking like a word and just a series of weird symbols. In the same sense, once the audience heard the same noise over and over, it stopped associating it with music, and began hearing it as a raw, unpleasant sound, over and over.
Unlike most shows where scientists bullshit back and forth and never really seem to find the answers we're hoping for, these guys really made an effort to engage the listener, and ended up answering some questions I've had for a while regarding the connections between music and language. For years I'd struggled with the concept of loathing a band upon first listen, only to fall in love with the same couple of songs months or even days later. I now understand the importance of an open mind, transforming something once dissonant and rigid into something you might eventually be able to connect with on a much stronger, even emotional level. As for the last segment, I'm one of those kids who believes that music should be raw, and left untouched by most forms of technology. The use of software to create music just seems to extinguish all of the human spirit in the songs, and cheapens the experience for the listener. Sure, I'll listen to it, and I'll enjoy it, but there's something about a man with a guitar, or a piano, or a couple of guys in a garage or a living room that just makes the music real.
I like how this episode isn't just a radio interview where a person ask a question about a complex concept and the person just answers it generally. This stimulus engagement helped me to actually enjoy listening to it. The random bits of sound, the examples ["sometime they behaves so strangely", tones, Perfect Pitch]) really made me understand sound a little more. These bits of interviews show how sound can be so sensitive. Also, the relationship between speech and sound is so intertwined, it's almost imaginable to think any differently. The Chinese and the four tones of pronunciation is like scales and pitch in music. And the relationship between music and feeling is a relationship that we understand, but we still do not fully understand. We KNOW that music affects feelings and emotions but we don't know fully WHY it happens. We talked about this in my Psych class last year and how different notes and pitches hit certain parts of the brain and neurons and changes how you feel. The fact that something as simple as "just waves compressing/decompressing air" can affect us so easily, and not in a positive way (i.e.: The Rite of Spring riot in 1913). Each segment during this Radio Lab way really interesting and made me learn so much about sound in such a short amount of time. I really liked it!
The track of "sometimes behave so strangely" was really interesting. I didn't notice that it became song-like until after hearing it a few times, but I think the song quality is partly due to the frequent s sound. When I was growing up, the constant loop of a word or phrase just made it sound less and less like a word that made any sense, not something that became a song. It was kind of mind-blowing. The different tones and pitches really do make a huge difference in the way things came out. I think I always knew this in the back of my mind but never really looked at it in this way. It really brought about a new understanding. Like Tori said, the little segments of sound and interesting ideas these people brought into it really made it something else and not what I was expecting at all. The piano segment blew my mind just thinking that people actually knew the differences in the sounds and what the names were. The fact the tone language made such a difference in understanding the pitches and changes of tones and sounds was incredible. These things this radio show is doing makes it really actually cool to listen to. Admittedly I probably would never listen to this or another episode of it again, but I did enjoy the way they went about it. It was engaging and very interesting. It wasn't full of junk I didn't care about or stupid sounds to make something dumb sound funnier like Elliot in the Morning or whatever you might listen to. All in all, very well executed.
I agree with what Tori regarding the way the podcast was structured. It was really interesting how the sounds were overlaid and the interviews were conducted and it definitely kept my interest throughout the hour. I really like the part about the way parents talk to their children. It was so cool to hear all the different languages one after another with the same type of musical patterns. I thought it was funny where Meg said how she thought parents were ridiculous to speak to babies in cooing goo-goo language but now she will look at them differently, because thats exactly the same way I felt after hearing that section. That part reminded me of the way we speak to our pets. Dogs especially respond to the tones of our voices and not he actual words we are saying, much like how babies who don't understand the meanings of the words respond to the tones we say them in.
I thorughly enjoyed radio lab. The first segment discussed how tonal languages promote a better understanding of pitch. I thought that the link between musical success and tonal language speakers was very intersting. The segment which discussed How tones by themselves, like touch, could be communicative without any liguistic context. As demonstrated by the same tonal qualities being attributed to mothers of different nationalities when speaking to their babies. Another area I thought was very intersting was the relationship between the mind and how it reacts to music. I had always thought that the tendency to not like a song until you'd heard it several times was merely incosistent, but they're explanation for that behavior was much more satisfactory. I really enjoyed the story about the riots at Ballet Russe. The last segment was also very informative. The debate between electronically produced and composer produced work was not one that I was previously aware of. I thought it was very engaging. I really enjoyed listening to Radio Lab. It was very informative and intersting.
I think this radio is really useful to people who want to work in music industry. One of the most amazing things was when they created a song 'sometimes behave so strangely' and found the melody naturally from the tone of voices. They repeated talking 'sometimes behave so strangely' and different tone overlapped on it and then added some of the beats, finally became a new song. Also they found different pitches in natural sound, like a church bell is b flat. It's interesting the way how they defined the definition of the music in their own way.
This was so interesting! It is amazing to me that it is possible to recognize pitch so accurately! I think its weird that that woman is trying to sell her CDs.... the sounds were so annoying. however, her research is really interesting and it is very exciting all the possibilities that her discoveries open up!
This was a pretty sweet radio thing. I was particularly interested in the defining line between speaking and singing and the emotions that come with certain pitches/sounds. I've always wondered that. But I think the segment where they discussed how big of an impact speech was when a parent talked to his or her baby was highly significant. Because everyone sees the dorky parents talking all goo goo like to their baby or child out in public. I think it's interesting how kids of different cultures can be more musical-prone than others, just because of the way they were raised. And the lady talking throughout the radio thing reminded me of Susan Boyle.
ReplyDeleteI thought this radio section was creepy to listen to. With the people talking and the sound overlay it made the whole thing sound kind of eerie. I liked learing about how sound changes after it is played so many times into what sounds like music. Until listening to this I had never thought how the brain reacts to sounds that have never been heard. This has made me think differently about all the sounds that surrounds me daily.
ReplyDeleteI really thought the podcast challenged what we consider to be "music" in today's society, and even challenged us to say that our definition has changed over the years, citing the crowd's reaction to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. In my music classes in high school, we really delved into this piece, so it was neat to see it tie into another lesson. When the hosts were talking about how asian children are more likely to develop pitch, I found it really interesting because all of my music teachers have always told me that it is impossible to teach perfect pitch, and it is just something that you're born with. Maybe if more younger kids in the US were exposed to music classes, we could see this same phenomenon happen here. All in all, I thought the podcast was really interesting, and I completely agree with Leah, that the lady really does sound like Susan Boyle.
ReplyDeleteThis episode of Radiolab was fascinating! It made me think about sound in some different ways. I've often thought parents were ridiculous to speak to babies in cooing goo-goo language. However, now I will look at them differently. The section on brain neurons and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was crazy! I had no idea sound could elicit such intense reactions. The ability of the brain to adapt to new, dissonant sounds made me think about how that happens in many artistic disciplines and other innovative arenas. Any time you have a really ground breaking individual doing something new, usually the first audience response is 'NO!!!' But later on, the very thing that was rejected is declared genius. Somehow it's refreshing to hear there is a biological reason for this, not just people being closed-minded. -Megan G.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed the way the studio used sound during the interview and session. Like giving voices to the neurons and fading background voices in and out. It really filled out the hour in ways that I don't usually hear radio utilize.
ReplyDeleteI've always been rather intrigued at how different cultures perceive sound and sight, and the segment on tonal languages compared to English and other non-tonal languages. While we both use tone to give a different meaning to the same word (in English, notably with sarcasm), tonal languages derive multiple words from very similar sounds. The complexity is mind-boggling, since most western children are exposed and taught in only one way. It's similar in a sense to the Himba in Africa who perceive color in different ways as well. Light and dark green are entirely different colors, where light green and red can be the exact same color to the Himba. (There's a great BBC segment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I )
ReplyDeleteAnd in regards to Stravinsky's concert, I related the phenomenon to how, after reading the same word over and over, it stops looking like a word and just a series of weird symbols. In the same sense, once the audience heard the same noise over and over, it stopped associating it with music, and began hearing it as a raw, unpleasant sound, over and over.
Unlike most shows where scientists bullshit back and forth and never really seem to find the answers we're hoping for, these guys really made an effort to engage the listener, and ended up answering some questions I've had for a while regarding the connections between music and language.
ReplyDeleteFor years I'd struggled with the concept of loathing a band upon first listen, only to fall in love with the same couple of songs months or even days later. I now understand the importance of an open mind, transforming something once dissonant and rigid into something you might eventually be able to connect with on a much stronger, even emotional level.
As for the last segment, I'm one of those kids who believes that music should be raw, and left untouched by most forms of technology. The use of software to create music just seems to extinguish all of the human spirit in the songs, and cheapens the experience for the listener. Sure, I'll listen to it, and I'll enjoy it, but there's something about a man with a guitar, or a piano, or a couple of guys in a garage or a living room that just makes the music real.
I like how this episode isn't just a radio interview where a person ask a question about a complex concept and the person just answers it generally. This stimulus engagement helped me to actually enjoy listening to it. The random bits of sound, the examples ["sometime they behaves so strangely", tones, Perfect Pitch]) really made me understand sound a little more. These bits of interviews show how sound can be so sensitive.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the relationship between speech and sound is so intertwined, it's almost imaginable to think any differently. The Chinese and the four tones of pronunciation is like scales and pitch in music.
And the relationship between music and feeling is a relationship that we understand, but we still do not fully understand. We KNOW that music affects feelings and emotions but we don't know fully WHY it happens. We talked about this in my Psych class last year and how different notes and pitches hit certain parts of the brain and neurons and changes how you feel. The fact that something as simple as "just waves compressing/decompressing air" can affect us so easily, and not in a positive way (i.e.: The Rite of Spring riot in 1913).
Each segment during this Radio Lab way really interesting and made me learn so much about sound in such a short amount of time. I really liked it!
The track of "sometimes behave so strangely" was really interesting. I didn't notice that it became song-like until after hearing it a few times, but I think the song quality is partly due to the frequent s sound. When I was growing up, the constant loop of a word or phrase just made it sound less and less like a word that made any sense, not something that became a song. It was kind of mind-blowing. The different tones and pitches really do make a huge difference in the way things came out. I think I always knew this in the back of my mind but never really looked at it in this way. It really brought about a new understanding. Like Tori said, the little segments of sound and interesting ideas these people brought into it really made it something else and not what I was expecting at all. The piano segment blew my mind just thinking that people actually knew the differences in the sounds and what the names were. The fact the tone language made such a difference in understanding the pitches and changes of tones and sounds was incredible. These things this radio show is doing makes it really actually cool to listen to. Admittedly I probably would never listen to this or another episode of it again, but I did enjoy the way they went about it. It was engaging and very interesting. It wasn't full of junk I didn't care about or stupid sounds to make something dumb sound funnier like Elliot in the Morning or whatever you might listen to. All in all, very well executed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Tori regarding the way the podcast was structured. It was really interesting how the sounds were overlaid and the interviews were conducted and it definitely kept my interest throughout the hour. I really like the part about the way parents talk to their children. It was so cool to hear all the different languages one after another with the same type of musical patterns. I thought it was funny where Meg said how she thought parents were ridiculous to speak to babies in cooing goo-goo language but now she will look at them differently, because thats exactly the same way I felt after hearing that section. That part reminded me of the way we speak to our pets. Dogs especially respond to the tones of our voices and not he actual words we are saying, much like how babies who don't understand the meanings of the words respond to the tones we say them in.
ReplyDeleteI thorughly enjoyed radio lab. The first segment discussed how tonal languages promote a better understanding of pitch. I thought that the link between musical success and tonal language speakers was very intersting. The segment which discussed How tones by themselves, like touch, could be communicative without any liguistic context. As demonstrated by the same tonal qualities being attributed to mothers of different nationalities when speaking to their babies. Another area I thought was very intersting was the relationship between the mind and how it reacts to music. I had always thought that the tendency to not like a song until you'd heard it several times was merely incosistent, but they're explanation for that behavior was much more satisfactory. I really enjoyed the story about the riots at Ballet Russe. The last segment was also very informative. The debate between electronically produced and composer produced work was not one that I was previously aware of. I thought it was very engaging. I really enjoyed listening to Radio Lab. It was very informative and intersting.
ReplyDeleteI think this radio is really useful to people who want to work in music industry. One of the most amazing things was when they created a song 'sometimes behave so strangely' and found the melody naturally from the tone of voices. They repeated talking 'sometimes behave so strangely' and different tone overlapped on it and then added some of the beats, finally became a new song. Also they found different pitches in natural sound, like a church bell is b flat. It's interesting the way how they defined the definition of the music in their own way.
ReplyDeleteThis was so interesting! It is amazing to me that it is possible to recognize pitch so accurately! I think its weird that that woman is trying to sell her CDs.... the sounds were so annoying. however, her research is really interesting and it is very exciting all the possibilities that her discoveries open up!
ReplyDelete