81%...
81%...
65% wooo!
Originally Posted by Aitch
because it depends which way you look at the test. If you look at it as in 'this is what one square means, this is what an arrow means' in musical terms, which I think is what you're getting at (correct me if I'm wrong), then yes it's bullshit... but I doubt that is what he is getting at, as I would not look at the 'square' melody, and the 'arrow' melody as shape-specific sounds - but as being two seperate units, where say if one arrow goes up.. and the music goes up.. hey presto - a link. That is as deep as it goes in any of the tests, if one square is narrow and another is bold, you get two melodies the same, but one is louder. There is no room for misinterpretation as far as I can see it unless you are not particularly good at aural tests, or are below 3 and don't know what a square is. I'm saying your interpretation of the test is probably wrong, not the test itself..
Doctors, philosophers, and lecturers in music have been using tests like these for a long, long time - and I am quite sure they know more about what is bullshit than me or you.
If I went to a doctor with a nasty little rash that wouldn't go away and he/she decided to base their diagnosis on plinkety plonkety music and squares and arrows, I'd be seeking a second opinion. The role of a philosopher is to sit around thinking up bollocks, which I like to think I'm rather good at and probably a great deal better at than anyone currently occupying the role in a professional capacity. And a lecturer in music? That's someone that sucks so bad they can't get a proper job in the music industry, isn't it? I don't think I'll be taking any notice of them, either.Doctors, philosophers, and lecturers in music have been using tests like these for a long, long time - and I am quite sure they know more about what is bullshit than me or you.
So you may have managed to match your interpretation of a sound to some other nutter on an internet, but you've scored a big fat fail in justifying it as being in any way scientific.
Its a relatively straightforward test - the musical phrase give an audible interpreation of sound due to the rise/fall of the tune. But then again I've been plinking away on a guitar for 12 years so my mind works in weird ways like that.
Anyway - 85% - think I might have got higher but the missus is bashing away on the 360 next to me
70% here too. I could see the logic after a couple.
90% but then I used my Bose earphones for it instead of just listening to it out of the PC speakers which I would imagine helped quite a bit.
That equates pretty well to most of the lecturing that 99% of my apprentices receive
The problem I found is the shapes he used are not used ithe same way in modern musical notation or creation .... so I dont associate them in the way they are being used.
as far as I am concerned a square is a square wave a triangle is a saw wave and the stupid squigle on the top of some squares is a clearly a sine wave ..... the arrows dictating pitch change in that test are more widly used to dictate attack, sustain and decay. Shapes within shapes are quite obviously mappng of different harmonic frequencyies within the notes.
doing that test for me would be like doing a driving test where all the signs are swapped round so no parking really meant 30mph
I found the representation really quite irritating especially as he used symbols already in use in music and meaning something else.
edit: I suppose if I dumbed myself down and just listened to the music, THEN looked at the pretty shapes to see which one most represented the difference, I might tollerate it ..... but I didnt ..... I listened to the music whilst looking at a square and saw wave picture trying to figure out what wave had been passed through the gate to create the sound
Last edited by Johnny; 19-09-2008 at 07:29.
Synth king Johnny!
80%
Hear shapes???? Easy .
Hear colours, see sounds and more with..........
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
