quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why are you turning this into a big meta-physical/philosophical debate? It's a very simple question.

firstly of all, there is no debate, secondly, there's no reason talking about perception/psychology can't turn into talking about philosophy. you're the one who said this was a 'serious' thread, unless of course the misspelling was intended to communicate sarcasm for some reason.

there may be other people who would like to talk about these issues as well.

and it may be an over-simplified question, because the answer isn't as simple as it seems you'd like it to be. maybe your cognition of words hasn't 'improved' the same way that your 'hearing perception' has.

quote:

I can't believe you're denying that hearing perception can improve with age.

i'm not. i just don't think there is a universal definition of 'improve' in this context.

quote:

As a kid I could never hear the difference between a $100 sound system and a $1000 sound system; these days I am far more sensitive to the strengths and weakness of each system I possess (2 pairs of headphones, car system and a pair of studio monitors), and which parts of the song are likely to be amplified or dulled depending on where I'm listening. As I said, in my early years these changes were NEVER apparent to me; everything sounded pretty much the same everywhere, apart from obvious things like really heavy bass. You can't chalk this down to a "changing of my spiritual direction" or the influence on society;

ok, you know the reason you didn't hear the difference between the soundsystems?

it's because you couldn't give a shit

this is what i mean when i say 'consciousness'. and consciousness extends as well into the spiritual as it does into the price range of stereo systems, which is why I brought that into the discussion.

my whole point about 'what we ought to hear' was exactly this: until you are told that a stereo system is supposed to accurately reproduce a sound, you have no basis upon which to judge it.


your ears themselves definitely have not improved. i think this is a pretty undisputed experimentally determined fact of nature.

Last edited by nefardec on Mar-31-2009 at 00:10

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why are you turning this into a big meta-physical/philosophical debate? It's a very simple question. I can't believe you're denying that hearing perception can improve with age. Sure, the ear degenerates, but the mind and therefore the interpretation of the signals received through the ear improves. There's no such thing as this: "but i also wanted to make the point that what you consider as being 'better hearing' may be an illusory or culturally-conditioned concept based on the way we 'ought to hear'. I'm not hearing layers in the music that don't exist because society "told" me to; I'm hearing them because a producer with better ears than me fucking put them there! As a kid I could never hear the difference between a $100 sound system and a $1000 sound system; these days I am far more sensitive to the strengths and weakness of each system I possess (2 pairs of headphones, car system and a pair of studio monitors), and which parts of the song are likely to be amplified or dulled depending on where I'm listening. As I said, in my early years these changes were NEVER apparent to me; everything sounded pretty much the same everywhere, apart from obvious things like really heavy bass. You can't chalk this down to a "changing of my spiritual direction" or the influence on society; I'm hearing things I didn't hear before. The only explanation is that: a) My ears themselves have improved. b) My brain/my interpretation of the signals my ears send has improved. c) Combination of a and b. Okay, as I can see many of you are going to deny those facts anyway, take them as a hypothetical and continue the discussion as laid out in the original post.

I tend to agree with your interpretation as well. Synaptic plasticity is something that definitely needs to be considered; and, it is something that undoubtedly occurs to allow our brain to change over time. For example, consider taxi drivers. They have enlarged hippocampi (hippocampuses?) because they have spent their lives memorizing street maps. The same phenomena, albeit in a different physical manifestation, can no doubt be seen as people listen to music over the years. We become aware of, and learn certain things within music that changes our perception of it. Like the OP said, he notices things now that he had never been able to before. This is synaptic plasticity in action. Sensory input becomes integrated, and our brain learns to interpret the music in a different way.

Consider also a person learning to play the piano. When he first starts, there is no way he can bang out a quick arpeggio up and down the keys; he simply does not possess the ability to do so. But, a few years down the line, he will be able to do it with ease. What changed to allow him to do this? Different/re-enforced neuronal connections in the cerebellum, etc., via practice. Now relate this to a person listening to music. When he first starts, he hears the things that evolution has geared us to hear. But, over time, he can train his hearing to perceive little nuances previously unnoticed.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec ok, you know the reason you didn't hear the difference between the soundsystems? it's because you couldn't give a shit this is what i mean when i say 'consciousness'. and consciousness extends as well into the spiritual as it does into the price range of stereo systems, which is why I brought that into the discussion. my whole point about 'what we ought to hear' was exactly this: until you are told that a stereo system is supposed to accurately reproduce a sound, you have no basis upon which to judge it. your ears themselves definitely have not improved. i think this is a pretty undisputed experimentally determined fact of nature.

Although I do agree with your consciousness viewpoint, I think you also have to acknowledge the physical changes that occur. Sure, your ears might not change, but your brain is undoubtedly changing. Hearing perception is an ability just like any other - it has to be trained. We are not all born with limitless perceptive abilities that are just limited by our consciousness.

I don't like to use the word "improve," because who is to say one thing sounds "better" than another. But that does not mean that hearing abilities and awareness does not change.

quote:

Originally posted by habman6 Although I do agree with your consciousness viewpoint, I think you also have to acknowledge the physical changes that occur. Sure, your ears might not change, but your brain is undoubtedly changing. Hearing perception is an ability just like any other - it has to be trained. We are not all born with limitless perceptive abilities that are just limited by our consciousness. I don't like to use the word "improve," because who is to say one thing sounds "better" than another. But that does not mean that hearing abilities and awareness does not change.

no, you're misunderstanding me.

I do agree that the brain changes.

I don't agree that the ears change.


and as a corollary point, the change of the brain is subjective - ie, 'improvement' may be improvement in one regard, but could also be stratification, or pigeonholing, or close-minded in another

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec no, you're misunderstanding me. I do agree that the brain changes. I don't agree that the ears change. and as a corollary point, the change of the brain is subjective - ie, 'improvement' may be improvement in one regard, but could also be stratification, or pigeonholing, or close-minded in another

Ah, indeed I misunderstood.

Good points lol.

I've often noticed this myself. Years ago, when I was listening to Trance and just getting into the whole "swing" of things, I knew that the name Digweed was popular but had no clue about him. So, I picked up Stark Raving Mad and Bedrock.

Hated them. Absolutely hated them. They were slow, dull and just outright boring and repetitive. How could anybody like this?

Then, as you said, my tastes and perceptions changed. I eventually came across those CDs again and figured, "Eh, I remember not liking this too much, but why?" I put Bedrock in and was floored. It was fucking brilliant. The subtlety of everything, the stellar mixing, the flow, all of it. Even Stark Raving Mad was absolutely wonderful. I knew then exactly what it was that kept me from understanding the CDs; I didn't get it. I hadn't been around long enough to understand the concepts behind the music outside of Trance, to understand how even the most subtle change in a track can leave you floored. I didn't know how to get lost in the flow. All I wanted in the first place was "shit that was going to give me some energy and dance." I didn't know any better.

And honestly, it's funny to follow the progression of most people that post here. Most people who post here regularly used to be heavily into Trance (hell, Clovis used to whore Ferry Corsten like nobody's business). Now look at what genres seem to dominate the topics around here...

I remember watching a documentary about music, and a music historian claimed that people in the Middle Ages were more tone deaf than they are today. Certain chords were never used because they sounded tuneless to most people.

I think the same has happened to me. Once I had real trouble distinguishing notes. Now, especially as I've started fiddling about with writing melodies, I can discern different tones much more easily. When I was 11 years old and Ministry of Sound adverts came on TV I used to think every supersaw trance anthem was tuneless cack. Now I think they're blazing fires of melody.

The synaptic explanation makes a lot of sense to me. It's also one of the reasons why I think the idea of inherent intelligence as put forth by the IQ test is ridiculous. If I sat solving logical problems all day I'd be better at IQ tests than if I hadn't. The same goes with music. If you spend years listening closely to music you will develop the ability to hear it better.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this presents a number of philosophical and spiritual ramifications, for example, the idea that life is a preparation for death, for the 'after life', the eternal life of the soul. this makes life somewhat of a training ground for the soul, and while we have ears to help us cope with the material world, as we get older and presumably wiser, we also learn how to listen inward, and to behold the soul/spirit essence of music.

If our mind and its skills, abilities and perception is facilitated by physical changes in a corporeal thing like the brain, it makes me less inclined to believe in a soul. For me, something dictated by the shape and growth of a chunk of protein is not transcendental.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I've often noticed this myself. Years ago, when I was listening to Trance and just getting into the whole "swing" of things, I knew that the name Digweed was popular but had no clue about him. So, I picked up Stark Raving Mad and Bedrock. Hated them. Absolutely hated them. They were slow, dull and just outright boring and repetitive. How could anybody like this? Then, as you said, my tastes and perceptions changed. I eventually came across those CDs again and figured, "Eh, I remember not liking this too much, but why?" I put Bedrock in and was floored. It was fucking brilliant. The subtlety of everything, the stellar mixing, the flow, all of it. Even Stark Raving Mad was absolutely wonderful. I knew then exactly what it was that kept me from understanding the CDs; I didn't get it. I hadn't been around long enough to understand the concepts behind the music outside of Trance, to understand how even the most subtle change in a track can leave you floored. I didn't know how to get lost in the flow. All I wanted in the first place was "shit that was going to give me some energy and dance." I didn't know any better. And honestly, it's funny to follow the progression of most people that post here. Most people who post here regularly used to be heavily into Trance (hell, Clovis used to whore Ferry Corsten like nobody's business). Now look at what genres seem to dominate the topics around here...

I identify with this sentiment too, and massively, but you seem to be talking more so just about your tastes shifting, where my original post was more about your sense of perception changing and your taste modifying as a result. Perhaps they're the same thing anyway?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Last edited by Domesticated on Mar-31-2009 at 03:25

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If our mind and its skills, abilities and perception is facilitated by physical changes in a corporeal thing like the brain, it makes me less inclined to believe in a soul. For me, something dictated by the shape and growth of a chunk of protein is not transcendental.

that assumes that the changes are physical. what are ideas made of? ultimately if all ideas are matter, then all matter is an idea, so what gives you the idea that it matters?

here is the paragraph i left out of my previous quotation;

quote:

What is spirit and what is matter? The difference between spirit and matter is like the difference between water and ice: frozen water is ice and melted ice is water. It is spirit in its denseness which we call matter; it is matter in its fineness which may be called spirit. Once a materialist said to me, 'I do not believe in any spirit or soul or hereafter. I believe in eternal matter.' I said to him, 'Your belief is not very different from mine, only that which you call eternal matter I call spirit; it is a difference in terms. There is nothing to dispute about because we both believe in eternity; and so long as we meet in eternity, what difference does it make, if the one calls it matter, and the other calls it spirit? It is one life from beginning to end.'

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Thus I came up with a little theory on my way home today. I was listening to a deep, hypnotic prog track which I remember disliking some years ago. The reason I didn't like it was because I thought it excessively monotonous and bland, but tonight I was completely enthralled by the subtle elements present and their gentle progression. You may well chalk this down to hearing the song on a different/better sound system that complements the song better, but I'm convinced it was because my ears have improved dramatically over the years and I'm now able to appreciate more subtle sounds that would have been all but invisible to me in my early days, hence the song sounding plain and monotonous.

Bascially through experience you've learnt how to listen to EDM better. Quite often when I'm in the car with my girlfriend listening to my music, I'll be raving about this song and how it's got so much groove and all that she can hear is the one thing over and over again. She just doesn't know how to listen to EDM.

I think given the type of music we are all generally exposed to when we are young, think your seasame street songs. Very easy, simple songs with little going on bar vocals & melody (which match).

Then most children hear pop songs which are somewhat more complicated but still place a great emphasis on the vocals & often, matching melody.

Then you listen to a prog track where, I believe, the emphasised point or focal point of the track is constantly changing and is often quite subtle. It's more like the focus point of the track is the change of focus. Compare this to a song by say Britney Spears, where you are more spoon fed what to listen to, at any given point in time, during the song.

Now the process of being able to listen to this type of EDM is learned over time and most people, myself included, started listening to a lot less complicated types of EDM. I started off listening to techno from the Wetmusik guys. Mixing was done abruptly, focus points being shifted obviously and music was lacking a lot of subtlety. I shifted in to trance stuff as it was more interesting to me and eventually I've gotten bored of trance and I'm now in to progressive house on the deeper front.

Gradually the music I've listened to has become more complicated and subtle and I can appreciate it. I've learnt how to listen to long prog tracks! My girlfriend can't do this as she always tries to focus on the one point.

quote:

Originally posted by m1kest4r Bascially through experience you've learnt how to listen to EDM better. Quite often when I'm in the car with my girlfriend listening to my music, I'll be raving about this song and how it's got so much groove and all that she can hear is the one thing over and over again. She just doesn't know how to listen to EDM.

The effect is not exclusive to electronic music, or indeed, music at all. I can hear ambient office noise, appliance hum, dogs barking and all kinds of noise far more clearly and precisely than I was able to a few years ago.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide