Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Proof that classical music is superior to every other genre

When I say "our", I mean Americans. Yes, there are many factors to OVERALL beauty, but as far as facial features go there's only one. I think we all know what that one is by now. And yes, not all cultures have the same definitions of beauty. You go to a remote village in South America that is completely out of touch with the world, unaware of any current events and you may find a few villagers that think a model is ugly. But there's a reason those two have been on the cover of every publication in the civilized world.

I believe one of my main obstacles in trying to persuade others of my stance on this is that everyone wants to believe that human beings are much more complicated than they actually are. You want to believe that you are attracted to someone because they "stir something deep in your soul", or "connect with you on a spiritual level". But really when you put ego aside, humans are just like any other animal. Men are attracted to women with curvaceous hips because it signifies the ability to bear children. We're attracted to long hair because it signifies a healthy specimen. Large breasts for the ability to care for our young. Women are attracted to men with big muscles and broad shoulders because it demonstrates the ability to protect her and their offspring. I'm speaking generally now, you'll always find that anomaly of women that are turned out by scrawny bald men with high voices, and men that like bald 400-pound women. But it's all biological when you get right down to brass tacks. Again, we're talking PHYSICAL beauty now. Physical beauty is to sonata structure as inner beauty is to compelling melodies and captivating rhythms.

How hilarious is this: When I finished writing my last post, the new FOX show "Prison Break" came on, and I hear this guy yell, "Tell me where I can find Fibonacci." He's a regular on the show I guess, heh.

From the perspective of a closed society, anything that differs within their culture projects scorn or negative feedback. Earlier tribes rejected other tribe's rituals and vice versa. But does that mean that one is right and one is wrong? The justification of a tribe and its opinion doesnt account for the subjectivity of beauty. It also certainly does not exemplify humanity's instinct of beauty either. The example of the tribe is too narrow. The fact that these tribal people see those movie stars in a ugly or strange way doesn't mean they aren't beautiful and, it doesnt mean that they are.

Wow, it just finished nearly two and a half hrs ago over here. Anways, enjoy the show im heading to bed.

It was Mr. Pianoforte himself. Of course, he also considers this a fact:

...which of course, it is not.

And yet, with all that time to consider your retorts, you have failed to accurately and/or maturely address most of the retorts in the forum. (And then you resort to berating the forum member with an opposing viewpoint...)

This may be true, derekrs, but you must remember that once we walk down that path, we fall to presumption, and opinion. If you say that Mr. Pianoforte's theory is only true when you regard music, and not a perfectly assembled collection of noise, what you are doing is saying that "the beautiful object is beautiful because it is already beautiful". We must avoid this sort of trouble. If the contention is that a 100 bar phrase, perfectly broken to fit the "Divine Ratio", is beautiful, then we must purposely allow any and every random combination of notes in that phrase.

There is bias latent throughout this entire discussion. That is the trouble with scientific arguments among artists...and many seem to take it personally when you point out evidence of bias. There are many scientists in this forum, from what I've gathered, but it seems many have chosen to stay out of this thread. I think I'm beginning to see why.

Forget the yearbook...take a look at sculptures of mythological goddesses back in "BC" era. (You can observe this particularly well among the Arabian and Eastern religions.) Notice what "beautiful" was back then? I daresay, most definitely not "beautiful" by today's standards. Then look at Renaissance art...those women would NEVER get a Playboy centerfold, let alone a modeling contract. The only conformity may be men, whose chiseled features have always been desired, it would seem. (However, the "body hair" dispute remains...)

This is my standard as well...whether or not the inner qualities shine through a person, and whether or not those inner qualities are inherently desirable (to me).

Yes, I've already tried explaining this to him as well. He does not seem particularly interested in listening to reason, though.

*points to self* American. Now, "our" is still a false statement.

If it is only one, it is one that has yet to be stated, because factually-speaking, the "Golden Ratio" theory cannot be singular or unanimous, as evidenced by more than one other poster.

A few? Try the whole village.... And the answer to why she is on the cover of every magazine is because that is what the mass media tells society is beatiful. "Sex sells" is a marketing mantra that runs the current advertising world. Sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with beauty. Beauty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mass media-produced images.

No, your main obstacle has been your failure to understand the definition of a "fact", and your continued presentation of your personal opinion as a fact. I am not the only person who has said this. I think nearly every other poster has said this. Apparently, it hasn't sunk in yet.

I think we're all very interested in what you have to say, but your lack of facts, and your continued use of opinion instead, is really destroying any scientific argument you may want to create for your position. I'm more than willing to listen to facts, but, as snap_apple has said, you have only presented one: the ratio of Mozart's sonata and its close approximation to the "Golden Ratio".

Ever hear of the "Bio-Psycho-Social" model? "It" is NEVER about just one of the three.

Dude, I'm not gonna do the whole itemized list of comebacks with you anymore. However, if anybody else has anything else they'd like to contribue they're more than welcome. Now...pretty please, with a cherry on top, take a hike while I patiently await the ignore function?

Half of them don't speak to you, so relax...or actually read the ones that do, and think of a well-educated response (instead of the typical "ignore function" propaganda).

"There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."
Francis Bacon

Propaganda...heh, you got issues. No, really. I don't mind continuing this discussion, but your constant interruptions are making it difficult for me to focus on legitimate points. In addition to defending the classical music issue, I have to constantly babysit you to make sure you stay in line. Be the bigger man - say no more, and walk away.

That is completely wrong. Anyone with arms even 100mm shorter or longer would look quite unattractive. Now keep in mind that almost eveyone's height is virtually the same as their arm span.

The golden ratio plays some role in aesthetics, for sure, but to think it's the be-all and end-all is utterly ridiculous.

Therein lies your problem. My points are both legitimate and happen to agree with nearly everything else that has been said in the three pages of this discussion. Countering my points, instead of attacking me, would be a good "first base". Right now, you're 0-2.

I'll openly admit I'm probably not the biggest man here, but with comments like "I have to constantly babysit you", among others (of yours), it's not too difficult to succeed here.

Yeah, I'll bet Bacon was a choice piece of a**.



Seriously...what is this pervasive need to "define" beauty going on in this thread? Isn't it enough that it exists, and that we all move by attraction, no matter how we try to qualify or quantify that attraction in its details? It's not like you'll be able to change it or gain some kind of control over it, anyway, no matter how many "scientific arguments" you use to prop up this or that assertion. Yeah, phi, very interesting, great. But only to a point. Again, it's not like understanding phi will change who or what you're attracted to; what it *may* wind up doing, if you're not careful, is allowing you to abstract yourself from real relationship with the person (or sonata, or whatever it is you're attracted to), to put a barrier or lens up between you, creating just that degree of distance and, therefore, lack of participation. Really, when you get right down to it, it amounts to mental masturbation rather than real involvement with something. What was your motivation to bring it up to begin with, anyway? That's what interests me.

My motivation mainly stemmed from a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a coworker. He was playing a rap song that he wrote for me, and telling me how drugged up he was when he recorded it. I expressed that it turned out fairly well, and then asked what he was on. He said he had a few beers, smoked a blunt, and took a pill of ecstacy beforehand. I sort of laughed, and then he asked me if I ever played the piano stoned. I told him that it affects technique too much, and he didn't understand. I explained to him the science of neural stimuli and the link between motor skills and impairment from substances. He then tried to explain to me that rapping and playing the piano were of the same vein, and I should be able to play the piano under the influence as well as he was able to rap. I defended my position the best I could, but didn't have a real defined answer how the art of pianism is infinitely more complex and refined than the art of rap. Well, now I do. Plus I just like dispelling the myth that humans are beautiful and unique snowflakes.

Derelux, you're absolutely right! I hadn't looked it THAT way before.

vapour, take a look at this:
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/geometryOfHumanAnatomy.html

I think the real argument should be that he could not rap as well while under the influence. Technically, language incorporates a much more complex brain function than simple motor skills, so it should be more difficult to rap under the influence than play piano under the influence, disregarding, of course, the state of intoxication. (After what your friend said he did, I would assume "heavily intoxicated", which has begun to affect more levels of the brain than simple motor skills.)

But, cranially-speaking, rapping is a more complex process than piano-playing because the former incorporates language, while the latter is more motor skills.

Perhaps a more proper stance would be to explain to your friend that, while speech is not among the first pathways affected by drugs and/or alcohol, simple motor skills are. So, while he can continue to speak effectively long after his simple motor skills are impaired, the ability to play the piano is affected immediately--as soon as these simple motor skills become impaired.

Now, I'm not sure how well your friend understands the concepts of all of that, but it might help you explain it a little better to him. And don't put him on the defensive by telling him rap is "simplistic" and classical music is "divine". Not only will it prevent your point from being heard, but (as pointed out above) rap is not "simplistic".

Right again, Derul!

Well, thats the thing...humans are very complex...what is beautiful is very complex. Sure there is a shallow, natural, instinctive aspect to what is beautiful on the surface...but, that all changes once personality gets involved. Just like in music, like you mentioned yourself...when inner beauty, the personality, comes in (compelling melodies and captivating rhythms) what is attractive on the surface changes...for better or worse.

And, with humans, personality shows itself in many ways, including facial expressions. We can tell if a person is arrogant, shy, confident, goofy, happy, etc just by the way they express themselves with their face, or by the way the walk. So even on the surface a beautiful person can become ugly or more attractive depending on the type of vibe they give off communicating through their face.

Now, it gets far more complex when you get to know a person. How they speak, what they have to say, how compatible they are with you...their definently is a very deep, spiritual connection that occurs after spending time with somebody.

This connection know doubt has a power to mask any physical imperfections. That's why you get people that say.... "how can she be with him...she's too good for him." well maybe she sees something in the person we can't...why? cause what is beautiful is very personal and is affected by many different things, especially if you've grown to like specific tastes.

And I believe that music is exactly the same way. What is beautiful in music changes from person to person from culture to culture from time to time and is defined by much deeper aspects then just structural perfection. Music is complex. People are complex. We aren't computers, these are the things that seperate us from machines.

by the way your subject line is

"Proof that classical music is superior to every other genre"

...superiority and beauty are two totally different things...

I could be superior to a person...say a boss at a job...and be far more ugly and imperfect. I do not yet understand the correlation between the divine ratio theory and superiority.

Well, my stance is that the Divine Proportion = beauty. Everyone has their own standards of music, but I rate good music based on its beauty. I may listen to Eminem and Snoop Dogg when I'm in a club, but that's only cause I'm wasted and just want to party. But if I really want music to move and inspire me, I'll listen to classical. So it looks like I should've revised my headline once again, to "Proof that classical music is the most beautiful of all the genres".

There are many variables that contribute to brain activity when contrasting rapping and piano. It depends on the deviations of degree to how the intensity of each activity is done. For example, to what degree of concentration is required for playing a piece and what particular piece. As for rapping, is he free-styling or just rehersing words again? (repetition or creativity)

But i think your aim was at a general view of simple motor and language fuctions.

When you play piano, you have factors involved neurologically. The pyramidal tract which serves as the major pathway to the central nervous system, interconnecting regions of the basal ganglia, and cerebellum. If you want real jargon(for you med students on here):
the basal ganglia's major receptive component is the striatum. the occulomotor nerve transmits part of motor activity via "motor circuit", the "occulomotor circuit", the "dorsolateral prefrontal circuit", the "lateral orbitofrontal circuit" and the "anterior cingulate circuit". Each particular circuit receives multiple corticostritate inputs that are progressively integrated in passage through the basal ganglia. Hence a more basic level of complexity.

Language is expressed through the frontal lobe for the most part. there are other various small parts that coincide with functionality. But language has a more direct connection, simply put. However, the complexity of language stimulates activity in the frontal regions by +- .007 volts per second and increases ten folds from there... if i remember correctly. But there is a rate calculation in which activity will require, or should i say, will be more complex than the other.

So rap's demanding cognitive functions may or may not surpass piano's. But it cannot be determined with such ambiguous scenarios.

Cranium refers to the skull, not neurological functions.