BozzlyB Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) I have a deep appreciation for research and do it for a living. And I'd love to see the outcome of this research project once you get NSF funding for it. :) However, suggesting that show designers could be aided by such research is ambitious. Or, more specifically, suggesting that show designers would WANT to be aided. You could unscientifically figure out musical and visual characteristics that generate emotional effects in audience members through an informal survey - but show designers generally aren't interested in this. What show designers want is a data mining effort that provides score output from musical and visual characteristic input - the link between higher score and show design with a talent constraint. Well I openned this thread, made it to post #5, and had an aneurysm. Thanks. Edited January 11, 2011 by BozzlyB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Knob Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Bill Reddie, composer of Channel One Suite and arranger for the Buddy Rich Orchestra, became interested in the science of music, emotion, and stress relief later in his life. He wrote many articles (click here) on these topics that have some very valid points. As a persons reaction to music is based so much on their individual make-up and experiences, sweeping generalizations as to reaction and such are pretty much impossible. Simple, basic physiological reactions such as heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure will change when a person is exposed to sound, but as to how much, or exactly what kind of music causes what exact changes, is still open to many individual variables and is just about impossible to quantify. As an example, based on my personal make-up and experiences, I really enjoyed BD 2010, but I also have a copy of City of Glass signed by both Stan Kenton and Bob Graettinger, and a large collection of Kenton records, so that alters my reaction. If you can actually figure this out with any certainty, you will be king of the universe. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Still very confused. Maybe I'm more used to thinking in this mindset (and no, I've never "hurt" myself from thinking), but I fail to see how thinking outside the box and wanting to attempt something completely different, and see where it leads, is such a destestable idea If you put it like THAT it doesn't sound detestable at all... BUT you haven't put it like that. The science is un-negotiable, the implementation of that science is. I'm glad we've rightfully ignored people who've said, "It's just literature. Stop thinking so hard!" Well are walking about analyzing drum corps like literature? Or we talking about only making books that receive the highest emotional response from readers based on a scientific study of people's chemical releases in order to produce a book that create the highest profit for the author? I'm glad we've rightfully ignored people who've said the only good books are the ones that science can help us write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 as much as I agree with a lot of the things Hrothgar says... science is to a large part the application of logic. audience reaction is about emotion. emotion and logic definitely don't mix. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 as much as I agree with a lot of the things Hrothgar says... science is to a large part the application of logic. audience reaction is about emotion. emotion and logic definitely don't mix. science and art politics and religion corporate and non-profit oil and water 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think you're missing the point entirely, along with most responders in this thread. The results of this research would simply be a guideline. Show designers already have numerous tools available for use in the repertoire to generate effect (some, I feel, haven't been used in years and deserve a return). This would simply provide results to add the toolbox, and maybe reevaluate what's already in it. I'm not proposing some radical idea here by any stretch, but most seem to be turned off by the mere thought of the implications of such a study. It must have something to do with people refusing to accept just how mechanistic and analyzable these reactions can be. all jokes aside...i think science as you propose it would have us end up exactly where we are right in now in terms of show design. different things stir different people in different ways. I would cheer an amp blowing up Mike D would cry over the same thing Bawker would go nuts for Lady GaGA BD could play come to Jesus in whole notes as they jump off of chairs over the mirrors and BD would call it groundbreaking...others would call it stupid. and we'd be right back where we are today. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Wait, you honestly believe that everyone SHOULD have had the same reaction to that moment? You honestly believe that everyone should have been jumping up and screaming and those people that didn't do that were only "distracted"? Is that right?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't want to go through this entire post, so I'll have you do it. Wherever you make an assumption or claim or concern about my study in the above, realize that it's wrong and does not apply to what I'm proposing. Although I do agree that the tests should in no way be limited to only people already familiar with drum corps. Designers use elements that they think will get people excited all the time! The only purpose of this study is to analyze them, and use why they work to find new ones. There's only room for growth, not restriction. Is that clearer? you cant be excited all the time. you need highs and lows, peaks and valleys, suspense, intrigue and release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 you cant be excited all the time. you need highs and lows, peaks and valleys, suspense, intrigue and release. Indeed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.