Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Scientists say we may soon be able to talk to spiders, if that is something you are into   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

440 clicks; posted to STEM » on 12 Apr 2021 at 3:42 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-04-12 11:55:29 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 12:13:46 PM  
Old George Carlin:

"Little Miss Muffet,
Sat on her tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey.
Along came a spider,
And sat down beside her,
And they rapped for about an hour and a half"
 
2021-04-12 12:17:47 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 12:22:03 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 1:00:42 PM  
Good. I think it's only fair to let them know that if they stay in the crawlspace, we're cool. If they come up into the house, it's a dozen or more swatter smacks.
 
2021-04-12 3:53:55 PM  

WWTandPD: Good. I think it's only fair to let them know that if they stay in the crawlspace, we're cool. If they come up into the house, it's a dozen or more swatter smacks.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 3:58:25 PM  
Transcript of first conversation:

h: Hello. We are pleased to be able to speak with you today. We'd like to understand you and what you want.

s: What I want? What I want. Hmm. What I want is to CRAWL INTO YOUR SHOE AND WAIT FOR YOUR BIG TOES SO I CAN BITE THEM AND INJECT MY VENOM THEN WATCH YOU SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY DIE DIE DIE WHILE I LAUGH AND LAUGH. Also a diet coke if you have one.
 
2021-04-12 3:59:59 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 4:06:08 PM  

OldRod: Old George Carlin:

"Little Miss Muffet,
Sat on her tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey.
Along came a spider,
And sat down beside her,
And they rapped for about an hour and a half"


Thank you

Now the thread can begin
 
2021-04-12 4:07:11 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 4:07:18 PM  

IgG4: [pbs.twimg.com image 599x403]


That one looks a little like party spider
 
2021-04-12 4:19:38 PM  
Some pig.
 
2021-04-12 4:29:04 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 5:10:19 PM  
If we could persuade the National Spiders 202 to make weave a space elevator, we could really be on to something.

Lord knows collective bargaining is the only way to achieve mass production.
 
2021-04-12 5:16:31 PM  
I bet I know where they got their inspiration from.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 5:43:17 PM  
I don't know how to play any percussion instruments.

Wouldn't want to make the spiders horny or mad or both at the same time.
 
2021-04-12 5:44:52 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
Mommy longlegs
 
2021-04-12 6:38:34 PM  
if that is something you are into

Flight of the Conchords - "If You're Into It" [HQ]
Youtube uRJZfwDgNTM
 
2021-04-12 8:29:49 PM  
This is kinda interesting, although going from this to "We can talk to spiders" is a bit of a stretch.

I really hate these "New inspiration for music!" articles. You can take any data, ascribe musical parameters to it, and plug it all into a computer and it'll spit out music for you. It's just strings of numbers, regardless of the source. You can use tree rings, or fungal spore counts, or unfinished sudoku puzzles--it's just arbitrary sets of numbers that you are arbitrary plugging into arbitrary systems. There's no inherent deeper meaning there, and unless you tell people the source of the data, no one would know.

Add to that the fact that the more mathematically organized sound is the less organized it tends to sound to our ears (in a musical sense), and you're likely going to end up with something that doesn't make much sense to most people. It's a curiosity at best most, nearly all of the time.

It's not an invalid approach, of course, but I hate how we treat these projects as some sort of creative sorcery. Like how people's minds are blown when they hear "pi as music!!!", which is really just someone going "each unique numeral = a key on a piano." This already runs into problems because we generally use a 12-pitch chromatic scale and there are only 10 numerals, meaning we have to choose which pitches to leave out. That's a creative decision, in a sense, though not much of one. But what it points to is that pi doesn't "sound" like anything--we are simply taking pi and applying the numerals it contains to a sonic system we designed centuries ago. You could plug in the square root of 2 or Avogadro's constant or any other irrational number into the same "number = key" system and get something that the extremely vast majority of humans could not tell apart. Because they're all essentially random strings of numbers--especially to the ear. (To say nothing of the fact that I haven't even touched on duration, attack, or timbre.)
 
2021-04-12 9:11:52 PM  
In case you're confused about where my take comes from, music composition is my field of expertise--I have a PhD in composition with a supporting area in music theory, as well as a masters degree in collaborative piano performance. This is what I do.
 
2021-04-12 9:45:45 PM  

austerity101: In case you're confused about where my take comes from, music composition is my field of expertise--I have a PhD in composition with a supporting area in music theory, as well as a masters degree in collaborative piano performance. This is what I do.


I wonder if you could comment on something I've wondered about.

To give you some idea where I'm coming from, my formal understanding of western music is limited: a couple years of piano as a kid and a dozen years of taking note of my kids' string and piano lessons/practice.

My question is: why do we find major scales pleasing? Is it something inherent in the mathematics; or inherent in humans; or is it a learned attraction? (or...)
 
2021-04-12 10:06:52 PM  

brachiopod: austerity101: In case you're confused about where my take comes from, music composition is my field of expertise--I have a PhD in composition with a supporting area in music theory, as well as a masters degree in collaborative piano performance. This is what I do.

I wonder if you could comment on something I've wondered about.

To give you some idea where I'm coming from, my formal understanding of western music is limited: a couple years of piano as a kid and a dozen years of taking note of my kids' string and piano lessons/practice.

My question is: why do we find major scales pleasing? Is it something inherent in the mathematics; or inherent in humans; or is it a learned attraction? (or...)


For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).

It can be argued that we find major triads more pleasing than minor ones because of the prominent placement of the major third in the overtone series, while the minor third barely exists in any perceptible way. For centuries, theorists turned to geometry to explain why we react the way we do, but I think this is a lot of reaching:  these days most of our tuning is based on equal temperament, which wasn't the standard for most of western music history, so everything is slightly out of tune, in a sense, and that means all of the artihmetic and geometry is slightly off, anyway.

I didn't study music cognition very much, though, so the actual brain end of this I know far less about. Theorists, especially in the Enlightenment, were obsessed with finding "rational" explanations for why we like what we like, but there really isn't much of a way to "prove" any of their theories correct. OK, so a perfect octave is a 2:1 ratio and a perfect fifth is 3:2 and we can construct other intervals using other simple ratios, but does that actually mean anything? Theorists insisted it did, because those numbers were simple, and thus more attractive. But what makes those ratios more attractive? Can we "hear" the simplicity of those ratios? If so, how does that explain our current tuning system, which does not use those ratios any more?

In short, no one really knows why we like these intervals/chords/scales. They seem to be largely based on cultural aesthetic value systems that go back many centuries, and theorists have attempted to explain backwards by using math.

(Keep in mind that your question really only applies to music from hierarchical societies--I think it was Alan Lomax who theorized that egalitarian societies produce egalitarian music that everyone participates in, while hierarchical ones produce citizens who specialize in certain skills, music-making being one of them. Only hierarchical societies produce musical prodigies, virtuosic music, and written music systems.)
 
2021-04-12 10:27:01 PM  

LewDux: [Fark user image image 850x566]Mommy longlegs


live.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 10:57:39 PM  

austerity101: For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).


You just done made me look up the gamelan.

Gamelan recorded in Peliatan Bali Indonesia in 1985
Youtube nGCSrC8RN6c


TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.
 
2021-04-12 10:58:44 PM  
Thanks, that gives me a lot to think about.

austerity101:

It can be argued that we find major triads more pleasing than minor ones because of the prominent placement of the major third in the overtone series, while the minor third barely exists in any perceptible way. For centuries, theorists turned to geometry to explain why we react the way we do, but I think this is a lot of reaching:  these days most of our tuning is based on equal temperament, which wasn't the standard for most of western music history, so everything is slightly out of tune, in a sense, and that means all of the artihmetic and geometry is slightly off, anyway.

It's a shame we've lost some of the character of the various keys because of geometric tuning, although I read some groups are performing with original tunings. Unfortunately I haven't been able to explore that as much as I'd like.

I didn't study music cognition very much, though, so the actual brain end of this I know far less about.

I've thought we can get away with slight frequency deviations thanks to psychological closure in perception, but that's a completely unscientific speculation.

Can we "hear" the simplicity of those ratios?

I think the math does come into play insofar as the production of sum and difference signals for whatever pairs of original signals/harmonics you want to pick (that's a common issue in RF systems), but maybe that's just music 101 and I'm repeating common knowledge. But trying to build a whole algebra of note relationships based only on western composition seems a bit misguided.

It's a shame I have to turn in as it would be fun to continue, but I'm wiped and it's taking me too long to write a sensible response. I appreciate your indulging my curiosity.
 
2021-04-12 11:10:33 PM  

brachiopod: Thanks, that gives me a lot to think about.

austerity101:

It can be argued that we find major triads more pleasing than minor ones because of the prominent placement of the major third in the overtone series, while the minor third barely exists in any perceptible way. For centuries, theorists turned to geometry to explain why we react the way we do, but I think this is a lot of reaching:  these days most of our tuning is based on equal temperament, which wasn't the standard for most of western music history, so everything is slightly out of tune, in a sense, and that means all of the artihmetic and geometry is slightly off, anyway.

It's a shame we've lost some of the character of the various keys because of geometric tuning, although I read some groups are performing with original tunings. Unfortunately I haven't been able to explore that as much as I'd like.

I didn't study music cognition very much, though, so the actual brain end of this I know far less about.

I've thought we can get away with slight frequency deviations thanks to psychological closure in perception, but that's a completely unscientific speculation.

Can we "hear" the simplicity of those ratios?

I think the math does come into play insofar as the production of sum and difference signals for whatever pairs of original signals/harmonics you want to pick (that's a common issue in RF systems), but maybe that's just music 101 and I'm repeating common knowledge. But trying to build a whole algebra of note relationships based only on western composition seems a bit misguided.

It's a shame I have to turn in as it would be fun to continue, but I'm wiped and it's taking me too long to write a sensible response. I appreciate your indulging my curiosity.


Bobby McFerrin and the inherent nature of the Pentatonic Scale.
 
2021-04-12 11:15:31 PM  
OK, this is not a rabbit hole I expected to fall into, but here's 45 minutes of ambient noodling by Squarepusher, narrated by Olivia Colman, apparently produced for the Children's BBC channel.

Squarepusher and Olivia Colman - CBeebies (Music Only Edit)
Youtube b0kdRxViM5E
 
2021-04-12 11:16:44 PM  
Spiders don't talk, they bark.

/Everyone knows this
 
2021-04-12 11:17:21 PM  

austerity101: brachiopod: austerity101: In case you're confused about where my take comes from, music composition is my field of expertise--I have a PhD in composition with a supporting area in music theory, as well as a masters degree in collaborative piano performance. This is what I do.

I wonder if you could comment on something I've wondered about.

To give you some idea where I'm coming from, my formal understanding of western music is limited: a couple years of piano as a kid and a dozen years of taking note of my kids' string and piano lessons/practice.

My question is: why do we find major scales pleasing? Is it something inherent in the mathematics; or inherent in humans; or is it a learned attraction? (or...)

I didn't study music cognition very much, though, so the actual brain end of this I know far less about. Theorists, especially in the Enlightenment, were obsessed with finding "rational" explan ...



My "like a child" answer to "why do we find major scales pleasing? Is it something inherent in the mathematics; or inherent in humans; or is it a learned attraction?" is usually "it's what you grew up with, and the people you listened to grew up with it and on back".  My "like a musician" answer is "things like gamelan actually take advantage of the dissonance to create interference beats, and they consider that to be more musical or expressive or more something than the simple consonance of Western music."

Psychoacoustics, especially the research underlying the mp3, is pretty interesting.  The idea behind mp3 is modeling human hearing and throwing away the parts that humans don't hear anyway, and preserving the rest greatly minimizes the amount of data needed.  Xing, an early encoder, lopped off the top frequencies and called themselves much more efficient, which was okay when we had crappy playback devices and not everyone could tell that's what happened.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/​d​n20930-why-harmony-pleases-the-brain/

Here is essentially an elaboration of the above for anyone who wants a place to start reading more, with an hypothesis using a mathematical model.  You could just say that intervals with more frequencies being in sync are detected as "music" and fewer in sync closer to "noise".

Tartini tones (Combination tones) seem to support this, where two sounds can lead your brain to interpret it as a third, lower note.  You might be tempted to say this happens in the body of the instrument, but as with binaural beats the combination tone can be heard when putting a pure tone in one ear and another in the other ear, meaning it has no medium to travel and combine, so it's a brain illusion.  This guy goes VERY slowly over some of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cMwH​z​DRyMc

Conclusion: If the brain naturally infers combination tones in the form of the minimal 2:3, 3:4 ratios as having a third component in those ratios, there is something in the brain, likely the periodic aspect of pattern seeking behavior.  You know when you see a face in toast or something?  Pareidolia - seeking to find a pattern to make sense of the world.  Lots of "why" videos on YouTube assume the premise that the minimal ratios sound "good" and ignore other tunings sounding "good" to their people.  And you can consider that the dissonance of gamelan and other systems is actually based on *avoiding* the consonance naturally baked into our brains, or using it like binaural beats to achieve something more than the music itself.

I've not seen a study of Tartini tones in cultures unfamiliar with the western scale, so if anyone needs a PhD in music or sociology that might be a good tree to bark up.  Could be innate or learned, in other words, and their ability to hear combination tones subject to culture.  That would clear a few things up
 
2021-04-12 11:22:08 PM  

iron de havilland: austerity101: For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).

You just done made me look up the gamelan.

[YouTube video: Gamelan recorded in Peliatan Bali Indonesia in 1985]

TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.


The comparison is backwards--gamelan has had a major influence in western composition since the Paris Expo of 1889.
 
2021-04-12 11:22:43 PM  

Thosw: brachiopod: Thanks, that gives me a lot to think about.

austerity101:

It can be argued that we find major triads more pleasing than minor ones because of the prominent placement of the major third in the overtone series, while the minor third barely exists in any perceptible way. For centuries, theorists turned to geometry to explain why we react the way we do, but I think this is a lot of reaching:  these days most of our tuning is based on equal temperament, which wasn't the standard for most of western music history, so everything is slightly out of tune, in a sense, and that means all of the artihmetic and geometry is slightly off, anyway.

It's a shame we've lost some of the character of the various keys because of geometric tuning, although I read some groups are performing with original tunings. Unfortunately I haven't been able to explore that as much as I'd like.

I didn't study music cognition very much, though, so the actual brain end of this I know far less about.

I've thought we can get away with slight frequency deviations thanks to psychological closure in perception, but that's a completely unscientific speculation.

Can we "hear" the simplicity of those ratios?

I think the math does come into play insofar as the production of sum and difference signals for whatever pairs of original signals/harmonics you want to pick (that's a common issue in RF systems), but maybe that's just music 101 and I'm repeating common knowledge. But trying to build a whole algebra of note relationships based only on western composition seems a bit misguided.

It's a shame I have to turn in as it would be fun to continue, but I'm wiped and it's taking me too long to write a sensible response. I appreciate your indulging my curiosity.

Bobby McFerrin and the inherent nature of the Pentatonic Scale.


I've seen this. It's not inherent, but it is culturally learned.
 
2021-04-12 11:30:33 PM  

austerity101: iron de havilland: austerity101: For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).

You just done made me look up the gamelan.

[YouTube video: Gamelan recorded in Peliatan Bali Indonesia in 1985]

TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.

The comparison is backwards--gamelan has had a major influence in western composition since the Paris Expo of 1889.


Why then does it sound "out of tune" to western ears?
 
2021-04-13 12:20:47 AM  

iron de havilland: austerity101: iron de havilland: austerity101: For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).

You just done made me look up the gamelan.

[YouTube video: Gamelan recorded in Peliatan Bali Indonesia in 1985]

TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.

The comparison is backwards--gamelan has had a major influence in western composition since the Paris Expo of 1889.

Why then does it sound "out of tune" to western ears?


Two reasons:  one, because westerners are conditioned to hear good tuning as instruments being tuned extremely close together, whereas the tuning distances in gamelan are a feature, not a bug, to them; and two, because it wasn't the tuning systems of gamelan that found their way into western classical composition, but rather their limited scales, repetitions/cyclic motives, and their lack of reliance on functional (or even progressive) harmony.
 
2021-04-13 12:53:07 AM  

austerity101: iron de havilland: austerity101: iron de havilland: austerity101: For the most part, it's culturally learned. The abstract ideas of consonance and dissonance exist in many cultures (however they may be described), but the degree to which we enjoy or are bothered by them is mostly taught to us. In western music, we generally want things as much in tune as possible; in other cultures, such as those in Indonesia, use specifically conflicting tunings as a source of color unique to each ensemble (which is why a lot of gamelan music sounds "out of tune" to western ears).

You just done made me look up the gamelan.

[YouTube video: Gamelan recorded in Peliatan Bali Indonesia in 1985]

TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.

The comparison is backwards--gamelan has had a major influence in western composition since the Paris Expo of 1889.

Why then does it sound "out of tune" to western ears?

Two reasons:  one, because westerners are conditioned to hear good tuning as instruments being tuned extremely close together, whereas the tuning distances in gamelan are a feature, not a bug, to them;


Are you saying that gamelon is a discordous instrument? I quite enjoyed the examples of it I have seen.

and two, because it wasn't the tuning systems of gamelan that found their way into western classical composition, but rather their limited scales, repetitions/cyclic motives, and their lack of reliance on functional (or even progressive) harmony.

So all of western music sucks because of the influence of Asia on Europe?
 
2021-04-13 1:29:54 AM  

iron de havilland: Are you saying that gamelon is a discordous instrument? I quite enjoyed the examples of it I have seen.


I sort of alluded to this in my comments above--words like "consonant/dissonant" are difficult to use because what they mean varies across culture. The way I was using it in describing tuning was mostly mathematical, in that western tuning values identical precision while gamelan tuning exploits discrepancies in frequency between instruments to create colors unique to each gamelan. Otherwise I was likely using it in a western context. At any rate, gamelan has its own forms of consonance and dissonance that are defined within their own musical systems. I'm not primarily an ethnomusicologist so I can't say I know much more beyond that.

and two, because it wasn't the tuning systems of gamelan that found their way into western classical composition, but rather their limited scales, repetitions/cyclic motives, and their lack of reliance on functional (or even progressive) harmony.

So all of western music sucks because of the influence of Asia on Europe?


LOL. One of the major shifts in western music in tonal approach was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when we made a break with functional tonality. The French and the Austro-Germans did it their own different ways, the French via the abstraction of Impressionism and the Austro-Germans via the Second Viennese School. Gamelan certainly had a role in there, somewhere, probably as an accelerant. At the time of the 1889 Expo, the idea of static or cyclical motion in music was practically unheard of in classical music, which had been strongly teleological for centuries.
 
2021-04-13 10:46:08 AM  

iron de havilland: TBH it doesn't sound so different from something that the likes of Squarepusher or Aphex Twin would have been putting out 10-15 years ago.


Or, indeed, Pet Sounds.

I don't buy the idea that these instruments aren't tuned to a high degree.
 
2021-04-13 12:10:14 PM  
They want to know ... what you want.

geekoutsw.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.