| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Recording & Ethnicity
Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic
backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? How many studio owners are Jewish? Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Poindexter" wrote in message
m... This sounds like a possibly racist troll, but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt and answer the questions straight. Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Not to my knowledge. Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Ditto. Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. People of different ethnicities (within or not within the same "race"), though, may well perceive sound differently; it's been shown, for example, that people who are raised speaking tonal languages like Chinese are much more likely to have perfect pitch than people who speak non-tonal languages. It's not a genetic thing, though; the same study, I believe, found that Chinese-Americans raised in English-speaking households are no more likely to have perfect pitch than Anglo-Americans. Apparently what happens is that humans are born with many more neural circuits than we'll ever use. Some of them become activated during the language-learning process; the ones that aren't are eventually destroyed, presumably to make room for other mental capabilities that will come later in life. This is generally considered to be the explanation of why languages learned later in life are never learned as well as languages learned during early childhood; your brain doesn't have the capacities it used to. The old adage "Use it or lose it" is apparently exactly the way the brain works during the first decade of life. Back to the musical question: I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the same holds true for people raised in different musical traditions; you soak the stuff in during your first few years, and that shapes the way your brain perceives music. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn that, for example, African-Americans hear music quite differently from Anglo-Americans, because they experienced different early musical sensations from each other. (Or at least they used to, before our musical culture became more homogenized.) However, I'd expect African-Americans to also hear music differently from Africans raised in Africa, for the same reason, making it not a factor of "race" (since they share common ancestry). A kid in a Senegalese village is raised in a very different sonic environment than his cousin in Harlem. How many studio owners are Jewish? Well, there's also the problem of defining what a "studio owner" is, given the number of project studios in basements and garages which are only used by the owner. But I'll define the term as meaning the owner of a studio which is hired out. How many owners are Jewish? Not as many, percentage-wise, as used to be. For complicated sociological reasons (along with a good dollop of happenstance, followed by old-boy networking), a large number of Eastern European Jews became involved in show business, beginning in the late 19th century with legitimate theatre, artistic management, vaudeville and songwriting (the Irving Berlin generation). When the phonograph industry opened up, not surprisingly a lot of the people from theatre, music and vaudeville migrated into the new medium, and a lot of them were Jewish, beginning with Emile Berliner, who invented the disc phonograph and founded what became the Victor company. Ditto the motion picture industry; there's a fascinating book on how the movies that helped create the image of Middle American culture were all made by Eastern European Jewish immigrants like the Warner Bros., Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, et al. Ditto radio, thanks to David Sarnoff and the same folks migrating from theatre and the music business; ditto television, which developed out of radio. This all began to fade, at least in the record industry, sometime in the 1960s and 1970s, when new people moved into the business. Unlike earlier generations, they came from multiple ethnic groups (although not a lot of Asians, at least until Sony bought Columbia a couple of decades later); by now, most of the generation of cigar-chomping Jewish show-biz types has passed into retirement or the beyond, leaving little ethnic legacy behind except a few Yiddish slang words in the industry jargon. (See the caricatured Scandinavian TV producer in "A Mighty Wind", who laces his words with Yiddish to show he "belongs". Reminded me of an African-American guy I was on a TV crew with, who always muttered "Oy vey iz mir" whenever the videotape recorder screwed up.) Without for a moment minimizing the contribution of African-Americans to American music, these are the guys who gave us Tin Pan Alley *and* (to at least some extent) helped create the rock'n'roll which displaced it, and I'll always have a certain affection for them. Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... That, I don't know. Anybody know what Paul Rothschild's doing these days? Peace, Paul |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Poindexter" wrote in message
m... Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Not that I'm aware of. Prior to the Beatles, entertainment was one of very few potentially decent paying professions that was open to the lower class or to racial and religious minorities in the United States. The Beatles were the first popular music that was marketed as fashion and it made being a musician, engineer or producer fashionable for the very first time. This really changed everything. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
That, I don't know. Anybody know what Paul Rothschild's doing these days? Paul Rothschild isn't doing much of anything, since he died a while back. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
All I know is Jamaicans like more bass!
Al On 26 Aug 2004 07:55:07 -0700, (John Poindexter) wrote: Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? How many studio owners are Jewish? Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2004-08-26, John Poindexter wrote:
Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Probably not, but your native language affects the way you listen in a major way. The spectra vary widely from language to language and people tend to listen to the frequencies that their language uses, and use them in them music. To my ears, English-speaking people tend to make music with more highs (wide bump around 6 kHz) than anyone else. French-speaking people use more mids (around 800 Hz). Italian-speaking people use more hi-mids (around 2.5 kHz). (All frequencies "au jugé", I don't carry a spectrometre with me). The differences are probably less noticeable these days because everybody in pop music is trying to sound like the Anglo-Saxons. On top of that, there are considerable variations between individuals. -- André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ "See daddy ? All the keys are in alphabetical order now." |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Poindexter" wrote in message
m... Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Accounting for differences in musical traditions in various cultures seem a bit like explaining why all fish are wet. I do think it's easier to hear rhythms and harmonies you grew up with, but you can become accustomed to other musical forms with exposure. dtk |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
(John Poindexter) wrote: Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? I asked Paul Rothschild that very question when he was still alive. The answer was no, he was not related to the Rothschild banking family. I didn't figure he'd be working as a record producer if he was an heir to the biggest fortune on the planet. Then again, these types of families get their occasional rebels. Thought that he might've rebelled and been disowned or something. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike T. wrote:
On 26 Aug 2004 07:55:07 -0700, (John Poindexter) wrote: Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? How many studio owners are Jewish? Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... John, I was going to get into a long discussion with you about what you meant by ethnicity/race/culture, Jewish bankers, and that whole can of worms. However, I see that this is your only post to r.a.p, so I'll guess that it's just a TROLL. Mike T. Now, now, Mike...there's really no difference between calling someone a n*gger, a k*ke, or a kra*t and calling someone a "troll". Let's keep it nice and civilized. I'm pursuing these topics for purely scholarly reasons. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Stamler wrote:
"John Poindexter" wrote in message m... snip Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How would you express the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if they're not racial differences? I'm contemplating the rest of your long and thoughtful reply. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name?
I asked Paul Rothschild that very question when he was still alive. The answer was no, he was not related to the Rothschild banking family. I didn't figure he'd be working as a record producer if he was an heir to the biggest fortune on the planet. Then again, these types of families get their occasional rebels. Thought that he might've rebelled and been disowned or something. Rebellion or not, lots of talented folks find working to be beneficial, no matter what their available financial resources. stv |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How would you express the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if they're not racial differences? That's a question which requires a book to answer. To boil it down to a massively-oversimplified nutshell, you can divvy up the human race all kinds of ways, and the problem is, you don't get the same groups by the different ways. For example, you can divvy by skin color, or by blood type prevalence, but then you discover that groups with very different skin colors have similar blood type prevalences, or people with similar skin colors have very different blood group prevalences. Ditto things like skeletal proportions ("Negroes", for example, include both Pygmies and those long, skinny guys from Kenya who've been doing so well in the Olympic track & field events), genetic markers, ability to digest lactose, etc.. There are a few clusters of characters that usually go together, but a lot more that go their own way separately. And if you start doing the sorting by genetic markers, which is a lot more valid than external characteristics, you discover a remarkable mishmosh. May I recommend, as one good starting point, "Genes, People and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza? There are lots of other good looks at the subject of human ethnicity, but that's a good (and enjoyable, and well-written) popular entry-point. Peace, Paul |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ...
"John Poindexter" wrote in message m... This sounds like a possibly racist troll, but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt and answer the questions straight. Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Not to my knowledge. Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Ditto. Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How do you account for the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if not in terms of race? Apparently what happens is that humans are born with many more neural circuits than we'll ever use. Some of them become activated during the language-learning process; the ones that aren't are eventually destroyed, presumably to make room for other mental capabilities that will come later in life. This is generally considered to be the explanation of why languages learned later in life are never learned as well as languages learned during early childhood; your brain doesn't have the capacities it used to. The old adage "Use it or lose it" is apparently exactly the way the brain works during the first decade of life. Back to the musical question: I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the same holds true for people raised in different musical traditions; you soak the stuff in during your first few years, and that shapes the way your brain perceives music. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn that, for example, African-Americans hear music quite differently from Anglo-Americans, because they experienced different early musical sensations from each other. (Or at least they used to, before our musical culture became more homogenized.) However, I'd expect African-Americans to also hear music differently from Africans raised in Africa, for the same reason, making it not a factor of "race" (since they share common ancestry). A kid in a Senegalese village is raised in a very different sonic environment than his cousin in Harlem. In a nutshell, you seem to favor the "nurture over nature" school of thought over the "nature over nurture" one. Everyone is born a blank slate and "who we are" is largely shaped by our experiences and environment, rather than being programmed in our genes. You make a strong case for this, but is there any evidence to the contrary? For instance, a number of studies suggest that intelligence (as measured by IQ scores) is more inherited, than aquired. If that's so, how can we rule out the possibility that musical perception is to some extent passed on in the genes? How many studio owners are Jewish? Well, there's also the problem of defining what a "studio owner" is, given the number of project studios in basements and garages which are only used by the owner. But I'll define the term as meaning the owner of a studio which is hired out. How many owners are Jewish? Not as many, percentage-wise, as used to be. For complicated sociological reasons (along with a good dollop of happenstance, followed by old-boy networking), a large number of Eastern European Jews became involved in show business, beginning in the late 19th century with legitimate theatre, artistic management, vaudeville and songwriting (the Irving Berlin generation). When the phonograph industry opened up, not surprisingly a lot of the people from theatre, music and vaudeville migrated into the new medium, and a lot of them were Jewish, beginning with Emile Berliner, who invented the disc phonograph and founded what became the Victor company. Ditto the motion picture industry; there's a fascinating book on how the movies that helped create the image of Middle American culture were all made by Eastern European Jewish immigrants like the Warner Bros., Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, et al. Ditto radio, thanks to David Sarnoff and the same folks migrating from theatre and the music business; ditto television, which developed out of radio. Is that the book called "An Empire Of Their Own"? I've always heard that Walt Disney, being one of the few gentiles in Hollywood at the time, always had a tough time staying afloat in that industry. This all began to fade, at least in the record industry, sometime in the 1960s and 1970s, when new people moved into the business. Unlike earlier generations, they came from multiple ethnic groups (although not a lot of Asians, at least until Sony bought Columbia a couple of decades later); by now, most of the generation of cigar-chomping Jewish show-biz types has passed into retirement or the beyond, leaving little ethnic legacy behind except a few Yiddish slang words in the industry jargon. (See the caricatured Scandinavian TV producer in "A Mighty Wind", who laces his words with Yiddish to show he "belongs". Reminded me of an African-American guy I was on a TV crew with, who always muttered "Oy vey iz mir" whenever the videotape recorder screwed up.) Without for a moment minimizing the contribution of African-Americans to American music, these are the guys who gave us Tin Pan Alley *and* (to at least some extent) helped create the rock'n'roll which displaced it, and I'll always have a certain affection for them. Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... That, I don't know. Anybody know what Paul Rothschild's doing these days? Peace, Paul |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike T. wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2004 07:55:07 -0700, (John Poindexter) wrote: Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? How many studio owners are Jewish? Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... John, I was going to get into a long discussion with you about what you meant by ethnicity/race/culture, Jewish bankers, and that whole can of worms. However, I see that this is your only post to r.a.p, so I'll guess that it's just a TROLL. Mike T. OK Mike, I'll come clean... I am here, on this newsgroup, discussing this topic, because I plan to create - through the process of eugenics - a Master Race of Sound Engineers. If successful, it would mark the dawn of 1000 Years of Tastefully Mic'ed, Mixed & Mastered Music. I was just hoping for some pointers. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Poindexter wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How do you account for the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if not in terms of race? It's not that there aren't populations with common traits. However, these things are SO loose it's virtually impossible to understand how you could properly define them in an objective manner so that it's possible to tell which "race" someone is a member of. For instance, I've met "black" people whose skin is pretty light in color and some "white" people whose skin is pretty dark. In fact, the variation in skin tone can be so great that some "black" people lighter skin than some "white" ones. So, it can't be just skin color. But if it's not skin color, then what is it? Is it the country they're from? What if you're comparing two people whose relatives have all been in the same country for generations? And what about the fact that all their ancestors over in the other country all came from various places outside the country as well? Even if you can actually come up with a standard to judge which race someone is part of, then how can you justify that the groups you've defined are the only right ones? Why not split the human race up by eye color instead? And then another difficulty: now that intermarriage between races is no longer taboo in most places, we are mixing up the gene pool. There will be (and in fact already are plenty of) people who don't fit into any category. There are hundreds (or probably thousands or even millions) of different traits that a human can have, and soon we will have more and more different combinations than we have previously had. Well, in a sense this has already happened because there has always been interbreeding between difference races. The bottom line is, to me, race only makes sense if you view it as a social phenomenon. You have two different groups of people with their own interests, and they interact. So, there is a need to label people in some way so you can tell whether they're part of your group or the other group. Physical features are the most obvious way and most convenient way to achieve this social objective, so whatever combination of traits that is most different between the two groups becomes the basis for the definitions of "race" that are formulated and applied in the given situation. But here is the real question: if you have such a situation, and it's ambiguous, physically, whether an individual is a member of one race or the other, what is the tie breaker? It's what group he's affiliated with. This belies the fact that race is really all about an easy way to identify ethnic groups. (Ethnic groups are groups that share a culture, or a segment of a culture. They probably share physical traits, but they also share a language, often a religion, social norms, rituals, traditions, etc.) Race is a way to keep some distance between one culture and another. In a way, it's a defense mechanism, because if you allow people from your culture to mix with those from another, it's going to cause your culture to change, and you might not want it to change. So anyway, from a scientific point of view, race as a way of understanding physical traits might have some correlation with reality, but it's pretty laughable. And, also from a scientific (or at least academic) point of view, there is pretty clear evidence that race is all about cultures clashing. At least that's what I think people mean when they say that "race" doesn't make sense scientifically. - Logan |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Poindexter" wrote in message
om... In a nutshell, you seem to favor the "nurture over nature" school of thought over the "nature over nurture" one. Everyone is born a blank slate and "who we are" is largely shaped by our experiences and environment, rather than being programmed in our genes. You make a strong case for this, but is there any evidence to the contrary? For instance, a number of studies suggest that intelligence (as measured by IQ scores) is more inherited, than aquired. If that's so, how can we rule out the possibility that musical perception is to some extent passed on in the genes? We can't rule it out completely. And I don't necessarily favor the "nurture over nature" school on every human characteristic; that would be reductive and nonsensical, just as "nature over nurture" on everything is. But in the particular case of musical perception, well, the mechanism of extirpation of neural paths is well-established; there's no question that it does happen. And the study of prevalence of perfect pitch among certain linguistic groups, and the lack of same in groups of identical ancestry with a different (non-tonal) linguistic background, provides at least a strong hint that environment is important in this regard. Not conclusive by any means, and many characteristics involve a mix of environment and heredity. But it's an important data point. Is that the book called "An Empire Of Their Own"? I've always heard that Walt Disney, being one of the few gentiles in Hollywood at the time, always had a tough time staying afloat in that industry. He seems to have done pretty well. That book may be the one I'm remembering; I should probably head for the library and check it out to see. (Checking out Amazon -- yes, that's the one. "Entertaining America" looks like fun too, but perhaps not as much an in-depth study. And both books are primarily about Hollywood, theatre and broadcasting rather than the music industry per se. That book apparently remains to be written.) Peace, Paul |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ...
wrote in message taxa trigona Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How would you express the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if they're not racial differences? That's a question which requires a book to answer. To boil it down to a massively-oversimplified nutshell, you can divvy up the human race all kinds If humans are a race, then a race of what species? of ways, and the problem is, you don't get the same groups by the different ways. For example, you can divvy by skin color, or by blood type prevalence, but then you discover that groups with very different skin colors have similar blood type prevalences, or people with similar skin colors have very different blood group prevalences. Ditto things like skeletal proportions ("Negroes", for example, include both Pygmies and those long, skinny guys from Kenya who've been doing so well in the Olympic track & field events), genetic markers, ability to digest lactose, etc.. There are a few clusters of characters that usually go together, but a lot more that go their own way separately. And if you start doing the sorting by genetic markers, which is a lot more valid than external characteristics, you discover a remarkable mishmosh. May I recommend, as one good starting point, "Genes, People and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza? There are lots of other good looks at the subject of human ethnicity, but that's a good (and enjoyable, and well-written) popular entry-point. Paul, I call an orange an orange, a banana a banana, and a pear a pear. True, they are all fruit, which are in turn all part of the plant kingdom, and all plants are ultimately composed of atoms like everything else in the material world. And true, there are many different types of pears, bananas, and oranges. But this doesn't change the fact that pears, oranges, and bananas each taste, look, smell, and feel sufficiently different from each other that we are able to classify them. If we didn't classify things, it would be impossible to talk about them, and refusing to do so defeats the whole purpose of language. It's to be expected that some individuals will develop a preference for one type of fruit over another, or may even avoid certain types altogether; if we all had the same tastes, we'd all be the same and the world would be a boring place. Some people may feel an instinctual distrust towards fruit to which they are not accustomed; perhaps not very adventurous of them, but such a reaction is not unnatural, either. Some may even reach the conclusion, whether mistaken or not, that the various types of fruit are not only -different-, but that some are actually -inferior- to others. Strictly speaking, however, saying something is "different" is not synonymous with calling it "inferior". The act of classifying things doesn't automatically entail a value judgement, and taking note of differences is not in itself an act of malice. Calling an orange an orange is a -descriptive- act, nothing more. It may carry a value judgement or it may not. And refusing to take note of the differences between a banana and an orange does not mean those differences don't exist. I myself, despite having preferences and an allergy to oranges, enjoy a wide variety of fruit. In fact, the world of fruit would be bland indeed if all were of the same type. And that's the problem I have with the utopian vision of "one world, one people" - I do not believe that it is possible to unite into "one world" without first destroying the differences which are the very source of human diversity. As long as we have diversity, we will have differences, and as long as we have differences, clashes will ensue. Who's to say it wasn't meant to be this way? Is it possible that you dislike the notion of race, not because races don't exist, but because acknowledging them conflicts with your chosen ideology? Cheers, John (Thanks for the book suggestion, BTW). |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
How would you express the obvious physical differences between say,
a caucasian, an asian, and a negro -- if they're not racial differences? This is a circular definition. The concept of "race" has little practical utility, primarily because (as another poster pointed out), biological differences within a "race" can be larger than those between "races." Inasmuch as all "races" are homo sapiens sapiens, what meaning does "race" have except as an excuse for dividing people into groups (with the implicit inferior/superior valuation that follows)? The principle of "local adaptation" is useful, and is where the whole argument should end. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Poindexter wrote:
An heir to the Rothschild fortune working as a record producer would be as anachronistic as Donald Trump flipping burgers in a roadhouse. Doesn't mean it can't happen, it would just be really weird. Hey, that's no weirder than making wine.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
playon playonATcomcast.net wrote in message . ..
All I know is Jamaicans like more bass! King Tubby rules. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Poindexter" wrote in message
m... That's a question which requires a book to answer. To boil it down to a massively-oversimplified nutshell, you can divvy up the human race all kinds If humans are a race, then a race of what species? Sorry; "human race" is a common phrase which I used, and of course it's a misnomer. "Human species" is the proper term. I call an orange an orange, a banana a banana, and a pear a pear. True, they are all fruit, which are in turn all part of the plant kingdom, and all plants are ultimately composed of atoms like everything else in the material world. And true, there are many different types of pears, bananas, and oranges. But this doesn't change the fact that pears, oranges, and bananas each taste, look, smell, and feel sufficiently different from each other that we are able to classify them. If we didn't classify things, it would be impossible to talk about them, and refusing to do so defeats the whole purpose of language. It's to be expected that some individuals will develop a preference for one type of fruit over another, or may even avoid certain types altogether; if we all had the same tastes, we'd all be the same and the world would be a boring place. Some people may feel an instinctual distrust towards fruit to which they are not accustomed; perhaps not very adventurous of them, but such a reaction is not unnatural, either. Some may even reach the conclusion, whether mistaken or not, that the various types of fruit are not only -different-, but that some are actually -inferior- to others. Strictly speaking, however, saying something is "different" is not synonymous with calling it "inferior". The act of classifying things doesn't automatically entail a value judgement, and taking note of differences is not in itself an act of malice. Calling an orange an orange is a -descriptive- act, nothing more. It may carry a value judgement or it may not. And refusing to take note of the differences between a banana and an orange does not mean those differences don't exist. I myself, despite having preferences and an allergy to oranges, enjoy a wide variety of fruit. In fact, the world of fruit would be bland indeed if all were of the same type. And that's the problem I have with the utopian vision of "one world, one people" - I do not believe that it is possible to unite into "one world" without first destroying the differences which are the very source of human diversity. As long as we have diversity, we will have differences, and as long as we have differences, clashes will ensue. Who's to say it wasn't meant to be this way? Not me; I don't argue religion with people, and how things were 'meant to be' is a religious question. And I do enjoy human diversity, and would be loathe to see everybody look alike, dress alike or play the same songs. The problem I have with the assertion that "as long as we have differences, clashes will ensue" is that too often superficial differences such as skin color or group affiliation become excuses for the exploitation or oppression of one group by another, a crime in itself which leads to further crimes. See "lynching" and "Rwanda" and "Armenia" and "Auschwitz" and "middle passage" and "Trail of Tears". I would like to retain the differences but eliminate the clashes. In a different sense, though, we *are* one world, one people; genetically, humans around the world really are incredibly close, on the one hand; on the other hand, we are also incredibly diverse, to the point where the amount of genetic diversity in a single village in New Guinea, for example, is almost as great as the genetic diversity in the world. It's an odd duality, that, which is resolved by the fact that the incredible diversity is composed of very superficial details, such as the shape of one's big toe. Is it possible that you dislike the notion of race, not because races don't exist, but because acknowledging them conflicts with your chosen ideology? I think you draw a distinction without a difference. My ideology states that since science has debunked the notion of "race" as the term is commonly applied, it's not a useful concept for me to apply in my own life. Enjoy the book! Peace, Paul |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2004 23:47:20 -0700, John Poindexter
wrote: (TarBabyTunes) wrote in message ... Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? I asked Paul Rothschild that very question when he was still alive. The answer was no, he was not related to the Rothschild banking family. I didn't figure he'd be working as a record producer if he was an heir to the biggest fortune on the planet. Then again, these types of families get their occasional rebels. Thought that he might've rebelled and been disowned or something. Rebellion or not, lots of talented folks find working to be beneficial, no matter what their available financial resources. An heir to the Rothschild fortune working as a record producer would be as anachronistic as Donald Trump flipping burgers in a roadhouse. Doesn't mean it can't happen, it would just be really weird. You mean like Julia Louis-Dreyfus deciding to be an actor? That's the same Dreyfus who invented commodity trading and also of "Drefus Affair" fame, iirc. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
I once worked on a magazine with an editor named Nelson Aldrich. As in
Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller; he was, in fact, a pretty close cousin. He had all the money he'd ever need; he was working because he enjoyed the job, and because he felt like he was contributing something useful to the community. Peace, Paul |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
How would you express the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro -- if they're not racial differences? This is a circular definition. The concept of "race" has little practical utility, primarily because (as another poster pointed out), biological differences within a "race" can be larger than those between "races." It may have little utility to you directly, but may have utility to science, marketing, governments, etc. This could result in a gov't program to attempt to reduce high blood pressure in African-Americans (existant in the U.S.), or could result in a Taco Bell marketing program that increases the risk of diabetes for caucasians. So it could be good, or bad, but it could have utitlity. Inasmuch as all "races" are homo sapiens sapiens, what meaning does "race" have except as an excuse for dividing people into groups (with the implicit inferior/superior valuation that follows)? The principle of "local adaptation" is useful, and is where the whole argument should end. Local adaptation IS very useful, and is, IMHO, probably the basis for racial differences. However, the 'valuation' you refer to is an individual act, if it happens at all. I rarely will pull out from another poster's message to quote directly, but I think John Poindexter's last message bears immediate repetition: "Some may even reach the conclusion, whether mistaken or not, that the various types of fruit are not only -different-, but that some are actually -inferior- to others. Strictly speaking, however, saying something is "different" is not synonymous with calling it "inferior". The act of classifying things doesn't automatically entail a value judgement, and taking note of differences is not in itself an act of malice." End quote. I believe that the idea of "classification automatically equals value judgment" is absurd on it's face, and is more dangerous to the advancement of the entire human species than a few bruised PC egos. Yes, racism is absurd and despicable, as is sexism and ageism - listen to Bob Marley for more "isms". But racism and "classification=judgment" SHARE a common flaw - neither is based on the individual, both hide behind illogical grouping. But both classification and judgment ARE useful tools for humanity, if applied properly. All humans are judgmental - even tho some seek to disguise it. Judgment is a feedback loop that favors survival - again, if applied properly. Political discourse of potentially racist issues can be a useful preventive measure, but can also stand in the way of knowledge and advancement. I believe that as humanity removes barriers to advancement, older non-functioning ideas such as racism *and* "classification automatically equals value judgment" will fall aside under the light of knowledge. Mikey Wozniak Nova Music Productions This sig is haiku |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" "Charles wrote in message news:Ve4Yc.2898$wk1.1675@trndny07...
You mean like Julia Louis-Dreyfus deciding to be an actor? That's the same Dreyfus who invented commodity trading and also of "Drefus Affair" fame, iirc. Even Jack Deyfuss, the "lion of Wall Street", took the time to write a book extolling the benefits of the drug Dilantin which he is convinced saved him from a life of paralyzing depression. I do not believe he had any financial stake in the sale of the drug. He was just convinced that it could save many lives. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
... I once worked on a magazine with an editor named Nelson Aldrich. As in Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller; he was, in fact, a pretty close cousin. He had all the money he'd ever need; he was working because he enjoyed the job, and because he felt like he was contributing something useful to the community. I agree. Even if I was independently wealthy I'd still want to do something. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On or about Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel allegedly
wrote: On 2004-08-26, John Poindexter wrote: Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? Probably not, but your native language affects the way you listen in a major way. The spectra vary widely from language to language and people tend to listen to the frequencies that their language uses, and use them in them music. That's an interesting theory. Perhaps explains why east Asian people seem to like screechy, jangly top ends. It does have a sort of similarity to the sound of the languages from that part of the world where quite a few are tonal and fairly high tones are required for clear contrast. In west Africa they also seem to like a screechy top end, and a speaker box is not complete until you have loaded it up with so many 'twitters' that the top end is horribly distorted from loading down the amp. There doesn't seem to be quite the same relationship with the sound of the languages there though. Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain) Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia) |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Probably not, but your native language affects the way you
listen in a major way. The spectra vary widely from language to language and people tend to listen to the frequencies that their language uses, and use them in them music. That's an interesting theory. Perhaps explains why east Asian people seem to like screechy, jangly top ends. It does have a sort of similarity to the sound of the languages from that part of the world where quite a few are tonal and fairly high tones are required for clear contrast. In west Africa they also seem to like a screechy top end, and a speaker box is not complete until you have loaded it up with so many 'twitters' that the top end is horribly distorted from loading down the amp. There doesn't seem to be quite the same relationship with the sound of the languages there though. When I worked in retail hi-fi sales, we sold some Mitsubishi products, including speakers. Interestingly, the speakers had colorations similar to the timbres of traditional Japanese musical instruments. I don't know whether this was intentional, or because the colorations were masked by the instrumental sounds and the designers didn't hear them. Regardless, it suggests that those judging reproduction should use as wide a range of instrumental sounds as possible. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
(John Poindexter) wrote in message . com...
Mike T. wrote in message . .. On 26 Aug 2004 07:55:07 -0700, (John Poindexter) wrote: Are there any surveys showing the division of racial/ethnic backgrounds of people involved in music production (US and/or Europe)? Any studies which show the extent to which this may be affected by third world immigration? Do different races perceive sound differently, and if so, could this account for differences between the musical traditions of various cultures? How many studio owners are Jewish? Is Paul Rothschild related to the banking family of the same name? Just wondering... John, I was going to get into a long discussion with you about what you meant by ethnicity/race/culture, Jewish bankers, and that whole can of worms. However, I see that this is your only post to r.a.p, so I'll guess that it's just a TROLL. Mike T. OK Mike, I'll come clean... I am here, on this newsgroup, discussing this topic, because I plan to create - through the process of eugenics - a Master Race of Sound Engineers. If successful, it would mark the dawn of 1000 Years of Tastefully Mic'ed, Mixed & Mastered Music. I was just hoping for some pointers. Oh man, I almost crapped myself when I read that, damn that's funny. How 'bout this, lets grab some DNA from Albini and Andy Johns and throw in some Lee "scratch" Perry... that'd be my ideal! Anyways, verbal language is everything. it affects how you think, how you act, and most definitely how you HEAR. But that's just a starting point, and nowadays with music being as cross-cultural as it is now I think that distinction is getting harder and harder to make. I haven't heard of any scientific studies done on the subject, but then again I've heard a bit about the London vs. New York vs. Los Angeles "sound". Instrumentation is very important, perhaps I heard a vibrophone while visiting family in Colombia when I was a child and now that's why I like gamelan music so much... who knows. I think it's more a cultural thing than a genetic/racial thing. Someone who grows up listening to gongs will have different semiotic reactions to certain frequencies than someone who grew up listening to djembes. The language you hear as a child, and your exposure to music (acoustic vs. recorded). And since recorded music is gaining more and more popularity (and acoustic less & less), these differences will probably diminish very soon. Carlos |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
How would you express the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro -- if they're not racial differences? This is a circular definition. The concept of "race" has little practical utility, primarily because (as another poster pointed out), biological differences within a "race" can be larger than those between "races." Inasmuch as all "races" are homo sapiens sapiens, what meaning does "race" have except as an excuse for dividing people into groups (with the implicit inferior/superior valuation that follows)? The principle of "local adaptation" is useful, and is where the whole argument should end. I fail to see... 1. How the above question is "circular". 2. What it would matter if it was circular. The famous "chicken or the egg" query could be considered "circular" - does this mean it isn't a legitimate question? 3. How dividing people into groups carries an "implicit inferior/superior valuation" of those people. We all divide people into groups all the time. Does calling someone rich or poor, young or elderly, male or female, Dutch or Italian, Christian or Buddhist, communist or capitalist, student or fireman, carry an "implicit" valuation of those people? I don't think so. Yo-Yo Ma is the first to call himself an "asian American" (the "asian" denoting race, and the "American" denoting nationality). What's the problem with this? 4. What any of the above has to do with my question. Again, what does the word "asian" denote if not a person's race? If you get mugged by a black man and the police ask you to describe the perpetrator's race, do you seriously mean to tell me you'll respond by saying, "I don't know, because the concept of race has no useful meaning and we're all homo sapiens after all"? Don't you agree that in this hypothetical scenario, being able to group the perpetrator into a race is of immense practical value? 5. How the "usefulness" of an idea or a body of knowledge has any bearing on its validity. Should scholars and scientists only be allowed to do research to the extent that their findings may be considered socially "useful", rather than truthful? Should science be a disinterested search for truth (the Western ideal), or should it confine its efforts to upholding a particular ideology or form of government (as in Soviet Russia)? |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Logan Shaw wrote in message ...
John Poindexter wrote: "Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Probably not, because "race" is a concept with little or no scientific foundation. How do you account for the obvious physical differences between say, a caucasian, an asian, and a negro - if not in terms of race? It's not that there aren't populations with common traits. However, these things are SO loose it's virtually impossible to understand how you could properly define them in an objective manner so that it's possible to tell which "race" someone is a member of. For instance, I've met "black" people whose skin is pretty light in color and some "white" people whose skin is pretty dark. In fact, the variation in skin tone can be so great that some "black" people lighter skin than some "white" ones. A painter can take two or more primary colors and mix them into a potentially infinite number of secondary colors. The new colors sometimes look drastically different from the "parent" colors, so much so that, at times, it's difficult to figure out which primary colors were used just by looking at the results. But just because the primary colors are occasionally hard to discern doesn't mean they don't exist. Identifying the blend of primary colors (and determining exactly what should be considered a primary color in the first place) used to be the province of anthropologists, until about the 1940's, when Franz Boas and his followers began promoting the idea that races don't exist, with much mass media support. I suspect his motives for popularizing this concept were ideological rather than scientific (he was affiliated with over 40 communist front organizations). |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ...
"John Poindexter" wrote in message m... snip I myself, despite having preferences and an allergy to oranges, enjoy a wide variety of fruit. In fact, the world of fruit would be bland indeed if all were of the same type. And that's the problem I have with the utopian vision of "one world, one people" - I do not believe that it is possible to unite into "one world" without first destroying the differences which are the very source of human diversity. As long as we have diversity, we will have differences, and as long as we have differences, clashes will ensue. Who's to say it wasn't meant to be this way? Not me; I don't argue religion with people, and how things were 'meant to be' is a religious question. And I do enjoy human diversity, and would be loathe to see everybody look alike, dress alike or play the same songs. The problem I have with the assertion that "as long as we have differences, clashes will ensue" is that too often superficial differences such as skin color or group affiliation become excuses for the exploitation or oppression of one group by another, a crime in itself which leads to further crimes. See "lynching" and "Rwanda" and "Armenia" and "Auschwitz" and "middle passage" and "Trail of Tears". I would like to retain the differences but eliminate the clashes. Paul, Believe it or not, I consider myself an egalitarian. And that's why I have such a problem with the double standards inherent in the "politically correct" outlook. For instance, the media reminds us day after day that we shouldn't treat people differently based on the color of their skin, and yet that's exactly what is being done every time a black person is given a job because they're black, rather than on their qualifications alone. The media never ceases to vilify the Germans for having attempted to build a state along racial lines, and yet the US government gives billions of dollars and military support to Israel, a racial state which is doing to the Palestinians exactly what the Germans were accused of having done to the Jews. Society tolerates and even encourages "minority" groups to band together to further their own interests, but any time poor and middle class white folk do the same thing, they're automatically attacked as "bigots" and "hatemongers". Adding insult to injury, a white man is almost never allowed to openly and honestly discuss such matters. I fear the day is not far off when I could be arrested and thrown in jail simply for what I've written in these posts. Trying to marginalize and criminalize so-called "hate speech" is like plugging the valve on a steam kettle - if people can't vent their frustrations by talking about them, they're likely to resort to more extreme, far less constructive means of doing so. "Equality", tolerance, and respect have to evolve naturally or they won't happen at all. They can't be imposed at the point of a gun or under threat of legal reprisals. My biggest concern is that political correctness, far from eliminating racism from our society, is actually CREATING it on a far greater scale than if we had just left things to heal themselves. Cheers, John |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
Probably not, but your native language affects the way you listen in a major way. The spectra vary widely from language to language and people tend to listen to the frequencies that their language uses, and use them in them music. That's an interesting theory. Perhaps explains why east Asian people seem to like screechy, jangly top ends. It does have a sort of similarity to the sound of the languages from that part of the world where quite a few are tonal and fairly high tones are required for clear contrast. In west Africa they also seem to like a screechy top end, and a speaker box is not complete until you have loaded it up with so many 'twitters' that the top end is horribly distorted from loading down the amp. There doesn't seem to be quite the same relationship with the sound of the languages there though. When I worked in retail hi-fi sales, we sold some Mitsubishi products, including speakers. Interestingly, the speakers had colorations similar to the timbres of traditional Japanese musical instruments. I don't know whether this was intentional, or because the colorations were masked by the instrumental sounds and the designers didn't hear them. Regardless, it suggests that those judging reproduction should use as wide a range of instrumental sounds as possible. During one of the few times I mixed a gig on Bose speakers (and this is not meant as a Bose slam!) I noticed that voice sounded pretty good through the system, but that saxophone did not. I surmised that the system was *tuned* for voice via engineering, and thus sax was not as compatible. Of course this was only my assumption. But such an approach would make sense for many reasons: the voice is the source with which our hearing system (ears plus brain) most easily identifies as having problems, due mainly to being more familiar with it than with any other source. And since most people listen to *songs* and expect to hear the lyrics (lost cause for most rock & roll, unfortunately g), Bose is aiming for the masses. The down side was that for music where voice is not predominant, this approach yields less than stellar results. Karl Winkler Lectrosonics, Inc. http://www.lectrosonics.com |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"what a disgrace, to see the human race, in a rat race"
-bob marley nuff reggae lovers round here....bless&love john, ease it up, king. ..;-) say what you have to say, it's your right. but don't believe the hype, go check it for yourself. you ever heard about divide and conquer? dividi et impera romans said. old trick: still works because most people's asleep. it's ONE human family, part of ONE creation, work of ONE Creator, you dig? guidance&light, m |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Karl Winkler)
wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Probably not, but your native language affects the way you listen in a major way. The spectra vary widely from language to language and people tend to listen to the frequencies that their language uses, and use them in them music. That's an interesting theory. Perhaps explains why east Asian people seem to like screechy, jangly top ends. It does have a sort of similarity to the sound of the languages from that part of the world where quite a few are tonal and fairly high tones are required for clear contrast. In west Africa they also seem to like a screechy top end, and a speaker box is not complete until you have loaded it up with so many 'twitters' that the top end is horribly distorted from loading down the amp. There doesn't seem to be quite the same relationship with the sound of the languages there though. When I worked in retail hi-fi sales, we sold some Mitsubishi products, including speakers. Interestingly, the speakers had colorations similar to the timbres of traditional Japanese musical instruments. I don't know whether this was intentional, or because the colorations were masked by the instrumental sounds and the designers didn't hear them. Regardless, it suggests that those judging reproduction should use as wide a range of instrumental sounds as possible. During one of the few times I mixed a gig on Bose speakers (and this is not meant as a Bose slam!) I noticed that voice sounded pretty good through the system, but that saxophone did not. I surmised that the system was *tuned* for voice via engineering, and thus sax was not as compatible. Of course this was only my assumption. But such an approach would make sense for many reasons: the voice is the source with which our hearing system (ears plus brain) most easily identifies as having problems, due mainly to being more familiar with it than with any other source. And since most people listen to *songs* and expect to hear the lyrics (lost cause for most rock & roll, unfortunately g), Bose is aiming for the masses. The down side was that for music where voice is not predominant, this approach yields less than stellar results. Karl Winkler Lectrosonics, Inc. http://www.lectrosonics.com I can't accept the idea that your native language affects the way people "listen" (that's a skill) but I would accept the notion that it influences perception. For example I heard a show on "The NPR" a while ago where a musicologist was examining why Eminem had such a profound influence on Rap music. His interpretation was that Eminem used the even-temoered scale (like Mozart) while the basic RAP has a base African nature. So in America Eminem appeals to both white and black Americans greatly widening his audience. Now for me I'm strongly attracted to Lousiana music as long as its not "Cajun" the most part of which seems to me like off-time Polka music with French lyrics. Now Zydeco is magic. Same songs but ditch the tuba and fiddle, add in some reggae and calypso and blues, make the instruments electric and energize the behind-the-beat percussion and you have something that's really cooking. Unfortunately it seems to translate poorly to recording. I've seen Zydeco bands that singed my socks in person but when I buy a CD I scratch my head wondering if this is still the same band. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
| DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
