The magic of Classical music

[jhuang574]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Mozart:<BR><STRONG>Does anyone feel that classical music makes you smarter?<BR>Does anyone feel that classical music helps to heal yourself both emotionally and physically?<P>I believe so, whole heartedly. </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>hmm... let's get something straight - what does it mean to make you smarter?<P>Anything, any action, motion, thought, mistake, experience makes you smarter. A child touches a hot plate and burns their hand. Are they smarter? I could argue so cuz he learned not to do that again and about his pain threshold. So we can say experience teaches.<P>Listening to music or incurring any sensory stimulus will obviously promote mental growth to a degree. Activities which deteriorate brain growth or harm the big mush between your ears are probably the only things that really make you "less smart". You still probably learn somethign from the experience, but the net loss is greater than the experience gained.<P>Nicole brought up the best empirical evidence so far. But one thing you must remember is that correlation does not determine causality. Many factors affected the mozart test and I could explain correlation with many different factors. I think it can be safely hypothesized that classical music promotes mental growth thru stimulation of the auditory senses (and may visual/motor senses if you actually perform or watch).<P>many people cannot STAND classical music and instead it irates them and deteriorate any of their ability to learn or function properly. to them it's like a constant mesquito in their ear. Does this mean their becoming smarter? i doubt it. But it's this association with other things that creates the power of music. We associate stimulus such as music with emotions or memories ot experiences. this association is usually a strong association just like a smell or a touch or a visual clue. This could be a positive or negative association.<P>I think this is where the "power" of music comes from. If mr. x sat on the couch and listened to classical music and did absolutely nothing else - is he getting smarter? nah... i think we can all agree he's not...<P>it's the combination of music or any other positive stimulus with learning can intelligence be increased.

[Brodie]

Well hasn't this been a lot of fun. I sort of had to step out for a while to go to Washington D.C. (woohoo) for an assignment. And may I just say I actually saw what we were talking about and for once I wasn't a part of it. Sort of like a real treat to see other people talking without me getting my rookers into it.<P>But I did notice one thing I cannot agree with, everything else is alright except for this little number, (and keep in mind I am a writer, and I think I know a thing or two about good writing, also keep in mind this does not mean I am a good writer, Hell I'm far from it. Now Dalton Trumbo, Anthony Burgess, and Hunter S. Thompson, those are writers) Well I just got a little off track there, but I must be back to the point.<P>"Grammar mistakes and bad spelling are as rough on the ear as a flat note. If you really want to be a writer, you should focus on learning the fundamentals first."<P>Or so the quote went....<P>Now, I can disagree with this for an obvious reason, that writers of my stamp always know, and that is, it is more important to write in a commonfolk languauge, or as people talk than it is to punctuate correctly. People can understand "So?" as a sentence than they can if it were properly fitted to go next to the sentence preceeding. And how many people actually pay attention to commas and do all the things you were taught in kindergarten? You know stop for a breath, and then pick it up again.... It is not a writer's job to preach, but more to show, and in any way shape or form that he or she can express that into a reasonably good form of writing, whether it break all the forms of language, or mold to it perfectly, as long as he or she can show it.<P>But there are writers of a nother stamp who believe in perfection of language. There is never going to be a perfection of language. Its never going to happen. You will never have something that will be true in all forms of language. ITs just not going to happen. And writiers like me realize that. So we don't pry ourselves on being correct on the punctuation factor. <P>But try as I might, writers are never their own best critics, but nor are critics for that matter. The important thing is to never put yourself above your readers and always speak the way true to you. <P>At the end of the of the day, if you're proud of it. Then by God, cheers to ya.<P><BR>-Brodie

[tancred]

Hunter S. Thompson is really a personality and not a writer. Somerset Maugham and Virginia Woolf are writers.

[Brodie]

What are you talking about. Hunter S. Thompson is too a writer. He's written for over 40 newspapers, has written a few books, and wrote the screenplay for a movie. And his book "The Great Shark Hunt" is considered, by many writers, to be the single greatest collection of a single person's writings ever. How can you even say he's not a writer. Hell he invented Gonzo. Not too mention he had a wicked tongue, a creative use of language, a disturbed mind, and one hell of a drug problem, although, he would never consider it a problem, more like fun to him.<P><BR>-Brodie

[tancred]

Oh, he wrote things - to be sure. But "inventing Gonzo" is again an aspect of personality and not the beauty of prose. Remember that bozo who wrote the Bridges of Madison County and was hailed as the next Hemingway? I think I saw him at lunch working the salad bar at the Acme.<BR>What I mean is yes, there are writers. But then again there are Writers. Then again, there is music and there is Music (the good posters to this board know what I mean). <BR>When I get home tonight I will ask my wife if I have been uncouth. A Master's in Literature makes her a good judge, eh what?<P>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: tancred ]<p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: tancred ]

[Bones]

Tanc,<P>Brodie says he's been writing for 7 years. Considering the possibility that he got a late start and didn't start writing until the third grade, that would make him, at most, about 15 years old.<P>That should explain a lot. As you continue this debate, you may want to adjust your approach so that you will be best understood by someone who is less linguistically developed than yourself.

[tancred]

Actually, I have no problem with his writing - just his role models!!!! It is my hope that he will look at my "writers" and give them a try as well. Anyone who likes Burgess has something going for him!!! <BR>Tanc<BR>P.S> My wife will probably side with him!!!

[barfle]

Brodie, I haven't read Thompson, so I'm not going to comment on his work (my loss, I guess). I will, however, comment on your remarks about correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar.<P>Although there will never be a perfect way to communicate in this mongrel language we speak, there are plenty of conventions regarding how we use the various forms of punctuation, tense, case, and other elements of the language. Violation of those conventions doesn't get you a fine or jail time, but, as you noted, they can be "as rough on the ear as a flat note."<P>We had a thread here about dissonance, and how my brother-in-law, who is a classical musician, described it as the "spice" of music. Using too much spice classifies you as a bad cook. Using too many unconventional spellings, punctuations, and uses of case, tense, and plurality can classify you as a bad writer. Even if you have a good story to tell, too much "style" distracts the reader. <P>There's a conservative commentator, whose name I can't recall at the moment, who has been around forever and has an immense vocabulary. More power to him, but every time he uses a word I have to analyze or look up, I'm distracted from his message.<P>My pet peeves: <BR>1. "They're going with Bill and I." <BR>2. Folks who don't know what apostrophes are for.<P>I'm as likely as the next guy to make a typo, but I try to communicate in complete sentences whenever possible, even though they have a tendency to run-on. And on. Oops! :confused:

[cornpone]

Good evening, Im new to the classical music gig, But I can say without a doubt it has changed the way that I hear other music. I just wished that I would have expeirenced classical music earlier in life, Just didnt know what I was missing. Thanks for the music. Beethoven.com rocks!!!!

[Brodie]

O my brothers, how can any of you say that those three writers are not great. Trumbo's Johnny got his Gun has more commonsense, more intellegence, and more thought oozing from even the last two chapters, than I, nor any one else for that matter, could ever hope to learn in a thousand life times. Burgess's use of language is right up there with Shakespeare and Poe. And Hunter S. now thats just fun to read. And just think about how much it takes to invent a style of writing. Burgess with Nadsat. And Thompson with Gonzo. You can't just throw that out on its dog ear.<P>As for not being up to the expectations of most of you, not much I can do there. And if you look down upon me, then so be it. I will stick by what I do. And I shall also stick with my writers: Dante, Burgess, Thompson, Trumbo, Clarke, Poe. And I will refuse to like these newer authors: Clancy, King, Koonz, Grisham, you know, modern writers.<P>And bye what I meant, "writing" I actually right. I've written 3 books, though I never have tried to get them publish, and doubt I will ever try. I also have written for a newspaper for 3 years now. And, a couple weeks ago I wrote the second best selling newspaper for my company all year, woohoo. Props to Nicole Marie on that one. So I do know a thing or two about a thing or two about writing.<P>As far as proper writing, I do not believe in it and i never will. If you can't mark something, in its correct form, to be true in all languages then I shall never write it. The day there is a sentence true in all languages in ther same correct form, then I shall change.<P>"Quod Scripsi Scripsi"<BR>What I have written I have written. I may be able to take back or add to what i say. I may be able to desrtroy it and lie about it. I may be able to give anyone a swift kick in the ass to anyonre who hears. But the bottom line is. I have written what I have written, and I can never unwrite it.<P><BR>-Brodie

[BenMurphy6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> As far as proper writing, I do not believe in it and i never will. If you can't mark something, in its correct form, to be true in all languages then I shall never write it. The day there is a sentence true in all languages in ther same correct form, then I shall change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>you call yourself a writer, yet insist on doing it improperly. as for writing something in its correct form, well, there is only ONE english language, and there is no ambiguity on its usage. <P>"dis be bad writin', sucka."<P>if you call that proper writing in the english language because it's how some people speak, you are, quite simply, wrong. ebonics is NOT a language. neither is nadsat or gonzo. it's not difficult to create a corruption of one language, as all of the above are.<P>by the way, no one, i mean NO ONE, has ever matched shakespeare's use of language. the bard had a way with words that will never be surpassed. never!

[Brodie]

I don't insist on doing it improperly. I insist on doing it logically. I base my writing on what comes from the mind and is express through the mouth. Not what we learn and that is expressed through the hands. Its not true to ourselves. Only through how we talk do we best describe ourselves, not our writing not our healthy good looks (oh and we've got them all....) the use of language. The key to the human mind, is the use of language.<P>As far as ol' Bill goes, he may have been good. But Anthony Burgess is right next to him. Especially with other books of his. By most standards of him, A Clockwork Orange is a horrible book. Probably one of his worst. Others of his are right up there with good ol Billy Bard. Unfortunatly people only read that one book of his. But one day he may be credited with his ablities, but until then....<P>And one last thought, just for the record.<P>Is a person who chooses to be bad, better than the person who has good forced on to him with no choice at all? Think about it...And thus is how I feel.<P><BR>-Brodie<P>EDIT: Oh and by the way. Gonzo is a type of writing, not a form of language, created by Hunter S. Thompson. Nadsat is Russified english created by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange. And Ebonics is slang to its lowest level created by the people of American to make understand themselves, as well as people they communicate with, easier.<p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Brodie ]

[tancred]

Aha! my wife does like Thompson! Please call William Shakespeare William. Afterall, he was the Eal of Oxford and thereby allowed to be addressed with a capitol W.!!!! (You don't really think the son of a glover could write that exquisire prose, do you?)<BR>tanc<BR>P.S. I like Nadsat. Look into Esperanto, I think you would enjoy that language<P>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: tancred ]<p>[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: tancred ]

[Mr Mustard]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And bye what I meant, "writing" I actually right. I've written 3 books, though I never have tried to get them publish, and doubt I will ever try. I also have written for a newspaper for 3 years now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can't think of a single, serious newspaper that would employ a writer who can't distinguish "write/right" and "by/bye". Those are the kind of mistakes that lead to immediate termination. If a writer dangles a modifier in The New York Times, for example, he/she can expect loads of hate mail, and some readers will even cancel their subscriptions in protest. Editors and journalists take language very seriously, and so do educated readers.<P>There is an <I>enormous</I> difference between knowing how to "right" well and then being creative with the language (as is the case with Thompson, Burgess, Joyce, etc...) and not having a clue what you're doing. Many great writers play with language, but they are fully aware of the rules that govern it. Misspelling words doesn't imitate the way people speak, and lazy mistakes just reveal lazy thinking.<P>Finally: I realize that your posts are <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213222,00.html" TARGET=_blank>trolls</A> but they're not particularly imaginative. Check <A HREF="http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html" TARGET=_blank>this page</A> for some better tips on how to troll successfully, and then maybe try again.<P>Best of luck,<P>mustard

[Brodie]

I wondered if anyone would catch those. You may not beleive me but I did that on purpose because of the paragraph proceeding it. Where I say I do not believe in proper writing. See, it was sort of a joke, might have misinterrupted, well apparently it was, oh well. Hey, atleast I tried.<P>And yes I get floods of hate mail that comes through the internet and to my home. I think its more fun to hear what people say then what I have to write. I appreciate it. It means some ones reading and actually feels compelled to express their feelings to someone they don't even know personally, while usually making total idoits of themselves, and wasting a good 34+ cents in the process.<P>Oh when I talked about Pro-Choice, man you would have thought I started World War 3. I got more threats in that month alone then I ever dreamed possible, and you know what, I read every one of them.<P>But has hate mail ever stopped a writer before? Hell Dalton Trumbo was blacklisted for his use of language, but he was still one of the single greatest writers ever. Dante, was ridiculed in public, numerous times. Damien Alexander was actually beaten while he was walking through New York, and he went on to write some of the best books ever. Language does not usually scare a writer, usually they use it to sheild their own cowardice in a situation. Writing about things with different characters that reflect their own personality, fears, goals, loves, and emotions. So threats and actions alike, will leave the true writers to do what they do best. And so they shall.<P>I do not claim to be a great writer, I don't even claim to be a good or a modest or a decent one for that matter, and I never will. I'm not creative with language, hell I'm down right scared of it. But I do know the rules that govern it, but there are several ways to break those rules, while still being true to the language, kind of like Catholic Dogma. Just an example and not a denouncement of faith, so please don't be offended, it was just the first thing to pop in my head. Where by you have to confess your sins to go to heaven, and eat and drink the body and blood of christ, and pray, and follow the ten commandments, and not commit mortal sins, in order to go to heaven, but John 3:16 tells us that as long as we believe in christ we can go to heaven. Loopholes around loopholes, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, and not just religous ones (once again I must apologize for having to use the Catholic religon in my example, and I am very sorry to anyone I offended, I meant nothing by it).<P>Which just goes to show you that, sure you can follow the rules, and do the stuff that it tells you, and do the stuff that contradicts the other stuff, and then do the stuff that contradicts that. Or you can take the easy way out, which by most standards of logic, is the best route to be. I'm not telling you not to follow the rules, all I said is that I don't do all that there is to do with language. I'm lazy in that aspect, but I'm lazy in the name of logic. Logic shall set you free. And always remember that.<P><BR>-Brodie

[shostakovich]

Hi Brodie. You seem like a nice kid, but misguided. You freely admit you are not a good writer. Part of your justification is that you don't want to put yourself above your readers. There's no danger of that. Another justification is "logic". Logic is a mystery to you, too. You seem to feel that writing the way a person speaks is a good idea. We converse in a stream-of-consciousness mode. It's not the way to write. When a writer is QUOTING a character, it's proper to simulate talk. In between quotes he should be writing. <P>I counted 36 errors in your last post. You SHOULD be concerned rather than proud. Much of the criticism in this thread is constructive. I hope it isn't totally wasted on you. I know Mr. Mustard is a professional writer. He and several other respondents seem to think you're worth some effort. Let me add to that list.<P>First, you should get used to reading proper English. Look up articles of your choice in an encyclopedia. They will have good grammatical construction, punctuation, and spelling. In addition to reading proper writing, you will improve your knowledge and vocabulary. <P>Then, when you feel ready for it, sign up for an adult education writing course. I assume you are not currently in school.<BR>Good luck.<BR>"Total Idoit"

[Brodie]

DO you really think it necessary to beat the point of correct writing? Sure its a good way to write and it will express an opinion, if done correctly, but I feel that it should have some more meaning then just speaking through the printed form of languauge. Do you not believe a person should feel free to write the way, that best describe them? Don't they have that fundamental choice?<P>Let me put it this way, as I did in a previous post. Is a person who chooses bad somehow better than a person who is forced to be good? Meaning that I choose this way. It is correct to me. It is correct to my loyal readers. And I have chosen to be this way. And by forcing me to write "correctly" is not my choice, you are forcing me to be that way. And if I give in that destroys all that I have taught my readers as well as myself. And that being, that human beings by definition, are endowed with free will, and moral choice. And I have chosen what I think is the best way of doing it. And you have chosen the best way of doing it. So do think about it. Is a person who chooses bad somehow better than a person who is forced to be good? <P>Sure, commas, periods, quotation marks, points, marks, slashes, dots, and all that cal might be fun, right, good, and proper to you, but I believe in language at its easiest form. And if you actually were compelled to take the time to count out all my mistakes then tell me about it no less, then good for you. You like it, it is correct for you, but it isn't for me. And I shall not change that by just simple discussions about how it is wrong. I know its wrong. I know I'm wrong. I have chosen that. And I'm fine with it.<P><BR>-Brodie<BR>BBCDDCBAGGABBAA

[jnowacki]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brodie:<BR><STRONG>I know I'm wrong. I have chosen that. And I'm fine with it.<P><BR>-Brodie<BR>BBCDDCBAGGABBAA</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is the reason behind the old adage,<BR>"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing...you only waste your time, and annoy the pig"! <P>I can never, for the life of me, understand why some people in this world make a deliberate attempt to appear, or actually BE, stupid. The fact that these humanoids are walking the face of the planet, sucking up valuable oxygen, consuming valuable resources, and contributing nothing to the bettering of the world we live in is of considerable irritation to me. I truly believe in a "live and let live" world, but my patience is strained to the max by attitudes such as this. <P>No need to reply, as there is no possible point of dialog. You're WRONG, and always WILL BE WRONG!! (Bye you're ohn admition!)

[Brodie]

How do I attempt to be stupid, if I may be so bold as to ask? Have I not written in a way that you all understand? Is it not clear enough? And if I'm not, how might punctuation help you? I believe I have been able to explain to you the point that I feel. I write like this. There is no changing that. The fact that you all are trying so desperately to do so, is almost as bad as I am.<P>I can write correctly. I can express myself in complete, long, drawn out sentences that usually only confuse rather than tell what I think. But is a short, sweet and down-to-the-point sentence really that bad? I can simply state what I feel in one sentence. How I feel it in another. And why I feel it in the next, all in one flowing pattern, rather than make it into three long paragraphs, I have 3 short sentences. That is how I think of it. And if you don't see it the same way, then oh well. I can't force you to feel one way about something, just as you cannot do the same to me.<P>I write the way I talk. I feel that writing should have the same, thoughts, feelings, and emotions, that any other human being would feel as well. When a person is sad, they should write sad. When a person is happy, they should write happy. Can you not agree with that? Do you only believe that written language should be dull, correct, and written as we were taught?<P>Then you will think. And you will think. And you will get an idea. And hey wait a minute, writing doesn't have to be dull at all. But if it is correct, then by most means it usually is. <P>Then you will think of what I said before. If you didn't you are now. And you will get that gulliver working. And all the thoughts will come over you like a swarm of bees. And you will feel your skin tighten as you prepare for whats ahead. Your thoughts stinging and prodding you with different emotions and feelings. And you will think all sorts of things, to still show me the correct or True way if you will. And you will think those little thoughts up in your gulliver. And then you will type them out. And joy of all joys we will read them. And then we will respond, as is usually the case.<P>And to think this was all started over the simple question of "Do you think classical music makes you smarter?"<P>Ah, no joy, no rapture, no exquisit sin greater.....than the thoughts that brew in our heads.<P><BR>-Brodie

[BenMurphy6]

ok...my patience is at an end. this quote pretty much sums up my feelings about your posts:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"billy madison"<P>well, that about does it for me. see you guys in another topic.