House of Drumming.com

Wow. Well, I appreciate the bibliography, sort of. A few direct citations would have actually been better.

First off, let me say we're not in disagreement over theories of what defines our relation to musical time, or groove, and how the mind may be processing all of that. The problem, for me, is the example in the video of the Tick-Tock Effect. And the video is what you created the thread seeking critiques on. The problem here is that how you couched the theory makes it dependent on a clock, but a clock doesn't support the theory.

I asked how it is my brain has 'synced' by only the 2nd tick from the clock in order to conclude I am hearing two different sounds when there is "actually" only one -- according to you -- because I wanted to know how this conclusion takes place within only two sounds of a sequence. Your theory goes on to posit that my mind is so adept at this trickery that it will use it to delude me into hearing things that aren't there, and all because it has this fascination with music that is so strong that misinforming me over something as mundane as a ticking clock is not only necessary, it's just the way it is. An "actuality" as it were.

A more logical explanation for the events is that my brain is processing information from my ears at the 2nd sound in that sequence, and not concluding with what it wants me to sync to, or tricking me, or coming to a conclusion with what it has in sound-memory. I'm not saying those things aren't entering into whatever mental gymnastics are set in motion, I'm only saying that at beat two I'm confident my brain is still in information gathering mode. If, at this same beat two, I'm hearing two different sounds, it's just as likely to be because there are two different sounds. Or my ears are bad. Or sound-memory has "actually" come into play, but our brain, as you say, is so unacceptably slow in the moment that we're not cognizant it's already happening. Probably not because we're mentally slow, but because it's an abstraction to us.

Going with your "back-fill" explanation, if my mind is 'back-filling' by beat #2, one second after beat #1, that could logically be in attempt to associate it with something already in memory. The mind can also reject possibilities in an amazingly short time. Of the innumerable sounds that contain two beats in a sequence, my mind won't consider a ga-zillion of them it has processed in the past. However, a sequence at or near 60-bpm and I believe my brain is going to consider the possibility of a clock immediately, but it's going to require at least two beats for that to happen, and likely three or four to make that a self-satisfying determination. It's also going to require sounding like a clock in addition to sharing the clock's cadence. However, you would have us believe that all this trickery is set in stone by beat two because that's what we all hear with your clock example. Tick-Tock. Tick-Tock. Pure auditory illusion because there are two sounds created by our mind, but "actually" there is only one.


The trouble with everything I've written up to this point concerning your theory, and resolutely unaffected by your bibliography, is that many, many, many mechanical clocks make two sounds, and at the same cadence, and with extremely similar tone. We are conditioned to hearing a clock tick, either real or facsimile, made of exactly these two sounds at the same speed. Every time. It's universal. It's ubiquitous. If it's not the opening for 60 Minutes then it's every other clock ticking sound in the world. Once the brain considers that a sequence of sounds could well be a clock, the sound-memory of that two-tone clock is recalled, if for nothing else but comparison. And this is exactly what's happening with the metronome example I give in the reply above.

Listen to a cadence well outside the parameters of a clock and the Tick-Tock two-tones-are-really-only-one theory dissolves. Even with a picture of a clock accompanying the sound, if the sound or cadence isn't the real thing, the mind is going to reject it. Your video shows us a clock along with the sound of a mechanical clock doing what it is a mechanical clock does. But then you tell me what I've been hearing all these years isn't really there. But it is there. It's a fact.

Listen to a different tone - not reminiscent of a clock tick - (electronic tone, for example), and there is no Tick-Tock Effect, even at smack on 60-bpm. Don't think so? have at it once you are set to 60

http://www.8notes.com/metronome/

In fact, we could play whack-a-theory all day. Think of the human heartbeat for a few moments, or your own. Now, set a standard metronome (as in my earlier post) to 138-144, or double your own heartbeat. We'll hear two slightly different sounds weaving in and out of one sound per each two beat sequence, won't we? Sounds amazingly like a heartbeat if we stretch out a little. We can add this power of suggestion example to the list and have yet another theory. Let's bundle them all up and call it The "My Brain Can Do Some Amazing Shit" theory. I'd buy that book.

Wow. Well, I appreciate the bibliography, sort of. A few direct citations would have actually been better.

I gave you one, then (unfortunately) true to my MO, I overkilled. :p I'd just show you that graphic, but it seems that I'll have to go to the University library for it, and I can't be bothered at the moment to head over there, find the books, scan the images and upload them.

The problem here is that how you couched the theory makes it dependent on a clock, but a clock doesn't support the theory.

We can agree to disagree here. There is a preexisting controversy on this very issue, with some swearing up and down that (all) clocks do indeed make different sounds. I've seen long posts on the internal ticking mechanisms, and rebuttals, that go on for pages. IMHO, I side on the side that says most clocks don't tick/tock, or if they do it is too small of a difference to account for the large difference in what we hear. Ergo, IMO, a clock does support the theory. I do agree that the clock isn't necessary for the theory, though. I apreciate the feedback, that phrasing it as a clock doesn't work. It is good to hear - thanks!

I'm only saying that at beat two I'm confident my brain is still in information gathering mode.

The tick-tock effect is *increased* in information gathering mode, not decreased. Everyone knows that the best musicians with the biggest pockets are also great listeners. In science speak, the tick-tock effect is a state effect, a state of mind that is fueled by listening, and not pattern recognition. Abstract thinking is decreases the effect by interfering with the process. This is one reason that overthinking kills groove. This is a departure from the previous model of brain-strictly-as-a-computer but there is plenty of evidence for it. As useful as the info-processing model is, it isn't complete.

Listen to a different tone - not reminiscent of a clock tick - (electronic tone, for example), and there is no Tick-Tock Effect, even at smack on 60-bpm. Don't think so? have at it once you are set to 60

Honestly, I heard tick-tock. I can flip it either way, like seeing the old woman/young woman in those gestalt drawings. You are on the right track with experimenting with different tones, though. The tone used does modulate the effect.

In fact, we could play whack-a-theory all day. Think of the human heartbeat for a few moments, or your own.

That is what the research is for. Heart beat is not directly associated with rhythm or brain synchronization. Nor is is it caused by walking or how your mother rocked you. (that research has all been done) Instead, rhythm drives the brain and the brain drives rhythm.

We could go back and forth like this ad infinitum, and that's because what we're dealing with are primarily unsubstantiated theories. That's not to say they don't have merit, it's saying they are unproven. And no one I linked to the electronic tone metronome heard it as tick-tock. I'm also dubious of the claim that our heartbeats are not associated with rhythm, tonality, and "The Conditioning Effect" (my next book).

Furthermore, you keep referring to research but I've yet to see a single supporting conclusion. That's not a lot to ask of someone who has written a book on it, I don't think. And not a list of books, citations to specific scientific conclusions that are supported and peer-reviewed.

Finally, back to the clock. I stand by my assertion of conditioning and language being every bit a possibility for this "Tick-Tock" effect than is the infinitely more convoluted explanation explained in the topic video. If you've actually read what you claim about the function of clocks, then you know pendulum / two-pawl clocks make two sounds, and you know practically any clock sample is made of two distinct tones after the original TWO TONE SOUND. I'm saying that for a scientific conclusion, one with enough merit to be tagged as an "Effect," it's self-invalidating.


It's as simple as

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl1et3f59OQ[/youtube]

We'll agree to disagree.

Some clocks certainly create two separate sounds. Some do it just to create the tick-tock sound. Most modern clocks are too small to actually make a noticeable difference in sound, though, and many ticks are created by an identical movement. In other words, some do, but some don't. We hear a tick-tock either way, however. This is established with digital clocks and digitally reproduced strings of identical ticks at different speeds.


[/quote] Finally, back to the clock. I stand by my assertion of conditioning and language being every bit a possibility for this "Tick-Tock" effect than is the infinitely more convoluted explanation explained in the topic video.[/quote]

Fair enough. I cited the evidence. You don't want to believe it that is fine. We will agree to disagree again on the simplicity. I find Occam's Razor falls on the side of synchronicity, however. That we synchronize explains so much of what we experience as music lovers are performers, simply explains so many aspects of performce - none of which you are disputing.

Furthermore, why would people hear a tick-tock in a metronome and other non-clock sounds in which we have no expectation of hearing a tick tock? Even in situations where we are explicitly told that there is no tick tock? Why do some hear a tick-tock and others don't? Why do some people hear the tick-tock more strongly? The old information processing model you prefer fails for me here, personally. You have to start reaching for explanations for each situation. It gets to be very complex and involved. Just in my opinion.

But again, let's agree to disagree. Check out this link, though. It doesn't talk about music specifically, but about the effects of synchronicity.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/12/22/why_things_sync/

john lamb wrote:We'll agree to disagree.

Some clocks certainly create two separate sounds. Some do it just to create the tick-tock sound. Most modern clocks are too small to actually make a noticeable difference in sound, though, and many ticks are created by an identical movement. In other words, some do, but some don't. We hear a tick-tock either way, however. This is established with digital clocks and digitally reproduced strings of identical ticks at different speeds.

You just proved my point that a clock is not a valid example for your theory with sentences 1 and 2. And then "We hear a tick-tock either way" is icing. Conditioning and expectation - just as valid an explanation. But I have to ask, why wouldn't we hear two sounds if there are in fact two sounds? Your question contains the answer.

Clocks of old used pendulum devices -- as did older metronomes -- to keep time. There was also a visual component, as in Grandfather style clocks, of a swinging pendulum, just like with conventional metronomes. See where I'm going with this? It's not rocket science. Conditioning, expectation, and sound-memory. Any or all of them every bit as plausible as neurons and synapses firing to sync me to a sound and then fooling me into thinking it's something other than what's "actually" happening. I think more plausible. Much.

The theory in your video falls apart because the Tick-Tock sound has always been, and will always be, associated with a clock. The phrase "Tick-Tock of the clock" didn't come about hundreds of years ago because someone made a case that they were not "actually" hearing two sounds. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.

john lamb wrote:

{Old Pit Guy} Finally, back to the clock. I stand by my assertion of conditioning and language being every bit a possibility for this "Tick-Tock" effect than is the infinitely more convoluted explanation explained in the topic video.

Fair enough. I cited the evidence. You don't want to believe it that is fine. We will agree to disagree again on the simplicity. I find Occam's Razor falls on the side of synchronicity, however. That we synchronize explains so much of what we experience as music lovers are performers, simply explains so many aspects of performce - none of which you are disputing.

You cited evidence? You mean that long list of library books? It's not that I don't want to believe it, it's that you haven't come close to proving it.
A theory based on several unproven factors when the simple concept of human conditioning provides a viable explanation is not Occam. Again, I'm not saying we don't synchronize, we obviously do; I'm saying the Tick-Tock of a clock is a woefully inadequate basis for an "effect" on which to base a theory and a book. It's tenuously tangential. In order to accept it I have to accept that I'm not hearing two sounds from a clock when I know that (a) many clocks indeed make two sounds and (b) I'm conditioned by clocks to hear two sounds.

I used a Boss DB-33 in school, and fairly loud through headphones. Some days for up to 5 hours a day in a lab, and for a full year. Rarely was it set to just the 1/4 note. I always had either the 1/8th note lower than the 1/4, or the 1/16s also set low, but with the 1/8th louder. Then I'd go home and set it on a table with my pad for a few more hours. Many, many musicians did/ do the same thing and more. Tick-Tock, Click-clack, whatever the written form of those two sounds, they are two sounds. Do you for one second doubt that all of that listening didn't condition me to hear two sounds when two sounds - alike or not - happen in sequence? Be real about this for a moment.

john lamb wrote: Furthermore, why would people hear a tick-tock in a metronome and other non-clock sounds in which we have no expectation of hearing a tick tock? Even in situations where we are explicitly told that there is no tick tock? Why do some hear a tick-tock and others don't? Why do some people hear the tick-tock more strongly? The old information processing model you prefer fails for me here, personally. You have to start reaching for explanations for each situation. It gets to be very complex and involved. Just in my opinion.

Easy. Conditioning, expectation, and our sound-memory. Old clocks and old metronomes, both with swinging pendulums and making two sounds. Some people, and you are one of them obviously, hear what you want to hear. Proven by the fact that you heard "Tick-Tock" when you listened to the electronic tone. I can hear that, too, but only when I want to hear it. The only "reaching for explanations" here is you, I'm quite sure of that. Someone who listens to clocks in the background going "tick-tock", people listening to a click with two sounds, old metronome or new, or a click with the 1/8th note activated - what I wrote above this One tone followed by another. Conditioning. Expectation.

john lamb wrote: But again, let's agree to disagree. Check out this link, though. It doesn't talk about music specifically, but about the effects of synchronicity.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/12/22/why_things_sync/

I don't doubt synchronicity. I doubt the basis of your book and its theory that clocks make only one sound but I hear two because of the way my brain relates to music. If you offer up something that absolutely is making only one sound and then I hear two, then you have something. But your example video is hocus-pocus to me, and honestly, smacks of a quick way sell a cobbled together book.

Just for kicks, have a lab tell us the sample clock in your video is making only one sound.

You just proved my point that a clock is not a valid example for your theory with sentences 1 and 2.

This is like saying "Not all hamburgers are beef, therefore you can't get mad cow disease from any hamburger" It is a composition fallacy and the fallacy fallacy as you are arguing that because you think my example is a poor one, then my argument is invalid.

A totally even ticking is not necessary. The point is that it happens EVEN WITH a totally even ticking. Through modulating the volume, tone and timing, you can create specific and repeatable tick-tock effects. Research on this stuff goes back over a dozen decades. Have you ever heard music in a dripping faucet?

Easy. Conditioning, expectation, and our sound-memory. Old clocks and old metronomes, both with swinging pendulums and making two sounds.

This is response to a question about digitally reproced pulses with every sound being identical.

Do you for one second doubt that all of that listening didn't condition me to hear two sounds when two sounds - alike or not - happen in sequence? Be real about this for a moment.

I already talked about this. Of course it conditioned you, but that doesn't invalidate anything. Humans are more complex than white lab rats of Pavlov's dogs. Yes, conditioning is real and important, but it is not the only thing going on.

I don't doubt synchronicity. I doubt the basis of your book and its theory that clocks make only one sound but I hear two because of the way my brain relates to music. If you offer up something that absolutely is making only one sound and then I hear two, then you have something. But your example video is hocus-pocus to me, and honestly, smacks of a quick way sell a cobbled together book.

I cited it already, fwiw.

I think it is from this one:

Jones, M. R., Fay, R. R., & Popper, A. N. (Eds.). (2010). Music perception. Springer.

This book may not have the chart I was thinking about but certainly has lots of relevant articles, including charts that measure how our brains synchronize with music as we listen to it. It is a newer one, though and has lots of new research. The best explanation will come from the really old stuff, since that's almost all they had to talk about, they really spent a lot of QT going around and around about it

Old Pit Guy wrote:If you offer up something that absolutely is making only one sound and then I hear two, then you have something.

I stopped by the Library today and pulled the first music perception text off the shelf, turned to the chapter on rhythm (there is typically only one chapter on rhythm) and took this pic.

http://johnlambdrums.com/wp-content/upl ... 120943.jpg

The book is An Objective Psychology of Music by Robert Lund, 1967.

Like I said, it's old news. I can get more citations if you like, I plan to go back tomorrow.

The video. That's the topic of this thread. You asked for advice on the video. The video makes this claim to support the theory that is the basis for the book:

0:05 While we often hear tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, in actuality every tick is identical.
0:12 Why do we hear two different [sounds] when really there is only one?
0:17 The reason has to do with how the brain perceives music.
0:21 Musical rhythm acts like a drill sergeant,synchronizing the brain to its beat.
0:26 When we listen to the ticking of the clock, the brain synchronizes and the neurons begin
0:29 to fire in time with the music. When the brain is synchronized with the music, it creates
0:34 the "tick-tock effect."
0:36 This "tick-tock effect" is central to understanding what rhythm is, how it works, and how to make better music.

Every tick is NOT identical. Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?

Worse, every example in your picture of the page in a book from the library is conditional: the conclusions are prefaced with "we may" or "we often." I read it, and I'm saying the tick-tock sound of a clock is an "objective rhythm" and a feloniously bad example for your theory.

Again, this isn't science. You immerse your work in the word, e.g., "the science of rhythm," when at best they are abstract theories of rhythm. That's my primary objection with all of it. You're selling these theories as scientific fact. And in the case of the video, what is extremely close to a lie to sell it. You have admitted yourself that this:

0:05 While we often hear tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, in actuality every tick is identical.
0:12 Why do we hear two different [sounds] when really there is only one?

Is not true. But I don't see a retraction of it.

That's my objection.

Worse, every example in your picture of the page in a book from the library is conditional: the conclusions are prefaced with "we may" or "we often."

People aren't machines and the environment, personal experience and what they want to do all have significant influence over what actually happens. Besides - have you ever read real research papers? You always use passive verbs. It is partly stylistic convention and partly to reinforce the idea that someone may come along tomorrow and completely change the way we see things. It happens.

I read it, and I'm saying the tick-tock sound of a clock is an "objective rhythm" and a feloniously bad example for your theory.

Feloniously.Yes, I understand you think I'm a flimflam man trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for a quick buck. I get that.

But I'm not. I spent years on this book. I spent countless hours researching. My thesis was on this topic. And your objection is with the very best supported piece of the theory. The peer-reviewed articles on hearing a tick-tock instead of a tick number at least in the hundreds for the simple reason that for many decades there wasn't anything else to study in terms of rhythm. Would you like me to directly cite a peer reviewed article in which people presented with identical clicks

The fact that you can hear a steady tick sometimes while hearing a tick-tock does not refute the theory in any way, shape or form. The fact that you head a tick-tock in a clock that really goes tick-tock does not in any way, shape or form refute the theory.

When the brain synchs up, we hear the tick-tock. When the brain doesn't synch up, we don't hear the tick tock. When the brain synchs strongly, we feel the song has a strong groove. When it synchs weakly, the groove isd not so strong. When the song has a strong groove, we move. There are researchers who use silent video of people listening to music as a measure of groove. They measure "spontaneous movement" - such as head nodding - and the more people move the stronger the groove is, and it correlates well with how people rate the songs themselves with a Likert scale. This all dovetails very nicely with what top musicians say - with the way in which they choose to describe what they do.

Again, this isn't science. You immerse your work in the word, e.g., "the science of rhythm," when at best they are abstract theories of rhythm.

Gravity isn't an abstract theory of why things fall? There is theoretical science and there is applied science. Most of my book deals with applied science. For example, if rhythm is a result of synchronicity, then harmonic rules should apply to rhythm. You end up with what Efrain Toro says about rhythm. Another example - if rhythm is a state of mind and not a "thing" then it also has many practical applications, such as how and why to play by feel.

0:12 Why do we hear two different [sounds] when really there is usually only one?

Better? (but I thought you didn't like the passive voice)
BTW - when I listen closely to the ticking in the video, I don't hear the ticking n the video as alternating between two sounds. I do hear variation in the sounds, but not a dualistic back and forth, not not consistent. There are many strings of identical ticks in it. It isn't 60 bpm, either. I asked Doug to synchronize the speed of the tick to the pace of his speech, so I don't know whats been done to it. I don't think any of this matters at all in the theory, though, or to the history of people's practical experience. I don't think anyone will watch the video and go "oh my god! It goes tick-tock!" Instead it is a reference to pop culture and activates the viewers life long experience.

If your criticism only has to do with the a particular ticking sound, then I'll live with it.