Cymatic geometry and logic in sound.

[0exegesis]

As someone with a classical music background who has studied golden ratio and such mathematical universe once stumbled on something called the rosslyn motet, though questionable it did open up a new way of thinking about musical logic and sound.

 

After a long time of testing theory i came to the conclusion that im sure others have made before me (sadly i had no access to library's of this nature so had to figure it out myself) that sound has physical property wich may explain why when its vibrations resonate through us we can discern 'correct' patterns/chords/note correleance and 'false' ones.

Afterall, each note has a tremor frequency wich may or may not resonate with another.

 

I have also through this developed an interest in subjects such as the 'third voice' wich technically could be considered the offspring that bounces off two conflicting wavepatterns. Im sure some of you have as a child with a friend yelled at eachother in monotone discovering that third voice sounding loudly inbetween, in another manner perhaps overtone singing is created by a similar mechanism; creating two voices that brings forth' not an illusion but an actual third wave pattern.

 

Back to cymatics; I thusfar figured through study that every pitch has its own geometric shape, that may very well resonate with the same geometry that matter consists of. Afterall is it not said that 'first there was the word, and the word was god' wich when set in the context of the physical property of sound opens up quite the window.. The same logic applied to sound geometry is there when it comes to the forming of matter. I could go further into this and state that the forming of planets may well be accounted to the background noise of gasses, and even their trajectory possibly is decided by this.

 

Music as we know today has devolved into the abstract, it is hardly physically utilized, and much can be blamed on sheer lack of education followed by stupendous distraction (greed that through the industry uses music as a comoddity rather than a science)

Im quite a curious fellow and cant stop wondering about the knowledge lost in the past; for instance when you look at tone range used in ancient civilisations' of wich some has survived in for instance asia and arabia, it is vastly more complicated where the western world though through scientific approach created a very narrow range to work with (dictated by the golden ratio)..

(this is not criticism, im very, very fond of the golden ratio.)

 

When you look at sound in the primal sense; as physical. What is the difference between such range and our western golden ratio?

Where did we go wrong in thinking that music, and ultimately sound.. was something seperate from ourselves? Perhaps we are instruments, afterall the voice has the range of nearly all instruments thinkable.. and why is that so? Why would the voice have evolved to be able to reproduce every single pitch relevant to our 'material' world?

 

The so called energy we consist of; wich travels through our brain's ever increasing connections is its own microcosmos made of wave's and their relations, the body's mechanisms therein are no different than a composition of a logical musical-piece.

 

These are things that i am..somewhat obsessed with both from my work as a composer, a sound sciences and physics interested and a philosopher as we all are when we put our mind to it..

What bothers me is that i do not have a laboratory where i can do research.. i sadly lack the equipment let alone money to build it.. If anyone from the netherlands with knowledge of these things would like to get in contact with me on this subject and thinktank on such research i would be quite happy to. ..Things i would really like to test are; the types of geometric patterns created by the third voice' such as overtone singing.. Also the systematic documenting of specific toneladder notes geometric shapes and their relation to eachother to map the physical properties of every single tone. Then also compare the effect of such patterns on molecular samples.

 

I hope my introduction where i shared my thoughts on the subject wasnt too confusing, or god forbid chaotic. I do apoligise for not knowing all the right scientific terms, as i've explained i am coming from a composers world' not a science university. (although they are quite alike)

 

-Daniel.

[EdEarl]

Hi, no one has replied to your post in a couple of hours, so I'll will start. Your English is excellent, but your post is cryptic, at least to me, not being a musician. Sometimes people post here who really don't make sense, and frankly your post is challenging.

 

There is a body of science of vibrations or waves, including sound. IMO music theory is part of this science, but AFAIK it is not taught as part of a science curriculum as is the mathematics of waves.

 

Perhaps the 'third voice' you speak of is the result of two frequencies modulating to produce a third frequency. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation

 

There are cymatics experiments on youtube vidoes, for example:

 

I hope this helps, sorry I cannot be more help.

[0exegesis]

Hi, no one has replied to your post in a couple of hours, so I'll will start. Your English is excellent, but your post is cryptic, at least to me, not being a musician. Sometimes people post here who really don't make sense, and frankly your post is challenging.

 

There is a body of science of vibrations or waves, including sound. IMO music theory is part of this science, but AFAIK it is not taught as part of a science curriculum as is the mathematics of waves.

 

Perhaps the 'third voice' you speak of is the result of two frequencies modulating to produce a third frequency. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation

 

There are cymatics experiments on youtube vidoes, for example:

 

I hope this helps, sorry I cannot be more help.

Oh its all fine, I dont expect emediate responses.

 

I do think that music theory with focus on ratio and correleance with cymatic properties should be part of the science curriculum on the same universe of mathematics, and id love to be part of that type of research.

There is also a side of me that sees its application as already possible, perhaps already known beside the public.. Its all the building blocks of matter and with it our reality.

[EdEarl]

If you are serious about the research, you would probably need to study calculus and Fourier transforms. See:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math

http://www.math.com

[0exegesis]

Im sure i have enough mathematical understanding to map geometric form, besides i might not write in formula, i understand quite the intermediate concept.

[studiot]

Much work connecting (acoustic) science to music was carried out by the late victorians (Lord Rayleigh: The Theory of Sound is still the definitive classic text) and in the early part of the 20th century. The 20th century saw the study widened to include the mechanics of the human audio system, both physiological and psychological.

 

Philips (Eindhoven) carried put much research in the 1940s to the 1960s and produced a marvellous book on the subject. Unfortunately I have lost my copy.

 

There is much reported in the Blackie Student's Physics series, vol II, Acoustics by Wood.

 

In modern times there have been a number of good texts, websites (some teaching) and so on devoted to this.

 

You can even take degree courses in the subject at Cardiff and London Universities.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=the+physics+of+music&gbv=2&oq=the+physics+of+music&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0l10.815.4290.0.4747.20.13.0.7.7.0.192.1518.3j10.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.20.1796.4U6t-WdYkY8

 

Go well in your search.

Edited March 20, 2016 by studiot

[0exegesis]

Much work connecting (acoustic) science to music was carried out by the late victorians (Lord Rayleigh: The Theory of Sound is still the definitive classic text) and in the early part of the 20th century. The 20th century saw the study widened to include the mechanics of the human audio system, both physiological and psychological.

 

Philips (Eindhoven) carried put much research in the 1940s to the 1960s and produced a marvellous book on the subject. Unfortunately I have lost my copy.

 

There is much reported in the Blackie Student's Physics series, vol II, Acoustics by Wood.

 

In modern times there have been a number of good texts, websites (some teaching) and so on devoted to this.

 

You can even take degree courses in the subject at Cardiff and London Universities.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=the+physics+of+music&gbv=2&oq=the+physics+of+music&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0l10.815.4290.0.4747.20.13.0.7.7.0.192.1518.3j10.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.20.1796.4U6t-WdYkY8

 

Go well in your search.

Thank you!! Very valuable information.