jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 31, 2019 0:15:53 GMT 10
jkenny In your last reply to me you commented " We don't need long-term memories to know when some systems allow us to relax more into the music & makes it more realistic compared to other systems. " For the sake of this conversation may I pick into that? Using ASA as a basis, as you have, and assuming I have walked away with the correct impression from your post, I would disagree with your comment. To build up a useful "library" of sounds, associated sounds, harmonics, tones etc. the long term memory is required. Without it we simply would not be able to make sense of the mixed sounds around us, they would become jumbled into a cacophany, as can still happen when the auditory sense as a whole becomes overloaded, or has too many unfamiliar sounds not remembered and associated. This confusion has been used in story telling, e.g. a large flock of geese being mistaken for large human gathering in party mode ( thank you Lucille Fletcher ). Someone more familiar with both scenes would have differentiated easily, from the associated sounds held in memory. I digress.
The memory of a sonic impression or clarity of any part(s) of the overall sound that had a certain impact or WHY are all long term. The same as when you hear the first several notes of a song and know what's coming or even able to say that the beginning of song B is so similar to that of song A you almost thought it was but the X was just a snadge different.
I feel the same would apply to comparing HiFi reproduction, you have that long term memory what a piece of music has left as a remembered impression, a group of associated sounds and nuances remembered as, for arguments sake, song alpha, on system beta. However, song alpha via system gamma does not match this remembered impression, whether that results in a negative or positive new impression.
Ok, here is my understanding of ASA in regard to this "library" I don't mean it as a library of stored sounds but rather a library of a set of models, set of rules, etc. that define how sounds behave in the external world - mostly being learned during our childhood development stage & stored at the subconscious level. Much the same as visual perception isn't based on a library of stored images but rather a set of models/rules whereby any angle/lighting/perspective that we view an object from is recognisable & identifiable as that object - it's not that we have every possible perspective/context image of a car stored in long-term memory that we compare a new image to - it's an abstract set of learned rules/models which allows us to quickly analyse the nerve impulse signals coming from the rods & cones of the retina & generating an internal representation of that information into what we call an image of a particular car. I'm greatly simplifying this for the sake of trying to explain it. Auditory perception shares some functionality with visual perception but is also very different - we can't create a still sound like we can a still image - time is an intimate, fundamental part of sound. So when we hear the strike of a bell, we hear the sound envelope from initial attack to final decay. This is a changing set of amplitudes & harmonics over time. So the example of the recording of the sound of a bell strike played backwards is instantly recognised as NOT a bell strike even though all the same amplitudes & harmonics are the same when played forward or backwards - the difference is the timing/sequence of these aspects. Again, this isn't using long-term memory, as I understand it, to store the exact sequence of amplitude & harmonic changes for a bell - it is some abstract, higher-level representation of how the sound of a bell behaves. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what is stored & how it does what it does - that is the research area that ASA is addressing I'm no expert in this, just an interested layperson so my understanding/information may well have large gaps in understanding?) My point about not requiring long term memory to know if one playback system excites our interest & another doesn't is not about remembering specific details of the playback (amplitudes, harmonics of a particular track) but rather the high level impression of how the playback involved us in the sound. |
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Aug 31, 2019 4:56:20 GMT 10
I think we're nearly on the same page with you stating your case rather more eloquently than I did.
Our only difference of opinion is in the conclusion of whether long term memory is involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Aug 31, 2019 9:41:29 GMT 10
jkennycj66In my view both views can be reconciled. Yes we are born with certain innate perceptual processing faculties and which can be shaped to a greater extent at an early age. You are then left with a set of neurological processing skills independent of long term memory. Ears will transduce sound waves, brainstem and neural pathways will conduct nerve impulses and the relevant areas of the cortex will perceive/ hear it. the mechanisms by which it sorts some aspects of the sound stimulus as having particular physical characteristics is inbuilt. This may extend to some proposed ASA mechanisms. In a non audio example we can discriminate between two separate touch stimuli when presented at different body parts depending on the distance apart the stimuli are. On the finger tips if two sharp(ish) touches are made simultaneously, less than about 5mm apart, they will be perceived as one touch from one object. If the jabs are more than 5mm to 7mm apart we will perceive that we are being jabbed by two objects. No memory (in the traditional sense) required. So yes, conceivably there may well be hard wired memory independent mechanisms that tells a normally functioning brain that the sound being registered is from a real source, not recorded. It remains hypothesis but plausible if not likely. However, perception is so much more than a reductionist model of neuronal stimuli being registered at the cortical level. Here is where all the other good stuff happens when the multiple other brain areas get consulted and meaning, associations and interpretation is assigned. This really is the genesis of "you look but disn't see, listen but not hear". Now memory is very important as a comparator.This is where conditioning and learning play a role as does pattern recognition. A quick case in point from my own experience. When I first started working in a spinal unit at registrar level (specialist in training) the professor shoved up an xray of a cervical spine and said what do you see? I said clearly a fracture at C5 with anterior wedging and about 10 deg kyphus. he said good work and then proceeded to show me about 8 things that I didnt 'see'.Arguably my visual acuity was superior to his yet some of the stuff he saw passed as invisible to me, in fact even when he pointed it out I still struggled 'seeing it'. It was huh? I had to learn to see what he was seeing, which later became abundantly clear and obvious, instantly recognizable.Those things are not innate, must be learned and rely on memory. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Aug 31, 2019 19:14:30 GMT 10
jkenny cj66 In my view both views can be reconciled. Yes we are born with certain innate perceptual processing faculties and which can be shaped to a greater extent at an early age. You are then left with a set of neurological processing skills independent of long term memory. Ears will transduce sound waves, brainstem and neural pathways will conduct nerve impulses and the relevant areas of the cortex will perceive/ hear it. the mechanisms by which it sorts some aspects of the sound stimulus as having particular physical characteristics is inbuilt. This may extend to some proposed ASA mechanisms. In a non audio example we can discriminate between two separate touch stimuli when presented at different body parts depending on the distance apart the stimuli are. On the finger tips if two sharp(ish) touches are made simultaneously, less than about 5mm apart, they will be perceived as one touch from one object. If the jabs are more than 5mm to 7mm apart we will perceive that we are being jabbed by two objects. No memory (in the traditional sense) required. So yes, conceivably there may well be hard wired memory independent mechanisms that tells a normally functioning brain that the sound being registered is from a real source, not recorded. It remains hypothesis but plausible if not likely. However, perception is so much more than a reductionist model of neuronal stimuli being registered at the cortical level. Here is where all the other good stuff happens when the multiple other brain areas get consulted and meaning, associations and interpretation is assigned. This really is the genesis of "you look but disn't see, listen but not hear". Now memory is very important as a comparator.This is where conditioning and learning play a role as does pattern recognition. A quick case in point from my own experience. When I first started working in a spinal unit at registrar level (specialist in training) the professor shoved up an xray of a cervical spine and said what do you see? I said clearly a fracture at C5 with anterior wedging and about 10 deg kyphus. he said good work and then proceeded to show me about 8 things that I didnt 'see'.Arguably my visual acuity was superior to his yet some of the stuff he saw passed as invisible to me, in fact even when he pointed it out I still struggled 'seeing it'. It was huh? I had to learn to see what he was seeing, which later became abundantly clear and obvious, instantly recognizable.Those things are not innate, must be learned and rely on memory. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong Yes, I'm with you on this David - my take on ASA is that it's research area is restricted to explaining the core functionality of auditory perception that we all naturally develop during early childhood development - at one level, things such as the how the brain resolves the location of sound & adjusts to the distortions caused by the pinna & ear canal - we all have different HRTF & outer ear/middle ear shapes which means we all have a different frequency spectrum reaching our eardrums but yet we all generally achieve the same basic core functionality in our auditory perception - we can all locate sound to pretty much the same degree. Now it may be my demarcation but the training of our hearing to be able to consciously identify particular distortions in sound is an overlap with the subconscious & automatic training that happens in our early stage auditory perception development. I've no doubt that it uses exactly the same internal resources & if we did this training on a daily basis it would become second nature & absorbed below a conscious need to recall it - the same as any expertise develops. remember when learning to drive we had to consciously think about clutch, brake accelerator, steering, mirror, etc, - after enough practise it no longer required long term conscious memory - it resides somewhere else. There's an interesting experiment done which may illustrate what I believe is the research area of ASA - it consisted of an ear mould which fitted the pinnea & changed the frequency spectra hitting the eardrum - when first fitted into the ear & people were tested for their sound location accuracy it was found this was greatly diminished. After constant wearing for about a week of wearing these moulds the sound location accuracy was back to pre-mould performance - this is an example of how auditory processing automatically learns the basic building block functionality. When moulds were removed, the same sound location accuracy returned in a couple of minutes. Now the interesting thing is that even after a month or so if the same moulds were re-inserted, the location accuracy was again fine in a couple of minutes adjustment - the brain had absorbed the new pattern/model. If left for many months this facility diminished/disappeared & a week adjustment again necessary. I guess you could say this could be categorised as long term memory but it's not conscious memory as I understand it. BTW, the same experiment was done with prism glasses that turned the image upside down - given a week of constant use, people adjust to seeing the image in the correct orientation. removing the glasses & the correct orientation is also seen. Put the glasses on again after a couple of weeks & almost instantly the brain does the correct interpretation/adjustment & image is perceived right way up. This is the level that I am talking about when discussing ASA. Learned expertise in identifying distortions is another thing |
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Aug 31, 2019 22:54:32 GMT 10
jkenny cj66 EDIT STARTIn a non audio example we can discriminate between two separate touch stimuli when presented at different body parts depending on the distance apart the stimuli are. On the finger tips if two sharp(ish) touches are made simultaneously, less than about 5mm apart, they will be perceived as one touch from one object. If the jabs are more than 5mm to 7mm apart we will perceive that we are being jabbed by two objects. No memory (in the traditional sense) required. So yes, conceivably there may well be hard wired memory independent mechanisms that tells a normally functioning brain that the sound being registered is from a real source, not recorded. It remains hypothesis but plausible if not likely. EDIT ENDDavid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong I was really quite surprised to read that!
I, therefore, ran my own little test, staples with pins spaced at 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 7mm and a single leg pointing upwards from some thin cards. Blindfolded, I asked my long suffering, better half to rearrange the order of these several times while I blurted my sensory perception.
Result is total confirmation of the science, 5mm and below all felt like a single pin and could not be differentiated from each other, only the 6mm and 7mm being found to be a dual pin sensation.
Therefore, blind people who read brail, with their heightened sense of touch as they have become more reliant (tuned in?) on the remaining senses, have increased this ability to that of 2.5mm spacing? Some might argue that they are feeling the shape more than the amount of dots but with formations being as little as only a single dot different in one (or admittedly more) direction surely this is the case. Therefore trainable and remembered. I'm likening this to someone who has a trained ear for music and/or the systems that reproduce it, an increase of acuity with that sense, trained and remembered. In both cases no conscious/active "thinking" is required, the heightened ability has become innate yet still "stored".
Yes, I'm with you on this David - my take on ASA is that it's research area is restricted to explaining the core functionality of auditory perception that we all naturally develop during early childhood development - at one level, things such as the how the brain resolves the location of sound & adjusts to the distortions caused by the pinna & ear canal - we all have different HRTF & outer ear/middle ear shapes which means we all have a different frequency spectrum reaching our eardrums but yet we all generally achieve the same basic core functionality in our auditory perception - we can all locate sound to pretty much the same degree. Now it may be my demarcation but the training of our hearing to be able to consciously identify particular distortions in sound is an overlap with the subconscious & automatic training that happens in our early stage auditory perception development. I've no doubt that it uses exactly the same internal resources & if we did this training on a daily basis it would become second nature & absorbed below a conscious need to recall it - the same as any expertise develops. remember when learning to drive we had to consciously think about clutch, brake accelerator, steering, mirror, etc, - after enough practise it no longer required long term conscious memory - it resides somewhere else.There's an interesting experiment done which may illustrate what I believe is the research area of ASA - it consisted of an ear mould which fitted the pinnea & changed the frequency spectra hitting the eardrum - when first fitted into the ear & people were tested for their sound location accuracy it was found this was greatly diminished. After constant wearing for about a week of wearing these moulds the sound location accuracy was back to pre-mould performance - this is an example of how auditory processing automatically learns the basic building block functionality. When moulds were removed, the same sound location accuracy returned in a couple of minutes. Now the interesting thing is that even after a month or so if the same moulds were re-inserted, the location accuracy was again fine in a couple of minutes adjustment - the brain had absorbed the new pattern/model. If left for many months this facility diminished/disappeared & a week adjustment again necessary. I guess you could say this could be categorised as long term memory but it's not conscious memory as I understand it.BTW, the same experiment was done with prism glasses that turned the image upside down - given a week of constant use, people adjust to seeing the image in the correct orientation. removing the glasses & the correct orientation is also seen. Put the glasses on again after a couple of weeks & almost instantly the brain does the correct interpretation/adjustment & image is perceived right way up. This is the level that I am talking about when discussing ASA. Learned expertise in identifying distortions is another thing I see you have clarified your point to CONSCIOUS memeory, here we are in full agrrement. My understanding of long term memory is that is not only conscious but subconscious as well. My example given above lays out why I hold that view.
It is not the same as a spinal reflex, where the brain is never consulted and therefore most defifnitely no long term memory consulted. For example the too hot reflex. You touch a potentially bodily damaging hot item, the sensory nerve endings trigger a pulse back to the spinal cord, this is relayed directly from the spinal cord to the necessary motor nuerons to tell the correct muscles to pull whichever bodily part is in danger away from the heat source. Micro seconds are saved in reaction time by not adding a second loop to the brain, lessening potential harm. Here, no long term memory involved.
In the case of the sense of hearing there is no intermediory, no spinal cord, the final pulses from the ear mechanism are plugged directly into the brain.
Taking your ear mould example, the brain has learned and memorised how to obtain familiar sounds from a change in sensory perception, it already has memory of what the aural stimuli should sound like and makes the necessary adjustments and can hold them as "parameter set B". Once set B has not been used for sufficient time it sent deeper into memory, where more sustained stimulus will be required to draw it back to an instantly enactable state. Your second example of processing the ocular sense is also hard wired to the brain and would suggest the very same explanation for thee ability you portray.
Therefore, are we searching for an area of the brain that mimics the spinal cord? A faster route, an innate area that does not need to consult with areas associated to those of memory assisted aural processing?
This is where David's specialist areas of knowledge may help clarify. Is my understanding too basic or misguided? Can John's opinion yet be supportable by proven science.
Fascinating subject and thanks to all for your input...
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Sept 1, 2019 16:22:16 GMT 10
Yes, I'm with you on this David - my take on ASA is that it's research area is restricted to explaining the core functionality of auditory perception that we all naturally develop during early childhood development - at one level, things such as the how the brain resolves the location of sound & adjusts to the distortions caused by the pinna & ear canal - we all have different HRTF & outer ear/middle ear shapes which means we all have a different frequency spectrum reaching our eardrums but yet we all generally achieve the same basic core functionality in our auditory perception - we can all locate sound to pretty much the same degree. I agree John that whether talking about ASA (proposed) mechanisms or two-point tactile discrimination there are certain anatomical and neurophysiological determinants to processing sensory stimuli. This begins with the peripheral sense organ, continues through the peripheral and then central parts of the nervous system (spinal cord, brainstem, sub-cortical brain) and finally cerebral cortex where the sensation is registered....These are the tools we have to sense, transduce and transmit a neurological signal. However, while the tools are relatively fixed - 2 eyes, ability to detect sound within a certain frequency range etc, see colour, - processing of the signal and further modulation can occur at both peripheral and central levels, as well as being influenced from higher cognitive-evaluative centres. So called "perceptual learning" which historically is a term that has been used to describe the phenomenon that perceptual skills related to the sensory stimulation itself can be improved and learned through practice and training. This is opposed to higher cognitive influences on perception if you believe that there is some kind of neat dichotomy.I think the term is too broad if it is to be used for this more specific stimulus centric application but does apply if you have less of a dualistic approach.
So, perceptual learning varies from simple sensory tasks like recognizing shapes when felt to discriminating more complex sensory attributes and patterns, potentially maybe ASA patterns. This type of perceptual learning has been said to reflect neuroplasticity changes, and which we know occur both in the peripheral and central nervous system.
Perceptual learning occurs fairly predictably over progressive exposure to the task and is said to be implicit and automatic, meaning you do not need to be aware of it or be particularly motivated to learn. You do not have to be conscious of the acquired skill. Your powers of discrimination improve with repeated trials ie exposure/experience/practice. The skill is retained ie stored, like "motor memory" but a sensory memory, to my understanding without resorting to traditional memory. Some individuals will perform/ learn better than others.
The conventional wisdom is that it is a function of neuroplasticity at the sensory cerebral cortical level although there are good arguments IMO to also implicate the peripheral nervous system processing as well, depending on the sensation and circumstances. there is discussion as to whether it is a bottom-up ie a feed forward form of processing or top-down alteration of cortical function/ neural processing....or both.
So, there is no need to invoke developmental analogies here. perceptual learning is a well recognized phenomenon in adults. The hypothesis might be that training by repeated exposure would lead to better and unconscious recognition of ASA cues (whatever they are). I believe this is already the case for most audiophiles who do a lot of music listening and not just confined to spatial cues. I see (pun) nothing extraordinary about this and also see parallels to musicians practicing their instrument with repetition facilitating both motor and perceptual skills. The "conscious" part of this process is voluntarily putting in the practice.You can of course be conscious of the acquired skill.
What hasn't been covered here are the more higher cognitive aspects of perceptual skills training related to attention, memory, emotion or other higher centre functions. All the things that we may be more consciously aware of that we bring to the table that help sort, organize and make sense and meaning of the perception, and which become part of the perception.These things in turn can (top down) modulate over time the more automatic responses, forming a self reinforcing loop.
I have also read about those experiments. Even without pinnae you will adapt to have fairly normal spatial localisation abilities IME.I saw this in burns patients (without ears) but don't know if it has been studied. I Agree John Hahhaha I am glad I got you jabbing yourself to test the medical science ! Yes I believe there are quite a few studies indicating Braille users have heightened tactile acuity in those digits used to read Braille .Not sure about a TPD of 2.5mm. Did you read that somewhere? I guess it comes down to what we are defining as long term memory (as opposed to motor memory etc). Some automated auditory responses could conceivably be reflexive in nature as mediated through the brain stem (rather than spinal cord). The stapedius reflex would be an example I believe. Brain stem is involved for all cranial nerves except olfactory (smell) and optic (vision). The other 10 cranial nerves relay through the brain stem.Thus you can have a blink reflex and so forth In some instances that might be explained by the brain stem but it appears that more automated perceptual conditioning can be retained in the central neural pathways themselves rather than involving the memory centres that retain your traditional memories like what you ate for dinner last night. mechanisms like "spinal wind up" and "sensitization syndrome" see peripheral and central neural pathways structurally change and amplify responses to incoming stimuli.These in turn are subject to regulatory control from higher cognitive centers in the form of dis-inhibitory top down processing.Emotional factors and stress for example can interfere with and maintain disinhibitory processes and amplify and perpetuate chronic pain sensation. In the latter case, a rather cruel maladaptive response which becomes a vicious circle. The more distress chronic pain causes and the more you dwell on it, the worse it gets, ...and the more distress it creates....this is what I was referring to previously as self reinforcing loops. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Sept 1, 2019 19:42:43 GMT 10
Thanks for the detail David,
I had indeed incorrectly lumped hearing in with sight and smell as direct feed to the centres in the brain, really should have remembered the VIII nerve feeding into the brain stem. As you rightly point out the Stapedius reflex is an exact example of a spinal cord reflex-like operation. Yes, this opens the way for theoretically avoiding consultation with long term memory as in John's proposed argument.
That's interesting, I must read more into this and get up to date!
Regarding the 2.5mm TPD, that was derived from the standard dot spacing in Braille, measured centre to centre of each raised dome.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Sept 1, 2019 23:05:52 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Sept 2, 2019 17:30:26 GMT 10
I only had a quick look but it seems to me that perceiving random noise patterns is different to remembering it. The latter involves LTM.
"Moreover, successful encoding and storage of such fine features may vary between participants, possibly depending on individual attention and auditory discrimination abilities."
which I take to mean, the better you perceive it in the first place the better it will be remembered.
If right, it wasn't a perceptual discrimnation task so much as a memory task.Like presenting series of playing cards over and over so it passes into LTM by rote learning.
David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong |
|
|
|
Post by Audiophile Neuroscience on Sept 2, 2019 17:33:25 GMT 10
Regarding the 2.5mm TPD, that was derived from the standard dot spacing in Braille, measured centre to centre of each raised dome.
Thanks, I didnt know that. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." - - Louis Armstrong |
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Sept 3, 2019 3:04:53 GMT 10
I've been reading further on the TPD and Braille.
There have been studies on how much the TPD is increased by a blind person being Braille proficient. These conclude with the finding that the TPD is not increased to 2.5mm as I had surmised but only to that of 4.0mm ( although the clearest study I found did admit a possible failing in the study, all those involved were string musicians with the above normal calloused finger tips that come with such endeavour). The secret of decoding dots in Braille lies in the use of both the index and middle fingers.
I have not yet unearthed a definitive finding but so far the idea is pointing to the double pass of fingers creating signals that the brain can utilise to get around the the 5 or 4mm limit. Again my assumption on reading thus far.
If I find something to confirm or correct this and hopefully state where this ability "lives" then it may be helpful with our concern here on sound and I will certainly share it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ROWUK on Sept 3, 2019 4:21:29 GMT 10
Yeh I don't think anyone would argue that psychedelics alter perception, indeed hallucinogens totally create a new perception. Its not a great stretch I suppose to imagine increased dendrite proliferation but I imagine that other sensory stimulation will do the same.
There has been much written about sensory stimulation and whole occupational therapy approaches developed as a form of treatment.
To be honest, I haven't seen spectacular results but not saying its not worthwile. I doubt though that we will get OT's handing out Special K (ketamine) at therapy sessions!
Ketamine was used in the article you linked. It is an interesting psychedelic drug. It has been used in Depression but not mainstream and very much frowned upon by some. It is also used by some (not me) to treat an unusual pain condition CRPS (Complex regional pain syndrome) due to its ability to block NMDA receptors. These receptors and their neorotransmitters are implicated in synaptic plasticity and memory function. Most forms of chronic pain involve maladative central nervous sytem processing in the form of "central sensitisation" and in theory K was felt to reduce this. Again, IME it has been disappointing from observing others that use this intervention.
There's no doubt psychedelics have been explored for therapeutic purposes ala Timothy Leary and that music has been composed under the influence of psychedelics.
Like the Moody Blues said:
Timothy Leary's dead
No, no, he's outside looking in
Timothy Leary's dead
No, no, he's outside looking in
He'll fly his astral planes
Takes you trips around the bay
Brings you back the same day
Timothy Leary, Timothy Leary
Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down
He'll plant your feet back firmly on the ground
He flies so high, he swoops so low
He knows exactly which way he's gonna go
Songwriters: Ray Thomas
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." -
- Louis ArmstrongInterestingly enough, musical instruments like piano and violin MUST be started at a very young age otherwise the patterns of motion simply are not trainable to "world class" quality. There are even small violins to start the kids early. Wind instruments on the other hand, seem to be trainable starting even at teenage level. |
|
