Oh my God!

I started to read some cognitive speech stuff recently, there was this chapter talking about human's ear mechanics. It was OMG!

I thought it was just a sound wave (change in air pressure) on the outer ear, then the wave is being transferred to the ear drum, then to the oracle bones thingy and at last it reaches the cochlea. Through the nerves, the signal was brought to the brain. Then finished!

But now that i read something on that, only i know that the oracle bones serves as a signal normalizer, then the cochlea will somehow "filter" out the super sonic frequencies. Dog has different cochlea size, hence they hear a wider bandwidth. Then at the end of the cochlea, there is a hair thingy. There are up to 2000 hairs (if i'm not mistaken), that will convert the mechanical signal to electrical signal so that it can be send up to the brain.

And, one of the most interesting thing is, the speed of the electrical charge moving in the nerves is a lot slower than the speed of electron in a normal copper wire. But, how? How we manage to transmit a complex and up to micro-second signal? Scientist say that the 2000 hairs, each will take a different signal and reach the brain. When the brain reads it, it'll regroup them and that you can understand... OMG! Now i know!

How they did that? It's like 2000 cables running into a mixer and expect the mixer to automatically (programmed to be) put up nicely + "loseless" signal.

[Nerve system's limitation eg. For a normal person with height around 1.6m, there is a fraction of a second needed for the signal sent by the brain to reach his feet, so that the feet can react. Means, a lag. Hence, usually an organ player have to memorize the feet movement, because they have to move their feet to the right pedal and step on it before they can "hear" the sound. When they know they "hear" the sound and only after that they react, everything'll be too late! Interesting!]

"God CREATES that."

Ref: Music, Cognition and Computerized sound: An Intro to psychoacoustic-MIT press

It was a "chance"? or miracle?

After a very very very long thought, referring to a lot of data, I found that "Acoustic" involves a series of very complex waves interactions. It may involve sound decay, sound delay, reverberation, echo, effects of human neuron's limitations, etc, whether linearly or non-linearly.

A far voice may sounds "soft", but the "soft" is very different from the "soft" when we turn down the volume of the hi-fi system. Sound of far distance decay over distance, but the high frequency will decay faster than the low frequencies, due to the environment's nature. A far sound will sound "soft" in treble but "not-too-soft" in bass. Non-linearity! Room's acoustics changing the wave pattern, it become slightly more reverberant for a far voice. Etc, etc...

My church (before renovation) have a so-called "warm" sound. I tried very hard to mix the bass so that it'll be clearer those days, but i failed to. Until now, when i look back to what i was trying to solve, only i realize the whole picture! (i hope i'm right).

Different materials absorbs different frequencies, usually the hardest/most costly to be tamed is the bass freq. My church was having some partitions, carpets, cushions plus some ceiling which seem to absorb sound pretty well, but just the HIGH frequencies.

My church was having an under-powered amps driving the FOH speakers and for bass guitar. Yet, it was so warm. The answer could be, the room attenuated the mid and high range, leaving the bass untouched/build up its energy. Hence, while the midrange and treble (which is most sensitive to our ear) being normal (no energy build up acoustically), the bass was being build up causing an illusion of deep bass. It explains the "muddy" effects of the bass, which is much undesired. But, we like bass, bass gives energy. Try to listen to music by laptop speaker, the louder u make it, the noisier it'll become. It have to be balanced by bass.

Anyway, just wanna stress that the acoustic of the room is kinda... just nice to suit the under-powered amps, yet still sound so nice. We once removed a partition, the bass became a lot muddier, and it was since then i wanna get the bass sound right, nailed to its position, not floating around and kacau other instruments.. HAHA!. Quite a luck to get this kind of "just fine" or "it wasn't tuned!!?" environment, or i should say "Thank God" for knowing our budget..

The newly renovated church acoustic is a very challenging one, indeed! The prob now is how to equalise the system to suit our ears via room acoustics! Perhaps it'll not be a chance play this time (serious, lol!!).

Another thought on worship band.

That day i talked with a friend, and we get something like this:

Worship leader's job is to get the congregations to be attentive towards God, and ultimately to bring them into a worship. Church worship session have songs with a similar theme, and that should be what the worship leader trying to get the congregation to think about. Hence, preferably, the worship tunes should be synchronized with what the pastor wanted to preach.

Also, worship leader shall have the anointing to affect the congregations, spiritually (holy spirit and stuff like that). But, i was thinking, should worship be done together just like in group prayer (same thought, same spirit and everybody says "amen"!) or just different people different touch/thoughts?

Personally, i think that if it's not done in "togetherness", it'll be messy. Everyone will be having their own stuff and there is no unity. Even in the normal "world" bands, they play with same philosophy (you can see how badly a man can be changed once he's affected by the culture of the band he joined). Similarly, in church worship team, we all play different instruments, but our spirit should be aligned. The team have to follow what the worship LEADER leads, and not to lead individually.

But, how a pianist worship with a piano? Perhaps you can imagine the piano as a voice, just another kind of voice. Take 5 people sing together in harmonics, and we change all the 4 voices to string, left one human voice. It's the same isn't it? And you can also notice how a person usually free-worship in spirit- don't know what is he singing at all, only God knows via spirit... Haha, but for pianist, can't just free flow, only if you have the skill or talent. Else, tough.. very tough..

Now, i have another problem: if we just follow what the worship leader wants, and play it very harmonically, is it enough? This may be true for a thought: "good worship does not occurred naturally, but we have to "do" it out. This is very true.

Still, i do think that there is an element missing.

Perhaps this is not too important as christian shouldn't worship only at church, but it's an everyday "thingy"!

Psychoacoustic versus worship.

I'm not sure about this, really!

Music was 1st invented for spiritual worship purposes. It means it's having the ability to bring human's mind into another level of realm. (Christians believe that 1st musician was Lucifer, who became fallen angel when he started to worship himself instead of God with music). The history tells that music was developed only for spiritual purposes before it became an "art" for the society. After that, music was developed even more rapidly by the "world musician", its purpose was shifted from spiritual to entertainment.

So, we bring back this question: does music really affects one's mind? Can it bring a person to another realm and affect the emotion etc? Reality tells us that it does, e.g. Mozart effects causes the spatial intelligence to increase temporarily, Death metal music may bring people to think about despair, depress or emo.

Can we play or arrange something to bring christians to worship more deeply (mentally)? Will the way the singer sing-whether have emotion or not- bring the worshiper to different "place"?

Oxford university came out with a research recently, it says that we can hear shapes and taste colour.. What the heck is this? This is non other than the power of other senses (other than sight) on predicting an object's characteristic. Have you heard someone said "Marshall amplifier have a more rounded sound" or "when playing classical guitar, one should get the round sound and not the oval one". One tends to relate a lower frequency sound (lower tone) to rounded object and higher frequency (high tone) to sharp object. Does this effect mean anything to the music arranger when arranging a complex sequence of notes and harmonics? What will we "see" and where it'll bring us to? Can this be applied to spiritual purposes or was music first invented for this purpose?

Of course, worship leader must have a pure heart in worshipping God and he shall lead the members in the house to worship. But, what is the purpose of music? For a same worship leader, can he leads even better when there is an expert music team behind? Or when there is a team of psychoacoustic experts supporting him..?

psychoacoustic---psycho=mind, acoustic=sound. Is this the relationship?

hymn vs contemporary worship music.

"A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"-Martin Luther (paraphrase of Psalm 46).This is one of the earliest hymn. Early hymn are paraphrased from the bible verses. Self written lyrics were not allowed.

Charles Wesley developed the new style of lyric writing. He integrated one's personal feeling to God with the original bible verses. And hence broke the old rule of lyrics writing. E.g. "Where Shall My Wondering Soul Begin?"-perhaps the old love songs are written in this way.
(http://www.hymnlyrics.org/newlyrics_w/where_shall_my_wondering_soul_begin.php)

"Hark! the Herald Angels Sing" is a song of Wesley as well, it's still very God centered but not by paraphrasing.

These are some other hymn which are not paraphrasing bible, yet quite God centered: Amazing grace, count your blessings, fairest lord Jesus...
(http://www.hymnlyrics.org/mostpopularhymn.php)

Current worship song such as Kathryn Scott (one of the contemporary christian song singer) sings praise and worship song that are musically not suitable for church worship. Yet, it's a very good choice on personal listening at home (usually when praying or praising God at home). Some other examples are Doug Horley, Michael Smith, etc. The lyrics tends to be very similar to modern love pop songs.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_worship_music)-if you trust wikipedia..

Yet, not all are like this. Say, if you see the hillsong lyrics and arrangement, it's very suitable for church worship. I take an example, "everything that has breath" is very God centered. Some other such as "To you" is very much like a love song, especially:

"Hear my cry
My deep desire
To know You more".

It's alright to be like a love song, since we all love God. Just to show the effects of pop culture on church music.

These are "lyric"ally. If seeing it musically, the contrast is more obvious. From no instrument, till A capella, to piano.. This is actually very similar to normal music development. Later, musical instruments are added in.

Some people like the old style of serious worship, some like the current 'euphoria' style of worship. I think both can't be eliminated.

Also, when there was rock and roll music, there were rock and roll church music. When there were is rap music, there are rap church music as well.

At the past, If not mistaken, church music (hymns/Bach's music) is leading the development of the art of music. It's a contrast now.

Musically, we can clearly see the contemporary factors in it. Yet, I'm not too sure about the lyrics part. It's kinda confusing to analyze words for me, since i'm still not trained well in literature knowledge. So, if can, please tell me more so that i can sharpen my skills on it.

(I depends mainly on the church music history on wikipedia. Many tell me don't trust wikipedia, but just take it since it's relatively too hard to find any other reliable sources online.)