i missed this programme as well.
has anyone got a video recording? i can pay for postage.
regards
duncan marshall
In message <002f01c1774c$ecf53fc0$c2f6883e@p0y9r1peterlenn>, Peter
Lennox <[log in to unmask]> writes
>This is a little late, but did
>anyone see the programme a couple of Mondays ago, which hypothesised that
>much of the design criteria of 4-5K year-old burial mounds, and indeed
>circles such as Stonehenge were specifically to do with sound, standing
>waves at frequencies approximating the lower end of male voices?
>There was supposedly even a Helmholz reverberator, which would have been
>excited at frequencies below
>20Hz (which is where the eyeballs starts to vibrate). The programme made a
>very good supporting argument (though by no means conclusive) for these
>hypotheses.
>There was a further idea to the effect that the astounding pre-historic cave
>paintings in the south of France generally occurred where the reverberant
>characteristics of the caves were 'strongest' ( I think this isn't a new
>theory, though I haven't had chance to chase it down).
>The overall argument was something to the effect that these various uses of
>sounds were examples of artificially manipulating the sound-environment to
>enhance 'altered states' of conciousness - along with chewing/burning
>various dodgy herbs and things, presumably. Although this is to one side of
>my area, I've always been under the impression that this is what most
>church-like edifices are for, partly. In the case of the Helmholz tube,
>certainly, I think there has been quite a bit of work on the (potentially
>deleterious) effects of infrasound, though I know of no centralised source
>of 'overview'. But many of the effects reported do amount to disorientation
>of various sorts and these can be construed as 'altered states'- fear, poor
>balance, nausea, etc.
>I presume that the main reason for the falling into disuse of these
>techniques has less to do with unwelcome side-effects (look at various
>drugs, after all) and more to do with the fact that it's difficult or
>impossible to retain a profitable monopoly (whether as a dealer or as a
>taxman). Certainly, I don't think that our understanding of acoustics in
>public and/or performance spaces can be said to have come a long way, and
>this applies especially in the case of electroacoustic means of diffusion
>(speakers etc).
>So, what progress in the last 5K years, then?
>If anyone did catch the programme, I would very much appreciate a
>web-reference, if the TV company have provided one.
>cheers
>ppl
>
>Peter Lennox
>Hardwick House
>tel: (0114) 2661509
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>or:- [log in to unmask]
--
duncan marshall
|