TBWHM

[Martin Bailey]

> >> This has always been my concern with the Lifehouse idea, since I
> >> first read about it in the mid 80s. It's a problem of
> >> interpretation.
> >> For example: you could either use the subject's height to define
> >> pitch,
> >> or you could use the height as the duration of a note. Both
> >> interpretation's
> >> would give a wildly different result.
> >
> > Right. There's no true correlation between the sitter & the music.
> > It's nonsense.
>
> Aren't you guys making some bold assumptions on what kind of data is
> to be collected.

Possibly.  I always just assumed that the questions would involve scientific
numeric data, such as age, weight, shoe size, global co-ordinates of
position of birth place, ASCII conversions of initials, etc.


> What if is was something more subjective, like
> whether you are a morning or evening person. What season do you like
> best? What area of the world you come from? Name a song that give you
> a strong emotional reaction? What if that song was in A minor? What
> if you were asked to put the numbers 1-5 in order of your preference?
> On that data alone, you could get a chord progression in a certain
> key.

I guess my type of questions relate to scientific data, which is easily
processed by a computer.  Your type of questions are more emotional,
therefore harder to quantify, and harder to process by computer.

Whatever questions Pete has in mind will show whether he's more a Scientist
or an Artist.  I've always thought he's been a bit of both.


> Of course these are arbitrary mind farts on my part, but it
> doesn't necessarily rely on objective biological data like height and
> weight.

Not at all.  Your method of collecting sitters' characteristics are just
valid as my sample questions.

I wonder if the list of the questions should include both types of
question - which may provide a better reflection of both sides of the
sitter's brain.

But, either way, it won't produce any better music.

-MB