It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't we build things as good as the ancients?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well at the very least it comes in equal to obsession of a giant abstract boob... that was once complete with a golden nipple




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Actually, I just found this ina book review on Amazon of all places and it kinda shows what I'm on about...apologies for it being incomplete...



www.amazon.com...

I bring this up because few people, even musicologists, understand the vital roles that acoustics and harmonics(overtones)played in the composition of sacred music until about the Seventeenth Century.

The musicologist, Thurston Dart, summarizes the influence that reverberation has on composers:

"But even a superficial study shows that early composers were very aware of the effect on their music of the surroundings in which it was to be performed, and that they deliberately shaped their music accordingly. Musical acoustics can be roughly divided into resonant, room and outdoor. Plainsong is resonant music; so is the harmonic style of Leonin and Perotin .. Perotin's music, in fact, is perfectly adapted to the acoustics of the highly resonant cathedral (Notre Dame Paris) for which it was written...."
(Thurston Dart, musicologist, "The interpretation of Music",Hutchinson, London pp56-57 (1954).

I think, like most 'moderns', Mr. Dart has got it backwards -- these composers were mostly aware of the effect of the surroundings upon their music. Composers like Leonin and Perotin and others, notably Allegri (composer of the famous "Miserere"), were more interested on the effect that the music, augmented by the acoustics, had on the congregation, in terms of literally uplifting their spirits and assisting them in participating directly in what was called the "Communion of Saints".


E. Power Biggs said: "An organist will take al the reverberation time he is given, and then ask for a bit more.... Many of Bach's organ works are designed .... to explore reverberation. Consider the pause that follows the ornamented proclamation that opens the famous Toccata in D minor. Obviously this is for the enjoyment of the notes as they remain suspended in the air". Church music sounds wrong when performed in a small non-reverberant space with a lot of acoustic absorbent such as curtains and carpets."
(www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk...)

E. Power Biggs and the pundits at Salford University, assume that Bach and his predecessors valued acoustics and resonance primarily from the standpoint of aesthetics. In other words, they chose reverberant halls because their music sounded better when performed in them. I believe that they too are missing the point. Acoustic Archeologists, like John Reid and Paul Devereux are beginning to discover that ancient holy places, such as Stonehenge and also the Gothic Cathedrals, like Notre Dame de Paris, were actually tuned to resonate certain specific pitches or sound frequencies. They are or contain what are called "resonant chambers".

A resonant chamber essentially reflects and amplifies or "empowers" certain specific frequencies, particularly when they are sung by a chorus (or congregation) of "pure voices" in unison. These frequencies and the harmonies reproduced by the reverberations elicited certain specific emotional responses, such as awe and reverence, from the assembly. I'm sure that Leonin and Perotin were well aware of the marvelous acoustics of Notre Dame and structured their music to take full advantage of it.


This is a much better explanation that I could produce!

And I think I will just ignore the boobie remark. For now.

Caitlin


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23-6-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I thought more or less the same recently whilst visiting my home city and showing a friend around Liverpool Cathedral. I was thinking "Why dont they build them like this anymore"

These pics really dont do it justice for its sheer size. This has to be my favourite building.

The organ alone being one of or if not the biggest ever made (I cant remember) is an engineering fete in itself





[edit on 22-6-2008 by thesaint]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
It's so cool...I love the idea of reverberation time...and I wonder how it would feel to have some of those sounds moving through the body in a space like this. I wonder if it actually has healing properties, or can shift our state...I mean frequency, brain patterns...I'm thinking out loud here. It's a lot of effort to put into a building just to sound good...especially if it's a spiritual place.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
I wonder if it actually has healing properties, or can shift our state...I mean frequency, brain patterns...

Depends on how you define those.

Would you be inclined to relax and "heal" if you where positioned on a 0.5 square meter 500m high rocky outcrop in the middle of a volcano while acid rain was pouring over you?

Err... I doubt it.

But what about sitting in a quiet cathedral, surrounded by stunning works of arts and vaults high above you, with the sun coming through one of the colored windows warming your face?

I think it will mean a little difference to your state of mind in comparison to the other example.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by merka]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Part of the reason they don't build it like that any more include cost, and tastes. No ancient builder could duplicate the Sydney Opera House, for instance -- or match their exacting acoustics.

If you had a client with the money, you could certainly build a replica of any European cathedral... and improve on the quality and acoustics. But not that many churches or individuals have the kind of money to buy the land and erect the structure.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Simply put, then.....there was real money (Gold)........and now we have the Fake Fiat Money, and it does not even last for a few seconds.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dubyakadubla
Simply put, then.....there was real money (Gold)........and now we have the Fake Fiat Money, and it does not even last for a few seconds.


Now now, try keeping it to conspiracies about ancient civilizations. So how did the ancient civilizations without precious metal currency build all that great stuff?

The workers who built the pyramids were most probably "paid" in food. The first coins didn't show up until around 500 BC




. At first, for the purposes of exchange and trade, the Egyptians calculated the value of goods and services in units that were directly related to the necessities of life. Later, the calculation was made in terms of the weights of metals, such as copper or silver, though rarely did these metals ever change hands. Rather, their weight was used as a reference for value. For the most part, the ancient Egyptians never conceptualized the use of money.

Regrettably, sources for the study of prices and payments have not survived from all periods of Egyptian history. Data concerning wages and rations are best known from documents of the Old, Middle and New Kingdom, while commodity prices are best preserved from the Ramessid period. The Abusir Papyrus relates information about wage payments during the Old Kingdom, while temple documents, biographies and other archaeological data provide information from the Middle Kingdom. During the New Kingdom, our information comes principally from Deir el-Medina and from documents pertaining to shipping. All of these sources evidence that payments were made in the form of bread, beer, grain, meat and cloth rations, which were the necessities of life.



Barter



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
There are ancient signs carved into stone for us to see, left as a proof of what Our ancestors knew.

Moderator note: Please don't cut and paste material wholesale. Quote the first few lines, discuss why it's important, and link to the text.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by doctormcauley
 


May I suggest that you don't repeat repost messages from other threads, summarize and link if its appropriate.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   


Why can't we build things as good as the ancients?


I think we can and do.

I think our buildings are just as good, just different. Perhaps, they might even be considered better, because I doubt the ancients could have built this, for example:




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The 'ancients' built plenty of shoddy buildings as well, not everything put up 1k years ago was a masterpiece, the shoddy ones just arent around any longer for us to see.

Also i'll echo the above sentiments in that YES we can build as well as them, but it mainly comes down to a question of desire and cost effectiveness. You will occasionally find a throwback however, try reading up on the Washing National Cathedral. Construction begain in 1907 and finished in 1990.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Yes we need to build things like this again, except with a modern feel to it too.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Back in the day religion and worship of the gods was high in priority. It makes sense that religious buildings like the pyramids, cathedrals etc would have had a lot of care and time put into them.

I think these days we would rather just keep costs down and have something built quickly and easily and without the body count!


[edit on 25-6-2008 by weenaman]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saurus


Why can't we build things as good as the ancients?


I think we can and do.

I think our buildings are just as good, just different. Perhaps, they might even be considered better, because I doubt the ancients could have built this, for example:



Haha yes your right, I would like to see them try that.

But with the little they did have, they were AMAZING.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The ancient spent a great deal of effort on irrigation and fortifications - most of which survives but may not be readily visible to the naked eye. But they left there mark in the soil.

More man hours, by a factor of ten went into Sumerian Irrigation works than the Giza pyramids - on a yearly basis.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Tut tut Merka...such masculine obsessions...tall, pointy buildings and horsepower...not much has changed since I was a fledgling architect...*sigh*



Good grief, could we cut down on the whacked-out hippy ideologies?



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nerevar
 

Make it out of stone and it will stand the test of time. Make it of wood it rots or burns. Make it out of steel it rusts.

It is not that our modern work is not as good, we simply use different materials and the buildings serve different purposes. With the population explosion, more buildings are necessary and one that utilizes 25 foot blocks of stone would require a lot of land. Can you imagine the land tax?

Our Statue of Liberty still stands and so does the Washington Monument. Will they both stand for thousands of years? Time will tell.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join