Yorick....Look

[Yorick]

No no Fjlotsdale, it's called a wide pallette. Once you've tasted and enjoyed strong foods there's no going back. My Singaporean buddies when in Australia for a year said their tastebuds nearly died of boredom.

After eating much Singaporean food - but particularly Indian - I went back to my favourite Indian takaway in Sydney, ordered the dish that for the last 6 years has been my fav. Indian dish, and ate it.

It was bland.

I tasted it alright, same flavour I remembered, I just now had a new yardstick of comparison.

Re. The babies in the womb, wouldn't it have something to do with what the mother has eaten during pregnancy? The mothers I know who've had curry every so often, notice a distict change in the babys womb behaviour afterwards, yet there are cultures who'll eat nothing but. If the babies are born "used to" strong flavours, association and familiarity would be a simpler explaination.

Anyhow Epona is correct that it's made from yeast - the leftover yeast that falls to the bottom when making beer I believe.... sounds wholesome if true

Donut that thickshake would have to be TERRIBLE! YUK! Vegemite and milk just DO NOT GO! eeewwww. It's like having Salmon and anchovie icecream or beef curry on your cold cereal!



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

LOL! Sounds more to me as though you KILLED your palate, Yorick!
Anyway - only time will tell if the study is correct. They aim to follow these babies for 20 years.
Um - getting stuff through the blood-stream doesn't seem ALL that likely to affect the palate - but I suppose it COULD!

------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 08-21-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: LOL! Sounds more to me as though you KILLED your palate, Yorick! Anyway - only time will tell if the study is correct. They aim to follow these babies for 20 years. Um - getting stuff through the blood-stream doesn't seem ALL that likely to affect the palate - but I suppose it COULD!

Fjlotsdale....it's a saying. We don't taste with our palate but with our tongue remember? I was talking about the bodies receptiveness to strong and/or spicey foods. We experience food with more than just our tongues anyhow, smell affects taste, a good curry burns twice chilli essense stings the eyes and inner nose on contact for ages - plus any mucus membrane area. A curry eaters sweat smells differently. Potatos, rice and pasta allegedly positively affect a certain "flavour", which things like beer allegedly negatively affect. The food goes right through us. (In more ways than one)

It comes back to the old "taste" being derived from association and familiarity etc, with which you disagree with regarding sight, and now it seems taste. What else Fjlotsdale? Do we all hear differently too? Is that why some of us like particular songs and others don't despite the fact that one can "persevere" with sounds and flavours and "learn" to appreciate them, thus changing their "palate" through exposure and association. It happened to me with curry/spices - a childhood of none and an incomprehension that anyone would put themself through pain while eating; to in ten years ending up eating more asian food than western (the hotter the better ) and with certain styles of music. One can conciously change their "palate" through exposure, association, familiarity and perseverance.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!


[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-22-2001).]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: Donut that thickshake would have to be TERRIBLE! YUK! Vegemite and milk just DO NOT GO! eeewwww. It's like having Salmon and anchovie icecream or beef curry on your cold cereal!

That's the point of chewing the red hot chilli before you drink it. You need to numb all sensitivity in your mouth. BTW have you ever tried a kipper yoghourt?


------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fjlotsdale....it's a saying. We don't taste with our palate but with our tongue remember? I was talking about the bodies receptiveness to strong and/or spicey foods. We experience food with more than just our tongues anyhow, smell affects taste, a good curry burns twice chilli essense stings the eyes and inner nose on contact for ages - plus any mucus membrane area. A curry eaters sweat smells differently. Potatos, rice and pasta allegedly positively affect a certain "flavour", which things like beer allegedly negatively affect. The food goes right through us. (In more ways than one) It comes back to the old "taste" being derived from association and familiarity etc, with which you disagree with regarding sight, and now it seems taste. What else Fjlotsdale? Do we all hear differently too? Is that why some of us like particular songs and others don't despite the fact that one can "persevere" with sounds and flavours and "learn" to appreciate them, thus changing their "palate" through exposure and association. It happened to me with curry/spices - a childhood of none and an incomprehension that anyone would put themself through pain while eating; to in ten years ending up eating more asian food than western (the hotter the better ) and with certain styles of music. One can conciously change their "palate" through exposure, association, familiarity and perseverance.

Hey, Yorick - I always thought it was me that was the argumentative type, lol!
I know 'the palate' is just a saying, but it IS used to describe the whole process of tasting, which is the context I was using, as you were, ok? Don't nit-pick trivialities!

Yes, I agree with everything you said regarding 'taste' and 'palate' (I was a nurse, you know, in my youth, and still remember a fair bit about anatomy. )

Yes, we do learn a lot in the womb, and what our mother eats DOES affect us. But what I was saying was that stuff absorbed via the bloodstream doesn't hit the sensory organs of taste/smell in the same way (if at all) as food in the mouth. If I remember correctly, at least one of those babies had curry-eating parents and a baby with a strong distaste for the 'hot' food sample , so the question is open to debate. No need to get your knickers in a twist, my friend!

Regarding the old 'seeing' things differently, and now 'hearing, tasting differently'. Yes, I think we do. But I also agree that we can become habituated to things we originally disliked. But some of it maybe is to do with alteration of peception/body chemistry, I think. As a child I hated swede and stew and loved sticky sweets. Now I love swede and stew and hate sticky sweets, lol! Same about music. I only liked 'classical' (opera, symphonies, etc) and though 'popular' music was dreadful. It grated on my whole body, not just my ears. But... now I love Meatloaf, REM, Bob Dylan, Kate Bush, and whoever it was that did Bohemian Rhapsody, etc, AS WELL as 'classics'. It's all the fault of my son who used to play heavy metal both loudly and incessantly, and my daughters who were into Kate Bush. Meatloaf and Bob Dylan were aberations of my own, lol!
------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 08-22-2001).]

[KHaN]

Originally posted by nick1979: Order some vegemite!!!

LOL...and here I thought that was only a made up word from a line in an 80's band.
I'm still not trying it.

------------------

"Heads are gonna roll..."

[This message has been edited by KHaN (edited 08-22-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: 1. Hey, Yorick - I always thought it was me that was the argumentative type, lol! 2.Regarding the old 'seeing' things differently, and now 'hearing, tasting differently'. Yes, I think we do.

Fjlotsdale.
1. Sowwy

2. The problem with your claim about hearing things is that we can quantify and measure soundwaves without hearing them. A high note is a faster wave than a low one. A below middle C is a wave that cycles at 440hz. We have constructed "ears" called microphone diaphragms that capture these waves. We know of soundwaves that we cannot sense, and can measure them on visual screens. There are high pitched sounds dogs hear above us, and subsonic frequencies below. Our reception of sound is caught by the tiny ear nerves bending as the particular wave hits it. Tinitus (a condition I have) is where some of those nerves stay down or break off leaving that frequency "ringing" in the ear.

At it's most basic level a high note has particular definable shape that is independent of taste.

When we are talking about music it is an assembly of those frequencies into a codified pattern of scales. All the cultures of the world independantly created very similar scales as a means of voicing all the notes inherant in the harmonics of a note. An Octave was meant to be the difference between a male and female voice.

This has nothing to do with taste.

Unlike colour, people can accurately describe a sounds shape. Unlike sight the interpretation of soundwaves is a skill that can be bettered with focus, practice and time. I spend hours working on things most humans simply will not hear in the music, for the reasons that a) I hear them, and b)the music has to get past those that hear these things, to people who don't. I can literally hear sounds that 10 years ago I could not. This has nothing to do with taste.

Winemakers and cheesemakers have a similar state with their sense of smell.

The only place taste comes into music, is the pattern that those frequencies are either mixed together or ordered and sequenced. Someones reception of music is also affected by the speed of the heart rate. In the morning when the rate is slower, music sounds faster. After excercise, or later in the day when the heart rate is faster, the music sounds slow by comparison. But this too is quantifiable outside hearing. It is the measurement of beats per second. This has nothing to do with taste.

Fjlotsdale, I may have sounded angry because your philosphy regarding the senses frustrates me on both an artistic, idealistic and scientific level. As an artist the whole point is to accurately convey an emotion or picture or story from my mind to another. To suggest that another sees, hears or tastes differently from another, and that the only reason one likes blue and another likes red is because they are both seeing the same ultimate colour, at once denies the individuality and the common experience of humanity. It suggests that there is a universally "good" colour, and a universally "bad" colour. For me it makes attempting that tranferrence of information somewhat fruitless, for no-one can "share the exact experience". Someones perspective is always going to dictate whether that experience is enjoyable, boring, new or distasteful, but the process of refining the creation is something that can be worked on, improved and greatly empowered to sucessfully circumvent an individuals bias.

This is the "craft" within the "art".

With colour sympathetic reception cannot be proven, merely speculated on, but to transfer your school of thought onto the other senses flabbergasts me. I so strongly believe you are wrong Fjlotsdale, and that is what you are receiving from me, not knotted knickers

As our genetic makeup is very similar (compared to say an ant). and as our bodies function in similar ways I think the simplest explaination is that as the father sees, so the son sees. As the mother hears so the daughter hears. We all sense the same things, and likes and dislikes are a result of association, familiarity and exposure rather than there being one nice colour, one nice sound, or one nice flavour we all appreciate.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-22-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Er... Yorick?

Ahem. Ok. I'll just shut up, shall I? (Crawls back under her stone, feeling battered).

------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Er... Yorick? Ahem. Ok. I'll just shut up, shall I? (Crawls back under her stone, feeling battered).

Oh man I'm sorry. Don't feel battered Fjlotsdale.

Me and my big mouth


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fjlotsdale. 1. Sowwy 2. The problem with your claim about hearing things is that we can quantify and measure soundwaves without hearing them. A high note is a faster wave than a low one. A below middle C is a wave that cycles at 440hz. We have constructed "ears" called microphone diaphragms that capture these waves. We know of soundwaves that we cannot sense, and can measure them on visual screens. There are high pitched sounds dogs hear above us, and subsonic frequencies below. Our reception of sound is caught by the tiny ear nerves bending as the particular wave hits it. Tinitus (a condition I have) is where some of those nerves stay down or break off leaving that frequency "ringing" in the ear. At it's most basic level a high note has particular definable shape that is independent of taste. When we are talking about music it is an assembly of those frequencies into a codified pattern of scales. All the cultures of the world independantly created very similar scales as a means of voicing all the notes inherant in the harmonics of a note. An Octave was meant to be the difference between a male and female voice. This has nothing to do with taste. Unlike colour, people can accurately describe a sounds shape. Unlike sight the interpretation of soundwaves is a skill that can be bettered with focus, practice and time. I spend hours working on things most humans simply will not hear in the music, for the reasons that a) I hear them, and b)the music has to get past those that hear these things, to people who don't. I can literally hear sounds that 10 years ago I could not. This has nothing to do with taste.

Just a question (im not an expert on this subject) but how do things like perfect pitch come into this? Some people hear differently than other people, as you said, but can this all be learned or are some things born to people or not?