Dick:
The end result was ALL people responded the same way to the same sounds - it's depressing, and it gets worse. I read once that the chord changes which give music lovers goosebumps also raise chicken's feathers. This is the "Opinions & Criticism" board, so here's my opinion: When something affects people in ways they can't explain, their reaction depends on the context and their personality. When the cause is "Art", the effect is sometimes described as "inexpressible", a term which for some people can lead to "aesthetic" or even "spiritual". But for an old cynic like me, "inexpressible" as often leads downward (back through evolution) rather than upward. The effect is still "deep", and valuable, but for me lacks a halo.
Michael:
I feel that studies of this nature are essentially of interest and importance to those who make studies of this nature, but not to those whose main interest is writing poetry - agreed. I've only found theory useful when
- it helps me begin to appreciate something that's otherwise too alien for me to get a handle on
- it helps me understand the source of my prejudices, limitations and misconceptions
- I can use it to debunk the un-thought-through theories of others. Statistics can debunk the pretentious/opinionated crap produced by lazy theorists and critics alike.
- I can use it as an alternative to reading the source material (a poor alternative of course, but sometimes all I have time for)
- it comes up with quirkly findings that I can use - a study of verbs in poetry showed that "The great change in the last five centuries is the loss of 'find', 'tell', 'think', and the gain of 'hear', 'fall', 'lie'"
nyctom:
Is there some personal vendetta against boxed forms? - not that I know of. I mentioned that particular version because though it's common, I had it invent a name for it. Neither have I seen a description of the kinds of content or FX that it particularly suits.