Best meditation music according to redditors

So for recommendations, I Beth Freschi is probably one of my all time favorites. Here's her [amazon page)]

Lisa Guyman is also pretty good, she has a few but this is my favorite)

You can also suggest she try some of the quick samples on amazon or other mediation sites - meditation is hit or miss, and what one person likes isn't the same for everyone (very much like ASMR videos) I don't like 90% of them out there, so it can take a bit to find what you like.

Another trick is to make a routine - I know everyone says that, but it does work. I was so skeptical and I would give up a few days into it because it wasn't working, but if you keep at it, it works. Something like have a cup of herbal tea before bed, brush teeth, get into bed, rub a bit of lavender oil on your face, take a few deep breaths, snuggle under the covers and listen to your meditations.

It sounds like your situation currently involves strong, crisis-level tensions. Until the tensions are reduced, it would be hard to achieve balance. So you don't want to be using high power techniques right now.

At the same time, though, to get off medication and restore control, you would need to reduce those tensions. Doubtless, the simple passage of time will help. But don't underestimate the value of simple guided meditations - chakra balancing and relaxation - in situations like this.

There are many out there. I tried a fair number of them and found this chakra balancing routine by Deepak Chopra available from Amazon digital music to be simple, calming and effective. But it is just one example.

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt. That wasn't my intention.

>it would have been nice if you just read the thread

I did read the thread, and your explanatory text too. And things are certainly clearer there. But the sub I submitted this to is called /r/titlegore, not /r/threadgore. Again, I'm sorry if this upset you.

I'm glad you found four people who could offer you some comments. But if you'd wanted more technical, historically- and theoretically-informed answers to your query, it would have been better to formulate your question more precisely and clearly.

Now that I understand more of what you were getting at, perhaps I can offer some guidance:

(1) Modern Western pitch-naming derives from a system that has its origins in ancient Greek music theory and was applied in Medieval times (using the labels Γ A B C D E F G a b c d e f g aa bb cc dd ee) to a diatonic system that had no chromatics in it (or chromatics that were only introduced during performance, not in notation). So our modern system of using letters (A B C D E F G) originated when that's all that was needed, nothing in between.

(2) As chromatic pitches made their way into Western music, the easiest way to indicate them was as alterations of the diatonic pitches that were normative at the time. So they would write two kinds of B: a "hard" B (which was written like a squared lower-case b, and eventually became our modern natural symbol) and a "soft" b (which looks like a regular lower-case b, and eventually became our modern flat symbol).

(3) Probably the earliest example of a unique and equally differentiated label (what I assume you mean by "serious") for a pitch outside the original diatonic system is the use of H for our modern B-natural and B for our modern B-flat. This still persists in certain Germanic countries and languages (hence the use of titles like Fugue in H for a piece in B and Sinfonie in B for a piece in B-flat. While B and H look unique these days, they still evince their origin as variations of the letter B.

(4) Raised pitches were indicated by an X (and variations on it) as a kind of "crossing out" of the diatonic pitch, to be replaced by the chromatic one. This X eventually became our modern sharp symbol, and -- like the flat -- is evidence of the a priori referential status of the diatonic pitches in Western musicians' minds at the time.

(5) The very term "chromatic" belies the prejudice that there are normative pitches (A B C D E F G) and colorations of them (like F#). And for hundreds of years, this was a rather accurate representation of the hierarchy between diatonic and chromatic pitches.

(6) With the rise of transposition, specifically moving the tonic to pitches other than C, the diatonic collection of pitches was no longer tied only to the pitches A B C D E F and G. For example, in the key of D major, a C-sharp is diatonic but a C-natural is chromatic. But the letter-name symbology, and even the very structure of the keyboard (on the organ, clavichord, harpsichord, piano, and other similar instruments) remained entrenched in Western musical thought and practice, giving certain pitches a more normative status and making others dependent on them.

(7) Some musicians have developed systems to represent the twelve unique pitch classes (C, C#/Db, D, etc.) with labels devoid of prejudice towards diatonicism. The most widely used is integer notation, in which C is labeled 0, C# or Db is labeled 1, D is labeled 2, and so on. In this way, for example, a whole-tone scale starting on C can be represented as 02468T (with "T" for 10) and a whole-tone scale starting on A would be 9E1357 (with "E" for 11) -- no "chromatic" notation necessary. This is widely used in theoretical writing about non-tonal music (in scholarly books and articles), but as far as I know has never been used successfully as a means of notating music for performance.

(8) When it comes to pitches "in the cracks" between the traditional 12 pitch classes (i.e., pitches not on the traditional keyboard), most notational systems still use a normative vs. altered approach, which gives more primal status to 12-tone equal temperament over microtones. Here's one example. Would these be examples of classifications you call "not serious"?

(9) There have been attempts to label microtones without using staff notation, since staff notation is clearly prejudiced towards diatonicism. Here's one attempt, but even that seems to view the 12 equal-tempered pitch classes as normative (0, 1, 2, etc.) and microtones as measured from them (2.4, 5.1, etc.).

(10) There have been scattered attempts at creating non-hierarchical systems, to avoid the very prejudice you've alluded to. Frequency is one method (C=261.1Hz; a quarter tone above that is 269.2654651Hz; and so on). None of these has caught on to any significant extent, mostly because they are so foreign from the systems that Western musicians have been steeped in for their entire musical lives.

Hoping this helps!