What's needed in thinking about musical perception is a language, as
the situation is very rich. When someone says, "I enjoyed that music,"
that could mean many different things. We can be sure that person
*experienced* something; so let's look at experiences, or "percepts"
as I refer to them.

On one scale, a percept can be "sonic" or "musical." This is the
simple observation that some percepts relate more to sound ("sonic"),
while others relate more to music ("musical"). The perception of loud
of soft is a sonic percept. The perception of phrase shape is a
musical percept.

On another scale, a percept can be "local" or "diffuse." A local
percept is one that emerges from patterns in the music over a very
short time; it could be identified by listening to a short clip. An
example would be instrumental timbre. A diffuse percept is one that
brings together details from a large time span; an example would be
musical form.

On another scale, a percept can be "static" or "dynamic". A static
percept is one that subjectively does not change much over time;
examples would be a sustained volume level, or a sustained pattern of
articulation. A dynamic percept relates to changes in the music; for
example, a sudden crescendo or sudden diminuendo.

On another scale, a percept can be "instance" or "abstracted." An
instance percept refers to a specific experience at a specific place
and time; for example, the sound of a trumpet at Carnegie Hall, at the
opening of Mahler's fifth symphony, from set G27. An abstracted
percept relates to a concept that has been abstracted from many
experiences; for example, a conductor's (such as Jenn) knowledge of
good trumpet sound in general.

On another scale, a percept can be "concrete" or "holistic". This
relates to the observation that music can be about so much more than
sound. It is, to some listeners, about emotions, about body sensation
like dance or tenderness, and about spiritual myth. A percept that
relates to this more whole sense of experience I call a holistic
percept. A percept that relates more directly to the sound itself I
call a concrete percept.

And finally, a percept can be "naive" or "mature." This follows
from the simple observation that tastes develop over time and with
experience. Often experienced people like different things than
beginners. Adults frequently like coffee, but once I saw a kid
practically vomit from the smell of coffee.

I don't see language from the objectivists (note: "objectivists" is a
shorthand for Bob, Stewart, Chung, and those of similar perspective)
indicating that they are aware of these distinctions in musical
percepts.

Helen Schmidt

On 2 Jul 2005 14:44:27 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote:

What's needed in thinking about musical perception is a language, as
the situation is very rich. When someone says, "I enjoyed that music,"
that could mean many different things. We can be sure that person
*experienced* something; so let's look at experiences, or "percepts"
as I refer to them.

On one scale, a percept can be "sonic" or "musical." This is the
simple observation that some percepts relate more to sound ("sonic"),
while others relate more to music ("musical"). The perception of loud
of soft is a sonic percept. The perception of phrase shape is a
musical percept.

On another scale, a percept can be "local" or "diffuse." A local
percept is one that emerges from patterns in the music over a very
short time; it could be identified by listening to a short clip. An
example would be instrumental timbre. A diffuse percept is one that
brings together details from a large time span; an example would be
musical form.

On another scale, a percept can be "static" or "dynamic". A static
percept is one that subjectively does not change much over time;
examples would be a sustained volume level, or a sustained pattern of
articulation. A dynamic percept relates to changes in the music; for
example, a sudden crescendo or sudden diminuendo.

On another scale, a percept can be "instance" or "abstracted." An
instance percept refers to a specific experience at a specific place
and time; for example, the sound of a trumpet at Carnegie Hall, at the
opening of Mahler's fifth symphony, from set G27. An abstracted
percept relates to a concept that has been abstracted from many
experiences; for example, a conductor's (such as Jenn) knowledge of
good trumpet sound in general.

On another scale, a percept can be "concrete" or "holistic". This
relates to the observation that music can be about so much more than
sound. It is, to some listeners, about emotions, about body sensation
like dance or tenderness, and about spiritual myth. A percept that
relates to this more whole sense of experience I call a holistic
percept. A percept that relates more directly to the sound itself I
call a concrete percept.

And finally, a percept can be "naive" or "mature." This follows
from the simple observation that tastes develop over time and with
experience. Often experienced people like different things than
beginners. Adults frequently like coffee, but once I saw a kid
practically vomit from the smell of coffee.

I don't see language from the objectivists (note: "objectivists" is a
shorthand for Bob, Stewart, Chung, and those of similar perspective)
indicating that they are aware of these distinctions in musical
percepts.

We don't use your over-flowery and indefinite language, to be sure.
OTOH, we do indeed share your enthusiasm for the 'gestalt' of the
performance and - guess what - we find CD to be superior. All else is
simply your personal preference, disguised as ever in purple prose and
a not too subtle undertone that you have superior aesthetic
sensibilities and/or intellectual capacity. The evidence so far
suggests otherwise..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Helen Schmidt wrote:
....
On one scale, a percept can be "sonic" or "musical." This is the
simple observation that some percepts relate more to sound ("sonic"),
while others relate more to music ("musical").

That's more like a theory than a "simple observation". In
categorizing sonic vs. musical, you lead us to think the
percepts are fundamentally different. Maybe they are, but
isn't that buying into the objectivist position?

The perception of loud
of soft is a sonic percept. The perception of phrase shape is a
musical percept.

Is the first beat of a 4/4 phrase perceived as louder than the
second because it's at the beginning of the phrase, or is it
perceived as the beginning of the phrase because it's louder?

....
--
Greg Lee

Helen Schmidt wrote:

I don't see language from the objectivists (note: "objectivists" is a
shorthand for Bob, Stewart, Chung, and those of similar perspective)
indicating that they are aware of these distinctions in musical
percepts.

Well, I certainly see plenty of indications that Chung, for example, is
quite aware of these distinctions. But that's because I read what he's
saying, rather than assuming he's saying something ridiculous so that I
can argue with him easily.

But let's talk for a moment about a very simple concept that you are
overlooking. Certainly, music is more than just sound. But sound is the
only thing an audio system can reproduce--to begin with, because it's
the only thing that a microphone can pick up. So that's the only aspect
of music that's actually being reproduced here.

So where is the emotion? Well, it's in two places. First, there is
emotion expressed in the way the musician plays, and that is captured
by the microphone (and later reproduced), but only to the extent that
it is conveyed as particular (musical) sound. Other forms of emotional
expression which we can appreciate in a live performance--the grimace
as a singer reaches for a note, for example--are not captured, and
cannot be reproduced. (The exception would be a Keith Jarrett
recording--because he grimaces verbally.)

Second, there is the emotional interpretation you give to the music as
you listen to it. That's influenced by many things other than the
sounds which reach your ears--your emotional state at the time, your
memory of past things you've heard, your previous opinions of the
performers, etc. But your audio system is responsible only for the
sound that reaches your ears. Everything else, you are supplying.

If you want to understand listeners' reactions to music, you must
understand much more than just what the quivering diaphragm inside a
microphone is doing. But this is not a music discussion board; it is an
audio discussion board. And while we talk about music concepts a lot
here, there are times when we are talking specifically about the
reproduction of the only thing an audio system can reproduce--and that
is the *sound* of a musical event. We are not overlooking anything. We
are merely focusing on aspects that are relevant to audio reproduction,
as opposed to music appreciation and interpretation.

bob

"Helen Schmidt" wrote in message
...
What's needed in thinking about musical perception is a language, as
the situation is very rich. When someone says, "I enjoyed that music,"
that could mean many different things. We can be sure that person
*experienced* something; so let's look at experiences, or "percepts"
as I refer to them.

On one scale, a percept can be "sonic" or "musical." This is the
simple observation that some percepts relate more to sound ("sonic"),
while others relate more to music ("musical"). The perception of loud
of soft is a sonic percept. The perception of phrase shape is a
musical percept.

On another scale, a percept can be "local" or "diffuse." A local
percept is one that emerges from patterns in the music over a very
short time; it could be identified by listening to a short clip. An
example would be instrumental timbre. A diffuse percept is one that
brings together details from a large time span; an example would be
musical form.

On another scale, a percept can be "static" or "dynamic". A static
percept is one that subjectively does not change much over time;
examples would be a sustained volume level, or a sustained pattern of
articulation. A dynamic percept relates to changes in the music; for
example, a sudden crescendo or sudden diminuendo.

On another scale, a percept can be "instance" or "abstracted." An
instance percept refers to a specific experience at a specific place
and time; for example, the sound of a trumpet at Carnegie Hall, at the
opening of Mahler's fifth symphony, from set G27. An abstracted
percept relates to a concept that has been abstracted from many
experiences; for example, a conductor's (such as Jenn) knowledge of
good trumpet sound in general.

On another scale, a percept can be "concrete" or "holistic". This
relates to the observation that music can be about so much more than
sound. It is, to some listeners, about emotions, about body sensation
like dance or tenderness, and about spiritual myth. A percept that
relates to this more whole sense of experience I call a holistic
percept. A percept that relates more directly to the sound itself I
call a concrete percept.

And finally, a percept can be "naive" or "mature." This follows
from the simple observation that tastes develop over time and with
experience. Often experienced people like different things than
beginners. Adults frequently like coffee, but once I saw a kid
practically vomit from the smell of coffee.

I don't see language from the objectivists (note: "objectivists" is a
shorthand for Bob, Stewart, Chung, and those of similar perspective)
indicating that they are aware of these distinctions in musical
percepts.

I am undoubtedly an "objectivist" in the camp with Stewart, Chung
et al. But when it comes to listening to music (as opposed to
understanding the technology used for its reproduction), I just
sit back and enjoy it without all this objective analysis of my
subjective preferences.

- Gary Rosen