"Jenn" wrote in message
...
An interesting little piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/ar...ic/31thom.html
Lots to think about here. Thanks, Jenn.
For one thing...it seems to challenge the idea often promulgated here that
there is poor long term auditory memory. Could such science have been
based on something other than music? My guess is it was.
For another, it suggests that musical snippets, devoid of a recognized
musical context, are one thing. Snippets that can evoke context are
another. Remember my car crash analogy?
For yet another, it confirms that musical ability/reaction are primitive and
emotional in nature, and accordingly there is a substantial difference
between the effects of "sound" and those of "music". One apparently cannot
measure the effects of music without measuring the emotions. Among other
things, this tends to support Oohashi's research work.
The findings on timbre are interesting...they support audiophile
preoccupation with same, yet coming from a very different point of origin
from a research standpoint.
And finally, the part on tension involving the anticipation of beat, tempo,
etc. is fascinating. It tends to suggest their may be something to
perceptions of "fast" versus "slow" bass, for instance. It also supports a
thesis I have held for about fifteen years that much of the appeal of jazz
is the tension between the straightforward expectations of tempo and melody,
and the variations jazzman improvise around them. One expects one thing,
then takes delight in being surprised by a variation that is different and
yet clearly related. (BTW, I did some improvised research on this that
developed some experimental support way back in 1990. But that is a story
for another time.)
Again, thanks Jenn.
Harry