Re: Aural Training


Subject: Re: Aural Training
From: Eliot Handelman (eliot@generation.net)
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 04:27:06 EDT


Kevin Austin wrote:

>
>
> PS I have found Pierre Schaffer's conception of sound to be of minimal
> use in extended study -- a good quick introduction but not a solid
> basis for refined aural development.
>
I confess I never read it but nowadays the concept of the "auditory
object" is all the rage and Schaffer may or may not be useful
in that regard. The question posed is, "what is an auditory object,?"
Music clearly offers obvious examples, eg, "the theme." Is
process an object? I think no -- we understand process as being applied
to something, namely the object whose
identity remains constant. Is a violin glissando an object or a process?
I think we understand it as "something rising," and the
something, which is perhaps not nameable, is the object.

a thought.

-- eliot



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST