Subject: Re: Mixing it...
From: Alexandra Hettergott (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 09 1999 - 11:31:26 EDT
Kevin Austin wrote :
[re my having been "not very content with the 'parametric limits' Kevin Austin
>(Sorry, I'm not yet proposing just _what_ the parametric limits might be,
>just that it is an approach.)
-- I am sorry, too, though I did understand you rightly, yet my sentence was unclear.
Just to state : your point/proposition concerns the (to-be-defined) sameness of
"things" -- by extension also concerning the ambiguity of meaning in general-- due to
the brain's structures/processes, with the problems being, per definition, the
transitions (transitional zones), both in a gradually becoming (prepared) and sudden
manner, yet also "illusionary sameness" (auditory illusions -- sure, the clearness of
meaning is an illusion, too; one could ask whether there do exist any unequivocal
archetypes at all).
>The modeling of 'parametric values' is an outgrowth, in some ways, from
>information theory, and other earlier 20th century theorie from science
>and math. The concept (and use) of personality profiles, is the
>evaluation of certain 'behavioral parameters' (Will that person stay up
>all night drinking? Does the quarter note always get the beat?).
-- But you don't want to imply the diversity in personal concept/construct in the
determination, too, will you ; this would be very liberal an approach, though... On
the other hand, including socio/idiolectal differences might really be usefully
included in any determination (as derives from the journals).
>For the ear, vibrations in a range of (say) some nine or ten octaves
>(16kHz to 20 Hz), "suddenly" in the range of less than an octave, are
>perceived in a fundamentaly different way. (See the Bregamn / Ahad CD
>accompanying ASA for a range of example.)
-- btw one does also perceive (more "aromatic") differences between 48kHz and 96kHz
sampled clicks ; sure as to the distinctiveness of pitch, the temporal aspect
(expectation) does bring much more into play (any visual parallels ?)
>'Musical ensembles' are usually made up of
>non-continuous, (heterogeneous) sources. This is an option that is left
>open in the field of ea/cm, where a flute attack can be modeled onto a
>sustained trumpet tone.
-- You are finding emanations from this field, in general, being too
non-differentiated in composition, then ? -- Source sounds/sound sources that are as
differentiated as the acoustic ones, yet not the same (sound doubles, symbol
>Soundscaping would appear to have some elements of cross-over between
>these two options (apart from fundamental conditions of form!).
D'accord (en passant, the formal aspect is always the most easily to tackle one...).
>A simple test to find out if and where musical genres differ ... is the
>perception of equal divisions of time in the 10Hz to .25 Hz range, an
>organizing factor? (Is 'beat' central to what goes on?)
>This is technology independent, while being an aesthetic parameter.
>Answers will likely range from 'yes', through 'maybe' / 'sometimes' /
>'somewhat', to 'seldom' and 'no'.
-- Okay, there is also a "transitional zone", again, where a fast temporal sequence
becomes pitch-like ; surely fascinating and difficult to grasp (yet logical by virtue
of a wave's given facts). -- A non-ea/cm, yet not less fascinating example which
comes to my mind now : the harpsichord (in general, as there are different kinds, of
course), which due to construction/resulting spectral distribution often creates a
sub-bass/sub-beat of its own and is very likely to all (deliberate) coherence
phenomena (in Couperin as well as in Ligeti).
-- Just as a sunny Sunday afternoon's reflection,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:08:57 EDT