P. 1
Keller2001 EMR

Keller2001 EMR

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Damián Keller

More info:

Published by: Damián Keller on Sep 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/23/2013

pdf

text

original

U F P rA r t sD e p a r t m e n t E l e c t r o n i cM u s i c o l o g i c a lR e v i e w V o l .

6/M a r c h2 0 0 1 E M RH o m e-H o m e-E d i t o r i a l-A r t i c l e s-P a s tI s s u e s

SOCIAL AND PERCEPTUAL DYNAMICS IN ECOLOGICALLY-BASED COMPOSITION Damián Keller Abstract
The ecological approach has provided fruitful applications in sound synthesis and composition. Its implications for the understanding of music theory, however, have not been fully explored. This article investigates theoretical aspects behind the development of ecologically-based composition. Starting from ideas presented by Shepherd (1992), it discusses whether ecologically-based music can be studied with linguistic tools. The concepts of potentiality and actuality are situated in the field of individual/environment interactions. The “personal environment” — a process describing the relationship between an individual and his specific social milieu — is proposed. Consistency is discussed in the context of environmental sound listening processes and ecological modeling work. The creation of form is dynamically determined by a process of mutual adaptation between listener and environment.

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Introduction Music as cultural... text? Social context and music: structural interactions Universals? Structural coupling Consistency: relaxing optimality Ecological models Summary References

Figures Figure I. Linguistic versus pre-linguistic mechanisms in music listening. Figure II. Interactions between social structure and musical structure. Figure III. Structural coupling between individual and environment generates a pattern formation process. Figure IV. Comparison between formal closed systems and structural coupling as a pattern formation process. Figure V. Multiple temporal layers and their relationship with the personal environment. Sound examples Ecological models: http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/EcoModelsComposition/SoundExamples.html.

1. Introduction Ecologically-based compositional processes resort to familiar sound classes and temporal grouping

meaning is conveyed by musical syntax. universal laws lose meaning when musical organization relies on particular social contexts. Only with difficulty can compositional strategies that use spectro-temporal configurations as their basic material be analyzed with such tools. a theoretical framework that operates from the level of micro-sonic configurations up to the level of socio-cultural relationships is needed for the implementation of ecologically-based compositions. . through the parameter of duration”. and to a lesser extent. Leppert and McClary 1987). aesthetics. with linguistic. socio-cultural context in its relations to sound structure. The article concludes with a summary of theoretical points. Social references provide pointers to the cultural context where the piece belongs. [*] Syntax-based analysis suggests that music is shaped by abstract relationships which are not dependent on the dynamics of sonic processes. improvisation. with particular reference to the theoretical shortcomings of syntax-based or linguistically oriented music analysis. They also take place at the micro (timbre) and macro (musical morphology) levels (Keller and Silva 1995). The last section outlines salient characteristics of ecological models. Concepts that stem from pitch-based and tonal music can hardly be applied to context-dependent and listener-specific dynamical processes. propounding the “personal environment” as a specific dynamic process. Music as cultural. which deal with everything but the music itself (cf. According to Shepherd (1992: 136). His use of the word “text” to designate musical phenomena is debatable though. he keeps an explicit differentiation between sound structure and meaning in music. Although Shepherd acknowledges the existence of musical sounds that do not lend themselves to syntax-based analysis. Shepherd’s work departs from traditional musicological methods. In accordance with the choice of the object of study. semiological or syntactical tools (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983). by the interaction of concurrent processes that take place during an actual listening experience (Melara and Marks 1990).. To analyze music syntax through out-of-time notation is to create an object of study that does not correspond to any actual experience of music. The interaction between musical parameters has been discussed and experimentally demonstrated by Tróccoli and Keller (1996). neural processing and documentation in its several forms are all relevant to and closely connected with the present study. The first two sections discuss two aspects of the framework: temporal levels of compositional and analytical work. The fourth and fifth sections deal with two fundamental concepts of ecologically-based work: structural coupling as a way of establishing potential and actual meanings between individual and environment. Abstract. Performance. Shepherd (1992) establishes two perspectives in musicological and theoretical music research: cultural context. text? By introducing actual sounds as a valid object of research. “the abstract relationships between sonic events”. instead. that is. or the sounds of music as carriers of social and cultural messages. and cultural text. Similarly to Boulez (1992) and other theorists. or the social circumstances that surround the creation and appreciation of music. The third section addresses problems presented by the use of broad generalizations in music theory. It carries the implication that music is in some way equivalent to language and thus can be analyzed with the same tools. Such compositional strategies do not fit the context of traditional theoretical categories. Thus. However. These processes do not occur exclusively at the level of syntactical events (musical notes).mechanisms to provide cues that reference the listener’s quotidian sonic experience. Shepherd asserts that these relationships have existence “primarily through the parameter of pitch. consistency as a means of defining sound-model constraints. The listener’s musical experience is not defined by out-of-time orthogonal variables such as pitch represented on a staff but. (top) 2. I shall tackle herein exclusively social context as related to music composition with ecologically-based sound models. The next section will tackle the cultural text..

Warren argues that. These results suggest that the micro-temporal sound structures in the range of a few milliseconds that characterize environmental sounds are usually processed by pre-linguistic mechanisms. one needs to assign linguistic labels to each of them. then a two-stage process is required. when subjects were asked to discriminate between different orderings of sounds. If sounds are organized by means of linguistic mechanisms. Figure I. Thus. Handel (1995) refers to a paradoxical study by Eustache. These results indicate that identification tasks. Warren (1993: 62) surveys various studies which show that other mammals. On the other hand. . music listening is probably based on spectro-temporal cues and does not necessarily rely on linguistic constructs (Figure I). syntax-based analysis fails to deal effectively with their underlying organizational processes.. Keller and Truax 1998). we have to move away from syntax-based methodologies to forms of sonic organization that deal with the micro. The stimuli consisted of groups of looped sounds. Viader and Lambert (1990). in which a subject with a “left temporoparietal lesion was unable to identify common tunes but was able to discriminate whether two tunes were the same in terms of one false note. in which “temporal compounds” are not resolved into an ordered sequence of elements. but was unable to say whether two sounds or tunes were the same”. rhythm. A further test would have to show the difference between the mechanisms of identification and recognition. should be clearly differentiated from discrimination tasks. reaction times fell between one hundred and two hundred milliseconds. minimum thresholds dropped to from five to ten milliseconds. identification of components. He outlines two possible mechanisms for recognition of acoustic sequences: holistic pattern recognition. In other words. which are not employed in the comparison of auditory stimuli. [. If compositional strategies are to be perceptually grounded. He hypothesizes that our “use of speech and production and enjoyment of music might be based upon an elaboration of global organizational skills possessed by our pre-linguistic ancestors”. When subjects had to identify the order of the sounds presented. at fast rates.] [By contrast]. another subject with a right frontal lesion could identify environmental sounds and familiar tunes. which involves the application of linguistic skills in the labeling of items. The experimental hypothesis goes along the following lines. likewise. Linguistic versus pre-linguistic mechanisms in music listening. Warren (1993: 40) resorts to the task of ordering acoustic sequences to verify whether labeling mechanisms are used in organizing acoustic stimuli. Given that most perceptually relevant processes take place at a pre-linguistic level. involving labeling and speech-based cognitive mechanisms. experiments would have to test whether identification processes such as labeling take place when one listens to music. Lechevalier. Before cognitive relationships between stimuli can be established. use holistic mechanisms to group sounds. the meso and the macro levels at once. or tempo.. subjects rely on holistic strategies to order sounds. Because environmental sounds are characterized by highly varying micro and meso-temporal structures (Keller 1999a.Further support to the idea that music-listening processes are not syntactically based follows from studies in sound identification and linguistic labeling.

.. the logics and structures of the socially mediated inner life” (Shepherd 1992: 142). Sloboda 1985). his concepts are not entirely consistent with an environment-based approach.linguistic approaches are inappropriate whenever one wishes to understand their dynamics or elaborate them in compositions. This stance is not confined to music theory but permeates other areas of music research as well (cf. They either copy or evoke symbolically the sonic manifestations of those people. The distinction between direct reference. Most European and North American (ENA) music theorists believe that musical structure and meaning bear no direct relation to the social context in which music is created (cf. In the field of music psychology. directly and powerfully. Parncutt 1989. seldom assigning extra-musical causes to them. and indirect reference. the sonata form in Classicism). They function in a structural fashion that allows them to evoke. “Music creates a non-referential (or perhaps self-referential) world.] Despite its lack of specific reference it can have deep emotional significance”.] It does so through psychological dimensions that are unique to music.. events and objects. Krumhansl 1990. An alternative is to employ compositional models based on the sonic and referential material used in the piece. is illuminating and clearly reflects the view held by most theorists of music and culture regarding what elements of sound are “musical”.. The next section discusses interactions between social context and musical structure. Interactions between social and musical structures.g. Shepherd (1992) identifies three main analytical perspectives so far as cultural context of music is concerned: autonomy. [. sounds in music never refer directly to people. Secondly. (top) 3. Boulez 1992).. they usually explain changes in compositional techniques in terms of purely structural criteria. [. The focus of each of these approaches can easily be represented in terms of how social structure influences musical structure and vice-versa (Figure II). Social context and music: structural interactions Although Shepherd (1992) supports the view that compositional processes should make use of extra-musical references. In the analysis of stylistic features of a specific musical period (e. McAdams (1987: 13) sustains that music is an autonomous phenomenon. Shepherd is referring to syntactical structure and not to the spectro-temporal dynamics of sound. . “[Unlike] the sounds of language. placing form-creation processes in the realm of social and perceptual dynamics. Figure II. events and objects in the external world. as provided by environmental sounds. as provided by what he calls musical sounds. Bent 1987. sounds in music seem not to function in a fundamentally arbitrary fashion. structural homology and relative autonomy. This is the perspective adopted by soundscape (Truax 1996) and ecologically-based composition (Keller 1999b).

.At the other end of the conceptual spectrum. then a single concept — the “personal environment” — can encompass the multiplicity of contexts that are brought into play when we listen to music. if we accept the idea that the musical environment is listener specific. music re-produces the structure of the society in which it is being produced. [.]. However. No artistic or cultural forms need depend on non-artistic or non-cultural social processes for their significance.. non-musical social processes [. Shepherd’s (1992: 137) concept of relative autonomy establishes a compromise between autonomy and structural homology. musical sociality would be of little significance if its internal logics and structures were of no relevance to the logics and structures of other. but it does not literally follow the dynamics of social interactions. Second. Every music carries the cultural baggage of its social origin and listeners always place the music in their personal environments. structural homology provides an alternative to analytical practices that lack grounding on social content. and tonality in particular. with other areas of non-musical sociality”. This focus on tonality was chosen for several reasons. critics. Now.. First. reshapes the personal environment. This definition of music implies a clear hierarchy. we can use the listener’s particular background to interpret the work from a specific cultural and natural context.. art institutions etc. This bond is replaced by a dependency on dealers. The conception of an independent artist as opposed to a craftsperson depends on the dissolution of the direct bond between artist and patron. either harmoniously or dissonantly.. most music cross-culturally and historically can be described as tonal in a general sense that pitch materials are centered around one or a few significant tones” [italics mine]. Although not agreeing with Shepherd’s use of relative autonomy in support of the mythic “expression” (Stambaugh 1989: 143). Universals? ENA music theory usually treats the musical work as an object separated from actual performance.] The significance of musical sociality does not necessarily originate outside ‘musical processes’. (top) 4. Dempster and Brown 1990). specific acoustic space. Arnold Hauser (1951) maintains that the notion of an autonomous art is inextricably linked to capitalist socio-economic structures. which act as mediators between art producers and the consumer market (Leppert and McClary 1987). In other words. Thus. these possibilities can only be realized in the act of listening (Shepherd 1992). In this manner. Under this light.. Bent 1987. striking a balance between social determinism and musical independence from social dynamics. Boulez 1992. whether this mechanism is human or mechanical (cf. at the same time. social context and reproduction mechanism. Presenting the conclusions of her Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. “creativity” and “individuality” of the composer. musical meaning is directly linked to the social structure upon which it rests.. “[. re-enacting previous sonic experiences.] An ‘autonomous’ musical sociality (that is. However. Ecological psychology researchers such as Michaels and Carello (1981: 44) have drawn a line between cultural and “natural” environments. listening implies enacting social and cultural processes that are ingrained in both the piece of music and the listener’s sonic experience. where pitch and . music gives life to conflicts taking place in society. it plays a central role in theoretical treatments in Western tonal-harmonic music. Since “[music] offers up potentials and possibilities for the construction and investment of meaning on the part of people” [italics his]. In other words. an ever-changing history of meanings establishes itself. This environment places the work within the listener’s cultural context. Krumhansl (1990: 281) states that “the investigations focused on pitch structure. there is no culturally neutral listening experience. I believe his position has interesting theoretical implications. ‘autonomous’ musical processes as social processes) may be thought of as resonating. Thus. The clash between the two contexts informs the creation of musical meanings and. instead of forcing sound and its organization into abstract “universal” molds.

timbre configuration and referential elements. The “empty space” lies in the development of transformational techniques that do not destroy the referential elements of the recorded sound material. the material is not only too identifiable but is also too discontinuous or categorized to be assimilable into a form that is foreign to its already strong semantic function” (McAdams 1987: 55). [.. which is precisely the niche of ecologically-based composition. Varela (1989: 194) states that “[t]he constraints of survival and reproduction are far too weak to provide an account of how structures develop and change. Differently from the cognitive approach.. cognition in its most encompassing sense consists in the enactment or bringing forth of a world by a viable history of structural coupling” (Varela. The use of selective frequency ranges. it is now clear that structural weaknesses in concrete music do not follow from the elements themselves but from the transformations — or lack thereof — imposed upon the material (cf. This signal might be audible to companions close by. Schaeffer 1993). In other words. Structural coupling Shepherd’s distinction between potential meanings afforded by sound structure and actual meanings realized through the act of listening finds an interesting parallel in the concept of “evolution by drift” propounded by Varela. while maintaining that they are simply instances of abstract universals. Correct as his assessment of concrete music may be. The theoretical biologist Francisco Varela suggests that animal and environment are mutually determined. narrow-band. two of which tinge today’s research: the internal representation of music has a hierarchical component. A particularly problematic issue is the distinctiveness of signals among bird species that compete for the same niche in a shared sound environment.] In a sense. The idea that differentiates Varela’s (1989: 196) approach from neo-Darwinian adaptationism is the shift from optimal adaptation to “satisficing” fitness. whistled alarm calls used by animals in extreme danger [.] have such strong references to everyday life that they are made to cohere with an overriding structure only with great difficulty. Thompson and Rosch (1989). “cognition is no longer seen as problem solving on the basis of representations. McAdams (1987: 12) draws attention to some assumptions that underlie current paradigms in music psychology. no optimal fitness scheme apparently suffices to explain evolutionary processes”. “One of the problems with musique concrète is that the sound elements [. Due to attenuation. leaving aside such fundamental parameters as temporal organization. Evolution and cognition are shaped by actual interactions between individual and environment. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 205). distinctive time-patterns or even fast-varying timbral changes are alternative approaches to soundstreaming in a noisy environment. throughout his text. Following Sloboda (1985). he maintains that musical representations are culturally specific. Patterns of animal communication are a case of varied solutions to a single problem. Another example of the “universality fallacy” in music research is found in McAdams (1987). meter and rhythm are psychologically real organizing principles and instantiations of music universals that may be found in almost any musical culture. instead. music creates meanings without establishing links with the social or natural environment where it is played.. He says that “music creates a non-referential (or perhaps a self-referential) world” and criticizes the use of referential elements in music because they hinder the structural coherence. scales.]... I suspect that McAdams is being faithful to Sloboda.tonality occupy the center of the theoretical and methodological preoccupations.. but will probably not be heard by the predator” (Nelson and Marler 1990: 444). (top) 5. Accordingly. This technical insufficiency points to a conceptual shift from sound organizations established by formal processes to sound organizations framed by environmental constraints. Palombini 1998. since. the high frequency signal is limited to a small surrounding space. Another example of selective adaptation to environmental characteristics is “the high-pitched. McAdams (1987: 13) subscribes to the traditionally accepted view of an autonomous music. . Time-sharing between and within species is one of the strategies employed to reduce the temporal overlap among signal emissions (Nelson and Marler 1990).

not because they fulfil some ideal design but simply because they are possible” (Varela.. [.. [. Interestingly. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 196). Structural coupling between individual and environment generates a pattern ..A complementary aspect of evolution by drift is the mutual determination between the individual and its environment. Far from being imposed on matter by some agent. “[L]iving beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or codetermination.. [. sounds highly significant for survival such as the sounds of breaking.] Environmental regularities are not external features that have been internalized. “[P]erception consists in perceptually guided action and cognitive structures emerge from the recurrent sensorimotor patterns that enable action to be perceptually guided. [.] Thus the sound environment in which an animal species has evolved has a strong influence in shaping the acoustic signals employed for purposes of social communication”.. A good example in the musical realm is Smalley’s (1993) assertion that instrumental gesture is a refinement of our daily interaction with objects in the environment. a congruence that unfolds from a long history of codetermination. Environmental regularities are the result of a cojoint history. thus allowing for the occurrence of patterns that are not necessarily determined by selection.. or blowing [. More specifically.] [The] extraorganismal environment is made internal by psychological or biochemical assimilation. scraping.. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 198). [. The separation between environment and individual in the formation of cognitive structures is arguably a severe limitation of cognitive approaches. the background against which animal signals must be detected and discriminated is often highly structured.... It may even interact with the behavior of the signaler.. “form emerges in successive interaction.]” (Smalley 1993: 537). Figure III. “The passage from object experimentation to the creation of a musical instrument involves the increasing refinement of hitting.] Cognition is not representation but embodied action. The next logical step in the enactive perspective is to “recast selective pressures as broad constraints to be satisfied” (Varela. This thesis is consistent with an ecologically-based theoretical framework insofar as musical structures provide potential meanings that are realized through a mutual determination process between individual and environment. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 199). it is a function of the reactivity of matter at many hierarchical levels. a specific example of information transmission in ambient acoustics is provided by Nelson and Marler (1990: 445): “Far from being a random phenomenon.. It is not a mental representation that determines the formation of perceptual processes but the bodily interaction between individual and environment. A metaphor for this conception is “evolution as bricolage.. also called structural coupling (Figure III). [.] The organism is both the subject and the object of evolution” (Varela. Significantly. [An] internal state is externalized through products and behaviors that select and organize the surrounding world” (Oyama 1985 cited in Varela. the putting together of parts and items in complicated arrays. Again. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 200). as representationism and adaptationism both assume. and of the responsiveness of those interactions to each other. spilling and avalanches have been left out of instrumental practices. hierarchical descriptions of sonic processes from a structural perspective are generally absent from the literature (Keller and Silva 1995).] The world that we cognize is not pre-given but enacted through our history of structural coupling” (Varela. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 198)..

the model itself is obtained by drawing predictions from the existing components. and the ‘connection’ is limited to ensuring that the model falls somewhere in the space of uncertainty. the object/event relation is constrained by the possibilities of the object. researchers secure that the output of the synthesis model remains within a particular sound class and. each instantiation will belong to the same class but no two instances will be alike (Figure IV). These constraints provide a basic framework for the development of ecological models shaped after the properties of everyday sounds. a perspective that allows for the occurrence of patterns that are not necessarily determined by selection. (top) 6. Thompson and Rosch 1989: 198). Instead descriptions of strategies are more common. brittle yes/no comparison”. one will seek to implement sound models that provide environmentally consistent sonic cues. By following these premises. several perceptual states must be obtainable from a single stimulus. the perceptual system separates source from ambience reflections. on the contrary. Cooke (1993: 55) pointed out that “the questions of optimality and search are not often raised in experimental studies of auditory grouping. at the same time. The first requirement may be inferred from the precedence effect: regardless of the source sound.. Ellis (1996: 54) proposes more flexible criteria for a better match between model and data in auditory processing. no event happens twice. [. optimal solution in a predefined parameter space. On the other hand. usually come up with a single. The adaptability of perceptual processes places two requirements on the implementation of perceptual and compositional models: the same mechanisms must be usable for different stimuli in different contexts. as long as the parameters of the sound model are kept within ecologically valid ranges. that is. avoid a one-to-one correspondence between the model and the sounds obtained. They are perceived as changing even when no physical change occurs.formation process. in compliance with the characteristics of the environment and the states of the source object. spectral and temporal characteristics change continually. The second requirement is exemplified by the repeating stimuli used by Warren (1993). In other words. A data-driven model such as Cooke’s constructs successive levels of abstraction founded on identifiable features of the data.] [T]his work is based on heuristics which express the belief that it is possible to discover similar groupings from large numbers of different starting points”. with a continuum of resulting confidence or quality metrics. rather than a single. a given object can only produce a limited range of spectro-temporal behaviors.. Artificial Intelligence approaches. . there may be a wide range of possible matches. Transposing these principles to the compositional domain. work carried out in computational auditory modeling coincides with the theoretical approach proposed in evolutionary biology: perceptual mechanisms are constrained by environmental requirements. current evolutionary theories view natural selection as the realization of possible outcomes. rather than as a result of necessity. Depending on how model and stimulus uncertainty are represented. Consistency in this context can be defined as the relationship between dynamically varying sonic cues. we “recast selective pressures as broad constraints to be satisfied” (Varela. Thus. that is. Some of the most relevant among such properties may be formulated as follows: the minimum temporal unit is the ecologically meaningful sound event. Consistency: relaxing optimality As the previous section demonstrates. “in the prediction-driven framework. In other words. but no single optimal solution exists for a given state in the process of individual/environment interaction.

(top) 7. If mutual determination is a reasonable model. taking into account the dynamics of sound structures and the listening processes. Thus. time patterns etc. By doing so. we should expect to find fine-tuned perceptual mechanisms to process frequently occurring environmental sounds (Figure V). Ecological models Through research into environmental sounds (see Keller 1999a) I have been led to conclude that the development of compositional tools must be a function of ecologically meaningful events and of sound classes and sound behaviors consistent with the possibilities of objects. These sounds provide cues to feasible events in the environment. they engender stimuli that are coherent with pattern-formation processes (cf. Summary Ecologically-based musical approaches need to be grounded on the specific social environment where the musical work is placed. Comparison between formal closed systems and structural coupling as a pattern formation process. The multiple temporal layers and their relationship with the personal environment. In ecological modeling. Figure V. .Figure IV. a ball cannot bounce forever and a surface cannot be perfectly regular. (top) 8. The range of possible values that these variables can take is restricted to ecologically feasible spans. Sound Examples). variables are directly related to environmental processes such as excitation of resonant bodies.

It makes no sense as a general or “a priori” statement. Musical Perceptions. HANDEL. Mass. 1951. S. References AIELLO. . 1999a.J. 1995. Department of Electrical Engineering.: MIT Press.sfu. In this context. A new layer of meanings is thus established. 1993. Moore (Ed. To embrace the model of mutual determination in its entirety means to accept the idea that music is realized during the listening. These sounds offer the possibility of creating meaningful symbolic systems by evoking the listener’s sonic environment. D. A. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. M. Online at <http://www. COOKE. New York: Oxford University Press. where the listener’s cultural context interacts with the dynamics of sonic structures. Master of Fine Arts Thesis. 1987. DEMPSTER. Cambridge. D.: MIT Media Lab. The Social History of Art.). Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores. Burnaby: Earsay Productions <http://www. Because ecologically-based sounds are characterized by highly varying micro and meso temporal structures (Keller 1999b.Universal concepts proposed by ENA music theory and cultural studies such as “neutral cross-culturalism”. the interaction between the specific sonic experiences of the individual and the structural processes of the music sets in motion a process of form creation that brings forth an ever-changing history of meanings. New York: London. (top) 9. 1990. and BROWN. Journal of Music Theory 34 (2): 247–79. most perceptually relevant processes take place at a pre-linguistic level. (Ed. New York: Knopf. BREGMAN. ELLIS. BOULEZ. 1990. P. Truax (1996) argues that it is the ability to make direct references that turns environmental sounds into ideal raw material for composition. “Prediction-Driven Computational Auditory Scene Analysis”. “Timbre Perception and Auditory Object Identification”. “Western culture” and the like are not capable of dealing with the dynamics of specific social and perceptual processes. KELLER. 1996.com>. R. Mass. In B. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. In addition. D. Enhanced Compact Disc.earsay. I. Analysis. D. PhD Thesis. They overlook important aspects of musical organization such as referential elements and mutual adaptation processes. “Evaluating Musical Analyses and Theories: Five Perspectives”. Hacia una estética musical. W. A. M. New York: Academic Press. “touch’n’go / toco y me voy”. Modelling Auditory Processing and Organization. Keller and Truax 1998). Cambridge. 1992. “touch’n’go: Ecological Models in Composition”. A separation between musical sound and environmental sound can only be made in relation to a specific artwork in a given cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.C. KELLER. This perspective places the concepts of potentiality and actuality in musical meaning within the broader realm of mutual determination between individual and environment. 1999b. P. syntax-based analysis fails to deal effectively with their underlying organizational processes. BENT.). S.ca/sonic-studio/srs/>. HAUSER. Hearing.

and MCCLARY. New York: Oxford University Press. R. 1993. and TRUAX. C. New York: Oxford University Press. “Theoretical Outline of a Hybrid Musical System”. J. 1981. J. Harmony: A Psychoacoustic Approach. Comparative Perception II. “Expressive Autonomy in Music”. P. MELARA. 1990. J. S. “Pierre Schaeffer. Contemporary Music Review 2: 1–61. 1987. STAMBAUGH. North (Eds. Ill. 1997. D. Interface 22: 279–300. MICHAELS. 1992.ufpr. “Experimental Aesthetics and Everyday Music Listening”. Montreaux: Gordon and Breach Science. In W. 1993.ca/~dkeller>. Electronic Musicological Review 3. C. Howell.sfu.).) 1987. 1990. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. “Defining Transformations”. (Eds. F. D. Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought I. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. “Perceptual Primacy of Dimensions: Support for a Model of Dimensional Interaction”. NORTH. Journal of Experimental Psychology 16: 398–414. <http://www. 1989. C. A. 1989. A. In F. P.). and CARELLO.1/vol3/Schaefferi. C. and SILVA. New York: Oxford University Press. and BIGAND. Human Perception and Performance.: MIT Press.). NELSON. and HARGREAVES. Direct Perception. Smith (Ed. 1998. D. D. Berlin: Springer. A. PARNCUTT. 128–55. Berkley (Eds. Stebbins and M. R. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. L. SLOBODA. J. Brasília: Editora da Universidade de Brasília. Paynter. “Music: A Science of the Mind?”. 1985. Hargreaves and A. In J. 1993. D. Canela: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação. B. D. In D. Cambridge.: International Computer Music Association. E. 1995. SMALLEY. Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. Tratado dos Objetos Musicais. J. C. KRUMHANSL. Pp. R. “Music as Cultural Text”. “The Perception of Birdsong and an Ecological Concept of Signal Space”. Seymour (Eds. Michigan. “Ecologically-based Granular Synthesis”. A. . Performance and Reception. 1990. 1998.br/rem/REMv3. Mass. KELLER. F.). MCADAMS. E. Music and Society: The Politics of Composition. New York: John Wiley. SHEPHERD. Online at <http://www. C. T. The Social Psychology of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. and MARKS. and JACKENDOFF. 248–57. R. 1983. SCHAEFFER. Pp. MCADAMS. The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Orton and P.humanas. (Eds. LERDAHL.). Proceedings of the Second Brazilian Symposium on Computer Music. R. S. PALOMBINI. C. L. and MARLER. C. New York: Routledge. D. Understanding the Musical Experience.html>. S. LEPPERT. New York: Cambridge University Press.KELLER. Thinking in Sound. 1953: Towards an Experimental Music”. J.

1996. See Roland Barthes’s “L’aventure sémiologique”. D. Contemporary Music Review 15 (1): 47–63. Seuil. B. USA Ecological Models (back) Editor’s Note [*] Semiology/Semiotics took the notion of “Text” beyond Linguistic borders in 1974. THOMPSON. translated into English as “The Semiological Adventure”. R.: MIT Press. 1985. MFA Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics Stanford University CA 94305. Pp. TRUAX. T. Mass. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Paris. 1988. M.TRÓCCOLI. 1993. McAdams and E. E. Cambridge. Thinking in Sound. Damián Keller. “A função da familiaridade no reconhecimento do timbre”. “Perception of Acoustic Sequences: Global Integration Versus Temporal Resolution”. J. . WARREN. 1989. reprinted in L’aventure sémiologique. Oxford: Oxford University Press. in Le Monde of 7 June 1974. and KELLER. Blackwell. In S. B. E. F. 1996. “Soundscape. VARELA. 9–14. The Semiotic Challenge.). Brasília: FAP-DF. 37–68. pp.. pp. Oxford. and ROSCH. DMA candidate. Bigand (Eds. 3–8. Acoustic Communication and Environmental Sound Composition”. Technical Report.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->