View
225
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
1/35
http://msx.sagepub.com/Musicae Scientiae
http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161Theonline version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/102986490100500203
2001 5: 161Musicae ScientiaeNicola Dibben
What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music?: Music Perception and Musical Material
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music
can be found at:Musicae ScientiaeAdditional services and information for
http://msx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://msx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Sep 1, 2001Version of Record>>
at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013msx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.escom.org/http://msx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://msx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://msx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.refs.htmlhttp://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.full.pdfhttp://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.full.pdfhttp://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://msx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://msx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.escom.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161http://msx.sagepub.com/8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
2/35
Muslcae Scientiae
Fall
2001,
Vol V,
n
2 161 194
=2001 by ESCOM European Society
fo r
the Cognitive Sciences of Music
hat do we hear when we hear music?:
usic perception and musical material
NICOLA
I EN
Music Department, University o f Sheffield
STR CT
Theories of auditory event perception have highlighted a distinction between
everyday and musical listening. This paper challenges this account of listening
in
tw o
ways: first, it extends the notion of sourcespecification to the specification
of cultural and compositional categories, and second, it argues that listening to
music involves listening to what soundsspecifyjust asmuch asit involves listening
to the acoustic characteristicsof sounds. It isargued here that the characterisation
of musical listening asattending to the acousticcharacter of sound is a reflection
of the prevailing reception ideology of the autonomous art work.
This paper reports the results of
tw o
empirical studieswhich provide evidence for
the perception of music in terms of categoriesof musicalmaterial (i.e. what sounds
specify). In the first study, participants were presented with triads of musical
and everyday sounds presented in conflicting pairings and asked to identify the
tw o th t
were most similar. In the second study listeners were asked to give
commentaries on the sounds. These listening studies showed that while listeners
pay attention to the acoustic properties of soundsthey are also sensitive to what
sounds specify (physical source, physical space and proximity, genre, musical
function, performance skill, emotional attributes and social context). The results
highlight the way in which listeners privilege particular kinds of specifications, and
some of the factors involved in these choices are
is usse
briefly in relation to a
performative theory of musical meaning.
INTRODUCTION
In a paper on auditory event perception, Gaver distinguishes between musical
listening , in which attention ispaid to the acoustic characteristics ofmaterials their
timbre, pitch, loudness, and how these change over time, for example) and everyday
listening , in which attention is paid
to
audible source attributes Gaver, 1993a,
pp. 1-2; 1993b, p. 286). For example, we might pay attention to the fact that we
hear a tap dripping which Gaver terms everyday listening ) rather than paying
attention to the pitch and rirnbral qualities of the sound and the way that these
6
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
3/35
change over time (which he terms musical Iisrening ) , As I will argue, by equating
musical listening with perception
of
a sound s acoustic characteristics, Gaver
implicitly adopts an ideology
of
autonomy
in which listening to music is concerned
with the perceptual characteristics
of
the
sound
itself rather than with
what
the
sound
specifies. However, as Gaver goes on to
point
out: The distinction between
everyday
and
musical listening is between experiences,
not
sounds... (Gaver, 1993a,
p. 2).
This
opens up the possibility
that
the distinction between these two kinds
of
listening may
not
necessarily
map
directly
onto
a distinction between everyday
sounds
and music: in other words, these may be two kinds of listening
which
operate simultaneously
but
which the listener privileges in different ways according
to his or her needs
and
preoccupations.
It
is this possibility which this paper addresses.
The
distinction between musical
and
everyday listening
made
by Gaver is
paralleled in musicology by the distinction between
autonomy and
reference ,
The
notion
of autonomy
is usually invoked in Western musicology to describe the way
in which music is understood, or conceived of, in terms of structures and processes
internal to itself
Goehr
(1992) suggests
that
the notion
of
the
autonomous
character
of
the musical
work
is specific to the
Romantic
aesthetic
of
the nineteenth century,
and
is
supported
by particular kinds
of
musical practices. These structures and
processes are largely understood nor only aswholly intramusical
but
also, intra-opus,
i
confined to the work in question. In practice, this is an extreme posit ion to take:
it may be
that many of
the structures
and
processes within a work can only be
understood
by
virtue of their
occurrence in
other
works. An example
of this
is
the
cadence:
if
it
occurred only
within a single piece it
would
be
unlikely to
be understood as a category - so even though it is an intramusical process it is
understood only by virtue
of
its extra-opus existence.
This
seems to leave
only
pure
sound i e acousmatic sound), as truly autonomous ,
and
the extent and role
of
this
kind
of perception in listening remains to be established (seeWindsor, 2000 for
a discussion)3.
In
COntrast to the ideology
of
autonomy. reference is the capacity
of
music to
be associated with. or signify objects and events external to music, and/or external
to a specific piece of music. The social and cultural associations of materials,
their meanings, structural organisation, and socio-historical specificity have been
(1) This distinction is also implicit in the
two
strands of research into timbre: timbre as a set of
auditory attributes (e.g. McAdams, Winsberg and Donnadieu, 1995; Slawson, 1985), and timbre as
a vehicle for source identity e g McAdams, 1993).
(2) A similar point is made by Windsor (1995).
(3) In this respect,there isa difference between the pair autonomy and reference , and the pair
musical and everyday listening: lthough reference mapsonto specification ,
utonomy
is not equivalent to acoustic characteristics,since it is commonly usedto refer to an understanding
of music in terms of musical structures and processes e g c dences appogiaturas) which can be
thought of as objects specified by sound.
6
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
4/35
Music
percepncn
and musical material
NICOLAD EN
discussed within semiotic analyses of Western classical music
e.g.
Agawu, 1991;
Hatten, 1994), popular music (Tagg, 1982), and cognitive musicology (Gjerdingen,
1988). This treatment
of
material is also apparent in
less
explicitly semiotic, but
equally historically sensitive readings of particular works e.g. Clarke, 1993;
Johnson, 1998). According to such accounts (partly informed by the work
of
the
philosopher Theodor Adorno), music is viewed as having sedirnented meanings:
associations and functions acquired by virtue of their historical usage. For example,
in his analysis of the first of Webern s 3
ink Pieces
for
Cello
nd
Piano
Op,
Johnson interprets the hair-pin dynamics as hallmarks of romantic lyricism and the
arpeggiated chord as a declamatory devicederiving from the use of the harpsichord
in Baroque recitative, and so on (Figure 1).
illll l l l
. . .0
n
,
.
pp >ppp =
I
II-
Figure7.
Webern.
Three little
Pieces
for CelloandPiano,
Op. 77/1 b. 7-2 ,
One of the domains of research in which the ideology of autonomy has been
at its strongest is in research on music perception. Research on perception and
cognition of music has tended to focus on music as raw materials rather than as
socially or historically constituted. For example, it has been widely proposed, or
assumed, within both music theory and the cognitive psychology
of
music, that
listeners hear relationships between abstract underlying structures in music, as well
as surface relationships, and that a hierarchy of tonal structures is fundamental to
the listening experience: a dominant example of this paradigm is the
Generative
Theory
o Tonal usic (Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983)4. Even within the social
psychology of music, musical material is largely ignored: instead music is treated as
an event co-existent with some other activity or interaction, and the relationship
between how music is used and its internal characteristics is rarely considered. Thus,
(4) Even
models
of reductional listeningfail to reduce the
musical surface
away
entirely, however:
both
members
of the perfect cadence haveto
be
retained in Lerdahl and
Jackendoff s reductional
representation of tonal pieces due to itscompositional functionasa dosuralarchetype
(see
Dibben,
1996, ch. 7), leavingthe theory open to historical
style analysis
(Clarke, 1986; Spitzer, 1996).
:
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
5/35
Gaver s equating of musical listening with hearing music in terms of its acoustic
characteristics reflects the reception ideology of the autonomous art work which
pervades psychological approaches to music.
One
of the reasons for the unwillingness to tackle other kinds of listening, and
the perception of music in terms other than those of its acoustic characteristics, has
been an assumption that hearing of this sort is arbitrary and subjective. Gaver
argues:
This line of reasoning suggem that hearing a passing plane is more arbitrary than
hearing the pitch or loudness of the sound it makes, because the information provided
from memory or experience depends on the individual, and may simply be wrong.
(Gaver, 1993b, pp. 286-287).
Gaver s response
this position is to show that source specification is
not
as
arbitrary as assumed, and a similar argument ismade by Clarke (1999) and Windsor
(1995,2000) in relation to music, both of whom, drawing on ecological acoustics,
argue that sounds directly specify cultural meanings. My focus here is somewhat
different from this since I do
not
argue solely for the consistency
of
perception,
but
for the importance of recognising and investigating differences in the kinds of
things which people hear when they hear music. To argue that hearing a passing
plane is more arbitrary than hearing the pitch or loudness of the sound because it
relies on memory or experience is to confuse arbitrariness with subject differences.
alternative wayofviewing this situation, and one which ismuch more congruent
with contemporary theories of musical meaning, is to consider why
and
when
listeners hear what they hear: when does a listener pay attention to a sound s
specification of its source, for instance, as opposed to the sound s acoustic attributes?
If
two listeners hear the same sound in terms of two different sources then why is
this?
nd
what other kinds
of
category
of
event can music specify?By broadening
the discussion to encompass these questions the focus becomes an enquiry into the
perception ofmeaning rather than an investigation into two kinds of listening.
W T EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS 111ERE FOR 111E PERCEPTION OF MUSIC
IN TERMS OF EI111ER MUSICAL OR EVERYD Y LISTENING?
One
direct way to discoverwhat people hear when they listen to sounds is simply to
ask them. A number of studies of this sort have been conducted using everyday
sounds. Vanderveer (1979) presented listeners with recorded examples of everyday
sounds and asked them to write a short phrase describing each sound. She found
that listeners tended to describe sounds in terms
of
the objects or events that caused
them, and that only when they could not identify the sound did they describe it
in terms
of
its acoustic characteristics. Listeners descriptions are often extremely
accurate: for example, listeners are able to distinguish the sounds
of
someone
running upstairs from those
of
someone running downstairs, can make accurate
estimations
of
the size
of
objects dropped into water, and can tell the size
of
a
6
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
6/35
Musicperception and
musical
material
NICOLA DIBBEN
receptacle that water ispoured into (Gaver, 1988). There ismuch empirical evidence
for the consistency and accuracy of source specification (seeWindsor, 2000).
These kinds
of
descriptive tasks have also been used with music. Baily (1996)
interviewed a number of musician and non-musician Herati Afghanistanis about
their perceptions of a collection of sounds, ranging from inanimate and animate
sounds (such as a dog barking) to various forms of speech and song. From the results
of this study Baily concluded that:
..[...J
sounds are not perceived and evaluated in terms of their acoustical properties, bur in
relation
the agencies which produce them. Sounds are symbols of things that give rise
them. Evaluations might therefore be based on the sounds themselves or on the
agencies
mat
have produced them.
Baily.
1996. P: 170).
So, for example, in response to the question which asked listeners to evaluate the
sound ( Was the sound a good or a bad sound? ), Baily found that sounds tended
be evaluated in terms
of
their social context: the sound of a dog barking was
consistently described as a bad sound , by virtue of the fact that they are often
found in Herar as watchdogs, and are therefore potentially dangerous, and also
because the dog is regarded as an unclean animal. Baily makes a similar distinction
to that between musical and everyday listening, again attributing it to differences
in the listening experience (specifically, cultural differences) rather than to differences
in the sounds themselves:
y
suspicion is that Afghans do not generally perceive sounds as abstract entities, as pure
sounds, in the way that Europeans may do.
Baily,
1996. p. 173).
The
implication of Baily s research, and of his conclusion, is that musical listening
is a culturally specific listening aesthetic
5.
Despite the apparent ubiquity of an understanding of musical material as socially
constituted within musicology, few empirical studies have explicitly investigated
the perception of such meanings. Those studies that have investigated meaning
and
music have tended to focus on general effects
of
musical works
and
their
emotive properties, correlation of particular musical structures with the chills and
thrills experienced by listeners, the emotive and meaningful properties of elemental
parameters, and their realisation and manipulation in performance (see Juslin and
Sloboda, 2001).
Only
a few studies explicitly investigate perception of musical
ropoi, and although these indicate that topics do playa role in the perception of
music they are much less specific about the particular topical content perceived
{ g
Krumhansl, 1998; Ch ng, Rasmussen, Stockwell and Huron (cited in Huron, 1999).
One
of the few people to have investigated the perception of meaning in Western
music explicitly in terms of historical materials is Frances who identified historical-
5 For further discussion of the cultural specificity of listening practices see Small 1998 and
h
World usic vol. 2 1997 and vol. 4 1999 .
6
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
7/35
cultural significations only available to the experienced listener (Frances, 1988). He
conducted experiments in which he asked subjects to listen to extracts of music and
to
attribute a title to the piece they heard. Analysis
of
semantic responses found
evidence for correlation of arrributes of sound and extramusical concepts (a finding
also supported in a more recent empirical study of perception of television theme
tunes (Tagg and Clarida, in press). Frances suggests that reference to a particular
style, genre, or instrumental source brings with it the cultural-historical context of
that style:
With regard to timbre [...
J
the connect ion we make with bucolic for the flute,
woodland for the horn, and religious or martial for the organ or trumpet is purely
conventional. The origins of these stereotypes lie in usage and very old traditions, though
their effects persist in our time in altered form.
is not the sound of the accordion that
is working class ; it is the instrument itself, the ambiences associated with it. These sons
of associations of belonging seem widespread, judging from the examples extracted from
these experiments. (Frances, 1988, p. 318).
In sum, empirical evidence suggests that listeners hear sounds (both musical and
everyday) in terms of their sources and cultural specifications rather than exclusively
in terms of their acoustic characteristics. Evidence suggests that these categories are
automatic and unconscious, that some are easier to hear than others, and that they
are learned passively during the continuous process of enculturation. By contrast,
the reception ideology of Western art music suggests that listeners attend to the
acoustic characteristics of musical sounds. nthe basis of this, I make two claims
which build upon Gaver s notion ofsource specification and his distinction between
everyday and musical listening. First, along with other commentators
k
Clarke and Windsor) I argue that listening
to
music involves listening to what it
specifies e g the physical source of its production, its cultural specifications, and its
compositional character), just as much as it involves listening to the acoustic
characteristicsof the sounds themselves. AsGaver (1993, 2) remarks, the distinction
relates to the listening experience, not the sounds themselves. Second, I extend the
notion of source specification to encompass not only the specification
of
physical
sources bysounds, but the specificationof cultural categories, compositional functions
(Clarke and Dibben, 1997), and other kinds of meanings (described below). In
order to discover the kinds
of
specifications which listeners hear, and their relative
frequency and strength two experimental studies were carried out and are reported
below.
EXPERIMENT 1
A methodology for investigating the perception of musical material (and a way
of understanding these two kinds of listening as w kinds of categorisation) is
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
8/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
9/35
listeners to choose the twO most similar sounds from a group three sounds
containing conflicting possible pairings. These pairings were intended to be based
either on acoustic resemblance or common specification. Within this, three types
specification were used (based on Clarke and Dibben, 1997): physical source e g
clarinet sounds), genre e g contemporary British Dance music), and structural
function e g cadence). By pitting these two possible listening experiences against
each other the study investigated the extent to which the two types
listening play
a role in listeners judgements within the experimental context, and the effect
musical expertise.
METHOD
Participants. Thirty paid participants, aged between eighteen and seventy-four,
took part in the experiment. Fifteen expert listeners had received formal musical
training on a Western classical instrument for at least eight years and were currently
studying music at University, and 15 novice listeners had no formal musical
training other than that received through compulsory British school education.
Materials. Forty-eight different sounds were used, consisting a mixture of real
world/everyday sounds e g motorbike engine revving, the patter rain, etc.),
musical sounds
e g
an oboe, a synthesised flute) and musical excerpts
e g
violin
cadenza from a violin concerto, excerpt gamelan music) (see the Appendix for a
complete list
sounds used). Sounds were presented to listeners in 24 groups
three sounds
e g
the sound
heavy rain, frying, and a stream). In each case, the
group three sounds presented conflicting pairings: two the three sounds were
related by acoustic resemblance
e g
the sound frying and heavy rain), and two
were related by having sources with common features te g: heavy rain and stream)
(see Figure 2).
Frying Heavy
rain>
Stream
J
Acoustic resemblance
Common
specification
Figure
Configuration of the soundtriads
used
in Experiment 7.
Each pair bearing an acoustic resemblance appeared twice, each time with a
different third sound (in order to exhaust the possiblepairings). Acoustic resemblance
8
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
10/35
Music perception and musical material
NI OL
D EN
was
pined
against three types of common specification: common source
e g
water),
common structural function e g cadence), and common genre
e g
dance music)
seeTable 1 for a list
of
the sound triads wed).
Table 1
Sound triads used in Experiment
Acoustic resemblance
I ommon specification
Sound A Sound B
Sound C
Source
Heavy rain
TIger
Flute blown
Vinyl hiss
Frying Stream
Stirring
Motorbike Car passes at speed
t miaowing
Flute synthesised Oboe synthesised
Flute keys
Fire crackle Firework display
Vinyl scratch
Structural
function
Atonal ending fast Atonal opening fast Atonal ending slow
Atonal opening slow
Haydn long perfect Haydn short
cadence imperfect cadence
Webern orchestral Gamelan slow
gamelan sound
Genre
Violin cadenza
Beethoven short
perfect cadence
Jungle chord
Violin theme
Beethoven long
imperfect cadence
Classical chord
arpeggiared
Haydn long
imperfect cadence
Haydn short perfect
cadence
Violin theme high
register
Vocal cadenza
Beethoven long
perfect cadence
Beethoven shorr
imperfect cadence
Classical chord
appogiatura
Jungle extract
Gamelan-like
voices
Webern orchestral
Gamelan slow with Dance music slow Dance music fast
melody
Koto duet Flamenco guitar
duet
Gamelan voices]
Flamenco song
Japanese vocals
NB: is used in two different sound triads, therefore there are 47 different
sounds used in total rather than 48.
9
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
11/35
Equipment.
Some materials were taken from commercially available recordings,
while others were specially recorded using high quality audio recording equipment.
These sounds were recorded
onto
compact disc and played back via headphones
from the internal CD drive
of
the computer. Playbackwas controlled by the subjects
via a user interface written using MAX software.
Procedure. Participants were seated at a computer with a user interface which
allowed sounds to be played from the computer over headphones by using a mouse
and cursor to click icons displayed on screen. Participants were told they would hear
24 sets
of
three sounds
and
were to listen to the sounds carefully
and
decide which
two of the three sounds were most similar, related, or belonged together the most .
The sets of three sounds were presented in the same randomised order for all
participants,
and
labelled from A
to
X on the
computer
screen. Participants could
hear each sound as many rimes as they wished by clicking on the appropriate icon
with the mouse and indicated their choices by clicking on a box next to the icon,
Once
they had made their choice for the first set of three sounds (set A) they then
clicked on B, C, and so on. After completing all 24 trials the participant s choices
were saved
to
computer
and the experimenter then ran through each choice asking
the participant why he
or
she had chosen those particular sounds.
REsULTS
Results were coded using participants verbal justifications for making the pairings
given after completing the task: a pair were counted as similar by virtue of common
specification or acoustic resemblance only when the listener gave an (unprompted)
verbal indication that one or other formed the basis for their judgement.
Participants never used the terms common specification or acoustic resemblance ,
but gave enough information to infer one or the other from their answers. Some
examples of verbal justifications
of
categorisation by source are: triad ,
, -
They
are both the sound ofwater (novice); of genre: (triad
, ,
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
12/35
Music perception and musical material
NICOL Dl EN
Table 2
requency of simil rity s
function
of experience
acoustic resemblance
common
specification
total
expert
274
86
36
novice
276
84
36
total
55
170
720
Although this result suggests that common specification is not a factor which
listeners use when judging the similarity
of sounds, this result
was
analysed further
to
obtain
more informat ion. Table 3 shows the mean frequency
of
the three
different types of common specification by expertise musically novice
versus
expert
listeners). These means are all very low in relation to the total of 24 trials, reflecting
the greater tendency on the part of listeners to choose the sounds related by acoustic
resemblance.
Table 3
e n
frequency
of different types of
specific tion
source
genre
function
mean
expert
novice
mean
1.7 2
1.8
1.9 1.2
1.6
I 0
5
1.5
1.3
A two-factor repeated measures ANOVA shows no effectof experience [F0 28 2.1,
P >.05],
but
a significant effect of the different types of specification
[F 2,56) =8.772, P
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
13/35
or compositional function. There are a number of possible reasons for this. First.
it may be that listeners were unsure of the physical sources of the sounds n
therefore paid more attention to their acoustic characteristics than might otherwise
have been the case. This would be in line with Gaver s finding that listeners pay
more attention to the acoustic qualities of sounds when the source is unknown
or ambiguous than when it is known (Gaver. 1988). However, from listeners
justifications of their choices there is every indication that listeners were able to
identify the sources of the sounds presented (a conclusion also confirmed in
Experiment 2 - see below).
A second possibility is that the particular listening situation of the experiment
predisposes listeners towards attending to the sounds acoustic properties rather than
to its source. Participants sat at a computer listening to sounds over headphones in
a room in a University music department. all of which privilege lisrening to a
sound s acoustic characteristics. Compare hearing the sound of an approaching car
in these conditions with hearing the same sound in the context of crossing the street.
In this context it would be dangerous to focus on the acoustic characteristics of the
car; instead one focuses on what the sound affords/means, i e large metal object
bearing down at speed.
A third possible explanation of the prevalence of categorisation due to acoustic
resemblance may lie in the task participants performed: listeners were asked to judge
similarity in the absence of motivating factors which may have privileged sounds
acoustic resemblance over other shared properties. These findings seem to confirm
that the default mode for perception of similarity is perceptual resemblance. n
that in the absence of any motivating context or task listeners revert to acoustic
resemblance when making similarity classifications (as implied by research into
similarity and categorisation in cognitive psychology,
e g
Hampton. 1997).
TYPE OF SPECIFICATION: SOURCE, FUNCTION, GENRE
Although the overwhelming majority of similarity judgements given by participants
were based upon acoustic resemblance rather than common specification, there were
some significant differences in the frequency with which subjects chose sounds
according to the different types of specification: in particular, structural function
was
by far the least commonly cited basis for similarity, and the most dependent
upon the amount of experience of the listener (despite evidence from the study by
Huron
et l
(1999) that identification of rhetorical functions in classical music was
not dependent upon musical training).
Listeners own justifications of their similarity judgements reveal that some
experienced listeners are sensitive to the structural function of musical excerpts:
for example. two participants justified their pairing
of
a violin cadenza and vocal
cadenza as having the same function of a cadenza, and another participant
implicitly referred to this structural function remarking that both are the climax
of
a piece or a bridge to another section . However, a number of subjects, including
,7:z
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
14/35
Music perception
n
musical material
NI OL D EN
some experts did not choose the pair related by cadential function, choosing
instead the conflicting pairing due to acoustic resemblance (in this case, an excerpt
with the same number
of
chords and articulation but a different harmonic structure
and musical function). may be that different participants paid attention
to
different
attributes of the sound: for example, a number ofparticipants commented that what
in fact was an imperfect cadence (and therefore harmonically unfinished) sounded
final. appears that these listeners were responding to some cadential features of
the music e g rhythm and voicing) despite the lack of closure in the harmonic
structure. These subjects failure to use pitch structure as a basis for grouping similar
extracts may be due
to
a simple failure to recognise the pitch basis for cadential
function, rather than an unwillingness to use it as the basis for grouping extracts,
This would certainly be congruent with other researchfindings that novice listeners
are more likely to focus on the rhythmic and textural attributes of extracts than their
harmonic structure (Frances, 1988).
T
EFFECf OF EXPERIENCE
Little overall difference was revealed between expert and novice listeners: both
were equally likely to base their judgement of similarity on acoustic resemblance or
common specification. However, closer examination of the results reveals evidence
for the influence ofspecific expert knowledge and experience on the use
of
common
specification.
For example, out of the three sounds, , ckoto duet> and
, only one listener chose the koro and Japanese singing as similar
on the basis they were both Japanese . Notably, this listener is Taiwanese and is
familiar with Japanese music. A second example is provided by the fact that all
parricipants, with the exception of one, chose the real and synthesised flute sounds
as similar over the sound of
the synthesised oboe. The one participant
to
choose the
two synthesised instruments was the only first-study flautist included in the study.
These results highlight the influence of individual differences in expertise, and more
general background and experience, on the perception
of
meanings.
METIiODOLOGICAL
ISSU S
Experiment 1 provides some useful information regarding the relative frequency
with which different kinds of
similarity are used by listeners in an experimental
situation, and provides some evidence that listeners are sensitive
to
different features
of sounds and their specification of a cultural or physical source. However, these
results should be tempered by two main methodological issues. First, the binary
decision methodology obscures the possibility that listeners may recognise both
kinds
of
similarity because it obliges participants to choose only one pair. Listeners
own comments on their choices revealed that there was often some ambivalence
involved. For example, one participant remarked that although she chose the sound
of the motorbike and car as similar because both are vehicles, she could equally have
7
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
15/35
chosen tiger and bike due
to
their acoustic resemblance. Conversely, while she chose
frying and rain, it could equally have been rain and stream because both are water
sounds
i e
they share a
Common
specification).
Thus
although the results
of
the study suggest that most listeners focus on acoustic resemblance in making
similarity judgments, listeners comments often revealed an awareness of both
acoustic resemblance
and
specification
of
a physical source, structural function or
cultural source. There may be different groups of listeners, for some of whom the
task involved a choice between two competing pairings and for others of whom
there wasonly one (or perhaps not even that) obvious choice. The experiment makes
some allowance for this by asking participants why they made the choices they did,
but the task nonetheless remains forced-choice.
Second, each sound triad is a particular realisation
of
acoustic resemblance
v sus
common specification, and not all pairs within triads may be perfectly matched. The
ideal
to
which the triads aspire is a situation in which two sounds have a common
source but share little physical (acoustic) resemblance. n extreme cross-sensory
example of this is the following three stimuli: the sound of a fire crackling, the smell
of smoke and a crisp packet rustling. The smell of smoke and the sound of a fire
burning specify a common source of fire despite no sensory similarity, while the
sound of a fire burning and the rustling of a crisp packet share acoustic resemblance
and an absence of a common physical source. This is an ideal which the triads
exemplify with different degrees
of
success.
Although this study only investigated the perception of structural functions, and
common genres, the study could be extended to investigate the perception of other
types of specification , such as cultural codes e g sigh motif) and social contexts
e g religiousworship, dance). nthe basisof these findings a second experiment was
carried out in order
to
elicit more information regarding the range of specifications
which sounds afford listeners and
to
investigate individual differences further.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 1 indicated that listeners are sensitive to the acoustic characteristics
of musical and everyday sounds, and their specification of a cultural or physical
source, and suggests that in the absence of any other context, listeners revert to
a default mode of judging similarity which is in terms of sounds acoustic
characteristics. What experiment does not indicate however, is the range of
specifications which sounds can make
i e
the range of meanings
to
which sounds
give rise), and the extent to which individual differences determine which of these
is salient. A second experiment was therefore designed to elicit free descriptions of
sounds in order to gather information on the range
of
specifications which
listeners hear.
7
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
16/35
Music
p r ption
andmusicalmaterial
NICOl D1BBEN
METHOD
Participants. Thiny-four unpaid volunteers participated in this study. Participants
were aged between 16 nd 49, and were living in or around Sheffield. Ten of the
participants had at least eight years of formal music training in instrumental lessons,
at school and/or university and were currently either studying or teaching music.
he
other participants had received no formal training additional to that offered in
the pre-GCSEI O Level British school curriculum, although some were practically
involved in other forms of music making such as popular music. None had taken
part in the previous study.
Materials.
he
same 48 sound examples from the previous experiment were used
(seeAppendix). These were presented in the same randomised order for all listeners
with a three second silence between. he random ordering was constrained to avoid
sounds from the same sound triad appearing consecutively (see Experiment 1 for
details of the triads used).
Equipment.
he
sound examples were played to participants over a high quality
amplifier and speakers.
Procedure. Participants were presented with each of the sound examples in turn
and asked
to
write a short sentence, or fewwords describing what you hear .
REsULTS
Consistency. Table 4 shows the frequencies of descriptions given for each sound
example , Most sounds elicited either identical or highly related descriptions,
however a few sounds proved to be more difficult to identify
e g
and
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
17/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
18/35
Music perception and musical
material
NICOL Dl EN
Flamenco
Guitar 25), Spanish I 5), classicalguitar 6), Flamenco 2), Morroco 2),
guitar duet
laid back 2), Tango, romantic, Mexican, Latin, South American, jazz, free
improvisation, harp, strings, arpeggio, restaurant
musk.
Keto duet
Oriental 9), Japanese 8), Chinese 7), plucked/muck string instrument 9),
Asian 2), Middle Eastern 2), Koto 2), harp, sitar, guitar, Indian, Eastern,
Mandolin, Latin-American, Greece.
Motorbike
Motorbike 31), setting off
II ,
motor car 2), passing 2), vehicle.
starts and departs
Tiger
Lionltiger/bear roaring 31), dinosaur 2), dog, further away at first.
Cat miaowing
Cat 2 9), distressed 8), a fake car 5), a baby 2).
Vocal cadenza
Opera 23), singer female) I 7), cadenza 7), Italy 3), aria 3), collorarura 2),
with orchestra 2), in pain, emotional, happy, strings, Mozart, romantic/classic,
falsetto.
Violin theme
Violin 32), concerto 5), happy/sad 4), relaxing 4), pizzicato chords 3),
formal occasion 3), classical 2), love, romance, hymn, Eastern European,
English, Baroque, court music from 1500s, nostalgia filmic flashback).
Violin cadenza
Violin 27), cadenza 5), cello 4), bee-like 3), classical 2), trilling 2), string
instrument, build-up, furious, running, frightened.
Beethoven short Piano 26), ending 9), 3 chords 5), happy, cheap show, wine music, strange
perfect cadence
opera music,
Beethoven short
Piano 27), chords 6), not an end 5), cadence 2), silent movies 2), happy,
imperfect cadence
lively, big hall, classical sonara, ballet,
Beethoven long
Piano 30), sad 5),romanric-sryle 3), silent movie music 2), transitional 2),
imperfect cadence
ending, jazz/blues, modern, concerto, concert hall, full chords, baller,
Webern
Flure/clariner 12), mysrery 8), film 7), contemporary art music 4), horror 3),
orchestral
orchestral 2), pipes, piercing, space music, outback music, African open plains,
strings.
Flute blown
Flu te 16), lon g-held note 8), ship s h orn 4), train horn 4), woodwind
instrument 3), slowish, piercing, Andes, tuning fork, homeless person/beggar.
Flute
Flute 13), single sustained note 8), synthesised flute 5), woodwind 3),
synthesised
high pitch 2), train whistle 3), pipes, wind. blowing over bottle, tuning up
an orchestra.
Oboe
Synthesised oboe 7), synthesised 5), fog horn 4), woodwind/oboe/clarinet/
synthesised
bassoon 5), horn 3), flute 2), tuning fork 2), train h orn, p en etrating ,
flar D.
Beethoven long
Piano 20), fast 10), classical 2), high to low ten sion 2), Beethoven 2),
perfect cadence
Mozart, early 19thC, mid-section, end of section, slowing, diminuendo.
Gamelan, slow
Oriental 10), bells 6), Balinese) gamelan 3), percussion-chimes 3), clock-
with melody
work 3), temple, Indian, pipes.
177
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
19/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
20/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
21/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
22/35
MU ic perception and mU icai material
NI OL D BBEN
changing
proximity:
e g
a
number of
participants described as revving
then
going away. Loudness was sometimes interpreted as physical proximity,
and
sometimes in terms
of
the size
of
the source
e g
dire
crackle> was described as
huge fire by one participant
and
as big bonfire, forest fire, house
burning
down
by another).
Physical space. Participants very occasionally mentioned the physical space
and
environment specified by
the
sound e g was described as a car
getting nearer and then passing on tarmac road, sounds like its in a bui lt up area ).
Performance
skill. The level
of
performance skill displayed in
the
sound was
mentioned
rarely,
but
across genres. So, for example, while a
number
of
participants
referred to as a DJ scratching or vinyl being scratched
one
musically
untrained
listener described the
sound
as someone
who
can t scratch .
Effects
of
experience.
The
specific expertise
of
participants seemed to influence
their
descriptions of sounds. For example,
one
participant (a
sound
engineer
undertaking a training course in music technology at the time
of
the study) was the
only person to refer to some sounds in terms
of
a specific synthesised source: he
described
and
as FM
synthesis -
DX7 and
described as an Equalised drumbeat .
A
number
of
participants
showed specific knowledge
of
classical
instrumental
performance techniques, describing sounds as on the bridge
and
pizzicato atonal
ending
st
and
col legno
atonal
opening, slows),
and
one participant heard a
sustained
wind sound
flute synthesised as tuning up an orchestra . A
number
of
participants identified excerpts in terms
of
the piece it came from:
was correctly identified as Beethoven violin concerto by one participant,
and
was
correctly
identified as
Goldie Inner
City Life by five
participants.
The
only people to identify the genre and cultural source
of
the east
Asian musics correctly (cgarnelan slow>
and
ckoro duet were one expertWesterner
(an erhnomusicologist specialising in the music
of
east Asia)
and
a Japanese student.
Contrary
to the findings
of
Experiment I,
both
trained
and
untrained
listeners
described
the sounds
in
Experiment
2 in terms
of
their musical funct ion: for
example, three musically trained participants described vocal cadenza as a
cadenza while two
untrained
participants described it in a way suggestive
of
its
musical function e g end
of
section ).
DISCUSSION
The
high level
of
consistency between the descriptions
of
sounds given in
Experiment
2 suggests
that
the comparisons made in Experiment
1
were largely
based
on
correct identifications. However, listeners descriptions
ofwhat
they heard
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
23/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
24/35
Music perception and musical material
NICOL Dl EN
suggestive
of
the kinds
of
forces which may be at work in determining the attributes
which are salient for particular listeners at particular moments.
CONCLUSIONS
he
results of experiment I indicate mat listeners are sensitive
to
both the acoustic
characteristics ofmusical material and to what materials specify : although listeners
based the majority
of
their judgements of the similarity of sounds on their acoustic
resemblance, they were often simultaneously aware of a conflicting pairing based on
common physical source, cultural source (genre), or compositional function.
Experiment 2 extended these findings by revealinga range of meanings specified by
sounds. Contrary to the findings of Experiment
I,
listeners most commonly
described sounds in terms other than their acoustic characteristics.
he
main finding
of this research is that listeners are sensitive
to
both the acoustic characteristics and
specifications ofsounds, but that one isprivilegedoveranother in particular contexts:
using a forced-choice binary decision Experiment
I
revealed the relative strength of
these two types of listening in the context of a similarity judgement; Experiment 2
revealed the influence of expertise and listener s background upon the specifications
heard.
These two studies suggest that the distinction between musical and
everyday listening (Gaver, 1993a and b) captures two ways
of
listening to sounds
bur that listening to music can involve listening
to
a sound s specification of source,
as well as to irs acoustic characteristics. For this reason I avoid the terms musical
and everyday (which confuse two ways of listening with two kinds of sounds) in
favour
of
the terms acoustic attributes and source specifications (where source is
extended to include cultural and musical sources). These studies indicate that
sounds specify
not
only physical sources, but culrural and musical attributes aswell
i Clarke and Windsor). These specifications are in this sense meanings which
sounds have for particular listeners.
What
a listener hearswhen he or she hears music
appears to be hearing as : materials with meanings guided by listeners needs and
preoccupations.
ne question this raises is when and why listeners adopt one listening mode
rather than another, and in terms of the perception of musical meaning, asks why it
is listeners perceive the meanings that they do. he studies reported here highlight
three possible reasons for the subjectivity of sound perception. First, listeners may
be mistaken in attributing meaning to a sound: for example, they may hear rain
instead
of
vinyl hiss . In this case the difference isdue
to
a false attribution. Second,
a listener may not know about certain culturally significant objects or events, e g
they may never have encountered the koto or any genres of Japanese music. In this
case differences arise as a product of differences of experience and expertise. Third,
the salience
of
particular attributes may differ for different people (and for the same
person in different contexts). is this last issue that I focus on in the rest of this
discussion.
8
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
25/35
The
studies reported here indicate that the kinds
of
specifications listeners hear
an d the kinds
of
listening strategy adopted differ according to the participant.
Drawing on ecological psychology
an d
its application
to
music (Clarke, 1999;
Windsor, 1995,2000 , these differences can be theorised asarising from the differing
preoccupations an d skills o f listeners in relation to the structure offered by sounds.
Whereas ecological psychology defines the affordances of objects in terms of the
needs
an d
preoccupations of an organism, these needs are rheorised here as also
political an d social, along lines suggested by Windsor (1995, 2000). In this instance,
when a listener hears posh rather
than
love scene or Beethoven s violin concerto,
they are providing a description in which the Beethoven violin concerto is directly
expressive
of
a social situation an d their relationship
to
it.
This
accounr
s
similar to perforrnarive theories
o f
musical meanings.
DeNora
argues that what people do when they use music in everydaylife, iswhat musicologists
an d analysts do when they write about music - mobilise particular meanings:
Telling what the meaning is, and deftly deflecting dispreferred meanings and readings,
is pa n and parcel of the semiotic skills of daily life. We need ro learn to see professional
semioticians in a similar vein - as mobilizing particular features of utterances in order
to produce meanings [.. .
J
Readings, even highly professional ones, become just that
particular interpretations, particular mobilizations of texts. (DeNora, 2000, p. 38).
Directly influenced by ecological theory,
DeNora
argues that interpretations are
no t
simply unconstrained: Meaning, or semiotic force, is not an inherent property
of
cultural materials, whether those materials are linguistic, technological, or aesthetic.
At the same time, materials are by no means empty
semiotic spaces (DeNora, 2000,
P:
38). An ecological stance on this is that meaning arises from the mutuality
of
object
and
perceiver,
an d
sounds specify meanings and values for particular listeners,
som
or one of which can be mobilised at particular moments. In this way music is
implicated in the construction of identities, an d in the social an d political context
of everyday life.
Windsor s
more explicitly ecological account
of
interpretation argues
that
aesthetic objects afford interpretation because they deny the possibility o fexploration
with the other perceptual
s ns s
one w ould normally use to
make
s ns
of
information (Windsor, 1995, 2000), an d offers an explanation of the discursive
practices surrounding music which has many analogies with that of perforrnative
theories of meaning:
Where the immediate information from a particular source
is
insufficient the human
being not only hunts for additional information ftom the natural environment but also
8) Performative theories of meaning the idea that meaning is constructed through performative
acts) derive from speech act theory and have been influential in performance e g Schechner
1988), in music criticism and writings of the
n w
musicology e.g ramer 1990), and in gender
studies e.g. Butler, 1990).
8
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
26/35
usic percepti n and musical material
NICOLADIBBEN
from the social and culrural environment. By observing the actions of others, exploring
cultural artefacts. by involvement in discussionwith others, information may be gathered
which supplements that provided by the event or object in question. (Windsor, 2000,
p 21
According
to
this account, aesthetic objects afford the production
of
signs because
there is
not
enough information to make sense of them, and the discursive practices
surrounding music become part of this sense making .
There
is also a need to consider the role
of
context in the mobilisation
of
meanings. Applied to the real-world situations in which people experience music,
the results of the studies reported here suggest that particular musical practices, such
as
the
location
in which the music occurs,
and
the physical relationship
of
the
listener
the music within that location, are both aspects which will influence what
aspects
of
the music the listener attends to Similarly, received theory as to how one
should listen to the music may be equally important (for example, accompanying
information provided in the form of program notes, or
enculrurarion
into particular
kinds of listening
practices and
aesthetic attitudes)
i
Cook, in press). Particular
compositional practices may also privilege one or other listening mode: compare, for
example, the treatment of everyday sounds in the electroacousric music of
Stockhausen (in which conventional associations between sound
and
world are
largely avoided)
u sus
that
of
Trevor
Wishan
(where the everyday associations
of
sounds are an integral
pan of
the structure and motivation
of
works) (Windsor,
1996a
and b, 2000).
The
studies reported here highlight the need for further research into the way in
which meanings are taken up by different listeners. The notion that materials come
with
and
are heard in terms of social
and
historical meanings presupposes that the
listener is familiar with and aware of these meanings. To the extent that these meanings
and associations are pan of a common cultural experience and musical repertoire
shared by listeners, listeners may in fact share a more common understanding
of
materials
and
their meanings than may at first appear to be the case.
(It
is easy
to
assume that our hearings
of
music are completely idiosyncratic, yet the meanings
of
material are based on material properties
and
their social
and
historical associations,
on which there is a high degree of agreernent.) This is not to deny the differences
that arise between listeners experiences of music, but it implies that the meanings
that
listeners perceive are partly a product of differences in the perception
of
material
and the associations
that
material has for listeners: it is the simple recognition that
meaning is always meaning for someone. This is equivalent to the recognition in
Other cultural domains that the meanings of a text are a product of the subject
position
of
the listener
and
their particular reading competence
k
Gledhill,
1997), and that meanings are mobilised according to the needs of the moment
as well as according to more established (listening) practices. Thus, the notion that
meaning
is mediated by musical materials does not mean that that meaning is
8
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
27/35
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
28/35
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DIBllEN
R F R N S
Agawu,
V.
K
1991).
Playing
with
signs.
Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press.
Baily, 1996). Using tests of sound perception in fieldwork. ~ r o o k for TraditionalMusic 147
73.
Butler, P 1990). Gmdn
troubk:
Feminism
and the
subversion
idmtity
NewYork: Routledge.
Clarke, D. 1993). Parting Glances. The
Musical Times
December, 680-84.
Clarke, E. E
1 986 ). Theor y, analysis and the psychology of music: A
critical
evaluation
of
Lerdahl, E
and
]ackendoff, R. A
Generative
Theory
of
Tonal Music. Psychology Music
14,3-16.
Clarke. E. E 1999). Subject position and the specification of invariants in music by Frank Zappa
and P.]. Harvey. Music
Analysis
18 3 ,347-74.
Clarke. E. E.
Dibben, N. 1997). An ecological approach to similarity and categorisation in
music. In M. Ramscar, U. Hahn, E. Cambouropolos and H. Pain. eels). Proceedings of
SimCat 1997: An Interdisciplinary Workshop on Similarity and Caugorisation pp. 37
41). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
C oo k, N. 19 98) . AnalysingMusical Multimedia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cook, N. in press). Theorising musical meaning. Music Theory Spectrum
23
De Nora, T. 2000). Musicin
Everyday lift
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dib ben , N. 1996). The Rok
Rtduaional presentations in the Perception of Atonal
Music.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Frances, R.
1988). The
Perception
Music Translarion W:]. Dowling). Hillsdale, N]: Lawrence
Erlbau m Associates.
Gaver.
1988).
Everyday
listening andauditory
icons.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San
Diego, CA: University of California.
Gaver, W 1993a).
Whar
in the w orld do we hear? An ecological a pproac h to a udit ory event
perception.
Ecological Psychology S
1), 1-29.
Gaver,
1993b).
How
do we hear in the world? Explorations of ecological acoustics,
Ecological Psychology. 5 4), 285-313.
G je rdinge n, R. O. 1988). A classic turn of
phrase.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gledhill.
C.
1997). Genre and gender:
The
case of soap opera. In S. Hall. ed.), Representation:
Cultural
Represmtations
and
SignifYing Practice
pp, 337-86 . L on do n: Sage
Publications.
Goehr, L 1992).
The
Imaginary Museum
Musical
Works:
An
Essay
in the
Philosophy Music.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hampton, l997 . Similarity and Categorization. In M. Rarnscar, U.
Hahn,
E. Cambouropolos
and H. Pain. eels ,
Procudings
SimCat 1997: An Interdisciplinary Workshop on
Similarityand
Categorisation pp, 103-09). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
Hatten, R. 19 94) . Musical meaning in Beethoven:
Markedness.
correlation and
interpretation.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Huron, D. 1999). Music and Mind: Foundations
of
Cognitive Musicology. The1999 Ernst
Bloch
Lectures
Universiry
of
California,
Berkeley.
http://dacryJ.som.ohio-stare.
edulMusic220/Bloch.lecrures/Bloch.lecrures.hrml.
J oh ns on , ]. 1 99 8).
The
nature of abstraction: Analysis and rhe Webern myrh. Music Analysis
17 3 ,267-80.
8
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
29/35
[uslin, P Sloboda. J. A. eds, 2001). Musicand
Emotion:
T h ~ o r y andRmarch Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kramer.
L.
1990).
Music as
cultural practice
1800 1900
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Krumhansl, C. L. 1998). Topic in Music: An Empirical S tudy of Memorability, Openess,
and
Emotion in Mozart s String Quinter in C m aj or and Beethoven s S tring Quartet in A
minor. Music
Perception
16. 119-34.
Lerdahl
E.
Jackendoff, R. 1983).
A
Generatio Theory Tonal Music. Cambridge.
MA:
MIT
Press.
McAdams, S. I993 .
The
recognition of sound sources and events. In S. McAdams and
E. B ig an d
eds), Thinking in Sound: o g n i t i l ~
Psychology
Human Audition
pp. 146-98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, S., Winsberg. S., Donnadieu, S. 1995). Perceptual scaling
of
synthesised musical
rimbres:
Common
dimensions,
speciflclries,
and l aten t
subject
classes.
Psychological
starch
58 3 ,177-92.
Schechner, R. 1988). Pnformanu t h ~ o r y Revised Edition). New York: Routledge.
Slawson, W. 1985).
SoundColor.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Small,
C.
1998).
Musicking:
The m ~ a n i n g s pnforming and listming: Hanover London:
Weslyan University Press.
Spitzer, M. 1996). The rerransition as sign -listener-orientated approaches to ronal closure in
Haydn Sonata-form movements. Journal Royal Musical Association 121 I , 11
45.
Tagg, 1982). Analysing popular music: Theory.
method
and practice. Popular Music. 2. 37-67.
Tagg, P Clarida, B. in press). Ten nk
Tunes.
Vanderveer. N. ]. 1979). Ecological acoustics: Human perception of environmental sounds.
Dissertation
Abstracts International;
40. 4543B University Microfilms No. 80-04.002).
Windsor.
W.
L. 1995). A P c ~ t u a l
Approach
to Deuriptionand
Analysis
Acousmatic
Music.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City University. London.
Windsor,
W.
L. 19900). Perceptionand signification in electroacoustic music. In R. Monelle and
C. T. Gray eds), Song
and
signification pp. 64-74). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University,
Faculty
of
Music,
Windsor, W. L
l996b .
Autonomy. Mimesis and Mechanical Reproduction in Contemporary
Music, Contemporary Music Rndeu; 15 I , 139-50.
Windsor.
W.
L. 2000). Through and
around
the acousrnaric the interpretation of elecrroacousric
sounds. In S. Emmerson. ed.), Music. Electronic
~ d i a and u l t u r ~
pp.7-35).
Aldershot: Ashgare.
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
30/35
Musicperception and musical
m t ri l
NICOL DlBBEN
DIS OGR PHY
Essenrial
Sound
Effects BBC CD 792 1990.
Bjork
Homogmic.
CD 32744 [Japan] 1998.
Ecleai
Classical Impressions
Garklnd
Encyclopedi of
World
Music vol. 4. Garland Publishing 1998.
The Glenn Gould Edition BtttholJm Piano
Sonatas SM3K 52 642.
Goldie
Timeless
828 646 2 1995.
Haytin String Quarttts
op 6.
no.sl B
KodalyQuartet Naxos CD 8.550314 1989.
Spooky Found Sound.GENR l 540 534 2 1996.
Webern
Complete
~ r s SM3K45845 1991.
WorldSound Mattas.
Schott
Co. ED 12572 1996.
9
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
31/35
Appendix
Sound examples
1. Heavy Rain BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990
2. Frying.
3. Stream
BBC
Essential
SoundEfficts, 1990
4. Haydn long perfect cadence Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 2, mvt 1,
b 152/2-154. Haydn StringQuartets. op.
76
no.s 1-3, 1989).
5. Haydn short imperfect cadence Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 3, rnvt 4,
b 123-4.
Haydn String
Quartets. op. 76 no.s 1-3, 1989).
6. Haydn short perfect cadence Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 1, rnvr 1, b. 1
2 Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76
no.s 1-3,1989).
7. Webern, orchestral gamelan sound FivePieces for Orchestra, op. 10, no. 3, b. 1
4 Webern: Compkte ~ r s 1991
8. Gamelan-like voices Cakepung song Pemungkah . Garland
Encyclopedia
World
Music, 1998
9. Gamelan, slow excerpt from Balinese music for Gamelan Gong Cede,
~ r
Sound
Matters,
1996
10. Fire crackle BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990
11. Vinyl
hiss.
12. Vinyl scratch.
13. Flamenco song excerpt from Came flamenco .
~ r
Sound
Matters,
1996
14. Flamenco guitar duet excerpt from Bjork So Broken . Bjork
Homogenic,
1998).
15. Koto duet.
16. Motorbike starts and departs
BBC
Essential
Sound
Efficts, 1990
17. Tiger sound of growling tiger) BBC
Essential
SoundEfficts, 1990
18. Cat miaowing
BBC
Essential
Sound
Efficts, 1990
19. Vocal cadenza Mozart, Exultate, Jubilate Motet in F Major, KV 165, cadenza.
Ecleai Classical Impressions).
20. Violin theme Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61, vt 1, b. 511
518/1 Eclecti
Classical
Impressions).
21. Violin cadenza Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61,
vt
1.
Eclecti
Classical Impressions).
22. Beethoven short perfect cadence Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 25-26.
The
Glenn
GouldEdition .
23. Beethoven short imperfect cadence Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 61-62.
TheGlenn GouldEdition .
24. Beethoven long imperfect cadence Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 182/4-192.
The
Glenn
GouldEdition .
25. Webern orchestral Five Pieces for Orchestra, op. 10, no. 1, b. 3-5. Webern:
Complete
rks,
1991
26. Flute
blown
27. Flute synthesised.
28. Oboe synthesised.
9
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
32/35
Music
p r pnon
and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
29. Beethoven long perfect cadence Beethoven, Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in
G major op. 31, no. I, b. 104-108. The
Glenn
GouldEdition .
30. Gamelan, slow with melody Balinese music for Gamelan Gong Gede.
World
SoundMatters 1996 .
31. Dance music, slow Spooky Onglon [0.00-0.06].
Found
Sound
1996 .
32. Japanese vocals.
33. Classical chord arpeggiated.
34. Jungle extract Squarepusher).
35. Jungle chord Goldie, Inner City Life [0.06-0.12]. Goldie Timeless 1995 .
36. Dance music, fast Central Heating Spooky [3.41-3.47]. Found
Sound
1996 .
37. Flute
keys.
38. Atonal ending fast Webern, SixBagatelles for String
Quartet
op. 9, no. 2, b. 6/4
8.
Webern:
Complete
Works
1991 .
39. Atonal ending slow Webern, Five Movements for StringQuartet op. 5, no. 2,
b. 12/3-13. ~ e r n
Complete Works
1991 .
40. Atonal opening fast Webern, Five
Movements
for StringQuartet,op. 5, no. 3,
b. 1-5. Webern:
Complete
Works 1991 .
41. Firework display BBC Essential SoundEfficts 1990 .
42. Car passes at speed
BBC Essential SoundEffiets 1990 .
43. Violin theme, high register Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61,
rnvt, I, b. 101/4-109. Eclecti Classical Impressions .
44. Stirring.
45. Haydn long imperfect cadence Haydn. String Quartet, op. 76, no. 2,
r vt
1,
b
137-38. Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76. no.s 1 3 1989).
46. Atonal opening, slow Webern, Five Movements for StringQuartet op. 5, no. 2,
b. 1-2. Webern: Complete Works 1991 .
47. Classical chord. appogiarura Webern, Five
Movements
for String
Quartet
op. 5,
no. 1, b. 49 Orchestral version). Webern: Complete Works. 1991 .
indicates
that the sound was specially
recorded
for the experiment.
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
33/35
lQue oimos cuando
oimos
muslca? Percepclon
musical
material musical
Lasteorlas sobre el hecho perceptive de la audici6n establecenuna clara distinci6n
entre escucha cotidiana y musical ,
Este
trabajo reta al recuento de
escuchas
de dos maneras: primera, extendiendo la ncei6n de espedficadon de la fuente
sonora a la especificaci6n de categorias culturales y cornposlttvas: y, segunda,
arguyendo que la escuchamusical implica escuchar
que
espedftcan
los sonidos
tanto como implica escuchar las caracterfsticas acusticas de dkhos sonidos. Se
defiende aqui que la caracterizaci6n de la escucha musical atendiendo al
caracter acustico del sonido es una reflexi6n de la imperante recepcion ideol6gica
de la obra de arte autonoma,
Este
trabajo informa de losresultadosde dosestudiosernptrtcos que proporcionan
evidendas para la percepci6n musical en terminos de categoriasde material musical
(es decir, que especlfican los sonldos). Enel primer estudio, los participantes se
enfrentaron a trladas de sonidos musicales y cotidianos, presentados emparejados
de forma conflictiva, y se les pidio identificar los dos que fueran mas s milares. En
el segundo estudio, se solicltc a los oyentes que comentaran los sonidos.
Estos
estudios revelaron que mientras los oyentes prestan atenci6n a las propiedades
acusticas de los sonidos, son
sensibles
a
que lossonidosespedtlcan (fuente fisica,
espacio fslco y proximidad, genero, funci6n musical, habilidad interpretativa,
atributos ernocionales y contexte social). Los resultados adararon fa manera en
que los oyentes privilegian ciertas
crases
de especlflcaciones. y algunos de los
factores implicados en estas elecciones se discuten brevemente en relaclon a la
teoria interpretativa de la signlficacicn musical.
he cosa
sentiamo quando sentiamo
musica
ercezione
musicale
materiale
musicale
Teorie sulla percezlone degli eventi da parte di un pubbl ico hanno messo in
evidenza una distinzione fra ascolto quotidiano e musicale , Questo saggio
mette in dubbio tale descrizione dell'ascolto in due modi: innanzitutto, esso
estende la nozione di specificazione della sorgente alia specificazione di categorie
culturali e compositive, e in secondo luogo sostlene che l'ascolto della rnusica
comprendesiaI'ascoltodi quanta specificanoi suoni, slal'ascolto delle caratteristiche
acustiche dei suoni stessi Vi si sostiene che la caratterizzazione dell'ascolto
music le
come
ttenzione
al carattere ustt o del suono un rif lesso
de/l'ideologia dominante nella ricezione dell'opera d'arte autonoma.
Questo saggio riporta i risultati di due studi ernpirid
c he
forniscono prove a
favore della percezione musicale in termini di categorizzazione del materiale
musicale (ad esempio cic che i suoni
spedftcano
Nel primo studio, ai partecipanti
92
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
34/35
usic perception nd music l m teri l
NICOLA DIBBEN
venivano presentate triadi di suoni musicali contrapposte a triadi di suoni di tutti
i giorni, e veniva chiesto loro di identificare le due triadi piLi simili fra loro. Nel
secondo studio veniva chiesto agli ascoltatori di commentare
i
suoni percepiti. Tali
studi sull ascolto hanno mostrato che gli ascoltatori, nel momento in cui fanno
attenzione aile propneta acustiche del suoni, sono anche sensibilia cia che il suono
specifica sorgente fislca, spazlo fislco e prossimitA, genere, funzione musicale,
abilita esecutiva, attributi emozionali e contesto sociale), I risultati mettono in
rilievo iI modo in cui gli ascoltatori privilegiano particolari tipi di specificazione, ed
alcuni dei fattor i coinvolti in queste scelte vengono brevemente discussi in
relazione ad una teoria performativa del significate musicale.
Qu entendons-nous quand nous ecoutons de la muslque
Perception et materiau musical
Lestheories de la perception sonore distinguent ecoute
courante
et musicale .
On se livre ici une double contestation de cette
opinion
en premier lieu,
la notion de specification de la source est elargie aux categories culturelles et
compositionnelles; ensuite, on postule qu ecouter la musique, c est autant ecouter
ce qui est exprime par les sons que leurs cararterlstlques acoustiques. Limiter
l ecoute musicale au seul caractere acoustique du sonore est, anotre sens un
reflet de I ldeologtedominante en matiere de reception de l ceuvred art autonome.
Suivent les resultats de deux etudes empiriques qui confortent la perception en
termes de categories de rnatenau musical autrement dit, ce qui est exprirne par le
sonore), Les sujets de la premiere etude ont pour tache d identifier les stimuli les
plus semblables dans des paires disparates de triades de sons musicaux et de sons
de la vie quotidienne. Ceux de la deuxieme etude doivent commenter les sons. On
decouvre ainsi que porter attention aux propnetes acoustiques des sons, c est
affiner sa sensj illte ace qui est exprlrne par les sons source physique, distance
physique et proxlmlte, genre, fonction musicale,talent de l interpretatlon, attributs
emotionnels et c ontexte social). II ressort aussi de ces etudes que des types
particuliers de specifications sont privilegies. Certains des facteurs impliques dans
ces cholx fondent une theorte de l execution du sens musical.
Was horen wir, wenn wir Musik horen? Musikalische Wahrnehmung
und das musikalische Material
Theorien zur auditiven Wahrnehmung haben die Unterscheidung zwischen
Alltags- und musikalischem HOren hervorgehoben. Diese Studie stellt diese
Unterscheidung in zweifacher Weise in Frage. 1) dehnt
t
den Begriff der
Quellenspezif ikation auf die Spezifikation kultureller und kompositorischer
Kategorien aus und 2) argumentiert sie, daB Musikhoren die Wahrnehmung der
9
8/11/2019 Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music
35/35
Spezifika des Schalles genauso wie die Wahrnehmung seiner akustischen
Eigenheiten einschlieflt und daB die Charakterisierung des musikalischen Herens
als Beachtung des akustischen Charakters von Schall eine Reflexion der
herrschenden Rezeptions-Ideologie des autonomen Kunstwerkes darstellt. Der
Beitrag berichtet Oberdie Resultatezweier empirischer Studien, welche den Beweis
fOr die Wahrnehmung von Musik auf der asis der Kategorien desmusikalischen
Materials d. h. was Schallspezifiziert liefert. In der ersten Studie wurden Triaden
von musikalischen und allt:i.glichen Schallereignissen in Gegensatzpaarengeboten
und die Versuchsteilnehmer gebeten, die zwei ahnlichsten anzugeben. In der
zweiten Studie bestand die Aufgabe der Teilnehmer darin, die Schallreize zu
kommentieren. Die HOrstudien zeigten, die Horer, wllhrend sie auf die
akustischenEigenschaftenachteten, auch darauf reagierten, was Schallspezifiziert
Schallquelle, physikalischer Raum und Nllhe, Gattung, musikalische Funktion,
GOteder AusfOhrung, emotionale Attribute und sozlaler Kontext . Die rgebnisse
der Studien beleuchten die Art, in welcher Horer bestimmte Arten von
Spezifikationen bevorzugen, und einige Faktoren werden im Hinblick
uf in
Performance-Theorie der musikalischen Bedeutung diskutiert.
Recommended