Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music

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/


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


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


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).

:


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


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


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


8/35


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


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


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

, ,


12/35


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


17/35


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


19/35


20/35


21/35


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


23/35


24/35


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


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


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


27/35


28/35


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.

Documents

Dibben - What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music