G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that the science is very compelling. However, notice that
> the test subjects still had to be conscious, and focusing their
> attention in a very particular way, to answer these questions.
Any researcher worth their salt would reject blind test participants where
the data suggested they wern't paying attention. In addition, paying
attention doesn't necessarily mean that one is stressed. And a good test is
designed and executed so that stress and fatique do not inhibit sensitivity.
And it is very dificult to conduct such tests, but not impossible.
As for focussing on particulars 'too much' inhibits musical appreciation or
understanding, I think this is nebulous in terms of subjective audio
testing. Read what I write in the following paragraph and note how it can
be interpreted in BOTH ways because two completely different approaches are
be considered 'musical' and also you could turn the two described situations
upside down vis a vis each other and come to the same conclusion.
The best musicians are <<<VERY>>> focussed on the particulars of what they are
doing. For example, in my field of musical expertise, (classical organ playing)
many players improvise in the older strict styles as well as play the printed
baroque literature, and a curious thing sometimes happens: in the improvisations,
a strong tactus is maintained with a precision driving rhythm which can lead up to
a wonderful building up of tensions and relaxations as a musical idea is exploited
and then curbed naturally as fatique sets in, and the performer starts to run into
mental roadblocks. This is the excitement of improvisation, and it is HARD THINKING
WORK on the part of the performer. Nobody suggests all this is unmusical. But with
some of these players playing printed literature is completely different, they shift
the tactus and driving rhythm of baroque music putting in lots of rubato and agogic
accents where there could be tight driving rhythm in wanting to be 'expressive.'
Why? During the improvisation, the mind isn't wandering - it's concerned with the
formal task at hand, whereas the highly prepared performance is relatively automatic
by definition. Is one 'better' than the other? Sort of a silly question, I think.
> I think
> that leaves an "opening"--in which certain kinds of small changes in
> the sound leave a conscious impression under other listening
> conditions, such as being involved with music.
The unbiased evidence actually indicates that emotional involvement with the music
actually reduces sensory perception. A strange idea perhaps at first
glance, except when one considers that music BEGINS in the mind and requires
training (formal or otherwise) to get it to be a sensory experience.
Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that the science is very compelling. However, notice that
> the test subjects still had to be conscious, and focusing their
> attention in a very particular way, to answer these questions.
Any researcher worth their salt would reject blind test participants where
the data suggested they wern't paying attention. In addition, paying
attention doesn't necessarily mean that one is stressed. And a good test is
designed and executed so that stress and fatique do not inhibit sensitivity.
And it is very dificult to conduct such tests, but not impossible.
As for focussing on particulars 'too much' inhibits musical appreciation or
understanding, I think this is nebulous in terms of subjective audio
testing. Read what I write in the following paragraph and note how it can
be interpreted in BOTH ways because two completely different approaches are
be considered 'musical' and also you could turn the two described situations
upside down vis a vis each other and come to the same conclusion.
The best musicians are <<<VERY>>> focussed on the particulars of what they are
doing. For example, in my field of musical expertise, (classical organ playing)
many players improvise in the older strict styles as well as play the printed
baroque literature, and a curious thing sometimes happens: in the improvisations,
a strong tactus is maintained with a precision driving rhythm which can lead up to
a wonderful building up of tensions and relaxations as a musical idea is exploited
and then curbed naturally as fatique sets in, and the performer starts to run into
mental roadblocks. This is the excitement of improvisation, and it is HARD THINKING
WORK on the part of the performer. Nobody suggests all this is unmusical. But with
some of these players playing printed literature is completely different, they shift
the tactus and driving rhythm of baroque music putting in lots of rubato and agogic
accents where there could be tight driving rhythm in wanting to be 'expressive.'
Why? During the improvisation, the mind isn't wandering - it's concerned with the
formal task at hand, whereas the highly prepared performance is relatively automatic
by definition. Is one 'better' than the other? Sort of a silly question, I think.
> I think
> that leaves an "opening"--in which certain kinds of small changes in
> the sound leave a conscious impression under other listening
> conditions, such as being involved with music.
The unbiased evidence actually indicates that emotional involvement with the music
actually reduces sensory perception. A strange idea perhaps at first
glance, except when one considers that music BEGINS in the mind and requires
training (formal or otherwise) to get it to be a sensory experience.