[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article- now on "piano encoding"

On 23/03/07, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:

> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> Hello again,
> Don Cox commented on my view:
>>> However, it is the timing of a note and not its strength that
>>> determines what is perceived 
>> No, it is both, so far as I can tell from discussions by pianists
>> about the voicing of chords. They aim to vary the timing and velocity
>> independently.
> ----- no doubt, and I think that their ability to do so is great, only
> I do not think that the effect in a chord will work according to their
> explanation.

There is surely room for some rigorous research on these points. The
problem is to find a top professional who has time to spare for

> ----- a lot of conceptions of how we make and hear music are based on
> hearsay (ha, ha!); one book that I can recommend is:
> James Beament: "How we hear music. The relationship between music and
> the hearing mechanism", The Boydell Press, Woodbridge 2001. ISBN 0
> 85115 940 0 paperback (it was reprinted thus in 2003)
> ----- this book uses the fundamental principles of our hearing
> mechanism to analyse various types of sound - fascinating!
However, hearing is still not properly understood. Vision is well worked
out, but theories of the physiology of hearing are much more tentative.

So I think it may be premature to write a book with that title. Of
course it is bound to say _something_ useful - as did the book by
Helmholtz back in the 19C.

Don Cox

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]