Onsets

[Stephen Smoliar <smoliar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Al Bregman writes:

>  INCIDENTALLY, I THINK THAT IT WOULD
>BE BETTER TO USE THE NAME "EVENT" IN AUDITION, RATHER THAN IMPORTING THE NAME
>"OBJECT" FROM VISION.  "EVENT" IS TO AUDITION WHAT 'OBJECT" IS TO VISION.
>
I think I agree with this in both letter and spirit, but I would still like to
kick it around a bit.  I think that it IS important to distinguish entities
which basically occupy some extent of space from those which only exist by
virtue of the passage of time.  The only danger is that we may equate the
concept of "event" with some particular interval of time and all that
transpires over that interval.  Such an interpretation might deny the
subject of a fugue being stated by a single voice in the fabric of counterpoint
the status of being an event, since the event would only be what all the voices
happened to be doing at that time.  However, the concept of event does not
force such an interpretation, since it is perfectly possible to speak of
concurrent events.  Therefore, I guess I am willing to accept that we have
visual objects but auditory events.  (If this were not an auditory discussion
group, I suppose I would now want to ask about the distinction between visual
objects and tactile objects!)

Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg   FAX:  +65-473-9897