[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: noise classification problem
Claire, you're right about the signature (I meant the date at the bottom of
p.701). Yes, there's no copyright with the date 1977, only, on the back
cover of my book, the inscription "Imprimé en France 9-77". I still don't
understand why what seems to be the bible of electro-acoustics (can it be
compared to Helmholtz's On sensation of tone?.... for the publication dates
ambiguity certainly!) hasn't been translated, at least in English (German?).
Frédéric Maintenant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claire Piché" <clairepiche@VIF.COM>
To: <AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: noise classification problem
> Interesting, i have the book in my hand right now, the one with the
> extra chapter with the date mars 1977 at the bottom right of the page
> 701. So obviously, "le chapitre pénultième" has been added to the book
> at least 10 years after it's parution in 1966. But still, there is no
> where i can find the date of a second edition neither Schaeffer's
signature!
>
> Claire Piché
>
> f.maintenant a écrit :
>
> >correction concerning Shaeffer's Traité des objets musicaux, the last
> >edition is from 1977 and includes an extra chapter: A LA RECHERCHE DE LA
> >MUSIQUE MEME pp. 663-701, signed by Shaeffer with the date Mars 1977. The
> >rest of the book as stated in that chapter by Shaeffer was published in
1966
> >( Dix ans aprés la publication du Traité....).
> >
> >Frédéric Maintenant
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Claire Piché" <clairepiche@VIF.COM>
> >To: <AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>
> >Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:00 PM
> >Subject: Re: noise classification problem
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Susan allen wrote
> >>Hello, I would like a definition of 'real world sounds' = does this
> >>include piped in or background music in the retail/service
> >>environment? Many thanks
> >>Susan Allen
> >>
> >>--- That typical Music in the retail/service environment is called MUSAK
> >>wich is also the name of the american firm that defined the concept
> >>during the second world war II. Recently Doctor Hildegard Westerkamp
> >>from Simon Frazer university (communication dpt) gave a lecture on
> >>Musak. Michel Chion also discusses Musak in his book entitled
> >>/Musiques, médias et technologies/, 1994, Paris: Flammarion, p.52-63.
> >>
> >>Also
> >>
> >> Raymond Murray Schafer. 1977. The Tuning of the World, New York; A.
> >>Knopf Inc. 388p./ - Le paysage sonore./ Paris : J.-C. Lattès 1979 pour
> >>la traduction française.
> >>This book is a "must" for anyone interested in "sound of the
environment"
> >>Schafer is the "fondateur" of the Canadian Association for Sound Ecology
> >>in Canada.
> >>
> >> Claire Piché
> >>
> >>
> >>Vincent Rioux wrote
> >>Back in 77, Pierre Schaeffer wrote very interesting things about sound
> >>(including "noise") classification (what he called "typo-morphology") in
> >>a book called "Traité des Objets Musicaux", 'Treatise of Musical
Objects'.
> >>
> >>--- A little correction Vincent, Schaeffer'book has been published in
> >>1966 not 1997
> >>
> >> Schaeffer, Pierre. 1966. /Traité des objets musicaux : essai
> >>interdisciplines. /Paris : Éditions du Seuil, 701p.
> >>
> >> Claire Piché
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Vincent Rioux a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Back in 77, Pierre Schaeffer wrote very interesting things about sound
> >>>(including "noise") classification (what he called "typo-morphology")
> >>>in a book called "Traité des Objets Musicaux", 'Treatise of Musical
> >>>Objects'.
> >>>It is written in French.
> >>>There might be some translations of this work in English,
> >>>for e.g.
http://www.sun.rhbnc.ac.uk/Music/Archive/Disserts/palombin.html
> >>>but I am not aware of any official edited translation.
> >>>Note, that it was thought as a tool for musical composition (mostly
> >>>electroacoutic music) which might be slightly out of your scope (?)
> >>>
> >>>regards,
> >>>vincent
> >>>
> >>>At 22:27 15/04/2004, Valeriy Shafiro wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi Alberto,
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't believe that there are any "official" categories for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >classifying
> >
> >
> >>>>real world sounds. In my opinion, Gaver's taxonomy of environmental
> >>>>sounds, while clearly not perfect, is still the best that we have for
> >>>>classifying sounds in general. At least it is a great starting
> >>>>point. As
> >>>>you wrote in your email the problem of classification is very
> >>>>complex, and
> >>>>this is one reason why you have not been able to find much information
> >>>>about it. Real world sounds are produced by a great variety of
> >>>>different
> >>>>sound sources which cannot be unambiguously classified either.
> >>>>People have
> >>>>tried to find some kind of an underlying perceptual structure of
> >>>>environmental sounds (e.g., Ballas, 1993; Marcell et al., Gygi,
> >>>>2001), but
> >>>>that has not revealed any clearcut categories. Which is not to say
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>>there is no category structure, but rather that the categories do not
> >>>>reveal themselves very easily and unambiguously with the analysis
> >>>>methods
> >>>>we are using. My preferred analogy for the perceptual organization
> >>>>of real
> >>>>world sounds would be that of the lexicon where individual items can
be
> >>>>classified based on acoustics/phonology, and also based on the
> >>>>ecological
> >>>>significance/semantics/meaning. Of course, this analogy is not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >perfect,
> >
> >
> >>>>and I offer it just as one way to think about the problem. For one,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >for
> >
> >
> >>>>most environmental sounds the relationship between their semantics and
> >>>>acoustics is not as arbitrary as it is for words.
> >>>>
> >>>>If I understood you correctly, and your goal is synthesizing musically
> >>>>useful noises (possibly based on some real world sounds) then rather
> >>>>than
> >>>>trying to come up with a general all-encompassing classification of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >real
> >
> >
> >>>>world sounds you may have more success figuring out specific types of
> >>>>noises/sounds that maybe interesting for your application. Or, you
> >>>>can try
> >>>>to find a way to represent different types of sounds in a smaller
> >>>>subset.
> >>>>
> >>>>Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Valeriy
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>Valeriy Shafiro
> >>>>Communication Disorders and Sciences
> >>>>Rush University Medical Center
> >>>>Chicago, IL
> >>>>
> >>>>office (312) 942 - 3298
> >>>>lab (312) 942 - 3316
> >>>>email: valeriy_shafiro@rush.edu
> >>>>
> >>>>Refs:
> >>>>
> >>>>Ballas, J.A. (1993). Common factors in the identification of an
> >>>>assortment
> >>>>of brief
> >>>>everyday sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
> >>>>and
> >>>>Performance, 19 (2), 250-267.
> >>>>
> >>>>Gygi, B. (2001). Factors in the Identification of Environmental
Sounds,
> >>>>Unpublished
> >>>>doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
> >>>>Retrieved
> >>>>02/20/02
> >>>>from http://www.indiana.edu/~k300bg/dissall.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Marcell, M.M., Borella, D., Greene, M., Kerr, E. & Rogers, S. (2000).
> >>>> Confrontation
> >>>>naming of environmental sounds. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
> >>>>Neuropsychology, 22(6), 830-864.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>