Subject: Discrimination / Identification / Reproduction From: KEVIN AUSTIN <KAUSTIN(at)VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:08:48 -0400Many thanks to all for providing insights into this issue. I understand that this is probably more of a "music" (whatever that is) issue than an <auditory> issue, matters related to 'music perception' are frequently frowned upon (and ignored) by performers and music educators. My apologies for not being scientific about this. I asked an opthomologist what a red/green color-blind person sees. He said ... "I don't know, I can only tell you that they cannot discriminate between the two." The elements which are of particular interest to me here, as a teacher of traditional ear-training and electroacoustic music techniques and composition, are those of discrimination, identification and reproduction. And underlying this, whether the basis of traditional ear-training (sight-singing and dictation) is isomorphic, cognate or unrelated to the basic constituent elements of ASA. Is it possible to have a 'sound-designer' (eg composition, film, radio, tv, theater), who has weak, or poor 'traditional' ear-training ability? There is currently a discussion taking place in the Department as to whether students in electroacoustics [music] 'should' have traditional ear-training. (Should English Fiction Majors have Latin?) While it is agreed that for many it would be helpful, the questions relate to how much, and more importantly, what kind. [75% of the students in the ea/cm courses do not take 'traditional music' courses, and do not use pitch structure as a major element of sonic organization.] While is is agreed that it would be 'useful' to do some ear-training, the questions are those of necessity, and the 'type' of ear-training best suited to the objectives. And just how transferable is 'pitch discrimination' and identification to ASA applications? Best Kevin kaustin(at)vax2.concordia.ca