Subject: ... and alittle kerosene ... From: KEVIN AUSTIN <KAUSTIN(at)VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:18:09 -0400Sorry, long posting! First a word of thanks to all who are contributing and thinking about this issue. Following from the current discussion about demonstrations and peer review, and AH's comments about web-realities, a brief anecdote about the 'grey zone'. I teach electroacoustics at a university that has only undergraduate courses in this field. Bregman's ASA has been a major contributor to discussions in the field of sound art. This year I am running a pilot-project course for undergraduate Fine Arts students on Auditory Scene Analysis, and call it the creation of an 'annotated index'. There are over half-a-dozen students who are reading ASA (on their own) and are being asked to find the words (and terms) that they think are significant, and a database will be created giving definitions provided by the students. The objective is to also be able to include 'sonic demonstrations' of these terms and concepts drawn from the 'sound art' (ea/cm) community as well as verbal formulations. These definitions will be written by (non-science) undergraduate students for other undergraduate students who will at some time read ASA: the definitions will also point to _applications_ of these concepts by electroacoustic composers, in works that have been composed. This is part of an ongoing attempt to build a real link between the scientific, psychoacoustic and artistic communities: part of the development of the (artistic) field of "electroacoustic'ology" (parallel to 'musicology' eg). I could see that 'audio demonstrations' could also be included in the 'electroacousticology' ejournal that will become the home of this database, in which case, the 'research materials' will become available from sources other than those recognized by the scientific / research communities. Will this decrease their 'value' because they are not peer reviewed? Maybe within the scientific / research community, but as noted, the objective is to build links between "theory" and "creative artistic application". ASA has one chapter each on Auditory Organization in Music, and in Speech Perception. There is much on pp 455-461 that simply begs for specific sonic examples: and numerous counterexamples. Placing such highly debatable ideas into an 'open environment' (without the necessity of a possibly limiting anonymous peer review) could allow other disciplines to examine the precepts and possible consequences from other perspectives. There would be no 'anonymous peer' review as such, since much of the work is about 'perception', which (appears to be) by nature, individual or statistical. But the case may be able to be made that a number of conclusions could be drawn regarding the significance of an idea, based upon how (and if) creative artists have attempted to, or have employed the idea. (An example of this is the Shepherd's tone that has an interesting barbershop pole concept of rising pitch, but in practice has been employed mostly by one major composer. When trained listener's hear, the name Risset jumps immediately to mind: it has not been (from my listening) widely adopted in the electroacoustic compositional field.) In summary (at last!) I think that there are many (other) ways to circulate (and evaluate) ideas regarding perception, and that the web will provide paths for individuals (and groups) that have only been dreamt of until now. whew! Best Kevin kaustin(at)vax2.concordia.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Professor K Austin EuCuE - Department of Music / Departement de musique universite Concordia University 7141, rue Sherbrooke o Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 CANADA -------------------------------------------------------------- tel: (1) 514 - 848 - 4709 FAX: (1) 514 - 848 - 2808 Vous pouvez ecrire en francais ou en anglais.