http://msx.sagepub.

com/
Musicae Scientiae
http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/102986490100500203
2001 5: 161 Musicae Scientiae
Nicola Dibben
What Do We Hear, When We Hear Music?: Music Perception and Musical Material

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music

can be found at: Musicae Scientiae Additional services and information for

http://msx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://msx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://msx.sagepub.com/content/5/2/161.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Sep 1, 2001 Version of Record >>

at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Newcastle on October 19, 2013 msx.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Muslcae Scientiae
Fall 2001, Vol V, n' 2,161-194
=2001 by ESCOM European Society
for the Cognitive Sciences of Music
What do we hear, when we hear music?:
Music perception and musical material
NICOLADIBBEN
Music Department, University of Sheffield
ABSTRACT
Theories of auditory event perception have highlighted a distinction between
"everyday" and "musical" listening. This paper challenges this account of listening
in two ways: first, it extends the notion of sourcespecification to the specification
of cultural and compositional categories, and second, it argues that listening to
music involves listening to what sounds specify just as much as it involves listening
to the acoustic characteristicsof sounds. It is argued here that the characterisation
of 'musical' listening as attending to the acoustic character of sound is a reflection
of the prevailing reception ideology of the autonomous art work.
This paper reports the results of two empirical studieswhich provide evidence for
the perception of music in terms of categories of musical material (i.e. what sounds
specify). In the first study, participants were presented with triads of musical
and everyday sounds presented in conflicting pairings and asked to identify the
two that were most similar. In the second study listeners were asked to give
commentaries on the sounds. These listening studies showed that while listeners
pay attention to the acoustic properties of sounds they are also sensitive to what
sounds specify (physical source, physical space and proximity, genre, musical
function, performance skill, emotional attributes and social context). The results
highlight the way in which listeners privilege particular kinds of specifications, and
some of the factors involved in these choices are discussed briefly in relation to a
performative theory of musical meaning.
INTRODUCTION
In a paper on auditory event perception, Gaver distinguishes between "musical
listening", in which attention is paid to the acoustic characteristics of materials (their
timbre, pitch, loudness, and how these change over time, for example) and "everyday
listening", in which attention is paid to audible source attributes (Gaver, 1993a,
pp. 1-2; 1993b, p. 286). For example, we might pay attention to the fact that we
hear a tap dripping (which Gaver terms "everyday listening") rather than paying
attention to the pitch and rirnbral qualities of the sound and the way that these
161
change over time (which he terms "musical Iisrening")", As I will argue, by equating
"musical listening" with perception of a sound's acoustic characteristics, Gaver
implicitly adopts an ideology of autonomy in which listening to music is concerned
with the perceptual characteristics of the sound itself rather than with what the
sound specifies. However, as Gaver goes on to point out: "The distinction between
everyday and musical listening is between experiences, not sounds... " (Gaver, 1993a,
p. 2). This opens up the possibility that the distinction between these two kinds of
listening may not necessarily map directly onto a distinction between everyday
sounds and music: in other words, these may be two kinds of listening which
operate simultaneously but which the listener privileges in different ways according
to his or her needs and preoccupations. It is this possibility which this paper addresses.
The distinction between "musical" and "everyday" listening made by Gaver is
paralleled in musicology by the distinction between autonomy and reference", The
notion of autonomy is usually invoked in Western musicology to describe the way
in which music is understood, or conceived of, in terms of structures and processes
internal to itself Goehr (1992) suggests that the notion of the autonomous character
of the musical work is specific to the Romantic aesthetic of the nineteenth century,
and is supported by particular kinds of musical practices. These structures and
processes are largely understood nor only as wholly intramusical but also, intra-opus,
i.e. confined to the work in question. In practice, this is an extreme position to take:
it may be that many of the structures and processes within a work can only be
understood by virtue of their occurrence in other works. An example of this is
the cadence: if it occurred only within a single piece it would be unlikely to
be understood as a category - so even though it is an intramusical process it is
understood only by virtue of its extra-opus existence. This seems to leave only "pure
sound" (i.e. acousmatic sound), as truly "autonomous", and the extent and role of
this kind of perception in listening remains to be established (seeWindsor, 2000, for
a discussion)3.
In COntrast to the ideology of autonomy. "reference" is the capacity of music to
be associated with. or signify objects and events external to music, and/or external
to a specific piece of music. The social and cultural associations of materials,
their meanings, structural organisation, and socio-historical specificity have been
(1) This distinction is also implicit in the two strands of research into timbre: timbre as a set of
auditory attributes (e.g. McAdams, Winsberg and Donnadieu, 1995; Slawson, 1985), and timbre as
a vehicle for source identity (e.g. McAdams, 1993).
(2) A similar point is made by Windsor (1995).
(3) In this respect, there is a difference between the pair "autonomy" and "reference", and the pair
"musical" and "everyday" listening: although" reference" maps onto "specification", "autonomy"
is not equivalent to acoustic characteristics, since it is commonly usedto refer to an understanding
of music in terms of musical structures and processes (e.g. cadences, appogiaturas) which can be
thought of as 'objects' specified by sound.
162
Music percepncn and musical material
NICOLAD1BBEN
discussed within semiotic analyses of Western classical music (e.g. Agawu, 1991;
Hatten, 1994), popular music (Tagg, 1982), and cognitive musicology (Gjerdingen,
1988). This treatment of material is also apparent in less explicitly semiotic, but
equally historically sensitive readings of particular works (e.g. Clarke, 1993;
Johnson, 1998). According to such accounts (partly informed by the work of the
philosopher Theodor Adorno), music is viewed as having "sedirnented" meanings:
associations and functions acquired by virtue of their historical usage. For example,
in his analysis of the first of Webern's 3 Link Pieces for Cello and Piano, Op, II,
Johnson interprets the hair-pin dynamics as hallmarks of romantic lyricism and the
arpeggiated chord as a declamatory device deriving from the use of the harpsichord
in Baroque recitative, and so on (Figure 1).
Millll' .... la)ll
I ,...0.....
nc. ....
,
-,.
pp:>ppp:=-
I
'II-"
Figure7.
Webern. Three little Pieces for CelloandPiano, Op. 77/1 (b. 7-2),
One of the domains of research in which the ideology of autonomy has been
at its strongest is in research on music perception. Research on perception and
cognition of music has tended to focus on music as raw materials rather than as
socially or historically constituted. For example, it has been widely proposed, or
assumed, within both music theory and the cognitive psychology of music, that
listeners hear relationships between abstract underlying structures in music, as well
as surface relationships, and that a hierarchy of tonal structures is fundamental to
the listening experience: a dominant example of this paradigm is the Generative
Theory of Tonal Music (Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983)4. Even within the social
psychology of music, musical material is largely ignored: instead music is treated as
an event co-existent with some other activity or interaction, and the relationship
between how music is used and its internal characteristics is rarely considered. Thus,
(4) Even models of reductional listeningfail to reduce the musical surface away entirely, however:
both members of the perfect cadence haveto be retained in Lerdahl and Jackendoff's reductional
representation of tonal pieces dueto itscompositional functionasa dosural archetype" (see Dibben,
1996, ch. 7), leavingthe theory open to historical style analysis (Clarke, 1986; Spitzer, 1996).
1&:1
Gaver's equating of "musical listening" with hearing music in terms of its acoustic
characteristics reflects the reception ideology of the autonomous art work which
pervades psychological approaches to music.
One of the reasons for the unwillingness to tackle other kinds of listening, and
the perception of music in terms other than those of its acoustic characteristics, has
been an assumption that hearing of this sort is arbitrary and subjective. As Gaver
argues:
"This line of reasoning suggem that hearing a passing plane is more arbitrary than
hearing the pitch or loudness of the sound it makes, because the information provided
from memory or experience depends on the individual, and may simply be wrong."
(Gaver, 1993b, pp. 286-287).
Gaver's response to this position is to show that source specification is not as
arbitrary as assumed, and a similar argument is made by Clarke (1999) and Windsor
(1995,2000) in relation to music, both of whom, drawing on ecological acoustics,
argue that sounds directly "specify" cultural meanings. My focus here is somewhat
different from this since I do not argue solely for the consistency of perception,
but for the importance of recognising and investigating differences in the kinds of
things which people hear when they hear music. To argue that hearing a passing
plane is more arbitrary than hearing the pitch or loudness of the sound because it
relies on memory or experience is to confuse arbitrariness with subject differences.
An alternative way of viewing this situation, and one which is much more congruent
with contemporary theories of musical meaning, is to consider why and when
listeners hear what they hear: when does a listener pay attention to a sound's
specification of its source, for instance, as opposed to the sound's acoustic attributes?
If two listeners hear the same sound in terms of two different sources then why is
this? And what other kinds of category of event can music specify? By broadening
the discussion to encompass these questions the focus becomes an enquiry into the
perception of meaning rather than an investigation into two kinds of listening.
WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS 111ERE FOR 111E PERCEPTION OF MUSIC
IN TERMS OF EI111ER "MUSICAL" OR "EVERYDAY" LISTENING?
One direct way to discover what people hear when they listen to sounds is simply to
ask them. A number of studies of this sort have been conducted using everyday
sounds. Vanderveer (1979) presented listeners with recorded examples of everyday
sounds and asked them to write a short phrase describing each sound. She found
that listeners tended to describe sounds in terms of the objects or events that caused
them, and that only when they could not identify the sound did they describe it
in terms of its acoustic characteristics. Listeners' descriptions are often extremely
accurate: for example, listeners are able to distinguish the sounds of someone
running upstairs from those of someone running downstairs, can make accurate
estimations of the size of objects dropped into water, and can tell the size of a
164
Musicperception and musical material
NICOLA DIBBEN
receptacle that water is poured into (Gaver, 1988). There is much empirical evidence
for the consistency and accuracy of source specification (seeWindsor, 2000).
These kinds of descriptive tasks have also been used with music. Baily (1996)
interviewed a number of musician and non-musician Herati Afghanistanis about
their perceptions of a collection of sounds, ranging from inanimate and animate
sounds (such as a dog barking) to various forms of speech and song. From the results
of this study Baily concluded that:
..[...J sounds are not perceived and evaluated in terms of their acoustical properties, bur in
relation [0 the agencies which produce them. Sounds are symbols of things that give rise
[0 them. Evaluations might therefore be based on the sounds themselves or on the
agencies mat have produced them." (Baily. 1996. P: 170).
So, for example, in response to the question which asked listeners to evaluate the
sound ("Was the sound a good or a bad sound?"), Baily found that sounds tended
to be evaluated in terms of their social context: the sound of a dog barking was
consistently described as a "bad sound", by virtue of the fact that they are often
found in Herar as watchdogs, and are therefore potentially dangerous, and also
because the dog is regarded as an unclean animal. Baily makes a similar distinction
to that between "musical" and "everyday" listening, again attributing it to differences
in the listening experience (specifically, cultural differences) rather than to differences
in the sounds themselves:
"My suspicion is that Afghans do not generally perceive sounds as abstract entities, as pure
sounds, in the way that Europeans may do." (Baily, 1996. p. 173).
The implication of Baily's research, and of his conclusion, is that 'musical listening'
is a culturally specific listening aesthetic 5.
Despite the apparent ubiquity of an understanding of musical material as socially
constituted within musicology, few empirical studies have explicitly investigated
the perception of such meanings. Those studies that have investigated meaning
and music have tended to focus on general effects of musical works and their
emotive properties, correlation of particular musical structures with the chills and
thrills experienced by listeners, the emotive and meaningful properties of elemental
parameters, and their realisation and manipulation in performance (see Juslin and
Sloboda, 2001). Only a few studies explicitly investigate perception of musical
ropoi, and although these indicate that topics do playa role in the perception of
music they are much less specific about the particular topical content perceived {e.g.
Krumhansl, 1998; Ch'ng, Rasmussen, Stockwell and Huron (cited in Huron, 1999).
One of the few people to have investigated the perception of meaning in Western
music explicitly in terms of historical materials is Frances who identified "historical-
(5) For further discussion of the cultural specificity of listening practices see Small (1998) and The
World of Music, vol. 2 (1997) and vol. 4 (1999).
165
cultural significations" only available to the experienced listener (Frances, 1988). He
conducted experiments in which he asked subjects to listen to extracts of music and
to attribute a title to the piece they heard. Analysis of semantic responses found
evidence for correlation of arrributes of sound and extramusical concepts (a finding
also supported in a more recent empirical study of perception of television theme
tunes (Tagg and Clarida, in press). Frances suggests that reference to a particular
style, genre, or instrumental source brings with it the cultural-historical context of
that style:
"With regard to timbre [...J the connection we make with 'bucolic' for the flute,
'woodland' for the horn, and 'religious' or 'martial' for the organ or trumpet is purely
conventional. The origins of these stereotypes lie in usage and very old traditions, though
their effects persist in our time in altered form. It is not the sound of the accordion that
is 'working class'; it is the instrument itself, the ambiences associated with it. These sons
of associations of belonging seem widespread, judging from the examples extracted from
these experiments." (Frances, 1988, p. 318).
In sum, empirical evidence suggests that listeners hear sounds (both musical and
everyday) in terms of their sources and cultural specifications rather than exclusively
in terms of their acoustic characteristics. Evidence suggests that these categories are
automatic and unconscious, that some are easier to hear than others, and that they
are learned passively during the continuous process of enculturation. By contrast,
the reception ideology of Western art music suggests that listeners attend to the
acoustic characteristics of musical sounds. On the basis of this, I make two claims
which build upon Gaver's notion ofsource specification and his distinction between
"everyday" and "musical" listening. First, along with other commentators kg.
Clarke and Windsor) I argue that listening to music involves listening to what it
specifies (e.g. the physical source of its production, its cultural specifications, and its
compositional character), just as much as it involves listening to the acoustic
characteristicsof the sounds themselves. As Gaver (1993, P: 2) remarks, the distinction
relates to the listening experience, not the sounds themselves. Second, I extend the
notion of source specification to encompass not only the specification of physical
sources by sounds, but the specificationof cultural categories, compositional functions
(Clarke and Dibben, 1997), and other kinds of meanings (described below). In
order to discover the kinds of specifications which listeners hear, and their relative
frequency and strength two experimental studies were carried out and are reported
below.
EXPERIMENT 1
A methodology for investigating the perception of musical material (and a way
of understanding these two kinds of listening as twO kinds of categorisation) is
166
Music perception and musical material
NICOLADlBBEN
suggested by research in similarity and categorisation. The two main types of sound
perception outlined above (source/event perception versus perception of a sound's
acoustic characteristics) are akin to a distinction made in psychology between
similarity-based classification ("surface similarity"), and "deep" or "theory-
based" space similarity (see Hampton, 1997). Theories of similarity-based
classification argue that the categories people use showa strong link to similarity, lack
an explicit definicion, have a number ofassociated properties which are generally true
of category members, although not universallyso, and have a graded structure such
that some items are more clearly and unconrroversially members of the category
than are others. Theory-based classification rakes place by selecting the concept that
best explains the instance to be categorised (e.g. whale and bat are members of the
category "mammal" despite perceptual dissimilarity) and gives priority to the role of
context and background knowledge in similarity relationships. In music, "surface"
similarity is akin to acoustic resemblance, and the implication of this for the
purposes of this research is that while surface similarity may be one way (and
perhaps the default way) in which listeners judge sounds in terms of their similarity
it is not the only way: whether one focuses on "deep" or "surface" similarity is
dependent upon context and background.
Clarke and Dibben (1997) found that listeners are sensitive to both the "surface"
("iconic") similarity of musical events and their "deep" (functional) similarity. The
empirical study elicited fairly undirected commentaries by experienced listeners on
pieces with which they were familiar. Responses showed evidence for the perception
of both structural functions and socio-historical meanings: for example, subjects
remarked that a figure or element in the piece seemed to playa particular role in
the music (e.g. closure), or that it had a particular character (e.g. "yearning"), and
sometimes indicated that this element was connected to another playing the same
role bur which often had quite different characteristics. On the basis of this research
three kinds of "associative structure" (three categories of events or objects that are
specified by music ref Dibben, 1996, ch. 7]) were suggested. These three kinds
of specification are not mutually exclusive. The first, I term "intramusical and
inrraopus" associations. These are associations between specific musical events either
within the same piece or across different pieces: for example, the way in which
varied melodic fragments may all specify a thematic source in common. The second
I term "inrramusical and exrraopus" associations. These are references to other (non-
specific) music, by virtue of common or overlapping musical functions, or common
stylistic attributes: for example, the way in which categories of musical function are
specified by a variety of surface manifestations. The third I term "extra-musical"
associations, since they refer to the specification of cultural categories by musical
materials.
The empirical study reported here uses this generalised notion of specification to
investigate whether, given competing choices, listeners group sounds based upon
acoustic similarity or upon other kinds of similarity. The listening study asked
167
listeners to choose the twO most similar sounds from a group of three sounds
containing conflicting possible pairings. These pairings were intended to be based
either on acoustic resemblance or common specification. Within this, three types of
specification were used (based on Clarke and Dibben, 1997): physical source (e.g.
clarinet sounds), genre (e.g. contemporary British Dance music), and structural
function (e.g. cadence). By pitting these two possible listening experiences against
each other the study investigated the extent to which the two types of listening play
a role in listeners' judgements within the experimental context, and the effect of
musical expertise.
METHOD
Participants. Thirty paid participants, aged between eighteen and seventy-four,
took part in the experiment. Fifteen "expert" listeners had received formal musical
training on a Western classical instrument for at least eight years and were currently
studying music at University, and 15 "novice" listeners had no formal musical
training other than that received through compulsory British school education.
Materials. Forty-eight different sounds were used, consisting of a mixture of "real-
world/everyday" sounds (e.g. motorbike engine revving, the patter of rain, etc.),
"musical" sounds (e.g. an oboe, a synthesised flute) and musical excerpts (e.g. violin
cadenza from a violin concerto, excerpt of gamelan music) (see the Appendix for a
complete list of sounds used). Sounds were presented to listeners in 24 groups of
three sounds (e.g. the sound of heavy rain, frying, and a stream). In each case, the
group of three sounds presented conflicting pairings: two of the three sounds were
related by acoustic resemblance (e.g. the sound of frying and heavy rain), and two
were related by having sources with common features te.g: heavy rain and stream)
(see Figure 2).
<Frying> <Heavy rain> <Stream>
\ / \ J
Acoustic resemblance Common specification
Figure 2.
Configuration of the soundtriads used in Experiment 7.
Each pair bearing an acoustic resemblance appeared twice, each time with a
different third sound (in order to exhaust the possible pairings). Acoustic resemblance
168
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA D1BBEN
was pined against three types of common specification: common source (e.g. water),
common structural function (e.g. cadence), and common genre (e.g. dance music)
(seeTable 1 for a list of the sound triads wed).
Table 1
Sound triads used in Experiment 1
Acoustic resemblance I Common specification
Sound A Sound B Sound C
Source Heavy rain
TIger
Flute blown
Vinyl hiss
Frying Stream
Stirring
Motorbike Car passes at speed
Cat miaowing
Flute synthesised Oboe synthesised
Flute keys
Fire crackle Firework display
Vinyl scratch
Structural
function
Atonal ending fast Atonal opening fast Atonal ending slow
Atonal opening slow
Haydn long perfect Haydn short
cadence imperfect cadence
Webern orchestral Gamelan slow
gamelan sound
Genre
Violin cadenza
Beethoven short
perfect cadence
Jungle chord
Violin theme
Beethoven long
imperfect cadence
Classical chord
arpeggiared
Haydn long
imperfect cadence
Haydn short perfect
cadence
Violin theme high
register
Vocal cadenza
Beethoven long
perfect cadence
Beethoven shorr
imperfect cadence
Classical chord
appogiatura
Jungle extract
Gamelan-like
voices"
Webern orchestral
Gamelan slow with Dance music slow Dance music fast
melody
Koto duet Flamenco guitar
duet
Gamelan voices]
Flamenco song
Japanese vocals
" NB: <Gamelan voices> is used in two different sound triads, therefore there are 47 different
sounds used in total rather than 48.
169
Equipment. Some materials were taken from commercially available recordings,
while others were specially recorded using high quality audio recording equipment.
These sounds were recorded onto compact disc and played back via headphones
from the internal CD drive of the computer. Playback was controlled by the subjects
via a user interface written using MAX software.
Procedure. Participants were seated at a computer with a user interface which
allowed sounds to be played from the computer over headphones by using a mouse
and cursor to click icons displayed on screen. Participants were told they would hear
24 sets of three sounds and were to listen to the sounds carefully and decide which
two of the three sounds were "most similar, related, or belonged together the most".
The sets of three sounds were presented in the same randomised order for all
participants, and labelled from A to X on the computer screen. Participants could
hear each sound as many rimes as they wished by clicking on the appropriate icon
with the mouse and indicated their choices by clicking on a box next to the icon,
Once they had made their choice for the first set of three sounds (set A) they then
clicked on B, C, and so on. After completing all 24 trials the participant's choices
were saved to computer and the experimenter then ran through each choice asking
the participant why he or she had chosen those particular sounds.
REsULTS
Results were coded using participants' verbal justifications for making the pairings
given after completing the task: a pair were counted as similar by virtue of common
specification or acoustic resemblance only when the listener gave an (unprompted)
verbal indication that one or other formed the basis for their judgement.
Participants never used the terms "common specification" or "acoustic resemblance",
but gave enough information to infer one or the other from their answers. Some
examples of verbal justifications of categorisation by source are: triad <heavy rain>,
<frying>, <stream> - "They are both the sound of water" (novice); of genre: (triad
<jungle chord>, <jungle extract>, <classical chord arpeggiated - "The second is
drum & bass and the other one I know is the beginning of Goldie's 'Timeless', so
they go well together." (novice); and of function - triad <Haydn long perfect
cadence>, <Haydn short perfect cadence>, <Haydn short imperfect cadences) -
"They are both perfect cadences whereas the other one isn't" (expert).
A binomial test reveals a significant difference between the number of similarity
judgements due to acoustic resemblance of materials and those due to common
specification (z = -14.125, P <.000l) (see Table 2). No effect of experience was
found
6

(6) A coding performed on the basis of which sound was chosen rather than when the verbal
justification revealed the same pattern of results: a two-factor repeated measures ANOVA reveals
no significant effect of experience [F(1,28) =.04, P >.051. but a significant effect of the type of
common specification [F(2,56) = 4.41, P <: .05].
170
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
Table 2
Frequency of similarity as a function of experience
acoustic resemblance
common specification
total
expert
274
86
360
novice
276
84
360
total
550
170
720
Although this result suggests that common specification is not a factor which
listeners use when judging the similarity of sounds, this result was analysed further
to obtain more information. Table 3 shows the mean frequency of the three
different types of common specification by expertise (musically novice versus expert
listeners). These means are all very low in relation to the total of 24 trials, reflecting
the greater tendency on the part of listeners to choose the sounds related by acoustic
resemblance.
Table 3
Mean frequency of different types of specification
source
genre
function
mean
expert novice mean
1.7 2 1.8
1.9 1.2 1.6
I 0 0.5
1.5 I.I 1.3
A two-factor repeated measures ANOVA shows no effect of experience [F0,28) =2.1,
P >.05], but a significant effect of the different types of specification
[F(2,56) =8.772, P <.01] although the interaction only approaches significance
[F(2,56) = 2.19, P = .12]. Pairs related by structural function were chosen as similar
least often, and not at all by the novice listeners. An unpaired two-tail t-test on
structural function by experience reveals this to be significant (t(28) =3.62; p < .01).
DISCUSSION
EVERYDAY VERSUS MUSICAL LISTENING
Theories of source perception suggest that in "normal" or "everyday" listening
situations listeners pay attention to the sources of sounds rather than to their
acoustic properties (Gaver, 1993). Contrary to this, the default categorisation
judgement made by participants in this study was to choose the two sounds which
shared acoustic resemblance rather than a common physical source, cultural source,
171
or compositional function. There are a number of possible reasons for this. First.
it may be that listeners were unsure of the physical sources of the sounds and
therefore paid more attention to their acoustic characteristics than might otherwise
have been the case. This would be in line with Gaver's finding that listeners pay
more attention to the acoustic qualities of sounds when the source is unknown
or ambiguous than when it is known (Gaver. 1988). However, from listeners'
justifications of their choices there is every indication that listeners were able to
identify the sources of the sounds presented (a conclusion also confirmed in
Experiment 2 - see below).
A second possibility is that the particular listening situation of the experiment
predisposes listeners towards attending to the sounds' acoustic properties rather than
to its source. Participants sat at a computer listening to sounds over headphones in
a room in a University music department. all of which privilege lisrening to a
sound's acoustic characteristics. Compare hearing the sound of an approaching car
in these conditions with hearing the same sound in the context of crossing the street.
In this context it would be dangerous to focus on the acoustic characteristics of the
car; instead one focuses on what the sound affords/means, i.e., large metal object
bearing down at speed.
A third possible explanation of the prevalence of categorisation due to acoustic
resemblance may lie in the task participants performed: listeners were asked to judge
similarity in the absence of motivating factors which may have privileged sounds'
acoustic resemblance over other shared properties. These findings seem to confirm
that the default mode for perception of similarity is perceptual resemblance. and
that in the absence of any motivating context or task listeners revert to acoustic
resemblance when making similarity classifications (as implied by research into
similarity and categorisation in cognitive psychology, e.g. Hampton. 1997).
TYPE OF SPECIFICATION: SOURCE, FUNCTION, GENRE
Although the overwhelming majority of similarity judgements given by participants
were based upon acoustic resemblance rather than common specification, there were
some significant differences in the frequency with which subjects chose sounds
according to the different types of specification: in particular, structural function
was by far the least commonly cited basis for similarity, and the most dependent
upon the amount of experience of the listener (despite evidence from the study by
Huron et al. (1999) that identification of rhetorical functions in classical music was
not dependent upon musical training).
Listeners' own justifications of their similarity judgements reveal that some
experienced listeners are sensitive to the structural function of musical excerpts:
for example. two participants justified their pairing of a violin cadenza and vocal
cadenza as having the same "function" of a cadenza, and another participant
implicitly referred to this structural function remarking that "both are the climax of
a piece or a bridge to another section". However, a number of subjects, including
,7:z
Music perception and musical material
NICOLAD1BBEN
some "experts" did not choose the pair related by cadential function, choosing
instead the conflicting pairing due to acoustic resemblance (in this case, an excerpt
with the same number of chords and articulation but a different harmonic structure
and musical function). It may be that different participants paid attention to different
attributes of the sound: for example, a number of participants commented that what
in fact was an imperfect cadence (and therefore harmonically unfinished) sounded
final. It appears that these listeners were responding to some cadential features of
the music (e.g. rhythm and voicing) despite the lack of closure in the harmonic
structure. These subjects' failure to use pitch structure as a basis for grouping similar
extracts may be due to a simple failure to recognise" the pitch basis for cadential
function, rather than an unwillingness to use it as the basis for grouping extracts,
This would certainly be congruent with other researchfindings that novice listeners
are more likely to focus on the rhythmic and textural attributes of extracts than their
harmonic structure (Frances, 1988).
THE EFFECf OF EXPERIENCE
Little overall difference was revealed between expert and novice listeners: both
were equally likely to base their judgement of similarity on acoustic resemblance or
common specification. However, closer examination of the results reveals evidence
for the influence ofspecific expert knowledge and experience on the use of common
specification.
For example, out of the three sounds, <flamenco guitar duet>, ckoto duet> and
<Japanese vocals>, only one listener chose the koro and Japanese singing as similar
on the basis they were "both Japanese". Notably, this listener is Taiwanese and is
familiar with Japanese music. A second example is provided by the fact that all
parricipants, with the exception of one, chose the real and synthesised flute sounds
as similar over the sound of the synthesised oboe. The one participant to choose the
two synthesised instruments was the only first-study flautist included in the study.
These results highlight the influence of individual differences in expertise, and more
general background and experience, on the perception of meanings.
METIiODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Experiment 1 provides some useful information regarding the relative frequency
with which different kinds of similarity are used by listeners in an experimental
situation, and provides some evidence that listeners are sensitive to different features
of sounds and their specification of a cultural or physical source. However, these
results should be tempered by two main methodological issues. First, the binary-
decision methodology obscures the possibility that listeners may recognise both
kinds of similarity because it obliges participants to choose only one pair. Listeners'
own comments on their choices revealed that there was often some ambivalence
involved. For example, one participant remarked that although she chose the sound
of the motorbike and car as similar because both are vehicles, she could equally have
173
chosen tiger and bike due to their acoustic resemblance. Conversely, while she chose
frying and rain, it could equally have been rain and stream because both are water
sounds (i.e. they share a Common specification). Thus, although the results of
the study suggest that most listeners focus on acoustic resemblance in making
similarity judgments, listeners' comments often revealed an awareness of both
acoustic resemblance and specification of a physical source, structural function or
cultural source. There may be different groups of listeners, for some of whom the
task involved a choice between two competing pairings and for others of whom
there was only one (or perhaps not even that) obvious choice. The experiment makes
some allowance for this by asking participants why they made the choices they did,
but the task nonetheless remains forced-choice.
Second, each sound triad is a particular realisation of acoustic resemblance versus
common specification, and not all pairs within triads may be perfectly matched. The
ideal to which the triads aspire is a situation in which two sounds have a common
source but share little physical (acoustic) resemblance. An extreme cross-sensory
example of this is the following three stimuli: the sound of a fire crackling, the smell
of smoke and a crisp packet rustling. The smell of smoke and the sound of a fire
burning specify a common source of fire despite no sensory similarity, while the
sound of a fire burning and the rustling of a crisp packet share acoustic resemblance
and an absence of a common physical source. This is an ideal which the triads
exemplify with different degrees of success.
Although this study only investigated the perception of structural functions, and
common genres, the study could be extended to investigate the perception of other
types of "specification", such as cultural codes (e.g. sigh motif) and social contexts
(e.g. religiousworship, dance). On the basis of these findings a second experiment was
carried out in order to elicit more information regarding the range of specifications
which sounds afford listeners and to investigate individual differences further.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 1 indicated that listeners are sensitive to the acoustic characteristics
of musical and everyday sounds, and their specification of a cultural or physical
source, and suggests that in the absence of any other context, listeners revert to
a "default" mode of judging similarity which is in terms of sounds' acoustic
characteristics. What experiment 1 does not indicate however, is the range of
specifications which sounds can make (i.e. the range of meanings to which sounds
give rise), and the extent to which individual differences determine which of these
is salient. A second experiment was therefore designed to elicit free descriptions of
sounds in order to gather information on the range of specifications which
listeners hear.
174
Music perception andmusical material
NICOl.'. D1BBEN
METHOD
Participants. Thiny-four unpaid volunteers participated in this study. Participants
were aged between 16 and 49, and were living in or around Sheffield. Ten of the
participants had at least eight years of formal music training in instrumental lessons,
at school and/or university and were currently either studying or teaching music.
The other participants had received no formal training additional to that offered in
the pre-GCSEI'O' Level British school curriculum, although some were practically
involved in other forms of music making such as popular music. None had taken
part in the previous study.
Materials. The same 48 sound examples from the previous experiment were used
(see Appendix). These were presented in the same randomised order for all listeners
with a three second silence between. The random ordering was constrained to avoid
sounds from the same sound triad appearing consecutively (see Experiment 1 for
details of the triads used).
Equipment. The sound examples were played to participants over a high quality
amplifier and speakers.
Procedure. Participants were presented with each of the sound examples in turn
and asked to "write a short sentence, or fewwords describing what you hear".
REsULTS
Consistency. Table 4 shows the frequencies of descriptions given for each sound
example", Most sounds elicited either identical or highly related descriptions,
however a few sounds proved to be more difficult to identify (e.g. <vinyl hiss> and
<frying. In those caseswhere participants differed in their identification of sounds,
they rarely confused different modes of excitation (if Gaver, 1993a). The excerpts
of music elicited rhe biggest range of responses, although these were often highly
related (e.g. see <Haydn, long perfect cadence.
(7) The number of participants who gave each description is given in brackets after the descriptive
term. If there is no bracketed number then the term was used by one participant only. Many
participants used more than 1 descriptive term for each sound therefore the sum of terms is often
more than 34 (the number of participants).
175
Table 4
Descriptions of sound examples given in Experiment 2
Sound
Description
Example
Heavy Rain Rain (17), water running (10), frying (2), waterfall (2), crackling/ranling (2),
clapping, shower, something shaking
Frying Frying (26), vinyl hiss (3), pouring rain (2), water running (2), bees in rain,
sparklers.
Stream Water (running) (16), river/brook/stream (7), heavy rain (3), water down
plug-hole (3), founrains (3), waterfall (2), thundersrorrn, barh swilling,
boiling water, washing machine, washing up, close to water, rinsing.
Haydn long Strings (14), violin (7), orchestra (7), classical (7), cadenrial (4), block
perfect chords (2), lively (2), theatre, happy, grand, string quarrer, Handel, Mozart,
cadence introduction, Saturday morning cleaning music.
Haydn short Violins (10), strings (6), orchestra (7), classical music (5), string quarrer (2),
imperfect happy, lively, jumpy, bright, thick, short, 3 chords, less cadenrial, Mozart,
cadence opera, beginning of ballet, going to work.
Haydn short Strings (9), ending (7), classical (6), violins (6), 3 chords (5). perfect
perfect cadence (3), string quartet (2), building to a climax (2), crescendo, orchestral,
cadence double-stops, pompous.
Webern, Horror film (11), suspense (5), spooky (2) bells (5), oriental (4), asian (2),
orchestral contemporary music (2), strings (2), percussion (2), gameian orchestra, wind
gameian sound chimes, a clock, Buddhism, FM synthesis (DX7), market-square, too busy,
arabaian, piano.
Gameian-like Indian (8), chanting/singing (3), African (3), Asian (3), festive (2), male and
voices female voices (2), religious ritual (2), Vietnamese puppet theatre sound,
oriental, middle east, foreign.
Gameian, slow Chimes/bells (9), horror film music (5), metal (5), eastern music (5),
spooky (4), percussion (3), gameian (3), Balinese (2), ritual (2), Asian
traditional music (2), Japanese, real or synthesised, FM synthesis.
Fire crackle Big fire burning (17), horses (galloping) (8). something large rolling (2),
a storm (2), rain (2), thunder, wind in microphone, wind, rumbling.
Vinyl hiss Vinyl/tape hiss/static (16), fire burning/crackling (10), rain (2), fuzzy, bees,
anticipation, water running, crackling. needles, small fireworks.
Vinyl scratch Scratching on vinyl (24), DJ-ing (4), zipper (4), irritating (2), someone who
can't scratch, something rubbing.
Flamenco song Spanish (16), Flamenco (13), male singer (10), guitar (8), Mexian (4),
holiday music (2), clapping (2), dance (2), stamping, Mediterranean, Greek,
Central European folk music, South American, Latino, Carribean.
176
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
Flamenco Guitar (25), Spanish (I 5), classical guitar (6), Flamenco (2), Morroco (2),
guitar duet laid back (2), Tango, romantic, Mexican, Latin, South American, jazz, free
improvisation, harp, strings, arpeggio, restaurant musk.
Keto duet Oriental (9), Japanese (8), Chinese (7), plucked/muck string instrument (9),
Asian (2), Middle Eastern (2), Koto (2), harp, sitar, guitar, Indian, Eastern,
Mandolin, Latin-American, Greece.
Motorbike Motorbike (31), setting off (II), motor car (2), passing (2), vehicle.
starts and departs
Tiger
Lionltiger/bear roaring (31), dinosaur (2), dog, further away at first.
Cat miaowing Cat (29), distressed (8), a fake car (5), a baby (2).
Vocal cadenza Opera (23), singer (female) (I 7), cadenza (7), Italy (3), aria (3), collorarura (2),
with orchestra (2), in pain, emotional, happy, strings, Mozart, romantic/classic,
falsetto.
Violin theme Violin (32), concerto (5), happy/sad (4), relaxing (4), pizzicato chords (3),
formal occasion (3), classical (2), love, romance, hymn, Eastern European,
English, Baroque, court music from 1500s, nostalgia (filmic flashback).
Violin cadenza Violin (27), cadenza (5), cello (4), bee-like (3), classical (2), trilling (2), string
instrument, build-up, furious, running, frightened.
Beethoven short Piano (26), ending (9), 3 chords (5), happy, cheap show, wine music, strange
perfect cadence opera music,
Beethoven short Piano (27), chords (6), not an end (5), cadence (2), silent movies (2), happy,
imperfect cadence lively, big hall, classical sonara, ballet,
Beethoven long Piano (30), sad (5),romanric-sryle (3), silent movie music (2), transitional (2),
imperfect cadence ending, jazz/blues, modern, concerto, concert hall, full chords, baller,
Webern Flure/clariner (12), mysrery(8), film (7), contemporary art music (4), horror (3),
orchestral orchestral (2), pipes, piercing, space music, outback music, African open plains,
strings.
Flute blown Flute (16), long-held note (8), ship's horn (4), train horn (4), woodwind
instrument (3), slowish, piercing, Andes, tuning fork, homeless person/beggar.
Flute Flute (13), single sustained note (8), synthesised flute (5), woodwind (3),
synthesised high pitch (2), train whistle (3), pipes, wind. blowing over bottle, tuning up
an orchestra.
Oboe
Synthesised oboe (7), synthesised (5), fog horn (4), woodwind/oboe/clarinet/
synthesised bassoon (5), horn (3), flute (2), tuning fork (2), train horn, penetrating,
Gflar, D.
Beethoven long Piano (20), fast (10), classical (2), high to low tension (2), Beethoven (2),
perfect cadence
Mozart, early 19thC, mid-section, end of section, slowing, diminuendo.
Gamelan, slow Oriental (10), bells (6), (Balinese) gamelan (3), percussion-chimes (3), clock-
with melody work (3), temple, Indian, pipes.
177
Dance music, Bells/chimes (5), synthesised bells (4), percussion (3), eastern (4), gamelan (2),
slow chinese (2), mystical, Indian, garnelan-jazz, wood-metal, xylophone, glockenspiel,
thai traditional music, Japanese, circus, cirnbalon, hurdy-gurdy.
Japanese Crying/singing/wailing (10), someone in pain (6), Indian (4), woman (4),
vocals man (3), Turkish (2), orient (2), praying (2), southeast Asia (2), straining
for high register micro-tones, tradirional song, Africa, Mongolia, China,
synthesised.
Classical chord Orchestra (20), finale/end (12), chord (5), loud (2), string (2), power (2),
arpeggiated symphonic (2), president, dramatic, long note, romantic period.
Jungle extract Drum 'n' bass (6), electronic/synthesised (6), percussive beat (3), chilled (3),
dance (2), mellow (2), jazzy (2), jungle, clubbing, fashionable, funk,
breakbear, gentle piano, vibrophone.
Jungle chord Synth pad (8), Goldie (5), strings (5), dynamic crescendo-decrescendo (4),
film (2), love (2), mysterious, furore music, UFO, orchestra chord, modern,
drama, Mercury Rev, something gelling closer.
Dance music, Electronic (9), cheesy synrh (8), disco (4), rhythmic percussion (3), funky (2),
fast pop, techno, 1970s movies, breakbeat, fast, tinny sound, loop, metallic,
equalised drumbeat.
Flute keys Drum (5), bamboo canes banged together (4), plastic bamboo (2), percussion (2),
coconuts (2), fast tapping (2), imitation of horses (2), unknown instrument
(design specified in a picture or description) (2), casrenettes, animal skin and
pulses, splashing, plastic, rarding bones, finger drum, shaking, paning.
Atonal ending Danger/scary/mysterious (9), violins (8), strings (7), 20thC piece (5), (horror)
fast film (4), tremolando (2), on the bridge and pizzicato, flute, fast.
Atonal ending HIm (blackand white) (7), death (5), strings (5), sad (4), 20thC atonal music (4),
slow violins (3), dark (3), drone (2), cello (2), horror film, melodic, viola, no vibrato,
synthesiser, old and poor quality.
Atonal opening 20thC string music (10), cartoon music (4), thriller (4), filmic (2), strings (2),
fast irregular (2), jumpy (2), lively (2), plucked (2), happy, murder music, ballet,
a music student, col legno,
Firework display Fireworks (13), missilesfired (6), gunshots (3), bonfire night (2), fast, exciting,
rip, throwing net.
Car passes at A car passing/traffic (32).
speed
Violin theme, Violin concerto (8), violin (6), orchestra (7), high (5), classical (4), love (4),
high register ballet (3), grand (3), film (3), posh (2), ballroom (2), church (2), talented
violinist, concert, first subject.
Stirring Stirring (a drink) (21), whisking (2), ice cubes in a glass (2), dropping beads
into a paper cup, obscure percussion instrument.
Haydn long Strings (14), classical (5), orchresrra (4), final (3), sad (2), violin (2), interrupted
imperfect cadence cadence (2), balanced.
178
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DIBIlEN
Atonal opening, Violin (9), sad (9), film music (7), srring orchestra (6), funeral/dearh (5),
slow lonely (3), anriciparion (3), slow (2), winds, drama.
Classical chord Srring orchesrra (lO), (horror) film (5), scared (3), classical (2), falling (2),
appoggiarura passion (2), chords (2), suspense (2), dischordanr (2), build-up (2), tragedy,
cello, dramatic, death, plagal cadence.
Kinds of description. Listeners described the different sounds in a variety of ways:
as well as a sound's acoustic characteristics, physical source, genre and musical
function (the categories investigated in Experimenr l), listeners described sound
examples in terms of their emotional characrer or mood, a social context associated
with the music (an occasion, event or type of listener associared wirh the music), the
physical space in which rhe sound was made, the implied proximity of listener to
rhe sound source, and the level and type of performance skill involved. Participants
usually described sounds in terms of one or twO of these kinds of description at a
rime, and only rarely described sounds in more than three different ways. Table 5
shows the frequency of occurrence of each of these kinds of description, and reveals
that wirhin this study lisreners privileged the sound's physical source over orher
aspects. When lisreners were unsure of the source of the sound they tended ro resort
to other modes of description: for example, eflute keys>was difficuir for listeners to
identify and elicired a larger range of descriptions, many of which were acousric in
character, e.g. "splashing", "rattling", "drumming", "rapping", "shaking", "rushed,
irregular" and "parting", as well as a range of possible sources ("drum" [5], "bamboo
canes banged rogerher" [4], "plastic bamboo" [2], "percussion" [2], "coconuts" [2],
"castenenes" [1], "animal skin and pulses" [1]). Two listeners suggested it might be
an obscure percussion instrument, and one even provided a drawing of the possible
instrument. Each of the different kinds of description is considered briefly below.
Table 5
Frequencies of categories of sound descriptions given in Experiment 2
Descriptive term
Physical source
Genre
Acoustic characteristics
Emorion
Function
Social context
Physical proximiry
Physical space
Performance skill
Sum of occurrences
1126
438
147
103
70
50
20
8
3
Physical source. The physical source of the sound was the most frequent kind of
descriprion, and every sound (i.e. both "musical" and "everyday" sounds) was
179
described in these terms by at least some of the listeners. The "everyday"sounds were
all primarily described in terms of their physical source, whereas the extracts of
music tended to be described most frequently in terms of their genre.
Genre. Second to the physical source of sounds, genre was mentioned most often.
Film music was frequently mentioned in relation to concert music examples,
especially, bur not exclusively, by the untrained listeners {e.g. see <violin theme>
which was described as "Happy ending. Roll the credits", erc.), and the atonal
contemporary music examples were often described in terms of film soundtracks,
usually of the "horror" or "thriller" genre {e.g. <Webern, orchestral gamelan sound>
was described as "scary, horror movie", erc.),
Acoustic character. Descriptions of the acoustic characteristics of sounds were
fairly frequent and referred to a range of characteristics such as pitch, speed, timbre,
rhythmic character and dynamics {e.g. <fire crackle>was referred to as "crackle" and
<violin theme high register> as "high pitch"}.
Emotional character or mood. The emotional character or mood of the music was
often mentioned along with a filmic context {as above} but occasionally on its own
{e.g. <Beethoven long imperfect cadence> was described as "depressing, sad piano
music"}. .
Musical function. The rhetorical function of musical material was referred to by
both groups of participants {e.g. <Haydn short perfect cadence> was described as
"ending" by both trained and untrained listeners}.
Social context. A fewlisteners explicitly mentioned the social context of the music.
Participant 1 used this category most often, and always in relation to the extracts of
classical music: e.g. "formal dinner dance" (eviolin theme, high register), "formal,
presentation, president" (cclassical chord arpeggiared), and "classical, posh" (eviolin
theme. Other participants used it less regularly, with less emphasis on the social
status associated with the music and more on the contexts of performance and
listening {for example, the association of sounds with a domestic listening context:
e.g. "Saturday morning cleaning music" {<Haydn long perfect cadences), "Sunday
morning, bacon sandwiches, coffee, read the paper... relax" {<frying>}. Other
mentions of social contexts were primarily to do with particular ritual contexts:
for example, <gamelan voices> was described as "Religious festival" and "Asian
traditional dancing music, festival of agriculture"}.
Relationship of listener to sound source. Participants sometimes commented on
the implied proximity between themselves and the sound source: for example, one
participant described <frying> as "could be vinyl, or water heard from inside".
Increase and decrease of intensity of everyday sounds was interpreted as the object
180
MU5ic perception and mU5icai material
NICOLA D1BBEN
changing proximity: e.g. a number of participants described <motorbike> as revving
then going away. Loudness was sometimes interpreted as physical proximity, and
sometimes in terms of the size of the source (e.g. dire crackle> was described as
"huge fire" by one participant and as "big bonfire, forest fire, house burning down"
by another).
Physical space. Participants very occasionally mentioned the physical space and
environment specified by the sound (e.g. <motorbike> was described as a "car
getting nearer and then passing on tarmac road, sounds like its in a built up area").
Performance skill. The level of performance skill displayed in the sound was
mentioned rarely, but across genres. So, for example, while a number of participants
referred to <vinyl scratch> as "a DJ scratching" or "vinyl being scratched" one
musically untrained listener described the sound as "someone who can't scratch".
Effects of experience. The specific expertise of participants seemed to influence
their descriptions of sounds. For example, one participant (a sound engineer
undertaking a training course in music technology at the time of the study) was the
only person to refer to some sounds in terms of a specific synthesised source: he
described <Webern, orchestral garnelan sound> and <Gamelan, slow> as "FM
synthesis - DX7", and described <Dance music, fast> as an "Equalised drumbeat".
A number of participants showed specific knowledge of classical instrumental
performance techniques, describing sounds as "on the bridge and pizzicato" atonal
ending fast and "col legno" atonal opening, slows), and one participant heard a
sustained wind sound flute synthesised as "tuning up an orchestra". A number
of participants identified excerpts in terms of the piece it came from: <violin theme>
was correctly identified as Beethoven violin concerto by one participant, and
<Jungle chord> was correctly identified as Goldie "Inner City Life" by five
participants. The only people to identify the genre and cultural source of the east
Asian musics correctly (cgarnelan slow> and ckoro duet were one expert Westerner
(an erhnomusicologist specialising in the music of east Asia) and a Japanese student.
Contrary to the findings of Experiment I, both trained and untrained listeners
described the sounds in Experiment 2 in terms of their musical function: for
example, three musically trained participants described vocal cadenza as a
cadenza while two untrained participants described it in a way suggestive of its
musical function (e.g. "end of section").
DISCUSSION
The high level of consistency between the descriptions of sounds given in
Experiment 2 suggests that the comparisons made in Experiment 1 were largely
based on correct identifications. However, listeners' descriptions of what they heard
181
covered a range of types confirming that sounds are heard not only, or primarily, in
terms of their acoustic characteristics bur in terms of other musical and cultural
specifications: physical source, physical proximity, physical space, genre, musical
function, level and type of performance skill, emotional character, and social context.
The frequency with which different kinds of descriptions occurred in this study
should not be taken as indicative of the frequency with which they are used in
all situations, however. First, the frequency of different types of description is
influenced by the particular examples used in the study and the information they
provide: for example, the sound example of the single flute tone may not provide
enough information to determine a characteristic such as genre, and an everyday
sound divorced from any larger context is unlikely to suggest a musical function.
Second, these descriptions were elicited in an undirected manner, in the context of
a listening study rather than an everyday occasion.
Why and when listeners hear or choose to describe sounds in terms of particular
specifications appears to be strongly influenced by the character of the sound source
and listeners' background and expertise. The results confirm Gaver's (l993a)
finding that when people are unsure of the sound source they tend to describe it
in terms of its acoustic characteristics. The apparent contradiction between the
results of the two experiments regarding the ability of trained and untrained listeners
to hear rhetorical categories appears to be an effect of task: Experiment 2 revealed
that untrained listeners were aware of the rhetorical function of musical material,
therefore their failure to use function as a category in Experiment 1 reveals a tendency
to opt for the default categorisation of acoustic resemblance in a similarity judgement.
One other striking aspect of participants' descriptions is the frequent association of
extracts of concert music with film, television and theatre. This may be because these
constitute two of the primary contexts in which many listeners encounter concert
music. It also suggests that one of the most important factors in the meanings people
associate with particular kinds of music may be its association with filmic events and
functions (if Cook, 1998).
One notable instance of the effect of listeners' backgrounds was in relation to the
social contexts specified by sounds. As indicated above, a number of participants
described the classical music sound examples in terms of a type of listener associated
with the music (usually of high socio-economic class), or a social setting (usually a
formal occasion associated with high social class or with state power). For some
listeners, then, the most salient aspect of these sound examples was their class
allegiances - as illustrated by the listener who described the extract of Beethoven
violin concerto as "posh...", For this participant - a seventeenyear old femalestudent
from a relatively disadvantaged background with little or no training in classical
music, and participating in the study as a visitor on an outreach program run by the
University - the salient meaning of this sound example was its class allegiances. It
would be impossible to determine from this study which of these possible factors
contributed to making these meanings salient for this participant, but it is at least
182
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
suggestive of the kinds of forces which may be at work in determining the attributes
which are salient for particular listeners at particular moments.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of experiment I indicate mat listeners are sensitive to both the acoustic
characteristics of musical material and to what materials "specify": although listeners
based the majority of their judgements of the similarity of sounds on their acoustic
resemblance, they were often simultaneously aware of a conflicting pairing based on
common physical source, cultural source (genre), or compositional function.
Experiment 2 extended these findings by revealinga range of meanings specified by
sounds. Contrary to the findings of Experiment I, listeners most commonly
described sounds in terms other than their acoustic characteristics. The main finding
of this research is that listeners are sensitive to both the acoustic characteristics and
specifications ofsounds, but that one is privilegedover another in particular contexts:
using a forced-choice binary decision Experiment I revealed the relative strength of
these two types of listening in the context of a similarity judgement; Experiment 2
revealed the influence of expertise and listener's background upon the specifications
heard.
These two studies suggest that the distinction between "musical" and
"everyday" listening (Gaver, 1993a and b) captures two ways of listening to sounds
bur that listening to music can involve listening to a sound's specification of source,
as well as to irs acoustic characteristics. For this reason I avoid the terms "musical"
and "everyday" (which confuse two ways of listening with two kinds of sounds) in
favour of the terms "acoustic attributes" and source "specifications" (where source is
extended to include cultural and musical sources). These studies indicate that
sounds specify not only physical sources, but culrural and musical attributes as well
(if Clarke and Windsor). These "specifications" are in this sense "meanings" which
sounds have for particular listeners. What a listener hears when he or she hears music
appears to be "hearing as": materials with meanings guided by listeners' needs and
preoccupations.
One question this raises is when and why listeners adopt one listening mode
rather than another, and in terms of the perception of musical meaning, asks why it
is listeners perceive the meanings that they do. The studies reported here highlight
three possible reasons for the subjectivity of sound perception. First, listeners may
be "mistaken" in attributing meaning to a sound: for example, they may hear "rain"
instead of "vinyl hiss". In this case the difference is due to a false attribution. Second,
a listener may not know about certain culturally significant objects or events, e.g.,
they may never have encountered the koto or any genres ofJapanese music. In this
case differences arise as a product of differences of experience and expertise. Third,
the salience of particular attributes may differ for different people (and for the same
person in different contexts). It is this last issue that I focus on in the rest of this
discussion.
183
The studies reported here indicate that the kinds of specifications listeners hear
and the kinds of listening strategy adopted differ according to the participant.
Drawing on ecological psychology and its application to music (Clarke, 1999;
Windsor, 1995,2000), these differences can be theorised as arising from the differing
preoccupations and skills of listeners in relation to the structure offered by sounds.
Whereas ecological psychology defines the affordances of objects in terms of the
needs and preoccupations of an organism, these needs are rheorised here as also
political and social, along lines suggested by Windsor (1995, 2000). In this instance,
when a listener hears "posh" rather than "love scene" or Beethoven's violin concerto,
they are providing a description in which the Beethoven violin concerto is directly
expressive of a social situation and their relationship to it.
This accounr is similar to perforrnarive theories of musical meanings. DeNora
argues that what people do when they use music in everydaylife, is what musicologists
and analysts do when they write about music - mobilise particular meanings:
"Telling what the meaning is, and deftly deflecting dispreferred meanings and readings,
is pan and parcel of the semiotic skills of daily life. We need ro learn to see professional
semioticians in a similar vein - as mobilizing particular features of utterances in order
to produce meanings [... J Readings, even highly professional ones, become just that -
particular interpretations, particular mobilizations of texts." (DeNora, 2000, p. 38).
Directly influenced by ecological theory, DeNora argues that interpretations are not
simply unconstrained: "Meaning, or semiotic force, is not an inherent property of
cultural materials, whether those materials are linguistic, technological, or aesthetic.
At the same time, materials are by no means empty semiotic spaces" (DeNora, 2000,
P: 38). An ecological stance on this is that meaning arises from the mutuality of
object and perceiver, and sounds specify meanings and values for particular listeners,
some or one of which can be mobilised at particular moments. In this way music is
implicated in the construction of identities, and in the social and political context
of everyday life.
Windsor's more explicitly ecological account of interpretation argues that
aesthetic objects afford interpretation because they deny the possibility ofexploration
with the other perceptual senses one would normally use to make sense of
information (Windsor, 1995, 2000), and offers an explanation of the discursive
practices surrounding music which has many analogies with that of perforrnative
theories of meaning:
"Where the immediate information from a particular source is insufficient the human
being not only hunts for additional information ftom the 'natural' environment but also
(8) Performative theories of meaning (the idea that meaning is constructed through performative
acts) derive from speech act theory and have been influential in performance (e.g. Schechner,
1988), in music criticism and writings of the "new musicology" (e.g Kramer, 1990), and in gender
studies (e.g. Butler, 1990).
184
Music perceptiDn and musical material
NICOLADIBBEN
from the social and culrural environment. By observing the actions of others, exploring
cultural artefacts. by involvement in discussion with others, information may be gathered
which supplements that provided by the event or object in question." (Windsor, 2000,
p.21).
According to this account, aesthetic objects afford the production of signs because
there is not enough information to make sense of them, and the discursive practices
surrounding music become part of this "sense making".
There is also a need to consider the role of context in the "mobilisation" of
meanings. Applied to the real-world situations in which people experience music,
the results of the studies reported here suggest that particular musical practices, such
as the location in which the music occurs, and the physical relationship of the
listener to the music within that location, are both aspects which will influence what
aspects of the music the listener attends to. Similarly, received theory as to how one
should listen to the music may be equally important (for example, accompanying
information provided in the form of program notes, or enculrurarion into particular
kinds of listening practices and aesthetic attitudes) (if Cook, in press). Particular
compositional practices may also privilege one or other listening mode: compare, for
example, the treatment of everyday sounds in the electroacousric music of
Stockhausen (in which conventional associations between sound and world are
largely avoided) uersus that of Trevor Wishan (where the everyday associations of
sounds are an integral pan of the structure and motivation of works) (Windsor,
1996a and b, 2000).
The studies reported here highlight the need for further research into the way in
which meanings are taken up by different listeners. The notion that materials come
with and are heard in terms of social and historical meanings presupposes that the
listener isfamiliar with and aware of these meanings. To the extent that these meanings
and associations are pan of a common cultural experience and musical repertoire
shared by listeners, listeners may in fact share a more common understanding of
materials and their meanings than may at first appear to be the case. (It is easy to
assume that our hearings of music are completely idiosyncratic, yet the meanings of
material are based on material properties and their social and historical associations,
on which there is a high degree of agreernent.) This is not to deny the differences
that arise between listeners' experiences of music, but it implies that the meanings
that listeners perceive are partly a product of differences in the perception of material
and the associations that material has for listeners: it is the simple recognition that
meaning is always "meaning for" someone. This is equivalent to the recognition in
Other cultural domains that the meanings of a text are a product of the subject
position of the listener and their particular "reading competence" kg. Gledhill,
1997), and that meanings are "mobilised" according to the needs of the moment
as well as according to more established (listening) practices. Thus, the notion that
meaning is mediated by musical materials does not mean that that meaning is
185
somehow inherent in musical material, nor that it is fixed. It is at all times a function
of the relationship between listener and material 9
(9) Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Adrian Moore for designing the computer interface used in this empirical
study. This research was funded by a grant from the Sheffield University Research Fund. and was
carried out while the author was supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Address for correspondence:
Nicola Dlbben
Department of Music
University of Sheffield
38 Taptonville Road
Sheffield. 5105GB
UK
e-mail: n.J.dlbben@sheffield.ac.uk
186
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DIBllEN
REFERENCES
Agawu, V. K. (1991). Playing with signs. Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press.
Baily, J. (1996). Using tests of sound perception in fieldwork. ~ r o o k for Traditional Music, 147-
73.
Butler, J. P. (1990). Gmdn troubk: Feminism and thesubversion ofidmtity. NewYork: Routledge.
Clarke, D. (1993). Parting Glances. TheMusical Times, December, 680-84.
Clarke, E. E (1986). Theory, analysis and the psychology of music: A critical evaluation of
Lerdahl, E and ]ackendoff, R. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Psychology ofMusic,
14,3-16.
Clarke. E. E (1999). Subject position and the specification of invariants in music by Frank Zappa
and P.]. Harvey. MusicAnalysis, 18(3),347-74.
Clarke. E. E. & Dibben, N. (1997). An ecological approach to similarity and categorisation in
music. In M. Ramscar, U. Hahn, E. Cambouropolos and H. Pain. (eels). Proceedings of
SimCat 1997: An Interdisciplinary Workshop on Similarity and Caugorisation (pp. 37-
41). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
Cook, N. (1998). Analysing Musical Multimedia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cook, N. (in press). Theorising musical meaning. Music Theory Spectrum, 23.
De'Nora, T. (2000). Musicin Everyday lift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dibben, N. (1996). The Rok of Rtduaional &presentations in the Perception of Atonal Music.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Frances, R. (1988). The Perception ofMusic(Translarion W:]. Dowling). Hillsdale, N]: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gaver. w: w: (1988). Everyday listening andauditory icons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San
Diego, CA: University of California.
Gaver, W. w: (1993a). Whar in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event
perception. Ecological Psychology,S (1), 1-29.
Gaver, w: w: (1993b). How do we hear in the world? Explorations of ecological acoustics,
Ecological Psychology. 5 (4), 285-313.
Gjerdingen, R. O. (1988). A classic turn ofphrase. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gledhill. C. (1997). Genre and gender: The case of soap opera. In S. Hall. (ed.), Representation:
Cultural Represmtations and SignifYing Practice (pp, 337-86). London: Sage
Publications.
Goehr, L (1992). The Imaginary Museum ofMusical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy ofMusic.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hampton, J. (l997). Similarity and Categorization. In M. Rarnscar, U. Hahn, E. Cambouropolos
and H. Pain. (eels), Procudings of SimCat 1997: An Interdisciplinary Workshop on
Similarityand Categorisation (pp, 103-09). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
Hatten, R. (1994). Musical meaning in Beethoven: Markedness. correlation, and interpretation.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Huron, D. (1999). Music and Mind: Foundations of Cognitive Musicology. The1999 Ernst Bloch
Lectures. Universiry of California, Berkeley. http://dacryJ.som.ohio-stare.
edulMusic220/Bloch.lecrures/Bloch.lecrures.hrml.
Johnson, ]. (1998). The nature of abstraction: Analysis and rhe Webern myrh. Music Analysis,
17(3),267-80.
187
[uslin, P., & Sloboda. J. A. (eds, 2001). Musicand Emotion: and Rmarch. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kramer. L. (1990). Music ascultural practice, 1800-1900. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1998). Topic in Music: An Empirical Study of Memorability, Openess, and
Emotion in Mozart's String Quinter in C major and Beethoven's String Quartet in A
minor. Music Perception, 16. I, 119-34.
Lerdahl, E. & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A Generatio Theory ofTonal Music. Cambridge. MA: MIT
Press.
McAdams, S. (I993). The recognition of sound sources and events. In S. McAdams and
E. Bigand (eds), Thinking in Sound: Psychology of Human Audition
(pp. 146-98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, S., Winsberg. S., & Donnadieu, S. (1995). Perceptual scaling of synthesised musical
rimbres: Common dimensions, speciflclries, and latent subject classes. Psychological
&starch, 58(3),177-92.
Schechner, R. (1988). Pnformanu (Revised Edition). New York: Routledge.
Slawson, W. (1985). Sound Color. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The of pnforming and listming: Hanover & London:
Weslyan University Press.
Spitzer, M. (1996). The rerransition as sign -listener-orientated approaches to ronal closure in
Haydn Sonata-form movements. Journal of Royal Musical Association, 121 (I), 11-
45.
Tagg, P. (1982). Analysing popular music: Theory. method and practice. Popular Music. 2. 37-67.
Tagg, P., & Clarida, B. (in press). Ten Link Tunes.
Vanderveer. N. ]. (1979). Ecological acoustics: Human perception of environmental sounds.
Dissertation Abstracts International; 40. 4543B (University Microfilms No. 80-04.002).
Windsor. W. L. (1995). A Approach to DeuriptionandAnalysis ofAcousmatic Music.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City University. London.
Windsor, W. L. (19900). Perception and signification in electroacoustic music. In R. Monelle and
C. T. Gray (eds), Song and signification (pp. 64-74). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University,
Faculty of Music,
Windsor, W. L (l996b). Autonomy. Mimesis and Mechanical Reproduction in Contemporary
Music, Contemporary Music Rndeu; 15 (I), 139-50.
Windsor. W. L. (2000). Through and around the acousrnaric the interpretation of elecrroacousric
sounds. In S. Emmerson. (ed.), Music. Electronic and (pp.7-35).
Aldershot: Ashgare.
1BB
Musicperception and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
DISCOGRAPHY
BBC Essenrial Sound Effects, BBC CD 792, 1990.
Bjork, Homogmic. CD 32744, [Japan] 1998.
Ecleai Classical Impressions.
Garklnd Encyclopedi ofWorldMusic, vol. 4. Garland Publishing, 1998.
The Glenn GouldEdition BtttholJm PianoSonatas, SM3K 52 642.
Goldie, Timeless, 828 646-2, 1995.
Haytin String Quarttts, op. 6. no.sl-B, KodalyQuartet, Naxos CD 8.550314, 1989.
Spooky Found Sound. GENRCDl 540 534-2, 1996.
Webern, Complete ~ r s SM3K45845, 1991.
WorldSound Mattas. Schott & Co. ED 12572, 1996.
189
Appendix
Sound examples
1. "Heavy Rain" (BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990).
2. Frying.
3. "Stream" (BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990).
4. Haydn long perfect cadence (Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 2, mvt, 1,
b. 152/2-154. Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76. no.s 1-3, 1989).
5. Haydn short imperfect cadence (Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 3, rnvt, 4,
b. 123-4. Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76, no.s 1-3, 1989).
6. Haydn short perfect cadence (Haydn, String Quartet op. 76, no. 1, rnvr, 1, b. 1-
2. Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76, no.s 1-3,1989).
7. Webern, orchestral gamelan sound (Five Pieces for Orchestra, op. 10, no. 3, b. 1-
4. Webern: Compkte ~ r k s 1991).
8. Gamelan-like voices (Cakepung song "Pemungkah". Garland Encyclopedia of
World Music, 1998).
9. Gamelan, slow (excerpt from Balinese music for Gamelan Gong Cede, ~ r l
SoundMatters, 1996).
10. "Fire crackle" (BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990).
11. Vinyl hiss."
12. Vinyl scratch."
13. Flamenco song (excerpt from "Came flamenco". ~ r l SoundMatters, 1996).
14. Flamenco guitar duet (excerpt from Bjork "So Broken". Bjork Homogenic,
1998).
15. Koto duet.
16. "Motorbike starts and departs" (BBCEssential SoundEfficts, 1990).
17. "Tiger" (sound of growling tiger) (BBCEssential SoundEfficts, 1990).
18. "Cat miaowing" (BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990).
19. Vocal cadenza (Mozart, "Exultate, Jubilate" Motet in F Major, KV 165, cadenza.
Ecleai Classical Impressions).
20. Violin theme (Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61, mvt, 1, b. 511-
518/1. Eclecti Classical Impressions).
21. Violin cadenza (Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61, mvt, 1. Eclecti
Classical Impressions).
22. Beethoven short perfect cadence (Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 25-26. The Glenn GouldEdition).
23. Beethoven short imperfect cadence (Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 61-62. The Glenn GouldEdition).
24. Beethoven long imperfect cadence (Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in G major
op. 31, no. 1, b. 182/4-192. The Glenn GouldEdition).
25. Webern orchestral (Five Pieces for Orchestra, op. 10, no. 1, b. 3-5. Webern:
Complete "%rks, 1991).
26. Flute blown."
27. Flute synthesised."
28. Oboe synthesised."
190
Music percepnon and musical material
NICOLA DlBBEN
29. Beethoven long perfect cadence (Beethoven, Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 16 in
G major op. 31, no. I, b. 104-108. The Glenn GouldEdition).
30. Gamelan, slow with melody (Balinese music for Gamelan Gong Gede. World
SoundMatters, 1996).
31. Dance music, slow (Spooky "Onglon" [0.00-0.06]. FoundSound, 1996).
32. Japanese vocals.
33. Classical chord arpeggiated.
34. Jungle extract (Squarepusher).
35. Jungle chord (Goldie, "Inner City Life" [0.06-0.12]. Goldie Timeless, 1995).
36. Dance music, fast ("Central Heating" Spooky [3.41-3.47]. FoundSound, 1996).
37. Flute keys."
38. Atonal ending fast (Webern, Six Bagatellesfor StringQuartet, op. 9, no. 2, b. 6/4-
8. Webern: Complete Works, 1991).
39. Atonal ending slow (Webern, Five Movements for String Quartet, op. 5, no. 2,
b. 12/3-13. ~ e r n Complete Works, 1991).
40. Atonal opening fast (Webern, Five Movements for String Quartet,op. 5, no. 3,
b. 1-5. Webern: Complete Works, 1991).
41. "Firework display" (BBC Essential SoundEfficts, 1990).
42. "Car passes at speed" (BBC Essential SoundEffiets, 1990).
43. Violin theme, high register (Beethoven, Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 61,
rnvt, I, b. 101/4-109. Eclecti Classical Impressions).
44. Stirring. *
45. Haydn long imperfect cadence (Haydn. String Quartet, op. 76, no. 2, rnvt, 1,
b. 137-38. Haydn StringQuartets. op. 76. no.s 1-3, 1989).
46. Atonal opening, slow (Webern, Five Movements for StringQuartet, op. 5, no. 2,
b. 1-2. Webern: Complete Works, 1991).
47. Classical chord. appogiarura (Webern, Five Movements for StringQuartet, op. 5,
no. 1, b. 49 (Orchestral version). Webern: Complete Works. 1991).
indicates that the sound was specially recorded for the experiment.
'9'
lQue oimos cuando oimos muslca? Percepclon musical
y material musical
Lasteorlas sobre el hecho perceptive de la audici6n establecen una clara distinci6n
entre escucha "cotidiana" y "musical", Este trabajo reta al recuento de escuchas
de dos maneras: primera, extendiendo la ncei6n de espedficadon de la fuente
sonora a la especificaci6n de categorias culturales y cornposlttvas: y, segunda,
arguyendo que la escuchamusical implica escuchar 10 que espedftcan los sonidos
tanto como implica escuchar las caracterfsticas acusticas de dkhos sonidos. Se
defiende aqui que la caracterizaci6n de la escucha "musical" atendiendo al
caracter acustico del sonido es una reflexi6n de la imperante recepcion ideol6gica
de la obra de arte autonoma,
Este trabajo informa de los resultadosde dos estudiosernptrtcos que proporcionan
evidendas para la percepci6nmusical en terminos de categoriasde material musical
(es decir, 10 que especlfican los sonldos). En el primer estudio, los participantes se
enfrentaron a trladas de sonidos musicales y cotidianos, presentados emparejados
de forma conflictiva, y se les pidio identificar los dos que fueran mas s!milares. En
el segundo estudio, se solicltc a los oyentes que comentaran los sonidos. Estos
estudios revelaron que mientras los oyentes prestan atenci6n a las propiedades
acusticas de los sonidos, son sensibles a 10 que los sonidosespedtlcan (fuente fisica,
espacio fslco y proximidad, genero, funci6n musical, habilidad interpretativa,
atributos ernocionales y contexte social). Los resultados adararon fa manera en
que los oyentes privilegian ciertas crases de especlflcaciones. y algunos de los
factores implicados en estas elecciones se discuten brevemente en relaclon a la
teoria interpretativa de la signlficacicn musical.
(he cosa sentiamo quando sentiamo musica?
Percezione musicale e materiale musicale
Teorie sulla percezlone degli eventi da parte di un pubblico hanno messo in
evidenza una distinzione fra ascolto "quotidiano" e "musicale", Questo saggio
mette in dubbio tale descrizione dell'ascolto in due modi: innanzitutto, esso
estende la nozione di specificazione della sorgente alia specificazione di categorie
culturali e compositive, e in secondo luogo sostlene che l'ascolto della rnusica
comprende siaI'ascolto di quanta specificanoi suoni, slal'ascolto delle caratteristiche
acustiche dei suoni stessi. Vi si sostiene che la caratterizzazione dell'ascolto
"musicale" come attenzione al carattere acusttco del suono un riflesso
de/l'ideologia dominante nella ricezione dell'opera d'arte autonoma.
Questo saggio riporta i risultati di due studi ernpirid c:he forniscono prove a
favore della percezione musicale in termini di categorizzazione del materiale
musicale (ad esempio cic che i suoni spedftcano). Nel primo studio, ai partecipanti
192
Music perception and musical material
NICOLA DIBBEN
venivano presentate triadi di suoni musicali contrapposte a triadi di suoni di tutti
i giorni, e veniva chiesto loro di identificare le due triadi piLi simili fra loro. Nel
secondo studio veniva chiesto agli ascoltatori di commentare i suoni percepiti. Tali
studi sull'ascolto hanno mostrato che gli ascoltatori, nel momento in cui fanno
attenzione aile propneta acustiche del suoni, sono anche sensibili a cia che il suono
specifica (sorgente fislca, spazlo fislco e prossimitA, genere, funzione musicale,
abilita esecutiva, attributi emozionali e contesto sociale), I risultati mettono in
rilievo iI modo in cui gli ascoltatori privilegiano particolari tipi di specificazione, ed
alcuni dei fattori coinvolti in queste scelte vengono brevemente discussi in
relazione ad una teoria performativa del significate musicale.
Qu'entendons-nous quand nous ecoutons de la muslque ?
Perception et materiau musical
Lestheories de la perception sonore distinguent ecoute 'courante' et 'musicale'.
On se livre ici a une double contestation de cette opinion: en premier lieu,
la notion de specification de la source est elargie aux categories culturelles et
compositionnelles; ensuite, on postule qu'ecouter la musique, c'est autant ecouter
ce qui est exprime par les sons que leurs cararterlstlques acoustiques. Limiter
l'ecoute 'musicale' au seul caractere acoustique du sonore est, anotre sens, un
reflet de I'ldeologtedominante en matiere de reception de l'ceuvred'art autonome.
Suivent les resultats de deux etudes empiriques qui confortent la perception en
termes de categories de rnatenau musical (autrement dit, ce qui est exprirne par le
sonore), Les sujets de la premiere etude ont pour tache d'identifier les stimuli les
plus semblables dans des paires disparates de triades de sons musicaux et de sons
de la vie quotidienne. Ceux de la deuxieme etude doivent commenter les sons. On
decouvre ainsi que porter attention aux propnetes acoustiques des sons, c'est
affiner sa sensjbillte ace qui est exprlrne par les sons (source physique, distance
physique et proxlmlte, genre, fonction musicale, talent de l'interpretatlon, attributs
emotionnels et contexte social). II ressort aussi de ces etudes que des types
particuliers de specifications sont privilegies. Certains des facteurs impliques dans
ces cholx fondent une theorte de l'execution du sens musical.
Was horen wir, wenn wir Musik horen? Musikalische Wahrnehmung
und das musikalische Material
Theorien zur auditiven Wahrnehmung haben die Unterscheidung zwischen
Alltags- und musikalischem HOren hervorgehoben. Diese Studie stellt diese
Unterscheidung in zweifacher Weise in Frage. (1) dehnt ste den Begriff der
Quellenspezifikation auf die Spezifikation kultureller und kompositorischer
Kategorien aus und (2) argumentiert sie, daB Musikhoren die Wahrnehmung der
193
Spezifika des Schalles genauso wie die Wahrnehmung seiner akustischen
Eigenheiten einschlieflt und daB die Charakterisierung des musikalischen Herens
als Beachtung des akustischen Charakters von Schall eine Reflexion der
herrschenden Rezeptions-Ideologie des autonomen Kunstwerkes darstellt. Der
Beitrag berichtet Oberdie Resultatezweier empirischer Studien, welche den Beweis
fOr die Wahrnehmung von Musik auf der Basis der Kategorien des musikalischen
Materials (d. h. was Schall spezifiziert) liefert. In der ersten Studie wurden Triaden
von musikalischen und allt:i.glichen Schallereignissen in Gegensatzpaaren geboten
und die Versuchsteilnehmer gebeten, die zwei ahnlichsten anzugeben. In der
zweiten Studie bestand die Aufgabe der Teilnehmer darin, die Schallreize zu
kommentieren. Die HOrstudien zeigten, ~ die Horer, wllhrend sie auf die
akustischen Eigenschaftenachteten, auch darauf reagierten, was Schall spezifiziert
(Schallquelle, physikalischer Raum und Nllhe, Gattung, musikalische Funktion,
GOte der AusfOhrung, emotionale Attribute und sozlaler Kontext). Die Ergebnisse
der Studien beleuchten die Art, in welcher Horer bestimmte Arten von
Spezifikationen bevorzugen, und einige Faktoren werden im Hinblick aufeine
Performance-Theorie der musikalischen Bedeutung diskutiert.
194