In Reply to: RE: Better duck under that desk; posted by Phelonious Ponk on August 4, 2009 at 05:05:49:
To further Tony's point, let me add that besides the breadth of what can be considered music in the continuum from a single tone to highly complex combinations of tones and rhythms, is the issue of training. While the complexity and possible aesthetic 'divertingness' of music might make it impossible for the untrained to do with music what they do with test tones, training might very well enable listeners to overcome this and eventually make the discriminations that tests with simple tones more readily demonstrate. That is one of the great shortcomings of most feasible double blind testing in this area, it is very difficult to control for the level of training and sophistication of the subjects. This is because we are not seeking to determine just what people DO distinguish but more importantly what they CAN distinguish. The maximum of what people can distinguish in music is only manifest with the most expensive training/experience along with the most innate talent for it. Each level of experience and of talent should be expected to have different results, no?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 08/5/0919:12:49 08/5/09 (4)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:46:58 08/5/09 (3)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 20:00:35 08/5/09 (2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 03:56:22 08/6/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:50:41 08/6/09 (0)