[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: noise classification problem
correction concerning Shaeffer's Traité des objets musicaux, the last
edition is from 1977 and includes an extra chapter: A LA RECHERCHE DE LA
MUSIQUE MEME pp. 663-701, signed by Shaeffer with the date Mars 1977. The
rest of the book as stated in that chapter by Shaeffer was published in 1966
( Dix ans aprés la publication du Traité....).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claire Piché" <clairepiche@VIF.COM>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: noise classification problem
> Susan allen wrote
> Hello, I would like a definition of 'real world sounds' = does this
> include piped in or background music in the retail/service
> environment? Many thanks
> Susan Allen
> --- That typical Music in the retail/service environment is called MUSAK
> wich is also the name of the american firm that defined the concept
> during the second world war II. Recently Doctor Hildegard Westerkamp
> from Simon Frazer university (communication dpt) gave a lecture on
> Musak. Michel Chion also discusses Musak in his book entitled
> /Musiques, médias et technologies/, 1994, Paris: Flammarion, p.52-63.
> Raymond Murray Schafer. 1977. The Tuning of the World, New York; A.
> Knopf Inc. 388p./ - Le paysage sonore./ Paris : J.-C. Lattès 1979 pour
> la traduction française.
> This book is a "must" for anyone interested in "sound of the environment"
> Schafer is the "fondateur" of the Canadian Association for Sound Ecology
> in Canada.
> Claire Piché
> Vincent Rioux wrote
> Back in 77, Pierre Schaeffer wrote very interesting things about sound
> (including "noise") classification (what he called "typo-morphology") in
> a book called "Traité des Objets Musicaux", 'Treatise of Musical Objects'.
> --- A little correction Vincent, Schaeffer'book has been published in
> 1966 not 1997
> Schaeffer, Pierre. 1966. /Traité des objets musicaux : essai
> interdisciplines. /Paris : Éditions du Seuil, 701p.
> Claire Piché
> Vincent Rioux a écrit :
> > Back in 77, Pierre Schaeffer wrote very interesting things about sound
> > (including "noise") classification (what he called "typo-morphology")
> > in a book called "Traité des Objets Musicaux", 'Treatise of Musical
> > Objects'.
> > It is written in French.
> > There might be some translations of this work in English,
> > for e.g. http://www.sun.rhbnc.ac.uk/Music/Archive/Disserts/palombin.html
> > but I am not aware of any official edited translation.
> > Note, that it was thought as a tool for musical composition (mostly
> > electroacoutic music) which might be slightly out of your scope (?)
> > regards,
> > vincent
> > At 22:27 15/04/2004, Valeriy Shafiro wrote:
> >> Hi Alberto,
> >> I don't believe that there are any "official" categories for
> >> real world sounds. In my opinion, Gaver's taxonomy of environmental
> >> sounds, while clearly not perfect, is still the best that we have for
> >> classifying sounds in general. At least it is a great starting
> >> point. As
> >> you wrote in your email the problem of classification is very
> >> complex, and
> >> this is one reason why you have not been able to find much information
> >> about it. Real world sounds are produced by a great variety of
> >> different
> >> sound sources which cannot be unambiguously classified either.
> >> People have
> >> tried to find some kind of an underlying perceptual structure of
> >> environmental sounds (e.g., Ballas, 1993; Marcell et al., Gygi,
> >> 2001), but
> >> that has not revealed any clearcut categories. Which is not to say
> >> there is no category structure, but rather that the categories do not
> >> reveal themselves very easily and unambiguously with the analysis
> >> methods
> >> we are using. My preferred analogy for the perceptual organization
> >> of real
> >> world sounds would be that of the lexicon where individual items can be
> >> classified based on acoustics/phonology, and also based on the
> >> ecological
> >> significance/semantics/meaning. Of course, this analogy is not
> >> and I offer it just as one way to think about the problem. For one,
> >> most environmental sounds the relationship between their semantics and
> >> acoustics is not as arbitrary as it is for words.
> >> If I understood you correctly, and your goal is synthesizing musically
> >> useful noises (possibly based on some real world sounds) then rather
> >> than
> >> trying to come up with a general all-encompassing classification of
> >> world sounds you may have more success figuring out specific types of
> >> noises/sounds that maybe interesting for your application. Or, you
> >> can try
> >> to find a way to represent different types of sounds in a smaller
> >> subset.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Valeriy
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Valeriy Shafiro
> >> Communication Disorders and Sciences
> >> Rush University Medical Center
> >> Chicago, IL
> >> office (312) 942 - 3298
> >> lab (312) 942 - 3316
> >> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Refs:
> >> Ballas, J.A. (1993). Common factors in the identification of an
> >> assortment
> >> of brief
> >> everyday sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
> >> and
> >> Performance, 19 (2), 250-267.
> >> Gygi, B. (2001). Factors in the Identification of Environmental Sounds,
> >> Unpublished
> >> doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
> >> Retrieved
> >> 02/20/02
> >> from http://www.indiana.edu/~k300bg/dissall.pdf
> >> Marcell, M.M., Borella, D., Greene, M., Kerr, E. & Rogers, S. (2000).
> >> Confrontation
> >> naming of environmental sounds. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
> >> Neuropsychology, 22(6), 830-864.