[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

See you one and raise you two, was: harmonic vs. inharmonic sounds (one last time)

 Al Bregman <al.bregman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:

Take the case of two voices on different pitches heard at the same time. To create a separate representation for each one, the auditory system would have to detect two fundamental frequencies (or periodicities).

The physio-mechanics of this is far beyond me. I am intrigued that in listening to (say) a middle-Act Mozart opera finale with five people singing five different texts, and melodies, I am able to pick out all the fundamentals and spectral elements (formant structures), do a tonal-harmonic analysis, think and feel the emotional impact, do a very rough translation, evaluate the intonation of all of the singers and the orchestra, and listen to the general and specific quality of the orchestra and the conductor, either in "real" [sic] time or playing back from short-term or longer-term memory. These occur at different rates, which makes it easier, but (sometimes) means that they are also asynchronous, occuring 'at some point' inside the measurement window.

My practical thought on this (practical as in teaching ear-training) is that there are mental grids against which I can match and measure each of the (sets of) parameters. My approach is that the grids are not objects, but processes which my mind calls upon and implements on an "as-needed" basis. In writing a sight-reading and dictation curriculum (2 year university level), my focus was always on developing robust "process grid-building" skills.

I am enjoying the Nadine Gaab article linked by Branka, (Thank you), who wrote:
... (unless you have a definition of cognition as being restricted to conscious mental operations).

Sorry, I'm not a great believer in consciousness.