Re: Melodic consonance (Eckard Blumschein )

Subject: Re: Melodic consonance
From:    Eckard Blumschein  <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE>
Date:    Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:25:38 +0200

Dear Alexandra Hettergott, I particularly appreciate the references you gave with your comment because they confirm my suspicion that you and presumably the majority of experts in music rely on authorities like Parncutt and Terhard who were possibly slightly wrong in basic positions. You would like to refer to something like spectral acoustic energy over time. Seebeck was perhaps the first one who tried to object even if he had no explanation why a heard fundamental was missing in the spectrum. He replied to Ohm that only the ear could decide how tones should be heard. In my opinion, there is mounting evidence that the neural aspects of hearing were underestimated. Vercoe may be one of the most prominent ones who, for instance, clearly explained: "If we are listening to an instrument with almost no energy at the fundamental (such as the bassoon), that will be just fine since, even though the low CF fibres will have nothing to report, the high CF fibres will send a loud and clear pitch message anyway." See also subharmonics by Kimura, JNMR 28, 2 Admittedly, I was so bold as to cast some related and interrelated views of mine into 106 theses (in German), one line each on just one sheet of paper. Since they were put onto the door of the auditorium in Oldenburg in March, I am waiting for objections. I am happy having had the opportunity to initiate a discussion of #79:=20 Die Wanderwelle ist wohl eher eine Begleiterscheinung lokaler und radialer Resonanzen, ein Epiph=E4nomen. (The traveling wave seems rather to be an attendant symptom of local and radial resonances, i.e. an epiphenomenon.)=20 I am very sorry if anybody might dislike to discuss such basic issues. Wasn't Steven Greenberg right when he wrote (1997):=20 "Temporal models lay largely out of favor until a decade ago. Several factors have swung the place-time pendulum back toward the temporal domain",= =20 and=20 "The auditory periphery has long been thought to function primarily as a frequency analyzer while more sophisticated functions such as complex feature extraction and acoustical recognition have been considered the province of the central pathway. However, it has become increasingly clear that this traditional view requires serious revision in order to account for the auditory system's capability of encoding meaningful information under a wide range of acoustical conditions."=20 #32) Das tonale H=F6ren ist begrenzt auf den Bereich musikalischer Harmonie zwischen etwa 65 Hz und 4000 Hz. (Tonal listening is limited to frequencies between about 65 Hz and 4 kHz where musical harmony is perceived.) #33) Es beruht nicht nur auf spektraler Ordnung (Tonotopie) sondern gleichzeitig auch auf zeitlicher Koinzidenz. (It is based not just on spectral order (tonotopy) but simultaneously on temporal coincidence, too.) #34) Diese Koinzidenz ist die einzige plausible Grundlage des Gleichklangs =FCber Oktaven und andere Intervalle.=20 (This coincidence provides the only plausible explanation of unison across octaves and other intervals.) What about dyads, I just guess, larger numbers were too demanding for those who tried to defend the spectral point of view. Be open to simplicity, instead. Eckard Blumschein

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University