From: music-research@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Music-Research Digest      Vol. 7, #30
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:36:51 GMT
Reply-To: music-research-request@cattell.psych.upenn.edu

Music-Research Digest       Mon, 14 Sep 92       Volume 7 : Issue  30 

Today's Topics:
                    Aural-to-notation processing?
                     Dancing about Architecture?
                       Equipment for music lab
    New Release: AudioChallenger 1.7 Ear Training Program for NeXT
 Tenure-track position: Psychomusicology/Music Perception & Cognition


*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request

*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
***     e.g.   Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
***     or     Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

*** Back issues, index, etc.: send "help" in a message to archive-server
***   @uk.ac.oxford.prg (in the UK) or @cattell.psych.upenn.edu (elsewhere)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 10:39:03 PDT
From: robert_judd@edu.csufresno
Subject: Aural-to-notation processing?
To: music-research-request@edu.upenn.psych.cattell

Does anyone know of a program that processes sounds and converts them
to notation?  

Thanks

Bob Judd
robert_judd@csufresno.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 01:42:41 +0200
From: Stephen Pope <stp@se.sics>
Subject: Dancing about Architecture?
To: Music-Research@prg
Cc: computer-music-journal@edu.Stanford.CCRMA

Computer Music Journal Editorial 7: 17:1--Spring, 1993

Topic: Dancing about Architecture?

Anyone involved in the performing arts has as one time or another to
deal with the issue of reviews of their work. The two most common
reactions of creative artists to reviews are complete apathy, and
strong pathos. Two quotes will serve here to illustrate rather extreme
anti-review sentiments on the part of composers.

One well-known Austrian composer responds to negative comments about
his music by asking the speaker if he/she would characterize his music
as "ausserordentlich chaotisch, dissonant, und haesslich"
("extraordinarily chaotic, dissonant, and ugly"). When the surprised
victim replies "yes," the composer proceeds to remind him or her that
this was a newspaper reviewer's comment after the world premiere of
Beethoven's ninth symphony (!).

Another related comment is one I've heard attributed to both Frank
Zappa and Thelonius Monk (I prefer to cite the latter, of whom it
seems more typical), who said, "Writing about music is like dancing
about architecture."

The two real questions about reviewing another person's music (and in
reading reviews) are (1) are there any absolute values that come into
play, and (2) is it the point of a review to present an "objective"
description and evaluation, or a "subjective" opinion of the music.

It is well known that some reviewers take great care to study the
scores of new music, or to hear them performed several times before
writing their review.  Nevertheless, there are very good examples where
even this thorough study has lead to reviews that are radically
contradicted by the judgement of history  (e.g., E. Hanslick's reviews
from the last century).

Monroe C. Beardsley, in his "Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism,"
relates the results of a survey he made of visual art critics wherein
the three central criteria they said they used were (1) the degree of
unity, (2) the degree of complexity, and (3) the degree of intensity.
Are there good, objective metrics for these values in contemporary
music? If yes, are they relevant to our feelings of aesthetical value?

With respect to the "objective" versus "subjective" debate, it has been
drawn to our attention that even a reviewer's reading of an audience's
reaction to a performance can be very "noisy." Contrast the following
two statements, one from "Computer Music Journal," and one from
"Perspectives of New Music," which describe the same performance at the
1991 ICMC conference. "Except for second-hand account that several of
the performers thought highly of the piece, the comments that I heard
were universally and vehemently negative." "Both pieces were very well
received by the audience with a few exceptions. A crowded reception in
the East Lounge followed the concert"

What do you, as readers of a Journal that prints (among other things),
reviews of events and recordings, want to know about a concert or CD?
Do you ever take the opinions voiced in a review as "God's one truth?"
Do you, on the other hand, always read them solely as the opinion of
one writer?

What should the relationship between artist, reviewer, and reader be in
order to have reviews be meaningful and communicate information? What
do you want to know from the reviewer? Do you believe there are any
remaining absolutes that would allow a reviewer to state categorically
that a particular piece is "good" or "bad"?

Your (succinct and well-written) comments are invited; please respond
to the electronic address computer-music-journal@CCRMA.Stanford.edu, by
mail to Computer Music Journal P. O. Box 60632, Palo Alto, California
94306 USA, or by fax to (415) 723-8468.

Stephen Travis Pope
Editor, "Computer Music Journal"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:51 EST
From: BRIAN BELET <BBELET@edu.clarku.vax>
Subject: Equipment for music lab
To: music-research@prg

[Response to Robert Judd, California State Univ.-Fresno:  MRD posting in 
February 1992.]

Robert Judd,

Several months ago I read your posting in the MUSIC RESEARCH DIGEST requesting
information about computer music systems for your new labs at Calif. State
Univ.-Fresno.  (I apologize for this terrible delay in responding . . . .)
Are you still interested in this information?

I would recommend you investigate the Kyma digital synthesis system, which
is designed and produced by Symbolic Sound Corporation.

	SYMBOLIC SOUND CORPORATION
	P. O. Box 2530, Station A
	Champaign, IL  61825-2530

	Tel:  217/355-6273
	FAX:  217/355-6562

	e-mail:  symbolic.snd@applelink.apple.com


I have been using the system for a little over a year, both as a research &
composition platform, and as a teaching environment.  I have found it to be
an excellent system in all respects:  it is relatively easy to learn, yet
very powerful and flexible, it is relatively inexpensive, and the sounds are
unlimited as it is a software synthesis system (real-time!!).  It also works
with MIDI files, external hardware (synthesizers & samplers, etc.), MAX,
etc.

It runs on a MacII, the software is written in Smalltalk-80, and it connects
with an external hardware unit (Capybara) which utilizes nine Motorola
56001 DSPs.  It's hot, and great fun to use!

Will you be attending the ICMC in San Jose next month?  I will be presenting
a paper on my recent work with the Kyma system there, and the system
developers will also be presenting one or more papers.

I hope this is of use to you. Feel free to contact me (&/or the developers)
if I (they) can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Brian Belet
Clark University
Worcester, MA, USA

     bbelet@vax.clarku.edu   (address from within USA & most foreign countries)
     bbelet@edu.clarku.vax   (address from UK addresses)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 21:58:35 EDT
From: tholland@edu.skidmore.pars (Anthony Holland)
Subject: New Release: AudioChallenger 1.7 Ear Training Program for NeXT
To: BessieFriends@edu.skidmore.pars, MusicFaculty@edu.skidmore.pars
Cc: tholland@edu.skidmore.scott

"Announcing the release of "AUDIO CHALLENGER 1.7"

"Audio Challenger 1.0"  was the first ear-training software released  

for the NeXT computer and version 1.7 offers substantial  
improvements.

Audio Challenger randomly generates ascending  
and descending melodic and harmonic musical intervals which can be  
used in assisting music students in trying to improve their ability  
to aurally identify musical intervals.   Audio Challenger features  
real-time synthesis on the DSP (digital signal processing) chip of  
the NeXT computer which gives it the advantage of a more natural and  
"lively" musical timbre than ear-training programs that currently  
exist on other platforms.  Audio Challenger is released as FREEware  
to the internet archives by the researchers and students of DREAMS:   
Digital Research (in) Electro-Acoustic Music (at) Skidmore College.

**To request a copy of Audio Challenger via NeXTmail, simply send  
your request to: tholland@pars.skidmore.edu and be sure to make clear
your NeXTmail address.
    

**If you have access to the INTERNET, you can use anonymous FTP to  
get your most recent copy of Audio Challenger (1.7).
	[princeton.edu][sonata.cc.purdue.edu][cs.orst.edu]
	
AudioChallenger.app = .133 MB
AudioChallenger.tar = .141 MB
AudioChallenger.tar.Z = 63.6 KB


IMPROVEMENTS in Version 1.7 include:

1.  Ability to have melodic or harmonic intervals.
	(i.e. notes played one at a time or simultaneously)
	
2.  A new "Sample Melodies" window, which will play "well known"  
tunes... (incipits for you musicologists out there) to give you a  
memory device for learning your intervals. (Special thanks to 
Jennifer Kong at Skidmore for this part !).

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas Keefe <keefe@edu.washington.u>
Subject: Tenure-track position: Psychomusicology/Music Perception & Cognition
To: Stephen.Page@prg

This post includes the use of computers in music research, both from
the standpoint of cognitive theories in musicology, and also in designing
and carryout computer-controlled experiments with music performers, and
with musically skilled and unskilled listeners.

---------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT
University of Washington, School of Music	
Faculty Position in Psychomusicology beginning Autumn, 1993

The School of Music announces a position in its Systematic 
Musicology Division scheduled to begin in September, 1993.

The School of Music of the University of Washington has 
approximately 450 music majors in programs including 
Systematic Musicology, Theory/Composition, Ethnomusicology, 
Music History, Music Education, Performance, Conducting, and 
Opera Production.

Position:  Music scientist with speciality in 
psychomusicology, music perception and cognition, 
experimental research methodology, or related fields.  
Duties will include teaching undergraduate and graduate 
courses, and advising graduate students at the Master's and 
Doctoral levels.  

Rank and Salary:  Tenure track, Assistant Professor.  
Advanced appointment at the Associate Professor or Professor 
rank may be possible for unusually well-qualified 
candidates.  Salary is competitive and dependent on 
experience and qualifications.

Qualifications:	Doctoral degree with research and 
publications in psychomusicology and music perception and 
cognition, and teaching experience.

Systematic Musicology Division:
A program in the music sciences including psychomusicology, 
musical acoustics, music technology, and sociomusicology.  
Facilities include a well-equipped music research 
laboratory. 

Applications:	Priority will be given to candidates who 
apply by November 15, 1992; applications will be accepted 
until the position is filled.   An application letter with 
statement of research interests, a curriculum vitae, and 
names and addresses of  three references should be sent to:

	Professor Douglas H. Keefe, Chair
	Systematic Musicology Search Committee
	School of Music, DN-10
	University of Washington
	Seattle, WA  98195

(email: keefe@u.washington.edu)

Short-listed candidates may be asked to submit supplementary 
materials at a later date.

The University of Washington is building a diverse faculty 
and strongly encourages  applications from female and 
minority candidates.  AA/EOE.

------------------------------

End of Music-Research Digest