David Huron
Judy Edworthy & Alicja Knast
Ian Cross & Martin Rohrmeier
v2 n3 2007 Jul: original article
Freya Bailes & Roger Dean
An analysis of 50 chorale harmonizations by J.S. Bach shows that the use of embellishment tones is consistent with several principles known to contribute to the perceptual segregation of auditory streams. The results imply that a major role of embellishment tones may be to enhance the perceptual independence of the individual parts or voices. In addition, it is shown that Bach tends to distribute embellishment tones in alternating voices. This “turn-taking” is consistent with a single-channel model of attention where asynchronous onset cues are used to refresh the presumed auditory image for each voice.
In his article ‘On the Role of Embellishment Tones in the Perceptual Segregation of Concurrent Musical Parts’, David Huron (2007) takes four metrics known in the psychological literature to affect perceptual segregation and applies them to embellished versus unembellished versions of 50 of Bach’s chorales. In all cases he argues and demonstrates that the embellished versions of the chorales are more likely to induce segregation than the unembellished versions. This commentary concurs with his view, with the possible exception of co-modulation, for which we argue the data and analysis is both rather weak and somewhat unclear in its detail. It is argued in the commentary also that although the data do largely support the view, it is the only conclusion possible as the unembellished chorales are simple monodic devices, of which almost any type of development or embellishment is almost bound to increase the ability of a listener to segregate the parts. We also provide some background historical and cultural context as the use of the chorale in Bach’s time, particularly the fact that they were generally sung rather than played or listened to outside a religious setting, has an important bearing on the way they were written.
Although the study by Bailes & Dean (2007) addresses an underresearched area of auditory and musical perception, it raises questions concerning stimuli, methodology, and the study's relation to previous research, that are outlined in this commentary.
The commentary by Cross and Rohrmeier (2007) attempts to locate our paper (Bailes and Dean, 2007a) as a study of timbre, and points out the ongoing development of research in this area, including attempts to define psychoacoustic thresholds of perception. However, our work is directed to understanding broader psychological phenomena such as the impact of sound duration on the perception of structure in computer music, and the concordance between real-time and retrospective measures. We discuss further our identification of an asymmetrical detection of sound segmentation, questioning the conceptual distinctions of timbre perception that Cross and Rohrmeier propose.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
|
|
|||
 |
ISSN: 1559-5749 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||||||