Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php on line 37
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php on line 50
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/json/FormatJson.php on line 397
Warning: session_name(): Cannot change session name when headers already sent in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/Setup.php on line 657
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/languages/LanguageConverter.php on line 694
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/Feed.php on line 234
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 37
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 37
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 37
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebStart.php:37) in /home/jpic/philosophyofjazz.net/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 37 http://philosophyofjazz.net/w/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Ontmeta00000._Test_pageOntmeta00000. Test page - Revision history2026-03-11T08:14:23ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.26.3http://philosophyofjazz.net/w/index.php?title=Ontmeta00000._Test_page&diff=25676&oldid=prevDr.davidcring at 23:17, 12 December 20182018-12-12T23:17:35Z<p></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div><div style="padding-left:25px;padding-right:30px;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[#Bottom | <span style="color:red">'''''Jump to Middle of Current Page'''''</span>]]</div><br />
<br />
<div id="BackToTop" class="noprint" style="background-color:#DDEFDD; position:fixed;<br />
bottom:32px; left:2%; z-index:9999; padding:0; margin:0;"><span style="color:blue;<br />
font-size:8pt; font-face:verdana,sans-serif; border:0.2em outset #ceebf7;<br />
padding:0.1em; font-weight:bolder; -moz-border-radius:8px; "><br />
[[#top| Top ]]</span></div><br />
<br />
===[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|'''Discussion''']]===<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left:25px;padding-right:30px;"><br />
<br />
<!--<br />
===<span style="color:fuchsia">'''DCR comments''' on '''Ch. 4''' of '''''PoM''''' </span>===<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">If the text is in green font, then this is original author being quoted. </span> <br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''1st sentence'''</span>==== <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">(1) Recommend rewriting to make the opening sentence more formal with less "we-nesses." </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">'''DCR Comment''': The syntactic structure of the original author's first paragraphs for Chs. 3 & 4 are virtually identical and so should be varied/changed for variety. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Here's the original Ch. 3 and 4: </span> <br />
<br />
:: <span style="color:green">Ch. 3: "In this chapter, we investigate the nature of various ways in which we respond emotionally to music, with an emphasis on those that are philosophically puzzling. We end with a consideration of Jenefer Robinson’s sophisticated expressionism.” </span> <br />
<br />
:: <span style="color:green">Ch. 4: “In this chapter, we investigate philosophical issues raised by our experience of some basic elements of music: pitch, rhythm, and harmony. We then turn to our experience of large-scale form and its relationship to music “analysis.” Along the way, I introduce some basic concepts of music theory and consider whether they justify calling music a language.” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:black">'''SUGGESTED DCR REWRITE for opening sentences for Ch. 4:''' </span><br />
: <span style="color:blue">This chapter investigates philosophical issues raised by people's experiences of the three basic elements of music: pitch, rhythm, and harmony. After these preliminaries we turn to considerations dealing with experiences of large-scale form and their relationships to musical “analysis.” Along the way, some basic concepts of music theory are introduced and it is asked whether they justify calling music a language.</span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<span style="color:red">The rewrite below of page 1's orientation to the opening of chapter 4 was an exercise. After studying and reading them both, the original author's version has a chattier and more abbreviated style that still conveys much content. I guess my advice is to be slightly less "we do this . . ." still and more like mine without losing the original author's easy-going style tone. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:red">The one thing of a positive addition that the original author's piece could have added to it is this sentence at the end of DCR comment paragraph two: </span><span style="color:blue">'''INSERT THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE BELOW AT "HERE":''' These aspects are more fundamental than any emotional content because it is agreed on all sides that emotional content must in some way depend on the arrangement of the notes within a piece of music and it is pitch, rhythm, and harmony that deals with note arrangements." </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue"> Page 1: </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">"In the opening chapter, we considered what it is to understand a song as a song (as opposed to a poem, say). The central topic of chapter 2 was what it is to understand music as expressive of emotions, while one of the topics of chapter 3 was the extent to which our affective states when listening to a piece of music contribute to our understanding of it. We have, then, been thinking about musical understanding throughout the book so far. This chapter is titled “Musical Understanding,” however, because we now turn to aspects of music that are uncontroversially essential to what must be understood when one appreciates a piece of music and more fundamental than emotional expressiveness. The aspects I have in mind are things like pitch, rhythm, and harmony. Understanding these is uncontroversially essential to the appreciation of music because even if, like Hanslick, you think that music has no emotional content to be appreciated, you couldn’t possibly reject that idea that to understand a piece of music one must hear its notes and how they are combined into rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. These aspects are more fundamental than emotional content because everyone agrees that emotional content must in some way depend on the arrangement of notes within a piece. '''INSERT ABOVE SENTENCE HERE''' After consideration of these more fundamental aspects of music, we will turn to the higher-order feature of music that is the principal rival of emotional expressiveness in theories of musical value – form – asking what it is, how big a role it plays in musical understanding." </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:black">'''POSSIBLE REWRITE:''' </span><br />
: <span style="color:blue">Throughout the book up to this point musical understanding has been a main concern. Chapter 1 considered what was required for a song to be a song, as opposed to something else, such as a poem. The central topic of Chapter 2 was what it meant for music to be expressive of emotions, while one of the central concerns of Chapter 3 was the extent to which affective states of listening audience members contributed to the understanding of the music. </span><br />
<br />
: <span style="color:blue">Now in Chapter 4, “Musical Understanding,” we consider uncontroversially essential aspects of music including pitch, rhythm, and harmony that must be understood when appreciating a piece of music and that are much more fundamental than emotional expressiveness. Understanding these musical features of pitch, rhythm, and harmony is uncontroversially essential to the appreciation of music because even if it is thought that music has no emotional content to be appreciated, as defended by Hanslick[INSERT FOOTNOTE], one couldn’t possibly reject that to understand a piece of music one must hear its notes and how they are combined into rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. These aspects are more fundamental than any emotional content because it is agreed on all sides that emotional content must in some way depend on the arrangement of the notes within a piece of music and it is pitch, rhythm, and harmony that deals with note arrangements.</span> <br />
<br />
: <span style="color:blue">Following the investigation of these more fundamental aspects of music (pitch, rhythm, and harmony) this chapter investigates a higher-order feature of music—its overall form. Musical form constitutes the principal rival to emotional expressiveness in theories of musical value. Answers to what constitutes musical form and how big a role it plays in musical understanding ends the chapter.</span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 2'''</span>==== <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">"But what the perception of musical form is, and what role it plays in understanding a piece of music are surprisingly controversial, given the central role that form has occupied in the scholarly study of music over the past century and more." </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">This does not end well. It is too abrupt. Why not first tell us where we are about to go and why? Provide some more structure as to what happens in this next section of this chapter.</span><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 2''', 1st full paragraph</span>==== <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“It bears repeating, because of the concerns of philosophers such as Aaron Ridley discussed in chapter 1, </span> <span style="color:blue">INSERT FOOTNOTE WHERE YOU DISCUSS THE CONNECTIONS TO REMIND READERS of the Aaron Ridley's concerns and why we should care about them especially with respect to this ch. 4 </span><span style="color:green">that nothing evaluative is implied by this.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“It seems to me that in understanding a song, for instance, it is essential to understand the words of the song (even though it would be a mistake, as everyone who writes on the topic agrees, </span> <span style="color:blue">INSERT FOOTNOTE content of list where everyone agrees so <span style="color:green">to identify understanding the song with understanding its words).” </span><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 4''', last sentence</span>==== <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“But what the perception of musical form is, and what role it plays in understanding a piece of music are surprisingly controversial, given the central role that form has occupied in the scholarly study of music over the past century and more.” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">While this may be acceptable to end here I believe it could be good to add a few more sentences explaining where you are going to go next and why. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 6''', at top of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“there is no fact of the matter regarding) when precisely a leaf has changed from yellow to orange or red, even though we are quite capable of distinguishing these three colors, we tend, in a musical context, to hear a pitch as, (say) a sharper and sharper A-natural until there is a sudden “flip” in our perception of it and we suddenly hear it as a very flat A-sharp (Stainsby & Cross 2009, 54-5)” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">TURN INTO A FOOTNOTE AND NOT REGULAR BODY OF PAPER TEXT FOR: (Stainsby & Cross 2009, 54-5) . Also, I personally prefer it as 54-55, and not pp. 54-5, which you seem to like better. More on page numbering below.</span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 6''', at top of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I believe that this sentence can start a new paragraph, if you want to break up a big former paragraph: </span> <span style="color:green">“Notice two features of categorical pitch perception. First, there is no objective fact about the frequency spectrum that corresponds to our pitch categories.” </span><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 6''', at middle of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“For instance, a very sharp A (x in figure 4.1) and a very flat A-sharp (y) may sound more different (with respect to pitch) than the same very flat A-sharp and a perfectly-in-tune A-sharp (z), even though the difference in frequency is greater between the second pair of sounds than the second.” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I believe that you mean 'than the first': </span> <span style="color:green">“the difference in frequency is greater between the second pair of sounds than the FIRST.” </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 6''', at middle of page just above figure 4.1</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“and I will respect this difference in my use of the terms “frequency” (for the wholly objective, scientific feature) and “pitch” (for the musical feature).” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Consider a possible rewrite as: </span> <span style="color:green">and WE SHOULD respect this difference of the terms “frequency” for the wholly objective, scientific feature and “pitch” for the musical feature. </span> <span style="color:blue">Eliminate the parentheses because these are important points not to be 'lessened' by enclosing them in parentheses. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 6''', at bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I believe this is also in need of another paragraph break beginning with this sentence: </span> <span style="color:green">“A second feature of our perception of musical sounds that bolsters this distinction is “octave equivalence” (Deutsch 2013, 249-50). </span> <span style="color:blue"> Also, make (Deutsch 2013, 249-50) into a footnote and not in body of text. You could even give a bigger, more informative, footnote citation by saying the title of the Deutsch book from 2013. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 7''', footnotes at bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
* [http://sites.umuc.edu/library/libhow/apa_examples.cfm#pagenumbers APA page numbering conventions with examples]<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">At the above website, which was hard to find anything decent on the internet for how to cite multiple pages, they never write 53-4, but 53-54, and if 136 to 137, then they don't write it as 136-37, but 136-137. You can see for yourself. Of course, this is just one set of conventions.</span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">There are many conventions for how to number pages. Each could be considered 'correct,' but I don't recommend how you do it in footnote 6. </span><span style="color:green">“The correspondence is only rough in that the psycho-physical details are complicated. See Thompson 2013, 123-7. ” </span><span style="color:blue"> I think it should be 123-127. Your publisher likely has an opinion as to how they want the numbering of pages conventions.</span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue"> Footnote 7 says: <span style="color:green">“7. I do not mean to deny that there is some connection between the simplicity of the mathematical relationship between octaves and the perceptual phenomenon of octave equivalence. My point is only that the mathematical relationship cannot explain the phenomenon all by itself.” </span> <span style="color:blue">Consider whether you prefer to say: 7. I do not mean to deny that there is some connection between the simplicity of the mathematical relationship between octaves and the perceptual phenomenon of octave equivalence BECAUSE THE POINT is only that the mathematical relationship cannot explain the phenomenon all by itself. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Bottom of Page 7 over onto Page 8'''</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“You may be familiar with the “blues scale,” while “pentatonic scales” (consisting of five pitch classes) are extremely common across the globe.” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I don't think "while" is the correct word choice for your point--consider rewriting.</span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 8''', footnotes at bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">“8. If you have a PIANO keyboard to hand, a simple way to (CONSIDER 'OF' in place of 'to') generate(ing) a pentatonic scale is to play six consecutive black keys, ascending and descending.” </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Consider adding the word "piano" in front of the word "keyboard" because there are computer keyboards too that fail to have black keys you can play. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">9. As with octave equivalence, patterns of similarities and differences between scales from various cultures suggest connections between quite general features of sound, our perception of it, and the phenomenon of pitch (Stevens & Byron 2009, 14-17; Stainsby & Cross, 54-6; Thompson 2013, 127-31). </span> <span style="color:blue"> I don't like the 54-6 page convention and prefer 54-56, (and possibly 127-131), but you and your publisher know best. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 8''', at bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">If a sequence of notes resemble tears because the notes themselves constitute a falling cascade, then the notes seem to be moving downward in some sense. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">This is a difficult example about the falling tears being represented because the notes themselves are a falling cascade of notes. What makes the notes themselves be constituted by a falling cascade? More description or something would help here. Perhaps another sentence or footnote could provide more detail or analysis as to how this is working 😭 . I understand the general point, but it was slightly confusing the first time I read it. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 9''', towards bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">But none of these movements necessarily correlates with the movement we hear in the music. I will (CONSIDER SAYING: "we will consider) four philosophical theories of musical space and movement below. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">POSSIBLE REWRITE: But none of these movements necessarily correlates with the movement we hear in the music WHEN WE CONSIDER four philosophical theories of musical space and movement below. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:teal">Page 9 over to page 10: </span><span style="color:green">But vibrational rates themselves, the differences between them, and the numbers used to represent them, need not represent spatial differences. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I can think of a way to make a connection between higher and lower frequencies and spatial features. Higher frequencies have a higher pattern of wave motions traveling through the same volume of space than lower frequencies as the wave propagates over time. This means that in the same spatial distance there will be more waves in that space over any time period for a higher frequency than for a lower frequency. The higher frequency is, in effect, 'denser' than the lower frequency and this helps explain why the higher frequency has greater energy than the lower frequency when the two are at the same volume of loudness, right? Therefore higher frequencies take up less space (for a complete wave crest to trough cycle) than lower frequencies, so higher and lower frequencies '''necessarily''' represent spatial differences when compared to each other.</span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Here's what it says at [http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=73&cat=light HubbleSite.org]: </span> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="color:green">“What is the relationship between wavelength, frequency and energy? The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths. What is the relationship between frequency and wavelength? The wavelength and frequency of light are closely related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Because all light waves move through a vacuum at the same speed, the number of wavecrests passing by a given point in one second depends on the wavelength. That number, also known as the frequency, will be larger for a short-wavelength wave than for a long-wavelength wave. </span><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Top of page 10'''</span>==== <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">For instance, why should we not hear the greater frequencies as a measure of depth rather than height? So, by themselves the frequencies of the sounds and the way we represent these frequencies no more suggest we would hear the pitch with the greater frequency as higher than as colder or lower. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Depth versus height. These seem intimately related. Aren't they just the same dimensional scale with a directionality added vector--determined by direction with depth going down while height goes up? Amazon's Echo device (Alexa) defines height as "extent or distance upward," with depth as "extent downward or backward" so I'm not yet convinced by your argument here. Higher frequencies ARE hotter literally because they have more energy than lower frequencies at the same volume of loudness. Could we conceptualize the higher frequencies as being lower as in of a lower depth with increased depth corresponding to higher frequencies because they have more energy so deeper down into the energy pool, so to speak? OK, if what I'm saying makes any sense, then I guess you have a point. Maybe you still need to argue for this a little bit more; write a couple more sentences about it and then see if you have explained and justified it even more. </span><br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 10''', middle of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">So, by themselves the frequencies of the sounds and the way we represent these frequencies no more suggest we would hear the pitch with the greater frequency as higher than as colder or lower. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I am unsure that you want to say the above sentence instead of this one: "So, by themselves the frequencies of the sounds and the way we represent these frequencies no more suggest we would hear the pitch with the greater frequency as higher than as HOTTER or WITH GREATER DEPTH."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Colder would be odd for higher frequencies because they are higher in energy therefore 'hotter' than slower frequencies. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 11''', middle of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">It would count as evidence against the notational theory, for instance, if most oral musical cultures describe pitch in the same spatial terms that contemporary Westerners use. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I don't follow. What is the notational theory? Why would it count as evidence against it if everyone uses the same spatial terms? </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I think I am correct that you are claiming here that one of the family members of the associational theories is the notational theory. This isn't made all that clear in your text. I don't have any good suggestions for how to improve this other than to point out I was getting lost when I first read it.</span><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 12''', bottom of page over to page 13</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">REWRITE AND ADD TO SENTENCE: </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">But scientistic theories, AS WE SAW ABOVE, of these phenomena are also inadequate BECAUSE . . . (fill in reason for inadequacy). </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 21''', middle of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue"> The light appearing to move in a circle is a persuasive example for the imagination theory. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Bottom of Page 24 to 25'''</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">Because the repeated Cs are the tonic or “home” note, if they are heard as falling on the downbeat, then the melody has a heavier, more foursquare character, while if the Ds and G – elements of the “dominant” harmony – are heard as ADD; INSTEAD(?) falling on the downbeat, the melody is more forward-driven and less stable. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">You could possibly add a few more sentences explaining WHY the former is more blocky and heavier sounding because of the tonic C's falling on the downbeat than if the dominant harmony of Ds and Gs do. What is it about the Ds and G's being non-tonic that makes us hear it as more forward driven. What does that sound like? Do you have an example of forward driven music 🎵 🎼 🎶 ? and it might help to provide an example of non-forward driven, too, for contrast. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Pages 28-29'''</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Nice pithy review of the literature and various philosophical positions on rhythm. These issues are so interesting that you might want to add a few more sentences to develop some of these points in a bit more detail for helping undergrads see what the point of all of this theorizing amounts to. Why are theorists concerned about rhythm? ANSWER: It's because we want to understand it better and what it relates to, or doesn't really, but just seems to.</span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 33''', middle of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">We will discuss the purpose of music theory in the section on “analysis,” below.) </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Do you need the comma after "analysis,"? </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 43'''</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">It is a long chapter. </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 47''', third line down from top</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">claims that “[t]he ineliminable music-analytic activity … is the drawing of a connection between the structure found by an analysis and someone’s [aural] experience – actual or potential – of the music” (2011, 526).44 This raises a number of questions. First of all, is the claim true? </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Recommend repeating a reformulation of the claim within the question to make it obvious and not requiring the reader to figure out which claim you are referring to. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:black">'''Possible rewrite''': First of all, is it true that any musical analysis necessarily attempts to connect the formal structure of a piece of music with the aural experience of the music by a listener? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color:teal">Towards middle of page </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">Davies is surely right that such matters can be of interest, but Dubiel also seems right to suggest that the criterion of hearability is so crucial to our conception of music that we should consider the explanation of hearable musical features central to music analysis. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">There is nothing wrong with this sentence or it's wording. However, I think I prefer "musical analysis," just here over "music analysis," but it is only food 🥘 for thought. You mostly or exclusively have used "music analysis" throughout the entire chapter so you can afford the variety here, if you want to. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">After all, our interest in the non-hearable structures that Davies discusses is presumably parasitic on our interest in all that we can hear in music, and not vice versa. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Excellent point and adds to persuasive case. You could add as a footnote an additional argument. Suppose one could not hear whatever these non-musical features are, would most music lovers be enthusiastic about reveling in these features, such as learning it is a construction based on a fibonacci sequencing, Haha! Therefore, these non-musical features are of secondary interest to music lovers and therefore also of secondary interest to music analysis. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:teal">Footnote 44 at the bottom of the page </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">For instance, in the next sentence he clarifies that “[i]f we find that we cannot relate a pattern in the music to a way of hearing the music, then it is not clear that we should consider the pattern to be part of musical structure” (2011, 526, italics added). </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">While I think I understand Dubiel's point here, it doesn't seem correct because of the following considerations and semantic ambiguities permit soft boundaries and variable identity conditions depending upon user's of the language predilections. My own predilection is to hold that if something is true of the music then it can count as part of the analysis of the music even if not hearable. How could the pattern fail to be part of the musical structure when it is true that the music was structured BECAUSE of this pattern? </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Dubiel also mentions "a way of hearing the music." Suppose that although you cannot 'easily' discern the music was patterned on a fibonacci sequence, that nevertheless you know this antecedently to be true because of your reading of a musical analysis WHILE LISTENING to the music. Could not one then remark, "So this is what an exemplar of a fibonacci sequence sounds like musically"? If so, then one CAN experience a fibonacci sequence aurally once one knows all about it, contrary to the claim that it is a non-musical feature. So, we sometimes might be able to "relate a pattern in the music" because of foreknowledge provided by a musical analysis that now permits a capacity to hear unhearable musical features, or at least hear it AS this type of pattern and this now counts as a way of hearing the music. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">My last point is made, in effect, by DeBellis on your page 48: </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">DeBellis’s reply is that if this deep structure affects our listening experience in some way, for instance, causing us to experience the music as unified (in a way we would not if it did not have that deep structure), it is still relevant to an analysis of the piece, in Dubiel’s sense of uncovering a connection between the music’s structure and the listener’s [POSSIBLE] experience, even if we do not, or even cannot, hear that structure. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Later on your p. 51 you make the same points I made above: </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:green">Thus a structure that was merely causal can become phenomenological when it is drawn to our attention by an analyst. </span> <br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Page 48''', towards bottom of page</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:green"> Schenker’s theory, and others theories of deep musical structure, have been criticized for a number of reasons. </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Shouldn't it be "others' theories"? </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">I consulted the punctuation guide website (http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html) that said this: </span> <br />
<br />
:; <span style="color:purple">Possessives </span> <br />
<br />
::: <span style="color:purple">The formation of possessives is treated in different ways by different authorities. The rules below are based on The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, and are appropriate for most writing. Associated Press style, used by most newspapers, is slightly different. See the essay on style for more information. </span> <br />
<br />
:: <span style="color:purple">The general rule for forming possessives: The general rule is that the possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding an apostrophe and s, whether the singular noun ends in s or not. </span> <br />
<br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the lawyer’s fee </span> <br/> <br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the child’s toy </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">Xerox’s sales manager </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">Tom Jones’s first album </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">Jesus’s disciples </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">Aeschylus’s finest drama </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">anyone’s guess </span> <br/><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">a week's vacation </span> <br/><br />
<br />
:: <span style="color:purple">The possessive of a plural noun is formed by adding only an apostrophe when the noun ends in s, and by adding both an apostrophe and s when it ends in a letter other than s. </span> <br/> <br />
<br />
::: <span style="color:purple">excessive lawyers’ fees </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">children’s toys </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the twins’ parents </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the student teachers’ supervisor </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the Smiths’ vacation house </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the boys’ baseball team </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">the alumni’s fundraising </span><br />
::: <span style="color:purple">someone with twelve years’ experience </span> <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====<span style="color:teal">'''Last Page'''</span>====<br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Have you considered and rejected always ending each chapter with an overall summary and conclusion's section that situates where we have been, what we found out about it, and why we need to now move on to the next chapter's topic as to how and why it is helpful/relevant/worthy of going there next? </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Ch. 4, in particular, has so much content that a summary review would be useful to the reader. </span> --><br />
<br />
<span style="color:blue">Still, invisible. </span></div>Dr.davidcring