What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 19 Auditory Memory
Auditory Memory
The notion that we all have no real auditory memory, of any long term duration, strikes me as incorrect and presumptive.
I simply don’t agree with that opinion, at least not as most understand the terms used.
In my experience I have memorized a bunch of music, to the point that I will sing/talk along with the lyrics of the vocalist, with full intonation and inflection.
Frank Zappa is a favorite of mine for this, as is The Firesign Theater…
This is memorization pure and simple, and it applies to more than just lyrics.
I use this ‘tool’ to help determine if changes to the system alter the music as I have known it previously, to the point that when whole other ‘voices’ are heard, where before they were hidden or masked, I can determine if my recent changes are ‘Better’, or not.
This is only possible if I had a memory of how it used to sound.
Auditory memory does exist and from what I have come to know is not simply a function of auditory recognition, there is more to it than that.
It seems to involve our memory of the meaning and the intent of the words that are sung and of all of the different voices, (background vocals, duets, choruses etc.) some of which will ‘speak to us’.
It also seems to involve our emotional memory, as in how the music affects our mood, our degree of focus and attention to the interplay of the different ‘voices’ with, and off, of each other.
And it seems that our emotional memory can be quite strong and changeable to varying degrees.
We each have certain music that excites us, that we feel drawn to and derive a great deal of emotional attachment to.
We all listen for different reasons and aspects in the music, which in part also helps to determine what music we select to listen to.
We all are unique in that regard.
IOW we all are drawn to music for greatly different reasons, and derive greatly different types of enjoyment from what we are motivated to listen to.
But thru it all is the joy, pleasure, fun, the power that music provides for us.
So to, to insist that All of us don’t have acoustic memory, flies in the face of our vast diversity.
A case in point is a symphony that Gustavo Dudamel conducted, on a you-tub video, where a musician messed up and misplayed a portion of the work being performed.
Gustavo’s head immediately snapped around and focused upon that musician…
He knew, instantly, that the musician had messed up, because he had memorized just exactly what was supposed to have happened.
And while many indeed may not have much if any acoustic memory, especially under ‘controlled’ (contrived) conditions, this is in contrast to how we actually listen to music, which involves much more than simply our analytic abilities, and where our acoustic memory does come into play.
Such that this commonly held belief, in my view, does us all a great disservice.
So by trying to define our hearing ability by what it can’t do, (another logical fallacy) this belief has become a tenet, a fait acompli, a truism which is accepted as fact, when it simply isn’t so,
at least not for everyone!
And to be sure, as long as this belief is held as true for oneself, it will remain true for you and those who believe as you do.
A self fulfilling prophesy type of situation.
IOW what is stated as fact most definitely applies to all who believe it.
But those beliefs don’t necessarily apply to everyone, and no matter how much ‘social pressure’ (derision nor how many times we are told we are wrong), it simply won’t stick.
Why?
Because experience will ALWAYS trump opinion.
Every,
Time.
When I have experienced something that others have defined as ‘impossible’ or an illusion or wishful thinking, all of this ‘expert’ opinion matters not.
Why?
Because if the experience has been repeated, or better yet enhanced with multiple experiences, that is all that matters as far as ones own opinion on the topic.
It simply nullifies those who haven’t nor are they likely to ever hear what is ‘impossible’.
Why?
Because they believe it to be impossible, and thus, for them, it is impossible.
However some simply won’t take no for an answer.
As in, no, I don’t believe you, my experience trumps your opinion.
Lastly, Mike Moffet in one of his posts stated that…
“This taught me that the human ear is an integral, NOT differential device.”
from here, http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/7725#post_11921090
I won’t presume to explain what he precisely means by this, but I can tell you what I understand it to mean…
The difference between integral and differential is not just what ‘data’ we use for analysis, but how it is processed which helps form our impressions of what we hear.
And the duration of this processing is a key factor in all of this as well.
In a differential mode of analytic perception (where DBT mostly operates from) it is the difference between 2 sets of data, one being memory based and the other music that is being heard in realtime, as in, in only the ongoing NOW moment.
In an integral mode of perceiving music, it is the ongoing sum total of the auditory perception as it is experienced in realtime, and this cumulative perception, rather than a ‘short term’ or difference decision, is of key significance.
Why?
Because music is an ongoing experience that builds upon itself and accumulates and establishes multiple patterns, which are continually reinforced and refined.
It is a Dynamic experience that can only occur in our ongoing NOW moment.
Whereas in a differential mode there is very little accumulation of this experience except for the results of the analytic differentiation process itself.
It is a ‘snapshot’ of the impressions we derive from focusing our attention upon the ‘task at hand’ which is a separate and distinctly different process than listening to music.
IOW what is carried forward is not the experience of music, but a mentally produced derivative of our analytic processing.
While one is the result of our analytic processing of our perceptual abilities in a short time frame, the other is akin to how we listen to music.
This means one is a much more realistic reflection into how we actually listen to music which can reveal useful results that corresponds much more closely to listening, while the other is a contrived and isolated test of questionable usefulness.
At least as it might be applied to us as we actually do listen to music as the desired intent of our endeavors.
JJ :thumb
End Part 19
Next up Choke Points revisited
