don miller wrote:
<< ... far better
than quoting authorities, scientific or otherwise, is direct empirical
investigation of one's own. >>
don,
glad to see you made it. given that music is an art and, that the
science of sound is only part of the picture, i couldn't agree with you more.
you go on to say:
<< Awareness of many other important details that often escape our notice in
the act of singing can be sharpened by the use of such feedback. >>
here's where i have the problem. on the one hand, i think it might be
possible that someone could begin to imagine sound they hadn't heard before
in an effort to reconsile unaccounted for visual info (i still find a
correlation between visual data and audio data suspect. maybe i just don't
know enough). on the other hand, if there could be an enriching of audio
awareness by using visual data, i'd hate to be left out.
how would you test this? who would be in the test group? (if dionne
warwick were in the test group, could she keep her musical judgment undiluted
by her association with the psychic friends network?)
can you imagine a day when super titles showing spectographic readings
of the singers performing are provided for those who don't wish to miss
anything?
unfortunately, until i have better computer equipment, i'm stuck with
the old fashioned way.
mike
|
|
|  |
