Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!mahogany.Berkeley.EDU!maverick
From: maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: reality and computer sound
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.211213.20492@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 91 21:12:13 GMT
References: <9106120249.AA20142@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1871@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> <LWYSE.91Jun21144524@central.bu.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: UC Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 28

In response to my query about the relevance of real-world sound to computer
music, Lonce Wyse posts a sensible exposition of the notion of modeling sounds. 
I just want to point out, though, that his whole posting assumes the idea of
modeling as its basis.  For example, he writes

> What is ``in between'' the sound of a bowed saw and ewe's bleat?
> It depends entirely upon how the sounds are modeled, that is, what
> parameters are available.

But the question is utterly meaningless unless it is asked in the context of
some model.  Suppose you ask me "Is sound X between the sound of a bowed saw and
a ewe's bleat?"  I first ask myself, "In what sense?"  Might you not be asking,
"Does X sound like an object between a saw and a ewe's vocal tract, subjected to
an oscillation somewhere between the stick-and-slip of horsehair and the
periodic opening of a glottis?"  This is the version of the question a deranged
Gibsonian might ask.

> Due to a strong bias of musicians toward notes, an incomplete
> understanding of how we hear, and a lack of funds, far more resources
> have been devoted to modeling traditional instruments than other sound
> sources.

And more (intellectual) resources have been devoted to modeling, lately, than to
what I claimed was the alternate style of electronic music.  Case in point: the
modeling bias of your post.  Do you feel that computer musicians *must* take
explicit account of the sounds of the physical world?

	Vance