For example, a recent obituary of ZZ TopвЂ™s late bass player, Joe Michael вЂњDustyвЂќ Hill, quoted HillвЂ™s crude, self-effacing parody of rock guitaristsвЂ™ self-obsessed equipment-talk as a testament to HillвЂ™s shy but off-color character: вЂњSomeone once asked me to describe my tone, and I said it was like farting in a trash can. For example, вЂњ wetnessвЂќ does not describe a quality of sounds made by wet objects, but by convention refers to the amount of reverberation, and this mapping is one which is usually learned from encounters with the discourse of sound producers, rather than one which is intuitively understood.Д¬ognitive metaphors may even be used to understand unfamiliar, unconventional, or even unreal descriptions (see Walther-Hansen 2020, 51). Following Lakoff and Johnson, Walther-Hansen argues that metaphors are not merely poetic comparisons in artful language, but form the basic structure of virtually all human cognition of sound, ranging from our basic understanding of what sound is to timbral qualities like вЂњ heavyвЂќ or вЂњ wet.вЂќ (Walther-Hansen generally uses italics for sound qualities, even when they are considered as metaphors metaphor names are in all-caps only when вЂњfunctioning in the background of our cognitive system.вЂќ See Walther-Hansen 2020, 127.) Some of these metaphors directly invoke physical qualities, such as when вЂњ heavyвЂќ sounds feel powerful and are low in pitch, qualities associated with large objects in human experience but Walther-Hansen also argues that cognitive metaphors can be more abstract mappings with less immediate connection to physical experiences (2020, 3). вЂњCognitive metaphorsвЂќ is a term made famous by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and Walther-Hansen uses this term to describe how we process music by understanding sound in terms of other domains of knowledge or experience. ARGUMENT IS WAR, by which arguments are experienced as conflicts, and one can take sides, concede territory, and win or lose and HAPPNIESS IS UP, which means that sadness is down, motivating thoughts and expressions such as вЂњsheвЂ™s feeling down todayвЂќ or вЂњheвЂ™s over the moon.вЂќ) Walther-HansenвЂ™s theory explains how we use cognitive metaphors to perceive sound quality, which he describes as вЂњthe timbral characteristics of the sound as it emerges in experience, rather than the characteristics of the sound source or the physical properties of the sound waveвЂќ (2020, 8). (Some famous examples include TIME IS MONEY, according to which one can save time, spend time, bank time, etc. Walther-Hansen describes a very different kind of musical knowledge, and provides a very different kind of formalization, in terms of вЂњcognitive metaphorsвЂќ (also known as вЂњconceptual metaphorsвЂќ), analogical mappings which we use to understand and experience one idea or domain of experience in terms of another.

Traditionally, most music theory has formalized musical knowledge as patterns of notes found in a score then in analysis, these familiar patterns are demarcated in a score, and the resulting segmented score is often described as a map of composersвЂ™ or listenersвЂ™ musical expectations, understanding, or experience. The goal of music theory has famously been described as a вЂњ formal description of the musical intuitions of a listener who is experienced in a musical idiomвЂќ (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983, 1 italics are original). Specifically, music theory must include more research like Walther-HansenвЂ™s work on cognitive metaphors if it is to describe listenersвЂ™ musical intuitions and experiences with a substantial degree of completeness or veridicality. Finally, I will discuss the advantages and consequences of this field including more research that departs from its traditional methodologies, which have usually focused on segmentation and classification of patterns of notes in a score. In this review, I will examine how Walther-HansenвЂ™s book is compatible with established music-theory epistemologies, and propose ways in which aspects of his model could be adapted to make an even clearer fit for music theoryвЂ™s norms of systematicity and rigor. It has been published by Oxford, but not under their Studies in Music Theory series-and yet, it is an important contribution to the field that resonates with recent trends, especially in embodied cognition and topic theory. This condensed theoretical text doesnвЂ™t look like music theory traditionally has it contains no score examples, it analyzes a corpus of technical and journalistic writing about music instead of patterns of pitch and duration, and it cites very few card-carrying members of SMT. Mads Walther-HansenвЂ™s admirably short monograph on cognitive metaphors for sound quality and timbre may not be filed under music theory, but lies just outside of a disciplinary boundary that is rapidly expanding towards it.

Cambridge soundworks review