{"id":3993,"date":"2021-12-16T06:42:43","date_gmt":"2021-12-16T06:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/?p=3993"},"modified":"2021-12-16T17:08:17","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T17:08:17","slug":"listening-to-virtual-space-in-recorded-popular-music","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/listening-to-virtual-space-in-recorded-popular-music\/","title":{"rendered":"Listening to virtual space in recorded popular music"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Research on virtual recorded space manifests a division between production and reception based approaches. I address a number of issues which complicate discourse across perspectives and outline why a convergence may be beneficial to research in various disciplines. I consolidate previous models of listening, including Moore (2012) and Zagorski-Thomas (2014), and argue that the ecological approach to perception and research on embodied cognition may provide a useful theoretical framework for bridging this divide. This is exemplified by music analysis and interpretation of Karnivool\u2019s (2009) \u2018Goliath\u2019. I discuss the virtual recorded space that the track affords me and consider how listeners may narrativise the track\u2019s personic environment according to ecological\/embodied principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Peer Reviewed FULL TEXT (available as a <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Steve-Gamble_ARP2019.pdf\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Steve-Gamble_ARP2019.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">PDF download<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abstract Research on virtual recorded space manifests a division between production and reception based approaches. I address a number of issues which complicate discourse across perspectives and outline why a convergence may be beneficial to research in various disciplines. I consolidate previous models of listening, including Moore (2012) and Zagorski-Thomas (2014), and argue that the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-editorials-provocations","author-steve-gamble"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3993"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4034,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993\/revisions\/4034"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arpjournal.com\/asarpwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}