Conventional scientific writing depends upon a highly proscribed complement of models and formulae with clearly defined methodological constraints. In “Musical Events and Perceptual Ecologies “(The Senses and Society vol. 13, no. 3),” Eric Clarke, whose work lies between musicology and music psychology, seems to prefer a strategy of free induction grounded in thick descriptions of musical experience which, while perhaps broadly phenomenological in spirit, are never bound by its technicalities. His tone is compassionate and holistic, and his illustrations often privilege the immediate personal reflections of listeners who would otherwise be relegated to the margins of mainstream musicological analysis. He draws upon a range of repertoire which is decidedly progressive, linking classical standards with anything from free improvisation to electronic dance music. As a psychologist, he seeks to identify universals, but the sense of the universal one gets from his writing is remarkably plural. In this sense he inhabits a space between the sciences and the humanities which is arguably quite unique to the social psychology of music in Britain, a body of research mainly conducted in arts rather than in science faculties, often funded by arts rather than science research councils. Clarke may seek universals, but his universe is plural and resists prescription. What universal could be more plural and less prescriptive than affordance? Clarke’s core concern with boiling down the ways listeners grasp, reflect upon and use music in terms of ephemeral, relational, ecologically situated affordances stems from a long series of publications, going back nearly two decades in his work and that of his students (Clarke 2005; Windsor 2004; Dibben 2001). The article in question does little to extend this body of work, which left me with the impression that Clarke expects his reader to take affordance as established orthodoxy, the explanatory power of which is no longer contested. This is at least strongly implied by Clarke’s use of the term “law” to describe the ways affordances are “specified in” the information that listeners detect in musical sound. There seems to be nothing we can do with music that isn’t afforded by our immediate interaction with it. And yet most arguments in support of the theory underscore its apparent power to evade the limits to our perception associated with mediating factors like mental representation or material inscription. I find this paradox intriguing. The earliest use of affordance I have seen in the music literature comes from Clarke’s contemporary, the sociologist Tia DeNora, in her book Music in Everyday Life. Responding

中文翻译：

---

可供性理论：Eric Clarke 等人对“音乐事件和感知生态”的反驳。

传统的科学写作依赖于具有明确定义的方法限制的模型和公式的高度禁止补充。在“音乐事件与知觉生态学”（感官与社会第 13 卷，第 3 期）中，工作介于音乐学和音乐心理学之间的埃里克·克拉克 (Eric Clarke) 似乎更喜欢一种基于对音乐体验的深入描述的自由归纳策略它虽然在精神上可能是广泛的现象学，但永远不受其技术细节的约束。他的语气富有同情心和整体性，他的插图经常突出听众的直接个人反思，否则他们将被降级到主流音乐学分析的边缘。他借鉴了一系列绝对进步的曲目，将古典标准与从自由即兴创作到电子舞曲的任何事物联系起来。作为一名心理学家，他试图确定普遍性，但从他的作品中获得的普遍性意义是非常多的。从这个意义上说，他居住在科学和人文科学之间的空间，这可以说是英国音乐社会心理学的独特之处，这是一个主要在艺术而不是科学学院进行的研究，通常由艺术而不是科学研究委员会资助. 克拉克可能会寻求普遍性，但他的宇宙是多元的并且拒绝处方。有什么普遍性可以比可供性更多元化、更规范？克拉克 (Clarke) 的核心关注点是将听众掌握、反思和使用音乐的方式从短暂的、相关的、生态环境可供性源于一系列出版物，在他和他的学生的工作中可以追溯到近二十年（克拉克 2005 年；温莎 2004 年；迪本 2001 年）。有问题的文章几乎没有扩展这一工作，这给我留下的印象是克拉克希望他的读者将可供性视为既定的正统观念，其解释力不再受到质疑。克拉克使用术语“定律”来描述听者在音乐声音中检测到的信息中“指定”的方式，至少强烈暗示了这一点。与音乐的直接互动似乎无法让我们对音乐做任何事情。然而，支持该理论的大多数论点都强调了其明显的力量，可以逃避与心理表征或材料铭文等中介因素相关的感知限制。我觉得这个悖论很有趣。我在音乐文学中看到的最早使用可供性来自克拉克的同时代社会学家蒂亚·德诺拉 (Tia DeNora)，在她的《日常生活中的音乐》一书中。回应