An Analysis of Audio Information Streaming in Georg Philipp Telemann’s Sonata in C Major for Recorder and Basso Continuo, Allegro (TWV 41:C2)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment:

The manuscript submitted for review presents a very interesting phenomenon of perceptual streaming in music. The author(s) analyze from a psychoacoustic perspective the entire piece by Georg Philipp Telemann entitled Sonata in C Major for Recorder and Basso Continuo, Allegro (TWV 41:C2). The text is written in very good language (it is understandable and appropriate for manuscripts of this type. I consider the text sent for review to be innovative, interesting for musicians performing, music theorists, composers, acousticians and music psychologists. I rate the mentioned text very highly, because it deepens the science and brings an innovative approach to the field of musical arts, while indicating the uniqueness of this research.

 

The Authors' interesting approach to the issue:

- A very surprising issue for me was the selection of a musical piece that is widely described and commented on in the psychoacoustic literature in the context of the occurrence of perceptual streams (from the entire piece, other researchers choose only two short fragments). Each time, only bars 5-7 are described in the subject literature, and sometimes the Authors try to indicate bars 23-25 ​​as well.

- It is interesting that the Authors of this particular manuscript not only used this approach (this is revealed in the bibliography), but also - this issue was provided with the Authors' own commentary.

- In my opinion, it was a very good move to analyze the entire piece and not just the 6 bars torn off, which I think is a completely innovative approach. The authors clearly indicated that not only 6 bars from the entire piece are subject to the processes of segregation/integration of sounds into perceptual streams, but the entire part with a total of 30 bars. Comparing the analysis of 6 torn off bars (presented in other publications) to the entire 30-bar part is unique and, in my opinion, necessary.

 

Positive aspects of the pubblication:

Language:

- Clear, understandable, without unnecessary insertions and eccentricities, correct.

- I think the language is very good because it is understandable to the reader and does not contain elements of "advertising" but the main content of the publication.

 

Methodology:

- The ASA analysis was conducted in accordance with the context of Bregman's theory, which can be read both from the text of the manuscript and the literature references used by the Authors. I consider the methodology to be written in a very good style both substantively and linguistically.

- The description of the recording studio acoustics as an important element of the analysis of the auditory scene - the studio that the Authors had at their disposal was largely devoid of wave interference - which affects the high quality of perceptual listening.

- The manuscript reveals a professional research approach - a very detailed description of the technical parameters of the listening devices as well as the computer from which the recording was played, allows for the reproduction of listening conditions in a separate audio laboratory.

 

Analysis of the work and subject matter:

- The selected work and subject matter are appropriate and at the same time surprising. When accepting the article for review, I expected redundancy of musical material and research descriptions, although the abstract of the manuscript "analyzed the entire part of the work" indicated otherwise. I can confirm that the abstract was written correctly and is consistent with the substantive content of the manuscript, which positively strengthens the reception of this text.

- Analysis of the work that is publicly available on YouTube - this is a very good approach, because it allows all readers to refer to exactly the same part (identical performance) that the Authors analyzed.

- Selected appropriate recording on YouTube of high technical and artistic quality of the recording.

- Innovative approach to the entire part of the musical piece related to the concept of auditory scene analysis. Importantly, the analysis was not conducted on artificially generated simple tones, but on an actual recorded piece of classical music, which was performed by a professional instrumentalist. In this case, the perception is correct and undisturbed - it is in this form that people actually listen to music recordings from audio CDs or during symphonic music concerts.

 

References:

The Authors' approach deserves praise, the article is based on classical scientific literature, new psychoacoustic literature. The works are cited correctly, in good places consistent with the subject of the paragraphs. The presented literature is significantly expanded even by newer items that supplement the entire article, which clearly indicates the connection between the theoretical foundations of the article and the goals of the ASA and vice versa. It should be emphasized that the Authors noted the influence of musical education on the way the human mind processes sound – which I consider to be the right approach, speaking about differences in the reception of the same acoustic stimuli.

 

Minor issues for possible correction (decision of the Authors or the Editors):

The Authors could add a few issues to the article to organize/strengthen the reception in the final note:

- The Authors are aware that there are different ways of receiving sounds and different psychoacoustic concepts that can shape sounds into slightly different perceptual streams than those described in this work,

- briefly mention possible differences related to the culture of a given nation and auditory processing (cultural differences in the reception of music),

- different people may perceive sounds slightly differently than the way described in the article. The presented method is one of many that a conscious listener should use.

 

Final grade:

Originality: very high

Methodological solidity: very high

Coherence of argumentation: very high

Contribution to current knowledge: significant

 

I assess the scientific article as professional, meeting the requirements of a high-quality scientific publication. I leave this matter to the assessment of the Authors/Publisher, comments from the section "issues for possible correction". In my opinion, these are minor issues that do not affect the entirety of the work at all, but if the Authors want to include the issues proposed by me in the form of a few final sentences - this will certainly not change the text, but will affect an even broader context of the research conducted by the Authors .

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We wish to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful, substantive, and constructive review of our manuscript. We are pleased to note your appreciation of the innovative character of our research approach, as well as the clarity of the language and methodological rigour demonstrated in our article.

We are delighted that our decision to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the entire movement of Georg Philipp Telemann’s work was recognised as both original and significant for the development of research on perceptual streaming in music. Your observation that the existing literature has focused almost exclusively on short excerpts (bars 5–7, and occasionally 23–25) confirms the value of adopting a broader analytical perspective.

Thank you for highlighting the detailed description of the technical parameters of the listening setup, the acoustic conditions, and for your endorsement of our methodology, which is firmly grounded in Albert S. Bregman’s theory.

We fully agree with your suggestions regarding the possibility of expanding the discussion to address individual and cultural differences in music perception. In response, we have added a paragraph to the conclusion of the article emphasising that:

• musical perception is a complex phenomenon, shaped by a range of individual factors (including musical training, auditory sensitivity, and cultural experience),

• various theoretical and psychoacoustic frameworks may lead to alternative interpretations of the perceptual organisation of the same musical texture,

• our analysis represents one possible approach, based on the current state of knowledge and our chosen methodology, whilst remaining aware of the existence of other perspectives and individual variability.

Once again, we thank you for your positive assessment and valuable suggestions, which have enabled us to further enrich the scientific context of our study.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Rosiński

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article does not have a sufficient theoretical foundation. The fundamental contributions of the anthology “The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception”, edited by Enrique Lopez-Poveda et al. (2010), have not been taken into account. These make it clear, among other things, that auditory perception is highly variable. The self-experiment described in the article provides a possible, but unverifiable result. The relevance of the results remains unclear, especially as all the claimed perceptual streams can already be recognized with the help of the score The significance of the basso continuo part for the formation of the perceptual streams should also have been investigated, for example by filtering out the flute part using AI tools. It is possible that the results would be more remarkable if the music analyzed was tonally and metrically free; it is also possible that a comparison of several interpretations of the same piece of music would yield relevant results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I do not feel qualified to evaluate the quality of English language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I was greatly surprised by your opinion regarding the alleged lack of theoretical foundation in my article, as well as your other comments concerning the methodology, literature, and practice of perceptual analysis. I consider your review to contain a number of unjustified criticisms, unsupported by facts or the literature, and to propose solutions inconsistent with the current state of knowledge in musicology, psychoacoustics, and research practice. I would like to address each of the issues you raised in detail.

1. Theoretical Foundations and References to Literature

The article provides a comprehensive overview of key theories in psychoacoustics and auditory scene analysis, including the seminal works of Albert S. Bregman:
– Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound (1990),
– “Auditory Scene Analysis” in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2004).
In addition, I refer to important contemporary sources such as Shamma & Micheyl (2010), Shamma, Elhilali & Micheyl (2011), Winkler et al. (2009), Moore & Gockel (2012), and many other publications cited both in the theoretical and analytical sections of the article. The claim that basic works have been omitted is therefore unfounded and most likely results from a cursory reading of the text.

2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology

In the article, I present with precision the fundamental concepts of auditory scene analysis (stream segregation, auditory grouping, streaming, perceptual organisation), as well as the specific psychological mechanisms underlying these phenomena (similarity, proximity, common fate, continuity, closure, etc.), all referenced to well-established scholarly literature. The research methodology is based on procedures for critical listening that are described in detail, including the acoustic conditions, equipment used, and audio playback parameters. This approach not only meets contemporary standards in music perception research, but frequently exceeds them in terms of transparency and reproducibility.

3. Uniqueness of the Research Approach

Unlike most previous studies—which are limited to analysing a few bars of Telemann’s piece (usually bars 5–7)—my article provides an analysis of the entire musical passage. This allows for a much deeper understanding of the mechanisms of perceptual stream segregation and integration, as well as the identification of processes that are not visible in analyses limited to selected excerpts. Such a comprehensive approach is rare in the international literature.

4. Thoroughness and Adequacy of Citations

Every part of the analysis and theoretical discussion is supported by carefully selected scholarly literature, as can be easily verified by consulting the references and bibliography. These works include both classic and the most recent achievements in psychoacoustics and music theory.

5. The Suggestion of Filtering Works Using AI

Your suggestion to use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to “filter” musical material is not only scientifically inadequate, but also profoundly harmful and methodologically incorrect.
– AI algorithms do not provide any control over which elements of the material will be removed or distorted—the results of such separation carry significant artefacts and the loss of information essential for auditory perception.
– Such an approach precludes any reliable psychoacoustic analysis, as the resulting signal is an artificial construct, inconsistent with the original musical content.
– At present, there is no validated AI algorithm that enables transparent and reproducible separation of tracks in classical music.
This is widely known among musicians and researchers—a professional in this field would never propose such a solution, being fully aware of the limitations and potentially destructive effects of AI tools on the perception of a musical work.
For these reasons, in my analysis I used only the integral, original sound material, in full accordance with best scientific practice in music perception research (see Bregman 1990, Moore & Gockel 2012).

6. The Role of the Score in Perceptual Analysis

Your claim that perceptual streams can be “seen” at the score level is in complete contradiction with the scientific literature in psychoacoustics, music theory, and cognitive science.
– Contemporary literature (Bregman 1990, Shamma & Micheyl 2010, Winkler et al. 2009) unequivocally indicates that perceptual streaming is an auditory phenomenon, dependent on actual sound perception, not merely on the written score.
– The score is an auxiliary tool, not the principal element in perceptual research—as it does not reflect the context of performance, articulation, dynamics, spatial acoustics, or many other factors crucial to perception.
– The most valuable element of the analysis presented in my work is the listening to the entire work in its full length, which allows for a comprehensive grasp of the processes of segregation and integration of sound streams.
In contrast to digital extraction or segmentation of individual elements—which leads to artificial and inadequate results and is methodologically flawed—reliable psychoacoustic analysis must be based on real listening experience. Your position is thus inconsistent with leading scientific literature and the principles of contemporary music perception theory.

7. The Improvised Nature of the Basso Continuo

You disregard the fact that the basso continuo in Baroque music is by definition an improvised part, as confirmed both by musicological literature and historical performance practice (see Donington 1960, Taruskin 2010).
– Every performance of this part differs in its choice of chords, figuration, instrumentation, as well as overall style—depending on the performer, concert context, or historical period.
– Expecting comparison or standardisation of improvisations in the basso continuo is unrealistic and contrary to music theory, history, and musicology.
– The analysis is based on one specific recording, which is in line with research practice in perception studies.
This criticism is unsupported by any scholarly literature and may reflect a lack of understanding of basic principles of Baroque performance practice and the relevant academic literature.

8. Assessment of English Language

You have stated that you lack the competence to assess the English language, yet have simultaneously recommended corrections to the text. I would like to inform you that the article has been double-checked by a native speaker with academic experience and meets high linguistic standards.

9. The Book “The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception” as a Theoretical Benchmark

You have cited “The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception”, edited by Enrique Lopez-Poveda et al. (2010), as a key reference.
– This is not a work directed at musicologists or music practitioners, but a strictly neurophysiological volume.
– It is not ethically appropriate to indicate a single position—possibly connected to the reviewer—as the sole standard for the field.
– Moreover, the book you cite draws extensively on the very sources on which my article is based (Bregman etc.).

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that I have the utmost respect for the work of the reviewer and the effort devoted to preparing this report. Nevertheless, I must state that I feel I have been treated unfairly in this review. It is particularly disappointing to me that the reviewer failed to recognise that, for the first time, I have translated psychological theory relating to laboratory-based auditory processing into the context of music and the analysis of a complete musical work. I believe that this very innovation—the application of advanced concepts from auditory perception to a comprehensive analysis of an actual, performed piece—constitutes a significant and original contribution of my work to the field of music perception research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

l. 294, "ran" should be "run"

l. 312, Add a semi-colon after "listener" and a comma after "however".

l. 320, Add a comma after "thing".

l. 322, Should it be "basing them" and "in order to see the difference"?

ll. 327, Should it be "not just necessary"?

l. 338, Omit "how". 

l. 343, Add a period after "hear", and start a new sentence with "As".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments regarding the English language in the manuscript. All your suggestions have been carefully considered and the indicated corrections have been implemented:

• On line 294, “ran” has been changed to “run”.

• On line 312, a semi-colon was added after “listener” and a comma after “however”.

• On line 320, a comma was added after “thing”.

• On line 322, the use of the phrases “basing them” and “in order to see the difference” has been revised in accordance with your suggestion.

• On line 327, it now reads “not just necessary”.

• On line 338, “how” has been omitted as recommended.

• On line 343, a period was added after “hear” and a new sentence starts with “As”.

Thank you for your detailed editorial comments, which helped to improve the linguistic quality of the article.

Best regards

Adam Rosiński

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review commissioned by MDPI publishing house
Review for the journal: Arts
Title of the manuscript:

An Analysis of Audio Information Streaming in Georg Philipp Telemann’s Sonata in C Major for Recorder and Basso Continuo, Allegro (TWV 41:C2)

The work is divided into seven parts, the subsections of the article appropriately titled provide important (for the entire manuscript) information. There are 12 pages in total (including a bibliography of over forty items).

The article is written at a very high level, conveying information about the language the author uses, without any ambiguity or mistakes that comes from the use of English.

The article is an innovative observation that allows the application of the significant achievements of psychoacoustics (primarily Albert Bergman's ASA model) in the broader area of ​​music.

 „A whole different issue not addressed in psychoacoustic experiments at all is a complication deriving from the diversity of instrument timbres directly connected with dynamic and pitch changes of a performed part.”

The work is proof that the contrapuntal compositional methods of masters from previous eras used psychoacoustic phenomena that have always been present in human perception and were defined and consciously used only in recent decades.

„Ultimately, this study reaffirms that music is not merely a collection of notes, but a dynamic and complex interplay of perceptual streams that engage listeners on multiple levels. The ability of a listener to navigate these streams is a testament to the sophisticated nature of human auditory processing, as well as to the skill of composers who intuitively understand and manipulate these perceptions. While much has been uncovered, there is still a vast area of exploration ahead. „

Telemann - as an autodidact, discovered his compositional abilities very early and further developed mainly based on his own experiences. Telemann's music is an excellent example of a creative act and perception based on innate intuition.

 

The author's meticulous approach to creating listening conditions that exclude the influence of additional factors and the possibility of unwanted artifacts, while at the same time providing long-term, stable, comfortable listening conditions, is also worth noting. The course of analysis conducted on the musical material assumes listening at the original tempo, taking into account the entire form, as well as frames that may contain the sought-after streams - the method seems to be a good, effective approach.

Analysis of Audio Information Streaming in Georg Philipp 2 Telemann’s Sonata in C Major for Recorder and Basso Con- 3 tinuo, Allegro (TWV 41:C2), I rate POSITIVELY as a reliable and innovative work, the author effectively proves the thesis put forward in his research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your highly positive, insightful and substantive review of my article. I am pleased to note your appreciation of the innovative character of the work, as well as the quality of the language and the research methodology applied.

I am glad that you highlighted the importance of the psychoacoustic approach and the attempt to translate the achievements of Albert Bregman and the ASA concept into the analysis of musical works in their full formal scope. The emphasis on listening conditions and the meticulous approach to eliminating extraneous factors that could interfere with the perception of music is also of great significance to me.

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks on Telemann’s oeuvre and for noting that his music is an example of creative intuition and innate mechanisms of auditory perception, which are now the subject of psychoacoustic research.

I also appreciate your recognition of the reliability and innovativeness of the applied method and your positive final assessment of the article. Your review is valuable confirmation of the merit of this research and a motivation for me to continue work in this area.

Yours sincerely,
Adam Rosiński

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I do not intend to begin a discussion, since my time is limited. I will merely repeat the central point of my criticism, which has not been dispelled: the investigation yields a possible result, but not a verifiable one. In my view, this is a fundamental problem with your research design, which is why I do not consider the article suitable for publication.

As far as English is concerned: In earlier versions of the questionnaire for reviewers, there was the answer option “I do not feel qualified to evaluate the quality of English language”. This no longer exists. However, as I cannot assess the English, I cannot confirm that it is error-free.

Incidentally, I have no personal connection to the book “The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception”, its publisher or its authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your further comments on my manuscript and for clarifying your principal concern regarding the verifiability of the research results. I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter in detail, as it pertains not only to the present study, but also to broader methodological issues in music perception research.

1. On the Issue of Verifiability in Music Perception Research
Your primary criticism is that the investigation yields a "possible result, but not a verifiable one," and that this is a "fundamental problem" with my research design. I respectfully submit that this concern is rooted in a misunderstanding of both the aims and established methodologies of research in auditory scene analysis and music perception.
The study of perceptual streaming—particularly as it occurs in complex, naturalistic musical contexts—is inherently phenomenological and subject-dependent. The most authoritative literature in the field (see Bregman 1990; Winkler et al. 2009; Moore & Gockel 2012) consistently emphasises the individual variability and context-dependence of auditory perception. As a consequence, verifiability in such research does not rely on the replicability of objective physical measurements (as in laboratory physics), but on the transparency and reproducibility of the analytical procedure, and on its grounding in established theoretical frameworks.
In my article, I have meticulously documented:
•    the theoretical basis for the analysis, referencing seminal works in auditory scene analysis and perceptual organisation,
•    the acoustic and technical conditions of the listening sessions (with precise details on studio acoustics, equipment, and playback parameters),
•    the stepwise procedure of the listening and annotation process,
•    the specific musical material and its source, which is freely accessible and thus enables replication by other researchers.
This approach is in strict accordance with best practice in music perception research, as confirmed by recent review articles and methodological handbooks (see e.g. Shamma & Micheyl 2010; Shamma et al. 2011; Jackendoff & Lerdahl 2006). In fact, the complete transparency and documentation of each analytical step—down to the precise digital source of the recording—makes this study more verifiable than the vast majority of earlier work in this field, which often relied on unpublished recordings or unreported analytical criteria.
Moreover, as explicitly stated in the Discussion and Conclusion of the article (see [Section 6, 7].

2. On the Status of "Self-Experiment" and Individual Case Analysis
Your comment that the research constitutes a "self-experiment" with an "unverifiable result" does not accurately reflect the established tradition of phenomenological and analytical listening in psychoacoustic and musicological research. As noted by Bregman (1990, 2004) and confirmed in the philosophical and empirical literature (see Jackendoff & Lerdahl 2006; Moore & Gockel 2012), individual analyses, when properly documented and theoretically grounded, constitute valuable scientific contributions, especially when:
•    the analysis is sufficiently transparent to allow for replication,
•    the procedures are explicit and justified,
•    the results are discussed with reference to existing empirical and theoretical work.
In this context, the present article follows, and in some respects exceeds, the standards set by the most respected research in the field. The analysis is explicitly designed to be reproducible by other scholars, as they have access to the same recording and can apply the same analytical protocol. The study thus offers a valuable foundation for both individual and group-based replications, opening the way for future experimental extensions.

3. Broader Scientific Context: The Role of the Case Study Approach
The issue you have raised—how to ensure scientific rigour when investigating phenomena that are variable, subjective, and highly context-dependent, such as music perception—is extensively discussed in the literature on musicology, cognitive science, and psychoacoustics (see Winkler et al. 2009; Palmer 2002; Moore & Gockel 2012). It is precisely for this reason that contemporary methodology in the music sciences makes use of both controlled laboratory experiments and in-depth case studies focused on real musical works and individual listening experiences.
The scholarly literature repeatedly emphasises that case studies represent an essential and valued component of scientific knowledge production, particularly in fields where the phenomena under investigation are complex, multidimensional, and resistant to standardisation (Yin 2014; Stake 1995). This approach enables researchers to explore perceptual mechanisms in detail and to reveal nuances that are difficult to capture with purely quantitative or laboratory-based procedures.
It is important to note that, since the 1980s, the most influential works in auditory scene analysis and music perception have relied on meticulous descriptions of individual listening cases and their phenomenological analysis (see Bregman 1990). This approach:
•    reveals the richness and diversity of individual perceptual responses,
•    allows for the identification of mechanisms and phenomena that may be missed in simplified, artificial experiments,
•    serves as a starting point for the design of larger-scale experimental studies.
Today, it is widely recognised that case studies are not only fully admissible but indeed indispensable for advancing the understanding of complex phenomena such as music perception in its natural, artistic context (see Jackendoff & Lerdahl 2006; Palmer 2002; Stake 1995). Such studies often inspire subsequent experimental and quantitative research, allowing for hypotheses to be tested under controlled conditions while ensuring that results are contextualised and validated within real musical situations.
It is also worth noting that leading musicological and psychoacoustic journals regularly publish articles based on the analysis of individual listening or interpretive cases (for example, detailed analyses of works, performance interpretations, or personal listening experiences). Such publications are highly valued for their insight, richness of description, and capacity to inspire further research (see Music Perception, Psychology of Music).
The use of the case study approach in music perception research is therefore fully justified scientifically and widely supported in the international literature. It enables not only the documentation of specific observations, but also the formulation of hypotheses and theoretical models, which may then be empirically tested on larger populations.

4. On the Quality of English
I appreciate your clarification that you do not consider yourself qualified to evaluate the English language of the article. I would like to reiterate that the manuscript was double-checked by a native speaker with academic expertise in music theory and perception, and that it meets the linguistic standards of international peer-reviewed journals.

5. On Ethical Standards
I also note your confirmation that you have no personal connection to the book "The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception" or its editors/authors. My previous comments were intended solely to highlight the importance of referencing a range of authoritative sources, rather than relying on a single, specialised volume—particularly one that does not primarily address the concerns of musicologists or music perception researchers.
In summary, the procedures and methodologies adopted in my study reflect not only the current best practices in the field of auditory perception and music analysis, but also its inherent scientific constraints. The research is thoroughly documented, theoretically grounded, and fully replicable by other scholars with access to the same musical material and analytical criteria.