Here is the commentary you requested on Blake Patterson's article "Musical Dynamics," that appeared in Scientific American some months ago. Because the article has upset musicians as well as many of us who are interested in musical acoustics from the scientific side, I have had numerous private requests for comment before our conversation took place.
It would be very easy to go into detail in criticizing Patterson's use of physical and psychological acoustics in a manner analogous to your criticism of his musical interpretations; however, for the purposes of the IDRS membership it is perhaps sufficient to make a few short and perhaps brutal remarks.
Patterson's central thesis is that musicians fail to provide the six rigid categories of sound pressure level that he asserts must correspond to the six dynamic markings used by composers. In setting up these categories, and in investigating the behavior of musicians relative to them, Patterson is riding a hobby horse, and has (scientifically speaking) set a strained argument based on his ideas about vibration physics, psycho-acoustics, and about music-making. Despite Patterson's formal training in physics, he seems to lack understanding, or even scientific common sense about the statistical behavior of sound waves in a room, and the general way in which an extended source (e.g., a row of tone holes or the belly of a violin) radiates sound. His discussion is therefore undercut at every turn by misapprehensions about the physical nature of the sounds under consideration, and the meaning of measurements made upon them. This in itself suffices to destroy most of Patterson's conclusions, without calling attention to analogous weaknesses in his use of formal psycho-acoustic data.
In my opinion, a careful study of data of the sort used by Patterson, plus a great deal that he did not make use of, leaves the scientific position in close agreement with the musical one implied in your critique of his article.
In closing I should remark that some months prior to the publication of his article, Mr. Patterson and I had a long conversation (at his request). During this conversation, my reservations were expressed frankly, and in considerable technical detail, so that my present strictures should not come as a surprise to him.