Xref: utzoo comp.music:201 rec.music.classical:9254
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Computer research in Schenkerian analysis
Message-ID: <495@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 24 Oct 89 18:54:02 GMT
References: <5013@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <1325@accuvax.nwu.edu> <10190@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 25

In article <10190@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>However, it is unlikely that a machine will ever give you
>a "definitive" analysis of a composition, since it is unclear that such an
>analysis exists.

After all, there're lots of different ways, means and methods for
drawing maps (geographical/road/etc.) as well as physical
structures (architecture/etc.) so why not music.  I think we do
tend to forget that intellect (concepts/parsing/etc.) is only a
part of human knowledge; it has often undeservedly claimed all of
thought as its domain.  Well, I won't go into epistomology here,
but suffice it to say that I don't think *any* analysis is capable of
telling the larger part of the story, although it is necessary for
telling its portion.  (followup to 'rec.philosophy.amusing' :-)
if you like.)

Cheers,

--Mark

========================================
Mark Gresham  ARTSNET  Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail:       ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or:          artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================