Xref: utzoo comp.music:211 rec.music.classical:9276 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!smoliar From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) Newsgroups: comp.music,rec.music.classical Subject: Re: Computer research in Schenkerian analysis Message-ID: <10274@venera.isi.edu> Date: 25 Oct 89 18:25:32 GMT References: <5013@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <1325@accuvax.nwu.edu> <267@xpiinc.UU.NET> <496@artsnet.UUCP> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 31 In article <496@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >In article <267@xpiinc.UU.NET> rwh@xpiinc.UUCP (Robert W. Holzel) writes: >>This discussion brings to mind the book "Metamagical Themas," which >>has several sections devoted to whether a computer can be used to >>analyze creativity. I can't spell the author's name from memory, >>but he is the author of "Godel, Escher, Bach," and for some time wrote >>the Metamagical Themas column in "Scientific American." > >And his gross misconceptions about the nature of music are moldy >baloney. (Take it from there Steve, you're better on responding >about this one than I am!) > Robert is probably referring to Doug Hofstadter's essay (as in "attempt"), "Variations on a Theme as the Crux of Creativity." This is less offensive than his book by virtue of being shorter. Nevertheless, it is the usual batch of self-indulgent navel searching. Anyone who gets any of there own ideas by reading it is certainly entitled to them, but my humble opinion is that they would be better off with the Minsky article I cited in my last dispatch. ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "For every human problem, there is a neat, plain solution--and it is always wrong."--H. L. Mencken