Xref: utzoo comp.music:216 rec.music.classical:9292
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!xpiinc!rwh
From: rwh@xpiinc.UU.NET (Robert W. Holzel)
Newsgroups: comp.music,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Computer research in Schenkerian analysis
Message-ID: <282@xpiinc.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Oct 89 12:27:54 GMT
References: <5013@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <1325@accuvax.nwu.edu> <267@xpiinc.UU.NET> <496@artsnet.UUCP> <10274@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: rwh@xpiinc.UUCP (Robert W. Holzel)
Organization: Visual Technology Incorporated / Xpi Division, Providence, R.I.
Lines: 34

In article <10274@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>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.  
>>
>>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.






Sorry to have dared to tread on matters where you two are apparently 
the most expert.  I'll be sure to keep a close watch on myself in the  
future.  I wouldn't want to threaten anyone's shirt stuffing.




                             Humbly yours,
     
                                            Rob