Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!cmcl2!esquire!rreid
From: rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid )
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: responsibility (second try)
Keywords: Intonation systems, octaves, pianos, computers
Message-ID: <1574@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 15 Nov 89 15:01:09 GMT
References: <3111@husc6.harvard.edu> <various> <3068@husc6.harvard.edu> <1553@esquire.UUCP> <19433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3167@husc6.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: rreid@esquire.UUCP ( r l reid )
Organization: A.V.A.D.S.
Lines: 52

In article <3167@husc6.harvard.edu> elkies@osgood.UUCP (Noam Elkies) writes:
>
>I was wondering whether anyone was going to bring this up, or (back on the
>typesetting side) point to the LaTeX manual itself as an example where the
>polished surface is a substantial part of the content.  To be sure, there is
>such a thing as musical or unmusical interpretation, and in entirely
>synthesized music it's not as easy to precisely separate the notes from what in
>earlier times would be their interpretation.  Still, while the idea of
>music whose content resides largely in its surface sound may be interesting
>to contemplate philosophically, in practice I don't buy that this is a
>very fruitful notion.

I can't buy the analogy at all.  To compare to the LaTeX manual,
to be sure if it was pretty and lovely to look at and made
you want to cry to behold it, and you couldn't figure out
how to print a *#$%@ page by reading it; well it would
fail completly as a LaTeX manual, and have to be recategorized
as "art" or some such.

Music is different, unless we're talking about "We Are The
World" or some other ditty that has pushing some world view
via the lyrics as it's goal.  Assuming otherwise, the
whole point IMHO is to be like that LaTeX manual that is
so wondrous to behold but doesn't tell you how to print a
page.

Also, the phrase "surface sound" is being used over and
over without ever being meaningfully defined.  It's
all sound, right?  Then which is surface and what is/are
that/those component/components which are non-surface?
Where is this so-called content hiding, and why is it
ashamed to come to the surface? :-)

And once we get those defined, it's a horserace anyway, isn't it?
Are you really going to argue for a non-personal method for
evaluating the "fruitfulness" of any given music, or for that
matter sound?

Finally, this continues to argue that for some strange reason
"computer music" or "synthesized music" is more likely to suffer
from this malady than music for other instruments?  I'm still
unconvinced; the fact that I can implement a tuning more easily
on a Sun than a flute doesn't do it.  (In fact, I can far
more easily make pretty music without much behind it
(wherever "behind" is) on my flute than on my Sun).

I think that's it.
-- 
	       Ro
   rreid@esquire.dpw.com
   {phri|cucard}!hombre!cmcl2!esquire!rreid
   rlr@woof.columbia.edu