Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!phoenix!eliot From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: 2nd rate European Conference Message-ID: <5056@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 6 Jan 91 06:12:42 GMT References: <9101051511.AA10253@hplpm.hpl.hp.com> Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU Organization: Princeton University, New Jersey Lines: 61 ;Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 11:27:16 SET ;From: Lelio Camilleri ;Subject: 2nd European Conference on Music Analysis ;To: Music Digest Bulletin ;Analysis always presupposes a segmentation of the piece in ;question, but the criteria for this operations are problematic. Just whose concept of "analysis" is this anyway? I don't know of any post-adornoesque metacritique of analysis that asserts "presupposed segmentation." Of which music, for instance? ;The traditions of music analysis and psychology propose ;diverse solutions to the problem. "traditions" of music analysis? And of PSYCHOLOGY yet? And what "solutions"? Where's the "problem"? ;The comparison between the ;two traditions will enable one to consider a more general ;theme: that of the relationships between music theory and ;cognitive psychology. I can hardly wait. ; ;b) Analysing electro-acoustic music: towards a definition of the ; sound objects ; ;The problem of terminology is fundamental for the analysis of ;electro-acoustic music. Yes, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Why is it you dull oxen constantly insist that "terminology" is "fundamental"? I've read at least 3 papers by 10th-rate psychobabble hacks asserting that "we need TERMINOLOGY," can't you duds come up with anything more exciting? I mean, MAKE UP THE TERMINOLOGY, then let us all know what we should call the sounds you've analyzed, ok? Why's this a conference issue? ;Analysing analysis: are there relationships between the various ;analytical methods ? ; ;The codified methods, from Schenker to set theory, Obviously you've studied neither, else "codified" would never have crept in there. ;yeld ;analytical results which are always incomplete and sometimes ;mutually contradictory. This is just purest horsecrap. First of all, one wouldn't ordinarily try a "set" approach to tonal music: but contextualisms are suggested by Schenker, where standard harmony "analyses" propose none. Second, two LISTENINGS of the same piece of music might be contradictory. So why shouldn't various "readings" (forget "analysis") be contradictory?