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: Re: 2nd rate European Conference
Message-ID: <5141@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 9 Jan 91 18:06:00 GMT
References: <16244@venera.isi.edu> <1991Jan6.195628.20624@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1117@artsnet.UUCP>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Shitson University, New Crapsey
Lines: 32

In article <1117@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:




2nd-rate european conference:

;>>Song-form,  linked  with means of mass communication,  has  been
;>>radically  transformed in recent decades. Generations  of  youth
;>>have  been  brought  up  on this  repertory.  For  the  critical
;>>understanding  of  it,  it  is  essential  to  develop  adequate
;>>analytical methods.

;
;I can't vindicate it.  I think it's nonsense.  Pop song-form has
;essentially remained the same although a number of features of
;style have changed (though not radically, and mostly through
;matters of engineering).  Probably the only *real* innovation was
;the 'concept album'.  And in that situation, we really have
;nothing more unusual than the fact that the pop world finally
;recognized the long-time existence of the 'song cycle', and that
;individual numbers could have some kind of connective thread.
;Big damn deal.

Amazingly, Mark, your reading of this is even less generous than mine
was. When I read "song-form" I thought, not even Camillieri could
mean by 'song-form' something as obvious as -- 'song-form'? He doesn't
mean that ABA has been transformed, does he? But it's thinkable,
now that you mention it, that he means just that. Don't forget, that
when Camillieri listens to music, he doesn't actually hear the sound:
he just USES the sound to figure out what form he's in. He probably
learned about this from Lerdahl and Jackendoff.