Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!ukma!seismo!esosun!skuld.css.gov
From: penrose@skuld.css.gov (Christopher Penrose)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: 2nd rate European Conference
Summary: must I conceptualize this for you all?
Keywords: segmentation, absolute perceptual unity
Message-ID: <648@esosun.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 91 21:10:12 GMT
References: <15268@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <5121@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <16384@venera.isi.edu> <5376@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@esosun.UUCP
Reply-To: penrose@troll.css.gov (Christopher Penrose)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 50
In-reply-to: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)

In article <5376@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>
>I don't think the discourse of science is quite appropriate to the discourse
>of music, because I think science is more concerned with unfreedom than
>with freedom. Not: you can do science like this, but: you can't do science
>like THAT. "Scientific" discourse about music, in any case, tends to be
>prohibitive, rather than liberating. I am thinking of a paper that Fred
>Lerdahl wrote, published in Sloboda, called "cognitive constraints on
>composition," or something like that. He arrived at a bunch of unfreedoms,
>like "you can't do this or do that," "you can't redefine 8ves," etc.


I share your perceptions with respect to the dialectic tendencies of
scientists: their discourse tends to be concerned with the discovery
and communication of "truths".  Like yourself, Dr. Handleman :), I
also seek compositional freedom.  I do not find, however, scientific
pursuit or discourse to be inappropriate for the application or
discourse of music.

First, to deny the discourse of music the pursuit of absolutes or
truths is certainly a denial of freedom.  To base your repression of
scientific discourse upon "freedom" is bogus as you are denying
freedom yourself.  You didn't mention a scheme of graduation either;
it is possible that you were attempting to maximize dialectic freedom
through the qualitative repression of undesired dialectic tendencies.

Second, the compositional application of scientific "truths" or
constraints can be extremely useful.  It is helpful for the composer
to be conscious of musical tendencies, "you can't redefine 8ves" et
al.  Also, completely ridiculous musical truths that a community has
proclaimed are still viable compositional context delimiters, or
constraints.  You don't have to share the scientist's mental
disposition to use her work.  Isn't this great?  Scientific pursuit
may discover provincial analytic paradigms, yet, their lack of
universality is not dangerous unless they are labeled and implemented
as being universally conscious.

My reaction to the conference announcement was protective; I was
attempting to communicate my perception of a lack of consideration for
musical universality in the conference paper abstracts.  I consider
the process and dialectic of science to be useful and important;
however, I am not sure how many scientists understand their imposition
upon creative possibility in systems where their disposition
dominates.  I do not seek to curb science with respect to music or any
other pursuit as long as its existence does not hinder creativity and
freedom. 


Christopher Penrose
jesus!penrose