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 Keywords: segmentation, absolute perceptual unity Message-ID: <5433@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 16 Jan 91 20:54:35 GMT References: <16384@venera.isi.edu> <5376@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <650@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU Distribution: na Organization: Princesspool University, New Jersey Lines: 97 In article <650@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) writes: ;> ;In article <5121@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot ;> ;Handelman) writes: ;> ;> The deeper I go into a piece of music the ;> ;>less likely it is that I'm going to discover some "category of listening" ;> ;>or "paradigm of perception" sitting there at its core. So, thinking ;> ;>about analysis in that way, of a way of getting one's musical mind ;> ;>ever more twisted in the convolutions of musical experience, what ;> ;>I'm aiming at is UNDOING various "perceptual" prejudices and rebuilding ;> ;>them in a manner expressive of those particularities that I most want ;> ;>to focus on. And a good analysis of a piece of music is something ;> ;>that makes just that undoing possible. In other words, DE-categorization ;> ;>seems to me that aspect of listening most worth exploring analytically. ;I'm pleased to see that EH admits the existence of categories since in ;my world view, one of the objectives of music theory to discover and ;characterize those categories (or perceptual prejudices if you will). Where does Sid Vicious figure in this objective of yours, Greg? I ask because I'm reading Greil Marcus' "Lipstick Traces," and I'm beginning to see the historical avant-garde in a somewhat different light. I think I may make it required reading. ;The question is, when you've done that, what have you discovered...have ;you modelled music perception or simply musical habit? I like to think ;of any rule that you propose as the outcome of empirical study as a ;baseline of musical listening habit which the listener may adhere to ;or discard as he navigates through the piece. So how WOULD you listen to Sid Vicious back when? ;Such rules or musical ;primitives may be used by composers as well, although the events in ;their compositions may form a counterpoint to such primitives, rather ;than overtly ;suggesting them on the surface. Was this true of, say, Sid Vicious? What were the rules that the events in his compositions formed counterpoints to? ;Or they become a source of new idea when a ;composer applies them in new ways or tries to turn them upside down. Now this does seem true in, say, Sid Vicious' case. What about Nancy, though? Was that a new way of applying a rule? ;It's interesting that the word "particularities" creeps in there. Numerous ;theorists were inflamed when Douglas Dempster and Mathew Brown coined a ;similar term, "particularism" in their "The Scientific Image of Music ;Theory" (JOURNAL OF MUSIC THEORY 33/2, I think). "Particularists," in their ;view, are musicians who cry, "don't try to form rules and categories that ;attempt to address groups of pieces or a group of pieces by an individual ;composer; every piece is a unique entity, each of which implies its own ;system as it unfolds." That view is certainly at war with the philosophy ;(at least mine) of music perception. Does Sid Vicious sound exactly the same way now that he did back then? ;Okay, suppose we say this: "every listening is a unique experience, shaped ;by the individual's personal musical framework; rules and categories cannot ;apply to more than one individual's listening." (Although I don't propose ;that this is a paraphrase of EH's view.) My question is, what role ;can music theory play in this context: is a music theory article nothing ;more than stating "this is the way I hear this piece; get to know me, won't ;you?" That's what Sid Vicious is about, no? ;a generation or two ago, sometimes the results are ludicrous. Give me ;an article that says: "I think that a listener will tend to hear a passage ;this way; here's the evidence." I think Christopher Hasty's "Segmentation ;and Process in Post-Tonal Music" is a good example of that (MUSIC THEORY ;SPECTRUM, early 80's). Was he thinking of Sid Vicious? It's good, though, because that way you can tell what the listener will hear. Call me up when Hasy gets onto the charts. ;I think Fred gets in trouble with the way he chooses to say things, but ;I don't think he means to be prohibitive. Fred had never heard of Slayer. I seriously doubt that he ever listened to Sid Vicious. ;But in any case, ;one of my favorite sayings: "Talking about music is like dancing about ;architecture." (I can't remember who said that.) Like talking about fucking, right? Don't look at me, I talk about fucking all the time. In fact, even WHILE fucking I like to talk about fucking. ;Using ;scientific discourse is useful just as a method for finding regularities ;and expressing them carefully. You can do it well, and you can do it poorly. And which of the two do you consider is true of you?