Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!gtaylor
From: gtaylor@cornell.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: On classical separatism
Message-ID: <7928@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-May-84 23:04:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.7928
Posted: Tue May  1 23:04:10 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 3-May-84 07:13:05 EDT
References: <910@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 79

Ah, the ever amusing typo: Ken Perlow has suggested that the
poster of this article is engaging in "spacious logic." I shall
have to ring up my modal (model?) logician pals and regale them
with that....

But seriously. The suggestion is that there is a serious error
in not separating the products of culture from the processes that
produced them, citing the Nazi use of the term "Jewish Science
as an example of such analysis. He has certainly chosen an emotionally
loaded example for his argument. According to this bit of logical
legerdemain, I should rise to the bait and thus make it appear that
I am arguing in support of the Nazi cause, or spend my energies instead
in a sort of side argument. I would like to avoid that bit of informal 
fallacy, if I may.

The question of elitism in a fine art tradition IS involved with the
relationship of product and process in culture. It is, however, as
misleading to say that one can or should only consider classical
(or any type of music, for that matter) music as a discrete entity as
it is to say that its essential character is determined entirely
by its point of origin (which one then proceeds to argue agains by
doing a bit of crooked reasoning about the source....)-which is the
abuse that ken refers to. But perhaps Ken merely misunderstands my
question. I shall try it this way (with apologies to Lukac (sp?)
and those other delightful Frankfurt School types, whose analysis
I shall doubtless reduce in the telling):

It is interesting to note that a "Fine Arts" tradition is somewhat
unique to Western Culture. Other people at other times would find
our separation of Art from its Context ("Just take the music as the
music. Don't pay any attention to those 'extrinsic' things") most unusual.
Likewise, one does not find nearly as strong a set of distinctions
elsewhere (again, other places, other times) between "Classical" and
"Folk" art and "Classical" and "Folk" artists. That seems puzzling,
and a person might be forgiven for wondering whether or not this 
distinction serves another, less obvious function ( No need to start
fuming here about any negative connotations you might assume I'm
laying on the line of inquiry . Many entirely proper customs and divisions
in societal structures serve more than one function quite well, and there
is no guile or deceit in the fact that most people don't discuss the
secondary aspect of the behaviour ). A glance at certain aspects of this
certain tradition reveal structures like those we recognize elsewhere.
There aren't very many women involved in some parts of this tradition.
Not many ethnic minorities either, though they've been around quite a long while. ANd have you ever noticed that the authority structure of a symphony
orchestra looks like a sort of social paradigm? Look who gives the
orders! And this thing called a "score": People holler loudly when it's
not done right, but there's a tendency to credit people who play with
the instructions in an interesting way. Is the score the piece, or merely
a set of blueprints?

I confess that I am indulging myself a little at your expense by laying it
on a little thick here, but these are all engaging questions in the
territory I've referred to in my foray into "Spacious" Logic": Namely
that the process of making distinctions is proper and necessary, but
also serves a function within groups. It provides a sense of identity,
self-worth and an understanding of what is "important" in what is
often an entirely improper way. As I mentioned in my last posting
which included some little hack-brained bits on Glenn Gould and Rush,
that's not limited to classicists only, but some of the posting
of reasons for the "division" stirred me again into contemplating
that rich glow which can only come when we exclude others by referring
to our secret knowledge in the company of like-minded souls.

The music itself is a thing of great richness, beauty, transport
and pretty rewarding as a system of knowledge. BUt another different
and equally satisfying beauty comes from seeing it in the context of
the whole Structure ( I seem to have shown "my True Colours here-
am I a dreaded Sacramentalist, or merely another Structuralist? )
of human activity. A part of that pattern involves the relationship
between power and exclusion considered in the confines of musical
categories.

THis is even windier than my last late-night posting. After my
wife finishes her Ph.D. exams, I will probably stop coming in
late and writing these epistles. THank you for your indulgence.

g(Adrian Leverkuhn's music was boring, but i enjoyed his friend Thomas
very much)taylor@cornell
"