Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mintaka!yale!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: More on Cognitive Musicology
Message-ID: <13720@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 8 Feb 90 23:01:33 GMT
References: <13618@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1990Feb7.085350.2743@rand.org>
Reply-To: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 21

In article <1990Feb7.085350.2743@rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
;Gosh, the old ``Nature vs Nurture'' argument pops up in some of the
;oddest places...
;
;It would be interesting to see the antecedents to Eliot's message.  Sounds
;to me like someone has been arguing that a Proper Musical Education,
;(perhaps in conjunction with an appropriate licensing authority) is
;necessary for the Proper and Competent Practice of Musical Composition.
;To this idea I counter that there are many paths to Enlightenment, and
;that while indoctrination in the ancient mysteries (and the even more
;mysterious modern mysteries) has liberated many a creative muse, it has
;stifled many another.

The point here is not whether an education is detrimental to "creativity."
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Laske is contending that the creative
process is somehow determined by one's education, and I'm disagreeing
with that. If it were, then anyone could be taught to compose (or to paint,
or to do advanced mathematics) and that's just not the case. 

-Eliot Handelman
Princeton U., Music