music-research@HPLPM.HPL.HP.COM (01/07/91)
Music-Research Digest Sun, 6 Jan 91 Volume 6 : Issue 3
Today's Topics:
2nd rate European Conference (2 msgs)
MIT Media Lab ?
*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request
*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
*** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
*** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
*** Back issues, index, etc.: send "help" in a message to archive-server
*** @uk.ac.oxford.prg (in the UK) or @hplpm.hpl.hp.com (elsewhere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Jan 91 06:12:42 GMT
From: eliot%phoenix@edu.princeton (Eliot Handelman)
Subject: 2nd rate European Conference
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <5056@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
[ The article below contains some fairly offensive language, but I've
included it on the grounds that contributors are free to embarrass
themselves within limits. One reply is also enclosed, but I shall
curtail the debate if it breaks out into lots of included-text
screeds like the last one ... - S ]
;Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 11:27:16 SET
;From: Lelio Camilleri <CONSERVA@IT.CNR.FI.IFIIDG>
;Subject: 2nd European Conference on Music Analysis
;To: Music Digest Bulletin <music-research@prg>
;Analysis always presupposes a segmentation of the piece in
;question, but the criteria for this operations are problematic.
Just whose concept of "analysis" is this anyway? I don't know
of any post-adornoesque metacritique of analysis that asserts
"presupposed segmentation." Of which music, for instance?
;The traditions of music analysis and psychology propose
;diverse solutions to the problem.
"traditions" of music analysis? And of PSYCHOLOGY yet? And what "solutions"?
Where's the "problem"?
;The comparison between the
;two traditions will enable one to consider a more general
;theme: that of the relationships between music theory and
;cognitive psychology.
I can hardly wait.
;
;b) Analysing electro-acoustic music: towards a definition of the
; sound objects
;
;The problem of terminology is fundamental for the analysis of
;electro-acoustic music.
Yes, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Why is it you
dull oxen constantly insist that "terminology" is "fundamental"?
I've read at least 3 papers by 10th-rate psychobabble hacks asserting
that "we need TERMINOLOGY," can't you duds come up with anything
more exciting? I mean, MAKE UP THE TERMINOLOGY, then let us all
know what we should call the sounds you've analyzed, ok? Why's
this a conference issue?
;Analysing analysis: are there relationships between the various
;analytical methods ?
;
;The codified methods, from Schenker to set theory,
Obviously you've studied neither, else "codified" would never
have crept in there.
;yeld
;analytical results which are always incomplete and sometimes
;mutually contradictory.
This is just purest horsecrap. First of all, one wouldn't ordinarily
try a "set" approach to tonal music: but contextualisms are suggested
by Schenker, where standard harmony "analyses" propose none. Second,
two LISTENINGS of the same piece of music might be contradictory. So
why shouldn't various "readings" (forget "analysis") be contradictory?
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jan 91 15:48:36 GMT
From: smoliar%vaxa.isi.edu%isi.edu%usc%cs.utexas.edu@edu.ohio-state.cis.tut (Stephen Smoliar)
Subject: 2nd rate European Conference
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <16244@venera.isi.edu>
Eliot, once again I see that you have decided to wage a Holy War against music
conferences in Europe. Readers familiar with this bulletin board probably
still have fond recollections of your attack on last year's meeting in
Marseilles. (You were probably the most talk-about non-participant there!)
As always, I share your desire to criticize what may prove to be shaky
foundations; but this time around I fear you might be stretching your
position a bit. Most important, in my mind, it to try and sort out the
difference between sensible and foolish approaches to GOALS from sensible
and foolish approaches to SOLUTIONS. Let us consider your first volley.
In article <5056@idunno.Princeton.EDU> you write:
>;Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 11:27:16 SET
>;From: Lelio Camilleri <CONSERVA@IT.CNR.FI.IFIIDG>
>;Subject: 2nd European Conference on Music Analysis
>;To: Music Digest Bulletin <music-research@prg>
>
>;Analysis always presupposes a segmentation of the piece in
>;question, but the criteria for this operations are problematic.
>
>
>Just whose concept of "analysis" is this anyway? I don't know
>of any post-adornoesque metacritique of analysis that asserts
>"presupposed segmentation." Of which music, for instance?
>
I'm not sure just whom or what you are trying to attack here. Do you wish to
contest the premise of a tight coupling between analysis and perception? THAT,
after all, is the premise behind the sentence you have chosen to attack. After
all, there is no question that segmentation is a critical aspect of perception.
Even if you reject the various schools of cognitive science and take Edelman's
biological approach instead, you cannot give up the need to build upon a
foundation of a capacity for PERCEPTUAL CATEGORIZATION. Even you can never
get beyond an ability to establish the EXISTENCE and EXTENT of OBJECTS among
the stimuli you receive, you can never begin to talk about either perception
or analysis.
>;
>;The problem of terminology is fundamental for the analysis of
>;electro-acoustic music.
>
>Yes, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Why is it you
>dull oxen constantly insist that "terminology" is "fundamental"?
>I've read at least 3 papers by 10th-rate psychobabble hacks asserting
>that "we need TERMINOLOGY," can't you duds come up with anything
>more exciting?
Attempts to discuss issues of terminology are hardly confined to hack work.
For better or worse, it is a perfectly reasonable position to accept from
anyone who has decided to adopt Zenon Pylyshyn's COMPUTATION AND COGNITION
as gospel. Pylyshyn's feet, in turn, are planed squarely upon the shoulders
of Allen Newell and Jerry Fodor. None of these men are hacks (even if my
personal point of view is that they never seem to take on any of the really
critical questions of cognition). We should not be surprised to find whole
schools of thought trying to follow in their footsteps, and those schools will
probably continue to flourish until any loyal opposition can finally muster
some convincing arguments.
=========================================================================
USPS: Stephen Smoliar
5000 Centinela Avenue #129
Los Angeles, California 90066
Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu
"It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 09:50:23 PST
From: kravitz%foxtail@edu.ucsd
Subject: MIT Media Lab ?
To: Stephen.Page@prg, Stephen.Page@prg
Message-ID: <9101051750.AA23634@foxtail.uucp>
[ Can anyone help with the query below? - S ]
Do you have any contacts at the MIT Media Lab. I understand that they
are working on two projects which are of interest to me. One is a project
which encodes Reproducting Piano Rolls into Midi format. This project will
preserve and archive a vast collection of reproducing rolls made by
famous artists. The second project is one to decompose music via digital
signal processing back into its score. I'd like to talk to the people
working on these projects.
Thanks
Jody
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digestminsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (01/07/91)
kravitz%foxtail@edu.ucsd asked about music research at the Media Laboratory. The MIDI piano man is graduate student Michael Hawley, mike@media-lab.media.mit.edu. As for written musical scores, graduate student Alan Ruttenberg (alanr@media-lab.media.mit.edu) is just now finishing a thesis on an optical score-to-preformance system -- that is, a score-reading system. It is tuned to a particular publisher, because Ruttenberg designed it to use in a system for making musical analyses of certain Schubert string quartets.