music-research@bartok.Eng.Sun.COM (08/21/90)
Music-Research Digest Tue, 21 Aug 90 Volume 5 : Issue 76
Today's Topics:
Categories of Musicological Analysis
Degree Granting Institutions in Computer Music (2 msgs)
low-cost score editors
Musicology in Music Research
still alive!
Trading Music
*** 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 @bartok.sun.com (elsewhere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Aug 90 17:02:44 GMT
From: "Mr. P. H. Smith" <mrsmith%rice-chex%ai-lab%snorkelwacker@edu.ohio-state.cis.tut>
Subject: Categories of Musicological Analysis
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <9956@life.ai.mit.edu>
Before I respond I must say that I clearly indicated that I was
proposing categories of "musicological analysis." I DO NOT consider
these to be exhaustive of all categories of musical research of any
kind. I have written more about this in another posting below
[Musicology and Music Research]
The first category of musicological analysis I had proposed was
1. Primary Sound (any sound or silence without rhythm,
melody, harmony, or lyrics, but with choate musical value)
lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer) responded:
The main problem with this categorization is that is has an
inheretly Western musical bias. I.E., the category of "primary
sound" seems be a catch-all for any sound that doesn't follow
traditional Western musical procedures. ...
Do you think that "rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics" are "Western
musical procedures?" I don't, and I don't think any non-western
musician would agree with you, if you arrogantly claim that rhythm,
melody, harmony, and lyrics are Western musical procedures. Primary
sound without any of the other elements is as rare in Asian and
African music as it is in Western music. So, I guess I still cannot
see the Western Bias you're talking about. Please explain in more
detail the other categories that I left out that do not have this
Western Bias.
You also claim that
Musicological analysis usually starts with a reference to
who produces the music, rather than to the acoustics of
individual phrases and sounds.
First, I did not mention anything about acoustics - which I think is
nowhere to be found in musicological analysis. Primary sound, as I
indicated, has to have "choate musical value." Where did you find
acoustics? And I don't agree that musicological analysis "usually
starts with a reference to who produces the music." I mean, how many
articles about Schubert songs begin by saying, "Dietrich Fischer
Diskau produced this music, and now I am going to analyze it thus..."
Apparently you also think that lyrics as I defined it is too narrow.
You suggest calling this
relationship of music to text (rather than "lyrics", a word
which assumes certain composition processes which might not
occur in certain types of music, such as improvised Indian
ragas where syllables are insterspersed with words).
But you will shoot yourself in the foot with this one because the word
"text" means just what we all think it means (i.e., the wording,
usually printed or written, of an author's utterance). You must
understand, therefore, that text can never be a musical element. I
defined lyrics as a "verbal and semantic overlay" on rhythm, melody,
harmony, or primary sound precisely to avoid "text," which, as a word,
usually does not have anything to do with music. Lyrics (of the lyre)
almost always does. The key is VERBAL. Text is never verbal, lyrics
usually are (only when they're written, they're a text). I also
prefer lyrics because it has always been used - since antiquity - to
have something to do with music. Anyway, you have correctly
identified the nebulous boundary between lyrics and primary sound by
bringing up the example of improvised, non-semantic syllables.
Indeed, the boundaries between all of these categories are
overlapping, but I have tried to define them as distinct AND to show
their interrelationship.
The reason I gave a definition of the word lyrics is because the one I
understand to be common is not precise enough in this case. So please
recognize that I have redefined the term and not mentioned anything at
all about *how* music manages to get a lyric overlay in a particular
instance (i.e., it does not matter whether someone first wrote down
the lyrics, or whether they are just now making them up. The end
result is the same: a semantic and verbal overlay. BTW, according to
Webster's lyrics are "the words of a song, as distinguished from the
music." I think that this is incorrect. The lyrics are as much a
part of the music as the rhythm and melody. Moreover, as you and I
pointed out, lyrics need not be limited to words.
But, when you say
If one desires to examine music in relation to text, one
may also cross interdisciplinary boundaries by examining
the relationship of music to visual art, theater, and dance
I must agree. But you should realize that I have not suggested
examining music in relation to text. I have suggested only that
lyrics is a category of musicological analysis because it is
understood to be part of music. The way you construe it, I get the
impression that music and text are to be understood in their
traditional meaning (i.e., mutually exclusive). If you don't mean
this, then don't use the word text and don't say "music in relation to
text" where text is something not music.
Finally, you have also misunderstood the sixth category,
corpographics. You say
Your sixth category seemed to combine architectural
acoustics and theater
That term I chose carefully (it was invented by Gerald Otte, a
choreographer), but I perhaps misled you with my examples. I said
that corpographics, as a category of musicological analysis, includes
the staging and visual presentation in all of its aspects -
i.e., is the music in a church, a stadium, in headphones, etc.
I could not list everything here like, are the musicians wearing
anything? Are they dressed like waiters? Is there an obvious leader?
Are they moving or sitting or both? ... Is the music outside,
amplified, drunk, on a CD player, imagined? Is the listener lying
down, sitting, eating, dancing, praying? You get my drift. I did not
mean just "architectural acoustics" (again you put acoustics in there.
Where do you keep finding that?) If you think these things have no
place in musicological analysis, you will have anyone who believes
that opera is music, Christopher Hogwash and the period performance
people, and ethnomusicologists shaking their heads in disagreement.
Paul Smith
mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 90 08:33:25 GMT
From: Douglas Terrebonne <dougt%zorch%vsi1%daver%mips%sdd.hp.com@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Degree Granting Institutions in Computer Music
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.083325.4084@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
I am now attending Cogswell Polytechnica; College in Cupertino, CA.
It is one of the few places to offer a BS in Music Engineering Technology.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 90 17:31:31 GMT
From: Michael Rose <rose%crdgw1@net.uu.uunet>
Subject: Degree Granting Institutions in Computer Music
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <ROSE.90Aug20133132@bullwinkle.crd.ge.com>
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has begun a Master of Fine Arts
program in Electronic Arts. The program in headed by Neil Rolnick (or the
electro-acoustic music side) and John Sturgeon (on the video side).
Composition and integration of media is stressed. Since RPI is primarily
an engineering school, there is going to an emphasis on construction and
design of unique hardware for these media. If anyone wants further
information, write me and I`ll pass along your name to Rolnick and
Sturgeon.
--
Mike Rose
Schenectady, NY
Harris Power R&D Center
rose@bullwinkle.crd.ge.com
(518) 387-6635
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:33:05 EDT
From: "Edward L. Stauff" <EDWARD.STAUFF@com.wang.office>
Subject: low-cost score editors
To: Music-Research@prg
Message-ID: <9008201815.AA15908@sununix.comm.wang.com>
Can anyone recommend (or warn against) any low-cost score editors for IBM
compatibles? I desperately need one (I can't stand doing it by hand any
more), but I don't have several hundred dollars to spend on the likes of
Dr. T's or Finale. None of the music (or computer) stores in my area have
much of anything for me to try, and nobody seems to have a return policy
for music software. I'm considering the Laser Music Processor, but even
$100 is a lot of money (for me), and I want to be sure I'll get my money's
worth. Has anyone used any of the low-end score editors, or heard anything
about them? Better still, is there any shareware or free software score
editors out there?
Thanks.
Ed Stauff Edward.Stauff@OFFICE.Wang.com
------------------------------
Date: 18 Aug 90 17:30:37 GMT
From: "Mr. P. H. Smith" <mrsmith%rice-chex%ai-lab%snorkelwacker%usc@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Musicology in Music Research
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <9957@life.ai.mit.edu>
Perhaps this will show y'all just what I mean by "musicological
analysis" and maybe even convey to you what I think is the
relationship between musicology and the other branches of musical research.
Please remember that the categories of musicological analysis I
proposed are not intended to encompass all musical research. That's
why I call them categories of *musicological* analysis. Musicology is
more confused than all-encompassing, as you'll see (but I tried to
allow it to be as broad as possible).
Musicology is most frequently defined quite broadly as the study of
music, as the term implies. Often musicological study is
distinguished from the practice of music, following a very old
tradition going back to Antiquity. The Oxford Dictionary of Music
(1985) says:
"Musicology -- Music scholarship. A 20th-cent. word taken
into the Eng. language (from the Fr. Musicologie), but the
Ger. term Musikwissenschaft was coined by J. B. Logier in
1827. It may be said to cover all study of musicother than
that directed to proficiency in perf. or comp. Thus, a
musicologist is one who is a specialist in some mus. study."
The breadth of the field is also expressed in this definition, which
lists the following as the domains of musicological research:
"acoustics, physiology of the v[oice], ear and hand;
psychology of aesthetics, and of music appreciation and
education; ethnology so far as it bears on music; rhythm and
metrics; modes and scales; the principles and development of
instrs.; orchestration; form; theories of harmony; the history
of mus.; the bibliography of mus.; terminology -- and so
forth."
What I dislike about this definition of musicology is that there is no
attempt to provide a framework for the various divisions. Under what
circumstances, for example, is the physiology of the hand a
musicological problem? It seems that what counts as a musicological
problem is *anything* anyone wants, and with no logical connection to
any of the other divisions. The "and so forth" merely underscores
this lack of organization.
The Harvard Dictionary of Music (1986) clearly shows the confusion
*among musicologists* about just what musicology is. First,
musicology is defined in the broadest possible terms:
"Musicology -- The scholarly study of music, wherever it is
found historically or geographically. The methods of
musicology are any that prove fruitful with respect to the
particular subject of study."
According to the Harvard Dictionary even the methods of musicology
are boundless. However, there is a contradiction between the
definition of musicology and the actual domain of musicological
investigation.
Musicology as it is practiced is the study of a select number of
musical works which are judged to be aesthetically significant and
which have European progeny. The Harvard Dictionary says as much as
its definition continues:
"The great majority of scholars who describe themselves as
musicologists (as distinct from ethnomusicologists) are
students of Western art music."
But, lest you think I am naive to rely on dictionary definitions to
define a field which is dynamic and in flux, let's contrast these
definitions of musicology with the actual content of the dictionaries
in which they appear. Then we can see, statistically, just what
musicologists think their field is concerned with. As expected, in
the Oxford Dictionary of Music, for example, the statistical breakdown
of entries by nationality and historical periiod shows that musicology
is concerned with Western European music of the past 200 years more
than anything else. The breakdown is -
65% = USA and Western Europe.
35% = All the other countries of the world.
Chronologically, the breakdown is -
0-1000 AD = 0.5%
1000-1400 = 0.67
1400-1600 = 5.6
1600-1780 = 16.5
1780-1910 = 27
1910-1985 = 49.2
(I arrived at these by tabulating the entries on every tenth
page in the dictionary.)
These dictionaries, if taken as collections of what is considered
important for musicology, hardly approach the breadth suggested in
their definitions of musicology.
This is fine with me. I just would like to articulate and organize
the *actual* field of musicological research in a logical way. I
don't think anyone has done that since Guido Adler defined the field
way back in the 1880s. The world of music has changed a lot since
then.
The Four Main Divisions of All Musical Research
Okay, here is what I think are the broadest possible categories of
musical research and the place musicology seems to have among
them. These are the four big honeys of music specialists (I know there
are others, but they are trivial):
1. The largest and most comprehensive domain must be
psycho-acoustics. This field is concerned with the interaction of
sound with any bio-physical organism. Naturally, psycho-acoustics
includes all sounds (language, noise, music, etc.) whether they are
real or imagined. It is by no means only concerned with music, no
matter how it may be defined. Moreover, psycho-acoustics is not
limited to the study of human beings. It can just as easily address
itself to frogs, lizards, and trees -- and often does! As the term
psycho-acoustics suggests, the methods of psychology and acoustics
predominate in this field. In psycho-acoustics any sound, whether it
is part of the most sublime music or the most excruciating noise, can
be the object of study. This is not to suggest that musicological
research is a subset of psycho-acoustics in a methodological sense.
We are simply describing the domains of musical research. And, since
psycho-acoustics treats issues in music and "non"-music its domain is
necessarily larger than whatever the domain of musicology might be.
2. Nearly as important, and nearly as all-encompassing as
psycho-acoustics is an area which we may call (with some regrets)
"musico-paideics" That is, the educatory process of music, usually
understood in its political, sexological, and moral sense. (Perhaps
the Greek term "Euterpics" would have covered the same concepts.)
Anyway, music education, in its most generic aspect around the world,
is little concerned with musicological analysis and not at all with
comparative analysis. Mostly, one learns the Christmas carols, the
proper dance steps for a marriage or similar public event, the
national anthem, and the like. This second branch of the field of
musical study includes all general musical education (the effect of
music on the citizens of a state, the use of music in schools and in
other sociological contexts, the pedagogics of music, etc.).
3. Today a *vitally* important area of musical research is the
"comparative" analysis of just these confusing customs, habits and
sometimes xenophobic practices. We call this area "ethnomusicology,"
at least in English, and at least since the first half of this
century. I think the term itself is grandiose and silly, but again,
this field of research is extremely important, no matter what you call
it.
4. This brings us finally to the morphemic analysis of a selected
number of acknowledged, musically venerate works in whatever culture.
As a meaningful aspect of musical study this is frequently only called
analysis, but it is also sometimes called text analysis, or
musicological analysis. This aspect is perhaps the most important
component of scholarly musical study as it exists in Western
universities. I think that even when musicologists write about
"reception" and "historical influences" they have in mind the
reception of *famous Western art music* and the historical influence
on same.
I hope all this helps clarify my thoughts to y'all.
Paul Smith
mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 12:25:18 GMT
From: Bernard Bel <BEL@EARN.FRMOP11>
Subject: still alive!
To: music-research@prg
There has been a rumour in Europe according to which the MAI Conference in
Marseille (3-6 October) would have been cancelled. Certainly not... We are
editing around 400 pages of communications and we look forward a large
participation.
This is also an opportunity to recall the ICTM meeting on "Transcription of
Traditional Music" which will be held in Marseille on 29-30 September.
E-mail info, hotel reservation, etc., is available from me.
Bernard Bel
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:17:18 EDT
From: Steve Boylan <STEVE.BOYLAN@com.wang.office>
Subject: Trading Music
To: music-research@prg, music-research@prg, music-research@prg
Message-ID: <9008201759.AA15858@sununix.comm.wang.com>
A recent private exchange about sharing music over the Internet led
to a question . . . and I thought there might be some answers out
there in the networked world at large. The basic question is, how can
we exchange music via electronic mail networks?
My interest goes beyond sharing just the words. I'd like to be able
to trade melodies as well. Ideally, what the recipient should see
in the end is music expressed (as well as possible) in the familiar
staff notation. I am not very concerned about how to exchange
exotic notation for unusual purposes - my interest is in sending
and receiving the melody, harmony, and lyrics of straightforward
musical pieces, along with such minimal adornments as chords for
accompanists.
Are there, at present, any widely-used protocols for encoding
music for electronic transmission? All I have been able to dig up
so far is "Standard MIDI Files", which (in the standard form) only
contain the note commands of the MIDI interface. That's a long way
from trying to encode even a simple song.
If nobody can suggest an exisiting protocol . . . what do YOU
think such a protocol should look like?
I am posting this message to a number of lists where I've seen
electronics and music discussed together, to see who might be
interested in this discussion. Further exchanges will be limited
to electronic music lists and my own list of respondents. If
you'd like to learn if I find anything, just let me know. My
normal Internet address is:
Steve.Boylan@office.wang.com
Wish me luck . . .
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digest