eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (02/06/90)
>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 09:44:10 EST >>From: laske@edu.bu.cs >To: music-research <music-research%uk.ac.oxford.prg@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> These are Otto Laske's replies to some of the questions I raised in an earlier posting. >Question 4: "why should the process of one composer be relevant, or >even necessarily related to, the process of another composer?" Good >question, this. Indeed, a compositional process by X in music may >have more of a relation to a design process by Y in architecture, >that is quite possible. Music composition is a discipline of design, >and design occurs in many arts, and not only in the arts. But then, >design in music--called composition--requires a certain kind of >competence, and therefore, the "knowledge base" of composers inter- >sects to some degree. Whoa -- where did that "therefore" come from? Even if I accept your characterization of composition, which I don't, and admit that it has to do with "design" -- no, actually IS design -- and then admit that these designs (or processes of designing) express a certain kind of competence on the part of the composer/designer -- which seems to favor the application of knowledge over pure invention -- how do we get to the step that "therefore" there must be some intersection of knowledge? What would that knowledge look like? >Also, the tools in one society tend to share >common traits, the music paper is a common task environment, or else >the computer-based orchestration language. So, even if the composers >think wildly differently--which they do, just look at how different >composers trade off between what they invest in a CSOUND orchestra >and what they invest in a CSOUND score--they are grouped sociologically >according to their "task environment", i.e., the tools they use. Yes, but it's almost certainly futile to look for possible constraints on the composition process in these "environments." In any case I'm not exactly sure where the connection here is with question number 4. >They >are also related by their education, and thus, the kind of processes >they come up with. Hard to imagine, maybe, for a young composer who >thinks he is soooo unique, but nevertheless true. In short, what is >a "relation" of one "process" of composition to another "process" >is a scholarly question, not a rhetorical one (as in Handelman). This is an almost unbelievable assertion, Otto. You are suggesting that a common psychological disposition is inferable from a common education. That the compositional processes of two composers who have a common educational background will be roughly equivalent. That knowing the educational background of a composer will be sufficient to predict what goes on in their head as they compose. That composers are mistaken in their claim to individuality, even in aspiring to uniqueness. Not uniqueness with respect to their music, mind you -- that their very imaginations are predictable, that the essence of their private thinking consists in the application of rules which could come to light if ever this knowledge-acquistion scheme of yours were implemented. Why express contempt for young composers who think that they're soooo unique? Perhaps they are -- you have no evidence to the contrary. Is the purpose of Cognitive Musicology to acquire such evidence? If so, it seems pretty clear why your scheme has not met with widespread approval in the compositional community. > Also,there is the difference between novices (such as Eliot) and >experts (such as Paul Lansky, say); it would be important to find >out what their differences are when they do the same task. The point is, Otto, that we don't do the same task. That would be a needless replication of effort, as Andy Capp used to say. Of course I understand that you want these differences to vanish, so as to confirm your assertion that musical expertise is a question of education, rather than individuality. The world would certainly make a better home for your theories, if that were the case. >Conclusion (for now): I value Eliot's response but, as I say, I think >we need a different tone (on his part). That may or may not be the case. I want the general reader of this group to be able to understand what is being said here, and I am not willing to couch this discussion in so much jargon as to render the thinking it reflects, on both our parts, opaque. --Eliot Handelman Princeton U., Music
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (02/07/90)
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. Perhaps it is time for a flamefest over the nature of a musical education-- assuming people agree that musical education is natural in the first place. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (02/09/90)
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., Musiceliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/21/90)
In article <7628@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes:
;>>>>From: laske@edu.bu.cs
;>>> Also,there is the difference between novices (such as Eliot) and
;>>>experts (such as Paul Lansky, say); it would be important to find
;>>>out what their differences are when they do the same task.
;To label Eliot as a novice without justification is meaningless and
;perhaps insulting.
No, that was Laske's idea of a funny joke. I hope you had a good chortle
over it. I'm sure Otto did.mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (02/27/90)
In article <13926@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >Seems to me that a knowledge-acquisition (or education) model requires >two pretty much unattainable things: a good picture of the initial >condition, i.e., before the acquisition begins; and a model for how a >particular state determines the knowledge that can be >acquired/assimilated/incorporated/whatever at a given moment. > One observable example comes to mind, and that's George Gershwin's music before and after beginning study with Joseph Schillinger. I think there are significant differences in the features, particularly harmonic. Now, whether that was due to study with Schillinger and/or other factors is a different story. Usually "Porgy and Bess" is cited for study in these realms, but why not put things on more even ground and compare a later song, such as "Our Love is Here to Stay" with one of the earlier pre-Schillinger songs. A factor in this is not only when, but *how long* it took those changes in style to take place. Anther possible composer for study would be Scriabin (change between the 5th and 6th Piano Sonatas). More interesting, I think, than the shaping of a musican's style by formal education is sudden changes of style (or radical changes over a reasonably short time-span) and what sets of experiences may have influenced those changes, and whether or not the more formal the musical training the less likely (or the slower) those changes might occur. I would also be interested in opinions of how much easier/more difficult it is in our own time for a composer to be "successful" (define that yourself!) than in the time of, say, Schoenberg or even Cage's early development, without the 'university' or 'conservatory' style formal training. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================