daemon@BARTOK.ENG.SUN.COM (10/24/89)
Music-Research Digest Mon, 23 Oct 89 Volume 4 : Issue 64
Today's Topics:
Computer research in Schenkerian analysis (2 msgs)
NeXT Lisp: call for comment
*** 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 89 15:03:49 GMT
From: Greg Sandell <mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!ferret!sandell@edu.ohio-state.cis.tut>
Subject: Computer research in Schenkerian analysis
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
In article <5013@orca.WV.TEK.COM> steveb@eve.WV.TEK.COM () writes:
>I have long been contemplating writing software that can analyze tonal music
>via Schenker techniques. Every time I attempt to scope out the problem I seem
>to increase in complexity by an order of magnitude. I am looking for folks who
>have attempted to tackle this problem. Specifically I am looking for
>collaborators but I would be happy to start with references in the literature.
>I am also looking for information on potential file formats and encoding
>schemes for the input side. Any information would be extremely helpful.
>
>Steve
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>FROM: STEVEN C. BILOW -- Software Engineer, Tektronix
>EMAIL: steveb@orca.WV.TEK.COM PHONE: (503) 685-2463
>USMAIL: P.O. Box 1000 61-028, Wilsonville, OR 97070-1000
Stephen Smoliar, no stranger to the net (esp. rec.music.classical) has an
article titled "A computer aid for Schenkerian analysis," COMPUTER MUSIC
JOURNAL 4/2, 41-59. Another item is by James
Snell (1979), "Design for a formal system for deriving tonal music,"
but you will find it practically impossible to find since it is a
Master's thesis (State University of New York at Binghamton).
Lerdahl & Jackendoff's A GENERATIVE THEORY OF TONAL MUSIC (MIT Press,
1983) contains a hierarchical theory of music which is Schenker-like
in flavor. One particularly nice thing about the approach is that
the rules are fairly explicit, which lends itself more to a
computational treatment than raw Schenker theory.
I think the problem is well worth working on, although as you say, it
will be very complex. The fact that music theorists frequently
disagree as to what consititutes a `correct' Schenkerian analysis
shows that much of the theory is arcane and implicit. (By the way,
you can always tell if someone is a truely devoted follower of
Schenker if they use the word `correct' alot in their writings.)
My advice, for what it's worth, is to pick a very simple musical
domain (e.g. early 18th century minuets) and try to acheive
success there first.
Good luck,
Greg Sandell
***************************************************************
* Greg Sandell, Institute for Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL *
* sandell@ferret.ils.nwu.edu *
***************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 89 19:14:11 GMT
From: Creative Business Decisions <Q2816@edu.princeton.pucc>
Subject: Computer research in Schenkerian analysis
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
See also Michael Kassler's Princeton Ph.D. thesis. Complete reference
on request, or just call UMI's 800 number.
I don't believe there IS such a thing as a "correct" Schenkerian
analysis, and I consider myself something of a Schenkerian.
You see, most Schenkerian analyses are done in order to show something
SPECIFIC about the INDIVIDUAL piece. The "point" of the analysis
determines the way in which it is done.
Schenkerian analysis is NOT a game of "Find the Ursatz." Often, the
purpose is to demonstrate motivic relationships between structural
levels, to demonstrate the relationships between sections of a larger
piece, or for another reason. Just "analyzing" in a rote fashion tends
to get you nowhere, as Karl-Otto Pluem's work shows. (He did a
dissertation by doing analyses of all the Bach 'cello suites, I think.)
In general, the best analyses are based on an intuitive "hook" of some
sort.
Some of the best motivic-Schenkerian analyses were done by Ernst Oster.
Two gems can be found in reprint at the end of _Aspects of Schenkerian
Theory_, ed. David Beach. New Haven, Yale UP, ca. 1983. One of them,
of the Chopin Fantasy-Impromptu, comes up with results no computer
is capable of. (The word "intertextuality" is appropriate...) The other
one is a bit more conventional, but comes up with motivic relationships
of a very subtle nature. (Egmont Overture.) These analyses TELL you
something about the piece in its uniqueness. I don't think reduction
or generation rules alone will get you those results.
Another thing to consider is the historical aspect of music. What works
do your rule work for? What does variance from the rules say about a
given work? Also, how will you integrate the text of a vocal work into
your analysis? Its (often ambiguous) structure and meaning?
Finally, though I like Schenker's method and many of the analyses it has
produced, I do not necessarily accept reducability as a condition of
well-formedness; at least, I believe that there is always some ambiguity
in the way great works are heard, even when one is hearing them for the
nth time. A good analysis can point out these ambiguities; how hard
will it be to get your program to do so?
In short, ask yourself the following questions: What is Schenkerian
analysis? What is it used for? What does one learn from an analysis?
Why do *I* want to do it? And what will the computer do for me?
Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 89 13:59:59 -0700
From: John Rahn <jrahn@edu.washington.acs.blake>
Subject: NeXT Lisp: call for comment
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
I would very much appreciate hearing from anyone who has discovered
problems with the Franz Common Lisp system bundled with the NeXT
machine, or who has any positive or negative information or perspective
that might help inform my review of the Lisp in Part 2 of our review of
the NeXT, which is to appear in the journal PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC
(Vol. 28, no. 1, Winter 1990).
(Part 1 of the review, written by Paul Lansky, appeared in 27/2, Summer 1989.)
Please send your comments before Nov. 1st to:
jrahn@blake.u.washington.edu
or jrahn@blake.acs.washington.edu
or as a last resort only, to PNM1234@uwacdc.bitnet
I may not be able to respond to everyone if there are a lot of comments,
so please accept my thanks in advance here.
John Rahn
School of Music DN-10
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digest