[Smt-talk] Advocating for the humanities

[Ildar Khannanov]

Dear List and Jeffrey,

I agree that the list should be reserved for pure knowledge; for other issues there is FB. However, when the chairs will be pulled from under each of us, we will have to acknowledge the danger of the situation. NEH is an important resource, we do not have many other funding opportunities.

As for the second part of Jeff's replica:

the 6/4 discussion was initiated by Dr. Dmitri Tymoczko and, if I have the right of opinion, I should say that it was the most fruitful discussion of a theory topic I have ever encountered. It was more informative than many of the peer-reviewed paper publications in the WoS journals, many of which are now switching to electronic format because of the crisis of readership.

The Bashing of Schenker is an oxymoron. Schenker bashed 25 centuries worth of music theory; there is nothing wrong in giving him the taste of his own medicine.

The only person that received postings ad hominem, so far, was your faithful. I regret that this has happened and join the colleagues in the desire of keeping the listserv within the purposes of professional field.

Best wishes,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Conservatory
solfeggio7 at yahoo.com 
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:38 AM, Jeffrey Perry <jperry at lsu.edu> wrote:
  
If one task of scholarly discourse is to question foundational assumptions
and ³settled² truths, Dr. Whitcomb¹s thread certainly qualifies. Maybe
instead of a meta-discussion about whether or not we should have a
discussion about support for the NEH, the list might benefit from a
discussion about the value of public arts funding in principle, and about
the NEH as a (beleaguered, underfunded) model specifically. Surely there
are list members with experience in the NEH grant writing and reviewing
process who could provide useful details.

By the way, what threatens to drive people away from smt-talk, in my
opinion, is not necessarily politics, but (in no particular order)
‹Posts about the cadential 6/4
‹Schenker-bashing for its own sake
‹Lengthy polemics of any sort that substitute for, rather than supplement,
peer-reviewed work on a given subject. Bonus points for ad hominem vitriol.

With best wishes to all for a pleasant spring,
jp
Jeff Perry
Professor of Music Theory
277 Music and Dramatic Arts
School of Music, College of Music & Dramatic Arts
Louisiana State University
jperry at lsu.edu / (225) 578-3556 (voice) / (225) 578-2562 (fax)




On 4/8/14, 6:55 AM, "Whitcomb, Benjamin D" <whitcomb at uww.edu> wrote:

>Hello Dr. Berry,
>
>No, I am talking about NEH. It is not hard to find examples online of
>projects that they have funded that many people would consider wasteful,
>although many of the folks on this list might not consider any of them to
>be. But, no, I don't think that does affect the argument at hand.
>
>Do you think that it is desirable to have a discussion list dedicated
>only to the discussion of music theory?
>
>-or-
>
>If there is a benefit to having political discussions on this fourm, is
>it outweighed by the costs of driving away some of the members?
>
>
>-Benjamin
>
>Dr. Benjamin Whitcomb
>Professor of Cello and Music Theory
>University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
>www.benjaminwhitcomb.com
>

_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140408/e419db82/attachment-0003.htm>