[Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
Jill T. Brasky
jtbrasky at me.com
Wed Apr 30 11:06:48 PDT 2014
Dear List,
Why/how is requesting equality a political agenda? Sexist language is sexist language, and when requests for its reasonable discontinuation are ignored, I wonder if the SMT-List has outlived its usefulness. For those who receive unequal treatment on a regular basis, I see no reason for us to endure it here.
Because there is no longer a personal or professional benefit to my SMT-List (digest) subscription, I will discontinue it. The theory community whose humor, sensitivity, and inclusiveness I value has made its presence known in other formats.
With best wishes,
Jill
Jill T. Brasky
University of South Florida
On Apr 30, 2014, at 12:48 PM, smt-talk-request at lists.societymusictheory.org wrote:
> Send Smt-talk mailing list submissions to
> smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> smt-talk-request at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> smt-talk-owner at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Smt-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Gender Terminology in Music Theory (Ildar Khannanov)
> 2. Re: FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory (Stephen Jablonsky)
> 3. Re: FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory (Walter Everett)
> 4. Re: Gender Terminology in Music Theory (Nicolas Mee?s)
> 5. Gender Terminology in Music (Ninov, Dimitar N)
> 6. Re: Gender Terminology in Music Theory (Conor Cook)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 05:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ildar Khannanov <solfeggio7 at yahoo.com>
> To: JAY RAHN <jayrahn at rogers.com>, "smt-talk at societymusictheory.org"
> <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> Message-ID:
> <1398860481.30952.YahooMailNeo at web125305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Jay and the list,
>
> I have been thinking about this question too. It is a very important and beautifully formulated one. If the answer to be found then another evidence of theory of form borrowing its terminology from theory of prosody will be revealed.
>
> I can guess that the beautiful semantics of feminine and masculine endings entered music at the time of discovery of the period form in the second half of the 18th century. Approximately at that time the four-foot iamb has become most common verse structure. It is in this four-foot stanza the second line ends with feminine and the fourth line ends with masculine ending. By the way, contrary to the views expressed here on the list, the terms feminine and masculine rhyme are used commonly? in contemporary theory of prosody. Wikipedia does not hesitate to state that. And why do I have to be ashamed of the term feminine ending if?nowadays?nobody seemed to be ashamed of anything?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ildar Khannanov
> Peabody Conservatory, Johns Hopkins University
> solfeggio7 at yahoo.com
> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:59 AM, JAY RAHN <jayrahn at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> In French versification theory ca. 1500, the end of a line is either feminine or masculine depending on whether the second last syllable or the last syllable is accented. In French, a grammatically masculine word might or might not refer to something that is semantically gendered masculine and a grammatically feminine word might or might not refer to something that is semantically gendered as feminine.?
>
> In aristocratic chansons of the time, a cadence at the end of both kinds of line generally proceeds from a weaker to a stronger part of the measure . However, often in songs that are idiomatically most similar to subsequent chansons populaires (e.g., Faisons bonne chere), a line with a feminine ending proceeds from a stronger to a weaker part of the musical metre.?
>
> Does anyone know whether, and if so, how and when, the phonological/prosodic terms were adopted to deal with musical metre and phrase structure?
>
> Jay Rahn, York University ? ? ??
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:47:23 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>
> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive, not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality, despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence;?that matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.
>>
>>
>> MW Morse
>> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
>>> So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
>>> masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
>>> sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
>>>
>>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smt-talk mailing list
>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140430/1d8b1a1a/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:06:32 -0400
> From: Stephen Jablonsky <jablonsky at optimum.net>
> To: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
> Cc: smt-talk smt <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> Message-ID: <88FB32C6-6CD8-4F66-AA61-0C5EE600A8AD at optimum.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I am amused by the line of this discussion because I began studying music theory 60 years ago in a world that was very different from today. It was a time when you could say ?feminine cadence? and no one blinked. That?s because the idea of any living thing besides whie men having rights was unknown. Our thought patterns were filled with stereotypes that were never questioned. We all knew that the downbeat was stronger than the beats that lead up to it, so we had no trouble ascribing it as a male attribute as long as we did no thinking about the words we were using. We have certainly come a long way since then. At least now we do something that passes for thinking about critical issues, probably enough to disconnect ?strong? from ?masculine.? I am sure Catherine the Great would agree, and probably Margaret Thacher and Hillary Clinton as well. Let?s not forget all those amazing ladies we have admired in the Winter and Summer Olympics. I can see them getting to the downbeat on
> time.
>
>
>
> Dr. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
> Music Department Chair
> The City College of New York
> Shepard Hall Room 72
> New York NY 10031
> (212) 650-7663
> music at ccny.cuny.edu
>
> America's Greatest Chair
> in the low-priced field
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> May I trust that this repulsive and witless ad hominem will not see dissemination? Thank you.
>>
>> MWM
>> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:17:31 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
>> From: psheehan251 at gmail.com
>> To: mwmorse at bell.net
>> CC: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>
>> Dear Readers (and Trolls):
>> Of course "feminine cadence" and "masculine cadence" are examples of sexist usage. Ascribe, describe, Ockham? It's sexist.
>>
>> In addition to Paul's utterly reasonable alternative (crusis, etc.), one could simply distinguish between "metrically emphasized" and "metrically non-emphasized" events.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Paul Sheehan
>> Nassau Community College
>> Garden City, New York
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive, not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality, despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence; that matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.
>>
>> MW Morse
>> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
>>
>>> From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
>>
>>> So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
>>> masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
>>> sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
>>>
>>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smt-talk mailing list
>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140430/eee25155/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:21:26 -0400
> From: Walter Everett <weverett at umich.edu>
> To: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
> Cc: "smt-talk at societymusictheory.org"
> <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> Message-ID:
> <CAOpyCZG07YJ09UYFEepG63mUVKESnmH9s8STSJw6N7vk5enq-Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I once knew someone who wore a swastika emblem. To all who asked, he'd
> say, "This is not a Nazi symbol. It's a Navajo symbol. Look, it runs in
> the reverse direction from the Nazi swastika." I believe he was sincere,
> but he probably offended everyone who saw it. He remained convinced he was
> in the right to wear it, could rationalize his decision, and apparently
> lacked empathy for the pain it caused others.
>
> When talking about accented and unaccented events in relation to metric
> placement, the effects of which can be easily conveyed with such clear
> terms, what's the reason for using other language that offends a large
> number of people? best to all, walt everett
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> May I trust that this repulsive and witless ad hominem will not see
>> dissemination? Thank you.
>>
>> MWM
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:17:31 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
>> From: psheehan251 at gmail.com
>> To: mwmorse at bell.net
>> CC: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>
>> Dear Readers (and Trolls):
>> Of course "feminine cadence" and "masculine cadence" are examples of
>> sexist usage. Ascribe, describe, Ockham? It's sexist.
>>
>> In addition to Paul's utterly reasonable alternative (crusis, etc.), one
>> could simply distinguish between "metrically emphasized" and "metrically
>> non-emphasized" events.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Paul Sheehan
>> Nassau Community College
>> Garden City, New York
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive,
>> not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality,
>> despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence; *that *matter
>> was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as
>> much ancient history as 1324.
>>
>> MW Morse
>> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
>>
>>> From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
>>
>>> So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
>>> masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
>>> sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
>>>
>>> Jennifer
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smt-talk mailing list
>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smt-talk mailing list
>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Walter Everett*
> *Professor of Music*
> *Department of Music Theory*
> *The University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance*
> *1100 Baits Dr.*
> *Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2085*
>
> *weverett at umich.edu <weverett at umich.edu>*
> *voice: 734-763-2039*
> *fax: 734-763-5097*
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/2f921c53/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:17:52 +0200
> From: Nicolas Mee?s <nicolas.meeus at scarlet.be>
> To: JAY RAHN <jayrahn at rogers.com>, "smt-talk at societymusictheory.org"
> <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> Message-ID: <53610610.3080005 at scarlet.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Jay,
>
> Several remarks:
>
>> In French versification theory ca. 1500, the end of a line is either
>> feminine or masculine depending on whether the second last syllable or
>> the last syllable is accented.
> French syllables are not really accented. I think that the real point is
> whether the line ends with an ?e muet? (mute E), which is certainly
> unaccented, hardly pronounced and always short (it cannot be lengthened
> in singing, for instance). The reason of the term probably is that, in
> French, the grammatical feminine often is obtained by adding a mute E at
> the end of the word.
>> In French, a grammatically masculine word might or might not refer to
>> something that is semantically gendered masculine and a grammatically
>> feminine word might or might not refer to something that is
>> semantically gendered as feminine.
> Isn't it so that 'semantical gender' is linked to the language? Things
> may be semantically gendered masculine in one language, feminine in
> another. I think that, in French semantics, anything that is gendered
> feminine is grammatically feminine; grammatically masculine words may
> also denote something that is semantically ungendered ("neutral")... I
> suppose that there are exceptions, but they must be exceptional and I
> can think of none just now.
>> Does anyone know whether, and if so, how and when, the
>> phonological/prosodic terms were adopted to deal with musical metre
>> and phrase structure?
> Browsing through my files, I am surprised that this adoption indeed is
> rarely documented in French, even although the terminology itself seems
> to me common in French. I found the following:
> -- Rameau, Trait?, 1722, deals with the treatment of words with a
> feminine ending, and the example he gives (p. 161) also is one of
> musical feminine ending; but he does not formally use the term in the
> case of the music. He says on p. 339 that if a cadence is not on the
> first beat, it usually is a consequence of a feminine rhyme.
> -- Momigny, La seule vraie th?orie de la musique, 1821, often speaks of
> feminine endings: see for instance the second example on p. 21, and passim.
>
> This does not mean that there are no other cases, but I didn't find them.
>
> Nicolas Mee?s
> Professeur ?m?rite
> Universit? Paris-Sorbonne
> nicolas.meeus at scarlet.be
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/6e59d25f/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:25:30 +0000
> From: "Ninov, Dimitar N" <dn16 at txstate.edu>
> To: "smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org"
> <smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music
> Message-ID:
> <7F2C6E04297A2E4BBF81D4F6F48838990F03CDE6 at exchmbx3.matrix.txstate.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I myself have not had many occasions to use or promote terms such as "masculine" or "feminine" in music theory. I agree there are better and more concrete terms in music theory.
>
> However, the point of my posting here was to test "the wind of times". I would like to express my opinion on the exclusion of the so-called "sexist language" in the form of such nouns as "man", "mankind" and such pronouns as "he", "him", and "his".
>
> I personally think that there is a big problem with politics messing up with literature. For me, the deliberate avoidance of the words listed above has inflicted irreparable damage to the fluency and clarity of thought; it has crippled the beauty of sentential structure and the flight of imagination. The constant repetition of "he or she" or the substitution of "they" after "one" or "any" creates a literary trap which forces the writer to sacrifice rich and fluent language in the name new and suspicious literary policies. Just open some books written 15 years ago and compare them to contemporary books, full of the "he or she" cycle.
>
> I think that nobody gets personally offended when they read authors who use the general category of "man" to imply all human beings. At least, nobody condemns or burns books, newspapers or journals in public. The problem begins when politics forcefully breaks in and starts hinting on the "discriminatory" nature of the literary language. I think that contemporary editorial committees in the filed of literature and scholarly publications have fallen victims of what I call "a twisted mentality" which rests on the idea of purging all writings from (imaginary) discrimination. One must be a fool to think that Aristotle is discriminating women, when he writes "All men by nature desire to know". After all, even today, this sentence sounds beautiful, and nobody can convince me that beauty had ever carried discrimination.
>
> Having said all of the above, I am hasty to add that, when I submit an article for a review, I observe the norms imposed by those committees. However, if I wrote a book, I would be seeking a publisher who believes that creativity and fluency of thought shall not be scarified in the name of political agendas and twisted interpretations of daily human relationships.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dimitar
>
> Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
> School of Music
> Texas State University
> 601 University Drive
> San Marcos, Texas 78666
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:41:10 -0500
> From: Conor Cook <conor.p.cook at gmail.com>
> To: Laurel Parsons <laureljparsons at gmail.com>
> Cc: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>,
> "smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org"
> <smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> Message-ID: <F6C9D9E1-A2D6-4A66-902A-F072586DCDA4 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251"
>
> It seems that the foolishness of my post is grounded on the fact that terminology that causes such consternation (and thus carries baggage into or even derails another discussion) is better left unused, regardless of the associations intended.
>
> It must be asked, however, pace Dr. Parsons, whether the observance of the spectrum of sex and gender identity needed to ?move [this conversation] forward into the 21st century? requires the abandonment of binaries entirely as they relate to sex, or in the name of progress are certain still firmly-held world views in need of silencing?
>
> I am willing to admit that the latter is necessary, based on my first point that the hard feelings engendered by their usage destroys the original purpose, and to continue the discussion of, in these cases, certain ubiquitous progressions or the accenting of a cadence, other non-distracting words are better suited to their purpose. Besides, within SMT, we are indeed all bound to the guidelines (thank you to both Stefanie Acevedo and Laurel Parsons for the reminder, especially that this specific example is addressed).
>
> Best,
>
> Conor Cook
> Master of Arts in Music Theory
> University of Minnesota
>
>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Laurel Parsons <laureljparsons at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Thanks to Devin Chaloux for his original post, drawing our attention to a new sexist-language virus for the purpose of preventing further infection within the academic music theory community. Thanks also to CSW committee member Stefanie Acevedo for sending out the link to SMT's guidelines on the use of non-sexist language, which includes the following paragraph:
>> Certain terms that are often used in writing about music unfortunately embed sex-role stereotypes. It is not usually a great problem to avoid or rephrase these; for instance, "masculine ending" and "feminine cadence" are easily rendered as "metrically accented ending" and "metrically unaccented cadence" respectively, without loss of clarity.
>>
>> Conor Cook writes: "But if one uses [masculine/feminine descriptors] to, say, reflect the inherent complementarity of the sexes, it might be seen to express the beauty and variety of life illustrated by music." While I would agree that the use of strictly technical language often fails to convey the "beauty and variety" of the music we choose to analyze, many would argue that the binary construct of masculine-feminine "inherent complementarity" also fails to convey the much broader and more nuanced spectrum of gender identities acknowledged and celebrated in such contemporary symbols as the rainbow flag.
>>
>> Questions of gender and metaphor in music-theoretical language are important. But if we are going to have this conversation, surely it is time to move it forward into the 21st century.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Laurel Parsons
>>
>> --
>>
>> Laurel Parsons, Ph.D.
>> Chair, SMT Committee on the Status of Women
>> Sessional Lecturer, Music Theory
>> School of Music
>> University of British Columbia
>> 6361 Memorial Road
>> Vancouver, BC
>> V6T 1Z2
>>
>> E-mail: laurel.parsons at ubc.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Conor Cook <conor.p.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It certainly is sexist if by their use a theorist intends to privilege one over the other. But if one uses them to, say, reflect the inherent complementarity of the sexes, it might be seen to express the beauty and variety of life illustrated by music. At least that's how I imagine the argument might go for those who persist in using the sexed terminology, assuming it's not out of an unreflective sexism. I am curious why some theorists use it still.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Paul Cadrin's Greek words do seem provide a more technical description. The Greek words in this case derive from ?striking? metaphors, however, so they are ultimately associative, as well. It's an interesting duality, the choice between descriptive (if they're even possible) and associative adjectives, and I don't think scholars agree (I know they don't) that only descriptive language is best, lest ideas like pitch space, for example, be scrapped. But how to decide what associations are at best unproductive, if not harmful?
>>>
>>> *These views in no way reflect those of the music theory department or School of Music at the University of Minnesota.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Conor Cook
>>> Master of Arts in Music Theory
>>> University of Minnesota
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive, not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality, despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence; that matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.
>>>>
>>>> MW Morse
>>>> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
>>>>> So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
>>>>> masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
>>>>> sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jennifer
>>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Smt-talk mailing list
>>>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20140430/f3f4ca3c/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
>
> End of Smt-talk Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17
> ****************************************
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list