[Smt-talk] Degree terminology (was Re: Princeton and Theory)

[nancygarniez at tonalrefraction.com]

Dear Nicolas:
Thanks for your excellent comments. Concerning our not really understanding what music theory is and where it fits may I recommend for support in appreciating the dilemma the many studies dating from 1963 (McLuhan, Ong, et al) of the connection between orality and literacy, concerning the nature of thought and specifically the cultural impact of written language.

One element that complicates this discussion is the physicality of music: of tone itself and of our responses to it. The image of 16,000 vibrating sensor-tipped hair cells in each cochlea working 200 times faster (at last count) than any other sensory input we are dealing with indicates a range of perception, reaction, and speculation that is truly staggering. Add to that the fact that the auditory nerve branches off equally in the direction of emotional response and motor response and the subject becomes even more daunting. 

I can (with a smile, bien sur) imagine half of the world's theorists opting for one branch of that auditory nerve with the rest choosing the other. I can also imagine, with less of a smile perhaps, that the study of music cognition will concern itself with the two mentioned aspects of ear function and response in comparison to visual function and response.

Nancy Garniez
http://nancygarniez.blogspot.com
www.tonalrefraction.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Meeùs [mailto:nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 03:41 PM
To: 'Ildar Khannanov'
Cc: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Degree terminology (was Re: Princeton and Theory)

Dear Ildar,

You are right and the case of Hugo Riemann is indeed extremely important. I do not have his Grundriss at hand just now, but I suppose that his 4th division reads "Die musikalische Fachlehre (Musiktheorie)" (instead of Sachlehere). 

This raise a question that should receive more consideration in this discussion. "Fachlehre" is the "craft of the discipline", the techniques that practicing musicians put to use in their activity. In a way, it does not belong to a "science of music" in the sense that we give today to the word "science". And this certainly has been one of the reasons why academic musicologists resisted against the introduction of music theory in the academic realm: it must have appeared as an intrusion of practical knowledges and techniques within the domain of abstract speculation. Our conception of "science" still owes much to the 18th-century Enlightenment and to its idea that true knowledge should be gratuitous, free from any consideration of personal benefit, i.e. also distinct from the professional craft itself. The separate institutions of Conservatoire and University in continental Europe is very much based on this distinction between a craft and a speculative thinking. 

It seems to me that what is understood as "music theory" in the US shares from both aspects. When Stephen Jablonsky recently wrote that in his opinion theory should include " (1) rudiments and labeling, (2) analysis of complete pieces, and (3) composition", he very much mixes the two aspects. I don't mean that this is mistaken, I only thing that it is something we should further consider. Such theories as Riemann's theory of functions, or Schenker's theory of the Ursatz, are speculative theories which you may rightly want to compare with philosophical systems. As theories, they are incredibly remote from the craft of harmony, of part-writing, etc., as taught to practicing musicians. Composition, similarly, belongs to the craft of music, certainly not (or not immediately) to its speculative, philosophical aspect. I mentioned before that Schenker's Harmony had been translated 25 years before Free Composition: this is precisely because Harmony was considered to concern the craft, while Free Composition could pass for a speculative approach.

Now it seems to me that music theoricians, especially in the States, often sit between to chairs in this respect. Some are craftsmen, some are "philosophers", some are the two at the same time. But when we, especially when you, dear American friends, speak of "music theory", we may not really know what we are speaking of...

Don't misunderstand me: I do not want to criticize anyone, I merely mean that this duality craft/speculation deserves consideration.

Yours,

Nicolas

Nicolas Meeùs
Université Paris-Sorbonne
nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr


Le 24/11/2010 06:17, Ildar Khannanov a écrit : Dear Nicolas,

we should not forget Hugo Riemann's book Grundriss der Musikwissenschaft, in which he suggests a very elaborate and precise division of disciplines: Akustik, Tonpsychologie, Musikaesthetik, Die musikalische Sachlehre (Musiktheorie), Musikgeschichte. 

Apparently, in his system, music theory and music history are strictly and clearly separated. 

In early 1860s, at the St. Petersburg and at the Moscow Conservatory, the Departments of History and Theory of Music funcitoned as a combination of two disciplines. However, the two were separated and taught by different professors. In 1932, a Specialized Theory Department had been created by Victor Zukkerman and Leo Mazel at the Moscow Conservatory. Its function was to develop music theory as a discipline and to teach undergraduate theory majors (!), together with the aspirants (graduate students). So, Kerman did not introduce this division; he was not hte first.


Best,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Conservatory 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20101126/9c4ad207/attachment-0004.htm>