[Smt-talk] Fwd: the impossibility of listening

[Matthew Heap]

I'm not sure that this is an either/or proposition.  When I write, I try to think of an ideal listener (one who is hearing the piece for the first time, but is very well versed in music) and imagine what they might pick up.  In a way, I suppose that this might be a nod to experiential and more cognitive analyses (which I appreciate and hope to learn more about).  It doesn't preclude reference to the score, however.  For example, an ideal listener who is sitting down to hear Berio's Sinfonia for the first time could well perceive the fact that the bass-line moves down at structurally significant points (in the first movement), opening the range.  This happens multiple times and I contend that this listener could certainly be aware of it.  Hopefully it would encourage them to go to the score for a closer look (or listen again to confirm their first impression).

That being said, sometimes there are things in the deeper levels of the analysis that are just to fascinating to ignore even though they wouldn't be heard on a conscious level.  I include those too because I think they give us a window into the composer's process (whether conscious or not) which can be illuminating.

So, in conclusion, I don't think we should rule out references to scores in our work (which seems to be an over-reaction), but I think that it would be useful to consider the listener (ideal or not) from time to time.

See you at the conference!

Dr.  Matthew Heap
American University

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Isaac Malitz <imalitz at omsmodel.com> wrote:

> I don't find the authors' comments to be disturbing.
> In my own research, I am concerned with the analysis of music from the "experiential" side - I'm interested in how music stimulates listeners (from an aesthetic point of view)
> I find my kind of analysis to be fascinating, deep, enlightening in many ways. (It even sheds light on the analysis of musical scores)
> It has its own rigor, although that rigor is different from the rigor of conventional note-centric musical analysis.
> I have also found that my kind of analysis is not popular in the mainstream of musical academicians.
> 
> So, the author's approach to discussing opera (via experience rather than notes) seems a natural approach.
> I look forward to reading their book!
> 
> [The negative comments I have seen in this thread just seem to express resistance to something that I think is new and good]
> 
> 
> Isaac Malitz, Ph.D.
> www.OMSModel.com
> imalitz at rdic.com
> 
> 
> 
> Carolyn Abbate and Roger Parker: "...we wanted to write a book without reference to musical scores."
> 
> 
> <Attached Message Part>
> <Attached Message Part>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121101/2601dc32/attachment-0003.htm>