[Smt-talk] Geno- and phenotype musical structures
Victor grauer
victorag at verizon.net
Mon Jan 14 10:08:15 PST 2013
At 05:53 AM 1/14/2013, Nicolas Meeùs wrote:
>The concepts of genotype and phenotype can be
>understood in many contexts. Shaumyan's Semiotic
>Theory of Language, so far as I understand it,
>is purely semiotic and does not engage
>biological or other cognitive aspects. It is
>mainly about language and grammar, which in this
>case is not a metaphor. The analogy between
>Shaumyan's "Applicative Universal Grammar" and
>Chomsky's generative grammar may be closer, but
>Chomsky is less concerned with semiotics
>properly speaking, i.e. with sign functions.
>Shaumyan's book specifically adresses this question. <etc.>
It seems to me that if one were really interested
in exploring the "genetic" (i.e., biological)
basis of language (and by extension music), the
sort of structure to look for would be Darwinian
rather than purely formal (as in, e.g., set
theory or generative grammar). In other words,
it would be based on development from a common
ancestor, potentially traceable via a
phylogenetic tree. This topic caught my attention
because my own research over the last several
years has been focused on precisely that issue,
causing me to move from a primarily semiotic
(i.e., formal) to a primarily historical (i.e.,
"genomic") approach to the understanding of
musical "language." As I see it, the fascinating
possibilities of set theory et al.
notwithstanding, what is most important in just
about all music are practices based on long
standing traditions, rather than purely formal
criteria (though the significance of formal
procedures in the work of certain composers cannot be denied).
For example, the sort of linear continuities
emphasized by analysts like Schenker are hardly
universal and can hardly be taken as standards of
"excellence" outside a relatively narrow
historical framework, within which such a
standard developed as a tradition. The same is
certainly true of any standards based on set
theory, or any other purely formal procedure. On
the other hand, I believe that, as fantastic as
it may sound, thanks to the historical research
of the real geneticists, supplemented by the sort
of broad based comparative musical research
pioneered by Alan Lomax, with some assistance
from myself some years ago, it is now possible to
speculate meaningfully on both the nature of the
ancestral tradition and the meanings of at least
some of the traditions stemming from it.
The most concise summary of my thinking can be
found in my essay "Echoes of Our Forgotten
Ancestors" (now freely accessible:
http://doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/BlogFiles/wom_2006_21--%20pp%201-134%20only.pdf),
and the most wide ranging and speculative
extrapolation from it can be found in my book
"Sounding the Depths" (freely accessible in blog
format: http://soundingthedepths.blogspot.com/).
While for many reading here, this sort of thing
might seem closer to ethnomusicology than music
theory, I would argue that any enquiry into the
origins and early development of musical thought
should be of as much interest to theoreticians as ethnomusicologists.
Victor Grauer
Pittsburgh, PA
USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130114/fcb5ae37/attachment-0003.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list