[Smt-talk] Smt-talk Digest, Vol 52, Issue 12

[Richard Cohn]

One music theorist strongly and explicitly influenced by Goethe: Victor Zuckerkandl, especially Sound and Symbol. One might also look at the writings of Siegmund Levarie (with and without Ernst Levy as co-author). 

---Rick Cohn

Sent from my iPad

On May 20, 2013, at 5:06 AM, 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: Goethe (Michael Morse)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 14:26:49 +0000
> From: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
> To: "smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org"
>    <smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Goethe
> Message-ID: <BAY171-W115962B398AF55E809E90BCD0AD0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Dear One & All,
>  Warm thanks for the references on Goethe. It strikes me that music theorists in the last century or so may be slow to acknowledge either the validity and pertinence of non-theorists' thoughts about music, and their actual influence in particular. If there is any substance to this suggestion, it may be because we were in the positivist century, in which the capacity of a discourse for non-pollution from outside influence was proof of the independence that qualified a science, or at least a rigorous, objective discussion. Of course ideas from mathematics and sometimes systematic linguistics were welcome; that's, uh, different. But an approach to music theory influenced by poetic theory, rhetoric, or sociology was--is?--infra dig, not so much intrinsically worthless as subject to instant reclassification as music history, musicology, or criticism. (Perhaps the only thing even faintly sympathetic about Susan McClary's musical Lysenkoism is her plaint that she was hoist on this 
> particular petard.)
>  These may be merely partisan prejudices, however. The core question of who should speak about music how fascinates me, however. "Who" in that statement means what kind of person, informed by what kinds of experiences. What, for example, constitutes talent in music theory? Have any of you ever taught someone who was very keen on music theory, perhaps even wanted to become a theorist, but simply didn't have "the right stuff"? What *is* "the right stuff"? And, back to the Sage of Weimar?: who outside the circles of those trained in music theory is in a position to contribute to it intellectually?
> Michael W. MorseTrent UniversityPeterborough, Oshawa                         
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130518/77c5c72c/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 52, Issue 12
> ****************************************