[Smt-talk] FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory

Michael Morse mwmorse at bell.net
Tue Apr 29 19:23:03 PDT 2014

May I trust that this repulsive and witless ad hominem will not see dissemination? Thank you.
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 SheehanNassau Community CollegeGarden 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 Morsez. 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/175ebcd5/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Smt-talk mailing list