<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
My own research is focused on the issues that Prof. Morse has
raised. So here are some summary comments (I am going to allow
myself to rant a little - only to allow me to convey the main ideas
with brevity. So you are welcome to apply a little moderation to
what I write below).<br>
<br>
My background is that I am a Ph.D. in logic/philosophy, also
well-schooled in music. My Ph.D. background includes immersion in
ancillary subjects such as foundations and methodology of science,
artificial intelligence, and more. This turns out to be useful
background for a music theorist. Think of me as a bit of an
outsider, who is knowledgeable, sympathatic, and who has a new
outlook to contribute.<br>
<br>
[1] I prefer to avoid the issue of whether music analysis/ theory is
a "science". (The same actually goes for psychology).<br>
Claims about what is/is-not a science can lead to concern with
what is "verifiable" and how, and this can distract from other key
issues.<br>
<br>
[2] What music analysis/theory definitely has in common with "the
sciences" is the use of *models*. (The same goes for psychology. One
of the reasons that psychotherapy has been so successful in recent
decades is that it is now rich in a variety of models which a
skilled professional can use in treatment. Some models are
mind-based, some body-based; the models involve various views about
factors such as life history, current life circumstances,
talk-therapy, medications, etc. So a professional has a range of
models to work with. Additionally, professionals can
compare/contrast models themselves and with other professionals;
this leads to development of improved models, and even new models)<br>
<br>
"Models" are widely used in the hard science, softer sciences,
business, and so on. The concept of a model is a modern and very
useful concept. <br>
<br>
Classic music theory is (almost) all based on a single model, which
I call the "note-centric" model of music <br>
This is the model according to which music is thought of as discrete
notes, which are then organized into motives, phrases, melodies,
chords, contrapuntal materials, larger architectural structures, and
so on.<br>
The note-centric model is an outstanding model: It is
well-organized, mainly comprehensible, provides insight, is capable
of many variations, ...<br>
The note-centric model has a long heritage (over 400 years), it's
enjoyable to use, it easily attracts outstanding practitioners.<br>
I could say more nice stuff about the note-centric model. But now,
for the bad news:<br>
<br>
[3] There are two major problems with the note-centric model:<br>
<br>
[a] It is severely limited in scope. There is a great deal about
music that is not easily modeled via notes. e.g.: Emotion; the
topological experience of music; oddity/humor in music; the
Dionysian in music; beauty; color; (much more)<br>
(btw, the very concept of a "note" can be subject to severe
critique)<br>
<br>
Of course, there are people who have tried to use the note-centric
model to explain things like emotion (remember Leonard B Meyer?) but
what I see is a poor effort-to-success ratio.<br>
Leonard B Meyer's model of emotion-in-music is inadequate in the
same way that Primal Scream Therapy is inadequate as a model for
pyschological treatment (they both work well in a limited domain;
once you get outside the limited domain, the effectiveness drops
almost to zero).<br>
<br>
[b] The model has monopolized the theory of music for hundreds of
years. This is not good !! We badly need additional models.<br>
<br>
One bad consequence of this monopoly is that almost everyone from
time to time falls into thinking that "all there is to music is
notes". This can lead to bad theory, bad analysis, bad performances.
<br>
Part of the reason the Prof Knechtges is having some difficulty
relating music theory to performance is that there is generally a
weak relationship between mainstream music theory vs performance !<br>
<br>
[4] Additional models that are needed that I think are possible:<br>
<br>
[a] Listener-centric (performance-centric) models of music. Best
attempt so far is probably my own work <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.OMSModel.com">www.OMSModel.com</a><br>
<br>
[b] Models of how music is composed or created. Best I have seen so
far is "Music In the Head" by the eminent psychiatrist/researcher
Leo Rangell MD. <br>
<br>
[c] Models that look at music as part of something much bigger. The
first person who comes to mind is Peter Sellars: He is music-aware,
but his scope is much broader than just music. His outlook could
probably be examined and turned into something like a model for the
arts in general (probably even broader than the arts). The model
might look like a socio-political model or something like that. For
these purposes, I would not be concerned with Sellars' specific
views on (the opera) Don Giovanni or whatever. Instead I would be
concerned with outlining what are the principal kinds of things that
Sellars is aware of (in the music itself, in the performance
environment, in the economic and political spheres, ...) in terms of
a musical performance. I'd aim at a model that has about a hundred
moving parts; which is easy to comprehend and apply; which can be
modified. <br>
<br>
[d] I'd love to see some models emerge from the experimental
(laboratory) side of Music Cognition. But this may be a few decades
in the future. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Isaac Malitz, Ph.D.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.OMSModel.com">www.OMSModel.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:imalitz@OMSModel.com">imalitz@OMSModel.com</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT112-W476FD0CDE4A42807979AD5D0EE0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Music theory succeeds when it remembers its subject
matter. And there are still many of us who disagree that
psychology is a science, for just that reason. It was the
science of "mind"; then, no, it was the science of
"behaviour"; now, no again, it is the science of brain
physiology processes. The last has worked a charm, because
psychologists can poach from a real science. Unless and until
it can come up with a substantial subject matter of its own,
however, it will remain on the fringes of science. We in the
music community have especially strong reasons to feel this
way, given the spectacular recent charlatanism of the "Mozart
Effect." To tar all psychology with the brush of that incident
would be unfair. But, alas, it does illustrate the problem:
quantification can never precede clear analysis of the subject
matter. It will be "time" for computers to create symphonies
when they're human. That's not sentimentality; that's respect
for science.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MW Morse</div>
<div>Trent University</div>
<div>Peterborough, Oshawa<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>