<!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">
<br>
<br>
On 7/6/2012 5:57 AM, Michael Morse wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT112-W476FD0CDE4A42807979AD5D0EE0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
<br>
<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."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would suggest that the "Mozart Effect" is the "cold fusion" of
"music science." (In terms of its impact on the neuroscience of
music, at least.)<br>
<br>
There's a lot to think about in your post, which I don't have time
to respond to right now. I will say that for me, the more we
understand about the brain, the more we will be forced to reexamine
our notions about all aspects of music as an apparently uniquely
human activity. There is still too much "Is not! Is too!" in the
clashes of academic egos on questions like theory vs. practice,
etc., for my taste. I admit to not having followed the entire thread
of this discussion, but I'm guessing that the importance of the
protagonists' academic background in determining their respective
positions on the topic is somewhat under-emphasized. A person with a
Ph.D. in theory will likely have a different point of view from the
one held by a graduate in music performance. It's natural to feel
protective about the field you've put so much effort into over the
years. <br>
<br>
I completely agree with Mr. Morse about the need for "substance"
(see above). Right now the situation reminds me a little of the
state of biology in 18th-century France, with the rivalry of gents
like Cuvier and Lamarck. Everyone had the facts laid out--living and
dead specimens brought back from all parts of the world--but they
were making inferences that later proved to be unsatisfactory in
resolving the issues facing them. Today, we have the fine work of
music historians and ethnomusicologists at our disposal, from which
to make inferences. But the origin of music, like language, remains
dark. Not only are music's origins mysterious, its relatively rapid
development in complexity remains a mystery along with the other
achievements of humans--literature, technology, etc. Perhaps
evolutionary neuroscience in conjunction with other fields will shed
some light into how all this happened.<br>
<br>
Christopher Bonds<br>
Wayne State College (retired)<br>
</body>
</html>