<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">I will second this. </font>I myself decided, a
long time ago, to become a professional theorist. I abandoned any
desire to become a composer or a performer. This truly was a
conscious decision, and one I never regretted.<br>
<br>
Recent postings in this thread took a ridiculous turn. If by "pure"
theorist, we are to understand one who knows nothing of music, the
debate is pointless. I shiver at the idea of what a "pure" composer
would be: one who knows nothing of theory? who disdains theory? At
any rate, musicians disdaining theory and theorists are more common
than theorists disdaining music and musicians, as some of the recent
messages evidenced.<br>
<br>
One aspect that these exchanges did not enough consider is the
complex relation between theorizing about music and teaching theory.
It is too easy, and once again pointless, to answer questions about
the scientific character of theories by considerations of pedagogy.
Theorizing and teaching are complementary activities, but not
necessarily performed by the same persons.<br>
<br>
Even the question whether theory is a science is pointless and
arises from confusion about what a science is. This had been
debated, mainly between Yizhak Sadaï and myself, after the first
European Music Analysis Conference in 1989, which I had concluded
with a few words about the state of music analysis. Some of the
debate is published in *Analyse musicale* XVIII, January 1990. Sadaï
claimed among others that Schenker considered music analysis an art,
not a science (I doubt Schenker ever said that, but never mind). We
discussed music analysis, but the discussion concerns music theory
as well.<br>
Sadaï had said at the conference: "A true science of music
should answer the requirements of musical sensibility, on the one
hand, and to those of reason, on the other hand. Such a science
therefore should arise within a narrow and intimate relation between
observer and observed, between hearer and what is given to be heard.
In other words, it could only arise from a methodology that
considers its object as inseparable from the subject perceiving it.
Such an idea could be adopted only at the price of abandoning a deep
phantasm of present-day music analysis: that of becoming a true
science, that is, of behaving as exact sciences". And, writing to
the journal, he quoted analyses by Boulez, "much more revealing,
although carrying nothing 'scientific', on the contrary vigorously
reflecting the (artistic!) intuition of a great musician and a great
analyst". He added "How could one refrain from opposing analyses by
Boulez or Rosen, on the one hand, that I [Sadaï] would qualify
'musical' and 'artistic', undoubtedly revealing and instructing, to
'formalized' analyses that too often represent nothing else than a
set of truths unable to open on anything else than themselves".<br>
I answered that if Sadaï had in mind to oppose a truly artistic
approach to a pseudo scientific attitude and if I opposed a truly
scientific approach to a pseudo artistic one, we were probably
saying the same thing. What I had said at the Conference (if I
believed my notes) was that "I do not believe that music analysis is
an art – or at least, if it is an art, it must take the form of a
science. It is a science about an art." And I repeated in the
journal: "Music analysis cannot be an art because its productions
cannot take the definitive, absolute character of the work of art;
it must be scientific because its productions, as any work of
science, must at all times remain open to refutation, to
'falsification'. This in no way prevents music analysis (or any
other science, for that matter) to rely widely on intuition and
sensibility. There is, in truth, no antinomy between true science
and authentic art; but we have nothing to do with artistic
pretentiousness, nor with scientific affectedness".<br>
<br>
Almost 25 years later, after a long career as music theorist, I see
no point to be changed in this.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 9/07/2012 05:01, Sheehan, Paul a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:88DC251AD999D34EA4DF44974EEBD6FA5A6FEE98@BL2PRD0310MB373.namprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Readers,
I have a wish: that a couple of months pass during which time I would not see contributions to smt-talk (that is, the Society for _Music Theory_'s talk list) from those harboring contempt for "theorists". I would like to hear some other voices. By flogging the poor, dead horse of (let us be frank) theorists-are-inferior-to-composers, such contributors betray the fact that they feel threatened by the very existence of "theorists"--of people who think about music in a deep, meaningful way and about how to explain it to undergraduates, graduate students, "the public", and their peers. Seems to me like a service rendered for composers might be better left alone by those it serves!
I am interested in new contributors to this thread and others along these lines. Are some who have remained silent listening?
Dr. Paul Sheehan
Instructor, Music Department
Nassau Community College (SUNY)
One Education Drive
Garden City, New York 11530
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>