<html>
<body>
At 05:53 AM 1/14/2013, Nicolas Meeùs wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The concepts of genotype and
phenotype can be understood in many contexts. Shaumyan's <i>Semiotic
Theory of Language</i>, so far as I understand it, is purely semiotic and
does not engage biological or other cognitive aspects. It is mainly about
language and grammar, which in this case is not a metaphor. The analogy
between Shaumyan's "Applicative Universal Grammar" and
Chomsky's generative grammar may be closer, but Chomsky is less concerned
with semiotics properly speaking, i.e. with sign functions. Shaumyan's
book specifically adresses this question. <etc.></blockquote><br>
It seems to me that if one were really interested in exploring the
"genetic" (i.e., biological) basis of language (and by
extension music), the sort of structure to look for would be Darwinian
rather than purely formal (as in, e.g., set theory or generative
grammar). In other words, it would be based on development from a
common ancestor, potentially traceable via a phylogenetic tree. This
topic caught my attention because my own research over the last several
years has been focused on precisely that issue, causing me to move from a
primarily semiotic (i.e., formal) to a primarily historical (i.e.,
"genomic") approach to the understanding of musical
"language." As I see it, the fascinating possibilities of set
theory et al. notwithstanding, what is most important in just about all
music are practices based on long standing traditions, rather than purely
formal criteria (though the significance of formal procedures in the work
of certain composers cannot be denied). <br><br>
For example, the sort of linear continuities emphasized by analysts like
Schenker are hardly universal and can hardly be taken as standards of
"excellence" outside a relatively narrow historical framework,
within which such a standard developed as a tradition. The same is
certainly true of any standards based on set theory, or any other purely
formal procedure. On the other hand, I believe that, as fantastic as it
may sound, thanks to the historical research of the real geneticists,
supplemented by the sort of broad based comparative musical research
pioneered by Alan Lomax, with some assistance from myself some years ago,
it is now possible to speculate meaningfully on both the nature of the
ancestral tradition and the meanings of at least some of the traditions
stemming from it.<br><br>
The most concise summary of my thinking can be found in my essay
"Echoes of Our Forgotten Ancestors" (now freely accessible:
<a href="http://doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/BlogFiles/wom_2006_21--%20pp%201-134%20only.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/BlogFiles/wom_2006_21--%20pp%201-134%20only.pdf</a>
), and the most wide ranging and speculative extrapolation from it can be
found in my book "Sounding the Depths" (freely accessible in
blog format:
<a href="http://soundingthedepths.blogspot.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://soundingthedepths.blogspot.com/</a>).<br><br>
While for many reading here, this sort of thing might seem closer to
ethnomusicology than music theory, I would argue that any enquiry into
the origins and early development of musical thought should be of as much
interest to theoreticians as ethnomusicologists.<br><br>
Victor Grauer<br>
Pittsburgh, PA<br>
USA<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>