<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">It certainly is sexist if by their use a theorist intends to privilege one over the other. But if one uses them to, say, reflect the inherent complementarity of the sexes, it might be seen to express the beauty and variety of life illustrated by music. At least that's how I imagine the argument might go for those who persist in using the sexed terminology, assuming it's not out of an unreflective sexism. I am curious why some theorists use it still.</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On the other hand, Paul Cadrin's Greek words do seem provide a more technical description. </span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">The Greek words in this case derive from “striking” metaphors, however, so they are ultimately associative, as well.</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"> It's an interesting duality, the choice between descriptive (if they're even possible) and associative adjectives, and I don't think scholars agree (I know they don't) that only descriptive language is best, lest ideas like pitch space, for example, be scrapped. But how to decide what associations are at best unproductive, if not harmful?</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>*These views in no way reflect those of the music theory department or School of Music at the University of Minnesota.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Conor Cook<br>Master of Arts in Music Theory<br>University of Minnesota</span></div></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br>On Apr 29, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Michael Morse <<a href="mailto:mwmorse@bell.net">mwmorse@bell.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><div>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">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; <i style="font-size: 12pt;">that </i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.</span><div><br></div><div>MW Morse</div><div>z. Zeit freier Kunstler<br><div><br><div>> From: <a href="mailto:Jennifer.Bain@Dal.Ca">Jennifer.Bain@Dal.Ca</a><br>> So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as<br>> masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not<br>> sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?<br>> <br>> Jennifer<br><br></div></div></div> </div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Smt-talk mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>