<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Calibri">Ildar, Murray,<br>
<br>
Could you make more explicit what you understand by
"phenomenology" or "structuralism", or in what sense you think
that your understanding can substantiate your claims?<br>
<br>
As to Husserl's <i>Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren
Zeitbewußtseins</i>, it seems to me that on the contrary in
might be shown to support a transformational view, as for instance
when he writes:<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<blockquote>Erst dadurch, daß jene eigentümliche Modifikation
eintritt, daß jede Tonempfindung, nachdem der erzeugende Reiz
verschwunden ist, aus sich selbst heraus eine ähnliche und mit
einer Zeitbestimmtheit versehene Vorstellung erweckt, und daß
diese zeitliche Bestimmtheit sich fortgesetzt ändert, kann es
zur Vorstellung einer Melodie kommen, in welcher die einzelnen
Töne ihre bestimmten Pläne und ihre bestimmten Zeitmaße haben.<br>
It is only because a specific modification occurs, because the
sensation of the tone, after the generating excitement faded
away, awakens a similar representation provided with a temporal
determination, and because this temporal determination is
continually changing, that the representation of a melody is
made possible, in which the isolated tones now have their
determined plans and their determined temporal measure.<br>
</blockquote>
This I understand to mean that a melody can only be perceived as a
melody (instead of a succession of isolated tones) because the
representation one can form of each tone changes (is transformed)
as new tones appear.<br>
<br>
And later:<br>
<blockquote>Wir glauben eine Melodie zu hören, also auch eben
Vergangenes noch zu hören, indessen ist dies nur Schein, der von
der Lebhaftigkeit der ursprünglichen Assoziation herrührt.<br>
We think to hear a melody, that is, still to hear what is just
past, while this is but an appearance that arises from the
vividness of the initial association.<br>
</blockquote>
That is to say, it is the association of tones between themselves,
not their mere succession, that allows to hear a melody [as
melody].<br>
<br>
I don't think that transformational grammars developed from group
theory (even if Lewin might have been influenced by it, I don't
know). They may have an indirect origin in the linguistic notion
of transitivity, i.e. the idea that one element (e.g. a word) acts
on another. I am of the ones who believe that, in a perfect
cadence V–I, it is the dominant that determines I to be the tonic,
and the tonic that determines V to be the dominant. Without this
transitive relation, the same movement between the roots remains
possible, but does not produce the tonal effect (as may be the
case, say, in Renaissance polyphony). You are right, though,
because the transitive relation is possible only because V is a
dominant and I a tonic: it is the paradox of the whole affair. We
are dealing here with explanations, which of necessity stress one
or another aspect. But I don't think that any of them is
incompatible with phenomenology.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Professeur émérite<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 10/07/2014 17:23, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABzLLwf9o4STJxdLwBHup2nAg5H9mb7FXU8FO3x84FuOtNjJ9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">[...]
<div>A major point of Lewin's "phenomenology" (I put it in
brackets the way Brian does) is to prove that a chord (a note)
does not have its unique meaning outside of context. This is
an old Schenkerian view. It is also an old scientific systemic
and organic understanding. However, it is incompatible with
phenomenology. [...]<br>
</div>
<div>The conceptual background of transformational theory is
well-known. It is group theory, which is applied, among other
fields, to crystallography.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>