🚀 go-pugleaf

>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 09:44:10 EST
>>From: laske@edu.bu.cs
>To: music-research <music-research%uk.ac.oxford.prg@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay>


These are Otto Laske's replies to some of the questions I raised in an earlier
posting. 

>Question 4: "why should the process of one composer be relevant, or
>even necessarily related to, the process of another composer?" Good
>question, this. Indeed, a compositional process by X in music may
>have more of a relation to a design process by Y in architecture,
>that is quite possible. Music composition is a discipline of design,
>and design occurs in many arts, and not only in the arts. But then,
>design in music--called composition--requires a certain kind of
>competence, and therefore, the "knowledge base" of composers inter-
>sects to some degree.

Whoa -- where did that "therefore" come from? Even if I accept your
characterization of composition, which I don't, and admit that it has
to do with "design" -- no, actually IS design -- and then admit that
these designs (or processes of designing) express a certain kind of
competence on the part of the composer/designer -- which seems to
favor the application of knowledge over pure invention -- how do we
get to the step that "therefore" there must be some intersection of
knowledge? What would that knowledge look like?

>Also, the tools in one society tend to share
>common traits, the music paper is a common task environment, or else
>the computer-based orchestration language. So, even if the composers
>think wildly differently--which they do, just look at how different
>composers trade off between what they invest in a CSOUND orchestra
>and what they invest in a CSOUND score--they are grouped sociologically
>according to their "task environment", i.e., the tools they use.

Yes, but it's almost certainly futile to look for possible constraints
on the composition process in these "environments." In any case I'm
not exactly sure where the connection here is with question number 4.

>They
>are also related by their education, and thus, the kind of processes
>they come up with. Hard to imagine, maybe, for a young composer who
>thinks he is soooo unique, but nevertheless true. In short, what is
>a "relation" of one "process" of composition to another "process" 
>is a scholarly question, not a rhetorical one (as in Handelman).


This is an almost unbelievable assertion, Otto. You are suggesting
that a common psychological disposition is inferable from a common
education. That the compositional processes of two composers who have
a common educational background will be roughly equivalent. That
knowing the educational background of a composer will be sufficient to
predict what goes on in their head as they compose. That composers are
mistaken in their claim to individuality, even in aspiring to
uniqueness. Not uniqueness with respect to their music, mind you --
that their very imaginations are predictable, that the essence of
their private thinking consists in the application of rules which
could come to light if ever this knowledge-acquistion scheme of yours
were implemented.

Why express contempt for young composers who think that they're soooo
unique? Perhaps they are -- you have no evidence to the contrary. Is
the purpose of Cognitive Musicology to acquire such evidence? If so,
it seems pretty clear why your scheme has not met with widespread
approval in the compositional community.


>	Also,there is the difference between novices (such as Eliot) and
>experts (such as Paul Lansky, say); it would be important to find
>out what their differences are when they do the same task.

The point is, Otto, that we don't do the same task. That would be a
needless replication of effort, as Andy Capp used to say. Of course I
understand that you want these differences to vanish, so as to confirm
your assertion that musical expertise is a question of education,
rather than individuality. The world would certainly make a better
home for your theories, if that were the case.
	
>Conclusion (for now): I value Eliot's response but, as I say, I think
>we need a different tone (on his part).

That may or may not be the case. I want the general reader of this
group to be able to understand what is being said here, and I am not
willing to couch this discussion in so much jargon as to render the
thinking it reflects, on both our parts, opaque.

--Eliot Handelman
Princeton U., Music