Content deleted Content added
→Reception: Added link to Wikipedia page for Nicholas Cook. |
Added Arved Ashby quote. |
||
Line 74:
John Croft's master's degree thesis examines Lerdahl's essay in depth. In his conclusion, he wrote:
<blockquote>we have plenty of music that does not conform to Lerdahl's grammar: what, then, are people who claim to find it as interesting as tonal-metrical music actually doing? Either they are deluding themselves, or they are lying, or they have non-human brains. None of these answers seems entirely satisfactory. But if we do not like any of these answers, then we must admit that it is a matter of exposure and acquired understanding after all, in which case we are certainly a far cry from innate psychological universals ([[#Croft1999|Croft 1999, 54]]) [...] Vague language and tacit assumptions can be brought into the service of conservativism and aesthetic authoritarianism. It points to the misguided nature of attempts to turn the question of the dissemination of post-tonal music from an aesthetic, political, and indeed economic issue into a cognitive-scientific one. In this age when words like 'accessibility' and 'communication' are used too frequently and with too little understanding, it is of some significance that at least one major attempt to give scientific respectability to the conservative side of the debate fails ([[#Croft1999|Croft 1999, 55]]).</blockquote>
Arved <blockquote>I don't believe music, even serial music, need be limited to a grammatical-linguistic conception of meaning. I would go further and say that modern art or art in any period, for that matter need not function grammatically. The work of Mallarme and the Symbolist poets tends toward the oblique: they take lexical items (words) and ask that we process them not lexically, denotatively, but at a musical (or at least metaphorical) level. If we were to take a Lerdahlian approach to these writers, we could reach some absurd parallel conclusions: by analogy to Lerdahl's tacitly intentionalist thinking, one could go so far as to try and discredit the Symbolists for being ungrammatical, or say that they produced works that are ''unsuccessful'' because of an anomaly between the language at their surface and the means by which they are to be taken in ([[#Ashby2004|Ashby 1992, 33]]).</blockquote>
For additional opinions and discussion, see [[#Bauer2004|Bauer 2004]], [[#Boros1995|Boros 1995]], [[#Boros1996|Boros 1996]], [[#Denham2009|Denham 2009]], [[#Dibben1996|Dibben 1996]], [[#Heinemann1993|Heinemann 1993]], [[#Heinemann1998|Heinemann 1998]], [[#Horn2015|Horn 2015]], and [[#Mosch2004|Mosch 2004]].
== Sources ==
* {{wikicite |ref=Ashby2004 |reference=Ashby, Arved. 2004. "Intention and
* {{wikicite |ref=Bauer2004 |reference=Bauer, Amy. 2004. "'Tone-Color, Movement, Changing Harmonic Planes': Cognition, Constraints, and Conceptual Blends in Modernist Music." In ''The Pleasure of Modernist Music: Listening, Meaning, Intention, Ideology'', ed. Arved Ashby, 121-152. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.}}
* {{wikicite |ref=Boros1995 |reference=Boros, James. 1995. "A 'New Totality'?". ''Perspectives of New Music'' 33, no. 1/2: 538-553.}}
| |||