HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: progress in science and art
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:16:38 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

I'm not well-versed of an amateur history-of-science buff, but it seems
to me that the social contract regarding "truth" in the science of the last
250 years is much more nearly universal and has a very different kind of
longetivity than the social contract regarding "beauty" in the Western
Art Music of the last 800 years.

Scientists have explicitly sought a kind of universality that cuts
across cultures and expectations. Their working concept of "truth" has,
in most fields, been reduced to a concept of practical accuracy, sometimes
coupled with conceptual clarity.  This distinction has helped to clarify
the differences between scientific information and religious belief.

Artistic value, on the other hand, explicitly comes from the listener.
Here, too, there is no other measurement other than practical response
of the listener---but after listeners have agreed that the piece
starts with, say, 3 short notes and a long, it becomes much more
socially acceptable for the good/bad evaluation of the presentation to
be entirely up to individual whim.

Under these circumstances, the accumulation of an ever-increasing body of
ideas that all retain certain amounts of restricted usefulness for describing
observation seems to me to be a kind of very real "progress" the likes of
which we just don't have in the arts.  The most useful discoveries of the
composers of organum have not been directly superceded by more useful or
accurate ways of eliciting the same responses from people---rather, the
conventions relative to which people experienced those responses have
atrophied (except in obscure corners of academia).  If there were a
predictable mapping from notes to human response, music would be a much
more scientific venture than it is today---and would probably be a lot less
fun, imho.

So I think that looking for "progress" in music by analogy with
"progress" in science (per Mr. Feldman's posting a while ago) is a
process that has to be hedged in with constraints, disclaimers, and
explanatory paragraphs.
From: maverick@mahogany.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: Regarding the Questionable use of the Word -> Advance
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:34:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mahogany.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <2Ty5VB1w165w@dorsai.com>, idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
|> > 
|> > [My earlier gnarled posting, q.v.]
|> 
|> Mr. Maverick 

"Vance", really.

|> critiques my use of the word "advance" in art criticism by 
|> never using the word.  He instead, implies I have my own teleology based 
|> on an implied stylistic revisionism.  My point is simple and I believe 
|> Mr. Maverick understood it.

We're not disagreeing much.  My point was that you wrote as if
aesthetic goals were meaningfully consistent over centuries, and
as if aesthetic properties of pieces stayed put.  (So did David
Feldman, for that matter.)

|> He responded with the typical knee-jerk 
|> response to our university-sponsored patronage enviroment,

Do you mean *of* this environment?  If so, I don't think so.  I
haven't heard too many relativists in music departments, or too
much explicitly listener-oriented talk about music.

|> of which I'm willing to bet he plays a part.

As taxpayer, yes.  As graduate student in computer science....?
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in this department who
ever listened to any mod music.

As for the rest of your posting, I don't disagree enough to want
to quibble.

Regards,
	Vance


Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:35:43 GMT

david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:

> I don't think anybody should be teaching composition period because
> it can't be taught to begin with, imho. 
> 
> David
> david@roth-music.com

This is an argument you hear often which has absolutely no evidence to 
support it.  All of the great composers of the past presented their music 
to other composers for analysis/comment.  Beethoven/Haydn is the most
famous example.  Beginning composers no matter how talented need someone 
to comment on their works.  Compositional technique can be learned by 
trial and error but any serious composing student is taking a big risk 
that they will waste time in attempting to teach themselves.  
 
It's funny really, how often we hear this comment.  Certainly you can't 
teach someone to "visualize" music or to audition music in their mind.  
Although this _may_ be a standard human capability it does seem to be at 
least inhibited in most people.  It is certainly a capacity which a 
composer must have.  
 
My analysis/criticism of contemporary academia was based on my experience 
as a student.  The pressure to use the 12 tone technique was intense as
a composer studying in the 70's and 80's.  I even had a teacher tell me 
(in graduate school, no less) that no student of mine will be allowed to 
use tonality.  
 
These constraints on creativity continue to affect today's students.  My 
theory is that many university composers couldn't write a good tonal 
piece if their life depended on it.  (But it's just a theory ;-).


Jeff Harrington      
IdEAL ORDER               
idealord@dorsai.com
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: Brother, Can You Spare a Tone
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:05:55 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

Bob Miller writes:

>The Church has little use for music which is so culturally or stylistically
>obtuse to the hearers that they cannot get any good through it.  And,
>particularly in this century, the church views art from a functional,
>utilitarian perspective, at the expense of art for it's own sake, i.e.  the
>joy of co-creation.

This last varies a lot from church to church.  The mainline portestant
denominations are more open to church music purely as an aesthetic
experience (and therefore, perhaps, purely as an artistic experssion).
Rather surprisingly, so is the SDA church.  I am rarely in an RC church, but
I've read _Why Catholics Can't Sing_ and all the current and ex-RC people I
know say it's ALL TRUE.

>> On the other
>> hand, we are beset with John Rutter on one side and "praise songs" on the
>> other.  Oh, and text bowdlerizers.  
>                  ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hmmmmm.  Leaving out the right wing extreme, I see very little active
>censership of text.

Here in the Episcopal Church, we've been hit with the inclusive language
push; the 1979 prayer book, for example, never uses "man" in an inclusive
sense.  And there it is not jarring.  What is jarring, though, is that in
the new hymnal they've gone and changed all the old texts to the same end.
(With some exceptions, i.e., we still sing "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen",
but now we sing "Good Christian *Friends* Rejoice".)  It's terribly lumpy,
and I don't think it's going to do any more good than it did when Bowdler
did it.

>And the text [....] is quite a bit stouter than the average "praise song"...

Praise songs drive me nuts, with rare exceptions.  Partly it's the music;
more so, it's the "anti-churchy" and anti-historical vision they represent.
The contrast between them and a Dupre or Durufle organ work could hardly be
more extreme- something that isn't true of "traditional" hymns.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:38:20 GMT

In article <0105009A.mb6m85@david.roth-music.com> david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec28.175609.27404@zip.eecs.umich.edu> (rec.music.compose), fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
>> 
>> In article <9DyHwB2w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>> >david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>> >> I don't think anybody should be teaching composition period because
>> >> it can't be taught to begin with, imho. 
>> 
>> >This is an argument you hear often which has absolutely no evidence to 
>> >support it.  All of the great composers of the past presented their music 
>> >to other composers for analysis/comment.
>> 
>> And to reopen a flamefest from months ago, outside of Mr. Roth, the only other
>> individuals I've ever heard say that composition can't be taught were all
>> tenured professors of composition who were trying to weasle out of teaching
>
>...because all the teaching positions for music theory and EE were
>filled.



Yeah, composition is a fountain of gold, and electrical engineering only
gets a few pennies when the NSF isn't embroiled in controversies regarding
censorship and pornography.

Earth to David Roth!  Are you there?
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: Brother, Can You Spare a Tone
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:21:57 GMT

In article <63118@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:

>Well, I may be misremembering the details of the explanation, but the tone
>row was listed in the program.

Yuck!  What bad showpersonship!  The program should have programmatic info,
or short descriptions of poetic ideas that might help the audience get in the
right frame of mind, or, in the case of a particularly oddly-constructed
piece, a description of how the piece ends, so the audience will not have
to suffer embarrassingly as they try to figure out when to applaud or hiss.
Technical information like the number of verses, the tone row, and the
peculiar twist on sonata form belong in technical seminars.
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: // 5ths & 8ves
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:04:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.130505.12073@cucs5.cs.cuhk.hk> bmtong@cs.cuhk.hk (Tong Bo-Ming) writes:
>Hi,
>
>        I have a question on consecutive fifths and octaves.  Suppose I
>have a bass, and an appegiated treble, and my melody is in the inner
>part.  The appegio occasionally have some consecutive octaves with the
>melody.  This is quite difficult to avoid, because it is not good to
>break the appegio pattern, nor to modify the melody.  Any suggestions ?
>
>                    A
>                  F   F
>                C       C
>treble        A           A
>            F               F
>          C                   C
>        A                       A
>
>              F     F     F
>
>
>tenor   C
>
>bass    F
>
>Tong Bo-Ming
>Department of Computer Science
>The Chinese University of Hong Kong
>Shatin, Hong Kong



Many solutions.
1) The harmony changes a bit.
2) The arppeggiation pattern changes direction to avoid parallel octaves.
3) The melody is a bit different.
4) Add PASSING TONES (look up in music dictionary) to the arpeggiation pattern
   or to the melody.
5) Shift the rhythm or beat of the melody and/or the arpeggiation pattern.

Remember to work this out carefully, a note at a time.  No one mechanical
solution is guaranteed to work.

See if you can find a local composer or theoretician to help you.

Good luck.

Matthew H. Fields
From: simmons@ittc.wec.com (Garry Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Charter for r.m.compose?
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:29:38 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corp., ITTC, Pgh. PA.

After a long wait for my sys admin to add this group to our site's Internet feed,
I'm confused by the content of the postings. Isn't this group supposed to be a
forum for songwriters and composers? All I've seen for the past week is a lot
of ranting about academia and high level music theory. I have a limited grasp
of music theory and write primarily rock songs. I beat on my guitar and when I
get something that catches my ear or strikes some emotional chord with me, I
try to develop the idea. Perhaps this is too simplistic a pastime for the
particpants in this group, but I like it, like it, yes I do :-)

I was hoping for a group that discussed pop/rock/country/etc songwriting (from 
both the musical, lyrical and rhythmic points of view), lists of contact, 
information (who is looking for material), publishers with open ears, etc.
Did I just catch the group during a composing cycle or is/has this been the
primary focus of this newsgroup?

Garry Simmons
simmons@ittc.pgh.wec.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt)
Subject: Re: music theory text
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:01:38 GMT

For a good explanation of serial composition, I strongly recommend Charles
Wuorinen's <Simple Composition>, published by Longman. Wuorinen believes
in his subject manner, and his energy carries over into his writing.
From: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: academia, power, priveledge...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 01:30:45 EST
Organization: DAVID A. ROTH MUSIC
Reply-To: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Dec26.173521.4709@zip.eecs.umich.edu> (rec.music.compose), fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec25.190909.25191@zip.eecs.umich.edu> I write:
> >In article <gXecwB1w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> >>  Bach and Mozart wrote music which was judged by 
> >>intelligent, cultured music lovers.  I'm sorry, this ain't the case no 
> >>more.  
> >
> >Intelligent, cultured music lovers don't grow on trees! Hence modern
> >academia.
> 
> But I've oversimplified and failed to explain why I love to teach
> composition.  This cuts right to the heart of the joy of teaching.
> You hand out seeds of ideas that you don't even have to make up
> because your own teachers handed them to you, and each student finds a
> niche for that seed in her or his own fertile mind---and week in, week
> out, you get to see instantiations of ideas blossoming back at you in
> ways you couldn't ever have imagined.  This is fun.
> 
> But nobody should be teaching composition who doesn't complete at least
> one new symphony or 3 new sonatas and quartets or one scene of an opera
> fully orchestrated per year, consistently, imho.
> 
> 
I don't think anybody should be teaching composition period because
it can't be taught to begin with, imho. 

David
david@roth-music.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: music theory text
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.112122.9748@ac.dal.ca> whare@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Combinatorial hexachords. Cells. Serialism. Set theory.
>
>Could some of you out there *please* tell me the name 
>of a textbook or two that would explain what these 
>things are? That is: what is your favorite tough good
>modern music theory text.
>Email me if you prefer.

Pitch-class and collection-class material...

John Rahn in Seattle, Washington, USA pretty much wrote the book on these
topics.  Off the top of my head, I think his book is called "20th-century
analysis", but I'm not sure.  He gives very clear definitions, using the
integers modulo 12 as a math structure.

One thing a lot of authors fail to stress is that interest in this
approach arose historically from the sound of Wagner, which is to say
from a classically-oriented style in which expressive chromaticism had
made the sense of key and mode less and less important to the music, while
the ideas of motif, variation, and control of harmonic tension continued
to be valued strongly.  As a result, gestures left over from tonal
practice (e.g. recapitulation) retained a great importance which cannot
be explained strictly WITHIN the theory of pitch classes and collection
classes.

An aside: I've noticed that theoreticians and historians tend to draw very
sharp, unnatural boundry lines between their respective disciplines,
sometimes to very good effect---but the fact that they are doing so
should be pointed out when appropriate.  My favorites are Schenkerians who
try to reason about every note strictly from voice-leading considerations,
without allowing information about style to enter into the argument.  In
doing so, they force us to consider what we know about a work ITSELF, and
take that as far as we can, before referring to the styles and trends that
work was part of.  This is a very challenging approach, and dangerous in
that it tends to make style and language seem independent.
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Hey!  Cool it.
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:59:48 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

Jeff, buddy!  Haven't we been around and around these bits before?  Most of
rec.music.compose's readership has never taken an academic music course at
all.

Bill was just joking, for gosh sakes.

And besides, one of my favorite composers and yours did his best work when
he was on salary to write a new oratorio every week.  And when he was instead
at Koethen, where chamber music presided, he made chamber music, and was happy.
So? So some folks write well when well paid (jsb), some folks write well no
matter what---and fritter away what ever money they get (wam), and some folks
can only write well after they're dead :-)
Nyah, let's get back to composing.  Decide what you like to hear and see how
to make it happen.  Deeper philosophizing ties up your precious neurons. :-)

Matt
From: dvf@kepler.unh.edu (David V Feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Date: 30 Dec 1992 07:34:38 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

In article <2csJwB3w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>is not a immature opinion - it's a fact.  You should check out the 
>anti-new music postings in rec.music.classical for a taste of how our 
>culture's support for the university patronage system has _destroyed_ 
>interest in new music - except, of course, new music which is really rock 
>music.

I read rec.music.classical quite regularly and my experience does not
bare this out.  There are postings from both new music supporters and
detractors.  Often the detractors are vehement and insistent, but they
are also often outnumbered.  I know many people who love new music without
any vested interest (not composers, not performers specializing in it.)
The numbers of such probably have more to say about the nature of life 
during late capitalism than anything intrinsic to aesthetics.  

David
Newsgroups: rec.music.compose
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:20:36 GMT

fullerto@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton) writes:

> 
> 
> 	I am finding the threads about bashing academia really kind of 
> disgusting and immature. I look at it this way: Everyone is making their 
> own contributions to art. "Academics," whatever that means, are making 
> theirs; people who sit in their room with a sequencer and/or a four 
> track and recreate are making theirs; Pop musicians are making theirs. 
 

I find this a bit naive.  Pop musicians are interested in becoming 
"popular" and in making "money."  Come on, get real!  Composers who 
create music which is intended to please their mentors or who are trying 
to impress a tenure committee are just as phony.  
 
> 
> 	In my grad school shopping, I have expressed the fear that 
> studying composition could ruin me, that I could become this 
> intellectual that creates aural math projects that nobody wants to 
> listen to. Keeping the above arguments in mind, that is prejudiced and 
> ridiculous. If I don't want that, I won't get that. If I research my 
> grad schools well, I'll find someplace enriching where I will happy and 
> free, and there will not be a corrupt machine that will try to squeeze 
> me into that mold. If I research poorly, I deserve what I get.
 
Hey, if you're writing music which is too intellectual - it's your fault, 
not your schools.  The best part about grad school are the readings and 
performances - if you're lucky to get a good teacher you may get good 
commentary or analysis.
 
> 
> 	Basically my message is if you don't like academic music (again, 
> whatever that means), don't go to school, but don't take a militant, 
> self righteous stance against academia. What purpose does that serve?
 
Give me a break.  The reason that the public doesn't go to contemporary 
concerts (remember the riots at the Rite of Spring premiere, everyone 
used to go that was a classical music lover) is because they've been 
scared away by music which was written in the name of "progress."  This 
is not a immature opinion - it's a fact.  You should check out the 
anti-new music postings in rec.music.classical for a taste of how our 
culture's support for the university patronage system has _destroyed_ 
interest in new music - except, of course, new music which is really rock 
music.
> 
> 	Happy Holidays;
> 
> 		Tim.

Cheers and good will to all!
 
Oh, btw, you should ask Matt Fields about UM in Ann Arbor, I don't think 
there's a better graduate composition department better anywhere...
 

Jeff Harrington      
IdEAL ORDER               
idealord@dorsai.com
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:43:14 EST
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:39:55 -0500
From: nrc@bsbbs.columbus.oh.us (N. Richard Caldwell)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Goodbye "Still Breathing," Hello "Night Scented Stock"
Message-ID: <s2B6VB3w165w@bsbbs.columbus.oh.us>
Organization: The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa



Got a message from Tracy Robyn Sommerville on The Big Sky the other
day.  Evidently "Still Breathing" now officially isn't.   On the other
hand, she and her SO have started another Kate Bush based BBS.

> The board name is NIGHT SCENTED STOCK, and we're running with Remote
> Access 1.11...we're also net-capable and are carrying EZ-Net and a
> local  net as well...Um, we have our Kate area...(Of Course!)...and 
> also Star Trek section, a good Writer's base, and all kinds of weird 
> message bases.
>  
> So, the number is 1-(604)-572-4733 and we're currently accepting 
> 3/12/2400 baud and we're 24hrs..

They also hope to eventually gain USENET access.


"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  nrc@bsbbs.Columbus.OH.US
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:36:05 EST
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:32:55 -0500
From: MJM@ZYLAB.MHS.CompuServe.COM (Mike Mendelson)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Ann Arbor
Message-ID: <921221142343_555063.0_CHL64-3@CompuServe.COM>