maldv/crabcanon · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 174
entries are really the only thing that make a fugue a fugue. There are fugal devices,
such as retrograde motion, inversion, augmentation, stretto, and so on, but one can
write a fugue without them. Do you use any of those?

Author: to be sure. My Crab Canon employs verbal retrogression, and my Sloth Canon
employs verbal versions of both inversion and augmentation.

Crab: Indeed-quite interesting. I haven't thought about canonical Dialogues, but I have
thought quite a bit about canons in music. Not all canons are equally comprehensible
to the ear. Of course, that is because some canons are poorly constructed. The choice
of devices makes a difference, in any case. Regarding Artistic Canons, Retrogression's
Elusive; Contrariwise, Inversion's Recognizable.

Achilles: I find that comment a little elusive, frankly.

Author: Don't worry, Achilles-one day you'll understand it.

Crab: Do you use letterplay or wordplay at all, the way Old Bach occasionally did?

Author: Certainly. Like Bach, I enjoy acronyms. Recursive AcronvmsCrablike
"RACRECIR" Especially-Create Infinite Regress.

Crab: Oh, really? Let's see ... Reading Initials Clearly Exhibits "RACRECIR'"s
Concealed Auto-Reference. Yes, I guess so ... ( Peers at the manuscript, flipping
arbitrarily now and then.) I notice here in your Ant Fugue that you have a stretto, and
then the Tortoise makes a comment about it.

Author: No, not quite. He's not talking about the stretto in the Dialogue-he's talking about
a stretto in a Bach fugue which the foursome is listening to as they talk together. You
see, the self-reference of the Dialogue is indirect, depending on the reader to connect
the form and content of what he's reading.

Crab: Why did you do it that way? Why not just have the characters talk directly about
the dialogues they're in?

Author: Oh, no! That would wreck the beauty of the scheme. The idea is to imitate
Godel’s self-referential construction, which as you know is INDIRECT, and depends
on the isomorphism set up by Godel numbering.

Crab: Oh. Well, in the programming language LISP, you can talk about your own
programs directly, instead of indirectly, because programs and data have exactly the
same form. Godel should have just thought up LISP, and then

Author: But-

Crab: I mean, he should have formalized quotation. With a language able to talk about
itself, the proof of his Theorem would have been so much simpler!

Author: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with the spirit of your remarks. The whole
point of Godel-numbering is that it shows how even WITHOUT formalizing
quotation, one can get self-reference: through a code. Whereas from hearing YOU
talk, one might get the impression that by formalizing quotation, you'd get something
NEW, something that wasn't feasible through the code-which is not the case.
In any event, I find indirect self-reference a more general concept, and far more
stimulating, than direct self-reference. Moreover, no reference is truly direct-every
reference depends on SOME kind of coding scheme. It's just a question of how
implicit it is. Therefore, no self reference is direct, not even in LISP.

Achilles: How come you talk so much about indirect self-reference?

Author: Quite simple-indirect self-reference is my favorite topic.

Crab: Is there any counterpart in your Dialogues to modulation between keys?

Author: Definitely. The topic of conversation may appear to change, though on a more
abstract level, the Theme remains invariant. This happens repeatedly in the Prelude,
Ant Fugue and other Dialogues. One can have a whole series of "modulations" which
lead you from topic to topic and in the end come full circle, so that you end back in the
"tonic"-that is to say, the original topic.

Crab: I see. Your book looks quite amusing. I'd like to read it sometime.

(Flips through the manuscript, halting at the last Dialogue.)

Author: I think you'd be interested in that Dialogue particularly, for it contains some
intriguing comments on improvisation made by a certain exceedingly droll character-
in fact, yourself!

Crab: It does? What kinds of things do you have me say?

Author: Wait a moment, and you'll see. It's all part of the Dialogue. Achilles: Do you
mean to say that we're all NOW in a dialogue? Author: Certainly. Did you suspect
otherwise?

Achilles: Rather! I Can't Escape Reciting Canned Achilles-Remarks? Author: No, you
can't. But you have the feeling of doing it freely, don't

you? So what's the harm?

Achilles: There's something unsatisfying about this whole situation ... Crab: Is the last
Dialogue in your book also a fugue?

Author: Yes-a six-part ricercar, to be precise. I was inspired by the one from the Musical
Offering- and also by the story of the Musical Offering.

Crab: That's a delightful tale, with "Old Bach" improvising on the king's Theme. He
improvised an entire three-part ricercar on the spot, as I recall.

Author: That's right-although he didn't improvise the six-part one. He crafted it later with
great care.

entries are really the only thing that make a fugue a fugue. There are fugal devices,

such as retrograde motion, inversion, augmentation, stretto, and so on, but one can

write a fugue without them. Do you use any of those?

Author: to be sure. My Crab Canon employs verbal retrogression, and my Sloth Canon

employs verbal versions of both inversion and augmentation.

Crab: Indeed-quite interesting. I haven't thought about canonical Dialogues, but I have

thought quite a bit about canons in music. Not all canons are equally comprehensible

to the ear. Of course, that is because some canons are poorly constructed. The choice

of devices makes a difference, in any case. Regarding Artistic Canons, Retrogression's

Elusive; Contrariwise, Inversion's Recognizable.

Achilles: I find that comment a little elusive, frankly.

Author: Don't worry, Achilles-one day you'll understand it.

Crab: Do you use letterplay or wordplay at all, the way Old Bach occasionally did?

Author: Certainly. Like Bach, I enjoy acronyms. Recursive AcronvmsCrablike

"RACRECIR" Especially-Create Infinite Regress.

Crab: Oh, really? Let's see ... Reading Initials Clearly Exhibits "RACRECIR'"s

Concealed Auto-Reference. Yes, I guess so ... ( Peers at the manuscript, flipping

arbitrarily now and then.) I notice here in your Ant Fugue that you have a stretto, and

then the Tortoise makes a comment about it.

Author: No, not quite. He's not talking about the stretto in the Dialogue-he's talking about

a stretto in a Bach fugue which the foursome is listening to as they talk together. You

see, the self-reference of the Dialogue is indirect, depending on the reader to connect

the form and content of what he's reading.

Crab: Why did you do it that way? Why not just have the characters talk directly about

the dialogues they're in?

Author: Oh, no! That would wreck the beauty of the scheme. The idea is to imitate

Godel’s self-referential construction, which as you know is INDIRECT, and depends

on the isomorphism set up by Godel numbering.

Crab: Oh. Well, in the programming language LISP, you can talk about your own

programs directly, instead of indirectly, because programs and data have exactly the

same form. Godel should have just thought up LISP, and then

Author: But-

Crab: I mean, he should have formalized quotation. With a language able to talk about

itself, the proof of his Theorem would have been so much simpler!

Author: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with the spirit of your remarks. The whole

point of Godel-numbering is that it shows how even WITHOUT formalizing

quotation, one can get self-reference: through a code. Whereas from hearing YOU

talk, one might get the impression that by formalizing quotation, you'd get something

NEW, something that wasn't feasible through the code-which is not the case.

In any event, I find indirect self-reference a more general concept, and far more

stimulating, than direct self-reference. Moreover, no reference is truly direct-every

reference depends on SOME kind of coding scheme. It's just a question of how

implicit it is. Therefore, no self reference is direct, not even in LISP.

Achilles: How come you talk so much about indirect self-reference?

Author: Quite simple-indirect self-reference is my favorite topic.

Crab: Is there any counterpart in your Dialogues to modulation between keys?

Author: Definitely. The topic of conversation may appear to change, though on a more

abstract level, the Theme remains invariant. This happens repeatedly in the Prelude,

Ant Fugue and other Dialogues. One can have a whole series of "modulations" which

lead you from topic to topic and in the end come full circle, so that you end back in the

"tonic"-that is to say, the original topic.

Crab: I see. Your book looks quite amusing. I'd like to read it sometime.

(Flips through the manuscript, halting at the last Dialogue.)

Author: I think you'd be interested in that Dialogue particularly, for it contains some

intriguing comments on improvisation made by a certain exceedingly droll character-

in fact, yourself!

Crab: It does? What kinds of things do you have me say?

Author: Wait a moment, and you'll see. It's all part of the Dialogue. Achilles: Do you

mean to say that we're all NOW in a dialogue? Author: Certainly. Did you suspect

otherwise?

Achilles: Rather! I Can't Escape Reciting Canned Achilles-Remarks? Author: No, you

can't. But you have the feeling of doing it freely, don't

you? So what's the harm?

Achilles: There's something unsatisfying about this whole situation ... Crab: Is the last

Dialogue in your book also a fugue?

Author: Yes-a six-part ricercar, to be precise. I was inspired by the one from the Musical

Offering- and also by the story of the Musical Offering.

Crab: That's a delightful tale, with "Old Bach" improvising on the king's Theme. He

improvised an entire three-part ricercar on the spot, as I recall.

Author: That's right-although he didn't improvise the six-part one. He crafted it later with

great care.