Hello!
If you would like to participate in discussions, please sign in or register.
Categories
In this Discussion
- Devin Chaloux September 2021
- Megan Lavengood September 2021
- Nancy Garniez September 2021
- Nate Mitchell September 2021
- Scott Fruehwald September 2021
Most Popular This Week
Exclusive: London professor resigns over ‘woke’ musicology
"The academic world has been shocked by the resignation of one of the UK’s leading musicologists, apparently in disaffection with current trends for decolonising classical music." "J. P. E. Harper-Scott is Professor of Music History and Theory at Royal Holloway, University of London, and general editor of the Cambridge University Press series ‘Music in Context’." "In a resignation note titled ‘Why I left Academia’ he makes no secret for his love of learning and of academic life. But, he writes:
I would put the problem in this (Kantian) way: I wrongly supposed that universities would be critical places, but they are becoming increasingly dogmatic. Consider the following statement, which fairly well articulates an increasingly common view in musicology.
Nineteenth-century musical works were the product of an imperial society. The classical musical canon must be decolonised.
The statement, and the attitude that goes with it, are dogmatic by virtue of form, not content. It does not matter that the statement in the first sentence is one that I can assent to. It becomes dogmatic by virtue of the second sentence, which admits of no doubt, no criticism, no challenge."
rest of article here.
SMT Discuss Manager: smtdiscuss@societymusictheory.org
Comments
Yeah, that's 100% pure gaslighting.
Devin Chaloux
Indiana University
Isn't it true that the notion of universal grammar is mostly rejected by, e.g., constructionist grammarians, who argue instead that speech processing relies on domain general cognitive processes, statistical learning, and the like? And haven't studies in artificial musical grammar acquisition in music by, e.g., Psyche Loui suggested that the same is true of music?
The perception of tone that produced the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century works to which this statement probably refers was the perception of singular individuals. The dynamic of tone perception as individual experience, as thoroughly explored by Viktor Zuckerkandl (Sound and Symbol), has proved a reliable basis for my lifetime of pedagogy at all levels, as it assumes generic listening to be by definition unreal. The terms of such pedagogy are, in my experience, not acceptable within the boundaries of conventional music study or teaching. Opting out of those boundaries has put me in touch with some of the most brilliant musicians and socially liberated individuals I have ever known. The theory canon, in my view, is an attempt to deny the remarkably idiosyncratic sound of the newly invented piano. In effect, it has been analogous to treating computers like typewriters. It is, in my view, thus a matter, not of canon or not canon, but of respect for singularlity of tone perception at all levels.
To Nancy. Zuckerkandl, who died in 1965, was a musicologist, not a scientist. In other words, his ideas about sound and symbol are speculation. Cognitive scientists have shown that individuals process music in a particular way, just like individuals process speech in a particular way. (Chomsky's "universal grammar") In fact, studies on music perception and how the brain processes music show that the human brain processes music similarly to Schenker’s theories. See Stefan Koelsch, Toward a neural basis of music perception – a review and updated model, Frontiers in Psychology §5.1 I go into more detail and give more cites in Part VI of my paper, Philip Ewell’s White Racial Framework in Music Theory and Cognitive Science.
I have a Ph.D. in musicology from CUNY. My research areas in the law include cognitive science and the law. My work in that area is also relevant to music.
-
Megan L. Lavengood | Assistant Professor, George Mason University
To Nate: Like most scientific theories, universal grammar has its critics. However, fMRI sudies support that language is domain specfic (located in a specific part of the brain), rather than domain general.
Yeah, I just don't want to get involved any further and regretted my participation at all, which is why I removed it. Thanks all for understanding.
Megan L. Lavengood | Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Scott, aren't you a law prof (not a musicologist or scientist)? What exactly are your stakes in this anyway?
Megan L. Lavengood | Assistant Professor, George Mason University
"The Executive Board of the Society for Music Theory condemns the anti-Black statements and personal ad hominem attacks on Philip Ewell perpetuated in several essays included in the “Symposium on Philip Ewell’s 2019 SMT Plenary Paper” published by the Journal of Schenkerian Studies."
I am curious. Other than Dr. Jackson's contribution, "what were the several other essays?" I have read the issue several times, and I can't find anything in the rest of the articles that even comes close to being racist.
If they are not specified, doesn't this condemn every article in that Symposium.