Chomsky's linguistics. Lerdahl's musical extensions.

>
> My other friend who's a linguist at Stanford says that
> transformational grammars, while fun and interesting, have
> exactly nothing to do with language. That particular claim
> is beyond my expertise to discuss.
>

This sounds like an academic-politics kind of statement. Like, "Listen
you unwashed unlearned bimbo, mark my words, don't you spend a minute
reading _________ stuff, 'cause take it from me, the expert, it's crap and
a waste of your time. Instead, spend your waking hours reading ______"

Are you familiar with Lerdahl and Jackendoff's "Generative Theory of Tonal
Music"?

That's an extension (supposedly. . . ) of Chomsky's theories into the
domain of music.

Now, to me, the claims sem quite reasonable, as SOME kind of model of how
we think of tonal music. It may not (indeed, probably simeply isn't) a
direct model of how the brain "thinks music", but I think it's a model of
something that exists somewhere somehow in our musical consciousness,
because when I look at the theory, I'm thinking, "yes, yes, that makes
sense."

I imagine that Chomsky's linguistic theories have the same relationship to
spoken language. From what I've seen of them, they seem to be quite
logically related to how language works, on an initial, intuitively judged
acquaintance. So to say they have "exactly nothing to do" with how
language works is a bit of an exaggeration I'm sure.

People say the same thing about Lerdahl's work, and it's usually a
political judgement, because of what they feel is undeserved recognition
for Lerhahl's theories, which are, admittedly, still really in their
infancy.

A more reasonable view is that he clearly has something valid and
interesting to say, but there may be some issues.

Actually, the personal politics thing is one bone I'd have to pick with
Chomsky. The way he tears people down who argue against him is lots of
fun (if you're a bizarre kind of sadist) to listen to in the audience,
but in the end, it's highly counter-productive. We should be encouraging
people to engage in arguments, not discouraging. I mean, I don't care if
he does it to George W, but usually it's some naaive MBA student or
something; if you cut the guy a break, who knows, he might start
listening to you . . . .

I guess it's only human; the guy's been attacked for his views for
decades, so after all that, one probably gets pretty hardened to it, and
savagely fighting back is just instinctual, but it's ashame.

> Are you familiar with Lerdahl and Jackendoff's "Generative
> Theory of Tonal Music"?

I'm not.

> That's an extension (supposedly. . . ) of Chomsky's theories
> into the domain of music.
>
> Now, to me, the claims sem quite reasonable, as SOME kind
> of model of how we think of tonal music.

Sounds interesting...

-Carl

> > Are you familiar with Lerdahl and Jackendoff's "Generative
> > Theory of Tonal Music"?
>
> I'm not.
>
> > That's an extension (supposedly. . . ) of Chomsky's theories
> > into the domain of music.
> >
> > Now, to me, the claims sem quite reasonable, as SOME kind
> > of model of how we think of tonal music.
>
> Sounds interesting...

If you're on the specmus group, it might be a good topic for
discussion there...

-C.