undefined

Gene wrote, quoting me:

>> > () What's the best piece for a beginner to start with, and what
>> > should he listen for?
>>
>> The thing to be wary of is the segmentation process - what's a set, and
>> what isn't. It's easy for people to go "cherry-picking", and take the
>> notes they want, with no particular musical justification, to get the
>> sets they want.
>
> How did we manage to get from sets to some kind of compositional
> process?

Sorry, I can see how you thought that's what I meant, but I was talking
about the analytic process, since that's what is being "attacked". It's
easy for an analyst who wants to defend set-class analysis to find
set-class correspondances between sets in the music being analysed--it's
harder to show that you're doing this in a meaningful way and not just
"cherry-picking" to get the sets you want.

In my opinion, the thing you can reproach set-class theory for, is that it
makes it easy to do bogus analyses that look like they're meaningful,
because readers will look at all the sets you've found that enjoy some
sort of set-class relationship, nod their heads and say "ah yes it's all
so logical", but when you look at the music you wonder "why did they pick
*those* sets and not others?"

--Jon

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
> > How did we manage to get from sets to some kind of compositional
> > process?
>
> Sorry, I can see how you thought that's what I meant, but I was
talking
> about the analytic process, since that's what is being "attacked".
It's
> easy for an analyst who wants to defend set-class analysis to find
> set-class correspondances between sets in the music being analysed--
it's
> harder to show that you're doing this in a meaningful way and not
just
> "cherry-picking" to get the sets you want.

It sounds ugly either way, but shouldn't that be "class-set",
not "set-class"? And what is a "set-class correspondence"?

> In my opinion, the thing you can reproach set-class theory for, is
that it
> makes it easy to do bogus analyses that look like they're
meaningful,
> because readers will look at all the sets you've found that enjoy
some
> sort of set-class relationship, nod their heads and say "ah yes
it's all
> so logical", but when you look at the music you wonder "why did
they pick
> *those* sets and not others?"

Same question re "set-class relationhip". How are these defined? Is
this vertical, horizontal, or both?