theory and practice

I have been reading the posts on this list for quite some time now;
often I skip the long-winded explanations of theoretial details, yet
find that the enterprise as a whole is immensely interesting. Being
new to this whole field, I find most of the discussion quite
informative. I have, however, for a while now, shared the feeling that
some (like Haverstick recently) have been pointing out recently; and
that is the "theory as an end to itself" phenomenon. I don't wish to
assume that those of you who are deeply involved with finding new
structures are necessary non-musical, (I am a friend of Paul Erlich's,
and I can safely say he is anything BUT non-musical!) but I do feel
that sometimes I don't quite see the goal of all the discussion.

Basially, I believe that scale structures, harmonic concepts (limits,
etc.) exist within the universe of sound as we experiece it; it is up
to us to tap into these already existing phenomena. Furthermore, I beleive
that the search for "more" is infinite. The question that
really arises in my mind is "what do you do with something when you
'find' it?". If you notice a rose blooming by the side of your porch
one morning, do you
a) compare it to the many others you're used to seeing?
b) analyze the angle of the petals and the hues of color?
c) smell it, touch it, admire it, give it to your girlfriend.

I would take (c). The equivalent of (c) to me is to create music, not
"describe" it. I do not wish to imply that the abstractions necessary
to understand a complex phenomenon are useless. What I mean is that I
feel that they need to be put into use. And especially for those of
you with a "political non-12TET" bent, this is the ONLY way to get
musicians and composers to understand what you are pointing to.

To use an analogy someone used recently, a blueprint of a bridge
cannot provide all of the following information: a) be functionally
safe and useful, b) be aesthetically coherent with the geographic setting
it is
to be built in, c) whether it is actually necessary to HAVE a bridge
there to begin with. These things are done by engineers, urban
planners and representatives of the community together. Having a
library of bridge blueprints is nice for those who would like to go to
a library and browse through all possible bridges that they COULD
have, but unless the enterprise is a JOINT one with all groups
mentioned above, it is merely an exercise. Perhaps a beautiful one,
yet still an exercise.

On a slightly different note (A442, to be exact), I think two
approaches to music making that I personally am aware of (and i don't
mean to exclude any other traditions which I may very well be ignorant
of), may help you understand what I am getting at.

One is found in the model that is prevalent in western music. The
dominance of counterpoint, harmonic modulation and thematic variation
in this tradition relegates the "consonances" or, indeed, any
identifiable pitch group to symbolic entities. no longer is the
"point" of the music the purely physical sensation of preceiving the
pitch group or following a melodic "narrative", but rather it is the role
the 'triad' or any other chosen pitch group plays in the larger 'drama'
that is set in the music.
The questions that are interesting in my mind are "how can different
representations of these "pitch groups" (for the lack of a better
term), meaning different levels of pure/tempered intervals be used to
create the movement/drama prevalent in this tradition? Is the "drama"
or "natural narrative " (again, for the lack of better terms...)
fundamentally altered when placed within the confines of one tuning or
another? This i think can be done through analysis of MUSIC and the
composition of MUSIC. No chart or lattice can do this.

The second approach is found in musical traditions where the "drama"
or "movement" aspect of a musical work is less emphasized, giving way
to a more serene enjoyment of the modes/scales/chords produced by the
tuning used by a given tradition. (And by no means do I consider this a
"lesser" form of music making). I am thinking of my own musical
heritage (armenian music), as well as georgian, persian, arabic, and I
suppose Indian music (though I do not wish to diminish the complexity
found in this latter tradition by any means). Here the "drama" becomes
the subtle melodic inflections and the overall consonance/dissonance
play, often presented with the juxtaposition of various notes
belonging to a "pitch group" (again, for the lack of a better term),
against a drone (which can be a shifting drone and does not have to be
static by any means). Here again, the various colours and shadings
produced by the chosen "pitch group" can only be transmitted to other
human beings through music. a melody, an inflection, or even just a
drone of two pitches. No analysis can convey the truth that is within the
music.

Finally, knowing that some comments seem to produce a climate of slight
'hostility' on this list , let me emphasize that I do not wish to diminish
anyone's efforts to explore structures and theories, but instead to give
support only to support others who, it appears, share my thoughts on the
subject. I do not wish to get into arguments. That is BORING. Exchange of
thoughts, however, sounds like a good idea.