Klarinet Archive - Posting 000365.txt from 1995/06

From: Andrew Grenci <AGrenci@-----.COM>
Subj: Science vs. Art
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 23:54:37 -0400

So we're back on this topic of music and precise language. Several
interesting viewpoints have been argued, all of which are valuable and true,
up to the point that any claim is made that other ways of thinking result in
"bullshit". So much has been posted already that I hardly expect to
contribute anything new, but here goes.

It seems that we've gotten somewhat far afield from Nichelle's original
concern. She gave us a very practical problem to consider, that of how to
teach our students to do what we do. From there we have arrived, once again,
at a discussion of the "correct" way to use words to describe music, if
indeed words can say anything meaningful about music. I'll admit that these
two issues are interelated, but considering them separately leads to two
different approaches.

1) The evidence is quite clear that great and successful teachers have used a
wide variety of teaching methods. There are teachers who describe techniques
very scientifically and specifically, others who rely heavily on metaphor,
others who teach mainly by example, and those who combine these and other
techniques. Several examples have been recently posted, and need no
reiteration by me. This seems to show that, from a practical standpoint, none
of these approaches is wrong and another right. Admittedly different students
may respond to different approaches. That means a certain way works for a
certain person, not that it is the "right" way. In my own teaching I am
willing to try just about anything to get my point across, to get the music I
am looking for from my students.

2) Now to "the rub," as Neil puts it. Clark mentions that music is an art,
not a science. Even more, that which we usually think of as science is
something of an art. Science is the practice of looking at phenomena and
creating models which describe the causes of the phenomena, while predicting
their recurrence. By no means does a scientist, at least a modern one, claim
to tell us really, truly how things are. The best that can be done is to
develop models which describe and predict things with ever increasing
accuracy. Scientists have at their disposal a number of quite artificial
methods which have demonstrated their usefulness over the centuries. In this
process, Einstein claimed that "creativity is more important than knowledge."
His theory of relativity presented itself in his mind as an image, a concept.
The math followed. In other words, his conception had to be reduced to
abstraction to succumb to the rigors of scientific analysis.

What does this have to do with music? Of course, I can speak only for myself,
but if I were interested in reducing all of life, the earth, emotions, etc.
to such abstractions for a living, I would have chosen science, not music, as
a profession. It is indeed possible to be "scientific" about music, and
sometimes it is practical to do so. I love and value a scientific approach.
Still, the very purpose of art, IMO, is to find a more direct path to the
realities of the human spirit than science can provide. We musicians; along
with poets, painters, dancers, et al; can transcend science to fill in the
areas that science must leave out in order to fulfill its abstract nature.

And now briefly back to the practical issue above: I patently disagree with
those who would say that we should speak to our students only about things
which lend themselves to scientific specificity. In adopting this approach we
leave out so much of what makes music valuable. Those things, and they are
many, which lend themselves to such certainty can be despatched with
precisely. But much of music - tone, phrasing, emotion, meaning, etc. - can
be only imperfectly, if at all, be dealt with in this manner. To teach such
things we use metaphor, we demonstrate and we philosophize. Our only
alternatives are to claim that these things aren't important or to hope that
our students will pick them up somewhere else.

And lastly, on BS: As Dan points out so vigorously, much BS is written about
music. I argue, though, that a casual reading of a few articles in music
theory journals will reveal that as much of that BS is scientific as anything
else. Metaphor is not by nature unspecific or unclear or BS, any more than
science is perfect.

Andy

Andrew Grenci
agrenci@-----.com