Klarinet Archive - Posting 000371.txt from 1995/06

From: CLARK FOBES <reedman@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Science vs. Art
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 12:54:50 -0400

You wrote:
>
S
.
>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.
>
>A
>Andy
>
>Andrew Grenci
>agrenci@-----.com
>

This is only a portion of, IMO, a very thoughtful and elegant
overview commentary on our ongoing discussion. Thankyou, Andy, for your
thoughtful and thought provoking response.

It is interesting to me that the further we delve into this subject
that the defenders of "precise, analytical, unambiguous, scientific,
concrete, etc..." are developing very long, verbose, and ,IMO, somewhat
reactionary discussions in order to get the point across.

It is precisely my point that that which is elegant and profound in
music is achieved on a level that transcends the "active mind" reading
of notes, staves, key signatures and fingering charts.

I am not in disagreement with the necessity of clear thinking and
presentation in teaching and learning music. And I quite agree with Jim
Freeman with his very perspicacious remark that "intuitive action"
can emerge from a history of analytical thought.

Since I have already been accused of being a "bullshitter", I feel
in no danger of further compromising my intellectual veracity by
leaving the discussion with this last point.

The moments that have meant the most to me as a musician are those
rarified times when mind, body, spirit and instrument have coalesced
into unified purpose. For me, that is what music is about. Had I never
reached that state I probably would not be able to argue music making
and learning from the position that I do. If this is bullshit, then I
want to wallow in it.

Clark W Fobes