source file: mills2.txt Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:01:17 -0700 Subject: From McLaren From: John Chalmers From: mclaren Subject: 30 years of gibberish -- My statement of what has long been regarded as obvious fact sparked real fury in this tuning forum. When I pointed out in Digest 714 that, "As has long since been demonstrated, most of the subscribers to this forum have no interest in music. To all but a handful of you, music is an annoying and deeply distasteful waste product of the really IMPORTANT aesthetic process-- namely, theorizing." -- mclaren, TD 714 ..Well, when I pointed out this obvious fact, a veritable firestorm of outrage ensued. Yet it has been recognized for more than 30 years that my statement is simple fact. In the Perspectives of New Music article "Some Current Trends," vol. 5, No. 4, 1966, pp. 81-84, Ernst Krenek points out: "...after assiduously studying Babbitt's essay "Twelve-tone invariants..." Musical Quarterly, XLVI (April, 1960), 246-59, I have covered several sheets of music paper with experiments, exercises, and examples trying to penetrate the meaning of his discourse, and finally approached my learned friend by letter for more information. It was of no avail, and I gave up in frustration since I did not wish to encroach further on his time. I am afraid that the use of this language in PERSPECTIVES has reached a point of diminishing returns: *the possible increment of scholarly prestige (not to speak of snob appeal) is compensated by loss of communicability.*" [Krenek, Ernst, "Some Current Terms," Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1966, pg. 84] This quote is 30 years old. Yet it echoes precisely my own. How can any of my posts *possibly* be considered "outrageous" when they merely repeat sentiments *expressed and agreed upon for more than 30 years?* In "Some Problems Raised by the Rhythmic Procedures in Milton Babbitt's Composition for Twelve Instruments," Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1965, Peter Westergaard points out that "Such a resultant rhythm has just as little to do with ordering the sets as the previous example, and nothing to do with their contours. If the supposition at the beginning of this paragraph were true, it might at best be thought of as the unstructured results of a conflict between two highly structured elements. But the supposition is not true. "I see no way for the ear to distinguish those attacks which define durations for Po and those which define durations for RI2. Thus, I see now way for the ear to perceive either order or content." [Westergaard, Peter, op cit.] Again, this prelection on the unintelligibility and musical meaninglessness of Milton Babbitt's "theories" differs from my own merely in fine details. Are we to believe that, after *more than 30 years,* anyone is still shocked by this simple recitation of fact? Please. People have been pointing out that Babbitt's pitch-class matrix jargon is musically meaningless nonsense for 30+ years. Get over it. Krenek cuts to the heart of the matter when he mentions: "We are reminded of Oswald Spengler's prediction forty years ago that the true representative of our age will be the engineer and that the artist will become obsolete. Perhaps some artists fear that he was right and attempt to demonstrate that they really *are* engineers, in order to be assured of a raison d'etre." [Krenek, Ernst, "A composer's Influences," Perspectives of New Music, 3(1), 1964, pg. 41] Again, this is a near-verbatim reiteration of points made in my own posts. More recently, William Thompson has summarized the process of systematic post-1948 academic obfuscation and pretentiousness in his book Schoenberg's Error: "The flurry of enthusiasms of [the 1950s] centered not around Schoenberg, whom Boulez had declared `dead,' but around Webern. From the movement's inception in the United States, the newly-influential academic segment of the population became prominent, especially among themselves. In time it demonstrated how the lives of artworks (whose dependence on the auspices of higher education had in times past been negligible) could be sustained by artificial means beyond normal expentency, regardless of their direct aesthetic vibrancy. "The era's post-Viennese energy induced a remarkable production of analytical dissections and speculative tracts--more those than public performances of music. The torrent of words and numbers and fomulae unleashed about Schoenberg's methods, about their more thorough exploitation by Webern, and then about subsequent extensions (like those of Boulez and babbitt) to other musical dimensions, produced one of the most bountiful crops of verbiage ever harvested in the cause of art. "The movement also habored a hidden cul de sac for the unwary. Its participants produced a fair amount of theoretical "how to..." composers' shoptalk, which tended to be preoccupied with manipulations of notes as permutable collections, rather than with interpretive descriptions of phenomenal things. So the unassailable and unchanging concern of musicians for the art's aural ontology became secondary to the orderings of serialized particles. Permutations, reciprocal relativities, combinatoriality, segmentation, source sets, derived sets, intersections, adjacencies, partitions, germ cells, aggregates, pitch qualia, hexachords, mathematical models, complementation modulus-12, pitch (or note) cells, and the like dominated the literature of Serialism. (..) "Words have special powers: *permutation* had an inimitable ring of profundity, and *modulus-12* was sheer magic. Both seemed to guarantee conceptual precision and mathematical certainty; both hinted at the flinty `rigor' of the hard sciences. Such terminology prompted a comforting fantasy in the 1960s and 1970s; it allowed us metaphorically to put on laboratory smocks and pretend to be `genuine scientists,' the Einsteins of harmony." [Thompson, William, "Schoenberg's Error," 1991, pg. 184] Great as was the outrage that greeted my mention of what has for 30 years been recognized as fact-- namely, that dexterity in the manipulation of words replaced skill in the manipulation of sound among the musical so-called "cognitive elite" from 1948 onwards--even greater was the fury that greeted my casual acknowledgement of Boulez, Cage, Stockhausen, et al., as incompetent con artists. Yet this too has been exposed as obvious fact for more than 30 years. In discussing the first 6 issues of Die Reihe, touchstone of the Darmstadt School of music and supreme model for all subsequent jargon- laden music theory, John Backus points out: "The baffling technical language we encounter contains a considerable amount of what appears to be scientific terminology--definitions, acoustical and physical terms, etc. (..) We may therefore examine Die Reihe with a critical eye... We wish to see if the scientific terminology is properly used, to see if the charts, graphs and tables have any real significance, and to determine the technical competence of the material from the scientific standpoint. (..) "The first article in V. I by Herbert Eimert demonstrates the technical style adopted by most of the contributors. [Eimert] states (I, 3): `The composer is required to have a certain amount of acoustical knowledge' and proceeds to define six categories of electronic sound... His definitions, however, besides being difficult to understand, are not acoustically accurate. His first one, tone, is what is known in acoustics as a `simple tone' (his statement that it is unknown to traditional music is not entirely true; flutes and clarinets played softly produce nearly simple tones, for example, as do tuning forks). [Eimert's] second definition, note, is what is called in acoustics a `complex tone'... "On the other hand, in number four, `noise,' he states ` only blank noise which fills an acoustic region may be determined in position.' This statement does not make sense; if by `blank noise' he means what is now called `white noise,' which contains equal amounts of energy in each unit frequency band width, and if by `position' he means pitch,' then `blank noise' has no `position.' If `white noise' is filtered to give it the attribute of pitch, it is no longer `white.' Finally, [Eimert's] fifth category, chord (note complex), is hardly a definition at all. Taken all together, the definitions are very poor examples from the standpoint of conciseness, clarity, or accuracy. "Eimert himself thus appears to be somewhat deficient in the acoustical knowledge now required of the composer. Since he does not seem to have a clear idea himself of the meaning of the terms he is trying to define, it is not surprising that his definitions are inadequate... The remainder of [Eimert's] article is for the most part impossible to follow, but since we now see that this is not due to our ignorance of the supposedly necessary acoustical background, we need not concern ourselves further with it. (..) "H. Pousseur adopts a technical style in his contribution. (..) The definition is too diffuse to quote in full; it has no perceptible beginning nor ending. Considerable study of it has failed so far to decipher what he is trying to say; it remains quite incomprehensible even after allowing for considerable distortion in the meanings of the technical terms used. The term 'index of rationality' has no discoverable connection with any concept in acoustics. "The remainder of Pousseur's article follows the example set above. Trying to understand it is most frustrating to one with merely a technical training in acoustics and music. `Further difficulties were raised in the coordination of preselected quantities with a durational ordering.' Here is a beautiful example of unintelligibility `Though they were theoretically correct, they did not have the anticipated effect.' Correct by what theory? And so on. "What is being described is basically the process of recording sounds on tape. It is quite possible to describe this process in a manner that can be understood by a physicist with acoustical training. It should be possible to describe it in simple enough terms so that even a musician with a relatively amall amount of acoustical knowledge could follow what is being done. Pousseur's discussion is only bewildering, and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the subject. "The article by Paul Gredinger states (I, 42) 'the basis of our work remains within the domain of physics...' while remaining unintelligible to the physicist. The word `proportion,' for example, is one which has a specific meaning in physics; it is used a score of times in the article, but never in its accustomed scientific meaning. (..) "Karlheinz Stockhausen contributes a article of forbiddingly technical appearance. (..) What he means by `statistic' variation is not known; his later discussion of the term (I, 48) only confuses matters further. "His subsequent discussion becomes more and more inspired; mention is made of `harmonic, sub-harmonic, and chromatic ptich-scales,' `spectral composition,' `line- and band-spectra,' and so forth. The climax is reached in a paragraph which must be quoted in full to be appreciated (I, 47): `Differentiation of the intended permutation of timbres is obtained from the complexity resulting from the simultaneous combination of the six formant regions within one sound process, from the varying of the elements or groups of elements, in all their components, according to the series and of coordinating a special intervallic scale of partials or of medium frequency width ratios in each formant octave.' - Stockhausen "This is formidable language. What are the six formant regions? What is an intervallic scale of partials? or a medium frequency width ratio? What is a formant octave? None of these phrases has been used or defined previously. The individual words have perfectly well-defined scientific meanings, but are combined in ways that make no sense as acoustical language. The paragraph quoted is an excellent example of technical jargon without technical meaning. (..) "We conclude that Stockhausen's technical language is his own invention, using terms stolen from acoustics but without their proper acoustical meanings, and that the technical jargon he has developed is designed mostly to impress the reader and to hide the fact that he has only the most meager knowledge of acoustics." [Backus, John, "Die Reihe--A Scientific Evaluation," Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1962, pp. 160-171] Ladies and gentlemen, there *is* a term which describes the use of "technical jargon..designed mostly to impress the reader and hide the fact that [the user] has only the most meager knowledge of acoustics." The term is "scam." Such scams were used to sell snake oil in the 1890s, Florida swamp-land in the 1920s, junk bonds in the 1980s, and derivative stock options in the 1990s. The use of technical-sounding gibberish to baffle and nonplus the unwary dupe is a staple of astrologers, spiritualists, fortune-tellers, ufologists, perpetual motion machinists, orgone therapists, bogus swamis, crystal-power healers, aura readers, and dowsers from time immemorial. As John Backus points out, "In fact, the articles in Die Reihe conform to all the best traditions of pseudo- scientific writing in their disregard of accepted meanings of scientific terms, their unintelligibility, and their complete lack of any reference to the results of other workers as support for their statements." [Backus, J., "Die Reihe - A Scientific Evaluation," Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1962, pg. 171] And thus the primary distinction claimed by Boulez, Cage, Stockhausen, et al., is that for the first time they applied the techniques of ufo cultism and palmistry to music. Thus it's clear why Cage developed such a close relationship with the composers at Darmstadt: Stockhausen and Cage were attracted to one another as irresistably as two psychic surgeons at an AMA convention. One whiff of the meaningless jargon spouted by Cage, and Darmstadt knew he was one of their own. As we have now seen, wayyyy back in 1962 the musical con job was revealed and the scam exposed. Yet the exact same musical confidence game continues, today--*right now.* Robert Morris' music theory article "Compositional Spaces and Other Territories," from Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 39, 1995, pp. 329-358, perpetuates the *exact same* 1950s jargon and the *exact same* technical-sounding yet meaningless pseudo-mathematical gibberish...the same tired old musical con job. It's merely been brushed off, polished up and trotted out to dupe yet another generation of gullible composers and naive music students. Morris writes: "A closer look at the realization reveals a functional distinction between notes of long and short duration. Long notes, sustained by at least one of the participating instruments, are circled in the underlying design to show that each aggregate projects its own ordered hexachord. The inside aggregates (numbers 2 and 3) project transformations of the first hexachord of the generating row; the long notes in the outside aggregates project hexachords related to one another by T sub 1 1 but not to the hexachords of the P row. If this were an excerpt from an actual piece, these Q hexachords might be a reference to some other hexachord in the word or even some other piece of music." [Morris, Robert, op cit, 1995] This is formidable language. What is an "aggregate"? How does it "project" its own "underlying hexachord"? How can one "project" a transformation? In analytic and projective geometry, the term "projection" has a specific meaning, but it is not used in its accustomed mathematical sense in Morris' article. Instead, Morris' use of the term "projection" has no discoverable connection with mathematics, physics or geometry. What are "inside aggregrates" as opposed to "outside aggregates"? What are they inside of? What are they outside of? None of these terms has been used or defined previously. In particular, the phrase "the long notes of the outside aggregates project hexachords related to one another by T sub 1 1 but not to the hexachords of the P row" stands out as a beautiful example of unintelligibility. Is there any point in trying to decipher mathematical terms which are not used mathematically? Is there any sense in trying to unravel pseudo-scientific jargon whose sole purpose is to render the meaning (if any) opaque? How much of an egg do you have to eat before you realize it's rotten? -- Now that we have surveyed the 30-year history of jabberwocky, jargon, gibberish and pseudo-science in so-called serious modern music theory (most of which cannot be taken seriously), it should be clear that nothing I've said about modern music theory and academia in *any* of my posts is startling, unprecedented, or even new. Backus, Krenek and many others have made the same point--for more than 30 years. I've simply reiterated these obvious and long-recognized facts because of the astounding persistence of gullibility and naivete in successive generations of theorists and music students. Just as urban legends like "alligators in the sewers" have long since been disproven and recognized as fantasies, yet continue to circulate among young and old in the form of stories "everyone knows are true," in the same way the gibberish and jargon of the 1950s music theorists, long recognized as meaningless jabberwocky, *continues* to circulate like a turd that won't flush. It's a kind of musical Gresham's Law: gibberish drives out sensible rational discussion in modern music theory. My statements in this regard have been recognized as fact for more more thirty years, and the frenzied reaction to my posts which accurately describe Cage, Boulez, et al. as inept con artists...well, the reaction can only be described as the reflexive twitch of a patient with brain death. And what does ANY of this have to do with microtonality? Well might you ask, kiddies. The sad fact is that all too many members of this tuning forum have grown up spouting the kind of musical glossolalia decried by Backus, by Krenek, by Thompson, et alia. Alas, all too many members of this tuning forum have learned music not as music but as a gallimaufry of pseudo-scientific gardyloo... indistinguishable from astrology or ufology except in the details of the pseudo-science employed. And thus all too many of the members of this tuning forum reflexively approach microtonality as a brand- new wide-open opportunity for jargon and gibberish. This is a poor idea, and we should discourage it. Microtonality is about *music.* To the extent that the posts on this tuning forum depart from the discussion of actual sounds, actual performances, actual notes and chords, actual fist-in-the-gut emotional impact of *music*, to that extent they are wasting the bandwidth of this tuning forum. As Randy Winchester has noted, there is now no longer any rationale for the existence of IRCAM or a Darmstadt School or a Babbitt-style Princeton clique or any of the other purportedly "elite" centers for "modern" music. With Intel's announcement of the P7 clock rate of 1400 Mhz, it's clear that within two years computers capable of running circa 3 billion (with a B) instructions per second will be on sale at Wal Mart, K Mart and Sears. This destroys the raison d'etre for an "elite" center for technologically advanced music just as the world wide web has destroyed the rationale for "elite" venues of music theory publication. Anyone can now disseminate valuable ideas about music theory to a wide public--costly paper is no longer required, expensive subsidy-press music magazines need no longer be run through costly binderies. Thus it is now no longer possible to shut out uncredentialed but insightful music theorists by refusing publication on the basis of their supposed lack of academic qualifications; they can publish their insights on forums like this one. It is now no longer possible to silence critics of the 12-TET status quo by denying them print space in prestigious music journals; they can post incisive critiques on forums like this one. It is now no longer possible to crush unknown composers who are not members of the proper elite clique of academia by refusing them access to sophisticated hardware and software, because *everyone* has access to awesomely sophisticated hardware and software nowadays. As a result, the only criterion for judging musical value is increasingly: *musical talent.* This explains the fury and hatred which has greeted my posts... For all too few modern music theorists have even the slightest jot of musical talent. Indeed, given the continued prevalance of gibberish and jargon in so called "serious" music theory & the continued promulgation of the same old pseudo-scientific language used as an academic con job to intimidate the uninitiated & boost the reputations of the inept, it becomes clear that more than two acronyms are pertinent to remedial education. The first classic cateogry is EMR: Educable Mentally Retarded. The individual suffers cognitive deficit, but is capable of learning complex tasks. The second classic category is TMR: Trainable Mentally Retarded. The individual in incapable of complex tasks but can be trained to perform simple repetitive motions. The third category is PhD. The individual suffers severe cognitive deficit, cannot learn musical tasks, and is incapable of recognizing behaviour which is unproductive and meaningless. --mclaren Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:29 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA17259; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:31:08 +0200 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA17207 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id KAA26225; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:31:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:31:06 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu