[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pitch learning
I agree with Ed Large that we should be careful of setting topics off
limits because of the provincialism of past theorists. But I do observe
a good deal of provincialism whenever I go to a music perception
conference (though not so much, actually, in the current discussion of
pitch learning!). Empirical musicologists could learn a lot from working
like ethnographers (e.g. field linguists or ethnomusicologists), working
intensively with individual informants and trying to get a handle on (a)
precisely what they're doing and (b) what they think they're doing and
why. Of course there's a fair amount of (a) out there, but as
empiricists we usually set (b) off limits. That (b) is off limits is
perhaps the main reason why musicologists and ethnomusicologists tend to
dismiss empirical musicology -- along with an out-of-date suspicion of
the notion that there are any perceptual or cognitive universals. That's
their provincialism. A real meeting of the minds would be a good thing.
We'd have to learn more, and so would they.
Allowing that generalizations are a good thing, I would argue that the
common model that Ed reiterated--scales around the world being divided
into 12, 22, 24 tones, depending on whom you read--isn't the best sort
of generalization. In most of those musics, practitioners conceptualize
the scales in terms of 7 or 8 basic pitches, but even those might be
further reducible if, for example, you get modes (i.e. melodic patterns,
not scales) that outline an ambitus of a perfect fourth. So--ironically
in our discussion--we might make a stronger claim for the widespread use
of harmonic intervals if we paid less attention to scales.
In my own training and experience as a violinist in the Western
classical tradition, a 12-note pitch universe would be a distortion. For
example, I was taught that at times I should play degree 7 of the major
scale quite high ("raise the leading tone") to push toward the tonic. I
was also taught that at times I should play it low, to harmonize with
the dominant. And I was taught at times to fit it into a more-or-less
equal tempered chromatic scale. (Case-by-case decisions among these
options are made all the time in high-level orchestras and other
ensembles.) For historical and artistic reasons related to the
principles I just stated, I am likely to play G# equal to or above Ab in
music after 1800, but before 1800 I put G# below Ab. I was also taught
to find pitches by listening to emergent timbres rather than attending
to or "matching" pitch. I don't know whether empirical measurements
would confirm whether I actually do what I think I do. But I do think
the distinction between "harmonic" intonation and "expressive"
intonation is not adequate. Different ways of conceptualizing pitches,
intervals, and scales produce different patterns of intonation. It's
probably true that they average out to an equal-tempered chromatic
scale, but there's more to learn than that.
Finally, I think folks like Arnold Schoenberg and Ferrucio Busoni, as
much as anybody, are responsible for the notion that any interval could
be harmonically primary. (See James K Wright's recent book _Schoenberg
and Wittgenstein_.) So it's a Western idea...
Thanks to all who have sustained this discussion.
Assoc. Prof. of Music (Music Theory)
This message has been scanned by Postini anti-virus software.