Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music and rules From: Peter Marvit <marvit(at)NEU.EDU> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:34:45 -0400[[ I am neither Steve nor Ed. ]] Martin Braun wrote: > Fine. Then you will surely agree that there is so much variation in the > chordal treatment within the work of each composer that they were obviously > not following any grammar. In keeping with what I read as the original comparison of music and language, let me rewrite Martin's statement slightly: Fine. Then you will surely agree that there is so much variation across languages and speakers in the grammatic and lexicographical treatment within the work of each person that they were obviously not following any grammar. It strikes me that there may be rather "deep" structures in music (cf. Chomsky) overlaid and confounded by a plethora of "surface" conventions structures (cf. many on this list, Narmour, Lehrdall & Jackendoff, and countless others), further confounded by aesthetic and cultural considerations by those who conciously try to push the envelope of musical expression. The interesting experiment by Todd (?) on the "categorical perception" of rhythms is a nice case in point, that certain expressions in music have a category-like quality but are not as strict as with certain phonemes. Is not much of the current argument akin to the late-night musings of "What is art"? -Peter "grammatically challenged" Marvit : Peter Marvit, PhD <marvit(at)neu.edu> : : Northeastern University, Dept. of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology : : 133 Forsyth Building, Boston, MA 02115-5000 : : phone: 617/373-5198 fax: 617/373-5199 :