Roman,
I have many friends in the sciences and I have always loved the titles
of scientific articles for their sheer poetic impact. As a matter of
fact, I have just been invited to a conference entitled: �The Evolution
of Exclusive Paternal care in Arthropods�. Compared to that, literature
titles ("Shakespeare's childhood: where, when?") pale. Science matters:
directly tapping the musical lobes of the brain may be science-fiction
but not necessarily pure fantasy. I personally don't think the results
would be very musical, because the musical brain is in-between the
individual's receptors and the collective brain with its completely
different system of channels of transmission of information. Which leads
me to an article published today on CNN's WEB site, captioned:
*The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with
fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and
advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national
science meeting.*
If someone thinks that losing a bit of money on the study of the
ridiculous topic of paternal care in arthropods is inconsequential, they
should think twice, because lute music is held in some circles as an
even more ridiculous - and much less lucrative - topic. Also, one of the
most important set of publications of lute music was produced directly
by the French CNRS (Centre National de Recherche Scientifique). Granted,
not an American institution. But if the same fate awaits the National
Foundation for Science as the one that affected the National Endowment
for the Arts a few years ago - essentially be branded as a "liberal"
institution and seeing as a consequence its funds reduced to nada - then
this country is in deep s--t. Perhaps as a computer programmer, with a
job funded in part by the NSF, I feel more strongly about those issues
than the average lutenist and feel that there is more of a sense of
urgency than others might think necessary. And you have a right to think
that we are not yet in the position to discuss the position of lute
music in the Bible-belching Fundamentalist Christian Republic of
America, but there are troubling signs that we are getting there. Hard
to know: when do we start getting seriously worried? Most people in the
US wouldn't see much of a problem with a shrinking number of foreign
graduates in the US, but few people know that over 70% of post-doctoral
positions in the sciences are filled in by foreign graduates. So an
apparently small decision may actually have catastrophic consequences,
particularly if there is not a sufficient pool of qualified - and
interested - American graduates to fill out those positions. Which
appears to be the case.
BTW, has anyone noticed that while 50% of the repertoire in the 16th
century is religious - Ave marias, motets, psalms, etc. - the later
repertoire is entirely profane? Do I see too strong a link between the
lute and the scientific revolution of the first part of the 17th
century? There are some undeniable links: Michelangelo Galilei's Big
brother, of course, but also Herbert of Cherbury's connection to both
prominent lutenists as well as Descartes and probably the whole circle
of intellectuals in Paris at the time, perhaps Mersenne, Pascal, etc.
Mind you, not that those people were entirely void of religious spirit,
but perhaps a fracture happened in the way lute music - and possibly
music in general - was perceived, the result being that the lute became
an a-religious instrument, more suitable for the intellectuals' salons
(of the "precieuses", certainly, but also of the scientists) than for
church. If so, this could be an interesting point to figure out how the
17th century brain was wired, and even possibly have consequences on the
performance style...
Alain
Roman Turovsky wrote:
>The last paragraph (italicized) is PRICELESS.
>RT
>______________
>Roman M. Turovsky
>http://polyhymnion.org/swv
>
>
>
>
>>From: Alain Veylit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:29:02 -0800
>>To: danyel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Cc: [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: urinals and synchronicity on the A-flat/G sharp dilemma
>>
>>Hi all,
>>I have had an idea for a long time for a short piece of fiction on a
>>wacko Russian composer fascinated with imaginary music, and last
>>Saturday, inspired by Danyel's message (see below), I finally put down a
>>draft of it on "paper". I don't know if it is worth anything
>>(wannabe-writing, I suppose), but your comments are welcome. Perhaps, I
>>can polish it a bit later on, if it is of any interest. It is fiction,
>>but do let me know if there are gross factual errors... It is part of a
>>larger project, a "biographical dictionary of imaginary musicians and
>>composers", but the other pieces are in French.
>>See: http://cbsr26.ucr.edu/wlkfiles/Publications/Llubitchinsky.html
>>Alain
>>
>>
>>danyel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>...I agree with da Vinci, extending his line of thought to dismiss
>>>oil painting in favour of Chinese ink on paper works and dismiss all
>>>painting in favour of music and dismiss all physical music in favour of
>>>imaginary music.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Alain Veylit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: "Arto Wikla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Cc: <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:08 AM
>>>Subject: Re: composers style, analysing for
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arto,
>>>>Da Vinci argued that painting was superior to sculpture on the grounds
>>>>that sculpture was messy and dirty and involved generally more muscle
>>>>effort than painting.
>>>>I have always had a problem with the holy sanctity of human imagination
>>>>and the composer's all-important intention - these are myths that come
>>>>down to us from Rousseau and 19th century music publishers who could
>>>>claim that they are selling you the "real" thing.
>>>>Lutes are little machines, technologically very advanced devices that
>>>>involved precise scientific knowledge on the part of their makers. In a
>>>>very real way, musicians are dependent on the current state of
>>>>technology and their imagination can be both constrained and liberated
>>>>by "machines".
>>>>Finally, the "receivers" of a work of art are not just judges: they are
>>>>active participants who can profoundly alter the function and purpose of
>>>>an object. Art is not just in the eye of the beholder, it is the eye of
>>>>the beholder. That's why I guess Duchamp presented his public with a
>>>>urinal: so they could transform it into art, without any intervention on
>>>>his part.
>>>>Picasso transformed the wannabe-art of Africa into a valuable commodity
>>>>in the West. Africans just kept on doing what they had being doing all
>>>>along - at least for a while. Lots of people get paid a lot of money to
>>>>let you know what you should see and think about when you see a "real"
>>>>work of art. Some people get paid even more to let you know how much
>>>>that is worth exactly. Obviously, it is in those people's interest to
>>>>have you think that this had really nothing to do with the dirt, dust,
>>>>and excremental fluids generally witnessed in the real world, or the
>>>>laws of the market.
>>>>Yet, increasingly, art is made with machines: microphones, digital
>>>>media, software, TV, etc. Without those machines, you would not be
>>>>enjoying the latest Hoppy Smith, POD or Herringman CD. Granted a machine
>>>>is only as intelligent as the person who uses it, but this is no reasopn
>>>>to debase it like Da Vinci debasing Michelangelo's chisel. So
>>>>wannabe-art and machines don't belong together.
>>>>Alain
>>>>
>>>>Arto Wikla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But at the end, I totally agree with James: The only importantant art is
>>>>>made by men/women! And the reciever is the judge! There just is, and has
>>>>>been, that much of "wannabe-art" that could easily been produced by
>>>>>machines, too. The "real thing" - whatever it is or could be? - cannot
>>>>>be achieved without human makers!
>>>>>
>>>>>All the best
>>>>>
>>>>>Arto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
