The most interesting detail about the case of the conductor/composer seems to me to be the mention of 'meaningfully'... I wonder what the neurologists meant by this term! And I wonder why the tonal music composed after the infarction was not meaningfully, while serial music was, apparently.
Beyond agnosia, there would be much to reflect on regarding the ability to correctly "imagine" sound, to have a more or less precise "inner representation" of what is being composed. Adorno reports that Richard Strauss, the master of orchestration par excellence, was often surprised by how his own music sounded when he heard it performed by the orchestra for the first time. Did he therefore suffer from a disorder in the ability to imagine what he was composing? (I think not!) Arnold Schönberg recalls that Anton Webern was unable to correctly conduct an atonal piece before having analyzed it, but after the analysis, he was able to notice if an instrumentalist played a wrong note, even within the most complicated passages.
Composers like Schönberg, Webern, or Berg, if affected by agnosia, or by any disorder that prevented a correct inner representation of sound, would certainly not have been able to write either tonal music or serial music.
T
ttw
Member
Reply 22 by ttw
Posts
277
RedScharlach wrote:
To tell the truth, it is only scientific proof that this conductor/composer, when writing serial music, was unable to imagine how it sounded.
Aparte the fact that I am aware it is not a "proof," the effect is what you describe, but the cause is the one indicated by Bianca: he lost every type of emotional response to music.
Aside from the fact that I am aware it is not a "demonstration", the effect is what you describe, but the cause is the one indicated by Bianca: they lost every type of emotional response to music.
The neurologist who conducted the study said...
I could pretend to make an overall request, saying "let's stop drawing wrong conclusions for our own purposes". In reality, the forum messages are available to everyone, and my request is: ttw, stop talking nonsense. This was and remains a serious discussion; can we avoid turning it into yet another stupid fight between "defensores fidei tonalis" and deaf serialists?
If we want to be among serious people, let's speak seriously. In the world of serious people, we should note how the answers and questions posed by neurologists are not enough to assert anything from a musical-musicological point of view. Given what Bianca cited, this is obvious. And I'll throw a little jab at Bianca, saying that inductivism can be useful for postulating working theses and hypothetical models, but it is evidence that confirms them. Currently, it is difficult to speak of neurolinguistics even if we limit ourselves to a physiological point of view. Difficult especially since none of us is a doctor (as far as I know). If we then jump immediately to the "consequences" on other levels, the matter turns into pure philosophy, namely more or less argued opinions. In this case, there isn't even a need to talk about case studies; the testimonies of thousands of composers who have written "meaningfully" both tonal music and atonal music hold true.
inductivism can be useful for postulating working theses and hypothetical models, but it is evidence that confirms them. Currently, it is difficult to speak of neurolinguistics even if we limit ourselves to a physiological point of view.
Certainly Thallo, you were right to emphasize it if it wasn't clear. Just so as not to leave any further confusion, the principle of induction is a principle in logic used to demonstrate a thesis; "inductivism," on the other hand, is precisely what the Hume - Popper critique is directed against, saying in plain terms that infinite examples are not enough to prove a thesis, but just one contrary one is enough to dismantle it. The issue of induction in epistemology is, however, quite articulated and complex and goes completely off-topic.
On the other hand, I also agree with RedScharlach, who says that the interesting part to delve into is the mention of "meaningfully."
Some time ago, I read a study conducted by a group of neurologists in this regard, the citation of which I fear would trigger an uproar, given the well-known taboos surrounding it.
Anyway, these clinical cases (for example, the one I mentioned can be found at http://www.amazon.it/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Music-Isabelle-Peretz/dp/0198525206 ) are experiences that I would call "crucial" for being able to create "models" of interpretation regarding how music works in the human mind. If neurolinguistics is already a difficult and delicate field, one can only imagine how much more neuromusicology is, which does not yet have a Broca or a Wernicke behind it.
Then, of course, everyone has the right to draw whatever consequences they believe best and has the right, if they wish, to discuss them peacefully in a community to put them to the test.
