|
. . . the foregone conclusion that scientific
method is endemic to the new [music] theory imposes a needless bugbear
between it and those—how shall I put it—who cherish
music’s sanctity
as an “art,” and “aesthetic” genus.
Now it is perfectly true that mathematics
and physical science are tools both in the practice and theory of electronic
music; and the advantages of numerical calculations for elucidating and
anticipating the results of serial organization have been repeatedly demonstrated.
(Let us not forget, too, the tonal theorists with their Information Theory.)
But it does not follow from all this that scientific method is the only
one open to the new theory, or that the rationale behind electronic or
serially organized music prevents it from being apprehended via some of
the same perceptual channels through which we apprehend any music. Not
all of us who are involved with the new theory or engage in detailed analysis
follow Mr. Babbitt’s directive that “there is but one kind of
language,
one kind of method for the verbal formulation of ‘concepts’ and
the verbal
analysis of such formulations: ‘scientific’ language and
‘scientific’ method.”
System-construction reveals facets of music that cannot, or only with difficulty
can, otherwise be revealed. But other analytic methods effectively cope
with facets just as significant, and despite the claims or implications
of the system-builders that theirs is the only valid way, I am convinced
those methods—rigorous in their own terms—can perfectly
well be encompassed
by the new theory without coming into irreconcilable conflict with the
system-builders.
Arthur Berger
|