[microsound] musical structure

[Justin Glenn Smith]

David Powers wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM, David Powers <cyborgk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All I'm basically aiming at is whether it is possible to talk about
>>> diverse musical structures from different traditions using some more
>>> comprehensive language than the language of traditional musical
>>> theories which tend to only describe the set of musical practices of a
>>> single culture or subculture.
>>>
>>> ~David
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Paulo Mouat <paulo.mouat at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes it is possible. Just mix a generous dose of Schaeffer's _Traité des
>> objets musicaux_ with a pinch of Xenakis' _Formalized Music_ and Roads'
>> _Microsound_ and you have everything you need.
> 
> REPLY:
> 
> I don't think any of those theories include culture and semiotics,
> without which one could not understand, say, the music of Gustav
> Mahler or Charles Mingus. In fact I find Xanakis and Roads to be
> useful but extremely limited theoretically in terms of understanding
> music in general. Both concentrate on very narrow, particular subsets
> of musical practice rather than providing any kind of account of
> musical practice in general.

My take on this is theory is not necessary if you already know the
practice. Xenakis and Roads are most useful if you want to expand
existing musical definitions and forms. If you don't want to do that,
then you will learn much more by practicing the existing forms within
the culture and native praxis of those forms than you will from an
abstracted theory of it. In other words, for me, theory is best suited
for discovering the places where practices could exist but does not yet;
the practices themselves will be more useful when those practices exist.
Or, put another way, I learn music from the practice of music, I learn
theory to learn what the practice of music could become.