| |
But in the contexts of other musical systems—atonality,
modality, microtonality, etc.—the gap is even wider, because
there are few satisfactory theories and there are very few psychologists
studying how people process this sort of musical information.
Progress will be made, but there will be no ultimate answers
for any musical system. Music theory and music cognition have
different goals. They may help each other reach these goals,
but they finally are not asking the same questions. Cognition,
for example, like postmodernism, is interested in the lowest
common denominator, what the average, untrained person actually
hears and processes. Music theory is concerned with musical
structure, which can be quite subtle and complex, more than
with music perception, but even when it does address perception,
it is interested in what and how experts (what an anti-postmodern
term that is!) hear. It offers suggestions about how music might
be heard, and it encourages people to stretch themselves in
order to try out different ways of hearing. Music theory is
concerned with the art of creative listening, whereas music
cognition is concerned with what the majority of people naturally
do when they listen to music.
Not much. I new a bit of
Romanian history--about Ceausescu and all. But my knowledge
of the world was limited. I was oriented toward Western Europe,
and I thought of Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna, and possibly
Rome as the main (the only?) cultural centers. Coming to Bucharest
(and also to Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Sofia, and Prague) has
shown me that there are many vital cultures and many vital centers
in Europe beyond the cities I used to hold up as the only viable
places for culture and ideas.
I knew a little about Romanian musical culture, through Bartok
and through a slight knowledge of Enesco. But for the most part
I was ignorant. Now I am perhaps a little less ignorant. Now
I at least know enough about Romania to appreciate the vastness
of my ignorance!
|
|
