FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3026072110> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3026072110 endingPage "323" @default.
• W3026072110 startingPage "287" @default.
• W3026072110 abstract "COMPOSITIONAL QUALIA IN THE PRINCETON SCHOOL SCOTT GLEASON N MUSIC-THEORETICAL AND MUSIC-COGNITION circles musical qualia are commonly understood to be immediately given, often ineffable, “raw feels” of experience or what it is like to have certain musical experiences, usually of pitch, and often of scale degrees in a diatonic context. Historical examination of the role of qualia as understood, employed, and refined by the Princeton school of composer-theorists from the 1950s to the 1990s reveals a range of issues in their construal left unacknowledged in subsequent music-theoretical and music-cognitive discourses, and a critique of the notion of immediate givenness in particular. While the Princeton school—including Godfrey Winham, Benjamin Boretz, J. K. Randall, John Rahn, and Joseph Dubiel— figured qualia as the phenomenal content of music-compositionaltheoretical systems, they also construed qualia as entities subject to the composer-theorist’s construction within axiomatic theories, as proxies for investigation of subject formation within Milton Babbitt’s disciplined community of composer-theorists, and as explicitly created and thus chosen, not given.1 By arguing that there are cases wherein we consciously influence our perceptions of tonal, scale-degree qualia, Benjamin Hansberry (2017) I 288 Perspectives of New Music mediates music-cognitive accounts—as represented by David Huron (2006, 143–74) and which assume qualia are immediately given in experience—and music-theoretical accounts which understand qualia as conceptually inflected to such a degree as to seem wholly theoretical. Representing this latter pole, Hansberry discusses work by Steven Rings (2011, 41–99) which extends Lewin’s Generalized Interval Systems specifically to the tonal case.2 In this context, uniquely among Huron, Hansberry, and himself, Rings is aware of the Princetonian precedent, and yet distances himself from it: For more on scale-degree qualia, including a stimulating account of the various poetic descriptions that experienced listeners give them, see Huron (2006, Ch. 9). Music theorists will be familiar with the concept of qualia from Boretz ([1969] 1995), which takes Goodman ([1951] 1966) as a point of departure. Boretz’s pitch qualia are different from the qualia I explore here: he uses the term to discuss the experience of pitch or pitch class in the traditional sense, while I will reserve it for scale-degree sensations (as in Huron). This is not to imply that scale-degree sensations are somehow more qualitative than other musical phenomena (pitched and non-pitched); it is rather to limit the word for present purposes to avoid terminological confusion. (Rings 2011, 100n1) Absent further discussion it is unclear if Rings’s notion of qualia could be different in kind from that employed at Princeton, whether by Boretz in Meta-Variations ([1969] 1995), Winham in his unpublished project, Randall in his “Three Lectures to Scientists” ([1967] 2003) and Compose Yourself ([1970] 1995), Rahn in his (1974) dissertation, or Dubiel in his “Composer, Theorist, Composer/Theorist” ([1999] 2001), the texts which will serve as my corpus. I will treat each of these theorists in turn, but I think of Rings’s note as bracketing an important precedent for his own work, rather than marking a workable distinction.3 Rings is compositionally sensitive, able to accommodate the notion that perceptions influence qualia, hence the distancing of Princeton theory seems a product of institutional history, of forgetting: perhaps actively, and perhaps even political. Rings, with Huron, is concerned with potentially testable scale degree qualia, whereas Boretz, for one, while concerned with scale-degree qualia as existing cognitively (within the individual mind), is concerned to reconstruct them at a higher level of his broader reconstruction of any (that is, possible) music, music evoking scale degrees or not. Compositional Qualia in the Princeton School 289 But why qualia? How did they become a topic of conversation for philosophers, and then music theorists, such that we should be concerned to sift through their music-theoretical history? In addressing the broader philosophical issues, Tim Crane says that, the problem [of consciousness] is often expressed in terms of “qualia”: the “qualitative” or “phenomenal” features of conscious states of mind. How can a mere physical object, which we know a person to be, have states of mind with qualitative features or qualia? This question, which..." @default.
• W3026072110 created "2020-05-29" @default.
• W3026072110 creator A5002901652 @default.
• W3026072110 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W3026072110 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W3026072110 title "Compositional Qualia in the Princeton School" @default.
• W3026072110 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/pnm.2019.0021" @default.
• W3026072110 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W3026072110 type Work @default.
• W3026072110 sameAs 3026072110 @default.
• W3026072110 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3026072110 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3026072110 hasAuthorship W3026072110A5002901652 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C13019672 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C558565934 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C111472728 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C124952713 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C13019672 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C138885662 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C142362112 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C15744967 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C161191863 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C166957645 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C186720457 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C188147891 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C2777855551 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C2779343474 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C41008148 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C558565934 @default.
• W3026072110 hasConceptScore W3026072110C95457728 @default.
• W3026072110 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3026072110 hasLocation W30260721101 @default.
• W3026072110 hasOpenAccess W3026072110 @default.
• W3026072110 hasPrimaryLocation W30260721101 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W1487750178 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W1999683200 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W2068920325 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W2082850784 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W2739925066 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W3206176588 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W4307474528 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W48460454 @default.
• W3026072110 hasRelatedWork W3129071977 @default.
• W3026072110 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W3026072110 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3026072110 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3026072110 magId "3026072110" @default.
• W3026072110 workType "article" @default.