Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What We Really Disagree About: a Reply to Robert P. Morgan

What We Really Disagree About: a Reply to Robert P. Morgan REPLY TO ROBERT P. I have no interest in arguing about unity ± no more now than in `Senses of Sensemaking' (Dubiel 1992). The concept is too diffuse to be the object of coherent endorsement or rejection, and its negative inherits the deficiency. The most useful thinking on the subject tries to sort out the disparate meanings aggregated to the term, a project common to writers otherwise as dissimilar as Jonathan Kramer (1993) and Fred Everett Maus (1999). Much as I value this work, what I have learned from it only reinforces my disposition to do without such an unproductive generalisation and stick to matters better defined. The analysis in my article addresses a very specific issue: whether a composition need proceed at every point by presenting consequences of what it has already done, or whether it might at some points introduce something genuinely new ± and thus whether analysis is free to represent either condition. I consider the answer obvious; indeed it was as an obvious case that I adduced bar 32 of the first movement of Haydn's Op. 76 No. 2 in support of my article's main discussion of certain remarkable writings of J. K. Randall http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Music Analysis Wiley

What We Really Disagree About: a Reply to Robert P. Morgan

Dubiel, Joseph
Music Analysis , Volume 23 (2‐3) – Jul 1, 2004
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/what-we-really-disagree-about-a-reply-to-robert-p-morgan-S7y1mNK9d7
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0262-5245
eISSN
1468-2249
DOI
10.1111/j.0262-5245.2004.00211.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

REPLY TO ROBERT P. I have no interest in arguing about unity ± no more now than in `Senses of Sensemaking' (Dubiel 1992). The concept is too diffuse to be the object of coherent endorsement or rejection, and its negative inherits the deficiency. The most useful thinking on the subject tries to sort out the disparate meanings aggregated to the term, a project common to writers otherwise as dissimilar as Jonathan Kramer (1993) and Fred Everett Maus (1999). Much as I value this work, what I have learned from it only reinforces my disposition to do without such an unproductive generalisation and stick to matters better defined. The analysis in my article addresses a very specific issue: whether a composition need proceed at every point by presenting consequences of what it has already done, or whether it might at some points introduce something genuinely new ± and thus whether analysis is free to represent either condition. I consider the answer obvious; indeed it was as an obvious case that I adduced bar 32 of the first movement of Haydn's Op. 76 No. 2 in support of my article's main discussion of certain remarkable writings of J. K. Randall

Journal

Music Analysis – Wiley

Published: Jul 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.