Composition, research and pseudo-science: a response to John Croft by Camden Reeves

“A scientistic paradigm of method lies behind Croft’s analysis of composition; but whilst composition is not science (which is the most that can be concluded from Croft’s arguments) it does not follow form this that composition is not research. Research not-iqual science, and many things that are not science are quite rightly regarded as research Ophilosophy, history, theology, musicology and so on).
Viewing composition as research is not a category mistake. Or anything approaching one.” — in responde to this: composition is not a perfect science. However, if we identify the gap between the process of composition and the final result of a piece, can be research. Bu hat gap can be consider as well a non-composition-research-approach, because it has inspirations, inuition and visits to he ‘library of the musical knowledge’. But without all these, is it possible to compose? The answer is no! So, composing is also engaging with others.  Opposing is also the process of composition, the sketching process and what one as a compose learn from other composers work, or even other artists’ work.

“It was in this sense that Gilbert Ryle introduced the tool to resolve the confusion that arises in trying to understand something diffuse and boundless like the mind as if it were something fixed and delimited like the body.

“There is no real problem with the overarching research structure generally adopted within the Humanities, namely: research context - research aims - research questions - research methods - research outputs - dissemination. This process is sufficiently open and malleable to suit most intellectual pursuits, including composition. True, composition is less concerned with research questions than it is with context, aims, method, output and dissemination. At least composers do not generally formulate their aims in terms of questions.”

“It is precisely this attempt to align compositional research method (indeed all research methods) with a single, reductionist paradigm that is causing the confusion to which Croft objects; but this paradigm is not one of Croft’s own making. He is responding to, and accepting (rather uncritically, if I may say, although he is certainly not alone) a model of research orthodoxy that is becoming ingrained within the academy.”

“Croft merely follows suit, using the term ‘research’ in the narrow sense of, ‘scientific research’. The conflation is relatively explicit on Croft’s analysis: ‘if Einstein had not existed, someone else would have come up with Relativity. Of Beethoven had not existed, nobody would have written the Ninth Symphony. It is easy to see why the scientific model should command such respect in the search for an universal paradigm of research method, however misguided that search might be in the first place. Science has given us the modern world: better health and longer life expectancy, enhanced communication and travel, a sophisticated understanding of the natural world and so on, but research is not limited to the paradigm of scientific research, and the result of such reductionism for those subjects out inside of science, especially those within the Humanities, is a poor fit generally. There is no reason to single out musical composition in particular.”

“The pressure to present all research as zeros and nes is thankfully not with us just yet, but a drive towards translation - scientific translation - is certainly already at work today. And Croft is rightly concerned that some compositional research lends itself better to this process of translation than others.”

“It may be claimed that some things are more research-worthy on the grounds that they are advancing the discipline. Progress and innovation are part for the course of science, to be sure, but such concepts are not ar straightforward in Art. Paradoxically with Art, moving forwards is not always moving forwards, at least from a technical point of view. Progress in art can be aesthetic, rather than technical, and sometimes deliberate technical regression can stimulate aesthetic change. Doing something new is not the same as doing something worthwhile, and endless innovations in technique (timbre, technology, harmony, rhythm, pitch, instrumental technique, etc,) may seem positively regressive at certain times. Why? Because Art innovates aesthetically as well as, and sometimes instead of, technically.” — In response to this: so, using again the circle of 5ths and the harmonic series may seem positively regressive. Why? Because art innovates aesthetically as well aa, and sometimes instead of, technically.

“If art has aims or objectives these are principally aesthetic ones. We need only think of such things as the simplification of polyphony at the start of the sixteenth century, Satie’s reaction agains Wagner, or Stravinsky’s Neoclassicism. More recently, we might consider a composer like John Taverner. Whilst Taverner’s music is not technically as forward-looking as that of his contemporaries (e.g. Helmut Lachenmann, Per Nørgård or Harrison Birtwistle), aesthetically something new is being said. (In such cases it is often difficult to capture what precisely is ‘new in words’; and that is the point od aesthetics discussion alone cannot get you there.)”

"Even if we accept innovation as a necessary tenet of research, the central importance of aesthetics means that innovation in Art has a very different hue than it does in science and technology. Attaching privilege research status solely to ad ovum technical pursuits has a profoundly distorting impact within the domain of Art. Art may be technically progressive whilst aesthetically regressive, technically regressive whilst aesthetically progressive, both technically and aesthetically progressive, or technically and aesthetically regressive.”

“The research is to be found in the music, rather than that it is the music

“I have heard the rhythms, timbres, harmonies and gestures… but which of these is the research? Tell me in 300 words” - GOOD!

"One cannot grasp the significance of compositional research through someone just explaining isolated details in a 300-words statement, or a 300000-words statement for that matter. One needs to hear it.” — in response to this: whatever you write about your music, doesn’t matter at the moment of listening.