Please believe me when I write that it was one of the best conferences that I have attended. Due to traffic jams I missed the first hour of so of the IMS conference. I heard two papers: one by Shulamit Marom and the other by Alona Sagi. Both were very interesting. They made me think, and this is something that I cannot say about many of the papers that I heard in other conferences. Moreover, they both presented sound recordings, and this is something that is often absent from discussions about music. You probably all know the lectures that speak about music in a highly detailed manner, assuming that everybody knows about what performance you one is speaking about, and neglecting the act of listening to the recording with the audience.

Shulamit Marom made a distinction between “Mandate songs” that were written in Tel-Aviv and other that were written in the “Yeshuv” (elsewhere). David Halperin suggested that making a distinction between the two categories will not stand scrutiny in many cases. I have little knowledge about Zemer to know whether Halperin is right. I did wonder whether our contemporary thinking of Tel-Aviv as a “bubble” that is disconnected from the rest of Israel, especially in relation to the territories and the second war in Lebanon, affected the categorization that Shulamit Maron suggested to us in her research. Anyway, Shulamit Marom’s presentation was very clear and enjoyable. It is possible to see that she is a very gifted lecturer.

Alona Sagi examined the improvisation of Miles Davies in “Walkin’” during the 50s and 60s. She observed that as time passed there was a change from “vertical thinking” to “linar thinking” on the one hand, and a tendency towards “free jazz”, on the other hand. She mentioned the presence of young and experimental musicians in the 60s as something that stimulated this change. Sagi’s transcriptions were impressive and it was fun reading them while listening to the music and hearing her comments. I am using the word “fun” on purpose, since enjoying a paper is something that should be taken for granted. It was a pity that she did not manage to finish her paper due to time limit. Although she blamed it on technical issues of handing the CD, I think that a well prepared paper would predict such problems and avoid them. In the next few days I plan to write a post on “How to give a paper in conferences: useful tips”. I wondered whether there are more social and cultural issues that affected the technical change that Sagi described in the performance of Miles Davis. I enjoyed listening to this music after so many years.

After that session, there was a general meeting of the society. It was sad to see how much money was spent on the internet site of the society. Prof. Edwin Seroussi rightly argued that three years ago it was reasonable to pay such sums for buliding a website, while today websites (at least ones on the level that was presented) are constructed almost for free. I plan to write a post about the IMS website and what I see as possibilities for the future.

The second part of the conference was devoted to “what there is and what there is not to read in Hebrew in Music”. I could not stay until the end of the conference. I had to leave an hour earlier so I did not manage to hear the paper given by Prof. Judith Cohen and people that spoke thereafter. This session was simulations very interesting and disappointing. It was fascinating to see how people deeply care about the miserable situation that there are almost no books to read in Hebrew (most of them are not updated and out of print). Some of the comments were truly illuminating (I will come back to them in a moment).

The “paper” given by Gila Flamm was disappointing. It was mainly an improvisation that amounted to a presentation of “facts” by browsing through items in the National Libraries catalog. There was little information given on the nature of the books that were mentioned, and of the frequency that people read them. There was no attempt to categorize the types of readers and the various manners that people read Hebrew books on music. There was no discussion on the history of institutions approaching the library for such books. Is this information not available?

The paper given by Elisheva Rigby had few interesting points. She said that we must be able to explain to ourselves why writing about music is essential to Israeli culture if we wish to convince others. Her argument was based on the idea that any knowledge and culture are based on discourse. She mentioned the myth of the composer at the top of the creative musicians, the performers as those who could not compose, the conductors as those who could not play an instrument, and the musicologists and critics at the bottom of the hierarchy, the perfect impotents, as those who could not do anything but talk. This myth, as Rigby said, is based on the idea of “originality” that is initiated from one source. Postmodern views demonstrate how the construction of meaning is done in a social network. In other words, the hierarchy is different and every cultural agent contributes in potentially significant ways. It seems to me that the myth of the “genius composer” is, unfortunately, sustained also among many musicologists in Israel and the world. This is why performance is regarded by many as a marginal and unimportant activity in relation to composing. The composer Zippi Fleisher said in the conference something like “what can one do, it all starts with the composer, and then one performs it, and then one writes about it”. This is an old fashioned and anachronistic view of what is happening in musical culture. Beethoven would never be famous if it would not be for music critics and musicologists who wrote about him and elevated him as a Romantic icon. We would not hear Beethoven the way we do, and he would not symbolize what he does, without the words that were written on him.

In my blog there is a poll asking why there are almost no books on music in Hebrew. Many people blamed it on the academy who demands that books will be written in English. Prof. Don Haran speculated in the conference why is it possible that the French and the Italians would never think writing in a language different than their own, and we seem to find it natural to write in English. This comment was thought provoking.

Prof. Yoash Hirshberg explained how disappointing it was to find that his book on Paul Ben-Haim is not available anymore. He was especially disappointed that his publisher Am-Oved did not find it important enough to keep a few copies of the book. He compared the Israeli publisher with Oxford University Press that published one of his books in two prints and then kept an electronic copy for anyone who might be interested. There was bitterness in his voice from the attitude of Am-Oved, whom he called “a commercial publication house” and he ended his comment by saying that in the present situation he has no motivation for writing anything more in Hebrew.

As mentioned about, I could not stay for the last session. The first session of the second part, which I just described, was not well organized. The speakers were not well-prepared (in England it is considered not serious to give a paper without reading from a text that was prepared in advance). Elisheva Rigbi gave herself too much liberty in commenting on the comments of others, something that took too much time of the session.

This session, was however, successful. It was interesting for me to hear the comments that some of them I have mentioned above. One of the fascinating comments in this session and the one before, were made my Prof. Ruth Katz. She stressed again and again that we must define our goals before we take action. It is useless to speak about low attendance of members and that fact that there are almost no students who find it important to attend the IMS conference (I agree that they must be forced to attend by making their presence obligatory for finishing their studies), if the IMS in general and Min-Ad in particular do not define their goals. With goals well-defined much can be achieved with limited energy. Without it, one is lost. It was wonderful to hear that an evening is organized in honor of her 80th birthday.

The conference, it seems to me, was successful. I wounder if any practical points for action were defined during the last session. It would be useful that in future conference smaller groups will be organized in round tables so that there will be more space for interaction. In any case, it is wonderful that Elisheva Rigbi, Rivka Elkushi and others initiated and organized this conference on around this important theme.

I will be glad if anyone who attended the conference will comment on it or on what I have written above. I am especially interested in knowing what happened in the last part that I could not attend. One of the reasons that I opened this blog is to attribute to the Israeli discourse on music. My assumption is that if we want a discourse to occur we must actively contribute to it. So please take a few minutes and comment by filling the form below or by sending me your comment for publication in this forum.

Related posts:
Here it comes מה יש ומה אין לקרוא על מוסיקה בעברית
Call for papers “What there is and what there is not to read about music in Hebrew”
Response to Dr Elisheva Rigbi’s second comment: are we normal?
Why my Blog is in English: an answer to Dr. Elisheva Rigbi
We seem to fail doing the very same thing in music

See also
Article on the conference published in Achbar Ha-Ir

Do not forget to subscribe to the blog in order to receive future posts. If you need help with subscribing or commenting in this blog please contact me now.

I just found a very interesting social site for people who love books: www.librarything.com
Here is what they say:

LibraryThing is an online service to help people catalog their books easily. You can access your catalog from anywhere—even on your mobile phone. Because everyone catalogs together, LibraryThing also connects people with the same books, comes up with suggestions for what to read next, and so forth.

If you want it, LibraryThing is also an amazing social space, often described as “MySpace for books” or “Facebook for books.” You can check out other people’s libraries, see who has the most similar library to yours, swap reading suggestions and so forth. LibraryThing also makes book recommendations based on the collective intelligence of the other libraries.

The program of the conference מה יש ומה אין לקרוא על מוסיקה בעברית? “What is and what there is not to read about music in Hebrew” was announced today. The program has some papers that seem very interesting. מושב ב’\1: מוסיקה “אחרת” seems especially interesting. Alona Sagi will speak about the improvisation of Miles Davis in the recordings of “Walkin’” and Shulamit Marom will speak about Tel-Aviv songs during the British Mandat (1920-1948). Another promising paper will be given by Asaf Sheleg titled “פוליפוניות אונטולוגיות: בין היהודי לישראלי במוסיקה הישראלית האומנותית” (Ontological polyphonies: between the Jewish and the Israeli in Israeli art music).

It is always the second part
The second part of the conference which is devoted to the burning question of Hebrew literature (scholarly, semi-scholarly and non-scholarly) is unclear. Gila Flamm will give a report of what exists in the library. This has potential to be very interesting, providing that the information will be more than descriptive. It would be very interesting to know not only what books exists but also what books are being read all the time and what books simply gather dust on the shelves. This could be valuable information that could help publishers and “decision makers” decide where to invest their money.

I wrote that the second part is unclear since the titles of the papers/discussions do not say too much about the content. What does “education” stand for? Is it only to educate the two and a half students that study music today, or are we speaking about educating the government, academy, book publishers, the rich people who donate money, and the general public?

What seems as a potential problem, is that the answer to the acute problem of almost no books in Hebrew on music, seems to be known to the conference organizers. It would be perhaps better to wait and see what comes out of the conference and research of others before one jumps into conclusion. Most important, I hope that the conference will result not only with interesting papers and conversations, but also with operative actions in order to change this miserable situation.

A tale of two women
I was once invited by Áine Heneghan to give a paper in the 2005 Dublin International Conference on Music Analysis, in Ireland. Since it was an international conference with important participants from around the world (Carl Schachter, Jonathan Dunsby, and many others), Áine was very busy (she was one of the two people that I know of, who organized the conference). I asked her “are you also giving a paper in the conference?” She answered “We decided that the organizers of the conference will not give papers in this conference so that people will no say that it has bad taste that we give papers while other people are rejected from speaking in the conference”. I felt that this is indeed an admirable behavior (a year or two before I was present in a UK conference where the organizer gave two papers!). We have much to learn from Áine Heneghan.

Related posts:
Call for papers “What there is and what there is not to read about music in Hebrew”
Response to Dr Elisheva Rigbi’s second comment: are we normal?
Why my Blog is in English: an answer to Dr. Elisheva Rigbi
We seem to fail doing the very same thing in music
Next post: Review of the IMS conference 2008: what there is and what there is not to read in Hebrew in Music

I always liked the music of Luigi Nono. I once took a special flight to Switzerland to hear a performance of La lontananza nostalgica utopica futura (1988-89) with Irvine Arditti as violinist.

International Symposium
to be held at the Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Venice, Italy
25-27.06.2009
The Archivio Luigi Nono in Venice, in collaboration with the University of Venice is organizing an international symposium on The dramaturgy of sound in the music of Luigi Nono .

In the catalogue of Luigi Nono’s compositions only three works are normally considered as “music for the theater” because, for different reasons, these works can be associated with scenic or visual components: Intolleranza 1960, Al gran sole carico d’amore and Prometeo. Tragedia dell’ascolto. However, deeply ingrained in Nono’s entire ¦uvre, regardless of ensemble or destination, there is the search for an acoustic dramaturgy (in the classical meaning of drâma or drân); an “active” sound the implications of which embrace different dimensions relating as much to the form as to the content of the work. The use of electronic technologies and consequently the possibility of spatialization and transformation of the sound-event in real time have radicalized the dimension of “drama” in Nono’s creative horizon.

The Organization Committee is pleased to invite scholars (musicologists, philosophers, literature and theater historians) to present proposals for papers relating to the following subjects:

1) Dramaturgy of sound and listening space
2) Dramaturgy and sound action
3) Dramaturgy and text
4) Dramaturgy and the stage
5) Compositional process and sound dramaturgy

First priority will be given to proposals based on new archival research.

Presentation of the abstracts
Applications must contain the following information:
1) The thematic subject chosen
2) Method of research
3) Object of the research/ Aim pursued
4) A selective bibliography
5) A short curriculum vitae (max. 100 words; in case of two applicants, max. 150 words.
6) Present position and referral contacts

The abstracts (containing points 1-6) should not have over 3000 characters, counting the spaces.
The abstracts, written in Italian or English in rtf format, must be presented by and not later than the 1st November 2008.
They should be sent as an attachment to the following e-mail address: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Organization Committee is made up of the following members of the Committee of scholars of the Fondazione Archivio Luigi Nono:

Gianmario Borio (University of Pavia)
Angela Ida De Benedictis (University of Pavia)
Marco Mazzolini (Universal Music Publishing Ricordi)
Giovanni Morelli (University of Venice)
Veniero Rizzardi (University of Venice)
Jürg Stenzl (University of Salzburg)

For further information

Claudia Vincis
Artistic Director

Fondazione Archivio Luigi Nono ONLUS
Ex Convento SS. Cosma e Damiano
Giudecca 619-621
30133 Venice, Italy
tel/fax: +39 041 5209713
www.luiginono.it

–

Fondazione Archivio Luigi Nono ONLUS
Ex Convento SS. Cosma e Damiano
Giudecca 619-621
30133 Venezia, Italia
tel/fax: +39 0415209713
email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.luiginono.it

http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Music/Golden-pages/Conferences/2009/09-6-dsn.html

One of the purposes of this site is to collect useful links for music (and other) scholars in Israel and the world. I have recently added a category to my research links page. The new category is called: “Postgraduate scholarships“. This page contains links to many very useful postgraduate scholarships. As usual, I tried not to make a list of everything, but to collect only the most interesting and helpful links. You can find in this site information about how to write a research proposal that may enhance the chances that you will receive one of these scholarships.

Yesterday my wife and I went to a concert in Zavta, Tel-Aviv of Amir Benayun. It was a very good concert. There was a great atmosphere among the audience and Benayun, and among him and the other performers. I like very much how he sings. There is a feeling of honesty in his singing.

The audience was mixed from all sectors of the Israeli people: secular, religious, askenazik, sefaradic, young, old, etc. Their behavior was relatively restraint (after all, they where sitting of chairs), although it was very enthusiastic (they where often clapping hands also in the middle of some of the songs).

There was one guy that was perhaps overenthusiastic: he was with Talit katan hanging outside and a kippa, and he imitated the gestures of belly dancers. At first he moved along the stage. Letter on he went of the stage and dance before the performers (he actually did it three times!). This was really unexpected. It was very nice to see how Benayun and the others where very sympathetic to him (although they might have been slightly irritated by him at the end…).

The sound was not so good. I could hardly understand the words. I think that this was due to at least two reasons: (1) we were sitting at a far end of the hall, just on the far left side of the stage. (2) the Zavta hall seems to me (and perhaps I am wrong) not the best place with regards to sound quality (from the acoustics point of view, I mean).

My wife asked me “why don’t you play with him guitar?” I told her that I like his music very much and that I think that he is on a high level. However, it is not me. I would like, one day, to do something different in music performance. In Benayun’s music the words and the singing are the center. I hope to do something that will involve the music as a more active agent (yet, if will offer me to join I will certainly consider it!)

The concert was wonderful! I recommend to his concerts.

I think that anyone who cares about his work should strive to be an excellent scholar. Here are some thoughts of how one might achieve it.

Keep your contacts
I read somewhere (a few years ago) that I well known musicologist (I forgot his or her name) one suggested that a scholar should keep his contact book well organized. This piece of advice is worth gold. If I have achieved a few things in the past few years, it was a lot due to contacts that I kept. Yes, you must know to do the work. However, keep in good contact with people that are aware of your work, can recommend your work to others and might offer you things when they turn up

Think about your goals
Know what is interesting for you, what is important in your eyes and to where you are heading. Excellent scholars are long run swimmers. All your work should be structured around your goals. It is good here and there to reexamine your goals and to let yourself do things that are completely unexpected or unrelated to your goals. This might help your creativity and it might help you benefit from new discoveries. However, a scholar without clear goals is like a ship without a captain. Keep this in mind when you prepare a research proposal.

Methodology
When you read the works of others think not only about what they say but also about the methods they use to do research and to present it. Methodology is a big issue. Good methodologies are the key for major discoveries and achievements.

Pray to God
It is true that one needs to work hard to be an excellent scholar. Luck however is also very important. You should be in the right place and in the right time, and speak to the right people. Go to conferences. Be friendly. But most important, pray to God.

Yesterday I read again Susan McClary’s chapter “Excess and Frame: The Musical Representation of Madwomen” in Feminine Endings. One of the subchapters in this book deals with Erwartung by Arnold Schoenberg. During my recent research trip in Berlin I did not have time to read the whole chapter, so I returned to it now, and I was amazed by McClary’s virtuosity, her breath of knowledge in music and other contemporary theory, and the way she builds her arguments. This chapter is a good example to authoritative writing.

Due to some of the issues that I have spoke about in recent posts (such as The difference between a poor critic and a good scholar, Musicology, Science and Postmodernism, Performance and Analysis: a response to Zecharia, and Heinrich Schenker and his followers) I thought it would be useful to quote the following from McClary’s chapter:

“That analysis is an indispensable ingredient in out study of music is beyond question. Yet we need to supplement bare formal analysis with information concerning the historical conditions that give rise both to particular repertories and also to the metatheoretical discourses that serve and explain away the ‘problematic’ aspects of music. If – as clearly is the case – a fascination with madness and transgressive behavior motivates much of the music we care about, then surly we need to take that into account before we jump into our graphs. Otherwise, what precisely are we doing? Whose rationality are we attempting to establish, and why?” (109)

What I love about this passage is that is does not go against analysis. It states clearly that analysis is “an indispensable ingredient in out study of music”. However, it suggests that scholars must go beyond the score in order to reach a more comprehensive understanding of music.

Moreover, it suggests that some of the motivation behind formal analysis is to demonstrate a supposed rationality of music that is actually motivated by irrational things (such as madness and transgressive behavior). Western culture celebrates rationality as one of its highest values and goals. It is postmodern authors (such as Michel Foucault) that demonstrate that this is nothing but a myth.

This is one of the things that I find extremely attractive about the epoch after modernism. Irrational issues such as madness, gender, identity and religion can be discussed in the open. These are the things that touch most of us and make us, at least partly, obsessed about the music that we love.

In my post “Musicology, Science and Postmodernism” I asked:

So what is the difference between a poor musical critic, who may speak about food when writing about music, and a musicologist who is supposed to transcend personal subjective metaphors and speak with slightly more authority?

This post is an attempt to answer this question.

Solid Evidence
Scholars are supposed to support their arguments with solid evidence. The more solid it is the better job you do. Try to attack the problem from various angles and show that your arguments is working well from all (or most) of them.

Usually, an argument is built from several sub-arguments. Try to show that authoritative scholars around the world support various part of your argument. Authoritative scholars are those who are famous and usually are being quoted by many other people.

Making the extra mile
It is hard work to find solid evidence to your claim. You might need to contact archives and libraries on the other side of the planet. You probably need so spend much time in libraries and archives. You will need to write research and grant proposals in order to obtain scholarships for traveling to distant places (archives, libraries or field work). A good scholar makes the extra mile. Most people usually give up too early and do not know how close they were to success.

Dealing with criticism
A scholar is supposed to predict criticism and welcome it. Criticism is something that most people find hard to listen to. Yet, criticism is something that may help you support your argument or change it so that it will be more solid. One should find ways to overcome one’s defense mechanisms and learn from criticism.

Writing with authority
Make it clear from the outset of your document what you plan to deal with in this work and what is out of the game. Declaring the frame around your work his helpful in order to make your arguments solider and defense them from criticism.

Write with authority. Use less words that show doubt like “possible”, “I think”, “perhaps”; use more sentences that claim to say something very clear about how things actually are, according to your argument.

Having said this, do not present things as fact when they are not. It is completely fine to present things as partial of as issues that need further research. If you write with too much authority about issues that are not clear, you can be sure that other people will attack your conclusions.

Writing style
Constantly pay attention to the way experienced scholars write. They usually pay great attention to small details. Some people suggest to convert passive voice to an active one, or to eliminate redundancy. It is also useful to break up excessively long sentences. All this is true. However, there are many other tips that you can learn concerning your writing style. Read not only what people write but how they present it.

Have fun
Different people define “fun” is different ways. Nevertheless, if your readers will not enjoy reading what you have to say, that means that you have less chances to gain authority in their eyes. Be kind to your readers. Take into consideration their time and respect it. I do not suggest that you should write jokes in your research. On the contrary, non-formality is usually interpreted in a negative way. Yet you would prefer that people will enjoy reading what you write. If people enjoy doing things they usually learn from it more and interact with it in a more productive manner. This is why it is always good to choose a subject that you love for your research.

Critic vs. Scholar
I opened the post with the question concerning the difference between a poor critic and a good scholar. The truth is that it is not black or white. A good scholar is also a critic. Scholars say their opinion about what they write. They do not pretend to be scientists in an age where humanities are understood as something that must transcend “objective” inquiry. Moreover, a good critic is not just a person who spreads his or her subjective view. A good critic knows how to write well and how to build an argument. The best critics also know the scholarship related to their criticism. In other words, a good critic must also be something of a scholar, and a good scholar must be a critic.

There is something annoying about being a musicologist and a postmodernist. As a musicologist one is expected to be a scientist, to reach an objective truth and to say things with authority. As a postmodernist, one is expected to doubt the idea of one truth, to show various perspectives of a phenomenon and to deal with the elusive thing called: meaning. Being a musicologist and a postmodernist may seem a contradiction in terms.

There is something extremely attractive about science. It tells us stories about the truth: one truth. It gives us a sense of revelation, almost a religious one. It gives us miraculous power to control the world and to dominate it. It cures illness (often creating new ones) and promotes technological progress (are we happier?). For me, the notion of “progress” is nothing more than a superstition. Glenn Gould was aware of it, as are many others.

In the realm of music, many are still worshiping idols. It may be the romantic notion of the composer-idol. It may be a cold notion of cognition, by seeking the “grammar” behind the music. The common act of this idol worshipping is that it bypasses the concept that music meaning is something that is affected by performers, listeners and the social and cultural contexts that they live in.

Dr Flora Jersonsky-Margalit kindly pointed out an article that is relevant to this discussion. Avshlom Alizur wrote what seems to me as a simplistic article about postmodernism. I will not spend my time demonstrating why it is simplistic. Who ever is interested in reading a more comprehensive understanding of postmodernism in welcome to read first chapter of Religion Without Illusion (in Hebrew) by Dr. Gili Zivan. דת ללא אשליה

It is shocking how much time is spent on teaching how music is built while ignoring how it is experienced. A music student learns hours of harmony, counterpoint, and ear training (of the type that teaches you how to identify simple building blocks of music). The music student learns about the history of the composers (less about the history of music). Music analysis often focuses on analyzing what the composer did in his score. A better way to do things is to teach how harmonic grammar changes its meaning in different contexts. How context affects the meaning of counterpoint rules in the music of Bach and others (yes, also other composers used counterpoint…). How the same chord receives different meaning in different contexts and how very different chords sound the same in certain contexts (the music theorist Edward T. Cone wrote in 1967 a wonderful article called “Beyond analysis”).

It is true that some students start learning music with the aim of becoming composers. Yet, others simply want to play music or learn more about it in order to further enjoy it. As Eric Clark suggests in his recent articles, the crucial question is what music means. In order to deal with this question one needs to speak about performance. Performance is something social. It is a scene where certain things become more important than others. Performers, no matter whether they admit it or not, no matter whether they are conscious about it or not, always emphasize things in their performance.

Dealing with performance is one of the ways to deal with musical meaning. It is not by chance that performance studies became such a vibrant and important field in the world, when much of the academic world is increasingly influenced by postmodern thought.

Why does one cry from music? Is it because of Schenker? Is it because of the score? The score has something to do with it. However, it is only one important factor among many that play a role in the creation of musical meaning in performance.

It seems to me much more reasonable that students should compare recordings with the score and discuss the issue of interpretation. Why one interpretation is good and one is bad (the postmodernists will not like this…). Not only whether the performer is “faithful” to the score, but whether the score is “faithful” to the performer. I find both questions slightly ridiculous.

Musical meaning is a negotiation between cultural signs that are interpreted and reinterpreted. The scene is fluctuating and the “truth” depends on the performers and listeners. We can write all day about the “structure” and the “rules” of perceiving it. Yet, if one redefines in performance what in fact the structure is, than how “objective” can one be a priory to performance?

So what is the difference between a poor musical critic, who may speak about food when writing about music, and a musicologist who is supposed to transcend personal subjective metaphors and speak with slightly more authority? I will deal with this question in one of my forthcoming posts.