Continuation from August 19.

George Lewis Lewis, 1996 will argue that it is typical of Eurological thinking to define the score as the object. He defines two opposing methods for understanding musical expression as Eurological and Afrological where afrological thinking includes the kind of sensibility that is found in African and African-American art. He explains that <blockquote>“These terms refer metaphorically to musical belief systems and behaviour which, in my view, exemplify particular kinds of musical ‘logic’.”</blockquote> And further that <blockquote>“at the same time, these terms are intended to historicize the particularity of perspective characteristic of two systems that have evolved in such divergent cultural environment.” [Lewis p. 93].</blockquote>

The score, being a digital, discrete representation of a analog, continuous expression as music is, lends itself much better to rational (eurological) musical analysis than do the sonification of that same score. This also reinforces the “denial of the impact of African-Americans forms on the real-time work of European and Euro-American composers” [Lewis p. 92].

But, even if accepting the argument that the score is, and must be, the main resource for musical analysis, the sound can still be the object when composing, and it has to be when improvising. In other words, it is not necessarily so that music composed with the sound being the object cannot withstand critical anlysis of the score. The score simply belongs to another class than does the sound.

Click the tag/category for related posts