莫鲁奇的音乐舞台理论有优势吗?

IF 1 2区 艺术学 0 ART
PHILIP LETTS
{"title":"莫鲁奇的音乐舞台理论有优势吗?","authors":"PHILIP LETTS","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a recent article, Caterina Moruzzi (<span>2018</span>) develops and defends her musical stage theory. This discussion response supposes that Moruzzi's development and defense of her stage theory are satisfactory, but it disputes her case for thinking that it has advantages over key rivals—the traditional type/token theory and musical perdurantism.</p><p>In Section <span>i</span>, I contrast the three competitors by their differing explanations of musical work multiplicity. In Section <span>ii.a</span>, I dispute Moruzzi's claim that her stage theory's putative ability to explain our <i>direct epistemological access</i> to musical works advantages it over the type/token theory or musical perdurantism. In Section <span>ii.b</span>, I reject Moruzzi's argument for thinking that her musical stage theory better handles <i>score-departing performances</i> than does the normative type/token theory. In Section <span>ii.c</span>, I reject Moruzzi's argument for claiming that her musical stage theory handles <i>improvisations</i> better than the type/token theory. In Section <span>iii</span>, I conclude and hint at an alternative motivation for musical stage theory.</p><p>Dominant explanations are <i>instantiablist</i>. They say that multiple musical works are <i>instantiable</i> or <i>generic</i> entities—kinds, types, or properties—that can be <i>instantiated</i> by several occurrences (see Wolterstorff <span>1980</span>; Dodd <span>2007</span>; Letts <span>2018</span>).</p><p>One instantiablist view is the <i>traditional</i> type-token theory, henceforth the “type-token” theory. This theory identifies each multiple musical work with a type, where these are construed as <i>abstracta</i>—entities lacking spatial location—that are instantiated, or “tokened,” by concrete—spatially located—performance-events (Dodd <span>2007</span>, 42).</p><p>Concerns about construing musical works as abstracta have led some to seek alternatives to the type-token theory (Caplan and Matheson 2006, 59–60; Tillman <span>2011</span>, 14). One alternative is <i>performance perdurantism</i>, henceforth “perdurantism.” On this view, each multiple musical work is a mereological fusion of its performances, themselves concrete events made up of momentary <i>stages</i> united by an <i>I</i>-<i>relation</i> appropriate to musical works (Caplan and Matheson <span>2006</span>, 61–62, 65; <span>2008</span>, 80; see also Lewis <span>1976</span>). Perdurantism explains (M) by claiming that a single musical work, <i>qua</i> mereological fusion, has several performances as its <i>proper parts</i> (Caplan and Matheson <span>2006</span>, 64–65; <span>2008</span>, 84–85).</p><p>Moruzzi's <i>performance stage theory</i>, henceforth “stage theory,” is a concretist view fundamentally similar to perdurantism, but it departs in key ways. First, Moruzzi's stages—her I-related concreta—are <i>whole</i> performances, rather than momentary performance-slices.<sup>1</sup> Second, stage theory does <i>not</i> identify musical works with <i>fusions</i> of performances. Rather, on stage theory, “the musical work is a stage/performance connected by a privileged relationship [the I-relation for musical works] to other stages/performances” (2018, 342).</p><p>That is, for Moruzzi, each typical occurrence of a musical work name has some referentially focal performance as its semantic value—the works we ordinarily talk about are performances (345, see also Sider <span>2001</span>, 191–192).<sup>2</sup> This distinctive thesis precludes stage theory from explaining (M) in whole-part terms. Instead, stage theory explains the multiplicity of a work (<i>qua</i> performance) by appeal to the multiplicity of its I-related performances (Moruzzi <span>2018</span>, 345).</p><p>Moruzzi presents a compact case for thinking that her view is advantaged over rivals (348–349). This article develops and disputes her arguments.</p><p>As interpreted here, Moruzzi's arguments for claiming that stage theory is advantaged over rival views appear unpersuasive. Hopefully, this article helps sharpen focus on alternative motivations for musical stage theory. One influential argument for stage theory about continuants is that it better explains how they undergo intrinsic change than do rival perdurantist and endurantist accounts (Sider <span>2000</span> and <span>2001</span>, 92–98). If musical works undergo intrinsic change (Rohrbaugh <span>2003</span>, 188–189), a parallel argument favoring musical stage theory over perdurantism and the popular endurantist conception of the type-token theory might provide a more persuasive argument for musical stage theory.<sup>10</sup></p>","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12743","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Moruzzi's Musical Stage Theory Advantaged?\",\"authors\":\"PHILIP LETTS\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jaac.12743\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In a recent article, Caterina Moruzzi (<span>2018</span>) develops and defends her musical stage theory. This discussion response supposes that Moruzzi's development and defense of her stage theory are satisfactory, but it disputes her case for thinking that it has advantages over key rivals—the traditional type/token theory and musical perdurantism.</p><p>In Section <span>i</span>, I contrast the three competitors by their differing explanations of musical work multiplicity. In Section <span>ii.a</span>, I dispute Moruzzi's claim that her stage theory's putative ability to explain our <i>direct epistemological access</i> to musical works advantages it over the type/token theory or musical perdurantism. In Section <span>ii.b</span>, I reject Moruzzi's argument for thinking that her musical stage theory better handles <i>score-departing performances</i> than does the normative type/token theory. In Section <span>ii.c</span>, I reject Moruzzi's argument for claiming that her musical stage theory handles <i>improvisations</i> better than the type/token theory. In Section <span>iii</span>, I conclude and hint at an alternative motivation for musical stage theory.</p><p>Dominant explanations are <i>instantiablist</i>. They say that multiple musical works are <i>instantiable</i> or <i>generic</i> entities—kinds, types, or properties—that can be <i>instantiated</i> by several occurrences (see Wolterstorff <span>1980</span>; Dodd <span>2007</span>; Letts <span>2018</span>).</p><p>One instantiablist view is the <i>traditional</i> type-token theory, henceforth the “type-token” theory. This theory identifies each multiple musical work with a type, where these are construed as <i>abstracta</i>—entities lacking spatial location—that are instantiated, or “tokened,” by concrete—spatially located—performance-events (Dodd <span>2007</span>, 42).</p><p>Concerns about construing musical works as abstracta have led some to seek alternatives to the type-token theory (Caplan and Matheson 2006, 59–60; Tillman <span>2011</span>, 14). One alternative is <i>performance perdurantism</i>, henceforth “perdurantism.” On this view, each multiple musical work is a mereological fusion of its performances, themselves concrete events made up of momentary <i>stages</i> united by an <i>I</i>-<i>relation</i> appropriate to musical works (Caplan and Matheson <span>2006</span>, 61–62, 65; <span>2008</span>, 80; see also Lewis <span>1976</span>). Perdurantism explains (M) by claiming that a single musical work, <i>qua</i> mereological fusion, has several performances as its <i>proper parts</i> (Caplan and Matheson <span>2006</span>, 64–65; <span>2008</span>, 84–85).</p><p>Moruzzi's <i>performance stage theory</i>, henceforth “stage theory,” is a concretist view fundamentally similar to perdurantism, but it departs in key ways. First, Moruzzi's stages—her I-related concreta—are <i>whole</i> performances, rather than momentary performance-slices.<sup>1</sup> Second, stage theory does <i>not</i> identify musical works with <i>fusions</i> of performances. Rather, on stage theory, “the musical work is a stage/performance connected by a privileged relationship [the I-relation for musical works] to other stages/performances” (2018, 342).</p><p>That is, for Moruzzi, each typical occurrence of a musical work name has some referentially focal performance as its semantic value—the works we ordinarily talk about are performances (345, see also Sider <span>2001</span>, 191–192).<sup>2</sup> This distinctive thesis precludes stage theory from explaining (M) in whole-part terms. Instead, stage theory explains the multiplicity of a work (<i>qua</i> performance) by appeal to the multiplicity of its I-related performances (Moruzzi <span>2018</span>, 345).</p><p>Moruzzi presents a compact case for thinking that her view is advantaged over rivals (348–349). This article develops and disputes her arguments.</p><p>As interpreted here, Moruzzi's arguments for claiming that stage theory is advantaged over rival views appear unpersuasive. Hopefully, this article helps sharpen focus on alternative motivations for musical stage theory. One influential argument for stage theory about continuants is that it better explains how they undergo intrinsic change than do rival perdurantist and endurantist accounts (Sider <span>2000</span> and <span>2001</span>, 92–98). If musical works undergo intrinsic change (Rohrbaugh <span>2003</span>, 188–189), a parallel argument favoring musical stage theory over perdurantism and the popular endurantist conception of the type-token theory might provide a more persuasive argument for musical stage theory.<sup>10</sup></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12743\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jaac.12743\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jaac.12743","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在最近的一篇文章中,Caterina Moruzzi(2018)发展并捍卫了她的音乐舞台理论。这个讨论回应假设Moruzzi对她的舞台理论的发展和辩护是令人满意的,但它质疑了她认为它比主要对手——传统的类型/符号理论和音乐持久主义——有优势的观点。在第一节中,我对比了三个竞争者对音乐作品多样性的不同解释。在第ii节。a,我不同意Moruzzi的说法,即她的阶段理论假定有能力解释我们对音乐作品的直接认识论途径,这比类型/符号理论或音乐持久性理论更有优势。在第ii节。b,我反对Moruzzi的观点,认为她的音乐舞台理论比规范类型/符号理论更好地处理偏离分数的表演。在第ii.c节中,我反对Moruzzi声称她的音乐舞台理论比类型/符号理论更能处理即兴表演的论点。在第三节中,我总结并暗示了音乐舞台理论的另一种动机。主要的解释是可实例化的。他们说,多个音乐作品是可实例化的或通用实体——种类、类型或属性——可以通过多次出现实例化(见Wolterstorff 1980;多德2007;Letts也2018)。一种可实例化的观点是传统的类型令牌理论,即“类型令牌”理论。这一理论将每个音乐作品都定义为一种类型,这些类型被解释为缺乏空间位置的抽象实体,通过具体的空间位置表演事件实例化或“标记”(Dodd 2007, 42)。对将音乐作品视为抽象作品的担忧导致一些人寻求替代类型标记理论(Caplan and Matheson 2006,59 - 60;Tillman 2011,14)。另一种选择是性能持久主义,因此称为“持久主义”。根据这一观点,每一部多部音乐作品都是其表演的流变融合,它们本身是由适合于音乐作品的i关系统一的瞬间阶段组成的具体事件(Caplan and Matheson 2006,61 - 62,65;2008年,80年;参见Lewis 1976)。持久主义解释(M),声称一个单一的音乐作品,作为一种流变的融合,有几个表演作为其适当的部分(Caplan和Matheson 2006, 64-65;2008年,84 - 85)。莫鲁奇的表演阶段理论,即“阶段理论”,是一种从根本上与持久主义相似的具体主义观点,但在关键方面有所不同。首先,Moruzzi的舞台——她与我相关的具体作品——是完整的表演,而不是瞬间的表演片段第二,舞台理论并没有将音乐作品等同于表演的融合。相反,在舞台理论中,“音乐作品是一个舞台/表演,通过一种特权关系(音乐作品的I-relation)与其他舞台/表演联系在一起”(2018,342)。也就是说,对于Moruzzi来说,音乐作品名称的每一个典型出现都有一些参考焦点表演作为其语义价值-我们通常谈论的作品是表演(345,也见Sider 2001, 191-192)这种独特的论点排除了阶段理论在整体部分术语解释(M)。相反,阶段理论通过吸引与i相关的表演的多样性来解释作品(作为表演)的多样性(Moruzzi 2018, 345)。Moruzzi提出了一个紧凑的案例,认为她的观点比对手更有优势(348-349)。这篇文章对她的观点进行了发展和反驳。正如这里所解释的,Moruzzi声称阶段理论比其他观点更有优势的论点似乎没有说服力。希望这篇文章能够帮助人们更加关注音乐舞台理论的其他动机。关于连续体的阶段理论的一个有影响力的论点是,它比持久论和持久论的竞争对手更好地解释了它们如何经历内在变化(Sider 2000和2001,92-98)。如果音乐作品经历了内在的变化(Rohrbaugh 2003, 188-189),一个支持音乐阶段理论而不是持久性理论的平行论点,以及流行的持久性理论的类型标记理论概念,可能会为音乐阶段理论提供一个更有说服力的论点
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Moruzzi's Musical Stage Theory Advantaged?

In a recent article, Caterina Moruzzi (2018) develops and defends her musical stage theory. This discussion response supposes that Moruzzi's development and defense of her stage theory are satisfactory, but it disputes her case for thinking that it has advantages over key rivals—the traditional type/token theory and musical perdurantism.

In Section i, I contrast the three competitors by their differing explanations of musical work multiplicity. In Section ii.a, I dispute Moruzzi's claim that her stage theory's putative ability to explain our direct epistemological access to musical works advantages it over the type/token theory or musical perdurantism. In Section ii.b, I reject Moruzzi's argument for thinking that her musical stage theory better handles score-departing performances than does the normative type/token theory. In Section ii.c, I reject Moruzzi's argument for claiming that her musical stage theory handles improvisations better than the type/token theory. In Section iii, I conclude and hint at an alternative motivation for musical stage theory.

Dominant explanations are instantiablist. They say that multiple musical works are instantiable or generic entities—kinds, types, or properties—that can be instantiated by several occurrences (see Wolterstorff 1980; Dodd 2007; Letts 2018).

One instantiablist view is the traditional type-token theory, henceforth the “type-token” theory. This theory identifies each multiple musical work with a type, where these are construed as abstracta—entities lacking spatial location—that are instantiated, or “tokened,” by concrete—spatially located—performance-events (Dodd 2007, 42).

Concerns about construing musical works as abstracta have led some to seek alternatives to the type-token theory (Caplan and Matheson 2006, 59–60; Tillman 2011, 14). One alternative is performance perdurantism, henceforth “perdurantism.” On this view, each multiple musical work is a mereological fusion of its performances, themselves concrete events made up of momentary stages united by an I-relation appropriate to musical works (Caplan and Matheson 2006, 61–62, 65; 2008, 80; see also Lewis 1976). Perdurantism explains (M) by claiming that a single musical work, qua mereological fusion, has several performances as its proper parts (Caplan and Matheson 2006, 64–65; 2008, 84–85).

Moruzzi's performance stage theory, henceforth “stage theory,” is a concretist view fundamentally similar to perdurantism, but it departs in key ways. First, Moruzzi's stages—her I-related concreta—are whole performances, rather than momentary performance-slices.1 Second, stage theory does not identify musical works with fusions of performances. Rather, on stage theory, “the musical work is a stage/performance connected by a privileged relationship [the I-relation for musical works] to other stages/performances” (2018, 342).

That is, for Moruzzi, each typical occurrence of a musical work name has some referentially focal performance as its semantic value—the works we ordinarily talk about are performances (345, see also Sider 2001, 191–192).2 This distinctive thesis precludes stage theory from explaining (M) in whole-part terms. Instead, stage theory explains the multiplicity of a work (qua performance) by appeal to the multiplicity of its I-related performances (Moruzzi 2018, 345).

Moruzzi presents a compact case for thinking that her view is advantaged over rivals (348–349). This article develops and disputes her arguments.

As interpreted here, Moruzzi's arguments for claiming that stage theory is advantaged over rival views appear unpersuasive. Hopefully, this article helps sharpen focus on alternative motivations for musical stage theory. One influential argument for stage theory about continuants is that it better explains how they undergo intrinsic change than do rival perdurantist and endurantist accounts (Sider 2000 and 2001, 92–98). If musical works undergo intrinsic change (Rohrbaugh 2003, 188–189), a parallel argument favoring musical stage theory over perdurantism and the popular endurantist conception of the type-token theory might provide a more persuasive argument for musical stage theory.10

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
25.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism publishes current research articles, symposia, special issues, and timely book reviews in aesthetics and the arts. The term aesthetics, in this connection, is understood to include all studies of the arts and related types of experience from a philosophic, scientific, or other theoretical standpoint. The arts are taken to include not only the traditional forms such as music, literature, landscape architecture, dance, painting, architecture, sculpture, and other visual arts, but also more recent additions such as photography, film, earthworks, performance and conceptual art, the crafts and decorative arts, contemporary digital innovations, and other cultural practices, including work and activities in the field of popular culture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信