Back Us 1962

Die Reihe-A Scientific Evaluation
Author(s): John Backus

Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Autumn, 1962), pp. 160-171
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/832186
Accessed: 03-03-2015 07:19 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives of New Music.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:19:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIE REIHE-A SCIENTIFIC
EVALUATION
JOHN BACKUS
THE periodical Die Reihe is a relatively new addition to the family

of journals in the field of music, the first issue having been published
in Germany in 1955.1 However, it is a publication that will inevitably
confront anyone interested in the present-day development and future
evolution of music. Edited by Herbert Eimert and Karlheinz Stock-
hausen, it is, according to its title page, "devoted to developments in
contemporary music." At the time of this writing, seven issues have
appeared, of which four are available in English: I, "Electronic
Music"; II, "Anton Webern"; III, "Musical Craftsmanship"; and
Iv, "Young Composers." These issues contribute a total of about four
hundred pages to the literature on the theory and practice of avant-
garde European musical composition.
One's first reaction upon a cursory examination of these volumes
is likely to be the realization that music has evidently become the
province of mathematicians and engineers as well as of composers.
We see in these pages numerous tables, impressive graphs and charts,
and even an occasional mathematical formula, all immersed in an
ocean of diffuse and technical language. A synthesis of acoustics,
mathematics, and musical composition to produce a new musical art
is obviously in the making; indeed, the self-confident attitude of most
of the authors of the articles is evidence that they at least are con-
vinced that this new art has arrived.
Encouraged by this confidence, we may decide to study these
volumes more thoroughly in order to learn something of the methods
and points of view of these composers. Unfortunately, we find the
language quite obscure and the discussions for the most part quite
difficult to follow. Repeated reading and persistent study of many
passages leave us still ignorant of their intended meanings. We are
continually baffled by a technical language with which we are un-
familiar. In our frustration we may begin to wonder if perhaps the
authors are as confused as their language appears to be, and if the
unintelligibility is our fault or theirs. However, arguments and dis-
cussions cannot be dismissed as invalid simply because we do not
understand them; we must always admit the possibility of our own
1 Universal Edition, Vienna. English translation published by Theodore Presser Co.,
Bryn Mawr, Pa.
0 160
?
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
ignorance. The emergence of a new and radically different field of

musical composition such as that of electronic music will naturally
be difficult to describe well in ordinary language. A new terminology
appropriate to the field will inevitably arise, and the process of creating
it will be hampered by the usual difficulties of communication.
Fortunately, we are not completely helpless; we have for this
material a means of evaluating its worth from one quite important
standpoint-that of scientific competence. The baffling technical lan-
guage we encounter contains a considerable amount of what appears
to be scientific terminology--definitions, acoustical and physical terms,
etc. Such terms borrowed from the field of science must be used with
their precise scientific meanings. If any other meanings are intended,
these new meanings must certainly be as exactly defined as possible.
In general they should bear some relationship to the existing ones,
and it is better to avoid saddling certain already overburdened words
with additional definitions. Furthermore, the charts, graphs, tables,
and mathematical formulae used by these authors are part of a con-
siderable scientific paraphernalia, and their employment automatically
presupposes that the author conforms to the rules of proper scientific
usage.
We may therefore examine Die Reihe with a critical eye in order to
evaluate it from this point of view. We wish to see if the scientific
terminology is properly used, to see if the charts, graphs, and tables
have any real significance, and to determine the technical competence
of the material from the scientific standpoint. If it measures up
creditably to these criteria, all well and good; if it does not, we will
be quite justified in dismissing as worthless all of it that does not
make sense by ordinary standards.
Musicians without scientific training are at a disadvantage in trying
to assess the worth of Die Reihe. Such an evaluation is a task for
those with training in acoustics. It is obvious that the proper applica-
tion of the methods and results of scientific investigation can be of
tremendous benefit to the field of music. This does not mean that
music will be taken over by science; the scientific method has its limita-
tions, and its proper application includes not only the recognition of
these limits but also the obligation to expose any misapplication of
scientific method and terminology to music, since it is equally obvious
that such misapplication can do a great deal of damage.
We shall therefore examine the four volumes of Die Reihe some-
what in order, commenting on those articles which merit attention
from the point of view expressed above. We shall not concern our-
selves with their musical content.
S161
PERSPECTIVES OF NEW MUSIC
The first article in V. I by Herbert Eimert demonstrates the tech-
nical style adopted by most of the contributors. He states (I, 3),
"The composer is required to have a certain amount of acoustical
knowledge" and proceeds to define six categories of electronic sound:
the tone, the note, the note mixture, noise, sound complexes, and
impulses. His definitions, however, besides being difficult to under-
stand, are not acoustically accurate. His first one, tone, is what is
known in acoustics as a "simple tone" (his statement that it is un-
known to traditional music is not entirely true: flutes and clarinets
played softly produce nearly simple tones, for example, as do tuning
forks). His second definition, note, is what is called in acoustics a
"complex tone"; present recommendation (in the United States) is to
use "note" to mean the printed symbol and "tone" to mean the sound
heard by the ear.2 Some confusion arises from using "note" to refer to
complex tones with harmonic partials (frequencies 2, 3, 4, etc. times
the frequency of the fundamental, such as are produced by the forced
vibrations of most musical instruments) and the term note mixture
(his third definition) to refer to complex tones with inharmonic par-
tials (frequencies not simple multiples of the fundamental, such as
are produced by freely vibrating systems like bells and piano strings).
However, the first three definitions are on the whole not too wide
of the mark.
On the other hand, in number four, "noise," he states: "Only 'blank
noise' which fills an acoustic region may be determined in position."
This statement does not make sense; if by "blank noise" he means
what is now called "white noise," which contains equal amounts of
energy in each unit frequency band width, and if by "position" he
means "pitch," then "blank noise" has no "position." If "white" noise
is filtered to give it the attribute of pitch, it is no longer "white."
Finally, his fifth category, chord (note complex), is hardly a definition
at all. Taken all together, the definitions are very poor examples from
the standpoint of conciseness, clarity, or accuracy.
Eimert himself thus appears to be somewhat deficient in the
acoustical knowledge now required of the composer. Since he does
not seem to have a clear idea himself of the meaning of the terms he
is trying to define, it is not surprising that his definitions are inade-
quate. However, each subsequent author uses his own terms in his
own way and for the most part ignores Eimert's, so it is not important
that we understand them.
2 American Standard Acoustical Terminology S1.1-1960, Definitions 13.1-13.8,
p. 47. Published by American Standards Association, New York.
0 162 *
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
His somewhat inaccurate understanding of acoustics is demon-
strated by his "example of the new world of micro-structures we
have entered" (I, 3). He states that there are 52 pitch levels between
A4 (440.00 cycles/sec.) and B4 (493.88 cycles/sec.). (This is the
recommended terminology." A4 is the standard pitch of 440 cycles/
sec. and C4 is middle C. The notation a', b', etc. is not recommended
by the Acoustical Society of America.) Eimert is obviously ascribing
a separate "pitch" level to each unit increment of frequency-441,
442 . . . etc., taking (for reasons unknown) B4 as exactly 492
cycles/sec. This is absurd, as there is a continuum of frequencies
between these two levels; 441.01 cycles/sec. is just as specifiable a
frequency as is 441.00 cycles/sec., and corresponding to this con-
tinuum of frequencies is a continuum of pitches.
The remainder of his article is for the most part impossible to
follow, but since we now see that this is not due to our ignorance of
the supposedly necessary acoustical background, we need not con-
cern ourselves further with it.
H. Pousseur adopts a technical style in his contribution. For exam-
ple, he defines (I, 31) the "indices of rationality of an interval. This
indices (sic-this is the fault of the translator) would naturally be
related to the inner study of the resultant frequency. . . ." The defini-
tion is too diffuse to quote in full; it has no perceptible beginning
nor ending. Considerable study of it has failed so far to decipher
what he is trying to say; it remains quite incomprehensible even after
allowing for considerable distortion in the meanings of the technical
terms used. The term "index of rationality" has no discoverable con-
nection with any concept in acoustics.
The remainder of Pousseur's article follows the example set above.
Trying to understand it is most frustrating to one with merely a
technical training in acoustics and music. For example
(I, 33), "We
tried to overcome these difficulties [described previously] . . . by
building up note mixtures from various areas." Were these Eimert's
"note mixtures"? It does not seem so: "Each area would consist of a
determined number of sinus notes at selected pitches, chosen in such
a way that the components were more or less dissolved into one
another." How was one tone dissolved into another? Was one increased
in amplitude while another was diminished? Apparently not, since
"Each area was furnished with its own separate enveloping curve,"
presumably meaning that the amplitudes of all the simple tone com-
3 R. W. Young, Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, Vol. 11, November
1939, pp. 134-139.
. 163
?
ponents of the "area" were varied simultaneously. "Sometimes this

could be opposed to a curve, proper to other areas." How does one
oppose a curve? ". . . Further difficulties were raised in the coordina-
tion of preselected quantities with a durational ordering." Here is a
beautiful example of unintelligibility. "Though they were theoretically
correct, they did not have the anticipated effect." Correct by what
theory? And so on.
What is being described is basically the process of recording
sounds on tape. It is quite possible to describe this process in a manner
that can be understood by a physicist with acoustical training. It
should be possible to describe it in simple enough terms so that even
a musician with a relatively small amount of acoustical knowledge
could follow what is being done. Pousseur's discussion is only bewil-
dering, and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the subject.
The article by Paul Gredinger states (I, 42), "the basis of our
work remains within the domain of physics. . . ." while remaining
unintelligible to a physicist. The word "proportion," for example, is
one which has a specific meaning in physics; it is used a score of times
in the article, but never in its accustomed scientific meaning. Of all
the terms used frequently in Die Reihe, this one most desperately
needs a coherent and intelligible definition applicable to its use there.
Karlheinz Stockhausen contributes an article of forbiddingly tech-
nical appearance. He postulates eleven basic elements (I, 46); these
are "non-identical in their basis. . . . A basic element is one which
cannot be reduced to further varied spectral components, either by
direct hearing, or by any methods of practical acoustical analysis. .. ."
Of his eleven elements only the first-the "sinus tone" (for which
read "simple tone," or "pure tone")--is an element according to his
own definition. Element 4, for example-a "sinus tone in which the
amplitude modulates periodically"--can be shown either mathemati-
cally or by acoustic analysis to be the sum of three simple tones. A
tone with a periodic frequency modulation (element 2) is more
complicated but is still reducible to a sum of simple tones. What he
means by "statistic" variation is not known; his later discussion of
the term (I, 48) only confuses matters further.
His subsequent discussion becomes more and more inspired; men-
tion is made of "harmonic, sub-harmonic, and chromatic pitch-scales,"
"spectral composition," "line- and band-spectra," and so forth. The
climax is reached in a paragraph which must be quoted in full to be
appreciated (1, 47):
S164
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
Differentiation of the intended permutation of timbres is
obtained from the complexity resulting from the simultaneous
combination of the six formant regions within one sound process,
from the varying of the elements or groups of elements, in all their
components, according to the series and of coordinating a special
intervallic scale of partials or of medium frequency width ratios
in each formant octave.
This is formidable language. What are the six formant regions?
What is an intervallic scale of partials? or a medium frequency width
ratio? What is a formant octave? None of these phrases has been used
or defined previously. The individual words have perfectly well-
defined scientific meanings, but are combined in ways that make no
sense as acoustical language. The paragraph quoted is an excellent
example of technical jargon without technical meaning.
We must of course remember that the passage given above has
been translated from the original German, and in fairness we need to
check the original to see if perhaps it makes more sense. Upon doing
so, we find that in general the translator has done a fair job of ren-
dering unintelligible German into unintelligible English, and quite
obviously understands none of it himself. Most of the terms-"formant
octave," "permutation of timbres," "interval scale of partials," for
example--translate quite directly. The phrase "medium frequency
width ratios" would translate better as "mean frequency band separa-
tions," and the word "formant" (about which we will say more later)
is used only once in the original of the quoted paragraph instead of
twice as in the translation. These differences are minor; the terms
quoted are no more defined in the German version than they are in
the English, and the material remains jargon in either language.
Further along in Stockhausen's article we see a fold-out chart
(I, 50) showing a page from the score of his Studie II. This chart is
referred to in one paragraph of the text (I, 47), but neither one
clarifies the other. The chart itself shows some features of interest.
It represents inharmonic complex tones of five partials each, the fre-
quency ratio of adjacent partials being either 5Y25 or 525. (The foot-
note in the original German edition gives erroneous ratios for these
partials.) The duration of each tone is given in terms of inches of
tape moving at a speed of 76.2 cm. (30 inches) per second. The in-
tensity level of each tone is indicated at the bottom of the chart, and for
each tone the level either increases or decreases uniformly with time.
The scale of intensity levels given in the chart is puzzling; the
S165
explanatory footnote gives the scale as extending from -30 db to

0 db, but most of the intensity levels plotted extend outside this range
at the lower end. Furthermore,a decibel level scale must have its zero
reference level specifically stated in order to have a meaning; for
example, in acoustics a sound of intensity level 30 db has 1000 times
the power of a sound of intensity 10-16 watts per cm.2, this latter being
the referencelevel of 0 db. This referencelevel is that sound intensity
which is just at the thresholdof hearing at a frequencyof 1000 cycles
per sec. (about C6, or "high C"). This is obviously not the reference
level intended in Stockhausen's diagram, as the intensities of his
chords would then extend from just inaudible (0 db) to about 4000
times less than inaudible (-35 db).
Since an extensive articleby Stockhausenappearsin V. III, we shall
wait to consider it before making any final judgment on this one.
This article has the appearanceof really getting down to funda-
mentals. Perhaps here we may get some insight into the methods and
thinking of these writers;we might even hope for some clarificationof
the incomprehensiblelanguage of his article in V. I.
Unfortunately,we get quite a jolt in the first paragraph."We hear
alterations in the acoustic field: . . . between the alterations we can
distinguish time-intervalsof varying magnitude. These time-intervals
may be called phases." They may not be called phases. The word
phase has well-known everyday meanings, such as the phase of the
moon, a phase in the development of a butterfly, etc. It also has a
precise meaning in physics: for a system undergoing a periodic varia-
tion, "the phase of the periodic quantity, for a particularvalue of the
independentvariable, is the fractionalpart of a period through which
the independentvariable has advanced, measured from an arbitrary
reference."' For an object undergoing a periodic simple harmonic
motion, for example, the displacementy of the object from its undis-
placed position may be expressed as
y =A sin 0
where A is the amplitudeof the motion (distance from the undisplaced
position to point of maximum displacement), and 0 is the phase.
The above example may not be intelligible to the nonmathematical
reader, but the point to be made is that the term phase has a precise
physical meaning, and one thing it does not mean is time-interval.
Since interval has anothermeaning in music, one can perhaps under-
stand Stockhausen's unwillingness to use this word, but what is
wrong with the word duration?He uses it himself in the third para-
4 American Standard Acoustical Terminology, op.cit., definition 1.18.
. 166 -
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
graph. His subsequent use of the terms macro-phases and micro-

phases is apparently a desire to use words that sound impressively
technical, rather than to make his meaning clear. Nowhere does he
use the word phase properly,and he uses it a great deal. The word has
enough meanings without loading it down with a new and confusing
one, especially when perfectly good words with the desired meaning
already exist.
(Stockhausen's use of the word quantum instead of unit (I, 49;
III, 10, 11) is another example of a fondness for impressive words.
In physics, a quantumis essentially an elementalunit of energy which
cannot be subdivided. There are no quanta in ordinary acoustical
phenomena, and to speak of subdividing a quantum (III, 11) is a
contradictionin terms.)
In the fourth paragraph (III, 10) Stockhausen attempts to estab-
lish a fundamental relationship between duration and pitch. The
example he uses is defective, however. Two impulses will define a
duration, as he states, as long as the time between them is longer
than about 1/•6 second. For times shorter than this the ear will hear
a single impulse, not a pitch. For repeated impulses spaced /0ooo
second apart, for example, the ear will not hear a pitch unless at least
twelve occur.5 Starting from the other direction, a simple tone may
be sounded of frequencysay 1000 cycles per second;this corresponds
to a duration of 00ooo second between the pressure maxima of the
sound wave, and will produce a sensation of high pitch (about C6).
If the frequency of the tone is now reduced, the pitch will fall, and
when the frequency is lowered to below about 15 cycles per second,
the sensation of sound will completely disappear. If the frequency is
reduced to, say, one cycle per second, the durationbetween pressure
maxima will be one second, but the ear will be unable to sense these
maxima and so will be unaware of this time duration. We are still
speaking of simple (sinusoidal) vibrations;any impulses spaced one
second apart will be heard because they contain higher frequencies
(partials) which the ear can perceive.
Further on (III, 13) we see the phrase subharmonic series of pro-
portions. The use of this elaborate phrase to describe the simple
sequence 1, 2, 3 . . . . 12 is another example of terms selected to
impress rather than clarify. Still more examples occur subsequently:
phase-groupfor a note-duration(his own definition); also structural
phase, element-series, statistical form-criteria, etc., none of them de-
fined except for whatever vague meanings may be gleaned from the
context.
5H. F. Olson, Musical Engineering, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952, p. 250.
* 167 *
Then we see "A sub-divisible time quantum will be called the
fundamental phase" (III, 16) emphasizing again the misuse of these
terms. This is followed by the descriptionof the fractions %, 1, etc.
as irrational values. The term irrational applies to numbers like \/2
which cannot be expressed as fractions; all fractions are rational.
(His statement in the same paragraph, "Even today, it is quite im-
possible to make a musician play a single % or % of a fundamental
phase ['counted value']"makes one wonder about the caliber of the
musicians of his acquaintance.) His "fundamentalphase" is then
divided into two halves, three thirds, etc. rorminga harmonicphase-
spectrum (III, 17), thus adding an intriguing new word to the
vocabulary.
There follows (III, 17) the paragraphstarting "In the harmonic
spectra of pitch, the fundamentalphase is also describedas the funda-
mental tone. We choose the term formants for the single harmonic
divisions. Thus the first formant is the fundamentalphase itself, the
second formant is the fundamentalphase divided by two, etc." The
word formant appearedbriefly in V. I, but was not defined. Now it
is defined, and the definitionis a flagrant misuse of acoustical terms.
As mentionedearlier, a musical tone is made up of a numberof simple
tones called partials or partial tones. The partials may or may not be
harmonic; harmonic partials have frequencies 2, 3, 4 ... etc. times
a lowest frequency; this lowest frequency, the fundamental, deter-
mines the pitch of the tone, although it may be completely absent.
(Use of the term "overtone"is discouraged.) A formant, on the other
hand, is a fixed frequency characteristic of, for instance, a vowel
sound. If the vowel "E"as in "eat"is produced,all of the partials that
are associated with the fundamental vocal frequency, and whose
frequencies lie in the neighborhoodof 2,300 cycles per second, will
be reinforcedby resonancein the vocal cavities of the head, whatever
the fundamentalfrequency of the vowel sounding in the head. This
fixed frequency is a formant characteristic of this vowel. To call
partialtones "formants"is a dismal display of ignorance. Stockhausen
likes the sound of the word and uses it a great deal from here on,
but never correctly.
By this time our patiencebegins to wear thin. We see "synchroniza-
tion of the formants"(III, 18), reminding us of Schillinger's "inter-
ference of periodicities"6and being just as much a pseudo-learned
discussion. We see "the following intensity-curvefrom the superposi-
tion of a second and a third formant (such a curve is called an
'envelope curve')" (III, 19) followed by Ex. 6. The curve shown is
6 John Backus, Journal of Music Theory, Vol. IV, November 1960, p. 221.
* 168 *
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
absolutely ludicrous; it is what might be expected of a college fresh-

man failing badly in analytic geometry. The term "envelope curve"
has a precise mathematical meaning; Stockhausen obviously does
not know it.
Someone-perhaps the translator-has done Stockhausen a favor
here by omitting the original Ex. 7 in the German edition, together
with its explanatory paragraph. In the omitted example the "envelope
curve" is drawn with alternately positive and negative values, which
the omitted paragraph states is "customary." The result is even more
hilariously preposterous than the previous curve; presumably even
the translator's credulity had its limits.
Looking further, we see more technical words-"time formants,"
"formant-rhythm," "harmonic scale of perception," "formant-propor-
tions," to name a few-but they no longer stimulate our curiosity. In
all probability they will be either erroneous or meaningless from the
acoustical standpoint, and it is not worth our while to find out which.
To be fair, we should look for examples of the correct use of
acoustical terminology. Rather few appear: His "overtone series" given
in the diagram of Ex. 4 (III, 16) is correct if we disregard the notes
at the top of the diagram and interpret the fractions shown as being
the relative periods of the harmonics with respect to the fundamental
rather than their frequencies. His use of the term "fundamental tone"
as quoted above is approximately correct, but his definition of it is
faulty; he defines it (vaguely) as a period of time, whereas it is
actually a frequency. These two examples are about all; a diligent
search might disclose a few more, but by this time our patience
is exhausted.
We conclude that Stockhausen's technical language is his own
invention, using terms stolen from acoustics but without their proper
acoustical meanings, and that the technical jargon he has developed
is designed mostly to impress the reader and to hide the fact that he
has only the most meagre knowledge of acoustics.
V. Iv, devoted to Young Composers, is the most extensive. Perhaps
there is a good reason for this. Writing the sort of technical jargon
used in the first three volumes requires a certain amount of creative
effort. Some labor is involved even in inventing terms which have no
meaning. However, writing endlessly detailed analyses of musical
compositions can go on forever; discussions of note relationships,
tables of notes per bar, diagrams of structural peculiarities, etc., are
limited only by the author's patience. We shall pass over most of V. iv,
commenting briefly on two articles, those on Pierre Boulez and
Bo Nilsson.
S169
Gy0rgy Ligeti analyzes the Boulez compositionStructure la (Iv,

36) in an articlewhich for once uses charts and diagrams in a helpful
way. What emerges is a method that is appalling in its arbitrariness.
The twelve notes of the chromaticscale are arrangedin an arbitrary
order. By a series of permutations a block of numbers is derived
from this ordering and from its inversion. An arrangementof twelve
time durationsfor the notes is then determinedfrom the rows of num-
bers of these blocks. A series of twelve intensities from pppp to ffff
is selected from two diagonals of each of these blocks; likewise a
series of twelve "attacks"is chosen from two more diagonals of each
block. What results can only be described as compositionby numer-
ology. The possibilities are endless; a computercould be programmed
to put down notes according to this prescriptionand in a very short
time could turn out enough music to requireyears for its performance.
By using differentnumericalrules-using a knight's move, for exam-
ple, rather than the bishop's move along the diagonals-music for
centuriesto come could be produced.
The other article, that of GottfriedMichael Koenig on Bo Nilsson,
contains a mathematicalformula (Iv, 86) which inadvertentlycom-
ments on the validity of everything in Die Reihe. According to the
author, he was sent it as a formula for "aleatoricmodulation,"and
states that "this definition,though extremely precise, has no technical
equivalent."The formula in question is a simple elaboration of the
first integration formula met in beginning integral calculus, to be
found in any standard textbook or elementary table of integrals.7
However, it has been erroneouslycopied; the integral sign is missing,
an x has been omitted from the first bracketedexpression, and a not-
equal sign (#,) has somehow become turned into an infinity symbol
(oo) so that the whole succession of signs is mathematicallymean-
ingless. Its accuracy is of little consequence; even if correct, the
formula has about as much to do with "aleatoricmodulation"as the
formula 2 + 2 = 4. This pretendeddisplay of mathematicalerudition
is pure bluff. Somebody-either Koenig, the editor of Die Reihe, or
the defenseless reader-is being thoroughly swindled.
Enough has been said by now to demonstratethe nature of much
of the materialin Die Reihe. Our attentionhas been focused on those
discussionswhich seem most forbiddinglyscientific. It is to be empha-
sized that the fundamentalpurpose of technical language is clarity
and precision. As was stated in the beginning of our discussion,
technicalterms used must be definedas exactly as possible, and subse-
7For example, Dwight, Tables of Integrals and other Mathematical Data, New
York: Macmillan, 1947, formula 83, p. 17.
0
170-
COLLOQUY AND REVIEW
quently used with this meaning and no other, and terms borrowed
from another field must be redefined in their new usage. From this
standpointthe authorsof Die Reihe cannot be said to have a technical
language. Their discussions do not make their reasoning clear, but
rather the contrary.
If we boil down Die Reihe to see what solid content it has, we
find first that the amountof valid scientificmaterialvaporizesimmedi-
ately; next, the technicaljargon boils off, taking quite a time to do so,
since there is so much of it; and finally, what remainsis a microscopic
residuumconsisting of nothing more than a mystical belief in numer-
ology as the fundamentalbasis for music.
In fact, the articles in this periodical conform to all the best
traditions of pseudo-scientificwriting in their disregard of accepted
meanings of scientific terms, their unintelligibility, and their complete
lack of any reference to the results of other workers as support for
their statements.
In fairness, we should mention the article of Werner Meyer-Eppler
(I, 55) as an exception: It is an interesting account of some experi-
mental results in psycho-acoustics,is adequatelysupplied with refer-
ences, and is a model of lucidity as compared with the companion
articles. This author obviously knows his subject. The other authors
obviously have a great deal to learn before their writings can begin
to have any scientific validity.
S171

Back Us 1962

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Back Us 1962

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Die Reihe-A Scientific Evaluation

Author(s): John Backus

THE periodical Die Reihe is a relatively new addition to the family

ignorance. The emergence of a new and radically different field of

ponents of the "area" were varied simultaneously. "Sometimes this

explanatory footnote gives the scale as extending from -30 db to

graph. His subsequent use of the terms macro-phases and micro-

absolutely ludicrous; it is what might be expected of a college fresh-

Gy0rgy Ligeti analyzes the Boulez compositionStructure la (Iv,

You might also like