Reviewer 1’s Comments
Although Eadie presents an immersive listening experience, there is no discussion of inductive or deductive processes within the arts. The description does not serve to elucidate either, as it only mentions memory and listening within improvisation. If a proposition for how the piece could be listened to through a theme related to the conference, or the process of its creation more clearly explained relevant to the call out, it could better be justified for inclusion. Furthermore, memory, improvisation, and listening are merely fields. These topics need to be critically discussed in relation to the artistic work such that this can be understood as artistic research.
Reviewer 2’s Comments
This work, with its reference to memory and improvisation, touches on ideas of inductive and deductive but is not explicit to the theme. However, with a brief revision by the author about how the compositional process more explicitly engages with these ideas I think this is a good selection. If I could suggest a thought, I think there is something to be had about thinking of the voices and the pitch convergence as a type of musical crossing where inductive and deductive collide, explode, blend, and influence each other. Esthetically this is lovely, and the production quality is quite nice. As a conductor I love this sound!
This question goes right to the heart of my thoughts about the cognitive approaches to deduction and induction. When you talk about memory and listening in your exegesis, do you mean the momentary musical memory of phrase to phrase similarity and difference (the inductive learning process) or the bigger deductive metaphor that takes one a more Proustian scale?