(p. 85). Assuredly, one sentence is of little value; but perhaps the rest of the 
paragraph from which the quotation was lifted would elucidate matters, 
particularly since I continue after the above quote that this would be dis-
cussed later. 

"We find that Hughes neither articulates any specific hypotheses about 
Skriabin's preludes nor puts the data to any significant use" (p. 86). The 
hypotheses concerning my thesis are clearly stated on p. 14. The question 
arises as to what Mr. Kassler expected my thesis to prove. I intended it to 
show concise amounts of what I call and define as tonal complexity. 

"And surely Hughes deserves criticism for having become engaged in a 
data-collection procedure ... without justification of the unconventional 
measurement criteria" (p. 86). Apparently, Mr. Kassler is undecided in this 
criticism. Mter having stated my main concern, namely, "tonal orientation" 
versus "tonal organization", Mr. Kassler continues: " ... the necessity for 
unusual measurements should cause no surprise" (p. 85). 

" ... and with hardly any comment on the results other than 'they are 
here'" (p. 86). Any analysis can only show what is there. The question, how-
ever, is what is there? 

REPLY TO MATT C. HUGHES 

Michael Kassler 

MATT c. HUGHES 
Austin, Texas 

Mr. Hughes's reply accuses me ofinaccuracies, but the accusation appears 
to be gratuitous, for he mentions none. 

Some comments by way of surrebuttal: 
1. The phrase 'information theory' has come to mean specifically the field 

whose development stems from the classical Shannon articles and whose 
current state is illustrated by the content of such journals as the IEEE 
Transactions on Information Theory. To speak today of information theory not 
in the Shannon tradition is oxymoronic. 

2. Re Opus 11, No.1: Footnote 2 of my review indicated the presence of a 
rhythmic problem caused by the composition's being noted not in the current 
common musical notation (CCMN). Hughes has interpreted (for instance) 
the measures excerpted in Ex. 1 as if Ex. 2 were their CCMN equivalent; in 
my review, I said that "the bar placement seems to disallow Hughes's 'five-
against-three' interpretation"-if the bar had been placed after the second 
note of the left-hand group of three notes, rather than before, I would have 
left Hughes's interpretation unquestioned. Example 3 is the CCMN equiva-
lent of Ex. 1 I would tentatively propose (based only on consultation of the 
Edward B. Marks reprinted edition). Since my version clearly does not have 
the right hand finishing befQre the left and does have a left-hand note 'bit 
value' of2/5, Hughes's finding of an error in my commentary must be 'lost'. 

3. Hughes apparently believes that merely by naming the results of his 
internal-evidential procedures a 'measure of tonal complexity' he has 

144 



endued his procedures with the power to make significant musicological 
determinations. In fact he has provided no demonstration that his calculation 
procedures explicate any a priori notion of complexity nor has he shown that 
they give insight into the Skriabin preludes or into any traditional formula-
tion of tonality theory. 

Ex. 1 Skriabin, Prelude, Cp. n, No.1 

Ex. 2 

* Hughes would give this chord bit value 1/3 but surely this is a mistake. 

Ex. 3 

145