Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!bartok.Eng.Sun.COM!bradr From: bradr@bartok.Eng.Sun.COM (Brad Rubenstein) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: }%bartok.eng@sun.UUCP Message-ID: <136888@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 8 Jun 90 02:31:50 GMT Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Lines: 308 Music-Research Digest Thu, 7 Jun 90 Volume 5 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Musical Semantics (was: Re: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music)) Semantics of Music? (4 msgs) semantics questions *** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg *** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request *** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary *** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk *** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk *** Back issues, index, etc.: send "help" in a message to archive-server *** @uk.ac.oxford.prg (in the UK) or @bartok.sun.com (elsewhere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jun 90 22:47:08 GMT From: Mark Gresham Subject: Musical Semantics (was: Re: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music)) To: music-research@prg Message-ID: <857@artsnet.UUCP> In article <16590@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@winnie.Princeton.Edu (eliot handelman) writes: >In article <10589@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes: >>A semantic (by both my definition and that of a convenient >>dictionary) is an associative meaning. Musical objects can occur in >>a variety of extra-musical contexts: i.e. theatre, automobiles, torture >>chambers. Like the one with the man tied to a chair, and a loudspeaker out of which comes the words, "And now, once again, for your listening enjoyment, Pachelbel's "Canon in D." :-) ??? :-) [Pachelbel fans note: as extensively discussed some time ago, the problem isn't Pachelbel's "Canon," but how incessantly it's played (and in a smarmy manner) by classical radio stations and environment infesting Muzak clones as well as numerous "meditation" tapes.] >>The subsequent experiences of musical objects by an >>individual will be influenced by the association of object to its >>original context. > >Is this a theory of the origin of musical intelligence? Do whales do their >musical acts because they watch a lot of TV and learn this special and >inelegant way of establishing referents? Do infants who seem to respond to >music do so because they know how to make associations? Or is this your >special way of listening to music, you line up all the different things that >are associated with this music? What do you do when you hear a loud sound? Jump? Ultimately, the issue of semantics must deal with PRIMAL, primary responses rather than cultivated ones. IF music had genuine semantics, that's where it would be found rather than in cultivated, associative responses. >Whereas I see post-industrial society as being essentially >musical, as being constructed through musical consciousness. Interesting proposal. Then politicians would be arguing about which kinds of music are legal rather than economics. (But wait, they've already been doing that for thousands of years, eh? :-)) Check out Don Saliers' (Emory University, Candler School of Theology) concerning the formative nature of musical experience. (Which is also what I find as the most interesting aspect of John Cage's work and ideas.) "Formative nature" not being the same thing as "having semantics," BTW. >>Obviously, some contexts are extremely >>transparent and objects experienced in such contexts will communicate >>little or no future associative information. > >If associations are the origin of the semantic you're supplying, >why should one thing be more privileged than another? Maybe you're >missing something in your conception? Probably overstating the >importance of associating in the first place. > >>For musical semantic >>manipulation to be successful beyond a single individual, the >>desired associations must be common experiences among a group. >>No two individuals experience the same music in identical contexts, >>and therefore it is impossible to establish an absolute semantic for >>a musical object. > >You think that only because you insist on semantics. One of the problems Cage has expressed concerning much recent "new music" is, indeed, its use of "loaded" imagery -- i.e., the fact that it REQUIRES so much associative context for even marginal success (social, political, violent, exoticness). Without such associations, the music (and/or other work of performance art) falls flat. In this sense, Cage might be considered a bit old-fashioned :-) in that his musical creations are aesthetically bouyant on its own (assuming you accept the aesthetic possibilities in the first place) which might be considered akin somewhat to the classicist notion of abstract music which has its own integrity as pure "concept" (musical) without programme. A difference: Cage's music allows the circumstances of the context to "interpenetrate" his works; a Haydn string quartet, however, might be disturbed by an appropriately :-) times cough or a slammed door. >You talk about >music as though it were an abstract experiment, a sort of conditioned >response in some lab rats with no guaranteed generality. And yet music >is, quite obviously, the instrument of mass consciousness. Your theory >is predicting the wrong thing. I wouldn't want that pass by without a call for more explication of "instrument of mass consciousness" which, I would dare guess, is not meant to mean the same thing as "universal language" by any means? Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ======================================== ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 11:01:26 GMT From: Werner Icking Subject: Semantics of Music? To: music-research@prg Message-ID: <2514@gmdzi.UUCP> eliot handelman writes: >In article <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> geraint@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Geraint Wiggins) writes: >>In another article, Eliot Handelman writes >>> In article <2364@aipna.ed.ac.uk> geraint@ai.ed.ac.uk (Geraint Wiggins) writes: ... >>> The ball's in your hands. I say "X does not exist." The only counterexample >>> that I can think of would be "There is an X which does exist." That's >>> your position, not mine. >>Not really. It's up to BOTH sides of the argument to make a case. Maybe I've >>been missing out on the discussion, but I only saw a claim, not an example or >>counter example. >Fine. I'm unaware of semantics in Pithoprakta. Happy now? For BOTH sides it may be helpful to read Nikolaus Harnoncourt: Musik als Klangrede Nikolaus Harnoncourt: Musikalischer Dialog (both dtv/baerenreiter) The titles already state that - long long ago - making music meant deliver a speech or make conversation. This would be very difficult without semantics? I hope there is a translation of the two books - ask Roger -; otherwise for a non german-speaking reader it would be only noise without any semantics. -- Werner Icking icking@gmdzi.gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2443 Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH (GMD) Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O.Box 1240, D-5205 Sankt Augustin 1, FRGermany ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 18:02:40 GMT From: Roger Lustig Subject: Semantics of Music? To: music-research@prg Message-ID: <17030@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> >For BOTH sides it may be helpful to read > Nikolaus Harnoncourt: Musik als Klangrede > Nikolaus Harnoncourt: Musikalischer Dialog (both dtv/baerenreiter) >The titles already state that - long long ago - making music meant deliver a >speech or make conversation. This would be very difficult without semantics? Not having read these, I can't say; but the issue of rhetoric-and-music in the Baroque (which I assume is Harnoncourt's topic) is a very dangerous one. Many writers spoke of musical rhetoric and musical figures, analogous to rhetoric, figures of speech, etc., and even with the same names; but first of all, this sort of thing was ALWAYS applied to vocal music only, so the question of 'what's being said?' was obvious from the start; and second, there was no agreement as to how the figures worked, what they expressed, etc. Music was LIKENED to oratory; that did not MAKE it oratory. (While in E. Germany this week, I hope to get to Dresden to do some research on one of the best writers on this topic, J. D. Heinichen. I've written a paper on his theories, and want to check out what he did in practice. He seems to have made a specific point about expressing certain characteristics of a text through the harmony of the setting; I wonder whether his music bears this out. I have 3 operas and 63 cantatas to work with, so we can hope.....) Roger ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 23:59:44 GMT From: Brad Rubenstein Subject: Semantics of Music? To: music-research@prg Message-ID: <136794@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> In article <856@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >Another example is a very, very serious traditional >Japanese court music (with a name I cannot pronounce) >which is some of the *most* serious music in the world by >*intention*. However, the response of most Westerners on >first hearing (without prior lecture) is to laugh. >If there is a semantic "seriousness" in the music itself, >why doesn't it communicate? (If music is a universal "language," >which I contend it is not. It is not a "language" of any kind.) This is not unique to music. A Japanese speech synthesis program of marginal quality "utters" a series of sounds that japanese speaker understands as (roughly) "you are very welcome, honorable sir", but which an english speaker understands as "dont'cha touch your moustache". [ the sounds are roughly /doo-i-tashi-mashite/ ] The sounds invoke a "serious" response in the japanese speaker, and a "comic" (or perhaps "confused") response in the english speaker. Together, these demonstrate that the meanings assigned to sound (or the referents of sound-as-sign) are culture-specific. I don't take this to be a revelation. :-) Brad -- ---Brad Rubenstein-----Sun Microsystems Inc.-----bradr@sun.com--- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 90 11:45:37 GMT From: Mark Gresham Subject: Semantics of Music? To: music-research@prg Message-ID: <856@artsnet.UUCP> In article <16576@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@winnie.Princeton.Edu (eliot handelman) writes: >In article <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> geraint@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Geraint Wiggins) writes: >>Maybe I've >>been missing out on the discussion, but I only saw a claim, not an example or >>counter example. > >Fine. I'm unaware of semantics in Pithoprakta. Happy now? A different kind of counter-example: Notice the tune with which Americans associate the text "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" and British associate "God Save the Queen." Different responses for each when the tune is heard without text. That's an oversimplified example, and doesn't account for a person who hears the tune for the first time without ever hearing the words. However,... Another example is a very, very serious traditional Japanese court music (with a name I cannot pronounce) which is some of the *most* serious music in the world by *intention*. However, the response of most Westerners on first hearing (without prior lecture) is to laugh. If there is a semantic "seriousness" in the music itself, why doesn't it communicate? (If music is a universal "language," which I contend it is not. It is not a "language" of any kind.) Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ======================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jun 90 22:15 CST From: jeff beer Subject: semantics questions To: music-research@com.sun.eng.bartok Message-ID: <9006070316.AA02574@Sun.COM> What is it that allows people to get some purpose or activity from music that they do not get from non-musical sound? If what we call music is a sound that represents or expresses something beyond the sound, what is that if not something with a semantical basis? If you believe music has no semantic content, are you an animist? Why do musics used in religious trance rituals always have the same elements in common, namely repetitive polyrythms? Does music have no semantical nature just because there can be little value in studying its semantical nature? ... just asking... jeff beer, chicago ------------------------------ End of Music-Research Digest -- ---Brad Rubenstein-----Sun Microsystems Inc.-----bradr@sun.com---