Referential Meaning in Music

What does music mean? The concept of referential meaning has created much controversy in the mere definition of the words: “a symbol has meaning when acquaintance with it causes one…to think of something else” (page 7). When we think of words acting as symbols, the meaning becomes clear. One hears the word “cup” and thinks of a vessel in which liquids are held. But how can we define music in such terms, when the concept of a C-major chord, viewed from separate contexts, can have multiple definitions?

(Music Makes Me Sing)

This is the exact reason that musicologists avoid studying music on a referential level. There exists a lack of control and systematization that could ultimately result in analytical chaos, as Dr. Ferrara so quaintly puts. If we step back and consider the idea of analysis from a scientific stand point, there are two qualities we seek to achieve: objectivity and verifiability. Objectivity occurs when one remains neutral—detached and value free—to a subject. Verifiability describes the ability to reenact the process and achieve similar results. But from the viewpoint of a musical analyst, the “conventional systems of music analysis…do not satisfy the classic criteria of objectivity and verifiability” because there are so many factors, abstract and/or real which impact the final product (page 9). In a world reliant on systems, like that of the scientific, this might create chaos. However, in the musical world, instead of confusion, the lack of objectivity and verifiability often gives “richness and demonstrable insight” (page 9).

Langer’s description of man in the “realms of nature” states that the image of man is “active, rational and free” (page 10). Man’s ability to render experiences into language is unique because it demonstrates our place in the natural world. Armed with basic survival instincts, man is capable of extending the limits of scientific reason to cultural understanding (i.e. language, history, art, religion) because the power of the mind includes an ability to see, rationalize and conform.

The supernaturalistic-transcendent perspective describes man’s gift as one that is given from God, not from nature. This is taken from the Cartesian dualistic perspective that says man is only unique from nature if man’s origin is supernatural. This being said, man is also not part of the animal world. With development of technology and science, Cartesianism is further disproved with the naturalistic-reductive perspective: “man’s gift of superiority comes from nature, not God. Man is ‘naturally’ selective and therefore continuous with nature” (page 11). The specification that the theory is “reductive” is because it describes that the “meaning of man is reduced to the laws of a machine” (page 11).

While Langer agrees with the Darwinian model—that man is evolved from nature—she also understands that man is above other beings in nature. She then set out to construct a “naturalistic-transcendent perspective, which accepts that man is indeed evolved “form nature but understands his transcendence above other beings in nature” (page 12). What man knows is directly related to what he can ask, and the ability to ask and communicate sets us above other beings in nature.

(Darwin "Theory of Evolution")

Music defies all rational systems because unlike the facts of science, it does not have fixed meaning. “[M]usic cannot properly be called a language” because it is not comprised of fixed meaning and is based on the concept of feeling. It is understood on two different levels: logically and intuitively. A composer captures real life feelings/experiences into virtual form, a “metaphorical image of actual life” (page 15).

Human existence is permanent, but permanence is ever changing. We’ve been blessed and haunted by the sense of a beginning and an end. A web of beginnings and endings connects the past, the future and the present, but the transitions are hardly smooth. Why did the premiere of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” cause such unrest that the audience to rioted in anger? In our time, his music is seen and heard as a seminal 20^th century composition. Our appreciation for what is right and wrong in musical gestures and understanding has shifted so drastically that it is terrifying to consider what would have happened had the audience of Stravinsky’s time heard a George Crumb work. What visually and aurally connects our historical presence?

(George Crumb 1929-)

Perhaps it is because there are more performers nowadays than there ever were. In the introduction of “Philosophy and the Analysis of Music”, Dr. Ferrara distinguishes between the average music listener and the music performer. The standard has not been set for what is acceptable in new music, so it has increased the disorder in an already existing confusion about virtual feeling. Because music does not have fixed meaning, and because the level of expertise has become more varied in performance, has this affected our tolerance for change?

Introduction Summary and Continued Abstract Development

(Mars Rover)

I’d like to think that we have yet again reached an age of exploration. This always happens during transitions between eras—a time where there is no obvious direction. People are confused by the present, reminiscing over the past and dreaming of the future. There is room for experimentation and there is room for forgiveness (or perhaps too much room), as we have yet to form new guidelines.

The purpose of the book is to make an attempt to “better understand the dynamic relationship between the various levels of musical significance”. That is, Dr. Ferrara makes an effort to methodically organize the levels individually and their interaction. The three main categories are phenomenological (sound in time), conventional (explanations of musical form/syntax) and hermeneutic (interpretation of musical reference).

He distinguishes the difference between actual musical experience and music itself, stating that although the two are related one cannot describe the other. He also reminds us of the difference between the “ordinary usage” of the word music versus its’ meaning for “music listeners”. This refers to “bridging”, a term which describes the movement between intrinsic levels of musical significance and referential levels. Music has the ability to draw out human expression/feelings, represent the historical world of the composer and provoke thought. This concept demonstrates referential meanings with regard to their psychological associations.

(Steinway Model-B)

Listeners of music and musicians themselves understand music on a more comprehensive level. Listeners develop their taste and knowledge of the musical language through exposure to the art. Performers, on the other hand, must consider sound in time (phenomenology), how sound is formed into musical syntax and the unfolding message of a work’s reference. This allows the performer to provide a more successful analysis and performance of the work at hand. This shows the intimate connection between words, musical experience and education, enabling the musician to project his/her understanding into the unfolding referential message of a musical work.

Finally, the eclectic method describes how movement through the justification, formulation and implementation of the method endeavors to provide bridges for musical sound, form and reference. Traditionally, history provides an understanding of the present. In other words, all musical understanding is rooted in particular historical perspective, also allowing us to understand the present.

The attention span strays within a matter of seconds. The transformation of music has developed through time, changed and molded itself to fit (or corrupt) the current period. As we travel through the space of change, one can see that pieces by different composers become more distinct, even pieces by the same composer become rather unique from each other. Clearly, physical movements in performance have also changed, as musical genres give birth to musical subgenres. Movements that are acceptable now at a rock concert would hardly pass in Mozart’s time. Like memories of the mind, we wonder how a Baroque and Classical past, connects spiritually and physically to our Contemporary future.

(Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 1756-1791)

We have reached a point where we are buying into performance, gestures if you will. People attend shows to see exaggerated emotion or a physical movement that separates itself from the uniform crowd. They are paying for a feature that cannot be imitated or preserved by anyone except the performer. I think the most efficient start would be to explore the audience, psychologically analyze what makes them react in order to answer the question of connectivity. What visually or aurally holds audience attention and why? Are they only pretending to enjoy what they see, swayed by majority reaction? And if not, are they simply amazed?