Rhetorics [was: Re: Vibrato again]
alex reznick
>between structure and content. For example, one place where
>vibrato/vibrati is frequently used in the performance of Baroque music
>is in long suspended notes. Is there an emotional context to
>suspensions? Sure. But there is also an analyzable harmonic context.
>It pays to hear and understand both aspects, doesn't it?
>
>Michael
Hi
I still would insist that structure and content throughout the entire
Baroque era relate to each other as signs. Moreover, the dominant
methodology of musical thinking at that time was undoubtfully
quasi-linguistic. Dozens of authoritative writers of Baroque period
from France, Germany, England, Italy and other countries regard music
as "language of passions", where the term "language" is understood
very much in linguistic framework, with distinction between lexicon,
grammar and certain rules of musical analogs to "phonetics" and
"morphology". Such linguistic distinctions in music are especially
elaborated in writings of French authors, like D'Alembert, Russeau,
Diderot, Chabanon, etc.. The verbal language was regarded as system
of communication designed to transmit concepts, whereas the
specification of music communication was believed to be transmittance
of emotions.
I would insist that the entire progress of Western Music was towards
inferential semiotic system, very similar to that of natural
languages. By "inferential" I mean that the semantic value of the
sentence is made up of semiotic values of the words. Semantic value
of the paragraph is made up from the semantic values of the
sentences, and et.c.. The music practice of the 17-18th and most of
19th centuries were based on similar inferential interpretation of
music structures. In contrast, the dominant practice of today is
"referential", as it finds semantic value not by means of inferring
values of the elements of the particular composition, but by
"referring" to the semantic value of a specific music form (certain
structural cliche). Thus, the inferential practice is
content-oriented, and characterized by distinct and unique
interpretation in every given case. The referential practice, in
contrary, is form-oriented, and maintains strong stereo-typicity.
This referential practice seems to be introduced around 1830's by
efforts of Adolph Marx and Eduard Hanslick, and was strongly
connected to the task of group teaching of music in Universities and
conservatories. Such tendency of "formalization" of music education
was caught almost on its onset and critisized by many authorities,
amongst the most notables, Marcello in Italy, or Balakirev in Russia.
However, gradually the practices of text-books, courses and
examinations, typical for group teaching impacted the methodology of
thinking in music, and it started shifting towards more and more
form-based theory. Such structuralization perhaps was one of the
chief reasons for nihilistic explosions on the turn of the centuries.
Whatever the reason, but the inferential [rhetoric] methodology was
crashed ultimately around the 1920's. This was reflected in many
documents. For instance, Joseph Lhevinne in his book on art of
interpretation, written in 1924, points out that musical thinking of
new students coming to his class in Julliard is destroyed by what he
thinks is the influence of early jazz. He marks out inability of many
new students to follow the discourse of musical elements in the event
string of the composition, and as a result, their failure to
emphasize discoursive content of a composition, which leads to
rhythmically monotonous and melodically insensitive renderings.
However, the biggest evidence of the inferential properties of
pre-20th century tradition is the stock of old records. The 1906
peformance of Beethoven's Appassionata [1st movement] by Franz
Scharwenka, the pupil of Kullak, a very classicistically oriented
musician, illustrates the best what rhetoric interpretation actually
must have been like during late Classicism.
The subjects are noticeably slowed down, whereas all non-subjects are
sped up and somewhat distorted by rubato. All transitions from one
element to another are reflected by changes of tempo. The emphasis
falls clearly not on the functions of sections of forms (thus, the
recapitulation is not rendered as a repeat), but on the inferential
properties of music discourse. The characteristic elements of themes,
whether they are melodic, rhythmic or harmonic, are articulated,
frequently in a very exaggerated [to modern standards] fashion. This
articulation is achieved by many means of expressivity available for
the technique of given instrument/vocal, most notably, by
accentuation and slurring phrases. As a result of discrepancies
between very conservative "rhetoric" orientation of Scharwenka and
"referential" orientation of modern listener, to modern ear this
performance of a very reputable and even fashionable in 1870-80's
interpreter of Beethoven sounds somewhat wild and ignorant - majority
of musicians to whom I played this performance thought it was a bad
take of some college level student .
Many recordings of the performers tied with the Classical tradition
exhibit rhetoric organization. Such is 1905 recording of Larghetto
from Mozart's 26th piano concerto by Carl Reinecke, who was born in
1824 and raised on bread of Classicism [revered by his father],
stylistically as anti-Romantic as one could stay throughout 19th
century. Such is the 1906 recording of Mozart's Fantasia c-moll by
Leschetizky, who graduated Czerny's class in 1844. Such is the 1905
recording of Grieg playing his own Le Papillion (to remind, he passed
very conservative schooling in Leipzig in the 1850's, under Wenzel
and Moscheles, notable critic of Chopin and Schumann).
Even the output of Romantically oriented musicians has a much
stronger base in the classicisically styled rhetoric devices than
today any active performer can suggest. The authentic performances of
another Mozartian lover, perhaps even bigger than Grieg, Tchaikovsky,
display the same rhetoric thread, which has completely fallen off the
over-Romantized today's perception of this composer. The recording of
his 1st piano concerto by the person who practiced and performed this
concerto under composer's baton in 1888 - Vasilii Sapellnikov - sound
now very fresh and appear very "classical" due to the rhetorically
governed large scale rendering of every movement, as well as typical
"un-vocal" articulation of the melodic line [see explanation below].
The recording of arioso of Hermann from The Queen of Spades by
Nikolai Figner, for whom this part was originally created and who was
personally trained by Tchaikovsky for this role, displays the
inferential treatment at the smallest "motiv" level.
In vocal, actually, the inferential treatment is the deepest and most
obvious. Many vocalists of the old school left evidence of this in
their records. Adelina Patti, who performed publically with Rossini
accompanying her [though not to the delight of the later], or Eduard
de Reszke, musically formed by his older brother in conservative
German tradition, demonstrate in their records rhetorical rendering
of the musical elements on the smallest level of motiv organization.
In fact, in their performances the formal makeup of a composition is
simly unnoticeable, with full impact placed on the inferential chain
of smallest units of the melodic line.
Such leaning on the melodic interpretation gives another marking
point for inferential practice - dominance of melodic elements over
rhythmic, harmonic or textural, present in the composition, in
rhetoric organization of the performance. However, such "melodical"
orientation is not treated as "vocalistic" [meaning, "singing
principle" - emphasis on contionuous legato smoothness]. In fact,
quite opposite, even opera singers [with their demand for monumental
technique] of that direction demonstrate arsenal of articulation
much wider than modern opera singers. Old performances are
incredibly rich in non legato, marcato, staccato and 2 note legato
groups. Overall, accentuation is much more frequent, with almost
every second motiv containing an accent. This makes vocal sound
somewhat "interruptive" and, therefore, rather "anti-vocal", bringing
in the issue of perhaps some instrumental influence. Instrumental
techniques further support this anti-vocalness. Here piano technique
gives the best demonstration, because of percussive nature of the
instrument. What becomes clear from listening to records of pianists
coming from various 19th century schools is that by the second half
of the 19th century it was only one little school that developed from
Chopin's students - which practiced deep legato akin to vocal legato.
And here Chopin's eccentricity and innovativeness does need any
comments. The "singing-like" style of melodic rendering that became
so popular in Russia and other eastern European countries on the turn
of the 20th century is a clearly neo-Chopin post-Romantic by-product.
[to remind, even such ultra-Romantic representative as Busoni
insisted on consistent non-legato performance, even in the fast
passages; or for instance, another utmost Romanticist, Vladimir
Pachmann has a recording of Chopin's valse, all played staccato].
Speaking specifically about vibrato on old records, I would take as
an example a vocalist like Marcella Sembrich, who was also a
concertazing violinist of German/Belgian training, formed as a
musician in 1860's. Listening to her recording of "Sull aria" from
"Le nozze di Figaro" (1908), I can tell that vibrato there is very
sparce and usually falls on notes that are accentuated and are
harmonically stable. Such notes usually either are the first note of
the motiv that starts on tonic, or the last note of the phrase, with
full resolution. In suspensions it is inevitably the resolved note
that is made vibrato, and never the suspended note - the same holds
true for many other peformances of that time. The only place where
the unstable note is treated vibrato is the dominant harmony in the
ultimate cadence, at the very end of the composition.
Listening to string performances of that time further strengthes
such harmonic dependancy. Notable are the early recordings of the
representatives of Franco-Belgian school, such as Heermann or
Viardot, [except Ysaye, known for his shift to more constant use of
vibrato in the 1900's]. Recordings of Joachim, whether his Bach or
Brahms, also demonstrate the same principle of "stable" accentuated
notes in the beginning or the end of a phrase being treated vibrato.
Overall amount of such vibrato notes is rather small, in recordings
of Heermann, for example barely 2-3 notes per composition.
Recordings of ensembles further support such hypothesis. In
recordings of Flonzaley Quartet or the Bohemian String Quartet I
could never find more than 2 notes in a row that would be played
vibrato. And this 2 note combination was created as a result of
strong accentuated vibrato placed on the note in some sort of
exclamatory motiv, where before that note there was another note. So,
that previous note was treated with little vibrato in order to
smoothen the transition to intensive vibrato of the accentuated note.
The connection between harmonic stability and vibrato became even
more obvious in the part of the cello, where it was a prolonged pedal
note over few measures. As that note became fundamental bass for
stable harmonies it obtained pronounced vibrato, whereas on the
passing unstable harmonies vibrato on the very same note decreased or
even disappeared. Such "blowing off and out" of the vibrato presented
a clear map of the harmonic pulsation in the piece.
I have been working on a very deep research on the connection between
emotion and music for more than 4 years, and now am working on a book
on this subject. And what I see from the material I collected is that
"inferential" rhetoric methodology of music thinking was a backbone
of Western music (and perhaps, Western culture in general],
displaying the first inferential "symptoms" as early as around the
10th century.
The clear case of "inferential" semantics is the Christian notion of
a mass as a sacral rite of the act of communication between the man
and the deity, followed through the set of conditions in which the
man relates himself to the deity and thus endow these conditions with
meaning. For instance, the Offertory is one of such conditions
separated into a section of a mass, the meaning of which is to offer
bread and wine to God, which has to symbolize the contribution of the
man to the supernatural power that has originated him, as well as
that bread and wine that he uses for his sustenance, contribution
called to show that he returns to God something that belongs to God.
Then, Communion, in contrary, is a sacrament in which bread and wine
are partaken to symbolize that God grants those who give to God what
belongs to him (Offertory) with his own flesh and blood, that is, God
consecrates those who admit Him through their deeds and includes them
into a community which is an organic part of his own "body". Thereby,
Offertory and Community together comprise the succession of two modes
in exposition of the same subject. And it can be said about the music
that accompanies Offertory and Communion if it has been arranged for
this specific purpose of accompaniment to the liturgy that the music
is arranged rhetorically.
Consequemtly, the first use of rhetoric forms in music can be traced
back as early as in the 7-10th centuries in the musical arrangement
within the Proprium Missa - the sum of all chants and texts
pertaining to the liturgy, which change from day to day according to
the subject of the celebration. The subject, such as commemoration of
a saint or a special feast, here served for the general idea that was
demonstrated throughout the service in different aspects, depending
on the ecclesiastical status of a specific section in the mass and a
corresponding ceremony of the liturgy. In music, there were 6 main
sections: Introit, Gradual, Tractus, Alleluia, Offertorium and
Communion. Each of them had its own liturgical function, associated
text and corresponding musical setting. Therefore, the entire mass
could be viewed as a rhetoric [inferential] elaboration on a given
subject.
Although such subject would be non-musical, it would organize musical
patterns in specific way according to the norms of musical "grammar"
of the epoch without any "illustrative" moment in representing the
non-musical content. This means that by no means music illustrates,
say, the birth of Christ in a Christmas - but music follows to the
task of representing all ecclesiastically significant aspects of
Christ's birth through accompanying the corresponding parts of the
mass. Such "functional" application of rhetorics to music has
developed in parallel with development of mass as a single musical
form, and became a powerful semantic factor of structural
organization of music in the monothematic masses (masses written on a
single tune that was arranged differently in every section of the
mass, with possible omitting in some of the sections). Especially the
"parody masses" had a rich source of semantic context: they were
written on the material of some pre-existing compositions, like a
motet or a chanson, and thereby inherited the semantic connections
with the text of the original. Yet the "parody mass" had its own
text, the semantic connection to the original text provided
additional semantic plan that could be "rhetorically" developed
through the sections of the mass which each through its autonomous
arrangement of the theme would indicate a certain stage in the
theme's development within the entire mass.
The rhetoric influence, during the second half of the 16th century,
penetrates into the genres of motet and madrigal. Eversince Josquin,
the style of musica reservata became rather popular amongst Western
European composers. This vocal style was associated with the strong
differentiation between the emotional conditions of the text which
were projected on the further formal detalization of the musical
score. Grout writes about this: "This strange term (literally,
"reserved music") seems to have come into use shortly after the
middle of the 16th century to denote the advanced or "new" style of
those composers who, motivated by a desire to give strong and
detailed reflection of the words, introduced chromaticism, harmonic
freedom, ornaments, and contrasts of rhythm and texture in their
music to a degree hitherto unknown." Such structural elaboration gave
enough musical material to represent the changes and fluctuations of
the content of the text, and the composer faced a strong temptation
to "illustrate" the entire content of the text by means of music.
Thus, "content of the text" gradually turned into the formative
principle for the musical composition.
Such formative principle was found to work on the "micro-level" of
musical expressivity as well as on its "macro-level": the mood of the
entire fragment of the text had to correspond to that of the music,
so as the expression of the particular word had to be adequately
represented in musical detail.
As early as in 1597, Thomas Morley already speaks about such adequacy
as a matter of a must for the composer in his A Plaine and Easie
Introduction to Practicalle Musicke: "It followeth to shew you how to
dispose your musicke according to the nature of the words which you
are therein to expresse, as whatsoever matter it be which you have in
hand, such a kind of musicke must you frame to it. You must therefore
if you have a grave matter, applie a grave kind of musicke to it, if
a merrie subject you must make your musicke also merrie. For it will
be a great absurditie to use a sad harmonie to a merrie metter, or a
merrie harmonie to a sad lamentable or tragical dittie. You must then
when you would expresse any word signifying hardnesse, crueltie,
bitternesse, and other such like, make the harmonie like into it,
that is, somwhat harsh and hard but yet so it offend not. Likewise,
when any of your words shal expresse complaint, dolor, repentance,
sighs, teares and such like, let your harmonie be sad and doleful..."
(COM, p.14-15). Then Morley gives thorough instructions as how to
represent musically such qualities of the subject as "lightness",
"lament", "ascendance", "depth", etc., and also explains how the
important words in the text, such as Dominus, Angelus, Gloria and
such like, should be emphasized musically.
The rules that he explains can already be viewed as initial, perhaps
primitive, but definite, semiotic connections between certain
semantic values and certain musical structures. And this semiotic
connection has nothing to do with "programme music" approach: there
is no any imitative quality between a "sad kind of music" in relation
to a "sad subject" of text - the quality of "sadness" is too abstract
to be musically "illustrated". So, the only way to represent it is by
means of some convention. And here is this convention according to
Morley: "...if it be lamentable, the note must go in slow and heavy
motions, as semibreves, breves and such like, and of all this you
shall finde examples everie where in the works of the good
musicians." (ibid)
Such tendency, in general, should be viewed perhaps as a musical
analogy to the trend of realism and illusionism in fine arts of
Renaissance. In "musica reservata" music indeed tries to give an
exact reflection of the content of the text so that its sound would
give an "illusion" of something that the text signifies really
happenning - very similar to how the Renaissance portrait tries to
present an illusion of the "mirror reflection" of a real man through
the use of perspective image and realistic rendering of every detail
of the prototype. With this respect, as the scenery of the nature
became a "formative principle" for a painter, determining the
composition of his painting, so the text became a "formative
principle" for the composer in his work.
The logical effect of such tendency was the established practice to
identify a musical theme of the composition with the "theme"
(subject) of the text, thereby putting the musical theme as a
"subject" for the rhetoric arrangement of the entire piece. If
"subject" of the text was the principal for rhetoric arrangement of
the entire text, then the "subject" of music, being projected from
the "subject" of text, obtained the same importance for music.
This was the foundation for further "linguistic" explosition, as
rationalism and positivism increased their positions in the 17th
century. However, this stage of development for music rhetorics is
relatively well covered in number of published source documents, as
well as research papers.
Please, excuse me for a long post, but I hope the topic will be of
interest to many performers, and I know how short is bibliographic
material available on the "beginning" and "end" of musical rhetorics.
Respectably
Alex Reznick
Sybrand Bakker
open up ways to *understand* early music, and I have always been aware the
key is in rhetoric- how would you judge modern analytic methods like
Schenkerian analysis and semiotic analysis.
Doesn't it also look like the concept of 'absolute music' was invented in
the generation of Beethoven, and anything before that adheres to rhetorical
principles.
Regards,
Sybrand Bakker
"alex reznick" <syn...@lainet.com> wrote in message
news:v04220800b5fdc3aa0f30@[216.190.137.87]...
Todd Michel McComb
Sybrand Bakker <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
>Doesn't it also look like the concept of 'absolute music' was
>invented in the generation of Beethoven, and anything before that
>adheres to rhetorical principles.
No, I certainly disagree. The _musica speculativa_ of medieval
times had a very abstract, theoretical underpinning. Or as Boethius
says, "Much more admirable, then, is the science of music in
apprehending by reason than accomplishing by work and deed." Jehan
de Murs, paraphased: "Music is the mistress of all arts, that
contains in her the principle of all methods, confirmed in the
nature of all things to the highest degree." You can't get much
more absolute than that.
The 16th century is clearly critical for the shift from absolute
music to music governed largely by rhetorical principles. The idea
that a text permitted (even, specifically demanded) musical liberties
in its expression was a radical one, and central to this rhetorical
emphasis, growing as it did from the changes in text-setting applied
by the Josquin generation.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Elizabeth R. Upton
>In article <970674894.8314....@news.demon.nl>,
>Sybrand Bakker <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
>>Doesn't it also look like the concept of 'absolute music' was
>>invented in the generation of Beethoven, and anything before that
>>adheres to rhetorical principles.
>
>No, I certainly disagree. The _musica speculativa_ of medieval
>times had a very abstract, theoretical underpinning. Or as Boethius
>says, "Much more admirable, then, is the science of music in
>apprehending by reason than accomplishing by work and deed." Jehan
>de Murs, paraphased: "Music is the mistress of all arts, that
>contains in her the principle of all methods, confirmed in the
>nature of all things to the highest degree." You can't get much
>more absolute than that.
Yes, but Boethius isn't writing about what we call music, "sounding"
music at all. The abstract "music" that is part of the quadrivium is
really a quasi-mathematical science having to do with proportions.
There is a huge bibliography about this, btw.
--Elizabeth Randell Upton
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Todd Michel McComb
Elizabeth R. Upton <eupton*nospam*@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Yes, but Boethius isn't writing about what we call music, "sounding"
>is really a quasi-mathematical science having to do with proportions.
>There is a huge bibliography about this, btw.
Boethius is rather far removed from actual medieval output, too.
However, the idea of musica scientia or speculativa often recurs,
especially in such quotes as that of Jehan de Murs. You aren't
seriously suggesting that medieval music be based in a rhetorical
approach similar to Baroque music, are you?
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
>medieval musical compositions can be seen as abstract or theoretical
>just because there was a rhetorical tradition of discussing
>theoretical ideas of the music of the spheres at the beginning of
>treatises.
Well, when we say "abstract" in the sense of Beethoven and abstract
music, that's rather removed from theoretical. After all, Beethoven's
music certainly was & is performed, and has real practical issues
associated with it. I certainly don't want to suggest that medieval
music was "abstract" in exactly the same way as Beethoven's either,
since of course there were intervening centuries. However, with
all the abstract musical discussion in medieval times, and especially
with the rather "abstract" (in the sense of not being related to
Baroque or Classical rhetoric) nature of some of the most appealing
music of the era, I don't think it's right to suggest that Beethoven
invented abstract music in any broad sense. And I certainly don't
think it's right to say that all earlier music held to rhetorical
principles, as you seem to agree.
I hope that illuminates the intended meaning of my statement.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Elizabeth R. Upton
>In article <39db75e4...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Elizabeth R. Upton <eupton*nospam*@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Yes, but Boethius isn't writing about what we call music, "sounding"
>>music at all. The abstract "music" that is part of the quadrivium
>>is really a quasi-mathematical science having to do with proportions.
>>There is a huge bibliography about this, btw.
>
>Boethius is rather far removed from actual medieval output, too.
>However, the idea of musica scientia or speculativa often recurs,
>especially in such quotes as that of Jehan de Murs. You aren't
>seriously suggesting that medieval music be based in a rhetorical
>approach similar to Baroque music, are you?
No, of course not: that would be wrong. But so is thinking that
medieval musical compositions can be seen as abstract or theoretical
just because there was a rhetorical tradition of discussing
theoretical ideas of the music of the spheres at the beginning of
treatises.
--Elizabeth
Matthew Westphal
>
> You aren't
> seriously suggesting that medieval music be based in a rhetorical
> approach similar to Baroque music, are you?
>
Not for medieval _polyphony_ -- a rhetorical approach wouldn't make
sense there. Medieval secular monophony is, of course, another matter
entirely, a repertory where somesort of rhetorical approach would seem
necessary.
(I know that's probably obvious to those who have posted in this
thread, but it's not necessarily clear to everyone reading it. After
all, we have, or had, been using the over-broad term "medieval music."
I just thought that making clear what repertory we are and aren't
discussing would be useful.)
I'm not sure about what sort (if any) of rhetorical approach would be
suitable for medieval _sacred_ monophony (i.e., plainchant) -- what do
the chant maves out there think?
Matthew Westphal
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Todd Michel McComb
Matthew Westphal <matthew...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Not for medieval _polyphony_ -- a rhetorical approach wouldn't
>make sense there. Medieval secular monophony is, of course,
>another matter entirely, a repertory where somesort of rhetorical
>approach would seem necessary.
The sort of "rhetorical catalog" discussed in this thread revolves
around affetti and specific musical gestures tied to rhetorical
devices. This is a central idea in Baroque music, especially in
understanding how Baroque instrumental music developed. It doesn't
mean "just any old connection of somesort to rhetoric" which one
could probably find anywhere. So, no, I do not agree that medieval
secular monophony is any more amenable to rhetorical principles
than is polyphony. Sung poetry is not automatically rhetorical,
not in this sense.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>Sung poetry is not automatically rhetorical, not in this sense.
Maybe I am still failing to communicate the crux of the issue,
which is this: Medieval *music* has no standard lexicon of specific
rhetorical or emotional expressions corresponding to specific
*musical* figures or developments. Monophony is often found in
contrafacta (different words with the same tune), even. In that
sense, the tunes are "absolute" -- there aren't specific musical
gestures with specific rhetorical meanings. They are abstract
tunes (not to mention harmonies).
The full significance of such a rhetorical (or affetti-based)
correspondence is only now being fully re-grasped for Baroque and
"Classical" music, as rightly noted by Sybrand Bakker and other
posters in the thread. But it's also important to realize where
the roots of such developments primarily lie, i.e. in the more
syllabic text-setting of the Josquin generation, of e.g. not putting
melismas on short syllables -- and ultimately in the word painting
madrigalisms and in the characterization of earlier approaches to
text as *barbaric* by 16th century theorists, precisely because
they did _not_ consistently set e.g. sadness with a descending
figure or indeed provide a lexical correspondence between musical
figures and affects or rhetoric. This sort of rhetorical correspondence
in the *music* developed steadily through the 16th century, and
could even be viewed as the defining trend of the 16th century.
This does not mean that words are unimportant in medieval music,
only that the music does not follow the named "rhetorical principles."
It also does not mean, as Elizabeth rightly cautioned, that medieval
music was not meant to be performed or appreciated by an audience,
which is a statement one did at one time see about e.g. Ars Subtilior
music. Thankfully, that sentiment does seem to be vanishing.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
I must be going completely insane this week, following up to the
same articles multiple times, and generally falling over myself to
communicate the smallest points. I don't know why, but hopefully
next week I can manage one response at a time....
In article <8rhv5v$ps$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Matthew Westphal <matthew...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Not for medieval _polyphony_ -- a rhetorical approach wouldn't
>make sense there. Medieval secular monophony is, of course,
>another matter entirely, a repertory where somesort of rhetorical
>approach would seem necessary.
I suddenly realized the motivation for this statement. Or at least
I think I did.
The idea of rhetorical principles v. "absolute music," at least as
it applies to Beethoven as a pivotal figure, is not at all synonymous
with rubato or varying tempo in general. Although, as discussed,
rhetorical elements were often motivations for specific ways to
vary tempo, it was the motivations which changed in the 19th century.
The 19th century had plenty of rubato, probably more, but the
operative ideas behind musical development changed. That's where
the idea of "absolute music" as especially discussed in Germany
comes into play.
So, yeah, as far as just tempo goes, aside from any relation between
musical figures and rhetoric, unmeasured medieval music presents
some issues different from measured medieval music. (The earliest
polyphony wasn't measured, and the latest medieval monophony was,
though.) While I'm here, I'll give my view on fiddling with tempos
in later measured polyphony, especially the large-scale 15th century
works fairly succinctly: The important part is to keep the tactus,
and to vary it only by the precise indicated proportions, certainly
not to do ritardandi, but within that framework one can vary the
time position of individual syllables slightly for purposes of
accent and articulation. For unmeasured music, there tends to be
a sort of internal pulse which presents itself, although the fact
that rhythmic interpretations of plainchant varied over the centuries
is more than enough reason for caution when it comes to any succinct
statements in that area.
I personally find the Le Vot/Switten approach to rhythm in troubadour
songs nearly completely persuasive, as far as that goes. See their
volume in the Garland Reference Library.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Samuel Vriezen
On 5 Oct 2000 12:38:44 -0700, mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb)
wrote:
>This does not mean that words are unimportant in medieval music,
>only that the music does not follow the named "rhetorical principles."
I just found myself laymanly wondering what the chances are for a
research program uncovering an unnamed set of 'rhetorical principles',
that were not written down in treatises because they were too
blatantly obvious at the time?
For instance, when I, poststructuralist anachronism, read this:
>>Medieval *music* has no standard lexicon of specific
>>rhetorical or emotional expressions corresponding to specific
>>*musical* figures or developments. Monophony is often found in
>>contrafacta (different words with the same tune), even.
I cannot but wonder what the chances are for such contrafacta to have
had an intricate intertextual meaning. (and if such meanings could be
researched in any kind of methodologically meaningful way at all)
--
Samuel
A prelude by Johann Sebastian Bach performed by the guitarist, Lord Baden Powell
- Chr. J. van Geel
Todd Michel McComb
Samuel Vriezen <s...@xs4all.nl.getridofthisone> wrote:
>I cannot but wonder what the chances are for such contrafacta to
>have had an intricate intertextual meaning. (and if such meanings
>could be researched in any kind of methodologically meaningful
>way at all)
People have certainly looked at this. Unless someone comes up with
some amazing head-smacking "But of course!" realization at some
point, the correspondences are basically nil. Sure, the words have
to fit the melody somehow, in terms of syllables and overall mood
(or maybe to coopt the overall mood, as in sacred contrafacta of
secular tunes), but for correspondences between specific musical
figures and meanings of individual words, no way. It's just too
easy to find the same figures used on words with unrelated meanings.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
M. Schulter
: Maybe I am still failing to communicate the crux of the issue,
: which is this: Medieval *music* has no standard lexicon of specific
: rhetorical or emotional expressions corresponding to specific
: *musical* figures or developments.
Hello, there, and I would agree with this statement. There are pieces
where one might draw some connection between the text and musical
"figuring" of it, for example some excerpts cited by Hoppin from the
Florentine repertory of around 1380; but this is different from a
"conventional rhetoric" of the kind found in the 16th century.
: Monophony is often found in
: contrafacta (different words with the same tune), even. In that
: sense, the tunes are "absolute" -- there aren't specific musical
: gestures with specific rhetorical meanings. They are abstract
: tunes (not to mention harmonies).
This can also be an issue in polyphonic pieces such as _Crucifigat omnes_,
where some of the unstable sonorities have at times received the modern
interpretation of "word painting," but the music is set to various texts
in different manuscripts.
: But it's also important to realize where
: the roots of such developments primarily lie, i.e. in the more
: syllabic text-setting of the Josquin generation, of e.g. not putting
: melismas on short syllables -- and ultimately in the word painting
: madrigalisms and in the characterization of earlier approaches to
: text as *barbaric* by 16th century theorists, precisely because
: they did _not_ consistently set e.g. sadness with a descending
: figure or indeed provide a lexical correspondence between musical
: figures and affects or rhetoric.
Yes, the rejection of "barbaric" medieval text-setting, and specifically
of "barbarisms" such as setting a short syllable to a long note, is very
analogous to the exaltation of Ciceronian Latin and the rejection of the
"barbarous" Latinity of the great scholastic philosophers.
Thomas Morley (1597) in a way connects these two anti-medievalist trends
when he expresses disdain for the ultimate text-setting indignity (from
this viewpoint) of having a rest in the middle of a syllable, which he
comments that "some dunces" have not avoided to do, one of them named John
Dunstaple -- the great English composer (c. 1370?-1453).
Early in the century, the term "dunce" itself in a derogatory sense
derived from the name Duns (or Dunce) Scotus, the renowned scholastic
philosopher of the era around 1300. At Oxford, as I recall, this author
came to exemplify everything detested as "barbaric," and the leaves of his
books were scattered in the quadrangle.
Not all philosophers of the new era took this view: one of the Italians,
maybe Ficino, give his medieval predecessors due credit and took an
interest in their writings. However, Morley's comment may indeed reflect
the prevailing attitude.
: This sort of rhetorical correspondence
: in the *music* developed steadily through the 16th century, and
: could even be viewed as the defining trend of the 16th century.
By the time of Vicentino (1555) and Zarlino (1558), I would say that the
idea of fitting the music to the words in a "rhetorical" way has become an
established convention, and Morley's advice on expressing the emotions
quoted in this or a related thread is largely derived from Zarlino, whom
Morley elsewhere quotes with great admiration.
: This does not mean that words are unimportant in medieval music,
: only that the music does not follow the named "rhetorical principles."
Yes, I'm reminded of a comment in the earlier 20th-century literature that
Landini's settings are in effect quite "emotionless," and with this I
would have much to differ; they are beautiful and moving, but do not
depend on conventions of rhetoric like those of the 16th century.
: It also does not mean, as Elizabeth rightly cautioned, that medieval
: music was not meant to be performed or appreciated by an audience,
: which is a statement one did at one time see about e.g. Ars Subtilior
: music. Thankfully, that sentiment does seem to be vanishing.
At times, one can still encounter such statements as the assertion that
the Renaissance is the point at which music starts to sound like it was
composed by and for humans -- an attitude reflecting a lot of
historiography about "medieval vs. Renaissance" eras. However, I would
agree that a more informed outlook may be spreading.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Matthew Westphal
> Matthew Westphal <matthew...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Not for medieval _polyphony_ -- a rhetorical approach wouldn't
> >make sense there. Medieval secular monophony is, of course,
> >another matter entirely, a repertory where some sort of rhetorical
> >approach would seem necessary.
>
> The sort of "rhetorical catalog" discussed in this thread revolves
> around affetti and specific musical gestures tied to rhetorical
> devices...
>
> Medieval *music* has no standard lexicon of specific rhetorical or
> emotional expressions corresponding to specific
> *musical* figures or developments...
>
> This is a central idea in Baroque music, especially in understanding
> how Baroque instrumental music developed. It doesn't mean "just any
> old connection of some sort to rhetoric" which one could probably
> find anywhere. So, no, I do not agree that medieval
> secular monophony is any more amenable to rhetorical principles
> than is polyphony. Sung poetry is not automatically rhetorical,
> not in this sense.
>
Yes. It is clear reference to rhetoric -- in "this sense"
specifically -- that had slipped away by that point in this thread
(which is, after all, a spin-off of another thread). Or so it seemed
to me, for whatever that's worth. Thus my mistaken reading of the
word "rhetoric" in its general sense rather than as referring to a
specific musical-historical phenomenon.
alex reznick
Sorry for missing few days on that thread.
I understood S.Bakker so that he was talking about strictly the
16th-19th centuries interim, because that was what was discussed in
the previous post - concerned more about the early 19th century.
The term "absolute" in relation to "music" I understood as a narrow
end of "absolute art" which is a term in aesthetics to designate the
tendency of number of 19th century artists to adhere to ideas of
"self-sufficient" art, free from any cultural application. Commonly,
this notion coincides with the concept of "art in sake of art". The
ground for such aesthetic theories lies in aesthetic views expressed
by Kant, Schelling and Schiller.
The medieval art is "absolute", but in completely different context.
Its "absolutism" lies not in the perfectionism of art form, where the
chief purpose of it is viewed as to please the artist - as it is
characteristic for "absolute art" of the 19th century. Medieval
"absolutism" has strong connection with theology, and relates to
monistic universality.
I also would not be so definite qualifying Beethoven's style as
"absolute art". Beethoven's notebooks provide the evidence that he
indeed regarded emotional content while working on his compositions,
that he intended his works to have certain impact on audience, and
that he was concerned with the ethical aspects of artist's
creativity. These are not traits of "art for art" attitude. It seems
to me also that many formalistic features in his music take place due
to his deafness, which must have pushed him towards more abstract and
more "self-contained" musical thought.
With respect
Alex Reznick
>mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
>
> >In article <970674894.8314....@news.demon.nl>,
> >Sybrand Bakker <pos...@sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>Doesn't it also look like the concept of 'absolute music' was
> >>invented in the generation of Beethoven, and anything before that
> >>adheres to rhetorical principles.
> >
> >No, I certainly disagree. The _musica speculativa_ of medieval
> >times had a very abstract, theoretical underpinning. Or as Boethius
> >says, "Much more admirable, then, is the science of music in
> >apprehending by reason than accomplishing by work and deed." Jehan
> >de Murs, paraphased: "Music is the mistress of all arts, that
> >contains in her the principle of all methods, confirmed in the
> >nature of all things to the highest degree." You can't get much
> >more absolute than that.
>
>Yes, but Boethius isn't writing about what we call music, "sounding"
>music at all. The abstract "music" that is part of the quadrivium is
>really a quasi-mathematical science having to do with proportions.
>There is a huge bibliography about this, btw.
>
Todd Michel McComb
alex reznick <syn...@lainet.com> wrote:
>I understood S.Bakker so that he was talking about strictly the
>16th-19th centuries interim
Probably so, but I couldn't help butting in.
>I also would not be so definite qualifying Beethoven's style as
>"absolute art". Beethoven's notebooks provide the evidence that
>he indeed regarded emotional content while working on his
>compositions, that he intended his works to have certain impact
>on audience, and that he was concerned with the ethical aspects
>of artist's creativity. These are not traits of "art for art"
>attitude.
Well, this is typical of transitional figures. They master &
accommodate the old ideas while at the same time pioneering new
ones alongside them, new ones which their successors ultimately
emphasize to the exclusion of the old. One can make parallel
comments regarding Monteverdi.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
alex reznick
turned out to be quite long. But then I decided nevertheless to post
it, as the semiotic issues raised there might be of values for
scholars and performers, especially in the last part of the message.
Sybrand Bakker :
>>With respect to what you say here -for which I am very thankful, as it might
>>open up ways to *understand* early music, and I have always been aware the
>>key is in rhetoric- how would you judge modern analytic methods like
Schenkerian analysis and semiotic analysis.
1) Musicological analysis
First of all, I would like to point out that the term "rhetoric" had
a long way of evolution from Greek "art of speaking," reserved for
judicial and political applications, to the 20th century
understanding of "rhetoric" as branch of philosophy, dealing with the
theory of argumentation. The popular understanding of "rhetoric" as
style of exaggeratedly elaborative speech therefore is a very narrow
appearance of rhetorical organization. The fundamental property of
rhetoric is not to embellish or exaggerate a message, but to secure
the effect of the message on the group of listeners. Therefore, the
principles of rhetoric organization are based not so much on
aesthetic foundation, but on empirical foundation of psychological
particularities of human perception, as well as socio-biological
regularities of group response to the perceived message. Such
perceptive factors as attention or memory determine rhetoric
conventions not any less than stylistic preferences of a given
cultural formation. Early rhetoricians empirically discovered the
logico-grammatic devices that proved to enforce perception of the
content by the audience, and then formulated rhetoric devices for the
maximal effective composition of speech. The essence of rhetoric,
therefore, is logical - it is about designing the elements of the
composition in some rational way - where the building material is
artistic, engaging the expressive power of the art of literature.
This expressive power must have been assessed by the period users on
the psycho-social criterion of exerting persuasion on group of
individuals.
Musical rhetoric, subsequently, is the interaction of logical
principles and expressive power of art of music. Here the expressive
values of the elements of musical lexicon of a given cultural
formation are subdued to logical organization in order to trigger
this or that emotional condition in listeners. From this we already
can see that rhetoric is a particular case of semiotic system. I
should mention that as a philosophical method, rhetoric is a world
wide phenomenon, found in cultures of many civilizations, i.e.
Chinese, Indian, Arabic or Persian traditional music. However, what
is a unique property of Western European civilization is an elaborate
inferential character of rhetoric organization in music.
Now, how adequate can instrument of musicological analysis be in
investigating the rhetoric organization? Here we should look at the
goals and methods of musicological analysis. Music analyst usually
seeks to unfold the inter-relations of the elements of musical
composition in order to define the principles of composing music.
Such analysis is usually comparative, as the makeup of one
composition is related to makeup of some other compositions. Such
method is capable of explaining the practices of music arrangement,
but clearly is not comprehensive enough to explain the entirety of
rhetoric arrangement. Why? - Because of semiotic nature of rhetoric
composition: semiotic system is built on signs, and every sign has
some corresponding semantic value, which to a large degree determines
the use of that sign.
Here we come to the crux: the difference between semiotic and
musicological approaches is that musicology deals with a SINGLE
system - system of musical elements as they are organized in the
composition - whereas semiotics deals with the DOUBLE system:
a) the system of musical signs [system of signifiers], and
b) the system of semantic values of musical signs [system of signified].
The correlation of these two systems allows to draw the field for a
meta-system of rhetoric.
So, what is the adequate method of analyzing rhetoric arrangement in
a particular composition? The first part of it is "musicological":
isolate and define the meaningful elements of the music lexicon that
is used in the investigated composition - let's call this stage
defining the "glossary." The second part is strictly "semiotic":
isolate and define the semantic values of meaningful musical elements
- let's call it defining the "dictionary." Then proceed from your
defined "glossary" to the system of music organization: what are the
rules of putting musical elements together in a sequential pattern -
something that can be called "grammar." The next step would be to
comprehend the system of meanings: what are the rules for putting one
semantic value next to another. Obviously, some semantic progressions
would "make sense" within a given musical practice, whereas some
other progressions would be "illogical" - that is, breaking not the
"grammatical" rules, but rules of common sense. For instance, in so
far I was not able to find a single example of succession of the
melodic/harmonic pattern of fanfare that would be followed by
melodic/harmonic pattern of lamento. The reason for this is not
because "grammatically" it is impossible, but because "semantically"
such progression does not make sense. Finally, the defined
"grammatic" and "semantic" systems both should be applied to an
investigated composition in order to extract its unique "meaning" and
project it on "morphological" makeup of the composition.
That would be an ideal scenario of comprehensive semiotic analysis.
In practice, of course, there are many methodological questions about
how to collect the necessary data and interpret it. However, such
questions are just nuances which should not obscure the validity of
semiotic model of analysis. As the history of linguistics showed, it
is possible to develop a valid semiotic science on the ground of
strictly grammatical methodology. There are striking similarities
between how languages were studied before 20th century and how music
is studied today. The lingual studies used to be primarily
"grammarian": they focused on rules and principles of arranging
elements of "lexicon" into coherent speech. This is pretty much close
to how modern corpus of musical disciplines, usually referred to as
"music theory", investigates a given music practice. The
categorization of language into synchronic and diachronic varieties
introduced by Saussure is rather similar to categorization of
musicology into historic and systematic, introduced about the same
time by Adler. However, here similarities end. The language study
developed into quite comprehensive corpus of disciplines which
altogether provide a reliable tool for explaining how communication
via language occurs. On the other hand, both kinds of musicology
badly fall short in explaining how people communicate ideas through
music. Worse of all, musicology simply does not possess the apparatus
to trace the passage of information from composer to performer and
then to listener, not to mention the task of assessing the efficacy
of communication through these 3 stages.
From this perspective, any musicological school of analysis appears
as "grammarian", because it explains only formal rules of putting
elements of music speech together. And Schenkerian school is perhaps
one of the most formalistic, from this respect. As to my knowledge,
the musicological school that stands closest to grasping the semiotic
perspective is that originated by Boris Assafiev in 1929, in his book
"Musical Form as a Process". Unfortunately, the association of
Assafiev with Bolsheviks, his free "literary" style of writing and
certain lack of precision in research (especially in this book)
created in the West somewhat a bad reputation for his "theory of
intonation". However, his later works considerably correct for these
faults, and works of his followers from the former countries of the
Warsaw pact present a rather developed methodology of structural
analysis done in consistent correlation with analysis of content.
Due to the absence of translations from Slavic languages I should
probably say few words about the intonation theory. Its basis is in
seeing melos as a bank of finite number of standard intonations which
circulate within a given community of music users. Each intonation
has a range of semantic values determined by the association of that
intonation with a specific genre, and application of such genre in
cultural practices. The succession of intonations and characteristic
transformations of them comprise the semantic discourse of a music
work, and are utilized by composers according to the chain of imagery
they want to express. Assafiev himself left a sample of intonative
analysis of compositions by Tchaikovsky and Glinka. His followers
have samples of comparative analysis to trace a selected intonation
as it is implemented by various composers and/or in folklore. Such
structural/semantic analysis is the closest prototype for true
semiotic analysis.
2) Semiotic analysis
First of all, I should mention that musical semiotics is a VERY young
discipline: the very first articles about necessity and identity of
musical semiotics appeared in the 1960's and streamed in the 1970's.
Subsequently, there is a very strong connection between
structuralistic trends that governed post-modernistic Europe and
semiotic methodology. Existing schools of semiotic analysis in music
tend to have "formalistic" bias and one way or another grow from the
"formalistic" musicology that originated as a theory of "absolute
music", dating back to Hanslick.
Thus, a very popular semiotic theory by Jean Jacques Nattiez is
ultra-formalistic. His method of "paradigmatic analysis" (that he
shares with another important semiotician Nicolas Ruwet) tries to
create a scheme of composition deprived of any semantic connotations
- a pure skeleton of abstract distinctions (like descending/ascending
or conjunct/disjunct). The purpose is to give a researcher a tool to
compare semiotic organization in all varieties of music systems.
However, without relation of structure to content, such analysis
loses validity and becomes a sort of "absolute science": analysis in
sake of analysis.
The linguistic methods of Leonard Bloomfield, mostly influential in
the 1930-50's, especially in US, apparently had a strong impact on
the theory of Nattiez and other similar theories. Viewed today as the
major obstacle in development of American linguistics, Bloomfieldian
approach is very dangerous, because it tends to deny the historical
tradition of language study and instead replaces it with an
artificial abstract device without any criterion. As Jakobson
summarized this attempt later: "It was an interesting experiment to
try to find out what a linguist could say about a language by
excluding one of its constituents, namely, meaning. Such a
reductionist experiment is important in almost the same way as it is
important when a physiologist cuts off the head of the chicken to see
what it can do without it. The mistake would be for the physiologist
to say that it is normal for a chicken to walk about without a head.
The same is true for linguistics: meaning cannot be excluded
altogether".
Yet there are many musical semiotics which disregard "meaning"
completely or to a large degree, such as by Gino Stefani, who
followed the logistic-linguistic approach of Hjelmslev, or Fred
Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff, who implemented Chomskian theory of
"generative grammar". And just like Chomskian generative
constructions result in nonsensical sentences when words are placed
in his models, so are the models ["prolongational reductions"] of
Lerdahl/Jackendoff. Even worse, while Chomsky makes attempt to
reconcile the clash of grammar and semantic in his analytic models,
Lerdahl/Jackendorf have a case of analysis where grammatical and
semantic grouping is treated identically - their method is even not
strictly semiotic. Any method based on absolutization of structure
will inevitably dismiss the pragmatic, social and communicative
aspects of language use, and therefore will fail to display how this
language functions.
The main problem that musical semioticians have is inability of their
methods to define the "dictionary" of musical elements. Semioticians
either want to put "meaning" aside [like Bloomfield or Hjelsmlev], or
they feel uncomfortable admitting that the "meaning" in music has to
do with emotion per se and try to invent such semantics that would
allow them to explain the impression music makes on listeners by
factors other than "linguistic" correspondence of a sign to a
meaning, on one-to-one basis.
A good example of such attempt is a theory of Leonard Meyer, most
popular amongst psychomusicologists, music sociologists and
semioticians. In his "theory of expectations" Meyer holds that the
semantic content of music work is comprised of expectations of
listener. People know typical musical contexts, and upon hearing an
element expect a typological continuation. If their expectations get
broken they experience certain emotional reactions. This is a very
"anti-semiotic" approach, paradoxically accepted by many music
semioticians - it manages to keep the system of signs without any
meta-systemic connection to any system of meanings.
Another popular semiotic methodology is that invented by Algirdas
Greimas, an important linguist, who emigrated from Lithuania to
France, in his "generative theory". Though he himself did not apply
his theory to the field of music, number of music semioticians
derived their theories from Greimas, to mention just few: E.Tarasti,
R.Monelle, or I.Stoianova. This methodology is described in Greimas'
book "Structural Semantics: an attempt at a method", and is extremely
complex and dialectic. In the most general description, Greimas bases
his semantic on the idea of "isotopies" (as the original term from
radioactive chemistry) - which are levels of signification that are
not stable and keep transforming throughout perception and
interpretation of text. These isotopies occur on different levels
simultaneously, while "modalities" [qualities of attitudes by a
creator of text in relation to the predicate of a statement] cause
"modalizations" [production of typological modal utterance that
affects another utterance as a transitive aim], and thus pushing the
perceiver towards production of meaning [as relation of "truth" of
the utterance to "being" of perceiver].
Music semioticians try to project this categorical scheme on the
matter of music. For instance, Tarasti equals "modality" to ideas of
composer, and "modalizations" - to ideas of performer, and then tries
to explain how the listener relates perceived "truth" in music to his
"being", thereby producing emotional reaction. Then the chain of such
responses comprises a certain narrative program. Needless to say,
such program is found rather unpredictable and unstable, which
contradicts the data of psychological research showing a considerable
degree of agreement between listeners and musicians in interpretation
of this or that content.
There are few methodological reasons for such failure in defining
music semantics. The first and the most important reason is that
musical semioticians try to implement methods of comparative
linguistics rather then adjusting the methods which have been
crystallized throughout the progress of music. The methodology of
Mattheson explains the makeup of the composition of the 18th century
music more effectively than the methodology of, say, Lerdahl and
Jackendoff. Just like linguists derived the framework for general
linguistics from integration of comparative grammars, in the same way
musical semioticians should build a method by synthesizing
methodologies of various period "grammars" (diachronic coordinate)
and geographic "dialects" of a given grammar (synchronic coordinate).
The resultant methodology should include the categories and
parameters present in at least one diachronic or synchronic
modification. This synthetic approach would guarantee that the
structural analysis will display all meaningful elements of musical
composition, and define their functional relations in direct
correspondence to their semantic values. The "authentic" period
"grammar" source documents usually include information on what the
contemporaries believe to be the content of music. Thereby the task
of semiotician is just extrapolate such information and/or correlate
the data from various direct and indirect reference sources, after
which it becomes possible to define the semantics based on parallel
analysis of semantic data and data of contextual structural analysis.
The second reason is closely related to the first: analysis has to be
done by competent music practitioners. Perhaps this requirement seems
obvious, but you will be surprised how many semioticians or
psychomusicologists cannot play an instrument or sometimes even read
notes, not to speak about ability to render musical interpretation.
Ideally, the analyst had to be able to both, perform and compose.
There is nothing excessive in such demand. After all, all authorities
in linguistics had necessary skills to comprehend and produce
meaningful strings of speech.
The third reason is the trouble that semioticians have in defining
emotion. It seems that they largely have a very out-dated conception
of what emotion is, what it does and why it is important for humans.
The up-to-date research data of cognitive sciences and
neuro-physiology, especially in the 1990's, gives inarguable evidence
that emotion can be processed semiotically as a semantic connotation
linked to specific structural pattern by means of conditioned reflex.
Emotions can be learned, remembered and generated by mixing simpler
emotions to form complex ones. There is such thing as "emotional
glossary" unique for each individual. On another hand, there is an
imperative of minimal "emotional glossary" necessary for biological
survival of species. The more complex is the social organization of
species' life, the bigger need for more sophisticated emotive system.
Emotive system is a chief factor in ability of one to adapt to
environmental changes. Emotion is the direct condition of learning
and memory. There is a vital need for communication of emotions,
which is found in all higher mammals. In humans the capacity to
communicate emotion is the biggest. This is the ground for the fact
noticed by anthropologists: two features universally present in any
known human culture are language and music. There is a biological
need for music as means for individuals to exchange their emotions.
In 1993 N.Wallin formulated a new discipline - that of biomusicology
- to address this aspect of music. On another hand,
psycho-physiological research indicates that indeed listening to
music trigger emotional reactions in absolute majority of people. All
this data gives a very strong ground for view at the notion of
"absolute music" as a cripple, and the direction music took during
the 20th century as a distortion and a grand zigzag from the
"natural" course of development.
Here we come to the fourth reason for inadequacy of modern semiotics.
Many of semioticians have obsession with modernistic music, and for
some reason, rely on the belief that "true" semiotic analysis has to
be capable of explaining the current musical practice. There is no
problem with such wish, but why do they take music by Boulez or
Varese as a typical sample of current music practice? If to make a
statistical analysis of all music repertoire performed today, the
style of these composers will comprise less than 0.001% of what
people listen to. Even if to speak just about the music composed in
last 50 years, post-modernistic output will make altogether much less
than tonal music organized according to the rules of "Rameau-Riemann"
grammar. Semioticians definitely have a bias against the "mainstream"
music, and preference for various kinds of "modernistic" music. Their
analyses, shaped on compositions utilizing non-tonal organization, by
definition become formalistic, because absolute majority of
modernistic and post-modernistic composers follow Stravinsky's denial
of any emotional essence in music. It is quite common for them to say
that the only content of music its structural organization, which is
nothing but a perfect case of absolute formalism. What would happen
to linguistics if linguists would derive their methodology from
analysis of works by dadaists and futurists? How distant would then
their methods be from the life of real languages?
The panoramic view on the 20th century displays a deep crisis of
aesthetics of contemporary music. Speaking about newly composed
music, there is a conflict between the "common" music and "high-brow"
music. In music history there always was some friction between "high"
and "low", but today, because of massive character of communication
this opposition becomes antagonistic. One of the chief reasons for
such incredible boom of pop-music since the 1950's is that the
contemporary classical tradition of composition and performance
dropped the "emotional" content, whereas the pop-music industry in
contrary, picked it up. Today, the highly effective organization of
marketing and distribution in pop-music industry gives it the edge in
answering the biological need of people in emotional communication.
The reality is that the focus of pop-music industry lies in
emotionally driving the listener, whereas the focus of classical
music industry has no emotional connection. A very important book by
N. Lebrecht "Who killed Classical Music" provides a first attempt to
draw the history of classical music industry. With all its
journalistic bias, this book contains convincing data indicating that
the "symphonic" culture is losing its socio-economic ground, and the
center of gravity in the concert life turns from orchestral
performances to chamber settings. In this light the rise of
"authentic" movement in performance appears to be a hidden form of
anti-Romantic and anti-Modernistic musical practice. The genesis of
"authentic" movement occurred exactly when post-modernism in
composition and formalism in performance reached their top.
Therefore, music born through formalistic performance and composition
practices did not contain inferentially organized emotional content.
On another hand, music composed between the 16th and 19th centuries,
which constituted focus of "authentic" movement, contains strong
content presence, because of its rhetoric orientation. "Authentic"
methods of interpretation, then, motivated adequate rendering of the
content plan according to the corresponding period "grammar".
Subsequently, "authentic" performances exposed more emotional
information than standard Romantic "symphonic" performances
contaminated by the virus of "formalism", or new post-modernistic
compositions. It is the demand of the musicians and listeners in
emotionally charged repertoire that enabled a huge portion of music
stock, which has been dead for centuries, suddenly, in a very short
period of time, to resurrect and constitute the major share of
performed music today. Perhaps, there are other causes, but this one
must be chief.
Today the need for universal inferential semantic system becomes even
stronger. Look back - why is it possible to render authentic
performances today? - Because in the past there were documented
"grammars" published, which contained information on how semiotic
system should be organized and to which semantic content it should
relate. In those styles where the amount of such documents was big,
the revival of tradition is the easiest; in those cases where the
documentation was sparse, the revival is hardly possible at all. This
is a point that demonstrates the conservative power of semiotic
theory. Look at maqam, dastgach or raga - these music systems are as
old as Ars Antiqua, however they still retain their vitality without
considerable loss, in spite of all disastrous invasions, wars,
occupations, religious oppression, et.c.. Why? - Because they
retained their meaningfulness for music practitioners through well
defined semantics. Pupils of music learned not only grammatical rules
and technical devices, but semantic values for grammatic elements -
pretty much on the "dictionary" principle. This perhaps made study
very lengthy, but then provided effective conservation - and through
it - preservation of the tradition.
I have a very strong suspicion that early Western music must have
contained practices with naturally developed semantic systems as
clear as their Eastern counterparts. It must have been due to
multi-cultural appearance of Europe, speed of cultural development
and relative lack of unified preservative cultural power (in relation
to individual freedom) that allowed semantic values modulate too much
without being somehow uniformly fixed. However, this is a separate
issue, very complex and speculative. The point I want to make is that
if to formulate semantics today, the way we know our past and
present, then tomorrow it will maintain the music communication fully
functional.
The inferential semiotic is a challenge, of course - the task of
creation of "dictionary of music" is an enormous labor - but it is
possible. All it takes is some effort from every "authentic"
performer. Musicians do perform huge repertoire of works and are
better prone to notice recurrence of certain patterns in certain
context than any of specializing semioticians. If it would be
possible to organize a bank of information for such data and keep
filling it with updates, then in the matter of few decades it would
be possible to create a legitimate universal theory.
<Doesn't it also look like the concept of 'absolute music' was invented in
<the generation of Beethoven, and anything before that adheres to rhetorical
<principles.
The last purely rhetoric composition method that I could discover was
"An Essay on Practical Musical Composition" (1799) by August
Friedrich Collmann, the extended version of which was published in
London shortly before the author's death in 1829. However, after
that, the number of new composition methods, though based on the
structural principles of standardized music forms, still had strong
connection to the rhetoric methodology.
Thus, Carl Czerny is famous for giving the first description of
sonata form in his "School of practical composition" (1839). There
he thoroughly describes the arrangement of the sonata form, as well
as the entire sonata cycle. And after formal definitions of the
movements of the sonata cycle, sections of the sonata form,
functional characteristics of the principal subject, middle and
closing subjects, development and recapitulation - in a word, all
principal specifications of the "form" - this is what he does: he
refers this "form" to the "content". He writes: "We perceive that
this first movement has a well established form, and makes an organic
whole; that its various component parts follow each other in a
settled order, and must be entwined together; and that the whole
structure presents a musical picture, in which a precise idea can be
expressed, and a consequent character developed. Like as in a
romance, a novel, or a dramatic poem, if the entire work shall be
successful and preserve in unity, the necessary component parts are:
first, an exposition of the principal idea and of the different
characters, then the protracted complication of events, and lastly
the surprising catastrophe and the satisfactory conclusion - even so,
the first part of the sonata-movement forms the exposition, the
second part the complication, and the return of the first part into
the original key produces, lastly, that perfect satisfaction which is
justly expected from every work of art. This property it is, which so
highly distinguishes this form of composition above all others at
present existing, and in which all genuine masterpieces of modern
instrumental music (such as symphonies, concertos, quartets, trios,
etc.) are composed." (MTSD)
What is obvious in Czerny's explanations is that the "sonata form"
for him is still viewed in rhetoric terms. He describes this form as
the sequence of some stages which the principal subject is obliged
to pass in order to be perfectly understood by the listener. Such
understanding bears few definite features of rhetoric. First of all,
the whole form is realized as the representation of a single "topic"
which obtains a treatment prescribed on the basis of rationality and
intelligibility of it for the listener - this is the landmark of
rhetoric which all is built as a science of rational arrangement of
the "subject" in order to make the strongest impression on the
listener and make a point of communication clear. Second, the "topic"
is developed through the fixed sequence of sections which each has
its own function of reference to the "topic", such as its
"complication" or "conclusion", each motivated by a special method of
treatment of the principal subject - thus, the "middle subject"
opposes it; the "closing subject" confirms the opposition; the
development collides the principal subject with its opposites;
recapitulation reconciles the opposites by reducing them to the
common denominator which becomes the main key of the composition. All
such functions of sections and their methods of thematic treatment
are essentially the same as those of traditional rhetoric sections:
exordium - the beginning, naratio - a story itself, propositio -
proposition, confutio - opposition, confirmatio - confirmation, and
peroratio - conclusion. The only principal difference is that
rhetoric sections do not impose any structural framework on the
composer - the formal decision for every section can be anything.
Whereas the sections of the "sonata form" are rather strictly
conditioned in relation to their musical structure as to their
proportions, thematic relationships, general tonal plan, melodic
structure, harmonic plan within a section, rhythmic continuity, etc.
The scheme of rhetoric sections organizes the "content" aspect of the
piece leaving it to the composer to decide how to shape it
structurally. Exactly the opposite side is taken in the scheme of
"sonata-form" which organizes exactly the "form" of the piece leaving
for the composer the options of filling this "form" with the content
he likes.
Czerny's implementation of rhetoric in a standardized form is a
sample of the way many composers of the 19th century paid their
tribute to rhetoric organization. Schubert, Reicha, Hummel,
Mendelssohn, Spohr, A.Rubinstein tended to adhere to rhetoric
principles. On another hand, such composers as C.M.Weber, Schumann or
Alkan were amongst the first ones to start experimenting, and thereby
moving away from rational listener-centered principles of making the
development of the subject as clear as possible - to more irrational
and composer-centered expression. However, the traces of rhetoric are
quite visible in works of pupils of conservative composers: Franck
(pupil of Reicha), Tchaikovsky (pupil of N.Rubinstein and strong
influence of A.Rubinstein) or Grieg (pupil of Moscheles). Performance
practices must have been even more conservative, because composers
usually take the first step and provide performers with new
repertoire.
Hope this clears the questions, at least partially.
Regards
Alex Reznick