Sorry for the delay with this link; I originally read this quite a few years ago and have been struggling to remember its name/search terms that would help me find it. Luckily I found it - please add this to the list of interesting web resources in the area of political music. This is an excellent group of articles, well worth reading:
7. American Music Center Article by Karl Glann
New Music Box, Making Marx in the Muisc: A HyperHistory of New Music and Politics (1 November 2003) <http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=2312> at 31 January 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Protest Music on the Web
I have been preparing some posts on protest music which I hope to start publishing soon. Here are some links to some interesting websites on this topic:
1. protest songs according to wikipedia
It's not surprising that wikipedia has an excellent entry on protest songs, detailing their nature and history (the later of these is very important when considering which songs are currently in the public domain and freely available - the first protest song from 1381 is safely in this category but many more are not.)
2. protest-records.com
Apparently started by a member of the band Sonic Youth, the protest-records.com site contains some 60 'free to share not sell' songs all directed toward political protest. It was started in 2003 and the songs available for download are from that year. The site statement says that it: exists for musicians, poets and artists to express LOVE + LIBERTY in the face of greed, sexism, racism, hate-crime and war.
3. greenchange.org
The greenchange website provides links and information to art of an environmental nature. The site is there to assist and develop a community committed to justice, democracy, sustainability and non-violence.
4. Anti war songs
The anti war songs website was started on the day the USA invaded Iraq and provides a global database of pacifist and antimilitarist songs.
5. Strange Fruit
The PBS website called Strange Fruit provides information and links in relation to protest music, particularly from the United States from 1776 to present times.
6. Centre for Political Song
The Centre for Political Song is run by the Glasgow Caledonian University and has a wealth of information on this topic, including a catalogue of lesser known works in this field, a page dedicated to providing current examples of political songs and a fantastic list of organisations that also focus on political music.
1. protest songs according to wikipedia
It's not surprising that wikipedia has an excellent entry on protest songs, detailing their nature and history (the later of these is very important when considering which songs are currently in the public domain and freely available - the first protest song from 1381 is safely in this category but many more are not.)
2. protest-records.com
Apparently started by a member of the band Sonic Youth, the protest-records.com site contains some 60 'free to share not sell' songs all directed toward political protest. It was started in 2003 and the songs available for download are from that year. The site statement says that it: exists for musicians, poets and artists to express LOVE + LIBERTY in the face of greed, sexism, racism, hate-crime and war.
3. greenchange.org
The greenchange website provides links and information to art of an environmental nature. The site is there to assist and develop a community committed to justice, democracy, sustainability and non-violence.
4. Anti war songs
The anti war songs website was started on the day the USA invaded Iraq and provides a global database of pacifist and antimilitarist songs.
5. Strange Fruit
The PBS website called Strange Fruit provides information and links in relation to protest music, particularly from the United States from 1776 to present times.
6. Centre for Political Song
The Centre for Political Song is run by the Glasgow Caledonian University and has a wealth of information on this topic, including a catalogue of lesser known works in this field, a page dedicated to providing current examples of political songs and a fantastic list of organisations that also focus on political music.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Semiotics and Structuralism
The earlier posts on semantics lead naturally to a discussion of semiology and structuralism and the application of theories in this area to music. Where as semantics concerns the meaning of words, semiotics more specifically concerns the meaning of symbols. Structuralism is closely related to semiotics and concerns the social and cultural relationships that contribute to meaning.
In Music, Culture and Society, Patricia Tunstall’s article, On Musical Structuralism [page 43, originally published as ‘Structuralism and Musicology: An Overview, Current Musicology, 27 (1979), 61-3] and Gino Stefani's article, On the Semiotics of Music [page 50, originally published as ‘A Theory of Musical Competence’ Semiotica, 66:1/3 (1987), 9-15] provide valuable insights.
Patricia Tunstall notes that semiology is based on the definition given by Saussure as the science of signs, and the existence of a one-to-one relation between a signifier and a signified. This raises difficult definitional questions when applied to music with different views as to what is indeed signified by music. Tunstall suggests that semiology in its true form can not be readily applied to music as there is no strict one-to-one relationship between a signifier and a signified:
…music must be considered not a system of signs but a system of signifiers without signifieds. Therefore musical analysis can make only limited use of the particular virtues of the semiological approach…
She suggests that structuralism as a wider concept may prove more useful in musical analysis with patterns of meaning and relationships being more easily ascertained.
Gino Stefani developes a theory of musical competence. Here five layers are seen to interact in producing musical meaning.
The first of these layers is referred to as the General Codes which relate primarily to the interaction between sound and senses. These are the perceptual and mental schemes, anthropological attitudes and motivations, and basic conventions through which we perceive the world and construct or interpret our experiences. Sound is classified as high/low, near/remote, hard/soft, clear/dark, warm/cold, strong/weak and basic logical schemes enable the identification of aspects such as similarity, opposition and symmetry. This enables complex categorization relating to the form of the music such as granular, pointed, flowing, rounded, wave etc.
The second layer is that of Social Practices. Here cultural institutions such as language, religion, industry, technology, sciences as well as musical practices such as concerts, ballets, opera and criticism all contribute to the development of meaning in music. These are separate to those at the level of General Codes as they may be unique to certain social groups.
The third layer is referred to as Musical Techniques and concerns such things as theories, methods, devices, instrumental techniques, scales, pitch, duration, dynamics, timbre, articulation and compositional forms. Often this is the layer singled out as being the only relevant area to be considered in the semiology of music.
The fourth layer is Styles. These, determined largely by historical periods, cultural movements, authors or groups of works, are the realization of the combination of the earlier layers of musical competence. Here techniques, social practices and general attributes combine to form a recognized genre of music.
The final layer is the Opus or the individual work. Whilst creativity can arise at any level, the finished product is most often considered the result of the composition and the means of delivering communication.
The aim of Stefani in this article was to develop a theory that stepped beyond the level of musical technique in considering the production of meaning in music:
… by embedding ‘pre-musical’ levels our model allows us to embody not only systems of morphology, syntax and rhetoric, but also those ‘speech acts’ or ‘communication acts’ which explain – to a certain extent – the constitution and working of these ‘technical levels’…
Theories on how meaning is produced provide important building blocks to understanding how communication can be facilitated or constricted. In future posts relating to music which aims to educate and empower, it is hoped further discussion can be given to why a song can be interpreted in different ways by different people, and how external factors influence the production and reception of music, and ultimately the ability of it to produce the social impact it desires.
In Music, Culture and Society, Patricia Tunstall’s article, On Musical Structuralism [page 43, originally published as ‘Structuralism and Musicology: An Overview, Current Musicology, 27 (1979), 61-3] and Gino Stefani's article, On the Semiotics of Music [page 50, originally published as ‘A Theory of Musical Competence’ Semiotica, 66:1/3 (1987), 9-15] provide valuable insights.
Patricia Tunstall notes that semiology is based on the definition given by Saussure as the science of signs, and the existence of a one-to-one relation between a signifier and a signified. This raises difficult definitional questions when applied to music with different views as to what is indeed signified by music. Tunstall suggests that semiology in its true form can not be readily applied to music as there is no strict one-to-one relationship between a signifier and a signified:
…music must be considered not a system of signs but a system of signifiers without signifieds. Therefore musical analysis can make only limited use of the particular virtues of the semiological approach…
She suggests that structuralism as a wider concept may prove more useful in musical analysis with patterns of meaning and relationships being more easily ascertained.
Gino Stefani developes a theory of musical competence. Here five layers are seen to interact in producing musical meaning.
The first of these layers is referred to as the General Codes which relate primarily to the interaction between sound and senses. These are the perceptual and mental schemes, anthropological attitudes and motivations, and basic conventions through which we perceive the world and construct or interpret our experiences. Sound is classified as high/low, near/remote, hard/soft, clear/dark, warm/cold, strong/weak and basic logical schemes enable the identification of aspects such as similarity, opposition and symmetry. This enables complex categorization relating to the form of the music such as granular, pointed, flowing, rounded, wave etc.
The second layer is that of Social Practices. Here cultural institutions such as language, religion, industry, technology, sciences as well as musical practices such as concerts, ballets, opera and criticism all contribute to the development of meaning in music. These are separate to those at the level of General Codes as they may be unique to certain social groups.
The third layer is referred to as Musical Techniques and concerns such things as theories, methods, devices, instrumental techniques, scales, pitch, duration, dynamics, timbre, articulation and compositional forms. Often this is the layer singled out as being the only relevant area to be considered in the semiology of music.
The fourth layer is Styles. These, determined largely by historical periods, cultural movements, authors or groups of works, are the realization of the combination of the earlier layers of musical competence. Here techniques, social practices and general attributes combine to form a recognized genre of music.
The final layer is the Opus or the individual work. Whilst creativity can arise at any level, the finished product is most often considered the result of the composition and the means of delivering communication.
The aim of Stefani in this article was to develop a theory that stepped beyond the level of musical technique in considering the production of meaning in music:
… by embedding ‘pre-musical’ levels our model allows us to embody not only systems of morphology, syntax and rhetoric, but also those ‘speech acts’ or ‘communication acts’ which explain – to a certain extent – the constitution and working of these ‘technical levels’…
Theories on how meaning is produced provide important building blocks to understanding how communication can be facilitated or constricted. In future posts relating to music which aims to educate and empower, it is hoped further discussion can be given to why a song can be interpreted in different ways by different people, and how external factors influence the production and reception of music, and ultimately the ability of it to produce the social impact it desires.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Inspiration v Infringement
Deryck Cooke's article on musical inspiration [page 34 of Music Culture and Society or originally published in: The Language of Music (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), 168-175] highlights how composers produce creative works, and when examining this in the light of copyright law, it is easy to see how the law impacts on the natural tendencies and flow of culture.
Cooke contends that compositions are a combination of conception and inspiration. These can occur in either order or together. Conception is 'a vague sense of the nature, mood, and shape of the work to be composed, with the separate parts and the actual material as yet unrealized, or only partly realized...' Conception is derived from:
1. a literary text to be depicted
2. a literary idea used as a basis
3. an ideal or concept that the composer is drawn to; or
4. from a musical impulse to write a particular type of work (eg. a great symphony)
Inspiration is the 'sudden materialization of a musical idea'. He states:
...inspiration does not come from nowhere: nothing can come out of nothing. Music as we know it could not be created at all but for the existence of a long tradition of past music, and every composer draws continually on his (sic) experience of this tradition...
Cooke explains that every composer stores prior musical experiences in their subconscious and whilst most of it is forgotten or half forgotten, this is where inspiration comes from:
...what we call 'inspiration' must be an unconscious creative re-shaping of already existing materials in the tradition...
He suggests that this takes place in relation to melody, harmony and rhythm. In examining melody as an example he contends that there are only three possible explanations as to the regularity with which material is reused:
1. Plagarism
2. Unconscious 'cribbing'
3. Co-incidence
Plagarism is the deliberate use of a creation of another composer and is categorically what copyright law seeks to prevent by granting the 'limited' monopoly for creators to control the reproduction of their expression. As this is deliberate in nature it can not come within the notion of inspiration but the legal position is important and very much impacts on the other forms of inspiration.
Unconcious cribbing is the sudden return of a theme to a composers mind, of something created by another but which is not recognised as being of the former, when it reappears. Co-incidence, in traditional terms, refers to things happening together or in the same way, and it is this that Cooke suggests is the most likely explanation for the similarities between some compositions. In particular he contends that there are limited combinations and variations of the 12 notes, a finite number of shapes and expectations of tonal qualties which all lead to repetition in musical composition.
Copyright law has great difficulty in distinguishing between these forms of inspiration. Indeed what most composers might regard as inspiration may very well be legally defined as infringement.
Subconcious copying is a recognized basis for copyright infringement. To be established, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had access to the original work - this can be done either by evidence of direct access or by evidence that the work was widely distributed; and there must be substantial similarity between the two works.
The notion of subconcious copying was discussed by Judge Nelson in the case of Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000):
Proof of widespread dissemination is sometimes accompanied by a theory that copyright infringement of a popular song was subconscious. Subconscious copying has been accepted since Learned Hand embraced it in a 1924 music infringement case: "Everything registers somewhere in our memories, and no one can tell what may evoke it . . . . Once it appears that another has in fact used the copyright as the source of this production, he has invaded the author's rights. It is no excuse that in so doing his memory has played him a trick." Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145, 147-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1924).... In modern cases, however, the theory of subconscious copying has been applied to songs that are more remote in time. ABKCO Music, Inc v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1983) is the most prominent example. In ABKCO, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury's verdict that former Beatle George Harrison, in writing the song "My Sweet Lord," subconsciously copied The Chiffons' "He's So Fine," which was released six years earlier. See id. at 997, 999. Harrison admitted hearing "He's So Fine" in 1963, when it was number one on the Billboard charts in the United States for five weeks and one of the top 30 hits in England for seven weeks...
With respect to the need for substantial similarity Judge Nelson stated:
Proof of the substantial similarity is satisfied by a two-part test of extrinsic similarity and intrinsic similarity. See Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164. Initially, the extrinsic test requires that the plaintiff identify concrete elements based on objective criteria. See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218; Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356. The extrinsic test often requires analytical dissection of a work and expert testimony. See Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994). Once the extrinsic test is satisfied, the factfinder applies the intrinsic test. The intrinsic test is subjective and asks "whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Pasillas v. McDonald's Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted).
In this case Michael Bolton was held liable for $5.4 million in damages.
Now do you feel inspired?
Cooke contends that compositions are a combination of conception and inspiration. These can occur in either order or together. Conception is 'a vague sense of the nature, mood, and shape of the work to be composed, with the separate parts and the actual material as yet unrealized, or only partly realized...' Conception is derived from:
1. a literary text to be depicted
2. a literary idea used as a basis
3. an ideal or concept that the composer is drawn to; or
4. from a musical impulse to write a particular type of work (eg. a great symphony)
Inspiration is the 'sudden materialization of a musical idea'. He states:
...inspiration does not come from nowhere: nothing can come out of nothing. Music as we know it could not be created at all but for the existence of a long tradition of past music, and every composer draws continually on his (sic) experience of this tradition...
Cooke explains that every composer stores prior musical experiences in their subconscious and whilst most of it is forgotten or half forgotten, this is where inspiration comes from:
...what we call 'inspiration' must be an unconscious creative re-shaping of already existing materials in the tradition...
He suggests that this takes place in relation to melody, harmony and rhythm. In examining melody as an example he contends that there are only three possible explanations as to the regularity with which material is reused:
1. Plagarism
2. Unconscious 'cribbing'
3. Co-incidence
Plagarism is the deliberate use of a creation of another composer and is categorically what copyright law seeks to prevent by granting the 'limited' monopoly for creators to control the reproduction of their expression. As this is deliberate in nature it can not come within the notion of inspiration but the legal position is important and very much impacts on the other forms of inspiration.
Unconcious cribbing is the sudden return of a theme to a composers mind, of something created by another but which is not recognised as being of the former, when it reappears. Co-incidence, in traditional terms, refers to things happening together or in the same way, and it is this that Cooke suggests is the most likely explanation for the similarities between some compositions. In particular he contends that there are limited combinations and variations of the 12 notes, a finite number of shapes and expectations of tonal qualties which all lead to repetition in musical composition.
Copyright law has great difficulty in distinguishing between these forms of inspiration. Indeed what most composers might regard as inspiration may very well be legally defined as infringement.
Subconcious copying is a recognized basis for copyright infringement. To be established, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had access to the original work - this can be done either by evidence of direct access or by evidence that the work was widely distributed; and there must be substantial similarity between the two works.
The notion of subconcious copying was discussed by Judge Nelson in the case of Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000):
Proof of widespread dissemination is sometimes accompanied by a theory that copyright infringement of a popular song was subconscious. Subconscious copying has been accepted since Learned Hand embraced it in a 1924 music infringement case: "Everything registers somewhere in our memories, and no one can tell what may evoke it . . . . Once it appears that another has in fact used the copyright as the source of this production, he has invaded the author's rights. It is no excuse that in so doing his memory has played him a trick." Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145, 147-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1924).... In modern cases, however, the theory of subconscious copying has been applied to songs that are more remote in time. ABKCO Music, Inc v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1983) is the most prominent example. In ABKCO, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury's verdict that former Beatle George Harrison, in writing the song "My Sweet Lord," subconsciously copied The Chiffons' "He's So Fine," which was released six years earlier. See id. at 997, 999. Harrison admitted hearing "He's So Fine" in 1963, when it was number one on the Billboard charts in the United States for five weeks and one of the top 30 hits in England for seven weeks...
With respect to the need for substantial similarity Judge Nelson stated:
Proof of the substantial similarity is satisfied by a two-part test of extrinsic similarity and intrinsic similarity. See Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164. Initially, the extrinsic test requires that the plaintiff identify concrete elements based on objective criteria. See Smith, 84 F.3d at 1218; Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356. The extrinsic test often requires analytical dissection of a work and expert testimony. See Apple Computer, Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994). Once the extrinsic test is satisfied, the factfinder applies the intrinsic test. The intrinsic test is subjective and asks "whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Pasillas v. McDonald's Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted).
In this case Michael Bolton was held liable for $5.4 million in damages.
Now do you feel inspired?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
More on Semantics
Another contribution in Music Culture and Society is a speech given by Leonard Bernstein at Harvard University [see page 38 of this text or originally published as: The Unanswered Questions: Six Talks at Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 125-31, 133, 135].
Bernstein states that music can be thought of as one 'super game of sonic anagrams'. The twelve 'letters' can be arranged in different combinations with a rich array of possibilities derived from hortizontal and vertical structures - melody, harmony and countrapuntal anagrams, and the added variety of features such as pitch, dynamics, duration etc.
However he then questions whether music is a game at all - for Bernstein music is more than mere pleasure: 'music does more...says more, means more...' He suggests that apart from feelings or moods and beyond representations of pictures and stories, music has 'instrinsic meaning'. Whilst acknowledging the lack of agreement on how music achieves this, he contends nonetheless that there is a general consensus that 'meaning, nay, expression' takes places via music. He sees meaning and expression as being separate - meaning allows listeners to repeat and communicate a derived notion where expression is more a sensation such as passion, glory, or mystery.
I see both expression and meaning in music, however it is questionable that the law in it present state is sophisticated enough to consider both. To some the distinction may be dismissed as trivial, but to many, including myself, it can be seen as a juncture of sorts - the place where values intersect and collide.
Copyright law categorically protects the expression of music once reduced to a material form. Typically it has been more the domain of the law relating to free speech that has centred on the freedom to communicate meaning. Where music is limited by the law, technology and the market (Lessig); so too, is meaning. It is marginalised and silenced (to a large degree but perhaps not absolutely) by the priority of other objectives (profit). The challenge for us is to find the ways that allow both, rather than one at the expense of the other. From a simplistic perspective: the present maximalist copyright laws could be said to favour expression but afford little attention to meaning; open file sharing networks provide a space for meaning but arguably lack the financial structure to sustain a professional sector; but a blanket licensing scheme could allow for both to be achieved at the same time and to a greater level.
Bernstein states that music can be thought of as one 'super game of sonic anagrams'. The twelve 'letters' can be arranged in different combinations with a rich array of possibilities derived from hortizontal and vertical structures - melody, harmony and countrapuntal anagrams, and the added variety of features such as pitch, dynamics, duration etc.
However he then questions whether music is a game at all - for Bernstein music is more than mere pleasure: 'music does more...says more, means more...' He suggests that apart from feelings or moods and beyond representations of pictures and stories, music has 'instrinsic meaning'. Whilst acknowledging the lack of agreement on how music achieves this, he contends nonetheless that there is a general consensus that 'meaning, nay, expression' takes places via music. He sees meaning and expression as being separate - meaning allows listeners to repeat and communicate a derived notion where expression is more a sensation such as passion, glory, or mystery.
I see both expression and meaning in music, however it is questionable that the law in it present state is sophisticated enough to consider both. To some the distinction may be dismissed as trivial, but to many, including myself, it can be seen as a juncture of sorts - the place where values intersect and collide.
Copyright law categorically protects the expression of music once reduced to a material form. Typically it has been more the domain of the law relating to free speech that has centred on the freedom to communicate meaning. Where music is limited by the law, technology and the market (Lessig); so too, is meaning. It is marginalised and silenced (to a large degree but perhaps not absolutely) by the priority of other objectives (profit). The challenge for us is to find the ways that allow both, rather than one at the expense of the other. From a simplistic perspective: the present maximalist copyright laws could be said to favour expression but afford little attention to meaning; open file sharing networks provide a space for meaning but arguably lack the financial structure to sustain a professional sector; but a blanket licensing scheme could allow for both to be achieved at the same time and to a greater level.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Metaphor of Music as Language
In an article by Harold S Powers, [included in the text Music Culture and Society as an Overview to Music as Languauge, but originally published as: 'Language Models and Musical Analysis', Ethnomusicology, 24:1 (1980), 1-4, 7-9] three central aspects are considered in examining how music and languauge are related - semantics, phonology, and syntax and grammar.
1. Semantics
This typically refers to the meaning of words or symbols. Powers suggests that meaning in this context is derived from associations 'of specific musical entities with persons, events or things...'. Meaning is gained through the use of particular motives, or features such as rhythms or intervals, which themselves are seen as units of discourse.
2. Phonology typically consists of speech sounds and their development. In this regard Powers suggests that the vocal music of a culture can have an indirect influence on musical sounds, even those with no direct connection to text. Here he provides the example of the development of sitar styles and how these have encompassed the syllabilic and wholistic structure of the language of the environment in which this development has taken place.
3. Syntax usually refers to the arrangement of words in a sentence, and grammar, to the structure and use of language, including the correct use of words. In seeking to develop the metaphor from this perspective, Powers considers that abstract musical analysis can be inspired by linguistic models (in addition to other methods of analysis). Such an abstract analysis seeks to establish the 'parallels between the formal patterns of sound and structure in text and music'. Powers goes on to outline some apparent difficulties with this approach and concludes by noting that the very idea that music can be segmented and analysed and the terminology that has developed in order to do this, has deep roots in the historical language models of western eurpoean culture.
Of the three ways in which the metaphor of music as language is established, I am most familiar with the first, and indeed I think that this is perhaps the most obvious and widely accepted. To give an example: when I began to teach my daughter the piano I explained to her that a major scale was a 'happy' scale and that a minor scale was a 'sad' scale. This is the very basic level of what Powers is referring to. Of course it is often more complex than that; think of how drumming styles can depict war, or even (as I think was mentioned by Scott in the introducted to the text discussed in the previous post) how atonal music has been used to illustrate fear and danager in horror movies. These examples are but a tiny few of the endless ways in which meaning is associated with typical musical features. Indeed music, with or without text, is language, and it is this very metaphor that leads us to the notion that copyright laws and internet regulation directly impact on the free speech potential of music.
1. Semantics
This typically refers to the meaning of words or symbols. Powers suggests that meaning in this context is derived from associations 'of specific musical entities with persons, events or things...'. Meaning is gained through the use of particular motives, or features such as rhythms or intervals, which themselves are seen as units of discourse.
2. Phonology typically consists of speech sounds and their development. In this regard Powers suggests that the vocal music of a culture can have an indirect influence on musical sounds, even those with no direct connection to text. Here he provides the example of the development of sitar styles and how these have encompassed the syllabilic and wholistic structure of the language of the environment in which this development has taken place.
3. Syntax usually refers to the arrangement of words in a sentence, and grammar, to the structure and use of language, including the correct use of words. In seeking to develop the metaphor from this perspective, Powers considers that abstract musical analysis can be inspired by linguistic models (in addition to other methods of analysis). Such an abstract analysis seeks to establish the 'parallels between the formal patterns of sound and structure in text and music'. Powers goes on to outline some apparent difficulties with this approach and concludes by noting that the very idea that music can be segmented and analysed and the terminology that has developed in order to do this, has deep roots in the historical language models of western eurpoean culture.
Of the three ways in which the metaphor of music as language is established, I am most familiar with the first, and indeed I think that this is perhaps the most obvious and widely accepted. To give an example: when I began to teach my daughter the piano I explained to her that a major scale was a 'happy' scale and that a minor scale was a 'sad' scale. This is the very basic level of what Powers is referring to. Of course it is often more complex than that; think of how drumming styles can depict war, or even (as I think was mentioned by Scott in the introducted to the text discussed in the previous post) how atonal music has been used to illustrate fear and danager in horror movies. These examples are but a tiny few of the endless ways in which meaning is associated with typical musical features. Indeed music, with or without text, is language, and it is this very metaphor that leads us to the notion that copyright laws and internet regulation directly impact on the free speech potential of music.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Cultural Relativism
Derek Scott (editor) has gathered together a fantastic compilation of articles/interviews/extracts addressing various aspects of Music, Culture and Society. The next few posts to this space will consider some of the key issues that arise from these papers. I would be delighted to hear of any other views or interpretations that might be relevant to these materials.
In the introduction, Scott raises the notion of ‘musical relativism’. He states that an evolution has taken place in socio-musical theorizing and a departure made from the dichotomy of high and low culture. Escaping the tendency to distinguish between bourgeois and proletarian music enables for the recognition of high and low classifications within particular genres.
He considers the current theoretical perspective to be one of relativism. Culture is directly relevant to its social context (which amongst many things includes technology) and these factors contribute to the construction of meaning.
In examining the concept of relativism, Scott briefly discusses how environmental issues have already contributed to the development or popularity of new styles. He notes in particular with respect to the development of World Music:
The New Acoustic Roots movement was to a great extent, born of rejection of electronic-acid-rain-producing, energy-consuming, urban/industrial society…
He also claims that the increased focus and awareness of environmental issues since this time, will obviously impact on how music develops into the future. The question I raise is: will this be to an effective extent?
The concern I have is with respect to the competing interests that make up this ‘social context’. On the one hand we have conditions such as the regulation of the internet and copyright law attempting to restrict production and reception, and on the other immediate social concerns that need to be heard.
One can well imagine the potential for music to educate and motivate the public and to establish a community identity which spurs government bureaucracy (and perhaps even corporate citizens) to act, to prevent global warming and other imminent disasters. But one can also easily imagine the constricting influence of other factors and the way that these messages may be prevented from reaching the volume of listeners required to have such a positive impact.
Perhaps culture is relative but the key question has to be; relative to what? The label of ‘social context’ does little to address the dominance of some factors over others. Whilst relativism remains largely determined by economic and corporate interests the rest that is relative will no doubt be cast in shadow; and this may well, in the end, be enough to prevent music of this nature from having the impact we need it to have.
In the introduction, Scott raises the notion of ‘musical relativism’. He states that an evolution has taken place in socio-musical theorizing and a departure made from the dichotomy of high and low culture. Escaping the tendency to distinguish between bourgeois and proletarian music enables for the recognition of high and low classifications within particular genres.
He considers the current theoretical perspective to be one of relativism. Culture is directly relevant to its social context (which amongst many things includes technology) and these factors contribute to the construction of meaning.
In examining the concept of relativism, Scott briefly discusses how environmental issues have already contributed to the development or popularity of new styles. He notes in particular with respect to the development of World Music:
The New Acoustic Roots movement was to a great extent, born of rejection of electronic-acid-rain-producing, energy-consuming, urban/industrial society…
He also claims that the increased focus and awareness of environmental issues since this time, will obviously impact on how music develops into the future. The question I raise is: will this be to an effective extent?
The concern I have is with respect to the competing interests that make up this ‘social context’. On the one hand we have conditions such as the regulation of the internet and copyright law attempting to restrict production and reception, and on the other immediate social concerns that need to be heard.
One can well imagine the potential for music to educate and motivate the public and to establish a community identity which spurs government bureaucracy (and perhaps even corporate citizens) to act, to prevent global warming and other imminent disasters. But one can also easily imagine the constricting influence of other factors and the way that these messages may be prevented from reaching the volume of listeners required to have such a positive impact.
Perhaps culture is relative but the key question has to be; relative to what? The label of ‘social context’ does little to address the dominance of some factors over others. Whilst relativism remains largely determined by economic and corporate interests the rest that is relative will no doubt be cast in shadow; and this may well, in the end, be enough to prevent music of this nature from having the impact we need it to have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
