mrsmith@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith) (08/17/90)
First, thanks to all who sent suggestions for where to look for examples of the divisions of music. They were all very helpful. Now, my next question is What are the basic categories of musicological analysis? In other words, in what few basic categories can all musico-analytic problems be understood? Here is my first stab at the problem: 1. Primary Sound (any sound or silence without rhythm, melody, harmony, or lyrics, but with choate musical value) 2. Rhythmics (the regularization of primary sound in alternation with silence) 3. Harmonics (musical reference to an articulated tonal field such as a scale, the overtone series, etc.) 4. Melodics (Logicial discursive overlays on 1, 2, and 3 above) 5. Lyrics (Verbal and semantic overlay on 1, 2, or 3 above - includes song texts, but not vocalises - maybe includes the Teacher in Charlie Brown TV shows) 6. Corpographics (the staging and visual presentation in alles its aspects - i.e., is the music in a church, a stadium, in headphones, etc.) I think these six categories can serve to cover any and all problems in musicological analysis in a meaningful way. That is, they are not too broad and they are logically related to one another. But, of course some of you will have better ideas about this. And that is what I think would be interesting to hear about. So, please let me know what you think of. Thanks. Paul Smith mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer) (08/17/90)
>Now, my next question is What are the basic categories of musicological >analysis? In other words, in what few basic categories can all >musico-analytic problems be understood? >Here is my first stab at the problem: > > 1. Primary Sound (any sound or silence without rhythm, melody, >harmony, or lyrics, but with choate musical value) > > 2. Rhythmics (the regularization of primary sound in >alternation with silence) > > 3. Harmonics (musical reference to an articulated tonal field >such as a scale, the overtone series, etc.) > > 4. Melodics (Logicial discursive overlays on 1, 2, and 3 >above) > > 5. Lyrics (Verbal and semantic overlay on 1, 2, or 3 above - >includes song texts, but not vocalises - maybe includes the Teacher in >Charlie Brown TV shows) > > 6. Corpographics (the staging and visual presentation in alles >its aspects - i.e., is the music in a church, a stadium, in >headphones, etc.) The main problem with this categorization is that is has an inheretly Western musical bias. I.E., the category of "primary sound" seems be a catch-all for any sound that doesn't follow traditional Western musical procedures. At the same time, there are categories which relate to both Western and non-Western music which have been excluded here. Musicological analysis usually starts with a reference to who produces the music, rather than to the acoustics of individual phrases and sounds. Thus we have historical musicology ethnomusicology or comparative musicology. Systematic musicology moves away from this and you move along the continuum until you reach disciplines which do analyze music on the basis of acoustical properties of sound. Musical acoustics, as reported in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, is such a discipline. In acoustics we would normally talk about pitch (rather than melody), timbre (rather than harmonics), temporal properties (rhythm is probably an acceptable term, but one might wish to analyze the temporal properties of a sound on a more microscopic level), relationship of music to text (rather than "lyrics", a word which assumes certain composition processes which might not occur in certain types of music, such as improvised Indian ragas where syllables are insterspersed with words). If one desires to examine music in relation to text, one may also cross interdisciplinary boundaries by examining the relationship of music to visual art, theater, and dance. Your sixth category seemed to combine architectural acoustics and theater - there are situations in which such matters should be treated together and other situations where they are distinct disciplines.
timhsu@athena.mit.edu (Timothy M. Hsu) (08/17/90)
Mr. Smith writes: >>Now, my next question is What are the basic categories of musicological >>analysis? In other words, in what few basic categories can all >>musico-analytic problems be understood? >> (1-6, Sound, Rhythmics, Harmonic, Melodics, Lyrics, Corpographics) Ms. Seltzer responds: >The main problem with this categorization is that is has an inheretly Western >musical bias.... At the same time, there are categories which relate to both >Western and non-Western music which have been excluded here. >Musical acoustics, as reported in the Journal of the Acoustical >Society of America, is such a discipline. In acoustics we would normally talk >about pitch (rather than melody), timbre (rather than harmonics), temporal >properties (rhythm is probably an acceptable term, but one might wish to analyze >the temporal properties of a sound on a more microscopic level), relationship of >music to text (rather than "lyrics", a word which assumes certain composition >processes which might not occur in certain types of music, such as improvised >Indian ragas where syllables are insterspersed with words). Hmm... that Great Cosmic Question, "What *is* music?" rises again. John Cage's stuff seems to get to a lot of these issues. _4:28_ (I may be off by a few seconds) (*), for instance, is usually seen as a presentation of silence (thus, formally, even fitting within Mr. Smith's 6 categories, though certainly not in the usual manner). However, you could also look at it as saying that the presentation aspect of music, the fact that somebody comes out in a tuxedo and expects you to listen to what he does for 4 1/2 minutes, is a fundamental aspect of music, perhaps more so than Rhythm/Harmony/etc. Of course, you could just say that Cage is nonsense, and many people do. As another point, I think the matter of Organization/Chaos is an important one, though this applies to all art, of course, and not just music. Cage, I believe, specifically takes the position that all sound is music, and thus presents many chaotic noises as music. For instance, in "101", his recent thing for the BSO, there are a few structural elements present (some repeated piano thing, I think), but basically, everybody just gets up on stage and just plays whatever occurs to them at the time. On a more mainstream level, you could look at this issue as Writing/Improv, or even Composing/Interpretation. Was Charlie Parker composing a new piece every time he got up to play "Cherokee"? Is Ornette Coleman's "Free Jazz" music at all? Thoughts & flames are welcome. --Tim (*) For anyone who doesn't know the piece, in _4:28_, a pianist is instructed to go onstage, sit down, open a piece of music, play nothing for 4 min. 28 sec., get up, get applause (well, maybe), and leave. The "intended sound" could be seen either as pure silence or the sounds of the concert hall (rustling programs, coughing, whispering, and, as inevitably happens, people leaving). Btw, in Tower Records, I saw a CD put out by some percussion ensemble (Ithaca College, I think) which featured _4:28_ as one of the tracks. Arranged for percussion ensemble, of course. Hmm....
mrsmith@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith) (08/19/90)
Before I respond I must say that I clearly indicated that I was proposing categories of "musicological analysis." I DO NOT consider these to be exhaustive of all categories of musical research of any kind. I have written more about this in another posting below [Musicology and Music Research] The first category of musicological analysis I had proposed was 1. Primary Sound (any sound or silence without rhythm, melody, harmony, or lyrics, but with choate musical value) lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer) responded: The main problem with this categorization is that is has an inheretly Western musical bias. I.E., the category of "primary sound" seems be a catch-all for any sound that doesn't follow traditional Western musical procedures. ... Do you think that "rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics" are "Western musical procedures?" I don't, and I don't think any non-western musician would agree with you, if you arrogantly claim that rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics are Western musical procedures. Primary sound without any of the other elements is as rare in Asian and African music as it is in Western music. So, I guess I still cannot see the Western Bias you're talking about. Please explain in more detail the other categories that I left out that do not have this Western Bias. You also claim that Musicological analysis usually starts with a reference to who produces the music, rather than to the acoustics of individual phrases and sounds. First, I did not mention anything about acoustics - which I think is nowhere to be found in musicological analysis. Primary sound, as I indicated, has to have "choate musical value." Where did you find acoustics? And I don't agree that musicological analysis "usually starts with a reference to who produces the music." I mean, how many articles about Schubert songs begin by saying, "Dietrich Fischer Diskau produced this music, and now I am going to analyze it thus..." Apparently you also think that lyrics as I defined it is too narrow. You suggest calling this relationship of music to text (rather than "lyrics", a word which assumes certain composition processes which might not occur in certain types of music, such as improvised Indian ragas where syllables are insterspersed with words). But you will shoot yourself in the foot with this one because the word "text" means just what we all think it means (i.e., the wording, usually printed or written, of an author's utterance). You must understand, therefore, that text can never be a musical element. I defined lyrics as a "verbal and semantic overlay" on rhythm, melody, harmony, or primary sound precisely to avoid "text," which, as a word, usually does not have anything to do with music. Lyrics (of the lyre) almost always does. The key is VERBAL. Text is never verbal, lyrics usually are (only when they're written, they're a text). I also prefer lyrics because it has always been used - since antiquity - to have something to do with music. Anyway, you have correctly identified the nebulous boundary between lyrics and primary sound by bringing up the example of improvised, non-semantic syllables. Indeed, the boundaries between all of these categories are overlapping, but I have tried to define them as distinct AND to show their interrelationship. The reason I gave a definition of the word lyrics is because the one I understand to be common is not precise enough in this case. So please recognize that I have redefined the term and not mentioned anything at all about *how* music manages to get a lyric overlay in a particular instance (i.e., it does not matter whether someone first wrote down the lyrics, or whether they are just now making them up. The end result is the same: a semantic and verbal overlay. BTW, according to Webster's lyrics are "the words of a song, as distinguished from the music." I think that this is incorrect. The lyrics are as much a part of the music as the rhythm and melody. Moreover, as you and I pointed out, lyrics need not be limited to words. But, when you say If one desires to examine music in relation to text, one may also cross interdisciplinary boundaries by examining the relationship of music to visual art, theater, and dance I must agree. But you should realize that I have not suggested examining music in relation to text. I have suggested only that lyrics is a category of musicological analysis because it is understood to be part of music. The way you construe it, I get the impression that music and text are to be understood in their traditional meaning (i.e., mutually exclusive). If you don't mean this, then don't use the word text and don't say "music in relation to text" where text is something not music. Finally, you have also misunderstood the sixth category, corpographics. You say Your sixth category seemed to combine architectural acoustics and theater That term I chose carefully (it was invented by Gerald Otte, a choreographer), but I perhaps misled you with my examples. I said that corpographics, as a category of musicological analysis, includes the staging and visual presentation in all of its aspects - i.e., is the music in a church, a stadium, in headphones, etc. I could not list everything here like, are the musicians wearing anything? Are they dressed like waiters? Is there an obvious leader? Are they moving or sitting or both? ... Is the music outside, amplified, drunk, on a CD player, imagined? Is the listener lying down, sitting, eating, dancing, praying? You get my drift. I did not mean just "architectural acoustics" (again you put acoustics in there. Where do you keep finding that?) If you think these things have no place in musicological analysis, you will have anyone who believes that opera is music, Christopher Hogwash and the period performance people, and ethnomusicologists shaking their heads in disagreement. Paul Smith mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
rjenkins@.com (Robert Jenkins) (08/19/90)
A random idea:
I had an idea for analyzing music which I've been trying to develop
into something concrete. Music has melodies, countermelodies,
rhythms, et cetera. What I am thinking of I will call a motif. I
think songs are defined by their motif, this motif is repeated over
and over again, but in many different ways.
A motif is usually about two seconds long -- that is, if you
listen to a song for four seconds, you can probably pick out its
motif. It is like the mood, but it is more definite. It is a rhythm
of notes, their times and their emphasis. It is how the notes rise
and fall, but not the exact intervals. It is how the notes are
executed. When you hear a motif, you identify it with its song.
In barbershop, the fact that voices are voices, are a capella,
in close harmony, and moving together is part of the motif. If you do
barbershop, note for note, slur for slur, with a string quartet, you
don't have barbershop.
In The Pink Panther, it is t-T-t-T, as if sneaking around, and a
tendency to run through the chromatic scale. Brass helps. It doesn't
matter if the notes are rising or falling, although they should be one
or the other. The motif is repeated many times throughout the melody,
but differently every time.
In Beethoven's 5th, d-d-d-Da is the motif. d-d-d is the
approach, Da is the arrival. Da is different from d-d-d. How? it
varies. The motif applies to sequences of phrases as well as notes,
with many held-back phrases building up to a blatent one.
Bach uses motifs everywhere; he needs to. His motifs includes
a recognizable rhythm of notes, but the intervals are flexible
depending on the harmony he is matching. Jumps still occur at the
same places, but whether the jumps are up or down or big or small
varies. His chord progressions are virtually independent of his
melodies because he doesn't use melodies, he uses motifs.
I like the idea of motifs because it explains why some
musicians consistently produce good work, and why musicians need to be
cool. The motif is an abstraction which unifies a song. The whole
song should be true to its pattern, but the actual notes that form
that pattern can and should vary wildly. Making a flexible motif
takes creativity, finding different ways to display its pattern takes
imagination.
What is this concept really called? Are these assertions
true? If they are, there is a problem with writing down music.
Motifs often contain elements which cannot be written down. This may
not be true for Bach Inventions, but it certainly is for the blues.
Given the notes, you can only make guesses at what the song really is.
- Bob Jenkins
rjenkins@oracle.oracle.commrsmith@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith) (08/19/90)
In article <1990Aug19.001007.6827@oracle.com> rjenkins@oracle.UUCP (Robert Jenkins) writes: >A motif is usually about two seconds long -- that is, if you >listen to a song for four seconds, you can probably pick out its >motif. It is like the mood, but it is more definite. It is a rhythm >of notes, their times and their emphasis. It is how the notes rise >and fall, but not the exact intervals. It is how the notes are >executed. When you hear a motif, you identify it with its song. > Are you saying that motif is a general rhythmic and pitch contour? If so, how is it that instrumentation can be part of the motive? (Sorry, I accidentally deleted what you said about barbershop quartet music being non-convertible, motif-wise, to string quartet music). > [...] >I like the idea of motifs because it explains why some >musicians consistently produce good work, and why musicians need to be >cool. Wow, you really must elaborate on this! I had the notion that musicians had to be cool depending on their personalities and the social expectations of their musical community. To think that something like motif is the reason musicians need to be cool is really quite remarkable. I wish you would explain how you think this might be so. >The motif is an abstraction which unifies a song. This could be anything from "the human mind" to Platonic forms to the Schenkerian Ursatz. >What is this concept really called? Are these assertions true? Don't know. >Motifs often contain elements which cannot be written down. This may >not be true for Bach Inventions, but it certainly is for the blues. Most mysterious, really. You imply that motifs in Bach can be written down, but not in the blues. >Given the notes, you can only make guesses at what the song really >is. What do you mean by "notes" here? The written notes? The sounds? If you mean written notes, I suppose you are right. Learning to read music is learning to make educated guesses at "what the song really is." As Mahler said, everything is in the score but the essential. Maybe he meant something like your idea of motif? > - Bob Jenkins > rjenkins@oracle.oracle.com Paul Smith mrsmith@ai.mit.edu
rmurtha@lotus.com (Rob Murtha - Lotus) (08/21/90)
How about dynamics? Rarely does any musical thought pattern lack dynamics or changes in volume, and or sound velocities. rmurtha@voyager.lotus.com
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (08/22/90)
In article <9956@life.ai.mit.edu> mrsmith@rice-chex.UUCP (Mr. P. H. Smith) writes: > >Do you think that "rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics" are "Western >musical procedures?" I don't, and I don't think any non-western >musician would agree with you, if you arrogantly claim that rhythm, >melody, harmony, and lyrics are Western musical procedures. Let me try to come to Linda's defense here. I do not think her intent was to be quite as arrogant as you are assuming. The way I interpreted her original claim was as an assertion that TERMS such as "rhythm," "melody," "harmony," and "lyrics" need not necessarily have clean maps to concepts in all non-Western civilizations. You are probably too young to remember McLuhan's old saw about there being no word for "art" in Bali because "we do everything the best we can." There are a variety of schools of thought (some of which are even consistent with current research in artificial intelligence) based on the premise that concept formation is a highly idiosyncratic process. It is unclear that you and I deal with a concept like "melody" the same way, let alone whether or not your concept is consistent with one of McLuhan's Balinese (to choose a random example about which, I confess, I know precious little). The odds are better in our case because we probably have a lot of cultural similarities, but my guess is that I could come up with at least one critical aspect in which we differ. ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet
lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda Ann Seltzer) (08/22/90)
In article <14638@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >In article <9956@life.ai.mit.edu> mrsmith@rice-chex.UUCP (Mr. P. H. Smith) >writes: >> >>Do you think that "rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics" are "Western >>musical procedures?" I don't, and I don't think any non-western >>musician would agree with you, if you arrogantly claim that rhythm, >>melody, harmony, and lyrics are Western musical procedures. > >Let me try to come to Linda's defense here. I do not think her intent was to >be quite as arrogant as you are assuming. The way I interpreted her original >claim was as an assertion that TERMS such as "rhythm," "melody," "harmony," >and "lyrics" need not necessarily have clean maps to concepts in all >non-Western civilizations. You are probably too young to remember McLuhan's I'll make some more specific comments. First I never said that rhythm, melody, harmony, and lyrics are Western procedures only. The division into those categories implies a Western bias. Harmony is certainly a characteristic of Western music. Harmony exists to some degree in the Japanese sho, an instrument with 15 pipes, but in other Japanese music, where heterophony is a more relevant principle. Harmony is not an important concern in the ragas of India, nor is it importnt in most music of Korea, China or Africa. The most problematic term is "lyrics", because it clearly a Western term. "Lyrics" is a term normally used in Western popular music and implies procedures and goals which might not be present in the non-Western musician's mind. The closest one can come in non-Western music is in the Chinese k'un-chu opera, in which the composer had the reponsibility of composing poetry for existing tunes, although the coposer did treat the existing tunes very freely. But the opposite procedure in Hindustani music - taking a sentence (e.g. from a proverb) and peforming improvisations in which other syllables are inserted, or in which the word's syllables are treated freely as phonetic elements - is not similar to the procedures or intentions experienced by a Western composer of "lyrics". In Western music, we do not expect lyrics to be great poetry. In Chinese k'un-chu opera, the texts are more important than the music and are treated as literature. Rhythm - Recurring beats, even in an irregular meter, do not occur in all forms of music. Most notably - the old shakuhachi pieces and some Tibetan Buddhist chanting. But I haven't encountred a culture which doesn't employ rhythm at all. When I think about it more, I can find more Western types of music for which the notion of rhythm is problematic, for example, computer music based on speech processing. The only culture I can think of that may not have melody is Eskimo music. If one restricts categorization to these four elements, then one loses a great deal of perspcetive concerning such matters as timbre and organization of lines into larger structures.