mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (05/30/90)
In article <16392@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: >In article <10541@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes: >;I do not mean to imply that musical semantics can >;be usefully manipulated abstractly, I simply wish to indicate that >;iconic musical objects are the primary structural units of an >;existing musical community (film composers). The existence of >;this community entails the existence of musical semantics (for >;better or worse). > >Chris, you're talking musical semiotics -- music as sign -- rather than >musical semantics -- the "meaning" of musical experience. Would that >clear up the matter? That will do nicely. It's not the music which has meaning. It's that we, instead, discover self-meaning. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (06/06/90)
In article <16590@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@winnie.Princeton.Edu (eliot handelman) writes: >In article <10589@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes: >>A semantic (by both my definition and that of a convenient >>dictionary) is an associative meaning. Musical objects can occur in >>a variety of extra-musical contexts: i.e. theatre, automobiles, torture >>chambers. Like the one with the man tied to a chair, and a loudspeaker out of which comes the words, "And now, once again, for your listening enjoyment, Pachelbel's "Canon in D." :-) ??? :-) [Pachelbel fans note: as extensively discussed some time ago, the problem isn't Pachelbel's "Canon," but how incessantly it's played (and in a smarmy manner) by classical radio stations and environment infesting Muzak clones as well as numerous "meditation" tapes.] >>The subsequent experiences of musical objects by an >>individual will be influenced by the association of object to its >>original context. > >Is this a theory of the origin of musical intelligence? Do whales do their >musical acts because they watch a lot of TV and learn this special and >inelegant way of establishing referents? Do infants who seem to respond to >music do so because they know how to make associations? Or is this your >special way of listening to music, you line up all the different things that >are associated with this music? What do you do when you hear a loud sound? Jump? Ultimately, the issue of semantics must deal with PRIMAL, primary responses rather than cultivated ones. IF music had genuine semantics, that's where it would be found rather than in cultivated, associative responses. >Whereas I see post-industrial society as being essentially >musical, as being constructed through musical consciousness. Interesting proposal. Then politicians would be arguing about which kinds of music are legal rather than economics. (But wait, they've already been doing that for thousands of years, eh? :-)) Check out Don Saliers' (Emory University, Candler School of Theology) concerning the formative nature of musical experience. (Which is also what I find as the most interesting aspect of John Cage's work and ideas.) "Formative nature" not being the same thing as "having semantics," BTW. >>Obviously, some contexts are extremely >>transparent and objects experienced in such contexts will communicate >>little or no future associative information. > >If associations are the origin of the semantic you're supplying, >why should one thing be more privileged than another? Maybe you're >missing something in your conception? Probably overstating the >importance of associating in the first place. > >>For musical semantic >>manipulation to be successful beyond a single individual, the >>desired associations must be common experiences among a group. >>No two individuals experience the same music in identical contexts, >>and therefore it is impossible to establish an absolute semantic for >>a musical object. > >You think that only because you insist on semantics. One of the problems Cage has expressed concerning much recent "new music" is, indeed, its use of "loaded" imagery -- i.e., the fact that it REQUIRES so much associative context for even marginal success (social, political, violent, exoticness). Without such associations, the music (and/or other work of performance art) falls flat. In this sense, Cage might be considered a bit old-fashioned :-) in that his musical creations are aesthetically bouyant on its own (assuming you accept the aesthetic possibilities in the first place) which might be considered akin somewhat to the classicist notion of abstract music which has its own integrity as pure "concept" (musical) without programme. A difference: Cage's music allows the circumstances of the context to "interpenetrate" his works; a Haydn string quartet, however, might be disturbed by an appropriately :-) times cough or a slammed door. >You talk about >music as though it were an abstract experiment, a sort of conditioned >response in some lab rats with no guaranteed generality. And yet music >is, quite obviously, the instrument of mass consciousness. Your theory >is predicting the wrong thing. I wouldn't want that pass by without a call for more explication of "instrument of mass consciousness" which, I would dare guess, is not meant to mean the same thing as "universal language" by any means? Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================