bradr@bartok.Eng.Sun.COM (Brad Rubenstein) (06/05/90)
Music-Research Digest Sun, 27 May 90 Volume 5 : Issue 51
Today's Topics:
Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music)
Musical Semantics (was: Re: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music)) (2 msgs)
Music symbolism (was Re: Mira Balaban, among other things)
Semantics of music? (2 msgs)
*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request
*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
*** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
*** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
*** Back issues, index, etc.: send "help" in a message to archive-server
*** @uk.ac.oxford.prg (in the UK) or @bartok.sun.com (elsewhere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 May 90 22:49:30 GMT
From: pa2253 <pa2253%sdcc13%sdcc6@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music)
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <10541@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
In article <16283@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>The idea that music has "semantics" is completely meaningless because
>no music can be systematically explicated in terms of this function;
>besides there's no authoritative meaning-conferring community that
>establishes these semantics. Music is privately experienced and there's
>no way to convey that experience: It's not enough to say "this sounds
>happy" or "this sounds bucolic" to start claiming semantics, since
>it's not clear -- and only an idiot would maintain -- that those
>statements capture any of the things that music does except at an iconic
>level: or if the idiot would, that speaks for the poverty of the idiot's
>musical experience.
>
>Your turn.
I agree that musical semantics are vague and privately defined;
however, it is quite extreme to say that iconic musical objects are
meaningless. They are quite important to the film industry as I
pointed out. This industry also serves as an `authoritative
meaning conferring community` of musical semantics. The music
from such a community (probably in both our opinions) suffers
from its iconic communicative imperative--possibility is disdained
in favor of communicating familiar musical objects that express
desired ideas. 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).
Christopher Penrose
penrose@do.ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: 16 May 90 06:29:19 GMT
From: Eliot Handelman <eliot%phoenix@edu.princeton>
Subject: Musical Semantics (was: Re: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music))
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <16392@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
In article <10541@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> pa2253@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa2253) writes:
;In article <16283@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
;>The idea that music has "semantics" is completely meaningless because
;>no music can be systematically explicated in terms of this function;
;>besides there's no authoritative meaning-conferring community that
;>establishes these semantics. Music is privately experienced and there's
;>no way to convey that experience: It's not enough to say "this sounds
;>happy" or "this sounds bucolic" to start claiming semantics, since
;>it's not clear -- and only an idiot would maintain -- that those
;>statements capture any of the things that music does except at an iconic
;>level: or if the idiot would, that speaks for the poverty of the idiot's
;>musical experience.
;>
;>Your turn.
;
;I agree that musical semantics are vague and privately defined;
;however, it is quite extreme to say that iconic musical objects are
;meaningless.
I'm going to have to clear up this point. I'm not saying that musical
semantics are "vague and privately defined," but rather THERE ARE NONE.
There are no "musical semantics." To put it in another way: "music has no
semantics." To put it in yet another way: "it is unreasonable to inquire
about the MEANING of a piece of music."
;They are quite important to the film industry as I
;pointed out. This industry also serves as an `authoritative
;meaning conferring community` of musical semantics.
I see it the other way around, Chris. Let's take, as an innocuous example,
Francis Lai's score to "Love Story," if anyone remembers that one. You're
saying something like "by associating this music with that movie, the
meaning of this music becomes embroiled in the emotional sweatiness of
that movie." But actually the whole sweatiness of the move COMES from the
music -- take the music away and there's not much left. (John Carpenter
tried to sell "Halloween" before it had a score and no one would buy it.
He added the music and bingo.) It's the music in these cases that appears
to be conferring "meaning." Or to put in another way, music is the semantics
of film. It's also the semantics of the mass-media. Not "music HAS semantics:"
rather, "music IS the semantic." The message is not the meaning of the music,
rather, as someone famous once said, the music is itself the message.
So I'm not saying that, for example, music has no "emotional" quality, some
music at least. I'm saying these qualities are not effective by virtue
of semantics, because there are none.
Now it's true, as I've said, that there are cultural associations between
some licks and certain affects (or other things). The Brandenburg Concerti
reminds some people of BMWs. The association is that german workmanship,
hoping that people can recognize that the Brandenburgs are of german
origin, that the music is "handmade," or played "by hand," that it
survives the test of time," also that it's a mark of "superior culture,"
so the implication is that BMW's are really handcrafted by german artists
to withstand the test of time, that you'll be driving your BMW for at least 200
years, that they are marks of a superior culture, etc. Clearly the
linkages are purely cultural, that is, completely extrinsic to the
piece itself, even within its own culture. These are associations attached
to music, and I refuse to call associations of this kind "semantics." This
is not the meaning OF THE MUSIC. The music is the "meaning" of the BMW. The BMW
"means" the Brandenburg no. 1. That's why you should buy it.
;The music
;from such a community (probably in both our opinions) suffers
;from its iconic communicative imperative--possibility is disdained
;in favor of communicating familiar musical objects that express
;desired ideas.
On the contrary, I think that the media is using music in a pretty imaginative
way. The idea is to turn Reeboks into music, and they're doing a damn
fine job of it. These objects are in the process of being defamiliarized
through music, hence more desirable. People are now killing each other for
'em (says ABC news).
;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?
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 90 00:51:36 GMT
From: pa2253 <pa2253%sdcc13%sdcc6@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Musical Semantics (was: Re: Mira Balaban (was: Re: Workshop on Artificial inteligence and Music))
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <10589@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
In article <16283@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>
>I'm going to have to clear up this point. I'm not saying that musical
>semantics are "vague and privately defined," but rather THERE ARE NONE.
>There are no "musical semantics." To put it in another way: "music has no
>semantics." To put it in yet another way: "it is unreasonable to inquire
>about the MEANING of a piece of music."
>
It is perhaps unreasonable to do so from an ideal abstract vantage;
however, it is anything but unreasonable for an individual to do so.
More about this below.
>I see it the other way around, Chris. Let's take, as an innocuous example,
>Francis Lai's score to "Love Story," if anyone remembers that one. You're
>saying something like "by associating this music with that movie, the
>meaning of this music becomes embroiled in the emotional sweatiness of
>that movie." But actually the whole sweatiness of the move COMES from the
>music -- take the music away and there's not much left. (John Carpenter
> ....
>rather, "music IS the semantic." The message is not the meaning of the music,
>rather, as someone famous once said, the music is itself the message.
I agree that music itself is 'the semantic'. This also entails that
musical objects can be manipulated by discriminating between their
semantic natures. 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. The subsequent experiences of musical objects by an
individual will be influenced by the association of object to its
original context. Obviously, some contexts are extremely
transparent and objects experienced in such contexts will communicate
little or no future associative information. 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. I'm sorry, Eliot, if I offend by not being
convinced that music HAS no semantics. We may be playing word
gymnastics.
Christopher Penrose
penrose@do.ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: 14 May 90 20:37:26 GMT
From: Stephen Smoliar <smoliar%venera.isi.edu%usc@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Music symbolism (was Re: Mira Balaban, among other things)
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <13419@venera.isi.edu>
In article <844@swan.ulowell.edu> gryphon@dino.ulowell.edu (Coranth D'Gryphon)
writes:
>
>Semantics normally means (TTBOMK) an association-link between the symbols
>(or combinations of symbols) and meaning. Hence music has a very
>loosely defined semantic scope, outside of specific sets of people.
>
The problem is that "meaning" can get you in as much trouble as "semantics!"
Bill Punch tried to summarize my current view of all this, so I had better try
to set the record straight. I think that, as far as music is concerned, too
much attention to symbols is dangerously myopic. If you want to talk about
an association link which might embody "musical semantics," that link would
be between EXPERIENCE and BEHAVIOR. The reason I call an interest in symbols
myopic is that I feel it distracts us from asking far more substantial (not to
say more difficult) questions as to what constitutes musical experiences and
musical behavior. David Lewin is the one author I have read who has tried to
take this bull by the horns. His paper, "Music Theory, Phenomenology, and
Modes of Perception" (which I have frequently cited in the past) is a step
in the right direction; but I do not think Lewin would contest my assertion
that there are many more steps which still need to be taken. However, in order
to proceed down this rocky path, we must first shed any symbolic baggage which
might impede our progress.
Coranth has also tried to take on the question of what AI and music might do
for each other. Here is one of his suggestions:
> Music, along with other art forms,
>is a means of expression and communication. For a system to be able
>to consistently attach semantic meaning to syntactic music would be
>an indication of it "understanding" such, ie. actually communication
>as opposed to parroting.
>
Given how little we know about "understanding," it is unclear whether or not
too much attention to music would enlighten or obfuscate. However, there IS
an issue of communication from which we might learn a thing or two by observing
musicians in action; and this is the matter of coordinating independent
processes. How does a string quartet keep themselves coordinated? Each
member has his own "program;" but that program is "clock sensitive." How
do they agree on the ticks of the "reference clock" which keeps them together?
Note that I deliberately chose a string quartet because in such an ensemble
there is not necessarily the single "authority figure" you would find leading
an orchestra. For much chamber music, this responsibility MUST be shared; but
we know very little about HOW it is shared.
Now we can make the matter even MORE interesting by taking the parts away. Now
we are in the domain of jazz. There is still a good deal of coordination going
on; but that coordination need not necessarily be explained in terms of the
"charts." If we can obtain a better understanding of how such musicians
communicate (strictly on matters of clock synchronization without getting
knee-deep in questions of emotion and "meaning"), we may find some valuable
insights concerned with the coordination of independent problem solving agents.
=========================================================================
USPS: Stephen Smoliar
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001
Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695
Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu
"By long custom, social discourse in Cambridge is intended to impart and only
rarely to obtain information. People talk; it is not expected that anyone
will listen. A respectful show of attention is all that is required until
the listener takes over in his or her turn. No one has ever been known to
repeat what he or she has heard at a party or other social gathering."
John Kenneth Galbraith
A TENURED PROFESSOR
------------------------------
Date: 14 May 90 04:48:37 GMT
From: john baez <baez%x%ucrmath@edu.ucsd>
Subject: Semantics of music?
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <6303@ucrmath.UCR.EDU>
In article <16283@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>The idea that music has "semantics" is completely meaningless because
>no music can be systematically explicated in terms of this function;
>besides there's no authoritative meaning-conferring community that
>establishes these semantics. Music is privately experienced and there's
>no way to convey that experience...
I'm a bit suspicious of the claim that music has no
semantics just for the reasons you give, but I'll
accept your right to define things this way if you
also agree that poetry has no semantics, or more precisely,
the "poetic" part of poetry (in the sense of the joke,
"poetry is what is lost in the translation") has no
semantics.
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 90 12:05:36 GMT
From: Geraint Wiggins <geraint%aipna%edcastle%ukc%mcsun@net.uu.uunet>
Subject: Semantics of music?
To: music-research@prg
Message-ID: <2364@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
In article <16283@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>The idea that music has "semantics" is completely meaningless because
>no music can be systematically explicated in terms of this function;
>besides there's no authoritative meaning-conferring community that
>establishes these semantics. Music is privately experienced and there's
>no way to convey that experience...
Maybe this is a trite comment, but I've never seen a proof of this. Just
because we haven't got a way of doing something doesn't mean we can't do it.
In particular, the point about the meaning-conferring community seems
questionable: looking at language, we can only agree that certain words denote
ceratin concepts by supposing that our own interpretation of those concepts
agrees with those of others. A good example of this is colours. If I say an
object is "red" and agree with the person next to me on this, it is impossible
to say whether the sensations leading us to make this claim are the same.
Thus, the interpretation of the colour is "privately experienced" and there is
indeed no way to convey that experience other than by pointing at the coloured
object and assigning a label to it ("red" in this case).
It is not clear to me that such an agreed labelling could not be applied to
musical instances (and work has been done to this end, in Australia - I'm
afraid the author's name escapes me). It is certainly the case that on a very
coarse general level such labellings can be applied. Beethoven's "Pastoral" is
a good example.
Thus, though I, like Eliot, am sceptical about the possibility of a complete
semantics for music, I certainly think it may be possible to make some steps in
that direction. But, regardless of my beliefs, I think it's a bad idea to make
sweeping statements like the above, unless you have a counterexample.
OK. Cue the flames...
Geraint
--
Geraint A Wiggins | G.A.Wiggins@uk.ac.ed
Department of Artificial Intelligence | G.A.Wiggins%ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh | Opinions are like noses: everyone has
80 South Bridge, Edinburgh, Scotland | his/her own, and most smell...
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digest
--
---Brad Rubenstein-----Sun Microsystems Inc.-----bradr@sun.com---