mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (05/30/90)
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. [...] >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. >[...] >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). I would say it is more likely that the existence of this community entails the *assumption* of the existence of musical semantics. (like a Flat-Earth Society assuming the that the earth is flat). The myth, then, is more persuasive it seems, and any other possibility hasn't been under close examination for very long; the assumption of semantics has been around much longer than the contrary notion. However, I would hardly call the film industry an 'authoritative meaning conferring community' in terms of music, even with the assumption of semantics. They are, in music, great followers, but not leaders. What appears as 'semantics' is association from experience, in my estimation. Music is rarely used in film which hasn't elsewhere been associated with similar broad responses or which isn't composed as a 'sound-alike' to such music. (John Williams especially comes to mind -- "Star Wars" as ripoff of Holst's "Planets" in many ways. Whose S.W. theme is like which planet, for example?) No, film music depends on 'prior testing' for its alleged 'semantics,' -- it is not a 'semantics maker.' [We watch 'Airplane.' If we hadn't any experience of 'Jaws' (hard to avoid) the airplane tail in the clouds wouldn't be funny. The music does not mean 'shark' by its musical nature, but is *associated* with 'shark' by our experience of the music simultaneously with the visual images. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, we are now not so sure of language either (i.e., that 'words' directly parallel 'reality' -- 'word/concept' represents an 'absolute' parsing of reality).] I would suggest looking at the difference between 'semantics' and 'association' in respect to 'meanings.' Then, by golly, we'll have to do a double-take and look at language itself again, too. It may not be what we thought it was. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
gaia@portia.Stanford.EDU (fai to leung) (05/31/90)
In article <843@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >I would say it is more likely that the existence of this community >entails the *assumption* of the existence of musical semantics. >(like a Flat-Earth Society assuming the that the earth is flat). >The myth, then, is more persuasive it seems, and any other >possibility hasn't been under close examination for very long; the >assumption of semantics has been around much longer than the >contrary notion. Regarding the existence of musical semantics (ie yes/no question), I will truely appreciate reasoning beyond claims from the perspectives of Round-Earth Society's satellites. On the other hand, I admit that the details of meaning assignments, or associations, are much more difficult and really a branch of study. (Katharine Ellis's translation of Nattiez in last year's Music Analysis seems to be a good summary.) >Then, by golly, we'll >have to do a double-take and look at language itself again, too. It >may not be what we thought it was. The marriage with language study might not be a bad idea. There have been fine computing ideas and models on parsing (Earley, Kay, Tomita, Blank); grammar (Woods, Pereira & Warren); or memory (Schank, Minsky, Sowa)... ie, good shoulders to stand on. No? Suggestions?