Guide to Semiotic Music Analysis

7/30/2019 Guide to Semiotic Music Analysis

1/9


2/9

A HITCH HIKER'S GUIDE TO SEMIOTICMUSICANALYSIS

Introducingmusic semiotics nto analysisand theory is the work of a fire-brand.*The musically ighteousare nflamedby a new idea that is neither noriginnor even intentiondirectlymusical,and they demandquite properlyofany new conceptual rend (or, in the demystifyingwords of the semiologistGeorgesMounin, of any new 'topic of conversation') hat it should interestthem by implying what the musical returnsmight be: why should analyststake a ride with semiosis?Jean-JacquesNattiez's work has been sensitive othe question, diosyncratically, ut with the appropriate assionand musicalconscience: t is up to others o make surethat his Fondements'une emioZogiede la musiqueParis:Union Generale/1W18, 975)can appearas the 'Found-ations' needed for informed debate by the English-speaking ommunity.Nattiez'swritings n the 1970'sdealt magisterially ith the historyof ideas nour century,and his discussions ouchedon a comprehensive angeof musicalissues. In response, however, there was often an element of doubt. Thenovelty of music semioticsremindedsome that we cannot sidestep authori-tarianstructures ntirely;we cannot entirelyevade the call for a discipline,and it was the possibilityof such an evasionwhich seemed good cause forsuspicionabout this kind of musicalspeculation.One wantedto know whatthe work of music-semiotic nalysiswas supposed o achieve.It was possibleto see the shape of a semiotic ramework or musicalstudies, even to see thetracesof conventionalmusicaldisciplines n this new garb, but manyasked-what was the questionmusic semioticswantedto answer?The need for some kind of guide derivesmorethananything romthe sheerscope of linguistics,anthropology, nd all the other 'topics of conversation'which shaped, and have been shapedby, American emioticsand Europeansemiology. n the sixteenthand seventeenth enturies,with a rhetoricalmodelto hand, there was a consolingexternal actor for composersand theorists,with convenient ormulationshat genuinelyaidedmusic-making nd musicalthinking.With the Enlightenment, he inter-disciplinaryield became, roni-cally enough, more obscure. In our own century, t began to be asked, in away that attractedpopularattention,what it means n fact for language tselfto be a 'language'.This was an exciting field in which musicianscould be* This essay is based on a paper given at City University, Londonl May 1981.

EDITORIAL

235C)MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982


3/9

EDITORIAL

seducedout of anysenseof responsibilityo theirfamilydiscipline.Linguis-tics often led musicalthinkinginto blindalleys;thosewho turnedto othermodels,in philosophyor psychology,managedonlya littlebetter.Then, inthe 1970's,linguistics tself betrayed he musicianswho had amusedthem-selvesin its service.Linguisticswasundergoing processof deconstruction:eventhe trueamateur ouldhardlymiss the fact.In case it should be missed, the arch professional,Roland Barthes,announcedt withsweepingclarity n 1977.'In short',he said, 'eitherdue toanexcessiveascesisorexcessivehunger,whether amishedorreplete, inguis-tics is deconstructingtself. It is this deconstruction f linguistics hatI, formy part,callsemiology''Lecture',TheOxford iteraryeview,1979,p. 38).The same process as this retreatinto the study of signs semiology orsemiotics has been detectable n musicalthinking.NicholasRuwet'scon-cern with musicalsigns was indeed 'famished'.He avowed and laterdis-avowedwithequalvivacity-a certainmethodological remise.Nattiezwide-ned the gripof this skeletalmusicaldiscourse.In his studiesboth of Syrinxand'Density21.5'hedeveloped elativelyleshless ormsof enquiry,notonlyseekingto express he mostneutralkindsof articulatory ictureof a pieceofmusic,but alsoinvestigatinghe uses of a descriptive,distributional ccountof musicalinformation.In contrastto the asceticin semioticanalysis,the'replete'is to be found everywhere,appropriately nough, and the morereplete t is, themore t threatens hepossibilityof a methodological ractice.Frits Noske's 'musico-dramaticign' is an example,'a musicalunit whichstresses,clarifies, nvalidates,contradictsor suppliesan elementof the lib-retto.The signis sematicallynterpretablenddisclosesdramaticruth'(TheSignifierndTheSignified, he Hague, Nijhoff, 1977, p. 316). To Ruwet,such a liberalconceptof the sign has been too often a dubioushallmarkofmusical hinking: Onedistrusts iketheplague he "ideological" resupposi-tionsunderlying raditionalmusic theories,justas one does the recourse omusicians'ntuitions in short,oneadopts heidealof the tabulaasa'Musi-que nffeu,No. 17,p. 13).It is easyto discern hedeconstructionf analyticalideology n such trends.Ourmusicfacultiesreel underthe pressureof thisdeconstruction.Oneperson's erminologys another'snonsense,and,what snot the samebut whatcouldwellbe thought o guaranteehevalueof musicsemiotics''neutral'stancewhen the musicologyabout today comes to bewritten,oneperson'snonsense s another'smusic.The harshdebatebetweenmusicologyand theorypalesbesidethe truecasualtiesandpotential, n thecreativeworld,of this ferment.The best briefresponsehere to this pressure s to movedirectly nto thestudyof somemusic.The perspectivesnvolvedmaybe quitefamiliar.First,segmentation:RomanJakobsonmadesuggestiveanalogiesbetween anguageandmusicon the basisthatbothdisplay emporal xtension whetherornotwe regardthem as similarsystemsof communicationn other ways-andNattiezexplainedwhythisimpliesthatmusic s segmental.Weexpectto finda boundary,a zerodegreeof segmentation eyondwhiehthe musicdoesnot

MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982236


4/9

EDITORIAL

authorizeus to proceed.Music-semiotic nalysis aking his leadwouldentailtwo concepts, the concept of minimal segmentaton and the concept ofmusicalmeaning.If a relationships to bediscoveredbetweenourdescriptionof segmentation nd our intuitionof meaning,we maywantto characterizethe resultby giving it a specialsemioticname. Meaningarticulatedn thisspecialmannerwill be called'signification.'The second perspective s derivedmainly from work by David Lidov.Lidov wantsto makeus awareof the discoverieswhichcan emergefromaspecialconfrontation,betweentraditionalanalyticalproceduresand proce-dureswhichhavebeen, if notinventedby, thenatleastappropriated ymusicsemioucs.The following s anexemplary ase(adaptedromLidov, 'Nattiez'sSemioticsof Music', TheCanadianrournalfResearchnSemioties,ol. 5,No. 1, p. 40):

Bb. I vi 111 vi (1l) Bb I v 111 vi vF: V I IV w I

Eb v I ii, F- X

Bi. V I N vii I N V I v VF: I Eb: V I

MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 237


5/9

EDITORIALParadigmaticchemeor theharmonicrogression:A C B

I I * 1 | .

Bb: I vi III vi (II) F: V I IV V IBb: I V III vi Bb: V I IV V IBb: I IV ii V (I)F : V IBb: (I IV) Eb: V IBb: vii I IV V II IV V I

Here heBach ongO7esuleinuss sanalysedonventionally,ccountingorthe unitsof harmonictructure ndtheirsequence.Thisaccount s siftedthrougha grid familiar romRuwet'sanalyses,ookingfor the longestrepeatedunits of harmonic rogressionnd arranginghem-n as manycategories,rparadigms,sareneeded.Notice hat herearenoremaindershere.Three egmentalypes,designated , CandB appearo representheentire ong.Lidov's nalysis which n thefullaccountnvolvesmore ensi-tive complexitiesefficientlyexposesa criticalsynthesis.The harmonicanalysis f the Bachsongderives romone kindof musictheoryanditspresentationn Levi-Straussianaradigmsppeals o quiteanother.Thesemioticquestionhere is clearenough.We can acceptthat the Romannumeralsndicate nitsofharmonicrogressionndweknow hatsuchunitscouldbearrangednanynumber fdifferenttrings,owhats theparticulararrangementhichcharacterizeshispiece,which eads o ourcomprehen-sionofit?Jakobsonmadeagoodruleofthumbwhichought obeastrue ormusicas for language:Structuralnalysis,he insisted,must havebothdescriptivend ntuitive dequacy.believehatLidovhasperformedellonthatbasis.With hese woperspectivesn mind,wemove o somewell-knownmusic(seebelow).Thewholepiece,Brahms'sntermezzonBminor,Op.119,No.1,hasbeenanalysednvariousways: or nstance,withavoice-leadingraphin Salzer'sStructural earing; lso fromthe point of view of historicalmoment,t mightevenbe a kindof genetic tructuralism,n anarticlebyBrianNewbould,whereBrahms'seliance nharmonicrogressionhroughcyclesof descending,diatonic ifths is consideredo be the sign of aChaconne-typeompositionalrocedureTheMusicReview,Vol.38,No. 1).Takinga more'famished' remise, t is not difficult o imagine hatthesmallest nitin suchmusic s thenote,moreexactlyhepitch-classttack.This nitself mplieswoanalyticalperations,heeliminationfthevariablesdurationndregister.Theseoperationsonotnecessarilyaveanequal tatusfromaninterpretiveointof view:in otherwords,I do not suppose hatdurationndregister reprecisely f equal ignificancen thearticulationfpitch tructure. rom hepointofviewofmethod, owever,liminatinghese

238MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982


6/9

EDITORIAL

variabless anexplicit tep,where here s noplace or nterpretation:t is aformof analysiswheret is notpossibleomakea mistakeexceptrivially).The pitch-class ttacksmayalsobe countedwithouterrorandthe resultsarrangedrithmetically.f theseunitsaresigns n anysense,perhapsheysignifymoref therearerelativelymoreofthem,and ess f therearerelativelyfewer.Brahms, Intermezzo, Op. 119,No. 1

AdagiO bs 1-16_

lXd"4 G JA:; t A

F""fl<


7/9

EDITORIAL

So far, the methodseemsa fool's errand, unmusical'nd of doubtfulpotentialmusical alue.Intuitive dequacy,hough, s easy to add. Fig. 1Figure 1(a) pitch classes: F# C# A D B E G A# G# E# C D#numberof attacks; 28 24 20 19 19 16 15 7 6 4 3 2(= 163)(b) degree tatus nB rxiinor: D St (L) M T Sd Sm L (Sm) ? ? ?D major: M L D T Sm St Sd ? ? ? ? ?F# rxiinor: T D M Sm Sd (L) ? ? St L ? (Sm)(c) Bb major: ? ? L M ? ? Sm T ? D St Sd(T = tonic, St = supertonic,M = mediant,Sd = subdoniinant, = doniinant,Sm = flat submediantnniinoror submediantn major, Sm) = sharp ubmediantn rxiinor, = leadingnote, (L) = flat seventhdegree n niinor)showsan interpretationf the initial esults n termsof traditionalarmonictheory:A grid is applied o the countof pitch-class ttacks et out in line(a). Below he pitch-class ames s a classificationf eachaccordingo itsdegree tatus which n minor aises ess than neutral'ssues, gnored ere,about he sixthandseventh egrees)n one of three onal evels,B minor,Dmajor ndF# minor. t is a large tepfrom he logicof signsystems,hereasimplearithmeticalogic,to the intuitive hoiceof harmoniclassifiers. heresults anbe tested,however, y the applicationf counterintuitivelassifi-cation, or nstance y applying b major s in line(c). Thiskindof classifi-cation anbe completed y examininghedistributionalatternwhichwouldarise f allkeys,major ndminor,wereappliedo line(a);but t suffices ereto observehe left-hand unching f importantegrees ccordingo what anbe considered,nformally,he mostpertinent rids, n the (b) lines.In case hisseems eadily cceptable,stress hat heanalysisuggestshereis a special elationship etween he quantity f pitch-class ttackand thequality f harmonicffect n the music.Thisrelativity,hat s, formsa tonalsign,perhapspecific o the piece,perhaps ot the investigationf either sdemandedy Nattiezwithhis notion f 'seriation',nd n the atter ase herewouldbe some hallengeo conventionaliewsabout heworkings f tonality.Lidov'sapproachuggestsa confrontationf different nalyticalmethods,and his Bach analysis n particularhowsthat an injection f traditionalintuition anwellbe thefirst tep.In theBrahms nalysiso farI havemovedfromdistributiono interpretation,o the results houldnow be testedbyreversinghatprocedure. he firststep,then, s interpretiver intuitive:t isto identifya melody.Fig. 2 shows he resultsof this new approacho themusic.Therelative uantitiesf pitch-classttackn themelody the oppartof the music)are presentedn line (a). Evenallowing or the deliberatelyweighted resentationtaking he orderof pitch-classesromFig. 1 ratherthan rom ine a)of Fig. 2) thisdistributions evidently kin o thatof line a)in Fig. 1. The distributionn Fig. 2 is not ndependentf that n Fig. 1 since

MUSICANALYSIS : 3, 198240


8/9

EDITORIAL

thepitch-classesfthemelodywerecountednwith hetotalsirstexamined.However, newkindofgridwillbeable oseparatehisstatisticalnteraction.InFig. 1,thegridwas ranklyntuitive, lassificationccordingotraditionalharmoniconcepts.ThegridappliednFig. 2 isthatofperiodicmphasisndseemsto me ratheress interpretivendrathermore,in Nattiez's ense,neutral.Successivelyargermetrical roupingsreusedto eliminatemetri-cally ubsidiaryitchclasses,n aself-limitingrocedurehich ndsat ine f)withthebeginningf thesixteen-bareriod,a melodicFt:Figure2distribution f F: C: A D B E G A: G: E: C D:pitch-classattacks(a) in melody: 8 7 5 4 5 2 4 0 1 2 0 0(=38)(b) firstbeats: 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 0(c) firstbeats of1,3,5etc.: 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0(d)of bs 1, 5, 9, 13:3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(e)ofbsl,9: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(f)ofb. 1: 1 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O OIt appearsromthe left-handbunchingn Fig. 2 thatthe relativitiesfpitch-classttack peraten twoways.First,thetexture s a wholeandthemelodyas a special tructuralayerbothdisplaya hierarchy f pitch-classattackwhichrepresentsomethingiketheharmonicmphasis ny nformedlistenerwouldpredict.Butthere salsoanequivalenceetweenhishierarchyandthehierarchyf metricalmphasis. imply,whatappearo bethemostimportantarmonicotesarealso hemost mportantotesmetricallyn themelody. assumehattheperiodicmetreof nineteenth-centuryusicmustplayanimportantole in the structuralynthesis f a tonalpiece,butonewouldhardly xpectwhatFig. 2 shows: hatperiodicmetreenablesus toidentifyunitsof themelodyalone,deprived f registralndof actualdura-tionalvalue,representingarmonicaluesof theentiremusic.This analysis,obviouslyput forward s an exemplar ndnot as a newcontributiono ourenjoymentf Brahms,anbecalleda classic xample fthebest-knownspects f semiotic roceduren musicanalysis.t concernsunitssegmentedn a consistentway. It usessomeanalysiswhichcanbeapplied uitemechanically,ithoutnterpretation,ndwhichsself-limiting.Itestablishesconsistent,trictly atternedormofrelationalityortheunitsandit passes hemthrough rids,or 'codes', o investigateheirsignifyingpotential. heunitsand heirarithmeticaluesmightbeconsideredignifiersandsignifiedsormingwelve onalsigns.Theremustalsobe a roleforthe'interpretant'n the relationshipetweenunitsandfunction:he music sMUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 241


9/9

EDITORIAL

nothingf notperceived.Thatrolewouldbe clear n therejection f right-hand igns or eft-handigns.Thisneedbethecaseonly f aparticularcode',thatof major/minoronality,s in play.Perhapswe do notactually ave ohear hismusicn B minorwith tsrelatedonalareas. f theBrahmswereanethnomusicologicalbject, orwhichwehad no culturallyuthorizedode,theanalysisould ustaswellsuggesthat heright-handunching f ques-tionmarks ndofvoidentriesnthetwofiguresdentifieshesignificationfthemusic, dentifses hat t smeans'n thesenseoutlined bove.Nevertheless,ven his famished',elativelyeutral indofresult uggestswhatseemsan intriguing uestion.Schoenberg, s is wellknown,hadatheoryaboutthe evening-out f the numberof pitch-class ttacksn hiscomposing,theory,hat s, aboutheavoidanceftonicrepetitionsnd heirassociatedunctions.t is a theorywhichhasbeensomewhatndervaluednits implicationor thestudyof nineteenth-centuryusic,where heroleofpitchquantitynpitch tructuresnotexactly burningssue.CouldSchoen-berghavebeenmoreor lessrightandmostaccounts f tonality, speciallySchenker's,moreor lesswrong,or makinga compositionalatherhanaperceptualoint: hat s, toreverseheusual,ndeedmyusual eadingfthismatter,ould t bethatSchoenberginted tansesthesic'ccountftonality,moreanalyticaln its concernwithhowmanynotes helistener ealswith,andthatSchenker's asa spoietic' ne,morecompositionaln its concernwith how voice-leadingierarchiesriseto give shapeto pitchmaterial(especially:owtheyarose n Beethoven'sketching)?ixteen arsof musiccannotanswerucha question.What want o indicates thatthistypeofquestionmaynotbeaskednthefirstplace fwearenotpreparedochallengeinherited isciplines, lbeitchallengehem romwithin.Myideaof a 'guide'n thisfieldspringsrom omerecentEnglishwritingwhichmixesscience ictionandoffbeathumour, n a waythathasindeedgiven t a popularultstatusas a genuinetopicof conversation'.heHitchHiker'sGuide o the Galaxy, boutwhichDouglasAdamswrites,hastworemarkableharacteristics.irst, t can ellyoueverythingouneed oknowaboutanything. econd, verythingt tellsyou-and it is alltrue is ratherodd.Semioticss notfarfrom his,with ts limitlessieldofenquiry nd hestrange spects f anysocialactivity t cansoeasilyuncover.f we bring obeara pointof view conceivedn abstractionn objectsconceivedandperformednpractice,t isonly obeexpectedhat heresultwilljar.Almostbydefinition, music emioticsannothare hepurentuitiveympathiesfeithersemiotics n the one handor music-makingn the other(anideapursued elentlesslyn Reinhard chneider'semiotikerMusik, Munich,Fink, 1980).Naturally,hen,we haveto think in termsof a disciplinarydeconstruction.he answers, nemightsay,are allaroundn ourconcerthallsandmusic ibraries.Musicsemioticsmaymakesomecontributionoformulatinghequestionso manyanalysts aveabout hem.

JonathanunsbyMUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 198242

Guide to Semiotic Music Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Guide to Semiotic Music Analysis