Musical investigation of the Faahae Tabu using concepts of Music - Essay Example

Musical investigation of the Faahae Tabu using concepts of music (rhythm, duration, tonality,texture, melody, harmony, dynamics, instrumentation and expressive The relationship of music to language has been a topic of renewed debate in recent years. Many orientations and methodologies have been applied to musico-linguistic studies, from Chomsky's generative grammar to semiotics. Many writers have felt that such linguistic approaches have been at best limited in their applicability to music, although some recent studies of syntax have generated interest. This article will advance a rationale for the study of music theoretical and perception issues in the light of contemporary advances in the area of linguistic prosody. While some issues in linguistics have been widely discussed in the music psychology and perception literature, much research in prosody has not been addressed. In order to understand the position adopted herein, the reader may find it helpful to review some previous avenues of exploration in the comparison of music and language. While Chomsky has recently rethought his theories of deep structure in language, applications of this theory to music have held a fascinating lure for musicians and theorists, from Bernstein's Schenkerian speculations to Lerdahl and Jackendoff's Generative Theory of Tonal Music (hereinafter GTTM). One of GTTM's main contributions is a systematized version of the hierarchical structure of meter, incorporating the linguistic studies of Liberman & Prince. (Liberman 249-336) Referencing transformational grammars, GTTM places a good deal of emphasis on the deep structure in composition, particularly in regard to metrical hierarchies and tonality. Lerdahl & Jackendoff are less interested in the 'surface' structure of a piece, which is generally defined to include melody, rhythmic patterns (as opposed to meter), dynamics, timbre, register, etc. In an effort to empirically demonstrate the theories contained in GTTM, many cognitive scholars gave designed experiments to measure performance variables. Often, these experimental performances are judged on their ability to reflect and/or communicate to listeners the deep harmonic structure of a composition. (Deliege 325-60) Contrary to expectation, research in music cognition has faltered when it has attempted to verify musical response in the context of the deep structure of transformational linguistics. Sloboda and Cooke, among others, have found that emotional response occurs in very short fragments of music and in a very short space of time. (Cooke 64-95) Such response is not relevant to the large-scale structural hierarchy of the composition. Factors such as repetition, changes of texture, register or dynamics are much more important in perceptual grouping than such tonal factors as modulations, cadence points, or tonal closure. (Clarke 352-8) Rosner and Meyer have attempted to experimentally document Meyer's theory of melodic processes. (Meyer 1-40) Meyer distinguishes between structural and ornamental melodic notes (much in the manner of Schenker). Wishing to prove that the underlying structure of the melody is more perceptually important to the listener than low-level structures such as contour, the authors instead find a greater perceptual effect for melodic process. They also discover a much more important role for melodic contour than they had predicted. The idea of top-down processing of musical hierarchies been widely verified experimentally, (Narmour 1-26) yet from the standpoint of music theory, the level of surface has been subject to unwarranted neglect. If deep structure is significant in both music theory and language, why can its effects not be verified in music perception research In part, the attention paid to deep structure by scholars of music perception has come about through some confusion of purpose. The aims of theorists are not necessarily those of perception researchers. Theoretical analysis tends to be highly reductive in nature, insofar as the theorist is attempting to understand how a composer has manipulated basic musical materials into a structured composition. Analytic reduction, while often crucial for theorists, may not be the pivotal issue when questions of perception and affect are studied, because the symbolic system of music has other facets in addition to its harmonic or metric underpinnings. Clarke has written an illuminating article about the differences in aim between music theory and music perception, in which he states: Broadly speaking, the aim of musicologists and composers in tackling issues of musical structure can be characterized as the attempt to formulate theories of the structural relations within and between musical works, and their origins, development and effectiveness as formal devices. A correspondingly brief summary of the aim of psychologists of music is the development of theories of the mental processing of musical events, or the relationship between the listener, performer, composer and the musical environment. (Clarke 1-13) Is there any common ground between the aims of the theorist and those of a researcher in music perception If so, such a collective purpose may be enlightened by a different analytic strategy. Perhaps such a strategy could be developed with the aid of some aspects of current linguistic research. As discussed below, the subordination of surface structure to deep structure may not be the most accurate portrayal of a musical composition. Some contemporary musical researchers and theorists, particularly those influenced by the work of Meyer and those interested in semiotics, have focused some attention upon the surface of music. Surface-structure elements are crucial components of Narmour's implication and realization theories. However, even when music theorists acknowledge the importance of surface-structure components in determining compositional style and aesthetic response, the linguistic parallel to musical surface structure is still generally ignored. Models of transformational grammar tend to predominate when any comparison is made between music and language. For those whose main interest is theoretical (as traditionally defined), linguistic approaches which are based upon transformational grammar as applied to semantics are limited in their relevance to music. The reaction of many theorists to comparisons of language and music based upon the perspectives of transformational grammar and its effects upon semantics is to conclude that the relationship between music and language is too distant to merit further study. (Keiler 161-195) While strategies involving syntax have recently been the subjects of serious and productive inquiry, 'surface' structures tend to be given short shrift, regardless of the orientation of linguistic comparison. The study of aesthetics is certainly an area which would benefit by serious attention to surface structure in music. As Sloboda points out, if emotional meaning derived entirely from a basic Ursatz in tonal music, all tonal music would inspire exactly the same emotional response in listeners. Emotional meaning therefore must derive substantially from the surface structure of music. It may further be stated that while specificity of thought may best be communicated through language, specificity of emotion cannot be verbalized adequately and is most directly elucidated through other symbolic mediums, such as music. Raffman defines 'ineffable musical knowledge' as 'something we consciously know but cannot report or communicate in words.' She explains this inability to communicate in words as a function of the conflict between an infinite number of perceivable units and a finite number of units, which can be remembered or categorized, and therefore reported. The role of performance has traditionally been neglected in theoretical writings in music. In his review of GTTM by Lerdahl & Jackendoff, Cady writes, the authors assert that music 'is not a performance, because a particular piece of music can receive a great variety of performances. Music theory is usually not concerned with the performer's activities...' These statements about the concerns and attitudes of many music theorists are true, and are revealing of the traditional mode of thought from which the authors come as well as their difficulties in their theory. (Cady 60-67) The lack of interdisciplinary research and communication between cognitive and theoretical scholars and musical performers has led to a void in theories, which would encompass aesthetics and perception. It is clear that aesthetic understanding and communication fall squarely within the realm of the performer, whose role would be meaningless without this dimension; therefore it is also a concern of the field of music perception. It is precisely the interaction between the surface and deep structures in music, which can be emphasized in performance to communicate musical meaning. Without such interaction, much of the composer's intent may be lost. To cite just one example, Schumann's rhythmic patterns in such pieces as Kreisleriana create an aesthetic effect because of the conflict between his basic metric structure and the rhythmic accentuation at the surface. It is by emphasizing this conflict that a performer communicates an understanding of the piece, and consequently enhances perception by the listener. The interaction of surface features with deep structure in music is discussed by Rosner and Meyer in regard to form: The comprehension and recognition of such [large-scale] formal relationships depend ... (perhaps crucially) upon contrasts in the disposition of the so-called secondary parameters of music; dynamics, attack rate, register, instrumentation, texture, and the like. These serve to articulate and to make manifest the successive parts of large-scale form. Interaction, however, can only occur between two entities, which are initially separate; musical surface structures have not been given the serious scholarly attention, which they must have for their function to be properly understood. Previous comparisons of language and music have run aground for the above-stated reasons. It has been postulated that deep structure is an inadequate tool for study, if not used in conjunction with other analytical devices. Linguistics is divided into the categories of semantics, syntax, and prosody, all of which are considered important specializations. Prosody deals with rhythmic stress, intonation, accents, articulations, and dynamics. The correlations to musical surface structure and phrasing are immediately obvious, and the musical connotations of prosody have been recognized by many contemporary linguists. Bolinger uses such terms as 'melodic prosody' to characterize speech intonation. Works Cited Cady, H. L. (1983) Review of A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff. Psychomusicology, 3, 60-67. Clarke, E. F. & Krumhansl, C. L. (1990) Perceiving musical time. Music Perception, 7, 213-252; Deliege, Grouping, 352-8. Clarke, E. F. (1989) Mind the gap: formal structures and psychological processes in music. Contemporary Music Review, 3, 1-13, Cooke, N. (1994) Perception: a perspective from music theory. In Musical Perceptions, R. Aiello (ed.), New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64-95. Deliege, I. (1978) Grouping conditions in listening to music: an approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff's grouping preference rules. Music Perception, 4, 325-60 Keiler, A. R. (1978) Review of Beyond Schenkerism, by Eugene Narmour. Perspective of New Music, 17, 161-195 Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977) On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249-336. Meyer, L. B. (1956) Emotion and Meaning in Music Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosner, B. S. & Meyer, L. B. (1986) The perceptual roles of melodic process, contour, and form. Music Perception, 4, 1-40. Narmour, E. (1991) The top-down and bottom-up systems of musical implication: building on meyer's theory of emotional syntax. Music Perception, 9, 1-26 Read More