·
coded
language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in
order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly
In communications and
information processing code is a system of rules to convert information—such as
a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form or representation.
An early example is the invention of language, which enabled a person, through
speech, to communicate what he or she saw, heard, felt, or thought to others.
But speech limits the range of communication to the distance a voice can carry,
and limits the audience to those present when the speech is uttered. The
invention of writing, which converted spoken language into visual symbols, extended
the range of communication across space and time. In addition it permitted
greater levels of complexity to be shared.
Pattern
A pattern
is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the
elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner.
Design
Design is the creation of a
plan for the construction of an object, system or measurable human interaction.
Design has different connotations in different fields. In some cases, the
direct construction of an object is also considered to use design thinking.
Before exploring these
elements let us consider for a moment a simple musical figure, a rhythm of four
notes, three long and one short. It was famous during WWII as V for victory.
Musicians would recognise it as the fate motive of Beethoven’s fifth symphony. The
alteration of major third to minor third also has psychological associations, a
change of mood. The wartime messages were preceded by the motif on kettledrums
alone, the change of timbre calling us to attention, threat. With this simple
illustration we can see that pattern can be extended to code with relative ease
through the process of association and the understanding of historical
significance. It may be that the historical significance of this figure goes
further back in time, the descending third alone may be associated with alarm
calls, a sequenced fall, doubly alarming. The persistence of a four note rhythm
is different to a single or double blow, less information more care, four taps,
panic and flee. What Beethoven does with this pattern (extended to code) is to
repeatedly use it (and transform it) to create a design underpinned with
contrasts and change of key.
The 19th century use
of the idee-fixe and leitmotif suggests a system of coding as do the dancing
letters of Schumann’s “Carnaval”. These examples can form basic patterns, but
are more complex in that they emerge from varied backgrounds to suggest
alterations of mood and temperament. They are not code in the sense that they convey
meaning, rather they act as a signifier and offer an opportunity for us to
empathise with the composer’s intentions. Like words these signifiers require
context to convey meaning. Recognisable associations have existed before the 19th
century, these may be shorter than melodies, repeated chords and intervals alone
have created suggestions of mood and character. The terms suggestion and
representation are at the loose-end of code and some distance from a system of
rules to convey information.
Pattern, as the definition
above tells us, has predictability as a factor, whereas code contains
variations and levels of unpredictability, and as such creates the excitement
we associate with music. Some may argue that 20th century music made
too great a play of pattern. While the main focus of these blogs is 20th
century music one could argue that the music of the Baroque is as concerned
with pattern as let us say, the early minimalists. All of this takes us to the question, is
pattern alone sufficient to entertain the ear, satisfy our musical interest or
give listeners the “chills”? We know from the discussion of types of listeners
that some are attracted to the dance like repetitions of pattern, some
appreciate the hooks of emotional and pictorial interjections like the
idee-fixe, while others prefer the long term evolution of a musical argument in
which elements like key-structure or a gradual process of transformation takes
place.
Concerning
pattern it is helpful to know that psychologists have explored the field of pattern
recognition a process that recognises how our thinking combines new
experiences with stored memories. The new experiences in this process regularly
moves from short to long-term memory. It may seem redundant to express the view
that in works like Beethoven’s fifth the attention to repetition within the
material aids pattern recognition, the understanding that contrasting material
derives from the initial pattern enhances what the psychologists term
“identification”.
The detail of how much a person identifies varies
between individuals, just as does the recall of a text in a play or poem, the
colour and form of a painting and so on.
However the process of storing seems to be the same for all of us.
Performers will have additional information in the recollection of patterns,
physical and often repeated actions and particular muscular techniques to play
a phrase or passage of music.
UCLA studies demonstrated that regional brain
activity is common to performers and non-performers, neurons are activated for
muscle reactions when music is heard by listeners and performers alike. The
implication is that we have a common human response to sound. This is of course
different to musical preference as discussed in earlier blogs.
Readers who recall the Bernstein lectures on
Chomsky and his exploration of musical grammar might recognise a common theme in
the issue of common human responses. Reflecting on what may be considered as
the search for a universal musical grammar, in our cross Atlantic e-mails
Nurtan offered me a number of statements to challenge or review Bernstein’s
original thesis (an action which Bernstein openly offers listeners to engage
in). Nurtan suggests:
Music
·
does not need to have definable semantics
·
does not need a meaning
·
does not need a regularised system or
conformity
·
does not need a universally interpretable form
Music does operate on a psychological basis where preference
is personal.
The questions arise:
Why do these preferences exist? How they develop?
We examined the term musical semantics and decided
to adhere to a shared view accepting that four areas apply.
·
Meaning relates to mood or temperament, excitement,
passion, relaxation, grief etc.
·
Meaning relates to external sonic associations (e.g.
Respighi’s Fountains of Rome).
·
Meaning relates to shared events (history, religion
etc.) e.g. Tchaikovsky’s 1812; such music may combine music and text, national
anthems etc.
·
Meaning relates to design, patterns of tension and
resolution, sonata form.
We recognised that key words of titles are undependable
as a guide to meaning. However key words may act as a guide to associating
design with external sonic associations, shared events and mood / temperament.
What some musicians might describe as a hook.
So if music does not require definable semantics it
can exist:
·
without temperament or mood
·
without associations to external forms
·
without shared experience of external events
·
without formal patterns
There is a big difference between does not require
and cannot exist without. In reality there are sliding scales for the above.
Works like Barber’s Adagio for Strings or Strauss’s Death and Transfiguration
communicate mood sensations (without text) in such a convincing way that a
majority of listeners would say music has the vocabulary to express emotion and
create a response. Then there are works in which emotion takes a minor role,
The Art of Fugue or Stockhausen’s Microphonie 1. The same type of argument can
be applied to the bullet points given.
The emotional response argument has been covered in
the blogs before but there is an extract below from Wiki which refers to the
main research area at this time. If we are talking about musical semantics this
has to be a side issue because the usually held notion is that the grammar is
in the fabric of the music not the listener. Whether that fabric includes the
performance is another matter again. It may be useful to remind ourselves that
gesture and expression are considered parts of the structure of language.
To develop the discussion I shared some views held
by Rick Nauert PhD in which he attempts to provide answers to a simple
question: Why can't we stay still when talking to others? Or, why do we use
gestures? His answer is
"Because
gestures and words very probably form a single communication system, which
ultimately serves to enhance expression intended as the ability to make oneself
understood,"
Understanding (he explains) arises from speech
"prosody", the intonation and rhythm of spoken language which
together illuminates and clarifies sentence structure.
"In human communication, voice is not
sufficient: even the torso and in particular hand movements are involved, as
are facial expressions".
The full article can be read here:
At this point it seems that
the discussion of where the listener places his or her focus is moving from the
structures of music towards response, and a physical response at that. There is
a TED video which illustrates the point, it features Evelyn Glennie, and the
section which touches on the physical aspect can be heard in the first 5
minutes:
I’ll say no more than watch
the performer’s physical responses and how they change between reading and
responding to the score.
Returning to the bullet points
the cleft between where we have traditionally looked for meaning and the view
that extra-musical factors carry great weight becomes increasingly apparent.
Here is Nurtan’s view:
It is important to clarify
that the structure of a piece is not equivalent to grammatical rule based
sentences. Even with a human voice produced song using one or more elements of
speech, the communication of an idea with semantic comprehensibility is neither
necessary nor sufficient. These demonstrations can be readily extended to all
parameters of the apt definition of music as organised noise. It is important to
point out that what we may refer to as “musical organisation” has no rules that
can be stated as something close to a universal grammar; yet, most people react
to music.
One might argue that in order
to form preferences there must be some sort of cognitive recognition, which
could be identified as “musical semantics”. Although we can substitute code for
musical semantics it is not “meaning” in the normally understood definition
which requires at least locally shared information between two strangers though
it is still capable of transmitting some sort of message that will elicit a
similar (not necessarily the same) psychologically determined reaction.
In the previous discussions,
the requirement for a systematic universal underlying structure for music (such
as musical grammar, meaning of chords, correspondence to speech, et cetera)
demonstrated to be fallacious. For any
component of music empirically demonstrating such a hypothesis could lead to a
seemingly valid and/or interesting approach to understanding structure or
evolution of music, but such an exercise is likely to be full of hidden
fallacies, weaknesses that can look wildly interesting but invalid.
Those paragraphs require close
reading but in essence amplifies the bullet points and again emphasises the
differences between the scholastic expectations we place on the art of
composition and what is actually delivered to the listener. It takes us to the
most awkward of questions, why do some compositions communicate and others fail
to do so? Before (and indeed if) we chose to try and answer that question let
us summarise:
Each listener perceives a
different response to what is heard
Though there is a logic to the
structure of music the form is not in itself what is appreciated.
Hooks are used by composers to
attract attention but these are not in themselves structurally important to the
composer or hugely significant to the listener.
The listener is affected by a
series of cues, when seen – as in a concert – these can be gestures, when
unseen the cues are articulations and performance details where the artist
imposes details on the music.
The vocabulary of the language
of music is varied and based on:
·
The musical parameters as they affect our
senses
·
The articulation of the parameters in
performance
·
The gestures made during the performance
·
Associations made by the listener (entirely
individual)
·
Informed cultural and scholastic understanding
(musical memory)
·
Recognition of pattern, code and design which
includes cues and mannerisms
In addition it may be argued
that the successful communication of musical ideas depends on social aspects
such as the desire to share, whether it is in a concert hall, ballroom or a
ritual gathering.
