Re: On the Grammar of Music ("O.T.Furnes" )

Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music
From:    "O.T.Furnes"  <oddtf(at)imt.uio.no>
Date:    Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:43:18 +0200

Martin Braun wrote:

> Fine. Then you will surely agree that there is so much variation in =
the
> chordal treatment within the work of each composer that they were =
obviously
> not following any grammar.
>=20

No, I cannot agree. Variation does not rule out the existence of a =
typicality.
If the chordal treatments in Bach and Debussy or Nirvana where =
interchangeable=20
without anyone noticing any difference, then I maybe would start to =
agree with you.

> A grammar of chords could only exist, if there were at least a few =
chords
> that had a meaning. Such a meaning would have to be the same for =
composer
> and audience. We don't have such things in music.=20

Let's imagine four different types of meaning:
1. One chord carry an unequivocal universal concrete meaning.=20
2. Musical elements (e.g. chords) carry stylespesific meanings.
3. Chords are classified in more general terms (degree of intensity, =
stability)
4. Chord-progressions follow certain patterns in different styles.

The first point can be disregarded. Today there are little to be found =
of point 2 as well.=20
Point 3 and 4 are present in music today.=20
As to point 4; the recurrent aspect will, on an ecological basis create=20
stability and lets us make sense of our surroundings.=20
And when things make sense, they are meaningful to us.=20
This is another kind of meaning than what you are looking for.=20
My allegation is that without the recurrent aspect=20
there would be no mental schemas - what's left is chaos.=20
And, if we understand style as a type of schema;=20
if there weren't different recurring aspects in different musical =
styles,=20
then we would have no idea of different styles whatsoever.=20

> The examples of possible
> meanings of chords, given by Julian Vrieslander earlier today, clearly =
show
> that an agreement on meaning is not possible in this field.=20

Is that how you read his contribution?
I think he describes meaning as under point 3.=20

Odd Torleiv=20
______________________
Odd Torleiv Furnes
Department of Musicology
University of Oslo
Norway
oddtf(at)imt.uio.no