I like to think of music as one of the oldest forms of communication. I imagine hearing the deadening drumbeat of tribes at war. I hear wood-like instruments that inaugurate the proceedings of a ceremony. I hear the lovely wash of sound of the violin being played at a classical music concert. I hear The Jesus and the Mary Chains’, Psychocandy, rotating on my playlist as I write this.
But what exactly is music? Is it just an arrangement of noises that sound melodic, or amelodic to the ear? Is it the message that most people gravitate towards, or is it the styling? What kind of importance does music play in history, and is music a reaction to the current issues of the time? These are questions that I ask myself while listening close to my favorite bands.
For those of you not familiar with Fort Reno Park, it is a field located right across from Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington D.C. Every summer people flock to to this space to hear local musicians play music for free. I have attended many shows there, which include: Fugazi, Q and Not U, among other notable D.C. acts (mostly rooted in the punk scene.) Aside from the normal thoughts that everybody (including myself) have while attending a concert such as: What kind of instruments are they using? Do I recognize the songs? Are they improvising? Are they hiring a new roadie (in which case I would feel a great obligation to help out)… I begin to wonder: What is music? Why do we have it? And, are the songs being represented in a historical context? Or, to a larger extent, once the music stops, what kind of meanings or interpretations can we derive from the sounds? This is very perplexing to me.
Does music only exist in a time capsule, or is it present and for the moment? Certainly, live music can be thought of as”in the moment”, but can recorded music be treated as history? In a broad sense, the answer to this question is yes. But, how do we treat music in this way without subscribing to the usual way of writing about music (i.e. focusing too mush on the band’s stance, or their legal troubles?) What about writing on the actaul music itself? Yes, reviewers are able to accomplish this, but not convincingly. For instance, one reviewer may claim that the song was “very moving”, while the other reviewer may refer to the song as “utter trash.” Thus, the writing, or reviewing of music seems very objectional and opinionated.
Which leads me to pose this question: Can music be analyzed beyond the usual trappings of writing objectionally?
There’s another, more philosophical question, that your analysis of music as a source that is important to consider when placing music within a historical context: where does a piece of music actually exist?
Superficially. it seems a simplistic question, but if you delve into the question the true nature of its complexity is revealed. Does music exist as notes on a page? It is in the composer’s mind? What about the individual performances of it? What about multiple recordings? Is that one piece of music, or many? Does the music exist within the audience’s reaction? The answer is not one of these things, but rather all.
The written word, or the printed image – more traditional sources for the historian – are much easier to define. They exist, unchanging, on a tactic medium, and thus require little thought about their precise nature. They have a distinct author, and a constant message (while meanings of words, and interpretations of words may change over the time, the written words themselves remain static). Music, however, is fleeting, and therefore its existence is nebulous. Unlike written words, or printed images which have a degree of permanence, music is acutely subject to interpretation. True, the individul pitches (generally) remain consistent, but the composers desired phrasing, dymanic contrast, tempo, timbre, articulation can often only be guessed at, and even when it is laid out, is still open to great degrees of interpretation by conductors, or individual musicians.
The belief that the Rite of Spring performed today is the same piece of music as it was during its 1913 premiere, is not entirely correct. To contemporary society, the piece conjures up images of the Disney’s Fantasia (1940), or the Star Wars films (John William’s borrowed Stravinsky’s thematic material rather shamelessly). To the ballet-goers of 1913 Paris, it was so shocking that a riot ensued. The gulf of understanding which inhibits us from understanding and contextualizing past events exists within the sphere of music as well. The difficulty in reaching a precise definition of where music exists highlights this. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that music is any less valuable as a historical source. It simply means that is should be used with care and understanding, as with any other historical source, and this can easily be done provided the need for care is recognized, for as we have seen, historians are adept at employing imperfect records to further one’s understanding of the past.
Comment by James — September 26, 2006 @ 10:19 am
James:
I don’t think I can agree with you on the differences you point out between the written word and sheet music. Certainly sheet music can exist unchanging on the same tactic medium. It can have a distinct author and the meaning of those notes is perhaps less likely to change than written words since as you point out the meaning of those words can change. The meaning of a #G isn’t likely to. As for music being fleeting I take it you’re referring to the sound itself rather than the written notes. Couldn’t we say the same thing about the written note as compared to the spoken word? Written words are subject to the same interpretation that you suggest music is. We can not always see the intent in written words and they are as acutely subject to interpretation as written musical notes. Pick any lengthy instant message conversation and you can count the number of times where meaning can be lost or misconstrued. As for the question of where does music exist? The same place a written composition exists if the music was written down. If a speech wasn’t transcribed where does it exist? We have to compare apples to apples.
Comment by Kurt — September 26, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
In many instances the desired effect of music is to reproduce each performance as closely to the one before. Other times artistic impression and interpretation are desired. Boiled down though, they always start with what’s written. Wouldn’t a comparison be a dramatic reading of say something from Shakespeare? Does the dramatic reader change the true meaning?
Comment by Michelle — September 26, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
You might be interested in this essay in World History Sources by the ethnomusicologist Marion Jacobson: http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/unpacking/musicmain.html. Or this interview with Michelle Kisulik: http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/analyzing/music/analyzingmusicintro.html.
Comment by tkelly7 — September 26, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Mills – fyi…tried to access both links and got “page not found.” I submitted the error report for both entries.
Comment by Gary — September 27, 2006 @ 2:18 pm