# The meaning of musical meaning



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've just been reading a book by musicologist *Melanie Lowe *called _Pleasure and Meaning in the Classical Symphony_ (full details below). I'm not even halfway through it, but in the opening chapter, she makes some interesting observations on musical meaning, which I thought I would share here for discussion.

Here are some quotes which I found interesting from the first chapter:



> _What constitutes musical meaning?_ Musical meaning, for our purpose here, is simply those ideas, constructed in the mind of the listener, or those emotions, generated in the body (and mind) of the listener, upon experiencing a musical entity and performing the mental and physical activity of interpreting that experience. There are as many interpretations as experiences, as many experiences as listeners, and as many meanings constructed as listening subjects capable of performing even the simplest interpretive acts.





> _Does a piece of music have meaning?_ If "have" implies some sort of possession, then no. We shall maintain that a piece of music in and of itself does not have meaning. Meaning is constructed by human subjects and therefore resides within us, within human beings, not within inanimate objects, artistic or otherwise. A piece of music may be the most immediate stimulus or the conduit for meaning communicated within human subjects, but the construction of meaning takes place within the mind and body of an individual, animate person...
> 
> To be sure, more than one person may arrive at the same, or at least very similar, set of meanings for a particular musical composition, an actuality that suggests the presence within a musical work of certain features we can recognize as a style or code. Listeners who enjoy a certain "stylistic competency," to borrow Hatten's term (1994), may thus construct meanings that would seem to be intersubjective...
> 
> Listeners who are able to and choose to hear meanings that are sensitive to the musical, aesthetic, and historical circumstances of a musical work's composition, and perhaps even aligned with the presumed intentions of its composer, belong to the same interpretive community. But...the meanings these listeners hear, however shared or conditioned by the values and beliefs of a particular interpretive community they may be, remain nonetheless the constructions of_ individual_ members of that interpretive community. Even seemingly reconstructable meanings are therefore individual, subjective meanings ascribed to the musical work by its present interpreter. They are not reconstructions of meanings that exist within the piece itself.





> _Who determines musical meaning?_ The listener, when he actively interprets the music he hears. While a composer may determine specific meanings, maintain these meanings during the activity of composition, believe she is composing these meanings into a piece, and expect a piece of music to transmit her meanings, such intended meanings may or may not be perceived or re-created in the mind and body of a listener. He may interpret that musical work differently. By the same logic, once the compositional activity is completed, the composer herself becomes another listener. Interpretation - the process of constructing meaning - is in this sense no different for a piece's composer than for its listener. The composer simply enjoys a unique listening subjectivity: she knows what was intended and may (or may not) interpret her own work accordingly...
> 
> We listeners, however, cannot know what the composer intended. Despite whatever documentary or textual evidence may be out there to discover, a composer's intended meanings are ultimately unknowable to anyone but the composer herself, and therefore irrelevant for our present purpose...To speculate constructively about the meanings listeners, whether historical or contemporary, hear in a composition, we must consider not only the work's intrinsic musical aspects but also its musical, historical, cultural, aesthetic, social, and political situations, for a listening subject cannot divorce a text from its various contexts...





> _Are some meanings more "meaningful" than others?_ This question hinges first on whether one type of interpretive activity is more tangible than another. There are, of course, many degrees of interpretation, as well as many degrees of being conscious of performing interpretive acts...The same listener hearing the same piece under the same set of circumstances but at two different times will not necessarily arrive at the same interpretations because the _experience_ is different. The musical text is crucial, of course, but I shall maintain that listening context and listener subjectivity control and ultimately determine musical meaning.





> _Are some meanings more "correct" than others?_ If they are the product of the interpretive activity of an individual listener, not matter who, where, or when she is, then no. Interpretations of musical experiences are subjective; they cannot be incorrect. Some interpretations may seem to carry more weight than others because of the authority of the listening subject who performed them - a "professional interpreter," for instance, whose job it is to produce criticism that persuades others of a particular meaning of a particular text. Within the context of this book, the interpretations of someone with, say, considerable musical training or vast historical knowledge are not more correct, in and of themselves, than those of someone who professes to be "tone deaf" or has not dedicated his career to studying musical-historical cultures. Such listeners are simply members of different interpreting communities.





> _What, then, might "meaning" mean?_ While musical meaning may be simply those ideas and emotions constructed by a listening subject during the activity of interpreting musical experience, the meaning of those constructed meanings is the result of a subsequent interpretation. If to engage the meaning of meaning, then, is like Zeno's paradox - we spend forever approaching but never arrive - it behooves us to remember Pople's words: "meaning is a journey rather than a destination" (1994, xi).


*
Lowe, M. (2007). Pleasure and Meaning in the Classical Symphony. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.*


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

For a relatively lighthearted but still thought-provoking discussion of meaning in music, see also Leonard Bernstein's _What do you mean, meaning?_, one of his "imaginary conversations" (basically essays in dialogue form).


----------



## Enjoying Life (Aug 2, 2010)

Not sure I totally buy the subjective idea. And not at all sure I buy the listener as the creator of meaning.

I know the same discussion takes place about written meaning and there I feel confident that meaning lies with the author - otherwise what Melanie wrote would be meaningless or at least open to many meanings and not be an attempt on her part to communicate.

I guess I am not sure that music is entirely different from written art. I think composers were purposeful when they wrote and that purpose is part of the meaning. I accept that I may not know what the composer was thinking and yet that composer still picks the notes and has a plan behind them. So the meaning is not just what I want when I listen.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Why assume there are *always* objective meanings in the arts? When I read a newspaper report about the state of the economy, I can clearly see the objective intention. But why assume a piano concerto of whatever period has objective meaning? I guess the closest upon discovering music's objective meaning would be music involving texts/lyrics; anything from "_baby don't hurt me no more ... "_ types of music to libretti of opera and choral works. Though the more ingenious of composers could and often do convey meanings in purely instrumental works, such as Beethoven's symphony #6 _Pastoral_, to pick a popular piece.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

Honestly, that wasn't very rigorous analysis of an idea. Just starting with the definition; it is too vague to rely on it.

It is still interesting to talk about, but I'd prefer have it in a more scientific or philosophical way, whichever pleases.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I like the idea about certain music being more "tangible" than others, that is, more people can enjoy/relate to it. That's how the Classics become what they are, because many people love it, and they might not even be able to explain why, only that they understand it better somehow.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I like the idea about certain music being more "tangible" than others, that is, more people can enjoy/relate to it. That's how the Classics become what they are, because many people love it, and they might not even be able to explain why, only that they understand it better somehow. 
__________________
My name is Sergei Prokofiev, and I approve this message. 


Prokofiev Approves anything you say!!!!!! LOL Poor him! Do you need to "touch" music? Listen to the last Scriabin's compositons...they are awesome...and...can you "touch them"? I'm not sure.

Nitram


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The original quotes are a bit convoluted sounding but I soldiered through them. Funny she should refer to a composer as a she when normally people refer to one as a he.

Anyway I think she is a little bit too relativistic in her opinions. 

"Even seemingly reconstructable meanings are therefore individual, subjective meanings ascribed to the musical work by its present interpreter. They are not reconstructions of meanings that exist within the piece itself."

This sounds like it's just trying to be a bit too clever here. Don't discount the tradition handed down in how to perform a piece too, classical music has a very strong tradition behind it.

"Who determines musical meaning? The listener, when he actively interprets the music he hears. While a composer may determine specific meanings, maintain these meanings during the activity of composition, believe she is composing these meanings into a piece, and expect a piece of music to transmit her meanings, such intended meanings may or may not be perceived or re-created in the mind and body of a listener."

But surely a composer determines a GENERAL meaning of a piece and not normally a specific meaning.

"The musical text is crucial, of course, but I shall maintain that listening context and listener subjectivity control and ultimately determine musical meaning."

They control specifics but not normally the general meaning. Most people listening to the last movement of Brahms 4th symphony will consider it to sound tragic, sad, defiant. Few people will consider it to be a humorous joke. So there are limits to how most people would interpret a piece, though they may differ in specifics.

"Within the context of this book, the interpretations of someone with, say, considerable musical training or vast historical knowledge are not more correct, in and of themselves, than those of someone who professes to be "tone deaf" or has not dedicated his career to studying musical-historical cultures. Such listeners are simply members of different interpreting communities."

I think this is going a bit far. Someone who isn't used to classical music may find for instance some classical period pieces sounding too formal or inflated, but that is often because they just aren't used to the style. They may hear some later 20th century modernist sounding piece and think it just sounds alien and weird, but again that might just be because they aren't tuned into the style.


----------

