Musical connotation - Associative or Instinctive?
November 20th 2006 13:29
The ability of music to stir emotions and evoke feelings is well known, and its use within other forms of media - for instance movies or advertisements - highlights this. It is commonly understood that there are some basic aspects of traditional Western music that everyone can relate to on an emotional level without any training, things such major music being happy and minor music being sad. Beyond just tonality, there are other features of music people commonly relate to things, such as choirs having some religious connotation, or slow lyrical pieces conveying a heartfelt emotion. These general connotations that people have to music are taken for granted, but there is occasional debate as to whether these connotations are based purely off experience in life, as an associative connotation, or whether they come from more primal and universal human reaction to sound, as an instinctive connotation. I would put forward that human musical reaction is a mix of both - but that we are much more bound to music by purely being human before experience in life tempers the mind.
Consider the following - everything reacts to vibrations. It is possible upon finding the resonant frequency of a glass to shatter it with sound, and such resonant frequencies actually need to be a consideration in building. In addition to the physical effects of sound, humans are capable of reacting cognitively as well - you generally need no prior training to be able to tell if a note is particularly high or particularly low in pitch. The way people recieve intervals as dissonant or consonant does not appear to require any prior experience. The purity and hollowness found in octaves and fifths, or the striking discord of a tritone was recognised by early musicians documenting their work during the Renaissance. When tonal music was undergoing basic development, those listening did not have prior associative experience to draw upon. Musical intervals are combinations of vibration patterns that combine in different ways, and human response to this requires no education.
The argument of media generally creating these connotations is then unviable since television or radio didn't exist when tonal music was first being documented in Western culture. Likewise, some non-musical ideas which are communicated through music - for instance, a very heavy character being depicted in music through full textures and low pitches - can be humanly understood by simple aural comprehension since no prior training is needed to recognise these features, especcially on the subconscious mind.
Despite this, there is undoubtedly an aspect of association with experience at play when people recognise musical features and relate them to something. The association of modal music with folk song is almost definately a developed connotation, it is unlikely that the make up of modal music itself makes people think of a nation's folk culture. To some degree, instrumental timbre has assocation based connotations: an oboe has an accepted place in an orchestra and a saxophone has a respected place in a jazz band, and while I've heard them play in opposite conditions to good effect, it isn't what is expected of the instrument. In any discussion of timbre it is made difficult to isolate what is associative or instinctive, since any instrument can be compared to the human voice, which everyone is introduced to from an early age. In fact, it is arguable that tonal relationships in music rely on ancient connotations from speech(such as the idea of phrasing and cadences) but if this view is taken, an even more ancient question is raised - were such speech patterns an ingrained physical part of human nature?
In the traditional music of some Asian countries, while there was accompaniment given to types of theatre work, this music largely served different purposes, be it ritual or worship or dance. To untrained Western ears, pentatonic music simply sounds 'Asian' due to established connotation, and it is sometimes hard to detach from this and consider what the music might evoke on a more fundamental level. If there is any gain to be made in future research of this topic, it probably lies in the study of musical connotation that exists in the people of remote areas who have never in their lives heard Western music, and would thus be free from Western established musical connotation.
This is just a very brief introduction and opinion on a complex and highly debatable topic. What do you think? Is the reaction we experience to music more due to being part of an established society or just due to being human?
It is probably in communities isolated from Western culture completely where most valuable research on this topic can be done.
The argument of media generally creating these connotations is then unviable since television or radio didn't exist when tonal music was first being documented in Western culture. Likewise, some non-musical ideas which are communicated through music - for instance, a very heavy character being depicted in music through full textures and low pitches - can be humanly understood by simple aural comprehension since no prior training is needed to recognise these features, especcially on the subconscious mind.
Despite this, there is undoubtedly an aspect of association with experience at play when people recognise musical features and relate them to something. The association of modal music with folk song is almost definately a developed connotation, it is unlikely that the make up of modal music itself makes people think of a nation's folk culture. To some degree, instrumental timbre has assocation based connotations: an oboe has an accepted place in an orchestra and a saxophone has a respected place in a jazz band, and while I've heard them play in opposite conditions to good effect, it isn't what is expected of the instrument. In any discussion of timbre it is made difficult to isolate what is associative or instinctive, since any instrument can be compared to the human voice, which everyone is introduced to from an early age. In fact, it is arguable that tonal relationships in music rely on ancient connotations from speech(such as the idea of phrasing and cadences) but if this view is taken, an even more ancient question is raised - were such speech patterns an ingrained physical part of human nature?
In the traditional music of some Asian countries, while there was accompaniment given to types of theatre work, this music largely served different purposes, be it ritual or worship or dance. To untrained Western ears, pentatonic music simply sounds 'Asian' due to established connotation, and it is sometimes hard to detach from this and consider what the music might evoke on a more fundamental level. If there is any gain to be made in future research of this topic, it probably lies in the study of musical connotation that exists in the people of remote areas who have never in their lives heard Western music, and would thus be free from Western established musical connotation.
This is just a very brief introduction and opinion on a complex and highly debatable topic. What do you think? Is the reaction we experience to music more due to being part of an established society or just due to being human?
| 141 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Nic