Written by Deidre Tyler and Kathleen Walsh
Goodman’s exploration and detail of symbolic modes can be dissected into three larger subsections, which he describes as digital, discursive and analog. Of these symbolic systems, digital systems have the most concrete points, leaving little room for interpretation to occur. While Bowman believes Goodman’s theory is somewhat blown out of proportion, Goodman believes that the best example of a digital scheme is music notation.
Digital systems have five basic conditions. Two of these conditions are syntactical (i.e., relating to the grammatical arrangement of words) and two are semantic (i.e., relating to the meaning of language). To truly understand what this means we must first recognize how this relates to music, as music has no set grammar. The syntactical condition relates to the notation and the notational guidelines of music. For example, a quarter note has a filled in note head and a single stem with no flags or beams. The Semantic condition relates to the meaning of the music as presented and written in the score. By this, we mean that musical scores are correct and concrete, and any variation from the written notation is a mistake.
The two syntactic conditions of the digital system are character invariance and finitely differentiated characters. In other words, all notes have a set place on the staff. A treble clef must circle the G line, a bass clef must frame the F line and so on. This character invariance allows the symbols to hold meaning to everyone everywhere. This in turn creates the idea of music as a universal language.
The three semantic ideas surround a similar idea that digital systems must be unambiguous, semantically disjoint, and differentiated. Systems that conform to each of these conditions are few and far between. Even music notation, according to Bowman, fits only one distinct idea of what the score refers to in this context.
The second symbolic system that Goodman explores is analog. The analog system is described as the opposite of digital. While we do not agree they are truly and completely opposite, they counter each other enough to warrant a new system. Analog is more precise. Think about a clock. When you look at your phone, you see the time as 12:18. When you look at an analog clock, you see the time as 12:18:34. Analog allows an exact time frame, which is inherently correct whereas digital leaves room for more specifics. Digital allows for repeatability and invariance but cannot be exact and as precise as its analog counterpart. In the context of music, analog systems leave less room for interpretation than digital systems. Analog systems have a much slimmer margin for error. Although we have already expressed that musical scores are exact and any divergence from the score is a mistake, this becomes more exact and finite when examined as an analogical system.
The final symbolic scheme that is described is discursive. Discursive systems are just as dense as analog systems and are grammatically articulate. These systems use discrete and differentiated characters. They can be, but are not required to, convey what may be dense and overlapping musical ideas. Musically speaking, discursive schemes are employed through interpretations and the idea that conveying specific ideas is not required. Think of a rallentando or ritardando. There is no specific tempo or speed at which to slow down the music. Rather, we know to ritard because of the language presented.
These systems and schemes provide a way to zoom out on these symbols. Specifically, they provide context to music and music notation and provide greater understanding of their importance. This allows us to understand that music can fall into any of these systems when viewed from different angles and lenses. Regarding music education, all three systems can be employed in our practice. Specifically, digital systems are only truly achieved through music notation. Analog systems allow educators to be specific, allowing no room for interpretation and express the concreteness that comes with music as written in a score. Discursive allows us to contribute some of the aspects that make music great. For example that no two performances are exactly the same, and no two performers will perform in the same manner. Interpretation, when asked for, is a welcome part of the system.
Reference
Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives of music. Oxford University Press.
Philosophy of Music 