Nattiez: The Meaning(s) of Music

Written by Alice Boyars and Alexandra Paganelli

Nattiez believes in the infinite definitions of music. While that might sound overwhelming, by adding stringent definitions about what music should be, we are missing out on the music of others. Music has often been defined by, and referenced to, Western culture. This has led to a very one sided understanding of how music should be qualified and judged. Following the speculation of Nattiez, it is impossible to universally classify something based upon one culture’s understanding.

Nattiez contends that a more individualistic definition and perception of music is apparent through an analysis of anthropology. Not only does each culture have a unique conception of music, but within a society there is a “whole spectrum of conceptions” (Bowman, 1998, p. 245). Furthermore, music plays different roles in different cultures. For example, some cultures only condone the use of music during special religious rituals, while others use music as a part of everyday life. 

When defining music, the difference between music and noise is often a source of contention. People often consider noise to be whatever music is not, and they don’t allow for the two to share a lot of commonalities. Why is it not possible for music to be noise and for noise to be music? Does there genuinely need to be a defined difference?

Nattiez suggests the definition of music is not solely based upon sonorities, or what we hear, but rather, “accounts of ‘the musical’ must embrace poietic and esthesic processes, the social and cultural interactions in which all music-like actions are embedded.” (p. 246). Nattiez also suggests that we put too much focus upon the emotional impact of the musical experience. Even within one culture, music is not always interpreted the same way. For example, when referring to Western art music, there are differences in poetic interpretation. Even the definition of music itself, “threatens to force together practices that other cultures keep separate, or to separate out aspects of the phenomenon that are inextricably linked.” (p. 246) The creation of music, past its sonorities, is infinite.

In summary, “there is not a music, but many musics . . .” (p. 245). Defining music by such narrow margins leads one to miss out on the music of others that might differ from our perception of experience. As educators, this could easily stop us from connecting with our students through music that is significant to who they are as a person. This could make them feel like they are not a valued member of the music class. Nattiez’s philosophy serves as a basis for the advocacy of the teaching of a variety of musical cultures. From an educator’s standpoint, our education of western tonality and composers is limiting our ability to both connect with our students and to expose them to music as a whole.

Reference

Bowman, Wayne D. Philosophical Perspectives on Music. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Thoughts From the Philosophy of Nattiez

Written by Molly Cheng, Andrew Kerper, and Daniel Tilman

In an effort to alleviate what he believed to be an inflexible connection among music, symbols, and communicative language, Jean-Jacques Nattiez (b. 1945) introduced the study of semiology through his publication of Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music (1987).  Nattiez wanted to remove the static approach that previous structuralists had brought forth in their attempt to find a stable relationship between the producer and the receiver.  He argues that the relationship between music and symbol cannot be defined through communicative language as it would not accommodate music in a meaningful way.  Furthermore, Nattiez broadens the range of this relationship by introducing a third counterpart to the equation, which is the interpretant.  It is this third counterpart that brings to fruition the Tripartition in music: an existence of the poietic, immanent, and esthetic process.  Nattiez argues that the only absolute condition is sound, and that everything else is open to an interpretive process, which is influenced by (and based upon) lived experience.  Any meaning derived from this process is simply related to that person’s experience within their world.

The tripartition is made up of the poietic, immanent, and esthetic. The poietic process occurs when, “…something material is brought into existence by someone that produces it” (Bowman, p. 242). In terms of music, this can be interpreted as the composer. The piece of music is created by the composer and includes the meaning they wish to construe within their music. The immanent “…has a level of materiality, an existence that bears the ‘traces’ of the poietic process that brought it into being” (Bowman, p. 242). This can be the performance of the material. A person or group performs the music created in the poietic process and shows a little of how the composer wished it to be. The esthesic  process involves the “…act of apprehending, interpreting, and giving meaning to the trace, of bringing the trace into various possible relations with the perceiver’s horizon” (Bowman, p. 242). This can be the audience. The audience listens to the music and interprets whatever they want, even if the composer didn’t intend for it. Oftentimes the listener can understand what the composer intended for them to hear, but they can also interpret the music differently. For example, if I listen to Jupiter by Holst, I can understand that it is meant to represent the planet and sounds like the piece could be interpreted as space, but one of my friends walked down the aisle to it and she said believed it represented love and dedication. This may or may not be what the composer intended, but this is how she interpreted it. However, none of these three (i.e., poetic, immanent, or esthetic) can account for all meaning in music. Of course, music cannot be thrown out because the meaning of the composer did not come through, as the maker cannot dictate the actual meaning behind the composition. As the audience, we can interpret the music differently. Even in verbal conversations, we cannot assume that all our points are given across to the receiver as we intended, nor can we assume that everyone gets the same meaning from those verbal words.

The meaning of Nattiez’s theory on semiology can be constructed and discussed in various ways. Meaning of music is something that can’t be constructed or theorized, as there are too many different sounds and pieces occurring in a piece of music.  It is up to the listener to decide how the sound(s) is/are being used and if the sound that is sampled is adding to the music being created. In addition, sounds and music are often vague and can be interpreted by anyone in any way they seem fit.  As Nattiez enforces, we can’t perceive music the same because music is created differently in a wide range in different cultures, and the definitions of music are affected by the era of music being discussed or analyzed.

References

Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives of music. New York, NY:  Oxford University Press.

Nattiez and the Open-Ended Meaning of Music

Written by Sarah Fabian

As humans, how can we truly define music? There are so many different factors to consider that it is hard to pinpoint an exact definition. If we consider post-modern views towards music, and how everyone’s experience differs, we add another layer of complexity to this task. Nattiez states that music can be whatever you want it to be. There is not a single, culturally-dominant conception of music. Rather, music can be defined through a wide spectrum of ideas and beliefs. Music is whatever people choose to recognize as such. Furthermore, noise is whatever is recognized as disturbing, unpleasant, or both.

The interpretation of music and noise are directly related to one’s culture. Music is played throughout the world, and what I consider to be music might be noise to others.  What others may consider music might be noise to me. It is the manner by which people make and use sounds that implies musicality. Nattiez’s philosophical thoughts (Elliott & Silverman, 2015) focus on the fact that music is experienced through live performances. It does not necessarily mean the terminology and theory of semiotics will help us better understand music. Rather, the manner in which we hear and experience music can help to develop our musicianship. For example, there are thousands of professional musicians that do not know how to read music. They have experienced music differently than those who have learned to performed music within an academic setting. The musical experience between each group differs greatly.

I believe we should view music as one complex structure that consists of various approaches, definitions, and performances. There are so many genres, techniques, and instruments that add limitless variables to music, but within all cultures, I believe music possesses an emotional experience that cannot be defined with words. It can only be felt through the music. Nattiez explains this as the aesthetic process. This is one of three processes that combine what Nattiez calls Tripartition. Symbolism’s tripartitional nature and its deployment of infinite interpretations demand that music be recognized as a profoundly polysemic affair. Music has infinite interpretations. You cannot try to symbolize music, for each musical sign can be interpreted differently. For example, if you where to give the same piece of music to three different orchestras, each located in a different part of the world, each orchestra would interpret the piece differently. While the piece may be the same, the tempos, instrumentation, and facilities would differ. The variables are endless. This is what makes music so open-ended. There are endless ways in which music can be different yet the same.

References

Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Nattiez: A Postmodern Philosophical Perspective

Written by Stephanie Taylor and Zhencong Chen

Jean-Jaques Nattiez is a French-Canadian linguist and musicologist who has taken a post-modern approach to Music Semiology (Vachon, n.d.).  Nattiez, like Langer and Goodman, investigated how music comes to symbolize certain meanings.  In a manner that is true to his postmodern ideology, Nattiez believes music can mean anything to anyone.  Music’s only constant is the sound, and each culture defines what is music and what is noise (Bowman, 1998).  For example, traditional Inuit music may not sound pleasant to someone who was raised within a conventional Western tradition, but to someone from the Inuit culture, it could provide a beautiful musical experience.

The Tripartition

According to Nattiez, there are three points to consider when interpreting music as symbol.  This is known as the tripartation and consists of the poiesis, esthesis, and trace.  The poietic process is the point where music is constructed.  The material produced by the poietic process is called the trace.  The music is then perceived by our senses, and the reception of the trace is called esthesis.  All three components must be included in the process (Bowman, 1998).

The Meaning (or Meanings) of Music

People are often able to judge the difference between music and noise.  However, the only thing that distinguishes music from noise is the manner in which people choose to recognize it as such. There is no universal standard to measure music.  What we can do is use tripartition to examine the sound.  Someone had the motivation to create the music (composer), the transmitter sent it with the trace (performer), and the perceiver received the information, which stimulated mental activities and/or communication. This is the process that distinguishes music from noise (Bowman, 1998).  So, what gives music its meaning?  The listener, of course!  To Nattiez, the meaning of music is in the ear of the beholder.

Nattiez believes music can have infinite meaning and value based on who is interpreting the music, yet he still believes in universals.  After all, how can one really say that the meanings of music are infinite and not declare all music of the same value?  As Dash in Pixar’s The Incedibles said, “saying everyone is special is the same as saying no one is” (Bird, n.d.).  Are there no universal musical values?  Nattiez argues that overarching universals, which intersects history and various cultures, cannot be found. Rather, musical universals can be found within localized cultures (Bowman, 1998).

Conclusion

Nattiez argues that believing in the plurality of music is not the same as believing all music (or sound for the matter) has equal value.  There is a truth to music and that truth is found in the context of all the information available to the interpreter (Bowman, 1998).  Finding the truth in music is a process, or journey, for the interpreter.

To the skeptics of Nattiez, please consider the following:

• His theory acknowledges that music is more than a communication device, such as language.  While music is an effective form of communication, it also has meaning in and of itself (Bowman, 1998).
• His theory “respect[s] the plurality and fluidity of musical meaning” (Bowman, 1998, p. 251).  By refusing to judge all music in a single rigid manner, he validates the differing interpretations of people in different cultures and times.
• To Nattiez, the meaning of music lies in its aesthetic and sociological perspectives (Bowman, 1998).  Music is both a sonorous experience and a tool for communication.

References

Bird, B. (Director). (2004). The incredibles [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar.

Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vachon, J. (n.d.). Jean-Jacques Nattiez. Retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jean-jacques-nattiez-emc/