#4 - "Referential Meaning in Music" (1 of 4)

This reading provides us with an introduction and overview of referential meaning in music - what it is, what it perhaps should be, and its origin primarily in Suzanne K. Langer's works which include Philosophy in a New Key.

Mainly through Langer's viewpoint, Ferrara provides background and insight into the major issue between "scientists," those who seek to view and categorize the world quantitatively, and other philosophers and thinkers: the idea that music is non-rational. Because you cannot translate and transcribe one music "language" to another as you can in linear, discursive human languages, music is not logical and therefore outside the realm of verifyable knowledge.

The claim is that "without discursivity, music cannot properly be called a language." But Langer doesn't see this as inhibiting, rather transcending ordinary language, just as man transcends nature through his very ability to understand and interpret symbol systems: "It is not that words cannot literally express insights into human feelings. Rather, for Langer, music appears to do it so much better in part because it functions at a more abstract level, a level that is analogous to the concept of feelings, not the feelings themselves" (Ferrara 16). Langer argues that music IS rational when thought of as a symbol system, not a logical or mathematical one.

But, oddly perhaps, she never put her theories into practice. After so eloquently forming and defending this theory, she never provided examples of how music might be "translated" in a non-discursive fashion and therefore interpreted. While this can be considered one of her great strengths - it speaks to the quality of her mind that she can formulate and support this kind of theory without direct evidence and concrete example - this fact also appears to be Langer's tragic flaw: it is this same lack of example and evidence that is the major drawback of her theory.

I thought this reading was absolutely fascinating. It didn't take me as long to get through, but I think that may be because this time I knew the style of book I would be reading. Sort of like how when you eat something you thought was something else, it will taste bad to you. Not because you don't like it, just because it wasn't what you had thought it was. Oh, how the mind plays tricks on us!

The discussion on language, and the whole passage on page 15 about permanence and change making up these central rhythms of life, shaping the very influence for music....I think that page was absolutely beautiful. What she says makes a lot of sense, and to me even seems obvious! In a way it makes me reflect on the evolution of the human mind itself. To think that at different times in the course of our history, people had to argue over things that, without any formal training in the subject whatsoever, someone like me would (nearly sixty years later) take for granted?

Assignment #1 - "Introduction"

Oh dear...I need to write a full page summary of this? I'm not sure I understood quite enough to flesh it out much beyond a paragraph, but we'll see! Now that my brain has been turned into oatmeal, I'm certainly still up for trying.

In the introduction - aptly titled: "Introduction," - Dr. Ferrara outlines the purpose of his book Philosophy and the Analysis of Music and makes a case both for the development of his "eclectic analysis" and for the progression of its very explanation within the book itself.

It is Dr. Ferrara's opinion that none of the common modern methods used to analyze music do an adequate job of it on their own. All of these methods, though they have varying philosophical traditions behind them, can be broken down into three main categories: those methodologies that analyze form, those that analyze historical context and reference, and those that focus on the sound of the music itself. Instead, Ferrara seeks to "bridge the gap" between these three methods of analysis, and contends that in order to achieve a better picture of a piece of music one should come at it through not one, but all three of these ways, layering them on and playing them off each other to bring to life a more complete analysis - the "eclectic" analysis.

To finish the introduction Ferrara defends his style of writing, preemptively silencing those that might accuse him of being too repetitive. He speaks of philosophical education as concentric circles ever rotating tighter and tighter around a fixed point - in this same way when Dr. Ferrara brings up points throughout the books, points that have already been made, it is not to be redundant but rather to re-illuminate, reexamine, and generally give greater depth to ideas already presented. These levels of deeper understanding cannot be reached until prior foundations have been laid!

For my own half page reflection, I'll say this: I pulled out the book expecting a rather short reading, and was amazed at how long it took to get through! This was a very dense reading. Very dense, indeed. Several sentences required second and even third readings in order to allow the sentence to organize itself in my head. Whole paragraphs went by unnoticed, until I finally had to admit to myself that I didn't really get that bit and had better go back and re-read it. In the philosophy classes I have taken in the past, I have never had much of a problem with the "denser" materials and authors, so I was surprised when these few pages presented so much of a challenge! I think I was expecting something entirely different from this book. After experiencing Dr. Ferrara's (fabulous) lectures, I think I was expecting something intellectual but conversational, as opposed to intellectual and obviously spilling from the mind of an attorney. Nevertheless, I think I'm going to enjoy this book and this class, and whether or not all of the readings are assigned I have a feeling I'm going to end up reading all of them ;)