This exchange also comes from an email discussion from the composition seminar
dealing
with the concept of form in contemporary music. In particular, the exchange
was provoked
by a discussion of th notion of "musical character."
Chris: Something has been gnawing at me for the past couple of class
sessions that has to do with these emotional/musical archetypes we've been
discussing.
Mark: I'm not sure if you are describing what we've been talking about as
emotional
or musical archetypes, if you understand what we've been talking about as
archetypes, or if you think that term was used, or something roughly
equivalent. I can assure I would not touch the term "archetypes" with a
ten
foot pole. I don't remember anyone else using the term. As far as I know,
archetypes refers to some kind of primary or primitive set of types out
of
which everything else must, or does, evolve. It was a important term in
Jung's psychological theory, and is used in many kinds of reductionist
analysis (i.e. everything boils down to a few basic types, you know). The
term I introduced, and which was stuck to pretty consistently, was "character."
Character, in general, doesn't have anything to do with archetypes, at least
to the extent that archetypes are one kind of theory of types. Character,
as a category does not need to presuppose the existence of any types.
Musical character is a dynamic, historically evolving category, which, by
the way, need not have anything at all to do with emotion, or emotional
associations.
In general, character has to do with something that is characteristic,
something that characterizes, a period of time, a process, a set of events.
In a sense, it is related to the general, perceptible tendencies of events
that cannot be found just by looking at, or listening to, the events
themselves. It is also related to averages, statistical frequency of
occurrence, to generalities, but specifically to those which distinguish
the events or sections of which they are the norm, or the distinguishing
rule (i.e. not the exceptions, deviations, etc.).
Character is an aggregate, an aggregate of distinguishing characteristics.
Specifically, it is the aggregate distinction of set of distinguishing
characteristics. Another way to think of it: it is the indispensable
generalization for making specific distinctions possible.
Chris: We describe musical phrases as placid, turbulent, agitated, etc, but where
do
these terms come from?
Mark: As I said in class, I think the terms come from observing characteristics
of
the music and groping for those terms which can distinguish what we hear
as
musical character. We have no choice but to grope. At least, in the absence
of some historically developed, shared set of terms, that can be shown capable
of analyzing and noting distinctions that relate to character. The problem
is
compounded by the fact that there is a mountain of reductive vocabulary
that
talks about character, but fails to distinguish it.
Actors, at least thoughtful ones, confront this problem all the time. The
lines are in the script. Maybe a few indications about movement. What is
the
character? What are the habitual, telling, fleeting movements, the inflections
of speech, the glances, the behaviors that will characterize who they present,
in relation to the other people represented.
Character is not a property of a musical event. It is a relation of one
musical event to another. There is no such thing as a musical character
that is understood in a vacuum. One kind of musical character is always
understood in relation to another, or others.
Chris: Is it the accumulation of so much musical history,
stacked upon itself over centuries of expression?
Mark: I do think musical character participates in, and evolves within,
the
historical development of musical thinking. I don't think it's sheerly or
meerly cumulative. Musical characters exit and enter at various points in
history, in new guises, transformed, but there are many instances of new
characters appearing on the scene, and even, of character that goes dead
and
no longer has the power to characterize.
Chris: Or is it modeled after nature, where, for example, a turbulent sea-storm
is rendered musically as fast, up and down melodies, mimicking a physical
event
that evokes a specific emotional response?
Mark: Character is not based exclusively on imitation or mimicry. I wasn't talking
about turbulent music being like a turbulent sea (and fast upward and downward
moving melodies might turn out not to be turbulent at all), but about the
character of turbulence, and how many distinct kinds of turbulence might
be
distinguishable. Again, if the reference is character, or musical character,
the question would be: is turbulence, or a specific kind of turbulence,
what best characterizes this group of music events, or this musical event,
or
this section, and so forth.
Chris: It would be naive of me to ignore the fact that we DO
respond to different musical textures as being agitated or whatever, but
I
want to do better than taking them at face value, or at least would like
to
have an idea as to where the associations come from.
Mark: I'm not sure what "taking them at face value" would mean: not
questioning whether what I say characterizes something does indeed
adequately and distinctly characterize it?
Chris: Perhaps it's just nit-picking; the thinking too much about the details
that Karl was concerned about in class.
Mark: The only time you could think to much about detail is when it prevents
you from
understanding whatever the detail is imbued in.
Chris: Still, I feel like there's a lot that's unclear, and while
it's a lot to take on, I'm not sure where to start investigating it. Any
advice? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Mark: No. You found one of the trees with a possum up it.