Musical and Social Meaning…part 10

Musical and Social Meaning…part 10

Philosophers who are called Referentialists believe that music’s meaning is referential meaning, i.e. the meaning is derived either partially or completely (strict Referentialists) from outside of the music itself and that this meaning from outside of the music itself is understandable meaning in terms of real life. However, Referentialists do not always address just how music assimilates this “outside” meaning.  Since music communicates understandable from both inside and outside of itself, I am what I have termed a “modified Referentialist”.

          Referentialists agree that since music derives meaning from the world around the musician, music does not have a closed meaning that is “music’s alone”.  They also deny that music is incapable of relating to real world meaning.   Still others, namely strict Formalists, deny that music communicates any understandable meaning that is related to the world that exists outside of the music itself. I am drawn to the conclusion that music derives understandable meaning from the arrangement of its formal properties, referential meaning from previous experiences with music of the same style that are triggered by mirror brain stem responses to the music, and from associations that are derived from the world outside of music. Therefore, what the music triggers has the power to have either a positive or negative spiritual effect on the hearer.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 9

Musical and Social Meaning…part 9

Since music is so highly emotive, the understandable meaning that music communicates arouses emotional states of mind in all who experience it. The more successful the composer, arranger and/or the performer is, the more emotion will be aroused and the more potential the music has to have a positive or negative affect on the hearer.  Some music philosophers contend that these emotions are aroused by association.  A great number of musicians and music philosophers have over the centuries believed that emotions are aroused or triggered by the way the formal properties are arranged. Others believe that music arouses or triggers emotional states of mind by a number of  factors both embodied (imbedded) in the music part of the music and designated i.e. assigned to the music by association, community, and implied from former experiences with music and musicing.

            The Christian musician must continually be aware that, since it is difficult to know with certainty how triggered emotional states will affect those who experience the music in the context of public worship, every worship leader has the responsibility to “build up a wall around the Torah”, “edify the believer”, “accurately present the gospel”, “properly represent the moral nature of the Trinity”, rather than to inadvertently do harm to those who hear and participate in corporate musicing.  Although we can never do damage to the moral nature of God with religious musicing, we can do damage to His reputation with those who attend worship services when we music with styles and fusions that are a negative metacommunication. By both content and association a worship leader can cause a congregation to misunderstand who God is, what He has done, what He will do for those who love, serve and obey His Word. I am drawn to the conclusion that since it is impossible for a Christian musician to separate social meaning found in the fabric and landscape of a piece of music from the moral implications communicated through some styles of music, the way one musics has the possibility of being spiritually offensive.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 8

Musical and Social Meaning…part 8

 As I have often said, “No worship leader musics to himself (in an artistic esoteric bubble) because it is impossible to do so in the context of public worship.” When one takes a careful look at Ephesians 5:19 it is very clear that as early as the time of St. Paul’s inspired letter to the Ephesians, the philosophical belief existed that all public sacred musicing is done in community i.e. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs…”  So, any philosophical view that all public sacred musicing is done solely unto God is an incomplete view. Of course the Christian sings unto the Lord, but he is also instructed to sing in community in the inspired musical discourse in Paul’s letter. Therefore. it is an awesome responsibility for a minister of music to lead a congregation in musicing and thereby be responsible for implanting music in the minds of the people—causing cognitions to take place via the neurological synapses of the worshiper’s brain that are stored first electrically and after repeated musicing are stored chemically which is much more permanent.

These cognitions will be replayed over and over in the mind of the person who experienced the (through metacognition and by involuntary mirror brainstem responses) until these memories are stored chemically for a lifetime.  According to Patrik Juslin’s BRECVEMA  research, music triggers the mirror neuron system of the human brain and stimulates emotional states in the performer and the listener. Once these emotive cognitions are stored chemically in the brain the understandable meaning that surrounds the memory of these emotive experiences is very difficult to reverse because of the fact that the cognitions have become thought patterns that keep on influencing that person every  time musical metacognition takes place.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 7

Musical and Social Meaning…part 7

 All music that includes words communicates understandable meaning to all who experience it through the text and also from how its formal properties (the music part of the music) have been arranged into a coherent whole.  Whatever meaning that the music transmits to the listener is understandable meaning that relates to real life. This is evident because no performer musics in an artistic “bubble” that is detached from the world around him.  Since all musicing is done in community, all meaning that the music communicates to those who experience it has moral implications. Therefore, all religious musicing has the potential to have a positive or negative spiritual effect on the listener. Metacognition, i.e. a person’s thinking about his or her thinking when that person experienced the music, further empowers what the music earlier triggered in the mind of the observer through brain stem responses.

Because of this phenomenon, the onus probandi of how and what one musics unto God in the presence of others is placed squarely on the shoulders of the worship leader.  Ministers of music who lead music in worship are responsible for what the music ultimately does to the whole life of the listener.  Luke 17: 1-2 reminds us all of Jesus’ warning, “Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”  It is foreign to many worship leaders in this century that what and how one musics in the context of public worship has the power to be spiritually offensive and to do damage to the worshiper and actually be responsible for the debauchment of public worship.  There is no doubt about it, we are constantly bombarded with social and spiritual offences caused by musicing, but these offences should never be caused by a musicer who is a Christian.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 6

Musical and Social Meaning…part 6

 Because of the complexity of how music functions, I am drawn to the conclusion that music which stands alone is beyond written communication and is therefore a metalanguage or perhaps even more accurately a paralanguage. Those who espouse the view that music is a metalanguage and or a paralanguage must of necessity concede that the music part of music is only analogous to and not synonymous with how  written or spoken communication functions.  I also contend that music functions in some ways like language, but close comparison reveals that music alone and language do function differently is some ways.  However, the fact that instrumental music (music alone) does not function exactly like written or spoken language does not indicate that it does not communicate understandable meaning to the listener.  This view that music as a whole is only analogous to language becomes even more complex when a musical composition includes words.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 5

Musical and Social Meaning…part 5

          If these musical “codes” etc. exist in musical compositions, it is plausible that music is a form of metalanguage[i] which facilitates metacommunication[ii] that is made even more powerful by metacognition[iii] on what the listener has previously experienced with the sounds musical, verbal, and nonverbal.  This should cause skeptics of the axiom[iv] “Music is the message” to reconsider that, in light of recent scientific studies, clinical expertise in music therapy, and philosophical writings, music alone unavoidably communicates (transmits) understandable meaning (message) whether or not the worship leader is aware of its existence.  The existence of understandable meaning (some of it social) in the music fabric and landscape causes it to have strong moral implications.  This puts away the unfounded notion that the music part of music is a benign, amoral artform that communicates absolutely nothing to all who experience it.

          Music’s relationship to language has been considered in many ways by music philosophers.  Theories about how music functions include: music is a language, music is only analogous to language, music is a language of emotions, music is a metalanguage, and music is a paralanguage.[v]  Music philosophers have more or less convincingly shown that music does not function exactly like written language.  Music philosophers have also quite convincingly shown that music is emotive, but they have argued about whether the emotions that music arouses or triggers in the human  brain are or are not understandable in terms of having real life meaning.

---

[i] Metalanguage as used here means that music is capable of communicating beyond the restraints of written communication.

[ii] Metacommunication as used here refers to communication that surrounds what a person says or musics that also has meaning. This meaning (in the music part of the music) may or may not be congruent with what that person intended to music. Since this communication is implicit and not expressed in words, it may support or contradict the verbal communication of the words spoken or sung. 

[iii] Metacognition is thinking about thinking used here in the sense that the one who has experienced music later muses on his thoughts and emotions that were triggered during the previous musical experience.  These thoughts are self-reflective, so much so, that the person who experienced the music actually relives the musical experience.

[iv] An axiom is a statement or proposition which is regarded by someone as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

[v] Paralanguage was coined In the 1970s, by Gregory Bateson.  This term has come to mean nonverbal communication such as your tone of voice, pitch, intonation, speed of speaking, hesitation, noises, gestures, and facial expressions. The reason that a Christian must consider paralanguage is that it is a sort-of subset of meta-communication that often affects sacred musicing.  Paralanguage has the propensity to partially or even completely change the original meaning of sacred music. It is sometimes considered to only nuance nonphonemic properties of sacred music—i.e. words whose pronunciation and spelling do not match.  However, such a definition is too restrictive since paralanguage may consciously or unconsciously affect worship music much more than phonetically.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 4

Musical and Social Meaning…part 4

Controlled research studies on brain responses such as the BRECVEMA (or BRECVEM) Model by Patrik Juslin have provided scientific evidence that music triggers the mirror neuron system of the human brain and stimulates emotional states in the performer and the listener. In other words, neurons in the brain stems will voluntarily discharge when an individual executes a  motor act and involuntarily when he or she observes another person performing the same or a similar motor act.  Thus these brain stem actions are called mirror brain stem responses.  These brain stem actions are of great importance to Christian musicians because worshiper’s and seeker’s brains will respond when triggered involuntarily to musicing that reminds them (mirror responses) of former similar sensual emotive states of mind produced by musicing.  For this reason alone worship leaders must be highly selective of the styles of music they use in the context of public worship.

Also, definitive scientifically controlled studies and clinical practice over many years in Music Therapy by scientists, since the concept was first developed by E. Thayer Gaston, have given great credence to the belief that those who experience music have unavoidable brain responses to the music they hear.  The results of these definitive research projects and clinical experiences have much more credence than a music philosopher or an uninformed worship leader asserting that neither the fabric of the music part of the music nor the landscape that surrounds the music has the power to affect the hearer in terms of understandable real life meaning.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 3

Musical and Social Meaning…part 3

If indeed music can contain or always does contain signs, codes and/or symbols etc. that are actually imbedded in the music part of the music, they are very important to Christian musicians.  If as a part of the fabric of the music they convey real life meaning to the listener, understanding these signs, codes, symbols etc. is even more apropos to  understanding the emotional and psychological power of religious musicing.  Furthermore, if they are an unavoidable part of the music fabric, then the study of these phenomena that are woven into the music, will possibly give much greater insight into how they facilitate the understandable meaning that the music part of the music communicates to all who experience it.  Also, Christian musicians need to develop an awareness of the extra musical factors that surround the fabric of sacred music that some philosophers refer to as musical landscape.

          The theories about musical signs, symbols, codes etc. in the fabric of music are speculative, unproven hypotheses, as well as are the beliefs about how they communicate meaning that is socially and even musically understandable.  However, so are the theories that the music part of music is a closed system without the ability to communicate anything to the hearer that is understandable in terms of real life meaning.  For centuries music philosophers have written about the power that the music part of music has on the auditor.  The writings of music philosophers over many centuries has tended to be polarized into those who believe that music is emotive, has great power, and those who believe that it is a closed system incapable of transmitting any understandable meaning that is related to the world around us.

Musical and Social Meaning…part 2

Musical and Social Meaning…part 2

          Certainly, this discussion of musical and social meaning in music will not settle all the arguments about meaning that is or is not communicated through musicing. Neither will it settle the arguments about exactly how real-life emotions, or on the contrary music’s benign “garden variety” of emotions (that are music’s alone and therefore not related to real life), are aroused when one experiences musicing. However, I hope that this discussion will shed some light on these views and their relevance to sacred musicing.  Furthermore, I hope that the reader will take renewed interest the power of the emotiveness of religious musicing and also develop an awareness of how the power of these emotions, that music is capable of arousing in the listener, affects all sacred musicing.  For a much more thorough treatment of musical meaning see chapters 8, 9 and 10 of my book Music Philosophy in Christian Perspective.

 Liz Garnett stated in the Critical Musicology Journal , “That musical codes[i] can and do carry social values has become something of a semiotic[ii] truism in recent years.”   She went on to say, “So, social meanings encoded in music now form part of our musicological landscape, and their existence no longer needs to be strenuously argued. What is still in dispute, however, is the status of these codes. Are they an inherent and unavoidable part of the musical fabric, for example, or products of cultural listening habits shaped by ideologically informed critical metalanguages? That is, are the apparently socially oppressive messages carried by the staples of the musical canon into which our culture has poured so much emotional investment an inevitable part of their meaning, or will the development of new interpretational frameworks allow them to speak to us in ways we find more ideologically acceptable?” http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/Info/critmus/articles/1998/01/01.html

---

[i] Musical codes is used here in the sense that social meaning is imbedded in the music.

[ii] Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation.

Musical and Social Meaning in the Fabric and Landscape of Music

Musical and Social Meaning in the Fabric and Landscape of Music                                   Copyright © 2020 by Garen L. Wolf I 

All rights reserved. No part of this monograph may be used or reproduced in any

manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

For more information contact

Garen L. Wolf I

8394 Pippin Road

Cincinnati, Ohio 45239

Musical and Social Meaning—part 1

          Note to readers:  If you are new to my blog you should be aware that in the daily posts in a series there will be no attempt to conclude or necessarily draw final conclusions.  Also, I am placing the “end notes” at the beginning of the blog series so that the reader may take advantage of these definitions as he or she reads the daily posts. 

End Notes

[1] Musical codes is used here in the sense that social meaning is imbedded in the music.

2 Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation.

3 Metalanguage as used here means that music is capable of communicating beyond the restraints of written communication.

4 Metacommunication as used here refers to communication that surrounds what a person says or musics that also has meaning. This meaning (in the music part of the music) may or may not be congruent with what that person intended to music. Since this communication is implicit and not expressed in words, it may support or contradict the verbal communication of the words spoken or sung. 

5 Metacognition is thinking about thinking used here in the sense that the one who has experienced music later muses on his thoughts and emotions that were triggered during the previous musical experience.  These thoughts are self-reflective, so much so, that the person who experienced the music actually relives the musical experience.

6 An axiom is a statement or proposition which is regarded by someone as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

7Paralanguage was coined In the 1970s, by Gregory Bateson.  This term has come to mean nonverbal communication such as your tone of voice, pitch, intonation, speed of speaking, hesitation, noises, gestures, and facial expressions. The reason that a Christian must consider paralanguage is that it is a sort-of subset of meta-communication that often affects sacred musicing.  Paralanguage has the propensity to partially or even completely change the original meaning of sacred music. It is sometimes considered to only nuance nonphonemic properties of sacred music—i.e. words whose pronunciation and spelling do not match.  However, such a definition is too restrictive since paralanguage may consciously or unconsciously affect worship music much more than phonetically.

There is a continuing argument among practicing musicians and music philosophers about what music is and what it communicates (if anything) and how its meaning (if it has meaning) relates (or doesn’t relate) to the real world around us. Music signs, triggers, codes and symbols that are believed by some to exist in the fabric of music are a discussion of much interest to 21^st century music philosophers. By the term the fabric of music I mean musical practices which are influenced from, protocols, interactions and gestures from religious, social and music performance practices and from content imbedded in the music part of music.  This fabric, that comes from inside and outside of the music, affects the way a person musics and it also influences the end result of his or her music performance and ipso facto the information that is transmitted from his or her religious musicing. 

These imbedded elements in the music part of the music, and the way the musicer musics, facilitates the understandable meaning that the musicing transmits to the listener even though these elements from its fabric and landscape may go partially or completely unnoticed by the uninformed performer and listener.  Thus the term fabric refers to imbedded (embodied) elements such as signs, codes and/or symbols in the musical content i.e. the music’s formal properties, and landscape refers to referential meaning (designated meaning) and from the extra-musical influences which are a part of the performance practice--combined they form the fabric and landscape that unavoidably imbeds and surrounds the musicer’s religious musicing.