A Reflection on Two Approaches to Music Theory

The discussion of how to best define the methods and/or framework of music theory is a topic with endless points of discussion.  Of these points, two highly relevant sources on the matter are “Theory” by David Carson Berry and Sherman Van Solkema, and “Chapter Six: The Object of Musical Analysis” from Jean-Jacques Nattiez’s Music and Discourse.  Both writings discuss various approaches to understanding and utilizing methods and frameworks for effective analytical discourse within the scope of music theory.  The article put forth by Berry provides a pragmatic approach focusing solely on aspects relevant to twentieth-century America; on the contrary, “Chapter 6” of Nattiez’s Music and Discourse urges theorists to pursue musical analysis utilizing semiological framework for a more holistic approach.

Berry’s comments on music theory contain bountiful specifics on harmonic and melodic analysis, but is narrowed heavily with a historical focus on twentieth-century American society.  He begins by stating the changing conditions which influenced theorists’ approach to musical analysis in the first half of the twentieth century.  He describes the main contributors as an increased demand for music pedagogy in American universities, as a result of increased interest in musicology:  “In the first half of the 20th century, the environment in the United States became much more nurturing for music-theoretic endeavors of an expanding scope.” In the following paragraphs, Berry describes the various new theories devised to analyze new uses of harmony as music of this era began incorporating polytonality.  In the next section of his article, he maintains a historical foundation focused on American society while introducing new theories which emerged post-1950:  “The second half of the 20th century witnessed the emergence of music theory as an autonomous discipline in the United States, distinct from the areas of musicology and composition.” In this passage, Berry lists the top American Universities that began offering music theory programs at the graduate level as well as new American publications specialized in music theory.  He then discusses the development of harmonic and melodic analysis throughout the latter half of the twentieth century in excellent detail.  While the reader can certainly apply this knowledge to American music composed in the twentieth century, that is also the extent to which this approach may be applied.  Thus, to analyze music outside of this timeframe or geographic location, a more universal approach is necessary.

To synthesize a more universal approach, Nattiez argues that without semiological framework, musical analysis is likely incomplete.  He explains that every work of music is influenced by external factors paired with a composer’s methods.  He refers to these components as the Poietic Dimension (P).  From there, a work of music is created, known as the Neutral Dimension (N).  As people form opinions on the piece through listening and analysis, this creates the Esthesic Dimension (E).  These three dimensions create what is known as the tripartite design.  Further, as analysis of the music takes place, a second tripartite design is created.  In this design, the (P) is the systems and techniques used to create the analysis, the (N) is the analysis itself, and the (E) is how people respond to this analysis.  In return, this second tripartite design influences the (E) of the original work’s tripartite design.  Nattiez then describes six analytical situations that can arise depending on the order which the (N), (P), and (E) are studied, and if one or more dimensions are omitted altogether.  He uses these six analytical situations to justify why a semiological framework is necessary by stating “…this rapid summary of what I believe to be the six major situations of musical analysis from the tripartitional point of view refers to examples derived not from semiotically inspired analyses, but from current musicological literature. Musical semiology is able to propose a critical framework for existing musical analyses.” He argues the absence of a semiological framework results in circumstances where “absence of information, knowledge, or the appropriate methodological tools sometimes prevent us from undertaking the type of analysis that reason might command” Through these writings, Nattiez calls theorists to couple their methods of musical analysis with this described semiological framework as to prevent incomplete analyses.

I partially agree with Berry’s approach to focusing on a measurable, historical method of analyzing music.  This approach should be taught to musicians first because it standardizes music concepts and musical terminology necessary to conduct score analysis.  Without this knowledge, musicians would not have a universal language for which to discuss such theoretical concepts.  I believe this is why American Universities began prioritizing theorists over composers, as Berry mentions “more universities and colleges began to offer graduate programs in theory, and to employ “professional theorists” (instead of composers, etc.) to coordinate their curricula.” In my personal experience working with non-educated musicians, conducting efficient musical discussion is difficult because they communicate using terms they have created, and with limited understanding of how harmony, melody, and rhythm can function.  By this logic, Berry’s methods create a solid foundation for analytical discourse.  However, I would argue against solely using Berry’s approach to music analysis because it alienates a work’s external influences.  For this reason, I believe Berry’s approach should always be employed in conjunction with a semiological framework as suggested by Nattiez.  

For this reason, I strongly agree with Nattiez’s argument to conduct musical analysis within the scope of a semiological framework.  I especially relate to his statements on how the “universals of music, system (style) of reference, style of a genre or epoch, style of the composer, (and) style of a period in the life of a composer” are the main external factors which contribute to the creation of a work.  A profound example of how these factors contribute to the creative process is depicted marvelously under the horrible circumstances Olivier Messiaen endured while composing Quatuor pour la fin du temps.  As a Prisoner of War in a German World War II camp, the work’s texture was determined by the musicians Messiaen had at his disposal (a clarinetist, violinist, cellist, and pianist).  Additionally, the tonalities in Quatuor pour la fin du temps are dark, gloomy, and most eerie compared to those found his previous works.  This phase of Messiaen’s life as a POW contributes to the work’s (P).  However, without a semiological framework applied to analytical methods, there is no way to accurately justify Messiaen’s choice of texture or the sudden shift in his use of melodic and harmonic tonalities.  This example is one of many which encompasses my unwavering support of Nattiez’s stance on the importance of conducting musical analysis through the lens of a semiological framework.

In summary, Berry’s pragmatic and historical approach is limited to musics of twentieth-century America, while “Chapter 6” of Nattiez’s text urges theorists to utilize analytical methods in conjunction with a semiological framework for a more encompassing analysis.  A semiological framework prevents a theorist from trapping themselves in an analytical situation where they ignore a work’s (P) and (E).  Thus, determining the specific reasoning in which frequencies cohabitate, clash, and resolve is irrelevant without also considering factors that influence the underlying story a work is meant to share.

Bibliography

Berry, David, and Sherman V. Solkema. “Theory.” The New Grove Dictionary of American Music (November 2013): 1–22.

Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. “Chapter 6: The Object of Musical Analysis.” In Music and Discourse, 133–49. Princeton University Press, 1990.