Towards a Universal Semiology of Music

Throughout the book Nattiez presents us with historical glimpses into the ethnomusicological paradigms. One I enjoy, however only briefly touched upon in Music and Discourse, is the field’s acknowlegement of the intelligence/theoretical savvy of the Other (in this case we refer to non-western music origins). Nattiez notes, “We have gradually discovered (by examining the metaphorical language borrowed from the conceptual universe, especially the religious universe, unique to each culture) that the “savage mind” can also operate in the realm of music theory, with a precision that is a bit disturbing for smug western feelings of superiority.” (p. 105). Slowly the western elite give up their western man and the other division to acknowledge the diversity of critical thought and narrative in non-European and American contexts, pertaining to the construction of music. This beckons the question, though I am not intending to immediately defeat the purpose of Nattiez’s book, of whether or not it is possible to construct a semiological toolkit for analyzing all of the music of the world, and furthermore where society is really to gain from this undertaking. First is the nature of music itself. Can we transcribe all of the meanings into written and spoken word? Are we reducing the significance or purpose of music by doing so? Nattiez presents a chart of the common tonalities (C major, D minor, etc.) (pp. 124-126). The point here is to show that different composers each attribute different feelings or emotions to each tonality. The meaning therefore can be said to vary based on interpretation. This I see as a basic example of how the whole mission of creating a semiology of music is highly problematic from the start.

This problematic state is mirrored throughout the text. After considering a number of sources of criticism on the state of musicology by leading scholars and musicologists themselves (circa 1970s), Nattiez remarks in a personal tone: “In other words, the musicologist is a nasty, scavenging vulture, and obviously of no use whatsoever.” He continues, “Lurking behind all of these statements is a latent assumption: that music itself is capable of speaking about itself, without the mediation of a metalanguage.” (p. 152) The problem is amplified as the musical fact is surrounded by a multitude of metalanguage or anthropological discourse. Nattiez paraphrases Paul Ricoeur: “as soon as someone dances, sings, or plays an instrument, someone else gets up and talks about it.” (p. 183) At this point I am feeling sympathetic for Nattiez’s quest for unification at the academic level. I do still have to question the grand use or more so the grand potential for such endeavor. I fear the fate of a universal semiology of music to be an ever-incomplete project. However, maybe this will bring us closer to what we need to shift around in musical thought from common genre to the distant unknown.