Lectura 1 U 2 Reflections On The Development of Semiology in Music

Reflections on the Development of Semiology in Music
Author(s): Jean-Jacques Nattiez and Katharine Ellis

Source: Music Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Mar. - Jul., 1989), pp. 21-75
Published by: Blackwell Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854326
Accessed: 25/02/2010 15:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
1
NATTIEZ
JEAN-JACQUES
REFLECTIONSON THE DEVELOPMENTOF

SEMIOLOGYIN MUSIC
byKatharineEllis
Translated
Semiologydoes not exist.* For two closelyrelatedreasons:the investigations

which, sincethe end of the nineteenthcentury,haveclaimedto be semiological
take their inspirationfrom diverseorientationsand have an extremelyvaried
scieniificpast;as yet nobodyseemsto haveput forwarda sufficientlycoherent
paradigmfor analysis,or a corpus of universallyacceptedmethods, which
wouldenableone to talkof a singlesemiologicalscience.Of courseonecanargue
thatlinguisticsis no betterqualifiedto offermodelswhichmakeforunanimity.
But even though today there are phonologies, distributionalschools and
generativesects, the sciences of languagehave accumulateda reservoirof
proceduresandresultsfromwhichcriticalstudiesandprogressmayemerge.In
semiologythe situationis farfromcomparable.
ORIENTATIONS
I: CAUSESOF THE VARIOUSSEMIOLOGICAL
It is necessarythereforeto talk of multiplesemiologies,or ratherof possible
semiologicalprojects.The currentlack of unity in musicalsemiologyis clearly
a reflectionof the state of semiologyin general. To be more precise, each
individualsemiologicaltheoryof musicseemsto me to be directedaccordingto
threeaxes.
1: TheChoice,WhetherImplicit orExplicit,ofanOntological Conception ofMusic
Whatis the essenceof musicas a signifyingsystem?In the West, we live on the
foundationsof a culturalheritagewhich sees in music an art 'whichsignifies
itself', which does not referto any realityother than itself. This is what has
generallybeen calledthefonnalistconcepiionof music- a termwhichdemands
rigorousqualificationl- whose most concise philosophicalformulationdates
* This article is a translation of 'Reflexions sur le developpement de la semiologie musicale', in Jean-JacquesNattiez, De la
semiologiea la musique(Montreal: University of Quebec at Montreal, 1988), pp.l89-234. The French article was itself an
amalgamationand updating of two articles: 'Les Tendances de la recherche en semiologie musicale', in La Musiqueet le rite,
sacre et profane, Proceedings of the 13th congress of the International Society for Musicology (Strasbourg, 29 August-3
September 1982), Association des publications pres les Universites de Strasbourg, Vol. 2 (1987), pp.759-80, and 'La
Semiologie musicale dix ans apres', Analysemusicale,No. 2 (February 1986), pp.22-33, 51.
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

JEAN-JACQUES NATTIEZ
back to a slim volume by Hanslick, VomMusikalisch-Schonen (1854). This

conceptionof musicfinds its directmusico-semiological echoin the theoretical
definitionsof Jakobson(1970, in 1973a:99-100)and the practicalresearchof
Ruwet(1972).Thereis nothingsurprisingin this:classicalstructuralism desires
aboveall to be immanent, andit wasno doubtdue to this deepaffinitythatLevi-
Strausssoughtin music the model of his conceptionof myth (cf. 1955; 1964:
'Ouverture';1971:'Finale').(On this see Nattiez 1988:Chapter4.)
Conversely,thereexistsa long philosophicaland aesthetictradition- which
datesbackto the Platonictheoryof ethos- for whichit is in the natureof music
to evoke feelings, to transmitemotionsand even to describeevents. It was
againstthis streamof thought that, from a normativestandpoint,Hanslick
fought. It can be found todayin the writingsof musicologistsas differentas
Meyer (1956) or Supicic(1957) amongstothers. This ontologicalconception
clearlyunderpinsthe semanticresearchof Frances(1958),Cooke(1959),Coker
(1972), Noske (1977a)and Imberty(1979, 1981), with, as one can imagine,
notablemethodologicaldivergences.Todayit is enjoyinga returnto favour,no
doubtbecauseof the demiseof pureserialismin the 1950s.The anthropological
perspectivevery much in vogue amongethnomusicologistsno longersees in
musicmerelya playof formsand structures,but productsfunctionallyrelated
to the social, and most often ritual, contextsin which they appear:thus, the
generalposition of Blacking(1973) has links with the tendency of musical
semiologyto treatmusicas a culturalsymbol.
To my mind, the two perspectivesare in no way incompatibleunless one
exercisesan ontologicalexclusivismwhich quicklytends to becomedogmatic
and normative.Bright(1963) was probablyright to see in music an element
whichis at onceendosemantic (thestructuresreferto structures)andexosemantic
(referralto the outsideworld).It is my beliefthatthe distributionof importance
accorded to these two dimensions varies according to historical period,
aesthetics,cultureand the individual,and that one cannotfavourone to the
detrimentof the other:these areall the formsof referralwhicha semiologyof
musicworthyof the namemustbe preparedto takeinto consideration.
2: TheEpistemological Orzentationof theAuthor
Semiologicaltheories of music can be differentiatedfurther accordingto
whether one envisagesdiscussion on music more as an act of exegesis or
followingthe modelof the strictsciences:thus the slantwill be eithertowards
hermeneuticsor towardsformalisation,with all stagesin between.
The hermeneuticalside can accommodatethe 'explicationde textes' (Feld
1982), textual clarification(Noske 1977a)and a Marxist(Blacking1973) or
psychoanalytical(Fonagy 1983) orientation.And in the domain of musical
semantics,a psychologistsuchas Imberty(1979, 1981)attemptsto combinethe
most rigorousexperimentalpsychologywith a psychoanalytical interpretation
of the utmostelegance.
On the sideof formalisation,around1975debatecentredon the oppositionof
hypothetico-deductive(basically, generative)and inductive (distributional)
22 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

REFLECTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMIOLOGY IN MUSIC
models,influencedby a similardebatein linguistics,but findingits rootsin far

more widely-basedepistemologicaldiscussions(Ruwet 1975, Nattiez 1975a:
386-91).The firstoptionproceedsfromhypothesesregardingthe objectunder
examination,andgoeson to verifythem. The second'goesback'fromempirical
observation towards more general assertions. Going beyond entrenched
positionsof principle,it is legitimateto ask whether,in practice,there is not
always an element of intuition in the inductive method and an element of
implicittaxonomyin the deductiveone. If this is the case,preferenceaccorded
to one modelor the otherhasless to do with the purityof a positionof principle
thanwith the natureof the phenomenonin question.The debateis not closed.
Of course there is nothing to become alarmedabout, because musical
semiologiesare affectedby the same intellectualcurrentsthat stimulatethe
humansciencesof this century,but whichcontributeto givea distinctivecolour
to the workof eachresearcher.
At the time of the first congressof semioiicsin music, in Belgradein 1973,
Stefanicould state:'Withoutmentioningotherelements,it seemsto me that a
predominant characteristicof our research is the rigorousness which
contributesto the constitutionof semioticsas a science' (1975b: 10). I still
subscribe to this statement, but it is no longer possible to reduce the
epistemologicalstakes to the opposition of hermeneuticsand formalism.
Becausealthoughseverityis a guaranteeof epistemologicalvigour,it is not this
which, defacto, conferson anyresearchits semiological character.
3: TheSelectionof a SemiologicalParadigm
Overandaboveepistemologicalpreferences,musicalsemiologywouldno doubt
advancea far moreunifiedfrontif thereexisteda singlegeneralsemiology.In
fact, therecanbe as manymusicalsemiologiesas therearetheoriesandtheorists
of semiology.
One would think that it is easy to give musicalsemiologya minimumand
universaldefinition- the science of signs in music - based on the classic
definitionof the sign accordingto St Augustine:aliquidstatproaliquo.But it is
onlystatedexplicitlyby a smallnumberof authors(Nattiez,Noske, Lidov);and
above all, as we have seen, researchersare not in agreementon the natureof
referraleffectedby the musicalsign.
Fromthe outset,I shouldlike to put asidea kindof debatewhichseemsto me
particularlysterile:should one talk of 'semiotics'or 'semiology'?During the
1960s,certainpeopleset themselvesup as specialistsin this kind of quibbling,
hoping to attach some specific semiologicalorientationto one of the two
availablewords. But would there be only two basic tendencies, two basic
orientationsin generalsemiology?. . . If, from the time of my first worksin
1971, I chosethe Frenchtermsemiologie ratherthansemiotique,it was not with
the intentionof settingmyselfapartfromAmericansemiotics(Peirce,Morris),
which was beginningto be knownin France,but becausethe term semiotique
was being coinedby a certainnumberof hippy pseudo-thinkersfromwhom I
wantedto dissociatemyself, and who are certainly,moreover,responsiblefor
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 23

JEAN-JAC(2UES NATTIEZ
the current decay of semiologicalresearch. In addition, at that time, my

thoughtswerefollowingthe pathof the preoccupationsopenedup by Saussure,
who alwaysused the termsemiologie. But in English-speaking countriesandin
Italy,thetermssemiotics andsemioticahaveprevailed,andthereis no reasonwhy
I shouldnot conformto whathasbecomelinguisticpracticein theselanguages.*
Seen froma European,or morepreciselya Frenchor Italian,pointof view,
the birth and developmentof contemporarysemiologyareinextricablylinked
with structuralism.But the term'structuralism' is vastandcanencompass:the
work of the Russianformalistsat the beginningof the century;the Coursde
linguistiquegenerale(1922) of Saussure,with the theoreticaland semiological
extensionsprovidedby the glossematicsof Hjelmslev(1943); the linguistic,
poeticandsemiologicalresearchof the Praguefunctionalistschoolbetweenthe
wars (cf. for exampleMatejka-Titunik1976), where Troubetskoi,Jakobson
and Mukarovsky (1977, 1978) held sway; the so-called semiology of
communicationwhich,withBuyssens(1943),Prieto(1966),Mounin(1970)and
Jeanne Martinet (1973), has links with the French version of Prague
functionalism(AndreMariinet1967);the nowbroken-upschoolof Tartuin the
USSR (Lucid 1977); the anthropologicalstructuralismof Levi-Strauss,
particularlyin his analysisof myths(1958:Chapter11), whichdrawsexplicitly
on semiology(1973: 18); the structuralismof Greimasapplied to linguistic
semantics(1966, 1970, 1983)and to the analysisof literaryworks(1976);the
proposalsof Barthes(1964), where earlyon, linguisticreferences(Saussure,
Hjelmslev)combinedwith a criticalorientationof a thematicorder;and the
mostrecentattemptsof Eco (1975, 1976, 1979)in generalsemiology.
I think that it is importantto emphasise the historzoallink which the
developmentof semiologyin Europeshowswith linguistics,preciselybecause,
historically,the semiologicalproject has been taken on board initially by
* * . * * .
specla.lStSm 1ngulstlcs.
This convergencecan, from the point of view of the history of ideas, be
explainedby a numberof factors.On the one hand, Saussurehas proventhe
necessity of placing languagein relationto other systems of symbols: 'The
linguist'staskis to definewhatmakeslanguagesa specialtype of systemwithin
the totalityof semiologicalfacts' (1983: 16). This is the perspectiveof com-
parativesemiology.But Saussurewent further:'Linguisticsservesas a model
for the whole of semiology,even though languagesrepresentonly one type
of semiologicalsystem' (1983: 68). In sayingthis, Saussureopened the way
forthe importationof linguisticmodelsintothe studyof non-linguisticdomains.
The developmentof semiology in France in the 1960s derived from the
combinationof two aspectsof the Saussurianheritage:an olderphilosophical
traditionof thoughton languagerevitalisedby phenomenology(cf. forexample
Dufrenne1967),andthe preoccupation,fundamentalin the humansciencesof
this era, of giving them a method of approachwhich was consideredmore
* Nevertheless, in order to preserve the exact terminology ofthe original, I have translated'semiologie' as 'semiology', rather
than 'semiotics', throughout. [Translator'snote]

scieniific: this could be found in the structural- notably phonological-

linguisticmodels which emergedat that time. Literature(Jakobson,Ruwet,
Barthes),anthropology(Levi-Strauss)andpsychoanalysis(Lacan)seizedupon
it or madefrequentreferencesto it, andone didnot hesitateto taLkof linguistics
as 'the pilot scienceof the humansciences'(cf. Ruwet 1963).
The confluencein Europeof linguisticsand semiologyin the 1960scan thus
be explainedwith referenceto epistemologies.
In structuralthought,andin the pathof Saussureand Hjelmslev,the sign is
conceivedless as the union of a signifierand a signifiedthan as an element
integratedinto a system,undertakingwithits neighbours'opposingand negative'
relations.It is mostimportantto rememberthatthe emergenceof structuralism
occurredin a postwarintellectualclimatedominatedby phenomenologyand
hermeneutics:this is attested by the thought of Sartre, the influence of
Heideggerover a numberof Frenchintellectuals,and the worksof Dufrenne
and Ricoeur.Moreover,it was Ricoeurwho, in a remarkablearticleof 1967,
summarisedvery clearlythe principlesof structuralism,in orderto denounce
them:
The typeof intelligibilitywhichexpressesitselfin structuralism
triumphsin
eachinstancewhereone can:
a) workon an alreadydefinedcorpus- complete,finiteand, in this sense,
dead;
b) establishinventoriesof elementsandunits;
c) placethese elementsor units in opposingrelation,preferablyin binary
Opposltlon;and
* .
d) establishan algebraor a matrixof theseelementsandopposingcouples

(in Ricoeur1969:80).
In oppositionto the infiniteexplorationof factualsignificationspractisedby

phenomenological hermeneutics,structurallinguisticsseemedto openthe way
to r1gorousscsent1t1capproaches:
* . . _
* treatedaccordingto its differencesin a system, the sign was characterised

essentiallyby a playof relations;
* this formalapproachsatisfiedthe principleof immanence;
* in addition,the rulesfor the determinationof phenomenaandthe principles
of distributionalanalysisenabledit to meet the demandof clarifyingthe
scientificprocessesused in the study of a given corpus; soon generative
grammar,in proposingto test rules, encounteredthe Popperiancriterionof
falsification.
This essentiallyformaland formalistprocess could today seem in conflict
with the intuitive and spontaneousidea which one has of the sign. Each
empiricaldomain would demand a specific examinationwhich cannot be
enteredintohere.Butmusicofferedplentyof scopeforthisapproach,sincefew

JEAN-JAC{2UES NATTIEZ
peoplechallenged theideacurrentafterHanslick,namelythat,in Stravinsky's

words,'musicis, byits verynature,essentially powerless to expressanythingat
all . . . Expressionhasneverbeenan inherentpropertyof music'(1936:53).
The sameidearecurswithVarese:'Mymusiccannotexpressanythingother
thanitself',andwithBoulez:'Musicis anartthathasno"meaning"' (1961,in
Boulez1986:32).
In the UnitedStates,semiologyhascompletelydifferentintellectual roots:
theyareat oncephilosophical andlogical- withthe disparate textsof Peirce
appearing between1930and 1958- andrelatedbothto the behaviourist and
pragmatic currentandto the epistemology of unifiedsciencein the workof
CharlesMorris(1938,1971).(SeeNattiez1988:Chapters8 and9.) Besides,
semiology developed laterinAmerica thaninEurope.Whereas in Europeit was
atitsheightin thesixties,it wasin theseventiesthatit developed significantly in
theUnitedStates,in particular undertheeditorialandinstitutional impetusof
ThomasA. Sebeok.
Butto reducethedevelopment of semiologyto thesebroadlydefinedtrends
wouldbe to take an extremelysimplisticview. In Europe,around1968,
semiologists openedthe doorto Marxismandpsychoanalysis (the Tel Quel
group,Derrida,Kristeva,Lacan),notto mentionthe'philosophers of desire':
LyotardandDeleuze.Morrisand,aboveall, Peircearemorefrequently cited
thanbefore,andit is possibleto talk- withGardin(1974,1979),Granger (1967,
1968), Molinoinitially(1969, 1971)- of a neo-positivistsemiology,less
conspicuous but studiedwithcareandinterestby certaingroups,a tendency
whichdevelopedauthentically semiological thought(alsoacknowledging this
debt)on thenatureof thescientificlanguages, andwhoseoriginscanbe traced
backasfarasLeibniz,LockeandCondillac, viaWittgenstein, theViennacircle
andthe logicsof Carnap.OntheAmericanside,authorssometimestalkedof
semiology,or skimmedthe surfaceof the subject,but did not involve
themselves,to my knowledge,in the associations andgroupsthatofficially
wavedthesemiological banner.However,theyhadincommonacentralinterest
in the functionof symbols. I am thinkingparticularlyof critics and
anthropologists suchasWhite(1949),Burke(1960)orGeertz(1973)- seealso
BassoandSelbyeds (1976)- andpsychologists suchas Bates(1979)andthe
membersof 'ProjectZero'atM.I.T.
Todayallthesecurrentscoexist.In thewakeof thefoundingfathers(Peirce,
Morris,Saussure,Hjelmslev),the leadinglights of the sixties(Jakobson,
Barthes)have disappeared, have broughtnothingdecisivelynew to their
originalassertions(Greimas,Levi-Strauss,Mounin)or have movedon to
pasturesnew (Kristeva- in the end the fact that she evercalledherselfa
semiologist willbeforgotten).OnlyEco,amongstthewell-known names,seems
to meto be preserving theflameof dynamicthoughtandaction.
Inaddition,wearelivingata timewhentrendsandinterestsarebreaking up.
(But is this 'privilege'confinedto semiologyalone?. . . ) Dependingon
epistemologies, tastesand temperaments, semiologyhas been givenwidely
divergentobjectives.Forsome,it is a matterof comparing languagewiththe

26
domainunder consideration,then of analysingit and transposingthe

phonological model(Mounin); forothers'structuralism andsemiologysharea
similarperspective'(Tremblay-Querido 1973:9). With the followingsig-
nificantformula,thisauthorformallyrecorded anhistoricconvergence defacto
betweena schoolanda discipline,in thedirectionopenedup by Levi-Strauss
fromthe timeof his openingcourseat the Collegede Francein 1960:'I see
anthropology as the sincereoccupantof this domainof semiology,which
linguisticshas not alreadyclaimedwithoutgood reason'(1973: 18). For
Barthes,whodoesnothesitateto includesemiology in linguistics,'theessential
elementof semiological analysisconsistsin distributing an inventoryof facts
accordingto syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes'(1964:116), i.e. they are
consideredfrom the point of view of their successivityor their rules of
substitution.FollowingMorris,Gardinseesa semiologyin allknowledge, that
is, thepassageof a systemof signs-objectsto a metalanguage consisting itselfof
signs(1974:73-4),etc.
Withthisbrieflisting,I wanttoremindthereaderwhowouldmaketheeffort
to persistwithsemiological literatureonmusicthatin semiology thereexistsno
generaltheoretical frameof reference.The conceptionof a singlesemiology
suffersfrom the fact that it is, ultimately,enoughto bestowthe name
semiological onanykindof research forthatresearch tobeabletodrawuponit.
Moreover, a semiological theoryappliesto thevastdomainof symbolicforms.
Accordingly, it obeysthe fundamental ruleswhicharecharacteristic of their
operation: justliketheparameters of anartisticsystem,theconstituent atomsof
a theorytendto separatefromeachotherandto developin an autonomous
manner.Lastly, and in contrastto linguistics,sociologyor psychology,
semiologyhasno objectexclusiveto itself:thesignis everywhere.
Withthepassageof time,wehavethusseenaprogressive autonomisation and
diversif1cationof thevarioussemiological streams,to suchanextentthatapart
fromthelabelof semiology,Greimas's theoryhasno pointof intersection with
thatof Peirce,forexample,andin a semiological congressfollowersof bothcan
easilycoexist:theycanhardlybeareachotheranddonotunderstand eachother
anyway.Thusit is not surprising to findthisfragmentation of orientations in
musicalsemiologyalso:to mentiononlysemiological references,Boilesdraws
onMorrisanda littleof Peirce,CokeronMorris,Escalon Derrida,Imbertyon
Peirce,LidovonPeirce,Jakobson andRuwet,NattiezonMounin,Molinoand
Ruwet,Moutardon MartinetandMounin,Stefanion Eco,Prieto,Hjelmslev
andmanyothers,Stoianova on Kristeva,TarastionGreimas andLevi-Strauss,
etc.
Nevertheless it seemspossibleto meto discernin thesplintering of research
certaingeneralaxeswhicharenaturally,however,not watertight.My aimis
merelyto put forwardsomepointsof referenceforthe researcher whowould
ventureintothe mazeof thisliterature.A detailedstudyof all thesecurrents
wouldsoonturnintoa criticalbibliography of threehundredpages.*
* An extensive bibliography of music semiology is found in Nattiez 1988: 263-330. [Ed.]

OFMUSICALSEMIOLOGIES
II:THEMAINORIENTATIONS
1: GeneralTheories ofMusicalSemiology
It wouldseemthatthenumberof researchers whohavedevotedthemselves to
musicalsemiology astheexplicitandprincipal objectof theirworkis somewhat
limited:CharlesBoiles (Montreal),David Lidov (Toronto),Jean-Jacques
Nattiez(Montreal), GinoStefani(Bologna) andEeroTarasti(Helsinki).Tarasti
canbeplacedwithintheframework of Greimas'sthoughtandhasdistinguished
himselfaboveall as an editorand conferenceorganiser.WhereasLidov's
thoughtstill oscillatesbetweendifferentorientations,Stefaniclearlysees
musicalsemiology asthedefinition elementsinmusicin relationtoa
of signifser
givenfact,relayedbymeansof a codein theEconiansense.ForBoiles,musical
semiologywasthe studyof significations witha musicin thesocio-
associated
culturalcontextof itsexecution.Asformyself,reference model
to thetripartite
of JeanMolinois manifest throughout my writings.
Ofcourse,hereandthereonefindsother'projects in musicalsemiology'.In
particulartherearethearticlesby Orlov(1981),FordandClarke(1981),even
SergeMartin's book(1978),althoughreadingthemprovessomewhat irritating
whenonenoticesthattheytakealmostnoaccountof existingworks- andI am
notthinkingnecessarily of myown.Osmond-Smith hasproduced textscentred
on iconicity,a themeoncecherishedby Italiansemiologists,but they have
remained attheleveloftheory(1972,1973,1975a,1975b,1976).AndKneifhas
persevered in questioning the natureof musicalmeaning(Kneif1973a,b, c;
1974a,b; 1975a,b). I shouldalsomentiontherecentphilosophical andaesthetic
essayof Kremer(1984),whichf1ndsits rootsin Schopenhauer, Hanslick,
Cassirer,PanofskyandLanger.
2: TheTypology ofSigns
Itwouldseemobviousthatmusicsemiology's taskis tostudythesignsofmusic.
However,generalsemiologyexperiences in definingthe
thegreatestdiff1culty
differentkinds of signs: the semiologicaltypologieson the marketare
contradictory.In fact,few authorshavedevotedthemselvesto attempting to
def1nethetypesof musicalsigns.Cokerdoessoin hisworkMusicandMeaning
(1972);Boiles(1982b),anxiousto put forwarda metalanguage for musical
semiology, fortheanalysis
believedthistypologynecessary ofmusicalprocesses
(OnthisproblemseeNattiez1988:Chapter9.)
of signification.
3: TheInfluenceof theGreatThinkers
The greatleadingf1guresof semiologyhaveinfluenced,to a greateror lesser
extent,andin contradictoryways,thedifferentmusicalsemiologists.
EventhoughPeirceis todayperhapsthemostfrequently citedofthefounders
of semiology, tomusicalsemiologists.
hisconceptshavebeenoflittleinspiration
It is necessaryto pointout the notableexceptionof the Berlinphilosopher
Christoph Hubig,whositsatthejunctionof pragmatics andhermeneutics: like
myself,Hubigbaseshis approach on the Peirceianconceptionof the infinite

interpretant (1976:140).Elsewhere in his workonefindsa perception of the

discrepancy betweenpoieticsandesthesicsbasedon the interpretant (1973:
200). Deeplyinterestedin semiologically-inspired approaches to the musical
fact,he contributed criticalandsympathetic commentaries (1981,1982)to the
earlydaysof thediscipline.Onthelevelof epistemology, thethoughtof Hubig
stronglyremindsus that a musicalsemiologyfoundedon the Peirceian
interpretant cannotavoidthequestionof its relationto hermeneutics.
Inmyownwork,theconceptoftheinterpretant - in thesenseputforward by
Granger (1968:114)- is absolutely central.It is dueto theexistenceof infinite
interpretants thattomymindthestructuralist projectdoesnotseemviable,and
thatit is thusnecessary to haverecourseto themodelof tripartition.
Theinfluenceof Morrishashadits effecton Coker(1972)andBoiles(1973,
1982b),butin myopinionit is confinedto thelevelof terminology. (Cf.Nattiez
1988:Chapter8.)
Levi-Strauss andstructuralism areattherootofafairlyvastbodyofliterature
(Zagiba1955,Deliege1965a,Mayer1967,Fubini1968,1973:56-69,Firca
1972,Chase1973):moreoften thannot, these texts havea programmatic
character. Aboveallit wasthestandpoints takenbyLevi-Strauss onserialmusic
andmusiqueconcrete inLe Cruet le cuit(1964)whichloosenedpeople'spens(cf.
Deliege1965b,Lefebvre1966,Eco 1971,Pousseur1971,Court1973).His
analysisof Ravel'sBolero,in thesFinale'of L'Hommenu(1971),deservesto be
interpretedin termsof the overallcourseof Levi-Straussian thought.(Cf.
Nattiez1988:Chapter 4.)
TogetherwithLevi-Strauss, Greimasis theessentialinspiration forTarasti
(1978,1984),whoattemptsto transfertheconceptsof structural semanticsto
musicandto createthebasisof a specifically music-semiological terminology.
Grabocz(1987)appliesGreimas's conceptof narrative semioticsto the piano
worksof Liszt.
As forBarthes,we oweto himonlyonetrulysemiological text,'L'Artvocal
bourgeois'(1970: 168-70),which containshis analyticalmodel basedon
denotationandconnotation (eventhoughas a criticBartheswrotenumerous
textsonmusic,whichhelovedandpractised; cf. Barthes1982:217-77).Itis the
textofMythologies which,discussedbyEco,hasbeenableto temptsomemusic
semiologists (Stefani1976c,Hirschberg 1987).
Theinfluenceof Ecohasexerteditselfparticularly on Stefani(1976c,1987),
essentially withreference to hisexpedientnotionof code.GiventhatEcois the
mostactivetheoretician in semiological matters,diversediscussions on music
semiologyare oftenplacedin relationto him (cf. Godzich1978,Schneider
1980).Forthe samereason,in the firstchapterof my newbook,Musicologie
ge'ne'rale (1987b),I havedevoteda longcriticaldiscussionto his
et se'miologie
work.
of Music
4: TheSemio-Linguistics
I have mentionedabovethe elementswhich favouredthe conjunctionof
semiologyand linguistics.This juxtapositionopened the way for two

perspectives:
1) WhatI have proposedto call the comparative semiologyof musicand
language(whichwasalsoputto extensiveuseforthecinema,photography and
painting).Sincehumanlanguageappearedto be a fairlyexemplarykindof
systemof signs,the semiological
definitionof musiccouldbe builtup by the
repliesto questionssuchas:whatarethe analogiesbetweenthe noteandthe
phoneme? aretheunitsof musiccomparable to thoseof language?
whatis the
natureof musicalsignification?
(Cf.forexampleSpringer1956.)
2) And sinceit was a questionof importinglinguisticmodelsinto a non-
linguisticdomain,this comparativesemiologyhad to affordthe necessary
safeguardsforthetransposition
of models.(Cf.Nattiez1988:Chapters2-7.)
Thefirstlinguistictooltobeusedin theconstruction of a musicalsemiology,
whichallowedmusicto be treatedas a systemof signswhichbetweenthem
supportedintrinsicrelations,on the basisof a taxonomy of clearlyidentified
units,wasprobablythe distinctionbetweenthe syntagmaandthe paradigm
derivedfromSaussure.The methodology putforwardby NicolasRuwetin a
nowhistoricarticle(1966,in 1972:100-34)couldnotavoidcomingup against
theformalistprinciplesconveyedbythemusicalaesthetic ofthetime,principles
whichJakobson seemstometohavedefinedextremely wellasfollows:'Nicolas
Ruwet. . . statesthatmusicalsyntaxis a syntaxof equivalences: thediverse
units standin mutualrelationsof multiformequivalence.This statement
promptsa spontaneous answerto the intricatequestionof musicalsemiosis:
insteadof aimingatsomeextrinsicobject,musicappearsto be "unlangagequi
se signifiesoi-meme".Diverselybuilt and rankedparallelisms of structure
enabletheinterpreter ofanyimmediately perceived musicalsignanstoinferand
anticipatea furthercorresponding constituent(e.g. series)andthe coherent
ensembleof theseconstituents.Preciselytheinterconnection of partsaswellas
their integrationinto a compositional whole acts as the propermusical
signatum' (1970:11-12).
Amidtheeuphoriaof the guarantee of scientificstatureprovidedformusic
analysisby linguistics,semiological
gluttonywas readyto absorbtwo other
broadlinguisticmodels:phonologyandgenerativegrammar.Todaywe are
furtherawayfromthe effervescence of thesebeginnings; so I shallattemptto
give an impressionof these analyseswhich, under the influenceof
structuralism,tackletheimmanent dimension of theworks.
1)The object,in linguistics,of thephonological
modelis to determinewhich
soundsare the sole propertyof a language:Japanesemakesno distinction
betweenI andr; Frenchdistinguishes betweenthe e of 'chantai'andthe e of
'chantais';Germandistinguishesbetweenthe ch of 'Kirche'and that of
'Kirsche'.Therulesforthedetermination of phonemescouldthusbe adapted
to a classicproblemof ethnomusicology: whatarethe pitchesexclusiveto a

musicalsystem?Aftersomeratherprogrammatic attempts(Nettl1958,Bright
1963),translatedinto Frenchin No. 5 of Musiqueen 3'eu (1971),the most
successfulenterprisewas that of VidaChenoweth(1979),who proposeda
methodology basedonthephonology oftheAmerican linguistKennethPike.In
herbookon the Usarufas,onecanfindthe 'etic'transcription of the studied
musicalcorpus,i.e. asheardby a Westernear,andits 'emic'transcription,
i.e.
asit correspondsto theindigenousmusicalsystem.Inthisway,Chenoweth was
able to demonstrate in anotherwork(1966)that the musicalsystemof the
Gadsups of NewGuineamadedistinctions of a quartertone(shownbya +) and
appeared thus:
Ex. 1
+ + +
F J JxJxJJ J
Itwouldbeunjustto saythatthisapproach hasenjoyeda greatposterityonly

for reasonswhich, perhaps,apply less to its intrinsicqualitiesthan to
epistemological
circumstances.Whilethequestionof scaleswastheorderofthe
dayin ethnomusicologyfromits firstdevelopments(theBerlinschool)to the
1960s,Chenoweth's methodsemergedat a timewhenethnomusicology was
preoccupiedaboveallwithexplainingmusicbyitscontext;thereforeit wasless
concernedwithanalysing whatevertheirnature.
internalstructures,
2) According to theprinciplesof Chomsky,a generative grammar proposesto
describe,througha finitenumberof rules,the infinityof phraseswhichare
acceptablein a language.Needlessto say, generativelinguisticshas never
succeededin advancingthe completedescription of a givenlanguage.In the
domainofmusic,thegenerative tooladaptedparticularlywelltothedescription
of style.Onceagain,it wasaboveallethnomusicology whichbenefitedfromthe
method,andwith somesuccess.Worksin this fieldarenumerous,2 but the
grammar ofJavanese elaborated
srepegan byJudithandAltonBecker(1979)will
be keptasa kindof model,sinceit is efficientenoughto allowthecomposition
of newpiecesby proceeding fromtheproposedrules.OntheWesternmusical
front,MarioBaroniandCarloJacoboniput forwarda generative grammar of
the sopranopartof Bach'schorales,one of the raregrammars whichwas
genuinelytestedby computer(1976);andtheyarecurrentlyworkingon the
generation of theharmonic component (Baroniet al., 1984).
Buttheinfluenceof theChomskian pathis notlimitedtothestylisticanalysis
of differentcorpuses.Justlikeartisticsystems,andlikesemiological theories,
theChomskian modeltendstowardsfragmentation, allthemoreso since,apart
from its linguisticaspects,it presentspsychological,epistemological and
philosophical dimenisions,andsince,in thecasewithwhichI amconcerned, it

is appliedto a domainforwhichit wasnotconceived.Ina forthcoming work,I

shalldevoteanextendedstudyto thediversemusicological trendsinformedby
Chomskianthought.In the presentcontext,I shall contentmyselfwith
mentioning themostimportant of these.3
Very earlyon (Forte 1959),theoristswho adoptedthe propositionsof
Schenkerforharmonicanalysiswerestruckby theremarkable analogywhich
existsbetweenChomsky's model- he proposesto generatea surfacestructure
from a deep structurevia the intermediary of transformations - and the
Schenkerian modelwhichidentifiesanunderlying base(Hintergrund),a median
base(Mittelgrund) anda generative surfacebase(Vordergrund). Theanalogyhas
notfailedto giveriseto worksaimingto usetheChomskian modelto expressa
Schenkerian analysis,notablythoseof Kassler(1967,1975)andSmoliar (1980).
In contrastto the paradigmatic approach,which is often describedas
taxonomicalor classificatory, the Chomskianperspectiveis hypothetico-
deductive.It proposesto proceedfromourintuitionregarding thestructureof
the studieddomain,afterwhichone establishesrulesto accountfor it and
modifiesthemif theirconsequences proveunacceptable. A certainnumberof
workshavetherefore usedtheChomskian modelin ordertotesttherelevance of
a pre-existent, classictheory.This is the theoreticaldirection which Ruwet
proposed in 1975.Inthesamespirit,onecancitetheempirical workofRothgeb
(1968),whotakesfigured-bass treatisesasa startingpointandexamineswhat
additionalrulesareneededin orderforit tobepossibletogenerate mechanically
theexpectedmusicalresult.
Lastly,I mustmentionanotherbranchof Chomskyism, mainlyto avoid
confusion.ThemoreChomskyhasevolved,themorehe hasinsisted,without
alwaysproviding muchempirical proof,onthepsychological orevenbiological
relevanceof generativegrammars,whencethe link has establisheditself
betweenChomskyismand cognitivepsychology.It is becausethey gave
themselves thetaskof providinggeneralruleswhichcontroltheperception of
musicthatLerdahlandJackendoff calledtheirbookA Generative Theoryof
TonalMusic(1983).Withthisbook,we areprobablydealingwithoneof the
mostremarkable worksofmusicanalysispublishedin thelastfewyears,butone
whosemethodology remainstaxonomical.4 Thequalityoftheproductis beyond
question,butthemethodis misguided.
Onecanseethat,in a generalway,thegenerative perspective emphasisespre-
existentintuitionsor theoriesas a pointof departure. Historically,Chomsky
developedhis conceptionsin reactionto a linguisticcurrentsomeof whose
musicalapplications I shallproceedtodiscuss,andinconnection withwhichthe
paradigmatics of Ruwethavealreadybeenmentioned: thiswastheperspective
of Harris(1951),whichemphasised ofprocedures
theclarification ofenquiryin
linguisticwork.
techniqueworkedoutby Ruwethasseenvarioustypesof
3) Theparadifmatic
theveryfirstextensions
development.Fifteenyearsafterproposing ofRuwet's
method(Arom1969),SimhaAromappliedit systematically to takeaccountof

the polyphoniesand polyrhythmsof CentralAfrica in a considerableand

voluminouswork(1985), which ought, amongotherthings, to overturna fair
numberof receivedideason improvisationin musicof an oraltradition.Stillon
the subjectof ethnomusicology,I shouldmentiona studyby MoniqueBrandily
of a Tibesti song (1976),the researchof the FinnishE. Pekkila(1986)and the
work of the MontrealGroupede Recherchesen SemiologieMusicaleon the
music of the Inuit (cf. Nattiez 1983a). With referenceto Western music,
Vaccaroappliedthe methodto a piece of Renaissancevocalmusic (1975), and
the monographof ElisabethMorinon the Englishvirginalists(1979)allowsa
comparisonof the treatmentof a singlethemeby two composers.The themeof
Mozart'sSymphonyNo. 40 has benefitedfrom a real taxonomicalfortune-
irrespectiveof the theoreticaldenominationof authors- with Stefani(1976c:
37-46) criticisedby Noske (1977b), and Bernstein(1982: 45-9) criticisedby
LerdahlandJackendoff(whoworkon this themethroughouttheirbook, 1983:
22-8, 47-52, 85-90, 258-60). It has to be said that the taxonomicalperspective
lends itself particularlywell to the studyof syntacticallyambiguousstructures
(as is the casein this theme),as I haveattemptedto demonstratewith regardto
the Intermesso Op. 119, No. 3 by Brahms (in Nattiez 1975a: 297-330).
Similarly,I havedevoteda hundredor so pagesto anattemptto pushto thelimit
the possibilitiesfor combinatoryenquiryof a piece as shortand as apparently
simple as Densite21.5 (Nattiez 1975b).Since Ruwet'sstudy of the preludeto
Pelleas(1964, in 1972: 70-95), Debussy has become the object of particular
attentionin musicalsemiology:Ruwet'sarticlewas the objectof an extended
critique (Nattiez 1973a); Lidov became interestedin Voiles(1975: 87-98);
Syrinxprovidedthe materialfor a detailedinvestigation(in Nattiez 1975a:330-
54);MarcelleGuertin(1986)treatedtechniquesof thematicdevelopmentin the
first book of Preludes;and in AustraliaCraig Ayrey (1985) has recently
undertakena comparisonof analysesof Brayeres on thebasisof theparadigmatic
technique.6
5: MusicalSemantics
This is perhapsthe domainof musicsemiologythatis mostdifficultto delimit.
If one considersthat the sense of music resides in the play of its forms,
everythingis semantic.If, on the otherhand(andthis is my view), one admits
that it is possibleto distinguishbetweenintrinsicand extrinsicsignifications,
then the term 'musicalsemantics'can be reservedfor the explorationof the
lattercategory.
But the situationis no simplerfor all that. There exists, particularlyin the
field of aesthetics, an abundantliteratureof a philosophicalnature on the
affective, emotive, expressive, denotative, connotative, symbolic, image-
provokingcharacterof music.TheZournal ofAesthetics
andArtCriticism has,for
a long time andamongstmanyothers,been the mouthpiecefor theserecurrent
modes of thought. And it is easy to understandthat, in these researches,the
comparison with the signification of language is regularly taken into
consideration. Equally, one can guess how certain aesthetically crucial

discussionsbringintoplaythe existenceor non-existenceof musicalsemaniics:

I amthinkingparticularlyof the confluenceof Marxismandmusicology.In the
middleof the Stalinist-Jdanovian period, Lissa (1949)posed the question:'Is
musica semanticart?'In the contextof a dogmaticandrepressiveideology,the
replycould only be positive(cf. also Busch 1963, Finkelstein1970, etc.). It is
not surprising,therefore,to find an antiformalistsemiologyin favourin the
countriesof EasternEurope(cf. theworksof Vitanyi[1975]in Hungary,Kaden
[1973, 1975]in the GermanDemocraticRepublic,Lissa[1959, 1965]in Poland,
etc.). Czechoslovakiapresentsa particularlyoriginalaspect:in the works of
Jiranek(1972etseq.)or Doubravova(1972etseq.)andmanyothers,one senses
the threefoldinfluenceof a 'necessary'but relativelyflexible Marxism,the
semiological functionalism of Prague (Mukarovsky)and the theory of
intonationof the SovietmusicologistAssafiev(1930etseq).Hereagainis a good
exampleof a specific semiologicalcolouringdue to the confluenceof three
currentswhichthe capricesof historyaloneexplain.
I believethat it is possibleto distinguish,in the variousmusicalsemantics,
threemainareasof method.
1) Hermeneutical approaches: the work is plungedback into the contextfrom
which it emerged(biographyof the composer,argumentbehind the work,
culturalcontext, etc.). Underthe specificnameof musicalhermeneutics,this
approachwaspractisedin Germanyby Kretschmar.It goeswithoutsayingthat
there is absolutelyno attempthere at a systematicrationalisationof musical
signifiersandsignifieds,but ratherthe creationof a kindof discourseon music
which oscillates between profound phenomenologicalpenetration and
journalisticand anecdotalverbiage;here musical semanticscan be without
boundaries.
2) Musicological reconstruction:
especiallyin the context of vocal musics, this
involvesestablishinga fairlypreciselink betweenthe musicalmeansused and
the significationconveyedby the text. One thinksin particularof the worksof
Pirro, Schweitzerand Chailleyon Bach, the multitudeof exegeses on the
leitmotifs of Wagner, and recently Noske's book (1977a) on the operas of
MozartandVerdi.In the eraof Schutz,theseconnectionsweretheorisedabout
under the name Affektenlehre, and the exegesis of its propositionsconcerns
musicalsemantics.Similarlyrelevantis everythingthat dealswith the musical
rhetoric7developedby theoristssuchas Mattheson(1739),whichthe references
of Harnoncourtto musicas a demarcationof language(1984: 161-5)couldhelp
to bringto the foreagain.
Musicologicalinvestigationaimsto reconstitutethe situationwhichconfersa
more or less precisemeaningon a successionof notes. In ethnomusicology,
historicalenquiryis replacedby studiesin the field: in the worksof McLeod
(1971) and especiallyof Boiles (1967, 1969), followedby Beaudry(1983) and
Desroches(1980, 1982),the significationsrelatingto differentmusicalsignifiers
arecollectedwith the nativepeople.Insofaras Boilessucceededin establishing

a preciselink betweensignifiersandsignifiedsin the musicof the Tepehuaand

the Otomi,it is not impossibleto see in him, with hindsightanddespitecertain
methodologicalproblemsin his approach,the first authenticsemanticianof
music.
3) In a totally different spirit, experimentalpsychologyhas tackled the

significationsconveyedby music, notablyin Francewith the workof Frances
(1958), then in the numerousarticlesby Imberty,synthesisedin two recent
works: Entendrela musique(1979) and Les l:crituresdu temps(1981), with
empiricalapplicationto Brahmsand Debussy. His work deals with listing,
classifyingand pigeonholingthe verbalresponsesassociatedwith the musicby
appropriately chosenguinea-piglisteners.EventhoughImbertyhas attempted
to show the connectionbetween the responsesobtained and the temporal
dimensionof music, it remainsthe case that the reply to the questionof the
profound relationship between the signifier and the signified has been
elucidatedonly imperfectlyin the sphere of Westernmusic; which perhaps
explainsthe fact that, in the latestphaseof his research,Imbertyhas devoted
muchspaceto the psychoanalytical interpretationof the responsesobtained,an
unexpectedavenue of enquiry in an experimentalist.However, there is no
doubtin my mindthatthislinkexists.Eventhoughit hasbeenstronglydecried,
Cooke's The Languageof Music (1959) cannot fail to stimulatean attentive
reader:it seemsclearthatat the heartof tonalmusicthereexistsa stabilityin the
signifier-signified
relationship.And whatcanone sayaboutNoske'ssurprising
investigation,which demonstratesthe permanenceof a musicaltopos of death
(two, threeor four shortsfollowedby a long)fromLully to VerdiandWagner
(Noske 1977a:Chapter8)?
6: TheTripartite Conceptionof MusicalSemiology
Havingstronglyinsistedfrom 1972to 1975on the use of linguisticmodelsby
musicalsemiology,from 1974 I integratedthem into a broadersemiological
perspective:i.e. Jean Molino's theory of tripartition(1975). For him, the
domainsthat semiologystudiesaresymbolicfacts, insofaras thereareno texts
or musicalworks which are not the productof compositionalstrategies(the
domain studied by poietics) and which do not give rise to strategiesof
perception(the domaincoveredby esthesics).Betweenthese two therelies the
studyof the neutralor immanentlevel, i.e. the studyof structureswhicharenot
prejudgeda priorias pertainingeitherto poieticsor to esthesics.
It is noticeablethat the introductionof the tripartitetheory into musical
semiologyhas sometimesgone unnoticedby commentators.For example,by
Bent in the New Grovearticleon music analysis(1980), even thoughhe finds
plenty of room for the semiologicalorientationof analysis. No doubt it is
becauselinguisticmodelshaveimmediateempiricalefficacy,whilethe method
of tripartitionoftenremainsprogrammatic. Withregardto this, it hasgivenrise
particularlyto debatesof a theoreticalorder,notablyconcerningthe idea of a
neutrallevel.8This idea shockedthose who saw in it a demandfor 'scientific

neutrality'on the partof the authorof analyses,9or the affirmationof a level of

autonomy for musical works in relation to their cultural and social
determinants.The first interpretationis erroneous:as I have just said, the
neutralityof the immanentlevel only exists, for Molino,in relationto the two
otherpoles, and I wouldtend to emphasisethe clairvoyanceof Laske,who has
provided,in my opinion,the finest definitionof analysisof the neutrallevel:a
methodological artefact(1977:222). On the otherhand,the secondinterpretation
is absolutelyjust and I claimit as a truism.In fact, contraryto the prevailing
culturalcurrentin ethnomusicology,whichhas followedthe workof Merriam
(1964) and Blacking(1973), I do not believe that the structuresof a piece of
musicor of a musicalstylecanbe completelyexplainedby culture.Morever,at
presenta trendis emergingfor limitingculturaldeterminismto the modalities
of execution. What can be claimed with the neutral or immanentlevel is
preciselya degreeof autonomyfor the musicaltext without which it would
become difficultto explainthe transformationof musicalstyles throughthe
ages:thereexistsa potentialityofformwhichconstitutesanessentialdimension
of the symbolicfacts. The elementwhichthe tripartitiontheoryleavesopen to
investigationis the specificrelationbetweenthe threelevels, accordingto the
works,styles, epochsor situations.
Does this mean that everythingremainsspeculative?No. Like every new
paradigmof thought,tripartitiongivesriseto fragmentary researches,andthere
are at least three attemptsto apply its principlesto works: that of Naud on
NomosAlpha (1975), my own on Densite(1975b) and the recent work of
MarcelleGuertinon Debussy, which relatesthe immanentlevel to an esthesic
perspective(1986). GhislaineGuertin-Belanger has appliedthe formatto the
study of the style of interpretationof Glenn Gould and of his critics (1983,
1987).Furthermore,I havedevotedpartof my thoughtin the last few yearsto
the problemsof poiesis(1983e, 1983f, 1983g, 1984, 1985b).This has givenme
the opportunityto assess the differencebetweenimmanentanalysisand the
* . i
poletlc perspectlve:
1) While the immanentanalysis allows one to sweep over a corpus from

beginningto end, and in as systematica manneras possiblein relationto the
parameterswhichhavebeen set, the poieticinvestigationis sketchy:it revolves
aroundunits, more vaguelydefined elements or particularmomentsof the
piece.
2) Analysisis neverconcluded,as is well known,but the incompletenatureof

immanentanalysisandthatof poieticanalysisarenot of the samekind.The first
is due to the impossibilityof controllingand limitingthe descriptionand the
combinationof parameters;the secondis analogousto that which one facesin
history or, to follow Veyne (after Aristotle), in the earth sciences: the
investigationof historicaland socio-culturalexperiencewhich arisesin poietic
strategiesis infinite. In this sense, analysison the neutrallevel and poietic
analysisarewell andtrulyhermeneuticalundertakings,10 but oneswhichdo not

REFLECTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMFNT OF SEMIOLOGY IN MUSIC
operateon the samekindof experience.If thisanalysisis correct,therewouldbe

anotherpointof convergenceherebetweenformalismandexegesis.In the field
of epistemologyI have taken note of this convergenceby introducinginto
methodologicalthoughtthe conceptof 'plot'[intrigue] proposedby thehistorian
PaulVeyne(1971), as muchfor immanentmusicanalysis(1985c)as for poietic
investigation(1979b, 1983d).
I am reservingesthesicsfor anotherperiodof thought, but what I know of
studieson musicalperceptionmakesme thinkthat, mutatis mutandis, the above
observationswill apply equally to a comparisonof immanentanalysisand
esthesicanalysis.
While awaitingfurtherdevelopments,it is possible to put forwarda first
practicalapplicationof the theoryof tripartition.Moreover,it goes beyondthe
immediatepreoccupationsof musicalsemiologyand concernsthe educational
methodsof music analysis.In my experienceof teachingat the Universityof
Montreal,as well as in the courseof visitsto variousforeigninstitutions,I have
noticed that studentstodayneed, aboveall, points of reference.The last few
years have witnessed a proliferationof analytical trends. The various
ramifications,which I have attemptedto describeas far as musicalsemiology
goes, areat leastas numerouswhenone considersthe wholespectrumof music
analysis.To confinemyselfonly to the twentiethcentury,let me mentionin no
particularorderand with no claims to being comprehensive:the analysisof
works, forms and styles; the theories of Schoenberg,Reti, Ratz, Walker,
Keller,Epstein,Meyer;the set theoryof Forte;Schenkerian,neo-Schenkerian
and post-Schenkeriananalysis;the sociology, anthropology,psychologyand
soon the neuro-psychologyof music.... The student hears all this spoken
aboutin a moreor less allusive,moreor less profound,manner.Whenone sees
thatthis multiplicityof theoriesandaxesof researchcoincideswith a periodin
the historyof culturewherethe commandof philosophicalandepistemological
concepts does not predominate,the least one can do is try to propose a
frameworkto classifythe differentfamiliesof analysisandhelp the studentand
the musicologistto find their way.1lTripartitioncan do this immediately,by
postulatingsix mainanalyticalsituations:
1) The immanentwork
This concerns a kind of analysiswhich, proceedingfrom an explicit or

implicitmethodology,tacklesonly the immanentconfigurationsof the work.
The analysisby Boulezof rhythmin TheRiteofSpring (1966:75-145)is a perfect
exampleof this. As the authorindicatesexplicitly, it neutralisesthe poietic
element:'Ido not claimto havediscoveredherea creativeprocess,but to givean
accountof the result, the arithmeticalcontributionsbeing the only tangible
ones. If I havebeen ableto note all thesestructuralcharacteristics,it is because

theyarepresent;it is of littleimportancenowwhethertheywereincludedin the

work consciouslyor unconsciously'(: 142). And it is obvious that, in their
detail,the configurationsexposedby the authorcouldnot be consideredapriori
as estheticallypertinent,or in any case, not integrally.
2) g < 2
Poietic Work
process
One proceedsfrom an analysisof the work on the neutrallevel in orderto
drawconclusionson the poietics.For this modelI proposethe term'inductive
poietics'. It is one of the most frequent situationsin music analysis. One
observesso manyrecurrentprocessesin a work or a groupof worksthat it is
difficultto believe'thatthe composerdid not thinkof them'.This is the casein
the analysisof La Cathedrale engloutie
by Reti (1951: 194-206),who, observing
the fundamentalimportanceof thirds,fourthsandfifthsin the thematicrootof
this prelude,sees in themthe 'generativecells'of the work.
It goes withoutsayingthat in manycasesthe decisionof the musicologistis
confirmedor reinforcedby whathe orsheknowsof otherworksof the composer
or of the style of the epoch, and it is preciselythroughthis expedientthat
semiologicalanalysis offers its hand once more to historicalresearchand
scholarlyknowledge.
3) g > 2
Poietic Work
information
Here, on the contrary,the musicologistproceedsfroma poieticdocument-
letters, remarks,sketches- and then analysesthe work in the light of this
information.Let me cite the exampleof the stylisticanalysisof Beethovenby
Paul Mies, stariingfrom his sketches(1929). The term 'deduciivepoietics'
wouldnot be adequatehere. I proposethe term'externalpoieiics'.
Onefinds, mutatismutandis, the sametwo categorieson the esthesicside:
4) 2 > 2
Work Esthesic
process
Similarly, inductive esthesics constitutes the most frequent case. First

because, in the majorityof analyseswhich see themselvesas pertainingto
perception,the musicologistraisesthe listenersup as a collectiveconsciousness

lor z 7 r t h
REFLECTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

SEMIOLOGY IN MUSIC
and decrees that 'this is what one hears'.

This
perceptiveintrospectionor on a certainnumberoftype of analysisis based on
have regardingmusicalperception.With generalideaswhichone can
fromthe Fugue in C minorof the referenceto the followingpassage
Well-Tempered Clavier,Book I, Meyersays
Ex. 2
I
=
9^ ; zn r
8 6 r r rm
t6S
thatthe sequencearoundthe cycle of fifths develops

thismomentthat the listenerrealisesthat this fromb. 9 to b. 11:it is at
motif is
subject(Meyer1956:48). Herethe musicologistuses an the head-motifof the
afoundationandthendescribeswhathe thinksis the analysisof the workas
perceptionof thepassage.
c
o ' C1
Work Esthesic
information
Conversely,one canstartfrominformationcollected
to
attemptto find out how the workhas been amonglistenersin order
manner perceived.
in whichexperimentalpsychologistswork. This is obviouslythe
6)
g = o = o
Poietic Work Esthesic
relevance relevance
MUSIC
ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989
39
To thesefive modelsa sixthshouldbe added:thatin whichthe authorclaims

that the analysisof the workis both poieticallyand esthesicallyrelevant.This
wouldbe the case,forexample,with Schenkeriantheory,whichclaimsthatthe
analysisof the workin levels is corroboratedby whatwe know of sketches(in
the caseof Beethoven)andto whichthepercepiionof theworkmustcorrespond.
It would be necessaryhere to go into a whole seriesof examplesaccordingto
which, in the relaiionshipof immanentanalysiswith the poieiic and esthesic
poles, the realprocessis inductiveor external,descriptiveor normative.
It will havebeen remarkedthat, in orderto give an idea of whatI believeto
be the six majormodelsof musicanalysisfromthe pointof viewof tripartition,
I haveborrowedexamples,not fromanalysesinspiredby semiology,but from
the currentmusicologicalliterature.One of the thingswhichmusic semiology
proposes,is, therefore,a criticalframeworkfor existingmusic analyses.In a
way, one can see in these six schemasthe skeletonof a 'systematicmusicology'
in the Germansense. But above all, they sketch out a sort of geographyof
analyseswhich allows one to define the real scope of a given analysisor of a
projectedanalysisamongstthe totalityof musicalprocesses.
Despite the holisticambitionsof tripartition,it is the boundariesof music
analysiswhichstandout thus. On a morepositivenote, the frameworkof the six
familiesof analysisallows one to determine,for a given analysis,whatis its
relevance. It is evenmoreimportantto do thiswhencircumstances - the absence
of information,of knowledge,of the rightmethodologicaltools - preventthe
undertakingof a kindof analysiswhichreasonwoulddemand.Contraryto what
Marx said, man only poses questionsthat he can answer, and it has to be
admittedthat the differentbranchesof the semiologicalprogrammearenot all
developingwiththe samerapidityor efficacy.This is doubtlesswhythereexists
onlyone trulycompleteattemptat tripartitesemiologicalanalysis,thatof Naud
on NomosAlphaof Xenakis (1975).12In Analysemusicale et semiologie(in
preparation),however,I shallpresentat leastone tripartiteanalysisconducted
on the lines of the six modelsdescribedabove.
7:MusicSemiology
outside
Semiology
We have seen in the case of Americanresearcherswho used linguisticmodels
how imprudentit was to limit musicsemiologyto thosewho explicitlyderived
their inspirationfrom it. In the same way, 'semiologicalthought before
semiology',which returnsby right into the field of music semiology,would
warranta long study. I shallrestrictmyselfto a few milestones.
It is musicalsemantics,of course,with the analysesof Plato on the ethosof
modalities,whichrepresentsthe oldestformof musicsemiology.The theories
of Affektenlehre in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries constitute a
practicalmusicalsemantics,parallelto the harmonictreatises.Mattheson'sDer
vollkommeme Capellmeister (1739) proposesone of the first models of music
analysisbasedon the rhetoricof the period.It is alreadya linguisticvocabulary
(Satz, Absatz,Schluss-Satz, Periode)which is found in the Versuch einer
AnleitungzurComposition by Koch (1782-93),althoughthe Allgemeine Theorie

derschonenKunsteof Sulzer(1771-4)exhibitsa true theoryof levels beforeits

time. Reicha's Traitede melodie(1814) puts forwarda mode of hierarchical
segmentation of which Ruwet would not disapprove. With Villoteau's
Recherches surl'analogiede la musique
aveclesartsquiontpourobjetl'imitationdu
langage(1807) we are faced with a first comparativesemiologyof music and
language,in which the author insists on the link between the elements of
intonationin languageand musicalmelody. For him, the goal of music is the
expressionof feelings, and musicalimitationrests upon a simulationof the
musicalaspectsof language.Similarly,Villoteauproposesa classificationof
musicalsigns - the naturallyexpressive signs, the expressive-imitative
signs and
the significantsigns- whichleadshim to see in musica natural,ratherthanan
arbitrary,language. I have demonstratedelsewherehow VomMusikalisch-
Schonenof Hanslick(1854)prefigurestripartition(Nattiez1986).Between1827
and 1866Josephd'Ortiguewrotea seriesof articlesin whichSylvieL'Ecuyer-
Lacroix(1982) sees a true first 'linguisticsof music', since the musicologist
reliesuponthe Notionsde linguistique by CharlesNodier. Ethnomusicology,in
its initial linguistic orientation(vergleichende Musikwissenschaft),
is directly
inspiredby comparativelinguistics(cf. Hornbostel1975: 185, 190, 250). The
firstuse of the phonologicalmodelfora comparisonof musicandlanguagedates
backto a lecturegivenin Pragueby Beckinganddescribedby Jakobson(1932).
The work of the ethnomusicologistBrailoiuused, from 1930 onwards,the
paradigmatictechnique, without, of course, using the term itself, and his
methodologywas able to withstand comparisonwith that of Troubetskoi
(Rouget 1973: xiii). As for Schenker's harmonic theories, on numerous
occasionsthey have been comparedto generativegrammar.HaroldPowers
(1980:12-15)hastriedto showthatthe paradigmatic techniqueof Ruwet(1966)
was alreadyused by medievalistssuch as Hucke (1953).The analogycould be
discussedat length, becausein Ruwet'stext thereis, methodologically,more
than the differentiationof syntagmaticand paradigmaticaxes. But Bent is
absolutelyright to emphasisethat, in the case of Ruwet, 'the successof this
exercisewasnot so muchthe qualityof thefinishedanalysisasthefactthatit had
been producedby an exactandverifiableprocedure'(1980:368).
Lastlythereis a contemporaryresearcherof a veryhigh calibrewho has not
invokedthe semiologicallabel:LeonardB. Meyer.Butthe factthathe is nowon
the EditorialBoard of the American3rournalof Semiotics,the organ of the
'SemioticSocietyof America',wouldseemto provethatGodhasrecognisedHis
own. In fact, Meyer'swhole output deals with questionswhich are funda-
mentallysemiological.
Fromthe time of his firstbook, EmotionandMeaninginMusic(1956),he has
tackledthe questionof semanticreferences.The first partof ExplainingMusic
(1973) proposesnothing less than a kind of neutral-levelanalysiswhich has
much in commonwith the paradigmatictechnique.The second part can be
describedas the esthesictheoryof melodyin operation.Lastbut not least, the
fundamentalconceptofparametrisation whichprevailsasmuchin thisessayasin
Music,theArtsandIdeas(1967)revealsa conceptionof the musicalfactwhichis

veryclose to the theoryof the symbolicfactaccordingto Molino(1975:42-3).

All semiologydoes is to take up in new termsthe eternalquestionsof music
analysis.This is exactlywhatthe EastGermanChristianKadenemphasisedin
aninterestingaccount(1977)of semiologicalworkinspiredby linguisticsandof
the classificationof popularsongs. A global and impartialhistory of music
analysiswill treatmusic semiologyas a movementlike all the others- this is
alreadyapparentin Bent'sarticle(1980)or Cook'srecentbook(1987)- andwill
contain information on precursors, influences, rediscoveries, parallel
discoveries,authenticcontributionsandinnovations.
III: MUSICSEMIOLOGYAS AN ACTIVITY
A new disciplineor, at least, a new axis of investigationcreatesmeetings,
publications,factions.It is impossibleto gain an idea of the areasof research
takenon boardby musicsemiologieswithouta knowledgeof the subjectsthat
have been tackled, the points at which they have parted companyand the
authorswho havedealtwith them.
It was initiallyin the form of journalissues that music semiologybecame
apparentasa currentof thought.It wasprobablybornunderthisnamewithNo.
5 of Musiqueen3teuin November 1971. Besidesa generalstatement(Nattiez
1971), this volumebroughttogethera numberof translations:a text by Eco
(1971),frequentlycitedsince,on Levi-Strauss;articlesdevotedto a comparison
of music and language(Harweg 1967, Springer1956) and to the use of the
phonologicalmodel in musicology(Jakobson1932, Nettl 1958, Bright 1963).
Mache'scontribution,devotedprincipallyto Varese,was original.Then there
wasthe importantpublicationof Ruwet'sbookLangage,musique, poesie(1972),
a collectionof studieswhichhadappearedin the courseof theprecedingdecade.
Number 10 (March 1973) of Musiqueen Xeu, 'Analyse, methodologie,
semiologie',illustratedthree analyticaldirections:functional(Sychra1948,13
Boiles), taxonomical(Nattiez 1973a) and generative(Cooper).In Italy the
reviewVersuscollectedin its issue No. 9 (May-August1973)threestudiesby
Nattiez, Stefani and Osmond-Smith.And it was at the instigationof Gino
Stefanithatthe 'firstinternatonalcongressof musicalsemiotics'took placein
October1973in Belgrade,the proceedingsof whichwerepublished(Stefanied.
1975a).This was a fertileyear:No. 12 of Musiqueen3teupublishedin the same
month a series of studies 'aroundLevi-Strauss'(Nattiez, Chiaxucci,Court,
Boiles).In Americaspecialisedsessionsmadetheirappearanceat musicological
conferences:'New Methodsin MusicalAnalysis'(Societyfor Ethnomusicology,
Urbana, November 1973), 'Linguistic Methods in Musicology'(Amfflcan
Musicological Society,Chicago,November1973).In May 1974Stefaniagainset
up in Rome an 'internationalsymposiumon musical semiotics', organised
essentiallyarounddiscussions.l4A 'musicalsemiotics'section has naturally
found its niche since the 'first congressof the InternationalAssociationof
Semiotics'was held at Milanin June 1974(Chatman-Eco-Klinkenberg 1979:
195-203,981-1031).In January1975appearedthe last integrallysemiological

issue of Musiqueen yeu(the journaldisappearedin 1978with No. 33). Number

17 broughttogetherfundamentalcontributionsfromMolinoand Ruwet,who
on thatoccasionproceededwith an auto-critiqueof the ideasin the bookwhich
had appearedthree years earlier. The issue also containedtexts by Naud
(inspiredby tripartition),Orlandoand Imberty(musicalsemantics).In March
the same year Ruwet was askedby PierreBoulez to preparea colloquiumat
I.R.C.A.M. on the theme 'Music and Linguistics'.The proceedingsof this
colloquiumwere not published,but it was on this occasionthat Deliege put
forwardthe first formulationof his analyticalideas derivedfrom Schenker,
which are now the subject of an importantbook (1984), and Lerdahland
Jackendoffunveiledthe originalideasfortheirno lessimportantbookof 1983.
The limitof whatnow, withhindsight,appearsto havebeenthe firstperiodof
musicsemiologywas finallymarkedby the publicationof two booksrecording
its emergenceandearlydevelopments:Fondements dela musique
d'unesemiologie
(Nattiez 1975a),closelyfollowedby the Introdazione allaSemioticadellaMusica
by GinoStefaniin 1976.15
Afterthis initialeffervescence,thingssettleddowna little. This is no doubt
whatpromptedNettl to say, in his last panoramaof ethnomusicology,thatthe
analyticaluse of linguistic models was on the decline (Nettl 1983: 95).
Publications and meetings took on a more heterogeneousor specialised
character.IssueNo . 13of Versus(1976)dealtwithmusicalsemantics(articlesby
Nattiez, Osmond-Smith,Gasparov,Lissa, Imberty,Boiles, Stefani).In 1976
the journalSemioticaoffereda fairlytechnicalissue on the notion of musical
transformation, notableparticularlyfor a text by the DaneMortenLevy [1975]
on the delimitationof musicalunits, inspiredby Ruwet and Hjelmslev(cf.
similarly Levy 1977), and two contributions (Cazimir, Brediceanu)
representative of the Rumaniansemiologicalschool,where,undertheinfluence
of SalomonMarcus(cf. for example1973)the use of mathematicalmodelsis
predominant(cf. alsoBrediceanu1975,Cazimir,1976, 1977,Herman1969).I
should also mention a round table on 'Music and Language'at the 12th
internationalcongressof linguistsat Viennain August-September1977and a
sessionon musicafterthe internationalconferenceon the semioticsof artheldat
AnnArborin May 1978(Steiner1981).The BelgianjournalDegres publishedin
1979 a more heterogeneousissue as far as orientationwas concerned,with
contributionsfrom Deliege, Escal, Lidov, Nattiez and Pousseur.There was
also a meetingin Philadelphiaorganisedin April 1982by HaroldPowers,on
linguisticmodels and musicology,which was the occasionof a confrontation
between the 'formalists'and the 'culturalists',an occurrencewhich amply
demonstratedhow the axes of discussionhad shiftedin ten years.In London
RichardLanghamSmitharrangedin May 1981two dayson musicsemiologyin
whichI participatedwith two membersof my researchteam,MarcelleGuertin
andMoniqueDesroches.16 In FinlandEeroTarastiturnedout to be anefficient
proselyteof music semiologyand structuralism.He publishedin Finnish a
collectionof pieces (1982)which comprisedtranslationsof Gasparov,Nattiez
and Tagg, and originalcontributionsfrom Scandinavianresearchers(Abo,

43
Bengtsson, KurkelaLing, Pekkila, Tiensuu). In July 1983 he organisedat

Jyvaskyla a 'second internationalcongress of musical semiotics' whose
proceedingsthe journalSemioticahas just published (Baroni, Dalmonte,
Delalande, Deliege, Pekkila, Tarasti), together with some specially
commissionedcontributions(Stefani,Nattiez, Karbusicky,Miereanu,Esacal,
Lidov, Thoresen, Hosokawa,Charles, Rowell, Hatten, Tagg, Montaut). I
should mention some papers on music at the second congress of the
InternationalAssociation of Semiotics (Vienna, July 1979) - pieces by
Doubravova,Golomb,Imberty,Langleben,Nattiez, Stammeriohann, Tarasti
(in Borbeed. 1984)- andatthe thirdcongressof the sameAssociation(Palerma,
June 1984) - papers by Cassirer, Imberty, Nattiez, Posner and Tarasti
(proceedingsin press). Underthe title II sensoin musica,Marconiand Stefani
(1987) have recentlypublishedan 'anthologyof musicalsemiology'expressly
devotedto Italiantranslations(piecesby Jiranek,Karbusicky,Nattiez, Tagg,
Laske, Imberty, Meyer, Lerdahl-Jackendoff,Tarasti, Rauhe, Delalande,
Blacking,Kubik, Middleton,Cook, Noske, Boiles). And Germanyreappears
onstagewitha specialeditionofthe ZeitschriftfurSemiotik,
'ZeichenundMusik'
(1987), prepared by Karbusicky (contributionsby Karbusicky, Floros,
Lischka,Stoianova,Mei-ChuWangand Schneider).
The books belonging to the second period have a more specialised,
monographical orcriticalcharacter.In GermanySchneiderpublisheda virulent
critiqueof music semiology(1980), and in JapanHosokawa(1981) wrote a
OngakunoKigoron(Semiologyof Music)whichunfortunatelyturnsout to be a
collage of quotationsthat when not actually contradictoryare frequently
illogical.
There are also works with somewhatless precise theoreticaloutlines and
varyingdegreesof success: The UnansweredQuestionby LeonardBernstein
(1976);underthe titleDie Zeichen(1981),the GermancomposerHansWerner
Henze put togethersome extremelyvariedcontributionson music semiology
among which those of Faltin, Stefani, Coker and Jiranekare particularly
notable;similarlyGeste- texte- musiqueby Stoianova(1978),MythandMusicby
Tarasti(1978), Le Langagemusical,semiotique des systemesby Martin(1978),
Espacessociaux,espacesmusicauxby Escal(1971).Musicalsignification,already
tackledby Cokerin 1972(MusicandMeaning),returnswitha vengeancein The
SignifierandtheSignifiedby Noske(1977a),devotedto theoperasof Mozartand
Verdi, and the two works by Imberty, Entendrela musique(1979) and Les
lgcritures
du temps(1981),wherehe revealsthe synthesisof morethanten years
of researchinto experimentalsemanticsin music, applied to Brahms and
Debussy.
With regardto monographicalworks, my own series 'Monographiesde
semiologieet d'analysesmusicales',thoughsomewhatunsophisticated,hasrun
to three volumes:Lidov's On MusicalPhrase(1975a),my analysisof Densite
21.5 by Varese (1975b), published in English in 1982, and the English
translationof threearticlesby Imbertyon the semanticsof Debussy'spreludes
(1976a).They have been followedby the creationof a smallcollectionat the

Pressesde l'Universitede Montreal,'Semiologieet analysesmusicales',where

BaroniandJacobonipublishedin English(1978)theiranalysisof Bachchorales,
alreadyaccessiblein Italian(1976), ElisabethMorinher work on the English
virginalists(1979b) and Pelinskihis studies on the music of the Inuit of the
Caribou(1981).Amongworksdevotedto a particularcorpus,moreover,let me
mention that of Pagnini on Handel's Alexander'sFeast (1974) and, on the
ethnomusicological front, the workof Titon on the blues (1977), Chandolaon
Himalayandrumming(1977),Chenowethon the Usarufas(1979)andBeckeron
the Javanesegamelan(1980).
Musictheoryhas not lost its rights.It is importantto mentionthe following,
permeatedby thoughts on musical symbolism, semiology and the use of
linguistics:Struttureeformadellamusicacomeprocessisimboliciby Natale(1978),
Lidov's Musical Structureand Musical Signi.ficance(1980a), Lerdahl and
Jackendoff'sA Generative Theoryof TonalMusic(1983)andLesFondements dela
musique tonaleby Deliege(1984).
This wholemovementcouldnot fail to emergethroughteaching.Coursesin
music semiologyhave been given at the Facultyof Musicof the Universityof
Montrealsince 1972 under my supervision,with for some years the help of
CharlesBoiles. At the Universityof Bologna,a Chairin music semiologywas
createdandawardedto GinoStefani.Therehasbeentuitionin musicsemiology
at Hamburg,with VladimirKarbusicky,whosework(1986)revealssomewhat
the influenceof Pragianfunctionalism;in Helsinki, with Eero Tarasti,who
worksalongthe lines of Greimas;in Tokyo, with YoshihikoTokumaru,whose
studentYukiMinegishihasediteda smallsurveyof musicsemiology(1977);in
Toronto, with David Lidov; in Paris-Nanterre,with FrancJois Escal (1976,
1977a,1977b,1979);andat the Sorbonne,thenat the Universityof Lyon, with
Jean-RemyJulien.
At the Universityof Montreal,from 1974 to 1980 I directeda 'Groupede
Recherchesen SemiologieMusicale',devotedessentiallyto Debussyandto the
studyof the Inuit.17
In Bologna and Modena, Carlo Jacoboniand Mario Baroni have, for a
numberof years,led discussiongroupson the problemsof analysisandmusic
semiology. They pursue their researchon music analysiswith the aid of a
computerandin October1982organiseda conferenceon this subjectatModena
(BaroniandCallegarieds 1984).
In ParisFrancJois Delalande,with the Groupede RecherchesMusicalesde
l'Institut National de l'Audio-visuel,has directedinvestigationson musical
perceptionwhicharenot abovedialoguewith semiology(Delalande1972,1974,
1976, 1977, 1982).
The work of Easternbloc countriesis less well known. Gasparov(1969a,
1969b, 1975, 1976)and Langleben(1965)belonged,beforethey emigrated,to
the schoolof Tartu. I havementionedabovethe mathematicalmodelsused by
Rumanianresearchers.As a generalrule, the researchersof socialistcountries,
anxiousto show how it is possiblefor music to conveyan ideologicalcontent,
concernthemselveswith the comparisonof music and languageand with the

45
semanticpossibiliiiesof music as outlinedabove. If, in general,the Marxist

perspectiveservesat least as a backcloth,one meets also a healthyscientific
eclecticism, as is the case, accordingto Vitanyi's report (1975), with the
Hungarianresearchers,or with East Germanresearcherswho plainlybenefit
from the greatGermanmusicologicaltradition,as also from the semiological
and epistemologicalstimulationof Georg Klaus (1963). I shall mention the
names of Goldschmidt(1973a, 1973b), Kaden (1973a, 1973b), Kluge (1964,
1967), Mayer(1967), Doris Stockmann(1970, 1981), Eric Stockmann(1974)
andWehnert(1971).
Of allthe EasternBloccountries,it is in Czechoslovakiathatmusicsemiology
appearsto be the most activeand the most structured.I note particularlythe
existenceof a 'Groupfor Researchin MusicalSemiotics'at the Czechoslovak
Academyof Sciencesand a publicationof 1980 (Doubravova,Polednaked.
1980)whichgatheredtogethertheoreticalpiecesfromtendifferentresearchers.
I shallend this surveyby presentingthe workof fourmusicologistswho have
set themselvesthe task of constructinga semiologyof music- whichis not to
denythattherehavebeenimportantcontributionsfromotherauthors,although
they have been more sporadic.I shall concentrateon David Lidov, Charles
Boiles, GinoStefaniandJean-JacquesNattiez.
It is not easyto characterisethe orientationof David Lidov. First becausea
goodhalfof his articlesconsistof criticaldiscussionof theworkof otherauthors
(Riemann,Cooper,Meyer,Ruwetin 1975a:Chapter2; Nattiezin 1978,Noske
in 1980b, Cooke, Coker, Tarastiin 1981b. Lidov began his careerwith an
examination,using various methods, of musical structures, in which he
defendedthe validityof an intuitive approachto the concept of phraseand
proposed a characterisationwhich explained his theory. His interest in
questionsof structure,rhythmand accenthas neverdiminished(1975b, 1977,
1979). Then he seemedto turn towardssome problemsof musicalsemantics
(1980b, 1981b).In parallel,otherworks(1980a, 1981a)outlinea globaltheory
whichjustifieshis criticalenterprise.The monographof 1980is presentedasthe
first quarterof a forthcomingbook (in fact, two out of ten expectedchapters).
But it is a questionof pre-publication,andthe authorindicatesthateven these
two chapterscould not exist in this form in the final version. This 'workin
progress'is testimonyto a fine equilibriumbetween theoreticalrefleciion-
inspired at once by the psychologyof Gestalt(Form), the structuralismof
Jakobsonand Levi-Strauss,and Americansemiotics- and empiricalanalysis
(Beethoven,Brahms,Liszt)whichis particularly promisingforthefutureof our
discipline.
Boiles'enterpriseis fundamentalto my argumentto the extentthathis project
of musical semiology comes within the frameworkof ethnomusicology.
Consequently,he compelsthe reader- includingthe authorof theselines, who
oweshimmuchforit - to reconsiderthe problemsdevelopedin relationto tonal
music in the 'particular'contextof musicsof an oraltradition.The outputof
Boiles reinstatesthe semiologicalproblematicinto the debates on cultural
determinismwhichtroubleanthropologistsand ethnomusicologists.
46 MUSIC ANALYSI S 8 :1-2, 1989

Besides two works of conceptualexploration(1977, 1978), Boiles tried to

locate his empiricalresearchwithin a theoreticalframeworkof Morrissian
inspiration(1982b).But the essentialelementof his contributionis reallyfound
elsewhere.A field-studiesman- he workedin Mexicowith the Otomiandthe
Tepehua- Boiles formed the convictionthat, in certainsituations,'musics
speak'. Startingfromempiricalobservationswhich, in my opinion,cannotbe
questioned,he developeda methodof analysisfromthe associationof verbalised
significationsin the contextof ceremoniesto precisemusicalsignifiers(1969).It
is here that his profound,often decisive, contributionresides (1967, 1973a,
1975), together with a stimulatingexplorationof paradigmatictechniques
appliedto variousproblems(1973b, 1982a).Withoutmeaningto reducethe
objectivesof musicalsemiologyto the problemshe addresses(cf. Nattiez 1988:
Chapter 8), Boiles' contribution to our discipline has been absolutely
fundamentaland makes all the more regrettable,independentof the human
tragedy,his deathin December1984.
Of all semiologistsof music, Stefaniis certainlythe most prolific. After a
decadedevotedto Baroqueand liturgicalmusic, he producedtwelvebooks of
whichfourareexplicitlyconcernedwith music semiology,aroundfifty articles
and a dozen or so reviews.... Stefanidisplaysa level of activitywhich is
enoughto makeone jealous!The authorhaswrittenno workof synthesiswhich
wouldgivea roundedviewof his theory:Introdazione allaSemioticadellaMusica
(1976c),La competenza musicale(1982),Competenza musicalee culturadellapace
(1985)and II segnodellamusica(1987)arecollectionsof articlessome of which
were previouslyunpublished.It is not easy, and it is probablyarbitrary,to
definein a few wordsanorientationwhichmustbe deducedfromso manytexts,
but I think I can risk the claimthat Stefanitriesfundamentallyto answerthe
following question: what significationsare produced by music in a given
culture,andwhatarethe codeswhichintervenein the attributionof signifieds
to musicalsignifiers?This is what I believe can be deducedfrom one of his
recentpieces, 'A Theoryof Competence',placedsignificantlyat the headof his
latestcollection:'By "musicalcompetence"we understandthe abilitytoproduce
sense.... Semiotics of music is the discipline whose object is musical
competenceas we havedefinedit.'
Stefanibeganhis careerin music semiologywith generaltexts on the broad
axesof the discipline(1973, 1974b,1974c).He thentackleda seriesof empirical
studies (whose orientationI shall detail) concerning 'scansioneincitativa'
(1974a),a popularsong 'E, la vita la vita'(1975c)andMozart'sSymphonyNo.
40 (1976a,1976b)whichcanbe found,in a revisedform,in his Introdazione alla
SemioticadellaMusica(1976c)andII segnodellamusica(1987).Hereonecanalso
read unpublishedstudies on 'the beginnlngof the work', Bach, the relation
between poetry and music, and television commercialmusic. The book
confirmstwo theoreticaltendenciespresentin the workswhichwerepublished
at that time: a resolutelyfunctionalapproachto music and semiology,along
with a wish to locate the semiologicalenterpriseto the left of the political
spectrum(1975d), and more recentlya radicallypacifist orientation(1985).

Here one can detect signs of one of the originalorientationsof Stefani'swork:

the concern,whichhe shareswith anotherItalianmusicologistof semiological
leanings, Mario Baroni (1978), to base musical teaching on certain
semiologically-inspired ideas,an outlookwhichhasprovokeda seriesof articles
(1977a, 1977c, 1979c, 1983b)and books (1977b, 1978, 1979a, 1979b, 1980,
1983a)on musicalpedagogy,and his suggestivestudiesof differentkinds of
commentarieson the SymphonyNo. 40 of Mozart(1976c:36-55).At alllevelsof
meaning (including formal and stylistic aspects), Stefani is dedicated to
revealingthe codeswhichoperatethe sigmfser-signified coupling.His recourse
to the conceptof the code, largelyderivedfromEco, servesas a theoreticaltool
to bringout at once the ideologyof the workin the constitutionof the signifieds
associatedwith the music and the relevanceof the musical elements which
operatefunctionally in relationto these signifseds(1976c:56-76; 1987:209-28).
Thus for him it is not a questionof takingaccountof the globalorganisationof
a work or of a group of works - at least, he has not done this yet - but of
determiningwhichaspectsof a workarerelevantin relationto a givensignified:
for example,what is it that makes the f1rstmovementof K.550 'cantabile'
(1976b: 168-77)?More recently, Stefanihas developeda theory of intervals
(1981, 1982:33-84,1986, 1987:145-90)whichaimsto illustratethe semiological
function of intervals as lexical units. These approachespresent a real
pedagogicalinterestin the extentto which the studyof a piece or a parameter
(Stefani has also worked on rhythm: 1976c: 114-24, 1982: 85-105) can be
undertakenfromthe pointof view of a particularfunction.
Threegeneralstagescan be distinguishedin the semiologicalcareerof Jean-
JacquesNattiez. Nattiez I (1967-71) was interested, from the time of his
Master'sthesis on music semiology(1968), in the music-languagecomparison
froma functionalistperspective;he proposedtheterm'comparative semiology',
whoseaimsandobjectiveshe definedin a review(1973c)of theIntroduction a la
semiologieby his first teacherin the discipline, GeorgesMounin (in Nattiez
1988:Chapter3).
In a secondperiod(1971-5),NattiezII developededitorialand'propagandist'
activity(edited Nos 5, 10, 12 and 17 of the journalMusiqueen3feu,doctoral
thesisin 1973,publishedthe Fondements d'unesemiologie dela musiquein 1975,
numerousconferencesand participationin congresses).At the sametime, his
encounterwith the tripartitiontheory of Molino overturnedhis modes of
thought.But his basicepistemologicalframeworkstill remainedthatof a neo-
positivistempiricismbasedon the schema:induction- constructionof a formal
metalanguage - verification(cf. 1972).Fromthiscomes,in certainof his earliest
texts (1974), the ideathat semiologicaldescriptionmust clearawaythe poietic
and esthesicdimensionsfor the benefit of the sole neutrallevel. If Nattiez II
found in Granger(1967) the Peirceianconcept of the infinite interpretant,
whichhe advancedfrom 1975, and for good, as the basisof his theory,it was,
initially,in orderto clearawaythe significationsin the senseof Granger- and
to keep only the 'relationsde sens', i.e. the formalrelations.This opposition
disappearedfrom the time of the Fondements, but his epistemologyremained

neo-positivistandit satuneasilynextto the affirmationthatthe totaldescription

of a musicalwork as a symbolicfact must integrateand articulateall three
dimensionsof Molino'stripartition.Duringthe wholeof this period,NattiezII
reliedon a classicarticleby NicolasRuwet(1972:Chapter4) in orderto develop
the methodologyof paradigmatic musicanalysis:he appliedthisfrom1971to an
Intermezzoby Brahms(1975a:297-329), to Debussy'sSyrznx(1973b) and to
Densite'
21.5 by Varese(1975b).
After the publicationof Fondements,Nattiez III (1975-87)diversifiedhis
activity.The directionof the Groupede Recherchesen SemiologieMusicaleat
the Facultyof Musicof the Universityof Montreal(1974-80)led himto alterhis
understandingof the paradigmaticmodelas appliedto the Preludesof Debussy
and to integrateanthropologicalenquiryinto semiologicalthought, thanksto
the researchof his teamon the katajjaqof the Inuit(cf. note 17). A commission
from the EnciclopediaEinaudiled him to dissect the semiologicalnatureof
musical parameters.l8A study of the 'CentenaryRing', at Bayreuth(1978,
1982c, 1983d),gavean opportunityto reflecton the semiologyof interpretation
and to cataloguethe constituentsof poietics (cf. also 1979b, 1983b). In the
epistemologicalfield, it was the old question (cf. at the same time, but in
opposition,Ricoeurand Granger)of the oppositionbetween formalismand
hermeneuticswhich concernedhim. The adaptationto music (1985c) of the
historianPaul Veyne's concept of 'plot' (1971) facilitatedthe solving of this
problem. His position of co-director,with Pierre Boulez, of the collection
'Musique/passe/present' (ed. ChristianBourgois),devoted principallyto the
writingsof tsventieth-century musicians,in additionto his workon the output
of Brailoiuand Hanslick (1985a and 1986), took him towardsthe study of
musical'metalanguage' (1981)and,in a moregeneralway, towardsa semiology
of musicanalysis(1987b:PartII).
Thus one can see that, whenit was suggestedthatthe Fondements of 1975be
re-editedandtranslated,the bookhad to be entirelyrecast(Nattiez 1987b).19
IV: AN ASSESSMENTOF MUSICSEMIOLOGIES
1: Immanent Analyses
The precedingsurveydoes not claimto be exhaustive.But it bearswitnessto
one thing: even though music semiology experiencedmaximumpublicity
between1971and 1976,researchhasbeenfarfromstationaryin the lastdecade.
One can even state that the work embarkedupon at the beginningof the
seventies is only now reaching, if not its ultimate outcome, at least its
culmination,andthatthe studiespresentedaround1975haveagainbecomethe
objectof criticaldiscussionsin recentpublications.The activityis thus hereto
stay. But even so, must one necessarilyindulgein self-satisfaction?
1)Firstlet me tacklethe questionwhichcomesimmediatelyto mind.Whatdoes
musicsemiologyofferoverandaboutanalyticalprocedureswhichhavenothing
to do with it?

49
Fromthe point of view of ethnomusicology,the improvementseems to me

incontestable,if one agrees that the determinationof scales and stylistic
characteristicsconstitutesthe fundamentalarea of investigation.And it is
without doubt amongethnomusicologiststhat the propositionsof semiology
havebeen best received.Firstly,becausein the disciplinethereis no academic
traditionto preserve,becausethereis no defencereflexagainst'the segment-
ations-with-a-scalpel-which-will-destroy-the-charm-of-the-work'. Secondly,
becauseethnomusicologists arenot unfamiliarwith linguisticmodelsas a result
of their formation.Lastly, becausein most cases the researcherfinds himself
confrontedby musicfor the studyof whichhe hasno theoreticalknowledge:he
needsmethodologicaltoolsin orderto attemptto cut intotheorganisationof the
systemshe is tacklingwithouta przori. Andevenif one is witnessingnow, in the
workof Zempand Feld in particular,the discoveryof autochthonousmusical
theories, there is still no proof that they can avoid recourseto the tools of
empiricalanalysisappropriatefor the researcher.
The situation,obviously,is differentin the case of Westernmusic. In the
enthusiasmof the discovery,in the confidenceaccordedto linguistics-the-pilot-
science-of-the-human-sciences and to its guaranteeof scientificintegrity,we
find the idealof the tabularasalaudedby the workof Ruwetandmy veryfirst
attempts:we thought to draw up an explicit and reproduciblemethod of
analysiswhich it would be sufficientto applyindependentlyof historicaland
culturalknowledgeconcerningthe object. This asceticismof beginningsis
amplyexplainedin the dominantcontextof structuralism,99%ahistorical,and
convincedthatone couldtakeaccountof the essenceof anobjectsolelythrough
its immanentexamination.
The antihistoricismof music semiologyhas offendedmore than one. But
without defendingthe sins of my youth, all the same I upholdthe following
points:
* Recourseto empiricalmethodsof segmentationand of def1nitionof units
providesa globalperspectiveof analysis.Molinosaw exactlythis, and very
early:'It is true that there is a universalframeworkfor the descriptionof
systems,but only by virtueof the detachmentwhichensuresthatone single
systematiccharacteris not imposedon all languagesand musics' (Molino
1975: 53). On the contrary,it is this tool which allowsone to discoverthe
naturalarticulationsof the phenomenonunderconsideration.
* Very soon I emphasisedthe necessityof proceedingto the comparisonof
alreadyexistinganalysesbeforeundertakingmy own (cf. Nattiez-Paquette
1973a;Nattiez 1975a:326-30and 338-41, 1975b:vii), and this with a dual
aim:to becomeawareof the criteriaat the rootof the analysesof others,and
to benefit from the acquisitionof this knowledge.This said, I still today
defend the idea of a naive outlook on the works, becauseinsofaras the
theoriesor analysesof the past are the productof a consistentlycontingent
culturaland epistemologicalhistory,it is not totallyuseless, at leastfrom a
therapeuticviewpoint,to rediscovercertainaspectsof the worksas though
one had(almost)forgotteneverything.
so MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

* In addition,I believefundamentallythatthe symbolicformscreatedby man

are never totallyreducibleto the context or the strategythat made them.
They have a relativedegreeof autonomousexistence. If this is indeed the
case,it is perfectlylegitimateto endowoneselfwitha methodologycapableof
takingaccountof the intrinsicpropertiesof the object.
2) As linguisticmodelsareessentiallylinear,they lend themselvesparticularly
wellto the analysisof monodies.This hasled, in the caseof Westernpolyphonic
musics, to the isolation of the melodic dimension from its harmonic
underpinning,a factwhich, again,has irritatedseveralpeople.
To this, I can offersomeelementsof a reply. SinceRameauit hasoftenbeen
acceptedthatharmonydirectsthe wholeorganisationof thepiece,includingthe
melodic element, and this affirmationcan still be found statedemphatically
today (Deliege 1984:46). Nevertheless,at the end of the eighteenthcentury
conflictingopinionsarosewhichculminated,in France,in the Traitedemelodie
of Reicha(1814),wheremelodyis treatedas an autonomousphenomenon.And
in fact, even though the basic principles of tonality govern harmonyand
melody, and even rhythm(thereis such a thing as tonalrhythm),the melodic
has a physicalmodeof existencewhichdistinguishesit fromthe harmonic.The
omnipresenceof harmonictheories,the majorityof whichcomplainaboutthose
whohavetackledthe constructionof a theoryof melody,is no doubtresponsible
forthe delayin the developmentof the latter.The authorof theselinesendorses
moreoverthe diachronictheoryof stylisticevolutionputforwardby LeonardB.
Meyer(1967, 1979),accordingto whichthe dissociationandautonomisation of
parametersis a fundamentalhistoricalfactor:proofof thisliesin theemergence,
alongwith the distinctionandthen the dissociationof the parameterof timbre,
of electroacousticmusic, or the transferfroma seriesof pitchesto a generalised
series.
It was thereforelegitimateat least to attempt to apply the paradigmatic
techniqueto the melodicdimensionalone;moreover,the rulesfor the analysis
of homophonicworksproposedby LerdahlandJackendoffin Chapters2 to 4 of
theirwork(1983) do not includeany harmoniccriterion,apartfrom the tonal
feelingto whichwe areaccustomed.In factthe contributionof theparadigmatic
pathseemsto me to be threefold:1)it forcesthe clarificaiionof the criteriaused
to conductthe analysis;2) it proposesa syntheticand systematicview of the
form of a piece, in particularits hierarchicalaspect, which traditionalformal
analysiscould not revealin all its details;3) by exposin the transformational
relationshipswhichlink the units of a singleparadigm,2the methodoffersthe
possibilityof studyingsystematicallythe techniquesof development.Herein
lies the great merit of the above-mentionedresearchesof MarcelleGuertin
(1981, 1986).
Nevertheless,one can see manyindicationsof the combinationof harmonic
andparadigmatic melodicanalysis.In my studyof the Intermezzo by Brahms,I
superimposedparadigmaticsegmentationsonto two levelsof harmonicanalysis
in orderto studythe interactions(1975a:320-6).Lidov(1978:40) proposedthe

applicationof the melodicparadigmatic techniqueto the harmonicanalysisof a

Bachchorale.Sadaiis embarkingupona paradigmatisation of harmony(1986).
British researchersare attempting to combine paradigmaticmelodic and
Schenkerianharmonicanalysis(Dunsby 1984, Clarke1984), and important
developmentscanbe expectedin this direction.
We havehere,withouta doubt,a newanalyticaldirection.As Deliegeso aptly
notes (1984: 41-2), Schenker opens a new age of music analysis which
emphasisesrelationshipsand prolongationsratherthan structures.I have not
suddenlybecomea followerof Schenkerianandneo-Schenkerian theories,but
the idea of a marriagebetweentaxonomicalanalysesand dynamicmodels,not
necessarilySchenkerianones - I am thinkingof the proposalsof Meyer(1973:
PartII) and of Narmour(1977)- seemsto me not only fruitfulbut necessary,
insofar as paradigmaticanalysisis historicallyan extension of nineteenth-
centuryformalanalysis(Reicha,Riemann).Equally,Lerdahland Jackendoff
areopeninga pathin this direction.And we shalldoubtlesssee othersappear.
The emphasis which the paradigmaticapproachplaces on monody and
melody has probablycontributed,to a large extent, to the debate between
adherentsto the taxonomicalperspective,describedas empiricalor empiricist
by their Chomskianopponents,and adherentsto the hypothetico-deductive
perspective,abusivelyreferredto by Chomsky'sdisciplesas 'theoretical'.In
France,Ruwet(1975)wassetup astheunwillingchampionof thislatterpointof
view, through my intervention. Keiler (1981), by means of certain
misinterpretations regardingthe textshe cited, set up his ownconceptionof the
generativederivationof harmonyin oppositionto my proposalsfortaxonomical
melodic analysis. Broadly speaking, the 'Chomskians' reproach the
'empiricists'for wantingto proceedbackwardsfromthe corpusto a 'code'of a
purely inductive nature, with the aid of research procedureswhich are
independentof the domainunderexamination.On the contrary,they claimto
proceedfrom intuitionin order to put forwardrules whose applicationwill
provethe 'theory'validor faulty.
The problemseemsto me to havebeen badlydefinedfor two reasons:
a) Firstly,proceduresof inquiryaremorea procedureof the controlof direction
followedthana rigidalgorithmby whichone goesbackfromthe messageto the
code. DespitewhatKeilermakesme say, I havebeenveryclear(1975a:235-7)
as to the possibilityof usingthe proceduresin questionto entrustthe analysisto
computers.2l
b) If, in the caseof melodicanalysis,I havepreferredan 'empirical'method,it
is because musicologyhas not accumulated,over the centuries, theoriesof
melody that are as well-developedand consistentas harmonictheory, and
becausein my opinionit is appropriate,for a betterdescriptionof the formof
pieces and the techniques of development, to proceed with a systematic
scanningof the worksunderconsideration.
3) Anotherpossibleobjectionto the semiologicalorientationwouldtouchon the
repertoireof its application.And I haveto admitthatthis is a questionwhichI

put to myself, as I have not seen it formulatedin the various critical

examinations.Until now, the method has been appliedin particular(leaving
aside the musics of an oral tradition)to 'non-canonical'periodsof Western
music:medievalmonody,the end of the nineteenthcentury(Brahms)and the
music of the twentiethcentury(Debussy, Varese).There has as yet been no
proof that, in comparisonwith classicalmusicologicalknowledgewhich has
expandedfor over a centuryin relationto 'stable'periods, the paradigmatic
technique could offer anything new. But given that it offers means of
empiricallyverifying received theories, one can imagine possible avenues.
Thus, in a still unpublishedstudy, ElisabethMorin(1979a)has been able to
demonstratethatthe developmentof the FugueNo. 7 in Eb fromBookI of the
Well-Tempered Clavier rests on a distinct unity of the subject and the
countersubject.This unity generatesa paradigmaticaxis which cannot be
anticipatedon the basis of strict observanceof the principlesassociatedwith
academicfugue, and which, moreover,does not appearin the variousanalyses
of the fuguefoundin the literature.
4) Finally, there is a last reproachwhich has been aimed at semiological
undertakings:their complexity.One can read the following,from the pen of
Bruno Nettl: 'As the music-specificcharacterizationsby Hornbostel and
Herzog,andforthatmatterLomax,arereplacedby the semioticsof Nattiezand
Boilesandothers,the methodsbecomemoreandmorecomplex;in a sensethey
give more informationbut are harderto read, lend themselvesless easily to
comparison,and aremoredifficultto applyby someonewho did not originate
them. Despitethe universalistintention,theyturnout to be culture-specific,or
at best scholar-specific'(Nettl 1983:95). It is true that the principle of
clarificationat the root of the paradigmaticmethod or the constructionof a
networkof rules in generativegrammarshas createda style of analyticaltext
whichis moretaxingto readthanthe moreor lessimpressionisticcommentaries
againstwhichmusic semiologywantedto react.But thereis no causeto single
out semiology for attack. The analysesproducedby cc)mputer,Forte's set
theoryor certainrecentSchenkeriananalyseshardlyreadlike a good thriller,
andit seemsessentialto me to avoidanydemagogyon thispoint. Musicanalysis
is a particularkind of symbolicform. The growingcomplexificationwhichwe
haveseenin the lastfifteenyearsor so, andnot solelyin semiology,comesfrom
the elements with which new axes of more formal thought (linguistics,
informationtechnology, mathematics)have come to challenge traditional
discourse.
I am not seeking here to make formalisedapproachesa panaceato the
detrimentof approacheswhose substanceis still the spokenlanguage.If this
weremy position,it wouldbe easyto set up in oppositiona workasadmirableas
Rosen'sTheClassicalStyle(1971). In fact, formalandexegeticalapproachesdo
not respondto the same questionsand do not use the same tools. Sufficeto
comparethe 590 pagesof Rosen'sbook, for fortyyearsof musicand some 500
cited works,to the ninetypagesof my studyof Densite.The chancesof success

for the different semiologicalapproachesrefer to an importantfactor: the

possibility of controllingthe parameters.For very quickly the matrix of
cataloguedparametersbecomes so complex that it is no longer possible to
controlit. In this sense,Densiterepresentsa borderlinecase.The finalchapters
of LerdahlandJackendoffXs book, wherethe harmonic,metrical,rhythmicand
melodic dimensionsare superimposed,and this for a single piece, amply
demonstratehow the readercan relativelyquicklyreachsaturationpoint.
Is there a solution?In a ratherhypocriticalmanner,I could reply that the
diff1cultiescausedby the demandof clarificationhave primarilythe merit of
allowinga glimpseof the limitationsof musicanalysis.I shallsimplymakea bet
on the future.Everynewaxisof research,likeeverysymbolicform,experiences
its phase of complexiflcation.Thus, as with tonal music which emergedinto
nineteenth-centurychromaticism,as with Schoenberg'smusic which led to
totalserialism,likewisemusicanalysis.But the processdoes not developin an
infinite way, becauseit engendersreactionsand ruptureswhich realignthe
processon a new foundation:serialmusicafterWagner,repetitivemusic after
Boulez, the new Boulezof Repons afterthatof Structures
pourdeuxpianos.Will
the samebe trueof analysis?Onemusthavefaithin a spaceof timeto let the dust
settle, and I have no wish to predicttodaywhat that will involve. One would
haveto be presentat the formationof a new kindof discourse,wheretherewas
a balancebetweenexegeticalformulation,of the 'explicationde textes'kind,
andrigorousformalisation.Moreover,in my analysisof Densite-whichI permit
myselfto cite frequentlyherebecauseit is consideredin manyAnglo-American
circlesas a successfulexamplefor some and a disturbingone for others- the
tendencyof eachcombinationof factswasrelatedto a broadexegeticalelement
characterising the orientationandthe 'greatmoments'of thepiece. Hybridism?
I do not think so. Morelike interaction:clarificationand formalisationshould
give more reliabilityto the exegeticalact, while at the same time a greater
conf1dencein their validity - in particular,the experience of historical
investigations- shouldpreventformalanalysisfrombecomingboggeddownin
the dust of minutiae.
There is lastly a final fundamentalcomplaint levelled at the linguistic
orientationof music semiology,one which takesissue with its very principle:
analysisconcentrateson the immanentdimensionof musicaltexts. In relationto
this, let us rememberthatif, historically,musicsemiologyhasoftendeveloped
out of andaroundlinguistics,at the sametimethe overalltheoreticalframework
hasrapidlyextendedto morethanmusicconceivedsolelyfroma formalpointof
view.
And in addition, if the musical sign has been interpreted, from the
paradigmatic perspective,as 'introversivesemiosis'(Jakobson1973a:100),it is
a long time sinceit has been seenas referringto the outsideworld.Let me raise
a fundamentalepistemologicalpoint: no more thanit was possibleto createa
sociologyof seriouslanguagewithoutundergoingan intensiveand successful
phaseof immanentdescription,is it possibleto studythe relationshipof 'music
itself with its surroundings(significations,cultureor society)without using

instrumentsadequateto the descriptionof its substance.

2: Experimental
Semantics
Obviously,becauseof the tools which it uses, experimentalsemanticsis the
favouriteof semiologistswho are concernedabout scientificprowess. I shall
examinethe two genresof criticismof whichit has been the object.Firstlyit is
chargedwithdiscovering,witha weightystatisticalandmathemaiicalapparatus
(thus an anti-musicalone, as is well known), resultswhich we alreadyknow.
The objectionhardlyholdswater,becausethe statisticsobtainedshowthatif a
tendency does appear there is also a smatteringof responsesoutside this
tendency.Onehasto believethatthosewhomakethiscriticismwouldalwaysbe
found, if they were the subjectsof the experiment,in the centralstream!The
othergroupof criticsis of an ontologicalandaestheticorder:thereis no pointin
devoting one's energies to the study of emotive, narrativeor imaginative
associationssincethe essenceof musicresidesin its form.Weoweto Deliegethe
most recentexpressionof this thought(1984:26-35),and the readerinterested
by this debatecanreferto Imberty'sreply(1985).
So what?I shallexpressherea personalandqualifiedopinion.The historyof
musicallanguageis fundamentallya historyof forms,and,in contrastto human
language,the link between the musicalsignif1erand signifiedis not organic
enough to intervenein this evolution. On this basis, I do not endorse the
functionalistpresuppositionsat theheartof severalsemanticapproaches:in this
conception,musicalformwouldbe entirelyexplicableby whatmusicwishedto
sayor by the contextin whichit wasperformed.This wouldbe to forgetthatthe
musiciandoes not produce form independentlyof the state of the musical
languageat the momentwhenhe composesor performsthe music.
That said,it seemserroneousto me to wish to denythe existenceof semantic
factorsas muchon the sideof thecompositionalprocessason thatof perception.
I am quite convinced that Boulez was trying to resolve formal and
morphologicalproblemswhenhe wroteStructures pourdeuxpianos,but I amnot
in the least convinced that Wagner sought to put forwardan unheard-of
configurationwhen he wrotethe 'Tristan chord'.He was perhapsawareof the
novelty- thoughthereis no proofin his writings,to my knowledge- but when
he tookthe troubleto talkaboutit to MathildeWesendonck,it wasto saythatit
concernednot a form of Frenchsixth but the breathof Buddhacreatingthe
world.And to me it seemsdifficultto clearawaythe oppositionof Eusebiusand
Florestan,theprogrammeof Pictures fromanExhibition or theimagesof LaMer
not only from the compositionalintentions of Schumann, Mussorgskyor
Debussy,but alsofromtheirinfluenceon the unfoldingof the worksand their
interpretation.In the sameway, nothingcan preventany listenerfromseeing
whateverhe or she wishesin a workandrefusingto bendto the exhortationsof
Hanslick (1854), who requiredthat enlightenedmusic lovers should raise
themselvesaboveextrinsicreferencesto thepurecontemplationof form.But, of
course,in orderto admittheseconsiderationsinto the fieldof musicanalysis,it
is necessaryto accept the idea that the semantic dimension, in both its

compositionaland perceptionalaspects, as well as creativeand perceptive

strategiesin general,formpart, as in Molino'sformula(1975:40), of the total
musicalfact.
3: SomeCnticalRemarks
At the closeof this inquiry,whatcriticalassessmentcanbe made?
1) First of all, if music semiologyhad its hourof gloryaround1975, no doubt
becauseof its noveltyandbecauseof anintellectualcontext,somewhatsoftened
sincethen, whichin the heatof the momentaimedallinitiativeat the fieldof the
human sciences, the preceding survey bears witness, I believe, to a
diversificationor even a fragmentationof this perspective,but certainlyto its
continuationby the mostactiveresearchers.This no doubtexplainswhy, in his
recentgeneralbookMusicology, JosephKerman,knownotherwiseforhis book
on the Beethovenquartets,inc!udedmusicsemiologyas one of the fourcurrent
mainstreamsof musicanalysis,alongsidethe Schenkerianschool,Meyer'swork
and the set theoryof Allen Forte (1985:74), as did Cookin his recentGuideto
MusicalAnalysis (1987).
2) Thus thereis development;but as I havejustpointedout, thatdevelopment
is uneven. There is alwaysa gap betweena global theory and the empirical
realisationsof its differentareas.It is 'easier'to analysea single work than a
wholecorpus,'easier'to give an accountof the styleof a corpusthanto go on to
the tripartiteanalysisof a piece, easierin the presentstateof thingsto advance
poieticpropositionsthanto undertakeesthesicanalysis,etc....
3) In its evolution, music semiology seems to have followed the general
movementof the humansciencesin the lasttwentyyears,evenif not necessarily
in the same way: initiallypreoccupiedwith structures,it overflowedinto a
poieticand an esthesicdomain,just as linguistics'wentback'fromphonology
to semanticsto fall into pragmatics;andin the samewaythatthe hardandfast
formalists- thosewhomJ. P. Aronreferredto so wittilywhenhe talkedabout
'the Ice Age' (1984) - becamesofter, we are moving towardsa new balance
between the structuraland the hermeneutic.In this, has it passed from a
modern age into a 'post-modern'one? I have never used these labels; the
concept of modernity seemed to me to want far too much to guarantee
indulgencetowardspassingfashions.As for 'post-modernism', it is a scrapyard
conceptwhichtriesto coverup the presentdissipation.As with all othertypes
of analysis, music semiology leans toward the form of pieces and the
characteristicsof styles. The musicologistaims at musical knowledge, and
music analysis,accordingto Bent's simpledictum(1980: 342), seeks to show
how a workfunctions.Musicsemiologyhasno otherobjective;it simplytriesto
makeits directionmoreexplicitandits approachmoresystematic.
4) Sowhypractisemusicsemiology?The musiclover,or the readerwhois more

of a musicianthana musicologist,will surelyhavebeenirritatedby this article.

How far from music are Byzantinediscussionson the respectivemeritsof the
inductiveand the hypothetical-deductive! Effectively,they are. Musicologists
suffer from a particularlyungratefuldiscipline. For whereas,in the field of
literarystudies,nobodyis too surprisedif one is ablealsoto writeon the literary
entity, whereassociology affects society very little, whereas,in the natural
sciences,a physicaltheoryrunsno riskof modifyingits object,on the contrary,
writing-on-music is easilyperceivedasparasiticsincethe musicreallyspeaksfor
itself of things purelymusical, doesn'tit? Thus, when someonetakes it into
their head, scalpel poised, to cut segments in the vaporous fluidity of
Debussy . . . ! This is perhapswhy musicanalysisis one of the domainsof the
humanscienceswheremethodologicalandepistemologicalthoughtit is seen as
so strange. . . or foreign.In any case, whereit lagsfurthestbehind.
On this frontI refuseto yield to anyfeelingof guilt. Musicsemiologyis not,
by nature,differentfrom any othertype of analysis,becausethereis alwaysa
gapbetweenan analysisandits object.Analysis,andsemiologywith it, belong
to the great family of models: it simulatesthe workingsof the fact under
examination,it doesnot reproduceit. To expectthatanalysisis the equivalentof
the way in which one experiencesone's relationto music is quite simply to
misunderstandits objectives.Analysisaims at a superiorknowledgeof the
object;in no wayis it a substitute.
So will a semiologicalanalysisbe 'moreuseful'to a composer,a performer,
your common or gardenmusic lover, than any other kind of analysis?The
relationshipbetweenthe analysisandits objectis andremainsoblique.Onecan
takefrightat the detailandthe complexityof a paradigmatic matrixor a system
of generativerules.Herethereis a differenceof degree,not of nature,withother
typesof analyses.Butin anycase,the pragmaticuseronlyretainswhathe or she
really wants. The composerand the performerare interestedconsumersof
analyses,and they have good reasonto be. In this sense, semiologyis neither
morenor less usefulthanotherprocedures.Simply,and fromits initialstages,
music semiology has claimed its links with the human sciences, and it is
preciselybecauseit has not aimedat 'utilitarian'objectivesthatit hasbeen able
to pursuethe trajectoryinauguratedby earlierresearchparadigms.Thereforeit
is the methodologicaland cognitiverangeof music semiologythat one should
questionfirst.
5) Does music semiology exist? Pure semiology: no. I have quite clearly
demonstratedthe multitudeof trendsthatcanclaimto be relatedto semiology.
In 1975I proposednothingotherthanthe 'Fondementsd'unesemiologiede la
musique'.These foundationsare twofold. The interpretantis the root of the
symbolic operation;a symbolic form necessarilyhas three dimensions:the
poietic, the immanent and the esthesic. I would not be involved in the
constructionof a musicsemiologyif I didnotbelievefundamentallyin thesetwo
propositions.But one day some crafty interpretantwill perhapscome and
overturnthe tripartiteconceptionto which I adhere.And like interpretants,

* * s * S -
c lscusslon goes on ad tnJznttum.
NOTES
1. On this subjectsee my 'Introductiona l'esthetiquede Hanslick'(1986).

2. Cf. Cooper (1973), Herndon (1975), Lidov-Gabura(1973), Lindblom and
Sundberg(1970, 1972), Sundberg(1975), Sundbergand Lindblom(1976),Sapir
(1969),Pelinski(1981, 1984).
3. With the expandinguse of computersin scientificresearch,the borderbetween
generativemusical grammarsand the use of a computer in the solution of
musicologicalproblemscan be difficultto establish.I have excludedfrom the
commentarywhichfollowstheso-calledreconnaissance grammarsandthosewhich
areused for musicalcomposition.Two relativelyrecentpublicationsallowone to
take stock of musicalgrammarsof all kinds: Vol. 9, No. 2 of Computer Music
ffournal(1980)andthe proceedingsof an importantcolloquiumheldin Modenain
1982(BaroniandCallegarieds 1984).
4. At the timeof a personalcommunication (April1987),Lerdahlindicatedto me that
he wasin absoluteagreementwith this description.
5. For an evaluationof the posterityof Ruwet'spropositions,cf. Everist(1987).
6. Therenowexistsa wholecriticalliteratureon theseanalyses.Onmy analysisof the
Brahms,cf. Dunsby(1977),Schneider(1980:237-40),Deliege(1984:184-91);on
my analysisof Densite21.5, cf. Lidov (1978),Tenney(1980),Bernard(1986);on
my analysisof Syrznx,Morin'sbookandGuertin'sarticle,cf. Cook(1987:151-82).
I shallreplyto allthesediscussionsin mynextbook,Analysemusicale etsemiologie.
7. Fora bibliographyof studieson musicalrhetoric,cf. thearticleby Buelow(1973).
8. For a systematicstudy of this debate, see the following:Blacking(1977:62-3),
Delalande (1976: 84), Deliege (1975: 109-10), Dunsby (1977, 1983), Hatten
(1980), Keiler (1981), Laske (1977), Lidov (1978), Lortat-Jakob(1976), Noske
(1979),Rouget(1980:106),Ruwet(1975),Scruton(1978),Stefani(1976c:47-9).
9. The misunderstanding arisesessentiallyfromwhatI cameto call'neutralanalysis'
when it reallyconcerned'analysisof the neutrallevel'. I said manytimes in my
book of 1975thatthis analysisof the neutrallevelwas culturallydetermined,but
the ambiguityof certainformulations,alliedto the initialadoptionof the tabula
rasa,onlyspreadtheconfusion.All thesame,somewriters,suchas OttoLaske(cf.
below),madeno suchmistake.
10. For a profoundreflectionon the hermeneuticalcharacterof semiologicalenquiry,
cf. Molino's article 'Pour une histoire de l'interpretation:les etapes de
l'hermeneutique' (1985).
11. At the moment,we needa historyof analysismostof all. Onecan alreadyreferto
Bent'sremarkablework(1980),recentlyreissuedas a book(1987).
12. On the other hand, literaryanalysisis here aheadof music analysis.Cf. Molino
1988.
13. Oneof the rarePragueLinguisticCircletextsdevotedto music.

14. To my knowledge,only MichelImberty'spaperhas beenpublished(1976).

15. Let me alsonote- the dateis significant- the workof PaulElen(1975),published
in Flemishby the CatholicUniversityof Louvain.
16. The papersby Guertinand Desrocheshave been publishedin Englishunderthe
title ThreeMusicalAnalysesby the TorontoSemioticCircle(Monographs,Working
Papersand Prepublications,1982, No. 4), but more extendedversionsof these
projectsappearedin French(Desroches1980,Guertin1981).Dunsby'spaperhas
alsobeenpublished(1982).
17. The bibliographyof studiespublishedby the membersof ourgroupis asfollows:a)
Papersat the first congressof the InternationalAssociationof Semiotics(Milan,
June 1974):Naud 1979, Guertin1979, Hirbour-Paquette1979, Morin1979b;b)
Problemsof methodsandanalyses(otherthanmy ownworks):Beaudry1983b(on
Haitianvoodoo);Naud 1975(onXenakis),1976;Guertin1981,1986(on Debussy);
Desroches1980, 1982(on the musicof the Tamils);c) Studieson the musicof the
Inuit: Beaudry1978a, 1978b, 1980, 1983a;Berthiaume-Zawada 1980; Charron
1978a,1978b;Nattiez 1982a,1982b,1983a,1983c;Pelinski1981, 1984.
18. Reinstated,in French,in the thirdpartof Musicologzegeneraleetsetniologze
(1987b)
and republishedin Italianin paperback,under a title, II discorsomusicale,not
chosenby the author(1987a).
19. This recasting appeared,in French, in two volumes: Musicologiegeneraleet
semiologie(1987b) and Analysemusicaleet se'miologie (forthcoming).The Italian
editionof thisworkwill be publishedby Edizionidi Torino,the Englisheditionby
PrincetonUniversityPress.
20. This aspectof musicanalysisis totallyabsentfromLerdahlandJackendoffrs book,
andseemsto me fundamentalin orderto takeaccountof developmentaltechniques
andmotivic,thematicand structuralparallelismssimultaneously.
21. A portionof my essayon Densite'is devotedspecificallyto this problem(Nattiez
1975b).
REFERENCES
Arom, S., 1969: 'Essaid'une notationdes monodiesa des fins d'analyse',Revuede

musicologze,Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.l72-216.
1985: Polyphonieset polyrythmies instrumentales
d'Afriquecentrale:Structureet
me'thodologie(Paris:S.E.L.A.F.), 2 vols.
Aron,J.P., 1984:LesModernes (Paris:Gallimard).
Assafiev,B.V., 1930-43:MuzyEal'naja formakakprotzess[MusicalForm as Process]
(Leningrad;Eng. trans.,Colombus:Ohio StateUniversity,1976).
Ayrey,C., 1985:'DeconstructingDebussy',papergivenat the annualconferenceof the
AustralianMusicologicalSociety(Melbourne,August1985;unpubl.).
Baroni,M., 1978:Suonie significati:Musicae attivitaespressive
nellascuola(Florence:
Guaraldi).
Baroni, M., Brunetti, R., Callegari,L. and Jacoboni,C., 1984: 'A Grammarfor
Melody:RelationshipsbetweenMelodyandHarmony',in Baroni-Callegari (eds)

59
1984,pp.201-18.
Baroni,M. and Callegari,L. (eds), 1984:MusicalGrammars and ComputerAnalysis
(Proceedingsof Conferenceheld in Modena, 4-6 October 1982) (Florence:
Olschki,QuadernidellaRivistaItalianadi Musicologia,No. 8).
Baroni, M. and Jacoboni,C., 1976: Versouna Grammatica dellaMelodia(Bologna:
AntiquaeMusicaeItalicaeStudiosi, UniversitaStudi di Bologna;Eng. trans.,
Proposalfora Grammar of Melody,Montreal:MontrealUniversityPress, 1978).
Barthes,R., 1964:'Elementsde semiologie',Communications,No. 4, pp.91-135.
1966:Critiqueet Verite(Paris:Seuil).
1967:Systemedela mode(Paris:Seuil).
1970:Mythologzes (1957)(Paris:Seuil,2nd edn).
1982:L'Obvieet l'Obtus(Paris:Seuil),pp.217-77('Le Corpsde la musique').
Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds), 1976:Meaningin Anthropology
(Albuquerque:Univer-
sity of New MexicoPress).
Bates,E. (ed.), 1979:TheEmergence of Symbols(New York:AcademicPress).
Beaudry,N., 1978a:'Le Katajjaq:un jeu inuit traditionnel',EtudesInuit Studies,
Vol.2,No.l,pp.35-53.
1978b: 'TowardTranscriptionand Analysis of Inuit Throat-Games:Macro-
Structure',Ethnomusicology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.261-73.
1980:'ArcticThroat-Games: A Contestof Songs',PerformingArts,Vol. 17,No. 3,
pp.26-8.
1983a:'Losjuegosde gargantado los esquimalesdelCanadaoriental',in Sabidurai
Popular,ed. A. Chamorro(Mexico:E1Colegiode Michoacany Comiteorgani-
zadorpro SociedadInteramericana de Folklorey Etnomusicologia),pp. 169-77.
1983b:'Le Langagedes tamboursdansla ceremonievaudouhaitienne',Revuede
musique desuniversites
canadiennes, No. 4, pp.125-40.
Becker, J., 1980: TraditionalMusicin Modern3rava:Gamelanin a ChangingSociety
(Honolulu:Universityof HawaiiPress).
Becker,A. andJ., 1979:'A Grammarof the MusicalGenreSrepegan',3rournal of Music
Theory,Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.l-43.
Bent, I., 1980:'Analysis',TheNew GroveDictionaryof MusicandMusicians(London:
Macmillan),Vol. 1, pp.340-88;repr. and expandedas Analysis(London:Mac-
millan, 1987).
Bernard,J.W., 1986:'OnDensite21.5: A Responseto Nattiez',MusicAnalysis, Vol. 5,
Nos 2-3, pp.207-31.
Bernstein,L., 1976:TheUnanswered Question (Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress).
Berthiaume-Zavada, C., 1980: 'Pourl'adequationde la transcriptionen ethnomusic-
ologie:l'exempledu katajjaq',Revuedemusique desuniversites
canadiennes,
Vol. 1,
pp.35-48.
Blacking,J., 1973:HowMusicalisMan?(Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress).
1977:L'Hommeproducteurde musique',Musiqueen3teu,Nos 28, pp.54-67;29,
pp. 108-16.
Boiles,C., 1967:'TepehuaThought-Song:A Caseof SemanticSignaling',Ethnomusic-
ologzy,
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.267-92.
1969:'CognitiveProcessin OtomiCultMusic'(Diss., TulaneUniversity).

60
1973a:'Semiotiquede l'ethnomusicologie', Musiqueenffeu,No. 10, pp.34-41.

1973b: 'Reconstructionof Proto-Melody',AnuarioYearbookin Inter-American
MusicalResearch,Vol. 9, pp.45-63.
1975:'LaSignificationdanslamusiquede film',Musiqueen3reu, No. 19,pp.69-85;
Eng. versionin Versus,No. 13 (1976),pp.49-61.
1977:'Canto',in Enciclopedia (Turin:Einaudi),Vol. 2, pp.548-71.
1978:'Danza',in Enciclopedia (Turin:Einaudi),Vol. 4, pp.363-75.
1982a:'A ParadigmaticTest of Acculturation',in Cross-Cultural Perspectives on
Music,ed. R. FalckandT. Rice(Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress),pp.53-78.
1982b:'Processesof MusicalSemiosis',YearbooEfor TraditionalMusic, Vol. 14,
pp.24-44.
Borbe,T. (ed.), 1984:SemioticsUnfolding,Proceedingsof the SecondCongressof the
InternationalAssociationfor Semiotic Studies (Vienna, July 1979) (Berlin:
Mouton),3 vols.
Boulez,P., 1966:Relevesd'apprenti (Paris:Seuil).
1986:Orientations, trans. M. Cooper(London:Faber);Eng. trans.of Pointsde
repere(Paris:Bourgois,2nd edn, 1981).
Brailoiu,C., 1973:Problemes d'ethnomusicologie(CollectedWritings,with a prefaceby
G. Rouget)(Geneva:MinkoffReprint;Eng. trans.,Cambridge:CUP, 1984).
Brandily,M.,1976: 'UnChantdu Tibesti(Tchad)',yournaldelaSocietedesAfricanistes,
Vol. 66, Nos 1-2, pp.127-92.
Brediceanu,M., 1975:Topologiedesformessonoreset musique(Urbino:Documentsde
travailet pre-publications,44/E, CentroInternazionaledi Semioticae Linguis-
tica).
1976: 'Sur les tranformationstopologiqueset les mechanismesgeneratifsen
musique',Semiotica,Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.58-70.
Bright, W., 1963: 'Languageand Music: Areasfor Cooperation',Ethnomusicology,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.26-32.
Buelow, G.J., 1973:'Music, Rhetoricand the Conceptof the Affection:A Selective
Bibliography',Notes,Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.250-9.
Busch, A., 1963:'Cequ'exprimela musique',Recherches internationales
2 la lumieredu
marxisme, No. 38, 'Esthetique'.
Buyssens,E., 1943:LesLangageset le Discours(Brussels:Officede publicite).
Cazimir,B., 1976a:'Semiologiemusicaleetlinguistique mathematique',Setniotica,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.48-57.
1976b: 'Langagemusical, langage poetique: contiguite et similarite',Revue
roumaine delinguistique,Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.265-81.
1977:'Qu'est-ceque la linguistiquemathematiquepeut fairepourla semiotique
musicale, I et II', Revue roumainede linguistique,Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.l71-81;
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.343-53.
Chandola,A., 1977:Folk Drumming in theHimalayas:A LinguisticApproachtoMusic
(New York:AmericanMusicologicalSocietyPress).
Charron,C., 1978a: 'Le Tambourmagique:un instrumentautrefoisutile pour la
queted'unconjoint',EtudesInuitStudies,Vol. 2, No. 1. pp.3-20.
1978b: 'Toward Transcription and Analysis of Inuit Throat-Games:

61
Micro-Structure', Ethnomusicology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.245-59.

Chase,G., 1973:'Structuralism andMusic:A PreliminaryOverview',in TwoLectures
in theFormof a Pair, I.S.A.M. Monographs,No. 2 (New York:BrooklynCollege
of the CityUniversityof New York),pp.20-42.
Chatman,S., Eco, U. and Klinkenberg,J.M. (eds), 1979:A SemioticLandscape/
Panoramasemiotique,Actes du ler congres de l'AssociationInternationalede
Semiotique(Milan,June 1974)(Paris:Mouton).
Chenoweth, V., 1966: 'Song Structure of a New Guinea Highlands Tribe',
Ethnomusicology, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.285-97.
1979:TheUsarufasandTheirMusic(Dallas:SIL Museumof Anthropology).
Chiarucci,H., 1973:'Essaid'analysestructuraled'oeuvresmusicales',Musiqueen3reu,
No. 12, pp.l 1-43.
Clarke,D., 1984: 'Tippett and Development:Does SemioticsHave the Answer?',
papergivenat the King'sCollegeLondonMusicAnalysisConference(London,
September1984;unpubl.).
Coker,W., 1972:MusicandMeaning:A Theoretical Introductionto MusicalAesthetics
(New York:FreePress).
Cook,N., 1987:A GuidetoMusicalAnalysis(London:Dent).
Cooke,D., 1959:TheLanguageofMusic(London:OUP).
Cooper, R., 1973: 'Propositionspour un modele transformationnel de description
musicale',Musiqueen3reu,No. 10, pp.70-88.
Court,R., 1973:'Musique,mythe,langage',Musiqueen3reu,No. 12, pp.45-58.
Delalande,F., 1972: 'L'Analysedes musiqueselectro-acoustiques', Musiqueen3teu,
No. 8, pp.50-6.
1974:'L'Omaggio a3toycede LucianoBerio',Musiqueen3teu,No. 15, pp.45-54.
1976: 'Pertinenceet analyse perceptive',CahiersRechercheslMusique, No. 2,
pp.73-90.
1977:'L'Objetvirtuel',CahiersRecherchelMusique, No. 5, pp.71-4.
1982: 'Vers une "psycho-musicologie"',in Celeste, B., Delalande, F. and
Dumaurier,E., L'Enfantdusonoreaumusical(Paris:INA-GRM/Buchet-Chastel),
pp.157-79.
Deliege,C., 1965a:'LaMusicologiedevantle structuralisme', L'Arc,No.26, pp.45-52.
1965b:'Surquelquesmotifsde l'ouvertureaux Mythologiques',L'Arc,No. 26,
pp.69-76.
1975:'Webern:Op.10, no. 4, un themed'analyseet de reflexion',Revuedemusic-
ogie,Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.91-112.
1979:'Theoriesrecentesde la tonalite',Degres,No. 18, pp.l-26.
1984:LesFondements de la musiquetonale(Paris:Lattes).
Desroches,M., 1980:'Validationempiriquede la methodesemiologiqueen musique:le
cas des indicatifsde tambourdans les ceremoniesindiennesen Martinique',
Yearbook of theInternationalFolkMusicCouncil,No. 12, pp.67-76.
1982: 'Semiotic Analysis and the Music of Tamil Religious Ceremoniesin
Martinique',in Nattiez, J.-J., Guertin,M. and Desroches,M., ThreeMusical
Analyses(Toronto:TorontoSemioticCircle,Monographs,WorkingPapersand
Prepublications,1982/4),pp.59-70.

62
Doubravova,J., 1972: 'Interpersonalniaspektyhudebnimvyjadrovania sdelovani

[The InterpersonalAspect of MusicalExpressionand Communication],Opus
Musicum,Vol. 4, Nos 8-9, pp.254-8.
1974: 'Madarskasemiotikaa semiozahudby' [HungarianSemiologyand the
Semiosisof Music],Hudebnirozhledy,No. 27, p.429.
1975: 'Interpersonalni vyznamhudby a hudebnisemiotika[The Interpersonal
Significanceof MusicandMusicalSemiology],Hudebniveda,No. 2, pp.154-64.
1984:'MusicalFormsas Modelsof Communication', in Borbe(ed.) 1984,Vol. 3.
Doubravova,J. and Polednak, I. (eds), 1980: Bulletindu Groupede Recherches en
Semiotique musicale,SeriesB, No. 9 [in Czech](Prague:CzechoslovakAcademy
of Sciences).
Dufrenne,M.,1967: 'L'Artest-illangage?',Revued'esthetique, Vol. 19,No. 1(January-
March1966),pp.1-42;repr.in Esthetique etphilosophie (Paris:Klincksieck,1967),
pp.74-122.
Dunsby,J., 1977:Reviewof Nattiez 1975a,Perspectives of New Music,Vol. 15, No. 2,
pp.226-33.
1982:'A HitchHiker'sGuideto SemioticMusicAnalysis',MusicAnalysis, Vol. 1,
No. 3, pp.235-42.
1983:'Musicand Semiotics:The NattiezPhase',TheMusicalQuarterly, Vol. 69,
No. 1, pp.27-43.
1984: 'A Bagatelleon Beethoven'sWoO 60', MusicAnalysis,Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp.57-68.
Eco, U., 1971:'Penseestructuraleet penseeserielle',Musiqueen3teu,No.5, pp.45-56.
1975:Trattatodi SemioticaGenerale(Milan:Bompiani).
1976:A Theoryof Semiotics(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress).
1979:TheRoleof theReader:Explorations in theSemioticsof Texts(Bloomington:
IndianaUniversityPress).
Elen, P., 1975:'Elementenvooreen mogelijkemuzieksemiotiek'(Diss., Universityof
Louvain).
Escal,F., 1976:'Fonctionnementdu texteet/ou parodiedansla musiquede Mauricio
Kagel',CahiersduXXe siecle,No. 6, pp. l l 1-38.
1977:'Rousseauet l'ecrituremusicale',Litterature,No. 27, pp.75-84.
1979:Espacessociaux,espacesmusicaux(Paris:Payot).
Everist,M., 1987:Introductionto Ruwet 1966(Eng. trans.),MusicAnalysis,Vol. 6,
Nos 1-2, pp.3-9.
Feld, S., 1982:SoundandSentiment (Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress).
Finckelstein, S., 1970: How Music ExpressesIdeas (New York: International
Publishers).
Firca,G., 1972:'Strukturund Strukturalismus in der Musikforschung', International
Reviewof theAesthetics andSociologyof Music,Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.247-52.
Fonagy,I., 1983:La ViveVoix(Paris:Payot).
Ford, C. and Clarke,E., 1981:'Eine allgemeinesemiotischeTheorieder Musik', in
Henze(ed.) 1981,pp.117-48.
Forte,A., 1959:'Schenker'sConceptionof MusicalStructure',Tournal ofMusicTheory,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1-30.
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8 :1-2, 1989 63

Frances,R., 1958:La Perception de la musique (Paris:Vrin).

Fubini, E., 1968:'Musicae strutturalismo', Ad libitum,No. 3, p.1419.
1973:Musicae linguaggio nell'estetica
contemporanea (Turin:Einaudi).
Gardin,J.C., 1974:LesAnalysesdediscours (Neuchatel:DelaschauxandNiestle).
1979:UneArcheologie theorique (Paris:Hachette).
Gasparov,B.M., 1969a: 'Nekotoryevoprosy strukturnogoanalizamusykal 'nogo
jazkya'[SomeProblemsRelatingto the StructuralAnalysisof MusicalLanguage],
in Trudypo zeakovymsistemam (Tartu).
1969b: 'Opyt porozdajuscejmodeli garmoniceskogourovnja muzykal'nogo
jazyka'[Attemptat a GenerativeModel for the HarmonicLevel in Musical
Language,Based on the EarlyWorks of Beethoven],Problemymodelirovanja
jazyEalkeelemodellecerimise probleeme, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Tartu).
1975:'SomeDescriptiveProblemsof MusicalSemantics',in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,
pp.183-96.
1976:'Le Fonctionnementsemantiquedes musiquesvocaleset instrumentales',
Versus,No. 13, pp.ll-l9.
Geertz,C., 1973:TheInterpretation of Cultures(New York:BasicBooks).
Godzich,W., 1978:Reviewof Eco 1976and Nattiez 1975a,Zoumalof MusicTheory,
Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.ll7-33.
Goldschmidt,H., 1973a:'Die Cavatinades Figaro:eine semantischeAnalyse',Beitrage
zurMusikwissenschaft, Vol. 15, pp.185-207.
1973b: 'Musikverstehenals Postulat', in Musik und Verstehen: Aufsatzezur
semiotischen Theone,Aesthetikund Soziologieder musikalischen Rezeption,ed.
P. FaltinandH.P. Reinecke(Cologne:ArnoVolkVerlag),pp.67-86.
Grabocz,M., 1987:'La Sonateen si mineurde Liszt:unestrategienarrativecomplexe',
Analysemusicale,No. 8, pp.64-70.
Granger,G.G., 1967:PenseeformelleetSciencesde l'homme(Paris:Aubier,2nd edn).
1968:Essaid'unephilosophie dustyle(Paris:Colin;2nd edn, 1987).
Greimas,A.J., 1966:Semantique structurale (Paris:Larousse).
1970:Du sens:essaissemiotiques (Paris:Seuil).
1976:Maupassant,la semiotique dutexte:exercicespratiques(Paris:Seuil).
1983:Du sensII (Paris:Seuil).
Guertin-Belanger, G., 1983: 'Semiologieet critiquemusicale'(Diss., Universityof
Montreal).
1987: 'Sur G. Gouldet les variationsGoldberg:une approchesemiologiquede
l'interpretation',
Analysemusicale,No. 7, pp.16-19.
Guertin,M., 1979:'La Semiologiemusicale:voie nouvellepour l'interpretation',in
Chatman-Eco-Klinkenberg (eds) 1979,pp.994-7.
1981:'Differenceet similitudedansles Preludespourpianode Debussy',Revue
demusique desuniversites canadiennes, No. 2, pp.56-83.
1986:Lecture-analyse desPreludespourpianodeDebussy(Montreal:Universityof
Montreal,forthcoming).
Hanslick,E., 1854: VomMusikalisch-Schonen (Leipzig;Fr. trans., Paris:Bourgois,
1986).
Harnoncourt,N.,1984:LeDiscoursmusical(1982)(Paris:Gallimard).

Harris,Z.,1951: MethodsinStructural (Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress).

Linguistics
Harweg,R., 1967a:'Spracheund Musik',Poetica,No. 1, pp.390-414.
1967b:'Noch einmal:Spracheund Musik(Replik)',Poetica,No. 1, pp.556-66.
1968: 'Languageand Music: An Immanentand Sign Theoretic Approach',
Foundations of Language,No. 4, pp.270-81.
Henze, H.W. (ed.), 1981: Die Zeichen(Neue Aspektedermusikalischen AsthetikII)
(Frankfurt:Fischer).
Herman,V., 1969:'Aplicaiialelingvisticiimatematicein studiulmorfologieimuzicale',
Lucracimuzicologie, No. 8, pp. l 13-21.
Herndon,M., 1975:'Le Modeletransformationnel en linguistique:ses implications
pourl'etudede la musique',Semiotica,Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.71-82.
Hirbour-Paquette, L., 1979:'Quelquesremarquessurla duplicationchezDebussy',in
Chatman-Eco-Klinkenberg (eds) 1979,pp.998-1002.
Hirschberg,J., 1987: 'The Use of Styles as Signs in Early Israeli Art Music: A
Contributionto Semioticsof Music', in Honegger-Meyer-Prevost (eds) 1986-7,
Vol. 2, pp.781-91.
Hjelmslev,L., 1943:Omknngsprogteonens grundlaeggelse (Copenhagen:Munksgaard;
Eng. trans.,Prolegomen toa TheoryofLanguage, InternationalJournalof American
Linguistics,Memoir7, Bloomington).
Honegger,M., Meyer,C. andPrevost,P. (eds), 1986-7:La Musiqueet le Rite:sacreet
profane,Actes du 13e congresde la S.I.M. (Strasbourg,29 August-3September
1982) (Strasbourg:Association des publications pres des Universites de
Strasbourg),2 vols.
Hornbostel,E.M. von, 1975:OperaOmnia,ed. K. Wacksman,D. Christensenand
H.P. Reinecke(The Hague:Nijhoff).
Hosokawa,S.,1981: Ongakunokigoron[Semiologyof Music](Tokyo:AsahiShuppan).
Hubig, C., 1973: 'Zum Problem der VermittlungSprache-Musik(Versucheines
systematischenProblemanfrisses, nur den sich darausergebendenAnsatzenzur
Losung)',Die Musikforschung, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.191-204.
1976:'MusikalischeHermeneutikund musikalischePragmatik',in Musikalische
Hermeneutik, ed. C. Dahlhaus(Regensburg:Bosse),pp.l21-58.
1981: 'Das Zeigen wird gezeigt': zum Begriff asthetischerBedeutung als
abweichenderGeste',inZeichenkonstitution,ed.Lange-Seide(Berlin:deGruyter),
pp.144-252.
1982:'Codeund Tiefenstruktur',KodikalCode, pp.217-34.
Hucke, H., 1953: 'Musikalische Formen der Officiumsantiphonen',Kirchen-
Musikalischen^ahrbuch, Vol. 37, pp.7-33.
Imberty,M., 1975:'Perspectivesnouvellesde la semantiquemusicaleexperimentale',
Musiqueenffeu,No . 17, pp.87-109.
1976a:SignificationandMeaningin Music(On Debussy'sPre'ludes pourle piano)
(Montreal: University of Montreal, Groupe de Recherches en Semiologie
Musicale,Monographiesde semiologieet d'analysesmusicales,No. 3).
1976b:"Le Problemede la mediationsemantiqueen psychologiede la musique',
Versus,No. 13, pp.35-48.
1979:Entendre la musique(Vol. 1 of Semantique psychologzquedela musique) (Paris:

Dunod).
1981:Les Ecrituresdu temps(Vol. 2 of Semantique psychologique de la musique)
(Paris:Dunod).
1985: 'La Cathedraleengloutiede ClaudeDebussy: de la percepiionau sens',
Revuedemusique desuniversites
canadiennes,No. 6, pp.90-160.
Jakobson,R., 1932:'Musikwissenschaft und Linguistik',PragerPresse,7 December
1932;in SelectedWritings (The Hague:Mouton,1971),pp.551-3.
1956:Fundamentals of Language(The Hague:Mouton).
1963:Elementsde linguistique ge'nerale
(Paris:Minuit).
1970:'Languagein Relationto OtherCommunication Systems',in Linguagginella
societae nellatecnica(Milan:Edizionidi Communita),pp.3-16.
1973a:Essaisde linguistique gene'rale
II (Paris:Minuit).
1973b:Questions depoeotique(Paris:Seuil).
Jiranek,J., 1972: 'AssafiewsIntonationslehreund ihre Perspektiven',De Musica
Disputationes Pragenses,Vol. 1 (Prague:Academia),pp.13-45.
1975:TheDevelopment andPresentSituationof theSemioticsof Musicin Czecho-
slovakia,in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,pp.27-39.
1981:'SemantischeAnalysederMusik',in Henze(ed.) 1981,pp.256-77.
Kaden, C., 1973: 'MusikalischeSyntax und ihre SozialhistorischePraxis in der
arbeitsfunktionalen SignalgebungderVierhirten'(Diss., Universityof Berlin).
1975:'MusikalischeNormenbildungundihresozialenGrundlagen', International
1977: 'Litteratur der AnalysefragenII: Klassifikation- Segmentation-
musikalische Grammatik.Neue Ansatze zur Losung alter Probleme der
Musikanalyse.Ein Forschungsbericht', BeitragezurMusikwissenschaft, 1977/2,
pp.130-56.
Karbusicky, V., 1986: Grundnss der musikalischenSemantik (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
1987: 'Vorwort,Zeichenund Musik', Zeitschrift fur Semiotik,Vol. 9, Nos 3-4,
pp.223-6,227-49.
Kassler,M., 1967:'A Trinityof Essays'(Diss., PrincetonUniversity).
1975:ProvingMusical TheoremsI: TheMiddleground ofHeinrichSchenker's Theory
of Tonality,TechnicalReportNo. 103,Departmentof ComputerScience,Sydney
University(Sydney).
Keiler,A., 1981:'TwoViewsof MusicalSemiotics',in Steiner(ed.) 1981,pp.l38-68.
Kerman,J., 1985:Musicology (London:Fontana).
Klaus, G., 1963: Semiotikund Erkenntnistheorie (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der
Wissenschaften) .
Kluge, R., 1964: 'Definition der BegriffeGestaltund Intonation.Als Beitragzur
Mathematisierung derMusikwissenschaft', BeitragezurMusikwissenschaft,Vol.6,
pp.85-100.
1967: 'Typ, Funktion, Bedeutung,Bemerkungenzur semantischenAnalytik
musikalischerTypen',BeitragezurMusikwissenschaft, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.98-104.
Kneif, T., 1973a:'ZurSemantikdes musikalischenZitats',NeueZeitschrift furMusik,
No. 134, pp.3-9.

1973b:'CollageoderNaturalismus? Anmerkungenzu Mahlers"NachtmusikI"',

NeueZeitschriftfurMusik,No. 134, pp.623-38.
1973c:'Musikund Zeichen:Aspekteeinernichtvorhandenen Semiotik',lWusica,
No. 7, pp.9-12.
1974a:'SomeNon-Communicative Aspectsin Music',International
Reviewof the
Aesthetics
andSociologyof Music,Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.51-60.
1974b:'Wasist Semiotik?ein kritischerUberblick',NeueZeitschriftfur Musik,
Vol. 135,No. 6, pp.348-54.
1975a:'OnceMoreMeaningin Music',in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,pp.298-314.
1975b: 'MusikalischeHermeneutik,musikalischeSemiotik', in Musikalische
Het7neneutik,ed. C. Dahlhaus(Regensburg:Bosse),pp.63-72.
Koch,H.C.,1782-93:VersucheinerAnleitungzurComposition(LeipZig:Bohme;Eng.
trans.,New Haven:YaleUniversityPress, 1983).
Kremer,J.F. 1984:LesFormessymboliques dela musique(Paris:Klincksieck).
Kristeva,J., 1969: 'La semiologiecomme silence des ideologies',Semiotica,Vol. 1,
No.2, pp.196-204.
Laske,O.E., 1977:Music,MemoryandThought: AnExploration in Cognitive
Musicology
(AnnArbor:UMI).
L'Ecuyer-Lacroix, S., 1982:'Josephd'Ortigueet la linguistiquede la musique',Etudes
litteraires,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.ll-31.
Lefebvre,H., 1966:Le Langageet la Societe(Paris:Gallimard),pp.66-71.
Lerdahl,F. andJackendoff,R., 1983:A Generative Theoryof TonalMusic(Cambridge,
Mass.:M.I.T.).
Levi-Strauss,C.,1955:'TheStructuralStudyofMyth',ZournalofAmericanFolklore,
Vol. 58, 270; repr.in 1958:Chapter11.
1958:Anthropologie structurale
(Paris:Plon).
1964:Le Cruet le Cuit(Paris:Plon).
1971:L'Hommenu(Paris:Plon).
1973:Anthropologze structurale
Deux(Paris:Plon).
Levy, M., 1975:'On the Problemof DefiningMusicalUnits', in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,
pp.135-49.
1977:'MusicandPattern',MusikandForsking,No. 3, pp.96-111.
Lidov, D., 1975a;On MusicalPhrase(Montreal:Universityof Montreal,Groupede
Recherchesen SemiologieMusicale,Monographiesde semiologieet d'analyses
musicales,No. 1).
1975b:'MetricalCodes:SomeExamplesof RhythmicDisplacementsin Worksof
Mozartand Bartok',papergiven at the colloquium'Linguistiqueet Musique',
I.R.C.A.M, Paris(unpubl.).
1977: 'Structureand Function in MusicalRepetition',C.A.U.S.M. 3rournal,
Vol. 8, No. 1 (1979),pp.1-32.
1978:'Nattiez'sSemioticsof Music', Canadian3rournal of Researchin Semiotics,
Vol.5,No.2,pp.13-54.
1979:'TechniqueandSignificationin the Twelve-ToneMethod',Degres,No. 18,
p.c-l-l9.
1980a:MusicalStructureand MusicalSignificance(Toronto:Toronto Semiotic
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8 :1-2 , 1989 67

Circle,Monographs,WorkingPapersandPrepublications1980/1).
1980b:'MusicalandVerbalSemantic',Semiotica,Vol. 31, Nos 3-4, pp.369-91.
1981a:'The Allegrettoof Beethoven'sSeventh',Amencangoumal of Semiotics,
Vol. 1, Nos 1-2, pp.141-66.
1981b:'DescribingaSignifiedforMusic',RecherchesSeEmiotiques/SemioticInquiry,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.173-87.
Lidov, D. and Gabura,J., 1973: 'A Melody Writing AlgorithmUsing a Formal
LanguageModel',ComputerStudies in theHumanities,Vol.4, Nos 3-4, pp.138-48.
Lindblom, B. and Sundberg,J., 1970: 'Towardsa GenerativeTheory of Melody',
Swedishffournal of Musicology, Vol. 52, pp.70-87.
1972:'MusicComposedby a ComputerProgram',STL-QPSR 4, pp.20-8.
Lissa, Z., 1949: 'La Musique est-elle un art semantique?',Kwartalnikmuzyczny,
Vol. 15.
1959:'Commentpersoit-onla musique?',Recherches internationales
2 la lumiere
du
marxisme,No.13,'LaMusique',pp.196-215.
1965:AesthetikderFilmmusik (Berlin:Henschelverlag).
1970: 'AesthetischeFunktionendes musikalischenZitats',Die Musitforschung,
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.364-78; Sign, Language,Culture(The Hague: Mouton),
pp.674-89.
Lortat-Jacob,B., 1976:Reviewof Nattiez 1975a,Musiqueenffeu,No. 24, pp. 104-7.
Lucid,D.P. (ed.),1977:SovietSemiotics (Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress).
McLeod,N., 1971:'The SemanticParameterin Music:The BlanketRiteof the Lower
Kutenai',Yearbook forInter-AmericanMusical Research,Vol. 7, pp.83-101.
Marconi,L. and Stefani, G. (eds), 1987: II sensoin musica:Antologiadi Semiotica
musicale (Bologna:Cooperativa LibreriaUniversitaria EditriceBologna),pp.9-58.
Marcus,S., 1973:Mathematische Poetik(Frankfurt:AthenaumVerlag).
Martin,S., 1978:Le Langagemusical,semiotique dessystemes(Paris:Klincksieck).
Martinet,A., 1967:Elementsde linguistique generale(Paris:Colin).
Martinet,J., 1973:Clefspourla semiologie (Paris:Seghers).
Matejka,L. andTitunik,I.R. (eds), 1976:SemioticsofArt:PragueSchoolContributions
(Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.).
Mattheson,J., 1739:Der vollkommene Capellmeister(Hamburg:Herold;Eng. trans.,
Ann Arbor:UMI, 1981).
Mayer, G., 1967: 'Semiotik und Sprachgefuge der Kunst', Beitrage zur
Musikwissenschaft, Vol. 9, pp.ll2-21.
Merriam,A., 1964:TheAnthropology of Music(NorthwesternUniversityPress).
Meyer, L.B., 1956:Emotionand Meaningin Music(Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press).
1967:Music,theArtsandIdeas(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress).
1973: ExplainingMusic: Essays and Explorations(Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress).
1979: 'Toward a Theory of Style', in The Conceptof Style, ed. B. Lang
(Philadelphia:Universityof PhiladelphiaPress),pp.3-44.
Mies, P., 1929:Beethoven's Sketches:An Analysisof His StyleBasedon a Studyof His
Sketch-Books (London:OUP;new edn, New York:Dover, 1974).
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2 , 1989

68
Minegishi,Y., 1977:'Problemsin MusicalSemiology',3'apaneseMusicological Society,

Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.124-44[in Japanese,with abstractin English].
Molino, J., 1969: 'Sur la methode de Roland Barthes', La Linguistique,1969/2,
pp.141-54.
1971:'La Connotation',La Linguistique, 1971/1,pp.5-30.
1975: 'Fait musical et semiologie de la musique', Musiqueen ffeu, No. 17,
pp.37-62.
1985: 'Pour une histoire de l'interpretation:les etapes de l'hermeneutique',
Philosophiques, Vol. 12, Nos 1, pp.73-103;2, pp.281-314.
1988:'L'Analysedu poeme:sur un texte de Verlaine',in Molino-Tamine,Intro-
duction2 I'analysede la poesie,Vol. 2 (Paris:P.U.F., pp.170-222).
Morin, E., 1979a:Les Structures melodiques et rythmiques
d'unefuguede Bach (Fugue
no. VII en mi bemol,ler livredu 'Clavecinbientempere'), with a prefaceby Jean
Molino(Montreal:Universityof Montreal,Groupede Recherchesen Semiologie
Musicale,Monographiesde semiologieet d'analysesmusicales,No. 7).
1979b:Essaidestylistique comparee: lesvanationsde WilliamByrdetffohnTomkins
sur'7ohnComeKissmenow'(Montreal:Universityof MontrealPress),2 vols.
Morris,C., 1938:'Foundationsof the Theoryof Signs',Intereational Encyclopaediaof
UnifiedSciences,Vol. 1, No. 2 (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress);repr. in
Morris1971:13-71].
1946:Signs,LanguageandBehaviour(New York:Prentice-Hall).
1971:Writings on theGeneralTheoryof Signs(The Hague:Mouton).
Mounin,G., 1970:Introduction 2 la semiologie (Paris:Minuit).
Moutard,N., 1971-2:'L'Articulationen musique',La Linguistique,1971/2, No. 7,
pp.5-19;1972/1,No. 8, pp.25-40.
Mukarovsky,J, 1977:TheWorldandVerbalArt(New Haven:YaleUniversityPress).
Mukarovsky,Y., 1978: Structure,Sign and Function(New Haven: Yale University
Press).
Narmour,E., 1977:BeyondSchenkensm (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress).
Natale, M. de, 1978: Strutturee formedella musicacomeprocessisimbolici(Naples:
Morano).
Nattiez, J.-J., 1971: 'Situationde la semiologiemusicale',Musiqueen ffeu, No. 5,
pp.3-17; Eng. trans., 'Musicologyand Linguistics:The First Stageof Musical
Semiotics',ffournalCanadiende Recherches Semiotiques',
Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn
1975),pp.51-71.
1972:'Lalinguistique:voienouvellepourl'analysemusicale?',CahiersCanadiens
de Musique,Vol. 4 (Spring-Summer),pp.101-15; Eng. trans. in Intereational
Reviewof theAesthetics andSociologyof Music,Vol. 4, No. 1 (1973),pp.56-67.
1973a:'Analysemusicaleet semiologie:a proposdu Preludede Pelleas'(with
Louise Hirbour-Paquette), Musiqueen3'eu,No. 10, pp.42-69 [partiallyrepr.in
1975a:90-3].
1973b:De l'analysetaxinomique a la caracterisationstylistique(Debussy:Synnx)
(Montreal: University of Montreal, Groupe de Recherches en Semiologie
Musicale, Monographiesde semiologieet d'analysesmusicales,No. 2); Eng.
trans.in Actesdu lercongres international de semiotique
musicale(Pesaro:Centrode
MUSIC ANAI YSIS 8:1-2, 1989 69

iniziativaculturale, 1975, pp.83-110);rev. Eng. version, under the title 'An

Analysisof Debussy's Syrinx',in Nattiez, J.-J., Guertin,M. and Desroches,
M., ThreeMusicalAnalyses(Toronto:Toronto SemioticCircle, Monographs,
WorkingPapersand Prepublications,1982/4),pp.1-35 [partiallyrepr.in 1975a,
pp.330-54]-
1973c: 'Quelquesproblemesde la semiologiefunctionelle',Semiotica,Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp.157-90.
1974: 'La Semiologiemusicale',EncyclopediaUniversalis,No. 17, 'Organon',
pp.560-3.
1975a:Fondements d'unesemiologie de la musique
(Paris:10/18[seealso 1987b]).
1975b:'Densite21.5' de Varese:essaid'analysesemiolog?que (Montreal:University
of Montreal,Groupede Recherchesen SemiologieMusicale,Monographiesde
semiologieet d'analysesmusicales,No. 2); Eng. trans. [1982revision]in Music
Analysis,Vol. 1, No. 3 (October1982),pp.243-340.
1976:'Semiologiemusicale:essaide bibliographisystematique',Versus,No. 13,
pp.97-113.
1978:'La Trahisonde Chereau',Musiqueen3'eu,No. 31, pp.39-40;Eng. trans.,
'Chereau'sTreachery',October,No. 14 (Autumn1980),pp.71-100.
1979a:'Le Solo de cor anglaisde Tristan:une analyseet quelquesproblemes',
Degres,No. 18, pp.1-24.
1979b:'A proposde Schoenberg:les problemesde la constructiondu modele
poietiqueen semiologiemusicale',in Borbe(ed.) 1984,Vol. 3, pp.1717-30.
1981:'Parolesd'informateurs et proposde musiciens:quelquesremarquessurla
place du discoursdansla connaissancede la musique',Yearbook for Traditional
Music,Vol. 13, pp.48-59[repr.in 1987b,Chapter8].
1982a:'Comparisons withina Culture:The Exampleof theKatajjaqof the Inuit',
in Cross-Cultural Perspectiveson Music, ed. R. Falck and T. Rice (Toronto:
Universityof TorontoPress),pp.134-40.
1982b:'Un Bilandes recherchessur la musiquedes Inuit' (with N. Beaudryet
M. Desroches), Actes du 7e congresdes bibliotheques arctiques(Paris, 19-23
September1978)(Paris),pp.l57-70.
1982c:Entretiens surla 'Tetralogiedu Centenaire'(with PierreBoulezand Jeffrey
Tate) (Montreal:Universityof Montreal,Groupede Recherchesen Semiologie
Musicale,Monographies de semiologieet d'analysesmusicales,No. 8).
1983a: 'Some Aspects of the Study of Inuit Vocal Games', Ethnomusicology,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.457-75.
1983b:'Problemesde la poietiqueen semiologiemusicale:quelquesreflexionsa
proposdu "De NaturaSonorum"de BernardParmegiani',in Mion, P., Nattiez,
J.-J. and lshomas, J.-C., L'Envers d'une oeurre (Paris: Buchet-Chastel),
pp.159-91.
1983c:'TheRekkukaraof theAinu(Japan)arldthe Katajjaqof theInuit(Canada):
A Comparison',TheWorldofMusiclLeMondedela Musique(UNESCO),Vol. 25,
No. 2, pp.33-44.
1983d:Tetralogies(Wagner,Boulez,Chereau):essaisurl'inSdelite (Paris:Bourgois).
1983e:Reviewof StevenFeld, SoundandSentiment,1983Yearbook for Traditional

Music,Vol. 15, pp.l73-7.

1983f:'Tousfideles!'[editorialtitle], Le Mondede la Musique,No. 55, pp.26-7.
1983g:'Commentpeut-onetre wagnerien?',Parachute,No. 32, pp.4-11; Eng.
trans.in OperaQuarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.3-10.
1984:Proustmusicien(Paris:Bourgois;Eng. trans.,Cambridge:CUP, 1989).
1985a:'Brailoiucollecteur,comparatisteet structuraliste,contributiona l'histoire
de l'ethnomusicologie/Brailoiu, a Structuralistand ComparatistCollector:A
Contributionto the History of Ethnomusicology',La collectionuniversellede
musiquepopulaireenregistree(Geneva: Archives internationalesde musique
populaire,Musee d'ethnographie,coffret de 6 disques [VDE-30-425-340]et
plaquette,pp.10-29[GrandPrixInternationaldu DisqueAcademieCharlesCros
1987]).
1985b:'La Relationobliqueentre le musicologueet le compositeur',in Quoi?
quand?comment? La Recherchemusicale,ed. T. Machover(Paris:Bourgois),
pp.121-34.
1985c: 'Les Conceptsde mise en serie et d'intriguedans l'analysemusicale',
Analytica,Studiesin the DescriptionandAnalysisof Musicin Honourof Ingmar
Bengtsson(Stockholm:Publicationsissuedby the SwedishAcademyof Music,
No. 47, pp.35-46; Eng. trans., 'The Conceptsof Plot and SeriationProcessin
MusicAnalysis',MuszcAnalysis,Vol. 4, Nos 1-2, pp.107-18.
1986: 'Introductiona l'esthetiquede Hanslick',prefaceto new edn of Du beau
dansla musique (Paris:Bourgois),pp. l l-51.
1987a:Il discorsomusicale,Per unasemiologia dellamusica(Turin:Einaudi).
1987b:Musicologiege'ne'rale et se'miologie[Vol. 1 of rev. edn of 1975a](Paris:
Bourgois).
a la musique
1988:De la se'miologie (Montreal:Universityof Quebecat Montreal).
Naud, G., 1975:'ApercJus d'uneanalysesemiologiquedeNomosAlpha',Musiqueeneu,
No. 17, pp.63-72.
1976: 'Le Problemedes transformationsdans l'analysemusicale',Semiotica,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.28-32.
1979:'Pourune methoded'analysedes analyses',in Chatman-Eco-Klinkenberg
(eds) 1979,pp.l015-18.
Nettl, B., 1958: 'Some LinguisticApproachesto MusicalAnalysis',Tournalofthe
InternationalFolkMusicCouncil,Vol.. 10, pp.37-41.
1983:TheStudyof Ethnomusicology (Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress).
Noske, F., 1977a:TheSignifer and theSignified:Studiesin theOperasof Mozartand
Verdi(The Hague:Nijhoff).
1977b:'La segmentazionedi un temadi Mozart',RivistaItalianadi Musicologia,
Vol. 12,No. 1,pp.130-5.
1979:Reviewof Nattiez 1975a,Ethnomusicology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.144-8.
Orlando,F.,1975: 'Propositionspourunesemantiquedu leitmotifwagnerien',Musique
eneu, No. 17, pp.73-86.
Orlov,H., 1981:'Towarda Semioticsof Music',in Steiner(ed.) 1981,pp.131-7.
Osmond-Smith,D., 1972: 'The Iconic Processin MusicalCommunication',Versus,
No. 3, pp.31-42.

1973:'FormalIconismin Music',Versus,No. 5, pp.43-52.

1975a:'Introductiongeneralea une methoded'analysesemiotiqueformellede la
musique',in La Musiqueenprojet(Paris:Gallimard),pp.173-88.
1975b:'IconicRelationswithinFormalTransformations', in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,
pp.45-55.
1976:'The Role of Connotationsof Originand Use in the Listener'sResponse',
Versus,No. 13, pp.5-10.
Pagnini, M., 1974: Linguae musica,propostaper un'idaginestratturalistico-semiotica
(Milan:I1Mulino).
Peirce,C.S., 1960:CollectedPapersof CharlesSandersPeirce,ed. C. Hartshorneand
P. Weiss(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress),8 vols.
Pekkila,E., 1986:'IdealPatternsin the Finnishjuoksuvalssi: A Paradigmatic Segment
Analysis',in TheOralandtheLiterate inMusic,ed. Y. TokumaruandO. Yamaguti
(Tokyo:AcademiaMusic),pp.206-20;Semiotica,Vol. 66, Nos 1-3, pp.299-314.
Pelinski, R., 1981:La MusiquedesInuitsdu Caribou,cinqperpectives methodologiques
(Montreal:MontrealUniversityPress).
1984: 'A GenerativeGrammarof PersonalEskimo Songs', in Baroni-Callegari
(eds) 1984,pp.273-86.
Pousseur, H., 1971: Fragmentstheoriques I sur la musiqueexperimentale (Brussels:
Institutde Sociologie).
Powers, H.S., 1980: 'LanguageModels and Musical Analysis', Ethnomusicology,
Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.1-60.
Prieto,L.J., 1966:Messageset signaux(Paris:P.U.F.).
Reicha, A., 1814: Traite'de me'lodie,abstraction faite de ses rapportsavec l'hannonie
(Paris:Scherff).
Reti, R., 1951:TheThematic Processin Music(New York:Macmillan).
Ricoeur,P., 1969:Le Conflitdesinterpretations (Paris:Seuil).
Rosen,C., 1971:TheClassicalStyle(New York:Norton).
Rothgeb, J.E., 1968: 'Harmonizingthe UnfiguredBass: A ComputationalStudy'
(Diss., YaleUniversity).
Rouget,G., 1973:Prefaceto Brailoiu1973,pp.i-xviii.
1980:La Musiqueet la Transe(Paris:Gallimard).
Ruwet,N., 1963:'Linguistiqueet sciencesde l'homme',Espnt,No. 322, pp.564-78.
1966:'Methodesd'analyseen musicologie',Revuebelgede musicolog?e, Vol. 20,
pp.65-90;repr.in Ruwet 1972,pp.100-34;Eng. trans., 'Methodsof Analysisin
Musicology',MusicAnalysis,Vol. 6, Nos 1-2(March-July1987),pp.l 1-36.
1972:Langage,musique, poe'sie(Paris:Seuil).
1975: 'Theorie et methodes dans les etudes musicales:quelques remarques
retrospectiveset preliminaires',Musiqueenffeu,No. 17, pp. l 1-36.
Sadai,Y., 1986:'L'Applicationdu modelesyntagmatique-paradigmatique a l'analyse
des fonctionsharmoniques',Analysemusicale,No. 2, pp.35-43.
Sapir,J.D. 1969:'Diola-FognyFuneralSongsandtheNativeCritic',Af;rican Language
Review,No. 8, pp.l76-91.
Saussure,F. de, 1983:CourseinGeneralLinguistics, ed. C. BallyandA. Sechehaye,with
the collaborationof A. Riedlinger, trans. and annot. R. Harris (London:

Duckworth;Eng. trans.of Coursde linguistique generale,Paris:Payot, 1922)

Schneider,R., 1980:SemiotikderMusik,DarstellungundKntik (Munich:FinkVerlag).
Scruton,R., 1978:'The Semiologyof Music', TheCambridge Review,No. 2 (June),
pp.173-6.
Smoliar,S.W., 1980: 'A ComputerAid for SchenkerianAnalysis',ComputerMusic
yournal,Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.41-59.
Springer,G.P., 1956:'LanguageandMusic:ParallelandDivergencies',in ForRamon
yakobson(The Hague:Mouton),pp.504-613.
Stefani,G., 1973:'Semiotiqueen musicologie',Versus,No. 5, pp.20-42.
1974a: 'La scansioneincitativa', Uomo e Cultura,Rivista di studi etnologici,
Nos 13-14,pp.27-50;repr.in Stefani1976c,pp.ll4-24.
1974b: 'Sur l'approchefonctionnelledes pratiques musicales', International
1974c:'Progettosemioticodi unamusicologiasistematica',InternationalReview of
andSociologyof Music,Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.277-89.
theAesthetics
(ed.) 1975a:Actesdupremiercongres international
desemiotique musicale(Belgrade,
17-21October1973)(Pesaro:Centrodi IniziativaCulturale).
1975b: 'Situationde la semiotiquemusicale',in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,pp.9-17;
NuovaRivistaMusicaleItaliana, 1974/1,pp.61-82.
1975c:'E, la vita la vita', Nuova RivistaMusicaleItaliana, 1975/1,pp.97-105;
repr.in Stefani1976c,pp.159-67.
1975d:'Unadisciplinademocratica',inAttidelConvegnoNazionale 'L'Educazione
musicalee la societaitaliana'(Reggio Emilia, 1975), pp.90-3; repr. in Stefani
1976c,pp.17-20.
1976a:'Analisi,semiosi,semiotica',RivistaItalianidiMusicologia, Vol. 11,No. 1,
pp.106-25;repr.in Stefani1976c,pp.36-49.
1976b:'Un motivo"cantabile"',Versus,No. 13, pp.62-8;repr.in Stefani1976c,
pp.168-77.
1976c:Introdazione alla SemioticadellaMusica(Palermo:Sellerio).
1977a: 'Pedagogia musicale in prospettiva semiologica', Musica Domani,
Nos 24-5, pp.35-41.
1977b:Insegnare la musica(Florence:Guaraldi;2nd edn, 1980).
1977c:'A propositodi Nono: un'esperienzacon il pubblico',in Musicae politica,
ed. ScarnecchiaandMessinis(Venice:La Biennale-Marsilio), pp.342-4.
1978:Capirela Musica(Milan:L'Espresso).
1979a:Perchela musica(Brescia:La Scuola).
1979b: L'Educazionemusicaledi base (with J. Tafuri and M. Spaccazocchi)
(Brescia:La Scuola).
1979c:'Educazionemusicale',in I nuoviprogrammi perla ScuolaMedia(Brescia:
La Scuola),pp.315-34.
1980:Metodologza musicale(withG.L. Zucchini)(Milan:
e didatticadell'educazione
EdizioniScolasticheMondadori).
1981: 'L'intervallod'ottava:per una "nuova"grammticamusicale',Musica
domani,No. 40, pp.41-4;repr.in Stefani1982,pp.41-8.
1982: La competenzamusicale(Bologna: CooperativaLibrariaUniversitaria
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2 , 1989 73

EditriceBologna).
1983a:Musica(withJ. TafuriandM. Spaccazocchi) (Milan:EdizioniScolastiche
Mondadori).
1983b:'Perchee comeinsegnarela musica',NuovaSecondaria,No. 3, pp.79-82.
1985: Competenza musicalee culturadellapace (Bologna:CooperativaLibraria
UniversitariaEditriceBologna).
1986: 'Theorie des intervalles',Revue de musiquedes universitescanadiennes,
No.7,pp.80-102.
1987:II segnodellamusica(Palermo:Sellerio).
Steiner,W. (ed.), 1981:TheSignin MusicandLiterature (Austin:Universityof Texas
Press).
Stockmann, D., 1970: 'Musik als kommunikativesSystem. Informations-und
zeichentheoretischeAspekte insbesondere bei der Erforschung mundlich
tradierterMusik', Deutsches27ahrbuch derMusikwissenschaft fur 1969, Vol. 14,
pp.76-95.
1981: 'Musik und Sprache in intermodalerasthetischerKommunikation',
Yearbook for Traditional
Music,Vol. 13, pp.60-81.
Stockmann,E., 1974:'Die DarstellungderArbeitin derinstrumentalen Hirtenmusik',
Studiainstrumentorum musicaepopularis,Vol. 3 (Stockholm),pp.233-6.
Stoianova,I., 1978:Geste- texte- musique (Paris:10/18).
Stravinsky,I., 1936:An Autobiography (New York:Norton;Eng. trans.of Chroniques
demavie, Paris:Denoel-Gonthier,1962).
Sulzer,J.G.,1771-4:Allgemeine Theorzederschonen Kunste(Leipzig:vonBlankenburg).
Sundberg,J., 1975: 'LinguisticMethodsin Music Description',papergiven at the
colloquium'Linguistique-Musique', I.R.C.A.M, Paris(unpubl.).
Sundberg,J. and Lindblom,B., 1976:'GenerativeTheoriesin Languageand Music
Descriptions',Cognition,Vol. 4, pp.99-122.
Supicic,I., 1957:La Musiqueexpressive (Paris:P.U.F.)
Sychra,A., 1948:'Lidovapisen shlediskasemiologickeho,Slovaa Slovesnost,Vol. 11,
pp.7-23; Fr. trans., 'La Chansonfolkloriquedu point de vue semiologique',
Musiqueenj7eu,No. lO,pp.12-33.
Tarasti,E., 1978:Mythand Music:A SemioticApproachto theAestheticsof Mythin
Music, Especiallythat of Wagner,Sibeliusand Stravinsky(Helsinki: Suomen
Musiikkitieteelinen Seura;Berlin:Mouton).
(ed.) 1982: Musiikin Soivat Muodot (Jyvaskglan: Jyvaskylan yliopiston
musiikkitieteenlaitoksenjulkaisvsaria A: Tutkielmiajarapportteja,No. 2).
1984: 'Towardsa StructuralSemanticsof Music: Reflectionson the Logic of
MusicalDiscourse',in Borbe(ed.) 1984,Vol. 3.
1986: 'Devenir (en semiotique musicale). Intonation. Isotopie musicale.
Modalite',in Basic Conceptsin Studiesof MusicalSignification,ed. E. Tarasti
(Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinki,1986),pp.118-23.
Titon, J.T., 1977:EarlyDownhome Blues(Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress).
Vaccaro,J.M., 1975: 'Propositionsd'analysepour une polyphonievocale du XVIe
siecle',Revuedemusicologte, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.35-58.
Veyne,P., 1971:Comment onecritl'histoire
(Paris:Seuil).
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2 , 1989

74
Villoteau,G.A., 1807:Recherchessurl'analogiedela musique

aveclesartsquiontpourobjet
l'imitation
dulangage(Geneva:SlatkinReprints,1970),2 vols.
Vitanyi,I., 1975:'Semioticsof StandardMusicalLanguage',in Stefani(ed.) 1975a,
pp.197-207.
Wehnert, M., 1971: 'Bemerkungen zur semiotischen Werkbetrachtungbei
Beethoven',in Berichtuberdeninternationalen Beethoven-Kongress1970in Berlin,
ed. Brockhaus-Hiemann, pp.405-16.
White, L., 1949:TheScienceof Culture(New York:Farrar,StrausandGiroux).
Zagiba, F., 1955: 'Begriff, Aufbau und Methode einer strukturalistischen musik-
wissenschaftlichenArbeit (Ein Beitrag zur Methodologieder Musikwissen-
schaft)',Die Musikforschung,
Vol. 8, pp.298-313.
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8 :1-2 , 1989 75

Lectura 1 U 2 Reflections On The Development of Semiology in Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lectura 1 U 2 Reflections On The Development of Semiology in Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflections on the Development of Semiology in Music

Author(s): Jean-Jacques Nattiez and Katharine Ellis

REFLECTIONSON THE DEVELOPMENTOF

Semiologydoes not exist.* For two closelyrelatedreasons:the investigations

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

back to a slim volume by Hanslick, VomMusikalisch-Schonen (1854). This

22 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

models,influencedby a similardebatein linguistics,but findingits rootsin far

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 23

the current decay of semiologicalresearch. In addition, at that time, my

24 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

scieniific: this could be found in the structural- notably phonological-

d) establishan algebraor a matrixof theseelementsandopposingcouples

In oppositionto the infiniteexplorationof factualsignificationspractisedby

* treatedaccordingto its differencesin a system, the sign was characterised

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 25

peoplechallenged theideacurrentafterHanslick,namelythat,in Stravinsky's

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

domainunder consideration,then of analysingit and transposingthe

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 27

28 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

interpretant (1976:140).Elsewhere in his workonefindsa perception of the

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 29

30 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

Itwouldbeunjustto saythatthisapproach hasenjoyeda greatposterityonly

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 31

is appliedto a domainforwhichit wasnotconceived.Ina forthcoming work,I

32 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

the polyphoniesand polyrhythmsof CentralAfrica in a considerableand

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 33

discussionsbringintoplaythe existenceor non-existenceof musicalsemaniics:

34 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

a preciselink betweensignifiersandsignifiedsin the musicof the Tepehuaand

3) In a totally different spirit, experimentalpsychologyhas tackled the

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 35

neutrality'on the partof the authorof analyses,9or the affirmationof a level of

1) While the immanentanalysis allows one to sweep over a corpus from

2) Analysisis neverconcluded,as is well known,but the incompletenatureof

36 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

operateon the samekindof experience.If thisanalysisis correct,therewouldbe

This concerns a kind of analysiswhich, proceedingfrom an explicit or

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 37

theyarepresent;it is of littleimportancenowwhethertheywereincludedin the

Similarly, inductive esthesics constitutes the most frequent case. First

38 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

REFLECTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

and decrees that 'this is what one hears'.

thatthe sequencearoundthe cycle of fifths develops

To thesefive modelsa sixthshouldbe added:thatin whichthe authorclaims

40 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

derschonenKunsteof Sulzer(1771-4)exhibitsa true theoryof levels beforeits

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989 41

veryclose to the theoryof the symbolicfactaccordingto Molino(1975:42-3).

42 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

issue of Musiqueen yeu(the journaldisappearedin 1978with No. 33). Number

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

Bengtsson, KurkelaLing, Pekkila, Tiensuu). In July 1983 he organisedat

44 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

Pressesde l'Universitede Montreal,'Semiologieet analysesmusicales',where

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:1-2, 1989

semanticpossibiliiiesof music as outlinedabove. If, in general,the Marxist

46 MUSIC ANALYSI S 8 :1-2, 1989

Besides two works of conceptualexploration(1977, 1978), Boiles tried to