1 Introduction: Musical Notation

as a Symbolic Language

By the early twenty-first century, Western musical notation has developed

into an extraordinarily rich and complex piece of visual communication.
Modern musicians expend considerable time and energy to create strat-
egies for its more efficient comprehension. Simultaneously, musicians are
continuously inventing new symbols and systems of symbols for two very
different reasons. Some wish to communicate with ever greater precision
the instructions necessary for the reproduction of a musical work. Others
are seeking ways of recording in writing musics whose origins are not
necessarily rooted in notation. Charles Seeger identified these two streams
as, respectively, “prescriptive” and “descriptive” forms of notation.1
Like many useful binary oppositions, these two categories function
better as the two endpoints of a continuum instead of mutually exclusive
classifications. As helpful as they are in understanding many of the applica-
tions of musical notation in the West, they have not rested in static relation
throughout the history of Western music. Scribes, typesetters, engravers
and now computer-literate users of musicprocessors have striven to clarify,
render more precise and otherwise improve the efficiency and the manner
in which musical notation communicates to its audiences, functioning as
intermediaries between the sounds themselves and their representation in
writing. In some cases, they have started with a composer’s prescriptive
notation and finished by issuing an interpretative version that more closely
recalls Seeger’s descriptive notation.
Another factor that prevents Seeger’s classifications from being herme-
tically sealed is the fluidity of musical practice itself. Composers, despite
Wagner’s and Stravinsky’s protests to the contrary, inevitably leave some
aspects of the performance to the discretion of the performer.2 Stravinsky
explicitly and implicitly denies these concessions in his Poetics, consciously
avoiding, in the French text, the conventional word for “performer,”
namely “interprète,” and substituting for it “exécutant.”3 Nevertheless,
even the most detailed score leaves aspects of articulation, tempo and

1.
Seeger, “Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing.”
2.
Grier, “Authority of the Composer.” 3. Strawinsky, Poétique musicale, pp. 82–92. 1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 2 Musical Notation in the West

dynamics to be determined by the realities of performance in response to

such factors as ambient room acoustics and the taste, sensitivity and
education of the performer. To achieve an indicated forte might require
two very different efforts on the part of the same musician performing in
two acoustically different environments. Similarly, the transcription of
orally conceived musics into notation, Seeger’s “descriptive” notation,
potentially involves significant compromises, as Philip Bohlman eloquently
argues.4 In fact, as Leo Treitler remarked, the transcription of such music
by practitioners (as opposed to scholars from a foreign culture) often blurs
the distinction between composing, performing and writing.5
Here I shall investigate some aspects of the tension between musical
sounds, the musical practices that generate them and the role of notation in
mediating between the two. In particular, I would like to address the way in
which the marks or signs that make up musical notation function within
conventional and arbitrarily determined systems to communicate to their
users. Semiotics, taken literally from the Greek το σημεı̑ ον, refers to the
theory and history of signs per se, and the systems operating in musical
notation closely accord with two of the principal concepts that Ferdinand
de Saussure proposed in his seminal work on the discipline: notational
symbols derive their meaning equally from convention and from their
relative position within a system of symbols.6 Both concepts are arbitrary.
For example, it is conventional and arbitrarily determined that the position
of a note on the vertical axis indicates its pitch while its position on the
horizontal axis shows its relative position in the rhythmic framework of the
music (respectively, action in space and action in time, to use Paul
Hindemith’s pithy formulation).7
Naturally, the convention of reading from left to right derives from the
customary inscription of language in the West. The earliest notations in the
medieval West record the melodies of vocal music and usually accompany
the sung literary text. Scribes write the literary text, of course, from left to
right, and so the melody written above the text proceeds in the same
manner. Likewise, the placing of pitch on the vertical axis accords simulta-
neously with our subjective conception of high and low, already present in
medieval music theory, and with the quantitative measurement of pitch in
Hertz, or cycles per second of the vibrating body: subjectively higher
pitches vibrate at quantitatively higher frequencies. Despite these

4.
Bohlman, “Musicology as a Political Act.”
5.
Treitler, “Oral, Written, and Literate Process” and “Observations on the Transmission.”
6.
Saussure, Cours de linguistique générale, ed. Bally and Sechehaye, esp. pp. 23–35, 100–2, 180–84.
7.
Hindemith, Elementary Training for Musicians.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 Musical Notation as a Symbolic Language 3

circumstantial reasons for inscribing music in this way along the vertical
and horizontal axes, the arrangement, nevertheless, is entirely arbitrary and
finds meaning only through convention.
Similarly, the symbols for relative duration also derive meaning from
convention. Their morphology permits us to recognize their relative values.
In the first instance, however, those relative values are determined arbi-
trarily and entirely by convention. In the second instance, the relativity of
the values operates within the system of symbols. There is no intrinsic value
in the graphic shape of the half note, for example, that makes it longer than
the quarter note, but convention dictates it. That convention then extends
across the entire system of durational symbols to govern the relationships
among the members that constitute the whole.
The symbols that make up musical notation form a number of interact-
ing systems. Leo Treitler usefully adopts Charles Sanders Peirce’s theore-
tical framework for classifying signs.8 Peirce identifies three categories of
signs, iconic, indexical and symbolic, of which he offers concise definitions.
“An Icon is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes merely by virtue
of characters of its own, and which it possesses, just the same, whether any
such Object actually exists or not.” “An Index is a sign which refers to the
Object that it denotes by virtue of being really affected by that Object.” “A
Symbol is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law,
usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol
to be interpreted as referring to that Object.”9
So, iconic signs resemble in some way the object they are respresenting.
The marks conventionally used for articulation (slurs, dots, tenuto marks,
wedges, etc.) offer visual cues to the way in which the notes are to be
executed, and so may be considered iconic; iconic also is the conventional
notation for the use of the damper pedal on the piano, whose shape
graphically resembles the motions made by the player’s foot as it depresses,
holds and releases the pedal. Indexical symbols represent some aspect of
action between the object and its referent. Some systems of notation use
indexical signs, which dictate a specific physical action: instrumental
tablatures, for example, that indicate which finger to use or at which fret
to stop the string, or fingering instructions for keyboard and string

8.
Treitler, “The Early History of Music Writing.” Treitler, focusing on chant notation, applies two
of Peirce’s three categories, iconic and symbolic.
9.
Quotation: Peirce, “A Second Trichotemy of Signs,” in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders
Peirce, 2: Elements of Logic, ed. Hartshorne and Weiss, Book 2 “Speculative Grammar,” Chapter
2 “Divisions of Signs,” §5, paragraphs 247–49, pp. 143–44; see also Book 2 “Speculative
Grammar,” Chapter 3 “The Icon, Index, and Symbol,” paragraphs 274–308, pp. 156–73.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 4 Musical Notation in the West

instruments. Symbolic marks derive their meaning from pure convention,

for example, the modern signs for duration I discuss above.
In complex notation, several systems operate simultaneously, offering
guidance over several independent aspects of the execution of a given note
or pattern of notes. Moreover, these systems and their interrelations have
changed over time, and so a third element enters the equation, alongside
the concepts of convention and system, and that is context. The meaning
of the individual symbol can change from one context to another, one era
to the next. But even more important, entire systems can change or be
replaced by new ones. Experienced musicians learn to apprehend these
interacting systems at a glance and incorporate the suggestions each pre-
sents into their playing. Simultaneously, musicians cultivate a historical
awareness of notational systems, how they change over time and in differ-
ent contexts, and how their meaning affects the sounds generated. By
analyzing the semiotic components of the systems that constitute musical
notation, we can achieve a fuller understanding of how and what it
communicates.
Musical notation, therefore, constitutes a language of signs, a symbolic
language that must, therefore, in order to communicate efficiently and
effectively, accord with various principles that determine whether symbols
and signs function appropriately.10 Four basic principles emerge from the
study of signs and their effectiveness. First and determinant for the other
principles, users must be able to read the symbols efficiently in real time.
Users do not have time to consult a table or legend and should not have to
reflect on the meaning of the symbol. To achieve this goal, two strategies
present themselves. Either the meaning of the symbol must be so entirely
self-evident that no doubt may arise regarding its meaning (Peirce’s cat-
egory of iconic symbols), or the users must have internalized the system
and the meanings of the symbols so completely that no delay arises in their
comprehension and application. Commonly used signs, like those govern-
ing traffic or the symbols for toilets, fall into the first category while musical
notation belongs squarely in the second. As I said at the outset, musicians
spend significant quantities of time internalizing the meanings of nota-
tional symbols so that they can read efficiently during performance.
The three remaining principles all descend from this first one. The
design of individual symbols must enable immediate identification on the
part of users and so distinguish them from all other symbols in the system.

10.
On symbols and their language, see Frutiger, Der Mensch und seine Zeichen; Jean, Langage de
signes; and Pierce, The International Pictograms Standard.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 Musical Notation as a Symbolic Language 5

The durational signs of modern notation achieve that goal through

a complex system of void and filled-in noteheads, stems and flags or
beams. More complicated relationships find expression through numerals,
such as the numeral 3 imposed above notes to indicate a relationship of
three of one durational level in the time of two of the same level. As
I discuss in Chapter 3, fourteenth-century notation of the ars noua period
did not normally distinguish between durations divisible in three or two
equal parts; the same grapheme served for both, and so theorists devised
complex rules so that musicians could recognize which notes of the same
physical appearance were triple and which ones duple in nature. Modern
notation simply uses the dot to achieve the same goal: a dotted note at one
level equals three equal notes of the next lower level; one without a dot, two.
Next, classes of symbols within the same system must exhibit clear
interrelations between one another in order to facilitate their comprehen-
sion and efficient apprehension. Again, the durational signs of modern
notation provide a good example. I mentioned above that the morphology
of these symbols contains no intrinsic, or iconic, meaning regarding their
durational value. Convention and convention alone, reinforced by centu-
ries of usage, dictates the relative meaning of the symbols. Here, then, is
another instance of how musicians must work within the historical con-
ventions of the notation to internalize the arbitrary relationships between
the various durational values. The interrelations between the symbols only
become clear through pedagogy and long exposure, but clear they do
become to musically literate musicians.
Finally, when the prevailing system combines classes of symbols, the
interrelations among the classes must remain clear. Such combinations in
musical notation usually signify modifications to the meaning of the notes
that form the central core of the system. Time and key signatures indicate
the way performers should group the durational values and what chromatic
adjustments to apply. Again, nothing intrinsic in either type of symbol
conveys those meanings, although a logic does inform the arrangement of
numerals in the time signature that resemble an equation. And so, the
relationships between the classes of symbols, as Saussure would say, are
arbitrary and governed by convention. Musicians must learn and practise
them in order to internalize their meanings and apply them as needed in
real time during performance.
The system of musical notation we know and that I am critiquing
evolved over centuries; no musician set out to design the system from
a blank sheet of paper, with the result that many of its attributes do not
evince absolute transparency. They developed over time through a certain

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 6 Musical Notation in the West

amount of trial and error, and so they do not uniformly embrace the
principles that an efficient system would require. Instead, as I note several
times above, musicians must devote significant time and effort to the
internalization of these symbols and their meaning to use them effectively.
This circumstance generates two results that impose limitations on musical
practice. First, because of the great investment of time and effort musicians
must make to master notation and musical literacy, they are reluctant to
invent or adopt new symbols or systems, as I show in Chapter 5, where
I discuss developments in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
From this situation emerges the second limiting circumstance, and that is
that traditional musical notation imposes a relatively rigid grid of pitch and
temporal relationships. Modern attempts to decrease the rigidity of the
system have generally failed.
These limitations have caused musicians to question the purpose and
function of notation. In articles originally published side by side in the
journal Critique, Pierre Boulez and Hugues Dufourt, both musically
literate and highly proficient musicians and composers, suggest that
musical notation imposes significant restraints on musical practice.11
Boulez points out that the writing of music transforms the art from
a dynamic to a static form. Similarly, Dufourt avers that the transforma-
tion renders music an art for the eye instead of one for the ear. “L’oeil
admet l’oreille aux disponibilités relationnelles enclose dans la sphere des
sons. L’oeil introduit l’oreille dans l’espace des opérations et des
fonctions.”12 (“The eye admits the ear to the relational possibilities that
are enclosed in the sphere of sounds. The eye introduces the ear into the
space of these operations and functions.”) He observes that neumes, in
their original invention, attempt to convey melodic movement, with all
its subtleties and nuances. As notation came to represent more aspects of
music (pitch, rhythm, metre, dynamics and so on), however, the inti-
macy of that relationship with melodic motion and the spontaneity of the
interaction between sound and the symbols used to represent it became
more remote.13
If Boulez and Dufourt are correct, then, why write a book like this one
about a technology that impedes instead of enabling musical practice? As
the careers of these two distinguished musicians unequivocally

11.
Boulez, “L’écriture du musician”; and Dufourt, “L’artifice de l’écriture.”
12.
Dufourt, “L’artifice de l’écriture,” p. 465; compare Karlheinz Stockhausen’s conception of
“read” music (“gelesene Musik”), “Musik und Graphik,” p. 13 (Stockhausen’s italics); I discuss
this article further in Chapter 5 and the Coda below.
13.
Dufourt, “L’artifice de l’écriture,” pp. 468–69.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821
 Musical Notation as a Symbolic Language 7

demonstrate, musical notation, with all its imperfections, still remains

a relatively efficient means of communicating musical events between
musically literate individuals. Those efficiencies depend, as I argue above,
on the devotion of musicians to obtain and cultivate musical literacy, but
many musicians, Boulez and Dufourt among them, are willing to expend
that devotion. And so scholars are obliged to continue to investigate and
critique the nature of musical notation as a system of signs and as a reality
both historical and actual for practising musicians.
By studying the semiotic import of musical notations, I hope that
practitioners of music will gain an increased critical awareness of how
musical notation relates to the musical events it attempts to represent,
how it communicates those events to musically literate practitioners and
how practitioners have shaped notation to serve their needs. The critical
investigation of the interaction between musical events, the practitioners
who create them and the notational symbols that represent them will assist
musically literate musicians at all levels to gain an increased sensitivity to
the way in which they use musical notation in their professional activities.
Musical notation is not a passive conduit through which a musically literate
individual apprehends the musical events the notation attempts to repre-
sent. Notation actively shapes that apprehension by engaging in dialogue
with musical style, genre and the actions required to animate it in perfor-
mance. It is this critical engagement with the manner in which notation
communicates to practitioners that I hope to encourage and even facilitate.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universite de Montreal, on 01 Jul 2021 at 23:09:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139034821