Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://msx.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Musicae Scientiae can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://msx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://msx.sagepub.com/content/10/2/278.refs.html
What is This?
Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 11, 2012
• Dorothy Miell, Raymond MacDonald and David J. Hargreaves (Editors),
M u s i c a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n . Oxford University Press, 2005, 422 pp.
ISBN 0-19-852935X
Starting from familiar arguments about the ubiquity of music in everyday life
and the diversification of musical behaviour, this book explores a range of
issues related to musical communication. The approach is explicitly and markedly
multidisciplinary. The editors position themselves and their arguments firmly
within the psychology of music and their own chapters draw on mainstream
psychological concepts, yet the contributors come from and speak to a far wider
range of perspectives including neuroscience, music theory, music education, music
therapy, media studies and ethnomusicology. Five key questions are posed at the out-
set: how people use music to communicate, why people communicate using music,
what is communicated, who the communicators and recipients of musical meaning
are, and where musical communication takes place. The book does not aim to pro-
vide clear answers to all five questions, but they set the terms of reference for what
follows.
The first chapter (by David Hargreaves, Raymond MacDonald and Dorothy
Miell) also sets a broad theoretical context for the book by delineating a new model
of musical communication that attempts to account for both performer and listener
in context. Since this is perhaps one of the most important contributions of the
book, the model merits close attention. It combines two separate reciprocal feed-
back models of musical performance and musical response, both of which spec-
ify properties of the music, the situations and contexts, and the individuals (the
performer, composer or listener) that are involved in determining the performance
or the response. There are subtle differences between the performance and response
models, but it is possible to summarise the general features they share. Musical
features include the notion of a reference system (genres, idioms etc.), so-called
collative variables (complexity, familiarity), prototypicality, and the context of
performance (live, recorded). Situations and contexts are defined as social and cultural
contexts, everyday situations, the presence or absence of others, and “other”
ongoing activities. Individuals are characterised in terms of individual differences
(gender, age, personality) as well as musical knowledge, preference and taste, self
theories of musical identity, and for the composer/performer, expressive intentions
and motivations. The listener’s response to the music is also affected by physiological
(engagement, arousal, active listening), cognitive (attention, expectation, discrimination)
and affective (emotional, mood, liking) factors. The performance itself is identified
as a separate factor from the situations and contexts of performance.
In both models, all these factors — musical, situational and personal — interact
with one another in a causal manner. The two models are combined to produce a
third reciprocal feedback model of musical communication linking the performance
278
to the response, and musical communication is defined as “the ‘spark’ which occurs
when the performance event gives rise to a response” (p.18). This final model, as
the authors acknowledge, remains in the tradition of linear “transmission” models
of communication such as Shannon and Weaver’s original model, and it also
depends on a conceptual distinction between performance and response.
However, many of the other contributors adopt somewhat different approach-
es to musical communication. The 18 chapters which make up the rest of the book
cover a range of different topics, and each provide their own definitions of musical
communication in relation to their interests. Although Hargreaves, MacDonald and
Miell claim it is the specific link between the performance event and the response,
Patrik Juslin argues that an exhaustive study of communication of emotion in music
also has to account for the composer or performer’s intention to express a specific
concept and the listener’s recognition of that concept. Keith Sawyer argues that
communication is “an emergent property of social groups in complex interactions”
(p. 57), and this approach is shared by Margaret Barrett in her exploration of
children’s musical communities of practice and by Gary Ansdell and Mercedes
Pavlicevic in their chapter on music therapy. Both Sawyer and Susan Young focus
on musical communication as detailed two-way interactions, in improvisers and
between adults and young children respectively, while more “faceless” kinds of
musical communication are covered by Scott Lipscomb and David Tolchinsky
(music in cinema) and Adrian North and David Hargreaves (music in commercial
contexts).
Some of the chapters focus on communication through music, emphasising this
in the short term (e.g. Juslin’s exposition of the communication of emotion) or in
the long term (e.g. Ian Cross’s consideration of music in evolution). Others focus on
processes of musical communication, such as Sawyer’s evaluation of improvisation
(a real-time interactive process) or Barrett’s exploration of children’s invented music
notations (enabling communication over longer timespans). There is an obvious yet
unstated parallel here with the distinction drawn between identities in music and
musical identities in the preceding volume from the same editors (MacDonald,
Hargreaves and Miell, 2002), and this might have brought a greater coherence to the
collection than the given subheadings of Cognition, Representation and Communication;
Embodied Communication; Communication in Learning and Education; and Cultural Contexts
of Communication. The final section reflects the strategy of Hargreaves, MacDonald
and Miell’s initial model by treating “context” as a separate and separable issue —
rather predictably this section includes chapters on pop music (Janis McNair and
John Powles’ consideration of politics and pop music) and non-Western music
(Martin Clayton’s analysis of Indian raga performance) which could have been
placed elsewhere (Clayton’s emphasis on the body has much in common with Jane
Davidson’s chapter on performance in the Embodied Communication section, for
example).
279
280
281
Alexandra Lamont
• REFERENCES
Ang, I. (1996). Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World. London:
Routledge.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. London: Harvard University
Press.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (ed.), Culture,
Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79 (pp. 128-38). London:
Hutchinson.
Goehr, L. (1993). “Music has no meaning to speak of ”: on the politics of musical interpretation.
In M. Krausz (ed.), The interpretation of music: philosophical essays (pp. 177-90). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Leydesdorff, L. (2003). A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-
Based Society. Parkland, Florida: Universal Publishers.
MacDonald, R.A.R., Hargreaves, D.J., & Miell, D.E. (2002) (eds). Musical Identities. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
282