One of the more intriguing concepts from this week's readings is the distinction Sellnow makes between what music communicates and what it might be said to communicate rhetorically. On the surface, there is a song, with either lyrics and/or music, and a story is told, emotions are expressed, or ideas are presented. However, rhetorical communication is different. It invites an audience to hold certain beliefs or values or to adopt a particular viewpoint. Thus, beyond the layers of expressive communication, a song can be persuasive. Sellnow's illusion of life theory suggests how this works. In this case, the theory states, lyrics and music work in tandem to convey an aural and emotional construct or dualism. The lyrics are said to represent the meaning of the lyrics verbally, while the music represents how the lyrics are interpreted. The music, in this case, can elevate or tone down the emotional impact of the lyrics, thereby changing the meaning and the interpretation of the lyrics and influencing the overall message. It is for this reason that lyrics can seem so different (or have different interpretations) when set with different music.
Another critical point made by Sellnow is that music lacks the ability to create feelings; rather, music reflects emotions that listeners already have. A song about war, for instance, is not inherently sad or angry. Rather, it reflects emotions that listeners have about war. Without listeners' feelings about war, the song would not really mean anything. Music also employs the use of intensity and release patterns to shape emotional experience. Intensity patterns, for instance, are designed to agitate or elevate emotion. On the other hand, release patterns allow listeners to purge or calm those emotions. These patterns function hand in hand alongside paralinguistic cues, which are nonverbal elements like pitch, tempo, rhythm, and volume that communicate meaning without using words.M usic also works, according to Sellnow, in virtual time and virtual experience. Songs can also manipulate, for instance, time through speed and pitch, and they allow listeners to experience events in other ways. For example, Eric Clapton's song “Tears in Heaven” gives listeners the opportunity to feel and experience the emotions of grief without having to live through that event.
The concepts here relate to congruent and incongruent music. Congruent music has lyrics and music that work together, while incongruent music has lyrics and music that work against each other. Also, ascription of lyrics and music, where borrowed sounds and stories come from other cultures. This relates to Bermingham and the Remix Manifesto, where the focus is that culture is built from copying, transforming, and recombining from what is already there. Also, with the ‘democratization’ of the culture-producing technology, the emphasis is placed on the conflict between the strict copyright laws and the creative flow that needs to occur. Adorno’s critique of popular music is the opposite of this. He says popular music is too standardized and lacks originality, while ‘serious’ music (i.e. classical) adds something original to the world. This critique is relevant and important, but it underestimates the rhetorical power of popular music.
Is it possible for a pop song that is completely standardized to still communicate meaningfully? Does standardization limit persuasive power?
No comments:
Post a Comment