University of Texas Press

A Beconsidevalion in lIe Fovn oJ a BiaIogue

AulIov|s) JudilI BecIev and AIlon BecIev
Souvce Asian Music, VoI. 14, No. 1 |1982), pp. 9-16
FuIIisIed I University of Texas Press
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/834041 .
Accessed 10/04/2011 1027
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=texas. .
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.
University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Asian Music.
http://www.jstor.org
Editor's Note. We are
pleased
to
present
reflections on
a controversial article. Six
years
after
writing
"A
Grammar of the Musical Genre
Srepegan"
Judith and Alton
Becker voiced their reconsiderations of that work. Marc
Perlman,
a doctoral candidate at
Wesleyan University
specializing
in Javanese
music,
also had
thought-
provoking
ideas about the
srepegan
article,
which are
appended
here with the
permission
of the Beckers. To
make the
job
of
interpreting viewpoints
easier,
we have
reprinted
the article with the kind
permission
of the
Editor of the Journal of Music
Theory.
A RECONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF A DIALOGUE
Presented at the conference
"Linguistics
and
Musicology"
convened
by
Harold Powers at Princeton
University
April 16-17,
1982
J.B.: Three
years
after its
publication
and six years
after
its
writing,
some
things
about the article have
begun
to
bother me. In
rereading
it in
preparation
for this
conference,
I've identified some
problems
which
speak
to
the issue of this conference -
Language
and Music.
Nowadays
when we use the
phrase 'Language
and Music',
in
academic circles
anyway,
we
usually
are
referring to
linguistic methodology
transferred to the
analysis
of
musical
texts,
music notation of some sort. Our
'Srepegan'
article
seems
to have done
just
that and it is the
methodology
and some of the
assumptions
of the
methodology
that don't feel as comfortable to me as
they
once did.
One
problem appears
on
p.
13 when we
say
"The
simplest description
of the
genre
seems to
compel
one to
describe the
srepegan
slendro
manyura
as basic and other
srepegans
as derived. One
way
to state this is to
posit
srepegan manyura
as the unmarked
form,
and other
srepegans
as
marked,
as deviations of various sorts from
srepegan manyura.
What we are
describing then,
is a
stereotypic srepegan
and its close relatives. The closer
the
relationship,
the more accurate is our
description."
In this
quote,
we avoided the accusation of
reductive
linearity by saying
that the derivation is in
our
description,
not in the world. We also
say
that our
description
can't be
expected
to
accurately apply
to
'distant relatives'. But the
analysis
itself leads the
reader to
conceptualize
the
genre srepegan
as
having
a
base form with closer and more distant variations. Yet we
both know that is not an
adequate way
of
thinking
about
the
family
of
pieces
called
srepegan.
9
It is
equally appropriate
to think of those
pieces
as
having
been more diverse at some time in the
past,
and
over time have come to resemble each other more
closely,
than to assume an
ur-Srepegan
from which all relatives
descend.
Srepegans
share a certain function in the
wayang theater, accompanying
minor or
preliminary
skirmishes and
accompanying
characters who are
arriving
and
departing
from a static scene. The
positional spot,
the
syntactic position
of
srepegans
within a
wayang
drama
might
well
produce
a
pressure
towards a
similarity
of
otherwise
disparate
musical items. We don't
really
want
to take either
side--it
seems
likely
that both
convergence
and
divergence
occur but our
analysis
comes down
clearly
on the side which sees musical forms
(and
by
extension
languages, words, plants, animals, etc.)
as
having
descended and diversified from a
single, simple ancestor,
a musical
theory equivalent
to the
proto-Indo-European
school of
linguistics.
A.B. While Judith
objects
to a too
simple
view of
evolution--and the derivationalism which
goes
with
it,
I am more bothered in our article
by
the structuralism.
Music,
like
language,
does several
things
at once:
1)
it sounds
(the
medium contributes to
meaning),
2)
it
builds structures
(the
relationship
of
parts
to wholes
in a musical
composition,
3)
it takes
past
music and
reshapes
it
(prior performances
of the
genre
are
part
of the
meaning
of
any performance),
4)
it
expresses
interpersonal relationships (composers
and
performers
set
up relationships
with
audiences),
and even in dim
ways
5) makes reference to a world
(the
'extramusical',
iconic
or referential
aspects
of
music).
What our
analysis
does
is take one of those
things
and
foregrounds
it--and claims
to
explain
a kind of music that
way.
As Kenneth L. Pike
used to
say,
it is
right
in what it
affirms, wrong
in
what it denies.
But that's not
quite right
either. If we are
saying
that the structure is in the music--and most
structuralists claim to be
discovering
structure
(other-
wise how can it be
science)--then
we are
simply wrong.
Structure is a
product
of the interaction between an
analyst-observer
and the
object
of his or her
study.
As
Wittgenstein put it,
One thinks that one is
tracing
the
outline of the
thing's
nature over
and over
again,
and one is
merely
tracing
round the frame
through
which we look at it.
(Wittgenstein,
1958:
48e)
10
This is
important.
There is no neutral
description
of
music. I think the
great
sin in our
essay
is that we
seem to
say
that structure is
in
the music--that we see
it,
while Javanese musicians don't. That's the neo-
colonial
arrogance
of our structuralism in both musical
and
linguistic analysis.
As Clifford Geertz
says:
Art and the
equipment
to
grasp
it
are made in the same
shape. (Geertz,
1976:
1497)
So,
I
agree
with Judith's criticisms: it is not
very
sophisticated
a
picture
of
evolution,
and it isolates
structure as an inherent
property
of the music.
What's
good
about the article?
J.B. What's
good
about the
article,
and what was
good
about the
working
out of the
article,
was our realization
that the
point
of
greatest variability
in the
genre
is not
the
point
of weakest
constraint,
but rather the
point
where
strong
constraints were in conflict. We didn't have this
in our minds when we
started;
it
'emerged'
as we became
more
deeply
involved in the
analysis.
The idea that
creativity
and innovation can result from an over-
abundance of constraints seemed to us a
concept
which
had resonance in
many
different areas of human
expression,
as well as in
understanding
the
development
and
change
which occurs within a music
system.
But that
idea,
which I
like,
seems to have
gotten
lost in what H.S. Powers calls 'the
machinery'
of the
article. He
complains,
"the Beckers'
generative
grammar...does
reach to a musical
surface, though
that
surface is both limited and
simple,
and the
machinery...
seems rather
big
for the
job
at hand."
(Powers,
1980:
39).
I'm
compelled
to
agree
and feel that 'the
machinery'
takes
over and obscures what was for us both the
illuminating
insight
of our effort. Our central
point
was that
variability
within a
genre
can result from
conflicting
constraints. Yet from the comments we
received,
we
communicated this idea rather
poorly.
Do
you
feel that this
point
could have been made
clearly
if we had not been locked into a structuralist
analysis
which
excluded
all those other
ways
which music
'means' and which are also shared with
language,
such as
1)
the
meaning
of the medium of the
music, 2)
reshaping
music of the
past
(the
history
of the
genre),
3)
expressing
interpersonal
relations
(what
are the
composers
and
musicians
intending?),
and
4)
making
dim reference to a
world outside of music?
11
A.B. Yes, comparisons
of music and
language
are often
very
elaborate on one
side, simple
on the other. Often
either a
simplistic
view of
language superimposed upon
an elaborated music
description,
or a
simplified
music
theory
subsumed under a
complex language description.
I
don't believe that a
language
is reducible to
any
one of
the
multiple systems
that seem to be
happening
simultaneously
when we
speak--that
is
1) making sounds,
2)
shaping complex syntactic patterns,
3)
evoking
memories, 4)
interacting
with
people,
5)
referring
to a
world. I don't think
any
one of these acts can be
reduced or left out. I think
they
are all sources of
meaning,
in
language
and in music. As
symbol systems,
music and
language
are
unique
in
sharing
these five
sources of constraints--the
major
difference
being
that
in music the referential function is
very dim,
but if
music were
fully referential,
it would be
language.
I
think the
striking thing
for us
working
in Java was the
way
musical and
lingual
constraints seem so similar.
Of
particular
interest was the
way
both music and
plot
seem to value coincidence rather than climax--the
syntax
of both seemed to lead to
parallel
aesthetic values
(J.
Becker and A.
Becker, 1981).
In both
forms,
coincidence of different
systems
seemed to lead to
paradox--what you
call the
places
where constraints were
in conflict
(A. Becker, 1979, pp.
216-226).
And
yet,
the
discipline
of the
machinery
seemed
necessary,
if
only
as a
way
of
forcing
us to listen
very,
very closely
to the music. But
having
arrived at some
insight,
I think then the
machinery
should be abandoned
entirely
and the
insight put
into words. But
something
like that
machinery
is
necessary
in order to make
possible
the self-correction that is
necessary
in order
to
begin
to understand Javanese
music,
or
any
music
different from one's own music. That
is,
in order to
understand a new
music,
it's
necessary
to
step
back and
quite self-consciously readjust
one's modes of under-
standing themselves,
and it is
probably
easier for us to
readjust
our
understanding
of
structure,
since the other
conceptual
constraints
may
not be
immediately
accessible
to us.
J.B. You seem to be
saying
that structural
analyses,
as
in our
article,
as in music
theory
and
musicology,
and as
in the transference of
linguistic methodology
to
music,
is
inadequate,
for both music and
language;
that the
structural
analysis
is
only
the
beginning
of
understanding,
a
necessary stepping
stone to allow us to come to
grips
with
difference,
and should not be an end in itself. In
our
article,
we have also
promulgated
another of the
'sins'
of
structuralism. One of the claims often made
by
12
transformational
grammarians
is that their
methodology
is
superior
because it allows them to
predict
some novel
sentence. We make a similar claim in our
Srepegan
article
when we
say
"In the
genre srepegan,
a
Gongan
acts like a
linked
chain,
each of the three contours of the
Gongan
linked in a
predictable,
or at least
partially predictable,
way
"
(p.
23).
The claim of
predictability--so
close to
scientific claims of
predictability,
is a
powerful
justification
for a
generative,
structural
analysis
like
ours. But in this
case,
all we
really
mean is that
sometimes,
more often in some cases than in
others,
the
sequence
of contours of a
Gongan
will be amenable to our
type
of
analysis.
This humble fact doesn't seem to
justify
the use of the
powerful
term
'predictability.'
Actually,
it would be
possible
for us to handle
any
number
of
"deviating" srepegans
with more and more
complicated
rules,
but what
purpose
would be served?
Only
to show
that with more
complex machinery,
we could handle
srepegans
which cannot be handled
by
the set of rules
put
down in
the article. But then another
falsity creeps
in. More
complex
rules would seem to indicate more
complex srepegans,
and that would not
necessarily
be the
case,
even if one
could
agree
on a definition of
complexity.
The
problem
seems to be the extent to which one
extracts 'truths' from structural
analyses
which are in
no
way objective
or
trans-cultural.
The
tendency
to see
our own
analyses
as
being
in the music seems almost
insurmountable, especially as
we were all trained that
way.
A.B. It's
impossible
to start
anywhere
else. We
begin
in
error,
and then
adjust
to a more
nearly
emic view-
point:
our
analysis
is most
importantly
undertaken to
correct our errors--to
push
onto the
stage
the
problems
which we have to overcome somehow in order to
gain
emic
understandings.
For
example--if
I
try
to
analyze
Burmese clauses as
subject-predicate relations,
I run into
problems
which make S-P relations seem not universal but
one
among
several
possible arrangements.
Melodic
(or
nuclear
theme)
analysis
of
gamelan
music
might
be a
musical
parallel--in
that an
attempt
at nuclear
melody
understanding (Kunst,
1973:
I, 167;
Mantle
Hood, 1954)
generates problems,
the solution of which
gets
us closer
to emic
understanding (Becker, J.,
1980:
14). Our rules
are crude
attempts
(from
a Javanese
perspective)
to
get
closer to emic
understanding--really
translations into
our
English understanding
of Javanese music. But
translation is not the
goal--emic understanding
is.
Translation is a
necessary beginning point.
There is
something beyond it.
13
J.B.
A careful structural
analysis then, imposes upon
us a kind of
discipline,
it forces close
attention, and
if we are honest and
open enough,
it
may bring
to our
consciousness
problems
and
questions
about the
piece
that would not otherwise have arisen. Our
Srepegan
did
that for us.
Linguistic
structuralism has often been associated
with the search for universals which are
presumed
to
underlie diverse surface
representations (especially
Chomskyan
structuralism).
Certain
parallels
of
presenta-
tion in our article to the
style
of
presentation
of works
with this
philosophical
frame
might
be
interpreted
as
examples
of the
theory
that abstract and
logical categories
undergo processes of
transformation
(through
ordered
rules)
which result in the
diversity
of the world's musical
expression.
Any
structural
analysis
of music
implies,
at
least,
this
philosophical background.
Thus it is
covertly making
claims
concerning
the
psychology
of the
musician
during performance
in an oral tradition or the
composer
in a written tradition.
Our
Srepegan gram-mar
also
implicitly
makes this
claim.
"...a
grammar
can describe the
background
knowledge
of a musician... Coherence
systems,
or
grammars,
are
largely
subliminal. A musician
may
not
consciously
be
aware,
in
performance,
of the constraints
he follows and those he violates."
There must be
background knowledge
of the
musician,
and he must have modes of
operation;
but to
claim,
even
implicitly,
that his
knowledge
resembles our
grammar
is
to fail to see that structuralism is our
way
of
comprehending
Javanese
music,
and not
necessarily
a
Javanese
way.
It is a
part
of our intellectual
heritage,
part
of our
language
rather than an
abstract, objective
tool for
knowledge.
Structuralism
(Ca
la Saussure and
Chomsky)
is
culturally
conditioned
knowledge
and as
specific
to us as
knowledge through
meditation is in Java.
The
Srepegan grammar
can
help
us to understand
puzzling
aspects
of a Javanese
genre,
but it cannot
possibly
tell
us about a Javanese musician's
understanding
of that
genre.
A.B.: But that must
surely
be one of our
goals:
what
K.L. Pike called emic
understanding.
Like
perfect
under-
standing
between
Individuals, perfect
cross-cultural
understanding
is
impossible,
but also
necessary,
even
essential.
"Every
text is to be
interpreted
in the same
spirit
which
gave
it forth"
says
Emerson
(quoting George
Fox,
Sealts and
Ferguson, 1969, p. 18).
We must
study
the
14
context as well as the
music, meaning by
context not
just
time and
place
but the broader
concept
outlined here.
Consequently,
it's a matter of self-correction
(as in
Dewey's
Art as
Experience)--correcting
our exuberancies
and our difficiencies in all the
ways
music or
language
can mean:
1. medium
2. structure
3.
prior
text - or
memory
4.
interpersonal
act
5. reference
Structural
analysis
is self-correction--as with our
finding
most
variety
at
points
of
greatest
constraint
rather
than,
as we
anticipated,
least constraint. But it
is
only
one of several dimensions of self-correction.
Each must be
re-attuned,
and in that
process
we attain a
more and more authentic
understanding.
The
implied goal
of our common endeavor--to
para-
phrase
Richard
Rorty,
is to
help
us hear and
speak
with
those we have
difficulty hearing
and
speaking to,
in our
culture or without
(Rorty:
198?).
REFERENCES CITED
Becker,
Alton
1979
"Text-Building, Epistemology
and Aesthetics
in Javanese
Shadow-Theatre,"
in The
Imagination
of
Reality: Essays
in South-
east Asian Coherence
Systems,
ed. A.L.
Becker and Aram
Yingoyan. Norwood,
N.J.:
Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Becker,
Judith and Alton
1981 "A Musical Icon: Power and
Meaning
in
Javanese Gamelan
Music,"
in The
Sign
in
Music and
Literature,
ed.
by Wendy
Steiner.
Austin:
University
of Texas Press.
Becker,
Judith
1980 Traditional Music in Modern
Java;
Gamelan
in a
Changing Society.
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Hawaii.
Chomsky,
N.
1968
Language
and Mind. New York:
Harcourt,
Brace and World.
15
Dewey,
John
1958 Art as
Experience.
New York:
Capricorn
Books
(1934).
Geertz,
Clifford
1976 "Art as a Cultural
System," in
Modern
Language
Notes 91:1473-1499.
Hood,
Mantle
1954 The Nuclear Theme as a Determinant of
Pathet in Javanese Music.
Groningen
and
Djakarta:
J.B. Wolters.
Kunst, Jaap
1973 Music in
Java,
Vol. I. The
Hague:
Martinus
Nijhoff, (1933, 1949).
Pike,
Kenneth
1981
Tagmemics, Discourse,
and Verbal Art.
Ann Arbor:
Michigan
Studies in the
Humanities.
16