Arguments Pro-Et-Contra Expression And Meaning In Music

Davies Explanation and Arguments Pro et Contra Expression and Meaning in Music In chapter four of Musical Meaning and Expression, Stephen Davies explains that a common thread in the previous chapters was that there is a system that connects music and meaning through some sort of symbolization.1 The theories, of this connection discussed previously, often disagreed on whether or not symbolism can be placed within a specific schema for music. Davies concluded that although the previously discussed theories fell woefully short of an answer, it is still implicit to assume that music has at least some type of meaning. It is from this starting point that Davies posits the question: “How does music secure its meaning if not as a symbol?”2 To answer the question, Davies looks at two views, “the expression theory,”3 and “the arousal theory”4 respectively. Davies explains that because these theories involve causal processing, a perspectival shift needs to take place moving away from the earlier explanation of music being “types of meaning.”5 Davies thinks that the reason these theories must be investigated, is that, “Music is inanimate, yet it expresses emotions with a power and directness indicating that it cannot be regarded merely as a symbol of emotions...”6 Ultimately, Davies aims to show that the expression and arousal

These emotions are expressed in making the music, and can be interpreted by the listener. Much like one can recognize someone as being sad when they are seen crying.9 Davies recognizes that there may be either a difference, or concurrence between, the composer of the music and the performer. Whereas the composer may express emotion, the performer can highlight or shape those expressive